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 beta 5 of REVTeX, December, 2000.
6: %%
7: %%
8: %% Copyright (c) 2000 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 files for use with REVTEX 4.0 beta
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: % Add 'draft' option to mark overfull boxes with black boxes
21: % Add 'showpacs' option to make PACS codes appear
22: % Add 'showkeys' option to make keywords appear
23: %\documentclass[aps,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
24: %\documentclass[aps,showpacs,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
25: %\documentclass[aps,preprint,showpacs,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
26: \documentclass[aps,showpacs,twocolumn,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
27:
28: \usepackage{graphicx}
29: \usepackage{dcolumn}
30: \usepackage{amsmath}
31:
32: \newcommand{\sfrac}[2]{\mbox{\footnotesize $\displaystyle \frac{#1}{#2}$}}
33:
34: \begin{document}
35: % You should use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references
36: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
37:
38: % Use the \preprint command to place your local institutional report
39: % number on the title page in preprint mode.
40: % Multiple \preprint commands are allowed.
41: \preprint{ANL-PHY-9800-TH-2001, UNITU-THEP-04/2001}
42:
43: %Title of paper
44: \title{\hspace*{\fill}{\small To appear in Phys. Rev. C}\\
45: Neutron electric dipole moment: \\Constituent-dressing and
46: compositeness}
47: % Optional argument for running titles on pages
48: %\title[]{}
49:
50: % repeat the \author .. \affiliation etc. as needed
51: % \email, \thanks, \homepage, \altaffiliation all apply to the current
52: % author. Explanatory text should go in the []'s, actual e-mail
53: % address or url should go in the {}'s for \email and \homepage.
54: % Please use the appropriate macro for the type of information
55:
56: % \affiliation command applies to all authors since the last
57: % \affiliation command. The \affiliation command should follow the
58: % other information
59: % \affiliation can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.
60: \author{M.B.~Hecht}
61: %\email[]{hecht@theory.phy.anl.gov}
62: %\homepage[]{http://www.phy.anl.gov/theory/staff/mh.html}
63: \author{C.D.~Roberts}
64: %\email[]{cdroberts@anl.gov}
65: %\homepage[]{http://www.phy.anl.gov/theory/staff/cdr.html}
66: \affiliation{Physics Division, Bldg 203, Argonne National
67: Laboratory, Argonne Illinois 60439-4843}
68: %\thanks{}
69: %\altaffiliation{}
70: %
71: \author{S.M.~Schmidt}
72: %\email[]{basti@pion20.tphys.physik.uni-tuebingen.de}
73: %\homepage[]{http://www.phy.anl.gov/theory/staff/basti.html}
74: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at T\"ubingen, Auf
75: der Morgenstelle 14, D-72076 T\"ubingen, Germany}
76:
77: %Collaboration name if desired (requires use of superscriptaddress
78: %option in \documentclass). \noaffiliation is required (may also be
79: %used with the \author command).
80: %\collaboration can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.
81: %\collaboration{}
82: %\noaffiliation
83:
84: %\date{To appear in Phys. Rev. C}
85:
86: \begin{abstract}
87: %
88: \rule{0ex}{3.0ex}
89: %
90: Contributions to the neutron's EDM, $d_n$, are calculated using a
91: well-constrained {\it Ansatz} for the nucleon's Poincar\'e covariant Fadde'ev
92: amplitude. The momentum-dependent quark dressing amplifies the contribution
93: from the current-quarks' EDMs; and dressed-quark confinement and binding make
94: distinguishable the effect of the two CP and T violating interactions: $i
95: \gamma_5\sigma_{\mu\nu}\,(p_1-p_2)_\nu$ and $\gamma_5 (p_1+p_2)_\mu$, where
96: $p_{1,2}$ are the current-quarks' momenta. The value of $|d_n|$ obtained
97: using the current-quark EDMs generated by a minimal three Higgs doublet model
98: of spontaneous CP violation is close to the current experimental upper
99: bound.
100: \end{abstract}
101: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
102: \pacs{24.85.+p, 14.20.Dh, 11.30.Er, 13.40.Gp}
103: %
104: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this
105: %\keywords{}
106:
107: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract, \pacs, and \keywords
108: \maketitle
109:
110: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands
111: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands
112: \section{Introduction}
113: \label{introduction}
114: The action for any local quantum field theory is invariant under the
115: transformation generated by the antiunitary operator CPT, which is the
116: product of the inversions: C - charge conjugation; P - parity transformation;
117: and T - time reversal. The combined CPT transformation provides a rigorous
118: correspondence between particles and antiparticles, and it relates the ${\cal
119: S}$-matrix for any given process to its inverse process, where all the spins
120: are flipped and the particles replaced by their antiparticles. Lorentz and
121: CPT symmetry together have many consequences, among them, that the mass and
122: total width of any particle are identical to those of its antiparticle.
123:
124: The decay of the CP-odd eigenstate $K^0_L$ into a CP-even $2 \pi$ final state
125: demonstrates that the product of only C and P is not a good symmetry of the
126: standard model. This entails that time reversal invariance must also be
127: violated and that too has been observed in detailed studies of the neutral
128: kaon system~\cite{Tviol}. The separate violation of CP and T invariance can
129: be accommodated in the six-quark-flavour standard model: only five of the six
130: possible phases in the $3\times 3$ Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix can
131: be eliminated via phase rotations of the quark flavours -- rotating all the
132: quarks through the same phase cannot affect the CKM matrix -- leaving one CP
133: violating phase. (In the four flavour theory, by contrast, the $2\times 2$
134: CKM matrix has three possible phases, all of which can be eliminated.)
135: However, some aspects of the standard model are not completely satisfactory,
136: notably the understanding of the magnitude of the direct CP violating
137: parameter $\epsilon^\prime$~\cite{epe,mishaKpipi,bertolini}.
138:
139: Identifying phenomena that are inexplicable in the standard model is an
140: important focus of contemporary nuclear and particle physics, and while the
141: neutral kaon system is the archetype for CP and T violation, the standard CKM
142: model predicts much larger effects for $B$-mesons~\cite{wolfenstein}. A
143: primary goal of the $B$-factories now being developed is to check these
144: predictions. This is a new domain for testing the standard model.
145:
146: However, it has long been known that the possession of an electric dipole
147: moment (EDM) by a spin $\frac{1}{2}$ particle would signal the violation of
148: time-reversal invariance. (The existence of a dipole moment signals a
149: spherically asymmetric distribution of charge.) Any such effect is likely
150: small, given the observed magnitude of CP and T violation in the neutral kaon
151: system, and this makes neutral particles the obvious subject for experiments:
152: the existence of an electric monopole charge would overwhelm most signals of
153: the dipole strength. It is therefore natural to focus on the neutron, which
154: is the simplest spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ neutral system in nature, and attempts to
155: measure the neutron's EDM have a long history~\cite{royringo,edmexpt}.
156:
157: Very accurate measurements are made possible by the ability to produce and
158: store ultracold ($\lesssim 10\,$eV) polarised neutrons. Immersing such a
159: sample in uniform magnetic and electric fields, the existence of a nonzero
160: neutron EDM, $d_n\neq 0$, manifests itself through a difference between the
161: precession frequency of the neutron's spin when the magnetic and electric
162: fields are parallel as compared to when they are antiparallel. Contemporary
163: applications~\cite{edmexpt} of this technique yield an upper bound
164: \begin{equation}
165: \label{dnub}
166: |d_n| < 6.3 \times 10^{-26}\,e\,{\rm cm}\; (90\%\,{\rm C.L.}).
167: \end{equation}
168: (NB.\ $e/(2 M_n) = 1.0 \times 10^{-14}\,e\,{\rm cm}$. Therefore, writing
169: $d_n = e h_n/(2 M)$, where $M$ is the neutron's mass and $h_n$ is its
170: ``gyroelectric ratio,'' Eq.~(\ref{dnub}) corresponds to $|h_n| < 6.0 \times
171: 10^{-12}$.)
172:
173: Equation~(\ref{dnub}) has proven to be an effective constraint. For example,
174: the most general Lagrangian density for a local, renormalisable
175: colour-$SU(3)$ gauge theory would contain a term:
176: \begin{equation}
177: \label{thetaterm}
178: \frac{\theta}{32\pi^2}\,\varepsilon_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} \, F_{\mu\nu}^a \,
179: F_{\rho\sigma}^a\,,
180: \end{equation}
181: where $F_{\mu\nu}^a$ is the non-Abelian field strength tensor and $\theta$ is
182: an undetermined constant - the ``$\theta$ angle.'' However, this term
183: violates CP invariance and hence generates a nonzero neutron EDM. Its
184: strength; i.e., the value of $\theta$, is therefore constrained by
185: Eq.~(\ref{dnub}), which yields a very low upper
186: bound~\cite{bruce,meissner,bfhda}
187: \begin{equation}
188: |\theta|< (1 \sim 10)\times 10^{-10}\,.
189: \end{equation}
190: Currently there is no satisfactory explanation of why this term is so
191: strongly suppressed and that is the basis of the so-called ``strong CP
192: problem:'' the goal is to find a reason why $\theta$ should {\it naturally}
193: be identically zero. (In the absence of topologically nontrivial gauge field
194: configurations, Eq.~(\ref{thetaterm}) cannot contribute to the action: it is
195: a surface term.)
196:
197: Herein we shall assume $\theta \equiv 0$ so that the phase in the CKM matrix
198: is the only source of CP and T violation in the standard model. In this case
199: a nonzero neutron EDM is proportional to the CKM phase. (Considerations
200: relevant for $\theta\neq 0$ are explored, e.g., in Refs.\
201: \cite{meissner,bfhda}.)
202:
203: Over many years the experimental upper bound on $d_n$ has steadily decreased
204: and its small value has also proven very effective in ruling out candidates
205: for theories that enlarge the standard model. To illustrate how, we suppose
206: for the moment that the neutron is a collection of three valence-quarks
207: described by a symmetric $SU(6)$ spin-flavour wave function. Then, by
208: analogy with the magnetic moment,
209: \begin{equation}
210: \label{dnCQM}
211: d_n = \frac{1}{3} ( 4\, d_d - d_u)\,,
212: \end{equation}
213: where $d_{u,d}$ are valence-quark EDMs. In the standard model the first
214: nonzero contribution to a free quark's EDM appears at third order and
215: involves a gluon radiative correction (i.e., O$(\alpha_s\,G_F^2)$, for the
216: same reason that flavour-changing neutral currents are suppressed: the GIM
217: mechanism) so that~\cite{bruce,dar}
218: \begin{equation}
219: \label{ddSM}
220: d_u < d_d \lesssim 10^{-34}\,e\,{\rm cm}\,.
221: \end{equation}
222: Using this in Eq.~(\ref{dnCQM}) gives a result {\it seven}
223: orders-of-magnitude less than the current experimental bound. This result is
224: characteristic: other plausible mechanisms within the standard model, such as
225: hadronic loop corrections, also give a very small value. However, the
226: standard model is peculiar in this regard and candidates for its extension
227: typically contain many more possibilities for CP and T violation, which {\it
228: a priori} are not constrained to be small. Thus Eq.~(\ref{dnub}) is an
229: important and direct constraint on these extensions because
230: Eqs.~(\ref{dnCQM}), (\ref{ddSM}) indicate that the standard model
231: contribution to $d_n$ cannot possibly interfere at a level that could
232: currently cause confusion. For example, as our calculation will show, the
233: viability of the minimal model of spontaneous CP violation~\cite{minSCP},
234: which involves three Higgs doublets, is endangered by Eq.~(\ref{dnub}).
235:
236: Our interest in the neutron's EDM stems from a desire to explore the validity
237: of Eq.~(\ref{dnCQM}) in the sense that, irrespective of the origin of the
238: valence-quark EDMs, how are they related to the EDM of the bound state? This
239: question has recently been explored~\cite{meissner,bfhda,bfhdb} using QCD Sum
240: Rules~\cite{derek}. Our analysis, however, will employ instead a recently
241: developed, well-constrained Poincar\'e covariant, bound-state picture of the
242: neutron~\cite{regfe,cjbfe,reinhard,jacquesa,jacquesmyriad,cdrqciv} and
243: therefore affords a necessary complement.
244:
245: The nonzero neutron charge radius is a clear indication that a symmetric
246: SU(6) wave function is inadequate for the neutron and there are significant
247: additional weaknesses. For example, in making the connection between
248: Eqs.~(\ref{dnCQM}) and (\ref{ddSM}) no consideration is given to the
249: necessary momentum-dependence of the dressed-quark mass function, which is a
250: longstanding prediction of Dyson-Schwinger equation (DSE) studies; e.g.,
251: Ref.~\cite{cdragw,mr97}, that has recently been confirmed in lattice-QCD
252: simulations~\cite{latticequark}, nor for confinement and the concomitant
253: feature that dressed-quarks in the neutron are {\em not} on shell.
254: (Reference~\protect\cite{cdragw} provides an heuristic guide to DSEs and
255: References~\protect\cite{revbasti,revreinhard} give an overview of their
256: contemporary application, with particular emphasis on continuum strong QCD.)
257:
258: Hitherto, lacking a Poincar\'e covariant bound state picture of the neutron,
259: these aspects of dressed-quark behaviour and hadron compositeness have only
260: been explored in studies of the dipole moments of the
261: $\rho$-meson~\cite{martina,martinb}, a bound state for which sound DSE models
262: exist. Assuming an explicit EDM contribution to the photon-current-quark
263: vertex:
264: \begin{equation}
265: \label{EDMvtxa}
266: d_f\,i\gamma_5 \sigma_{\mu\nu}\, q_\nu \equiv \frac{e}{2
267: \,m_f}\,e_f\,h_f\,i\gamma_5 \sigma_{\mu\nu}\, q_\nu \,,
268: \end{equation}
269: where: $e$ is the positron charge; $m_{f=u,d}$ are the current-quark masses;
270: $e_{u,d}$, their electric charge fractions; $h_{u,d}$, their gyroelectric
271: ratios; and $q_\mu$, the momentum transfer, an analogue of Eq.~(\ref{dnCQM})
272: for a pointlike $\rho$-meson is~\cite{martina}
273: \begin{equation}
274: \label{drhoVq}
275: d_\rho = d_u + d_{\bar d}\,.
276: \end{equation}
277: In this case the direct calculations showed that Eq.~(\ref{drhoVq})
278: underestimates the EDM of a bound state $\rho$-meson, which is composed of a
279: dressed-quark and a dressed-antiquark, and described by a Bethe-Salpeter
280: amplitude, by as much as two orders-of-magnitude. That can materially affect
281: the inferred constraints on extensions of the standard model.
282:
283: A quantum field theoretical description of the nuc\-leon as a composite of a
284: quark and non\-point\-like colour-antitriplet diquark was proposed and
285: explored in Refs.~\cite{regfe,cjbfe}, and recent studies~\cite{reinhard} have
286: shown that this approach, based on a Poincar\'e covariant Fadde'ev equation,
287: is capable of providing a good description of the spectrum of octet and
288: decuplet baryons. With this foundation, a product {\it Ansatz} for the
289: nucleon's Fadde'ev amplitude has been
290: employed~\cite{jacquesa,jacquesmyriad,cdrqciv} to describe a wide range of
291: elastic nucleon form factors. This is the model we use to explore the
292: implications of Refs.~\cite{martina,martinb} for the neutron's EDM.
293:
294: In Sec.~\ref{sec:ME} we describe our model in detail, including a discussion
295: of the form of a CP and T violating coupling of a photon to a dressed-quark.
296: An analogous dressed-quark-gluon coupling is also admissible~\cite{bruce} and
297: may yield an equally important contribution to $d_n$~\cite{bfhdb}. We
298: neglect it and hence ours is not a complete calculation of $d_n$.
299: Nevertheless, this and like terms are additive, and their omission does not
300: qualitatively affect our discussion nor the points we wish to emphasise. Our
301: results are presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:R}, and we report more than just the
302: EDM so as to establish a context for that result and demonstrate the level of
303: accuracy to be anticipated using our model. Section~\ref{sec:E} is an
304: epilogue.
305:
306: \section{Model Elements}
307: \label{sec:ME}
308: %
309: \subsection{Dressed-quarks}
310: \label{subsec:Sp}
311: The general form of the dressed-quark propagator is~\cite{fn:Euclidean}
312: \begin{eqnarray}
313: S(p) & = & -i \gamma\cdot p\, \sigma_V(p^2) + \sigma_s(p^2)\,, \\
314: & = & [i\gamma\cdot p\, A(p^2) + B(p^2)]^{-1}\,, \label{SpAB}
315: \end{eqnarray}
316: and it is a model-independent result of quark-DSE studies that the wave
317: function renormalisation and dressed-quark mass:
318: \begin{equation}
319: Z(p^2)=1/A(p^2)\,,\;M(p^2)=B(p^2)/A(p^2)\,,
320: \end{equation}
321: respectively, exhibit significant momentum dependence for $p^2\lesssim
322: 1\,$GeV$^2$, which is nonperturbative in origin. (See, e.g.,
323: Ref.~\cite{pmqciv}.) This behaviour is a longtime prediction of DSE
324: studies~\cite{cdragw} and has recently been observed in lattice-QCD
325: simulations~\cite{latticequark}. The infrared enhancement of $M(p^2)$ is an
326: essential consequence of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking (DCSB) and is the
327: origin of the constituent-quark mass. With increasing $p^2$ the mass
328: function evolves to reproduce the asymptotic behaviour familiar from
329: perturbative analyses, and that behaviour is unambiguously evident for $p^2
330: \gtrsim 10\,$GeV$^2$~\cite{mr97}.
331:
332: While numerical solutions of the quark DSE are readily obtained, the utility
333: of an algebraic form for $S(p)$ when calculations require the evaluation of
334: numerous multidimensional integrals is self-evident. With this in mind an
335: efficacious parametrisation of the dressed-quark propagator, which exhibits
336: the essential features described above, was introduced in Ref.~\cite{cdrpion}
337: and has been used extensively in studies of meson properties; e.g.,
338: Refs.~\cite{cdrpion,mark,kevin,mrpion,mishaSVY,mikea,pichowsky}. We use it
339: herein.
340:
341: The parametrisation is expressed via
342: \begin{eqnarray}
343: \label{ssm}
344: \bar\sigma_S(x) & =& 2\,\bar m \,{\cal F}(2 (x+\bar m^2))\\
345: && \nonumber
346: + {\cal F}(b_1 x) \,{\cal F}(b_3 x) \,
347: \left[b_0 + b_2 {\cal F}(\epsilon x)\right]\,,\\
348: %
349: \label{svm}
350: \bar\sigma_V(x) & = & \frac{1}{x+\bar m^2}\,
351: \left[ 1 - {\cal F}(2 (x+\bar m^2))\right]\,,
352: \end{eqnarray}
353: with $x=p^2/\lambda^2$, $\bar m$ = $m/\lambda$, ${\cal F}(x)=
354: [1-\exp(-x)]/x$, $\bar\sigma_S(x) = \lambda\,\sigma_S(p^2)$ and
355: $\bar\sigma_V(x) = \lambda^2\,\sigma_V(p^2)$. The mass-scale,
356: $\lambda=0.566\,$GeV, and parameter values
357: \begin{equation}
358: \label{tableA}
359: \begin{array}{ccccc}
360: \bar m& b_0 & b_1 & b_2 & b_3 \\\hline
361: 0.00897 & 0.131 & 2.90 & 0.603 & 0.185
362: \end{array}\;,
363: \end{equation}
364: were fixed in a least-squares fit to light-meson observables~\cite{mark}.
365: The dimensionless $u=d$ current-quark mass in Eq.~(\ref{tableA}) corresponds
366: to
367: \begin{equation}
368: m=5.1\,{\rm MeV}\,.
369: \end{equation}
370: ($\epsilon=10^{-4}$ in Eq.~(\ref{ssm}) acts only to decouple the large- and
371: intermediate-$p^2$ domains.)
372:
373: Dynamical chiral symmetry breaking is expressed in the parametrisation. It
374: gives a Euclidean constituent-quark mass
375: \begin{equation}
376: M_{u,d}^E = 0.33\,{\rm GeV},
377: \end{equation}
378: defined~\cite{mr97} as the solution of $p^2=M^2(p^2)$, whose magnitude is
379: typical of that employed in constituent-quark models~\cite{simon} and for
380: which the value of the ratio: $M_{u,d}^E/m = 65$, is characteristic and
381: definitive of light-quarks~\cite{mishaSVY}. In addition, DCSB is manifest
382: through a nonzero vacuum quark condensate
383: \begin{equation}
384: -\langle \bar qq \rangle_0^{1\,{\rm GeV}^2} = \lambda^3\,\frac{3}{4\pi^2}\,
385: \frac{b_0}{b_1\,b_3}\,\ln\frac{1\,{\rm GeV}^2}{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2} =
386: (0.221\,{\rm GeV})^3\,,
387: \end{equation}
388: where we have used $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}=0.2\,$GeV. The condensate is
389: calculated directly from its gauge invariant definition~\cite{mrt97} after
390: making allowance for the fact that Eqs.~(\ref{ssm}), (\ref{svm}) yield a
391: chiral-limit quark mass function with anomalous dimension $\gamma_m = 1$.
392: This omission of the additional $\ln( p^2/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2)$-suppression
393: that is characteristic of QCD is a practical but not necessary
394: simplification.
395:
396: Motivated by model DSE studies~\cite{entire}, Eqs.~(\ref{ssm}), (\ref{svm})
397: express the dressed-quark propagator as an entire function. Hence $S(p)$
398: does not have a Lehmann representation, which is a sufficient condition for
399: confinement~\cite{fn:confinement}. Employing an entire function for $S(p)$,
400: whose form is only constrained by the calculation of spacelike observables,
401: can lead to model artefacts when it is employed directly to calculate
402: observables involving large timelike momenta~\cite{ahlig}. An improved
403: parametrisation is therefore being sought. Nevertheless, on the subdomain of
404: the complex plane explored in the present calculation the integral support
405: provided by an equally efficacious alternative cannot differ significantly
406: from that of this parametrisation, which explains why we use it herein.
407:
408: \subsection{Nucleon}
409: \label{subsec:Nucleon}
410: The idea that diquark correlations play a significant role in baryon
411: structure and interactions is almost as old as that of quarks
412: themselves~\cite{firstdq}. It was a motivation for the meson-diquark
413: bosonisation enunciated in Ref.~\cite{regdq}, which provides a picture of
414: baryons as dressed-quark--diquark composites, and the subsequent
415: derivation~\cite{regfe} of an homogeneous, Poincar\'e covariant Fadde'ev
416: equation for baryons that exploits the role of diquark correlations.
417:
418: Our picture of the nucleon is based on the latter approach. We represent the
419: nucleon as a relativistic three-quark bound state, involving a nonpointlike,
420: Lorentz-scalar diquark correlation, via a product {\it Ansatz} for the
421: Fadde'ev amplitude:
422: \begin{eqnarray}
423: \nonumber \lefteqn{\Psi_3(p_i;\alpha_i,\tau_i)=\epsilon_{c_1 c_2
424: c_3}\,\Delta^{0^+}(K)\,}\\
425: %
426: & & \times \,
427: [\Gamma_{0^+}(\sfrac{1}{2}p_{[12]};K)]_{\alpha_1\alpha_2}^{\tau_1 \tau_2}\,
428: [\psi(\ell;P)\,u(P)]^{\tau_3}_{\alpha_3}\,,
429: \label{Psi3}
430: \end{eqnarray}
431: where: $(i\gamma\cdot P + M) u(P)=0$, with $P=p_1+p_2+p_3=:p_{\{123\}}$ the
432: nucleon's total momentum and $M$ its mass; $\epsilon_{c_1 c_2 c_3}$ is the
433: Levi-Civita symbol that provides the colour-singlet factor;
434: $K=p_1+p_2=:p_{\{12\}}$, $p_{[12]}:=p_1-p_2$, $\ell= (p_{\{12\}} - 2 p_3)/3$;
435: and $(\alpha_i,\tau_i)$ are the quark spinor and isospin labels.
436:
437: Equation~(\ref{Psi3}) describes the general form of the amplitude in the
438: scalar diquark subspace. In this equation $\Delta^{0^+}(K)$ is the
439: pseudoparticle propagator for a scalar diquark formed from quarks $1$ and
440: $2$, and $\Gamma_{0^+}$ is a Bethe-Salpeter-like amplitude describing their
441: relative momentum correlation. As explained, e.g., in Ref.~\cite{dqandmu},
442: these functions can be obtained from an analysis of the quark-quark
443: scattering matrix. However, following
444: Refs.~\cite{jacquesa,jacquesmyriad,cdrqciv}, for simplicity herein we employ
445: parametrisations:
446: \begin{eqnarray}
447: \label{dqprop}
448: \Delta^{0^+}(K^2) & = & \frac{1}{m_{0^+}^2}\,{\cal
449: F}(K^2/\omega_{0^+}^2)\,,\\
450: %
451: \label{gdq}
452: \Gamma_{0^+}(k;K) & = & \frac{1}{{\cal N}_{0^+}} C\, i\gamma_5\, i\tau_2\,
453: {\cal F}(k^2/\omega_{0^+}^2)\,,
454: \end{eqnarray}
455: where $C=\gamma_2\gamma_4$ is the charge conjugation matrix and ${\cal
456: N}_{0^+}$ is a calculated, canonical normalisation constant that ensures,
457: e.g., that a $(ud)$-diquark has electric charge fraction $(1/3)$ for
458: $K^2=-m_{0^+}^2$. The parameters are a width, $\omega_{0^+}$, and a
459: pseudoparticle mass, $m_{0^+}$, which have ready physical interpretations:
460: the length $r_{0^+}=1/\omega_{0^+}$ is a measure of the mean separation
461: between the quarks in the scalar diquark; and the distance $l_{qq}= 1/m_{qq}$
462: represents the range over which a true diquark correlation in this channel
463: can persist {\it inside} a baryon. (NB.\ The absence of a particle-like
464: singularity in the pseudoparticle propagator presented in Eq.~(\ref{dqprop})
465: is sufficient to ensure that the diquark is confined inside the
466: baryon~\cite{fn:confinement}.)
467:
468: The remaining element in Eq.~(\ref{Psi3}), $\psi$, is a Bethe-Salpeter-like
469: amplitude that describes the relative momentum correlation between the
470: dormant quark and the diquark's centre-of-momentum. Using
471: Eqs.~(\ref{dqprop}), (\ref{gdq}), $\psi$ can be obtained by solving a
472: Poincar\'e covariant Fadde'ev equation for the nucleon~\cite{regfe}:
473: \begin{eqnarray}
474: \nonumber \psi(k;P)\,u(P) & = & -2 \int\frac{d^4
475: \ell}{(2\pi)^4}\,\Delta^{0^+}(K_\ell)\,\Gamma_{0^+}(k+\ell/2;K) \\
476: %
477: \nonumber & & \times \, S(\ell_{\rm ex})^{\rm
478: T}\,\bar\Gamma_{0^+}(\ell+k/2;-K_k)\,\\
479: %
480: & & \times\, S(\ell_1) \,\psi(\ell;P)\,u(P) \,,
481: \label{faddeev}
482: \end{eqnarray}
483: where $K_\ell= -\ell + (2/3)P$, $\ell_{\rm ex}= -\ell-k-P/3$, $\ell_1=\ell +
484: P/3$. For a positive energy nucleon, the solution has the general form
485: \begin{equation}
486: \label{psi3}
487: \psi(\ell;P)= f_1(\ell;P) 1\!\rule{0.3ex}{1.55ex} - \frac{1}{M} \left( i
488: \gamma\cdot \ell - \ell\cdot \hat P \, 1\!\rule{0.3ex}{1.55ex}\right)
489: f_2(\ell;P)\,,
490: \end{equation}
491: where $\hat P^2 = -1$ and, in the nucleon rest frame, $f_{1,2}$ describe,
492: respectively, the upper$/$lower component of the dressed-nucleon spinor.
493:
494: To learn about $\psi$ we solved Eq.~(\ref{faddeev}) and also its extension to
495: include an axial-vector diquark correlation, a sound foundation for the
496: latter step having been laid in Ref.~\cite{reinhard}. We used the
497: dressed-quark propagator described in Sec.~\ref{subsec:Sp} and, to further
498: simplify and so expedite the calculations, we retained only the first
499: Chebyshev moment of the functions $f_{1,2}$ in Eq.~(\ref{psi3}); i.e., we
500: assumed $f_{1,2}(\ell;P)=f_{1,2}(\ell^2;P^2)$. In this way we
501: found~\cite{cdrqciv} that a simultaneous description of the nucleon and
502: $\Delta$ masses is possible when the axial-vector diquark correlations are
503: included. That description requires (in GeV)
504: \begin{equation}
505: \label{faddeevfit}
506: \begin{array}{cccc|cc}
507: \omega_{0^+} & m_{0^+} & \omega_{1^+} & m_{1^+} & M_N & M_\Delta \\\hline
508: 0.42 & 0.64 & 1.09 & 0.86 & 0.94 & 1.23
509: \end{array}\,,
510: \end{equation}
511: where $\omega_{1^+}$, $m_{1^+}$ are obvious analogues in the axial-vector
512: channel of the scalar diquark parameters in Eqs.~(\ref{dqprop}), (\ref{gdq}),
513: and corresponds to (in fm) $r_{0^+}= 0.47$, $r_{1^+}= 0.23$, $l_{0^+}=0.31$,
514: $l_{1^+}=0.18$. (The last two columns in Eq.~(\ref{faddeevfit}) are the
515: calculated masses. A description of the $\Delta$, for which $J=3/2$, is
516: obviously impossible with only a scalar diquark.) In our calculation the
517: value of $m_{0^+}$ was taken from Refs.~\cite{jacquesa,jacquesmyriad} and
518: that of the ratio $m_{0^+}/m_{1^+}=0.78$ from the Bethe-Salpeter equation
519: studies of Ref.~\cite{conradsep}, which is consistent with that obtained in
520: lattice-QCD simulations~\cite{latticediquark}. The parameters
521: $\omega_{0^+,1^+}$ were then varied to fit $M_{N,\Delta}$. The observations:
522: $m_{0^+}/m_{1^+}=0.78 \approx 0.76 = M_N/M_\Delta$; $M^E_{u,d} + m_{0^+} =
523: 0.97$; and $M^E_{u,d} + m_{1^+} = 1.19$, are suggestive. However, our own
524: and other~\cite{reinhard,reinharddelta} Fadde'ev equation studies show that
525: the nucleon contains a significant axial-vector diquark component (neglecting
526: it, the nucleon mass is $\sim 40$\% too large~\cite{cdrqciv}) and hence the
527: origin of the $N$ and $\Delta$ masses and mass splitting does not lie simply
528: in summing over constituent masses.
529:
530: For the purpose of developing an intuitive understanding, our eigenvector
531: solution for the nucleon can adequately be approximated as~\cite{cdrqciv}
532: \begin{equation}
533: \label{psi3model}
534: \psi(\ell;P)= \frac{1}{{\cal N}_{\psi}}\,{\cal F}(\ell^2/\omega_\psi^2) \left[
535: %
536: 1\!\rule{0.3ex}{1.55ex} - \frac{\mbox{\sc r}}{M} \left( i
537: \gamma\cdot \ell - \ell\cdot \hat P \, 1\!\rule{0.3ex}{1.55ex}\right)\right]
538: \end{equation}
539: with calculated values of $\omega_\psi \approx 0.4\,$GeV ($r_\psi =
540: 0.49\,$fm) and $\mbox{\sc r}\approx 0.5$. This makes clear that
541: $r_\psi\gtrsim r_{0^+}\gtrsim r_{1^+}$, which is a necessary condition for
542: the internal consistency of the quark$+$diquark Fadde'ev equation description
543: since it signifies that the mean separation between the quarks in the
544: constituent diquarks is no more than the size of the nucleon. Furthermore,
545: the value of $\mbox{\sc r}$ indicates that the lower component is a
546: significant piece of a relativistic nucleon's spinor. (${\cal N}_\psi$ is a
547: calculated normalisation constant that ensures, e.g., that the proton has
548: unit charge.)
549:
550: Following this study we can complete the specification of a well-informed
551: product {\it Ansatz}. Equation~(\ref{Psi3}), with Eqs.~(\ref{dqprop}),
552: (\ref{gdq}), (\ref{psi3model}), provides a two-parameter model: we fix the
553: values of $\mbox{\sc r}=0.5$ and $m_{0^+}\approx 0.64\,$GeV, motivated by the
554: Fadde'ev equation studies, and allow $\omega_{0^+}$ and $\omega_\psi$ to vary
555: so as to obtain a least-squares fit to the proton's electric form factor, as
556: described in Refs.~\cite{jacquesa,jacquesmyriad,cdrqciv}. With this
557: expedient we have an algebraic scalar diquark model that provides accurate
558: estimates of known observables, as we show in Sec.~\ref{sec:R}, and hence can
559: easily be used to obtain realistic constraints on the neutron's EDM that
560: reflect the influence of those aspects of strong QCD that we identified in
561: Sec.~\ref{introduction}: DCSB; quark confinement; and hadron compositeness.
562:
563: \subsection{Quark-Photon Coupling}
564: \label{subsec:Gamma}
565: A calculation of the electromagnetic interaction of a composite particle
566: cannot proceed without an understanding of the coupling between the photon
567: and the bound state's constituents. This is illustrated with particular
568: emphasis in Refs.~\cite{cdrpion,mrpion,photonanomaly}, which consider effects
569: associated with the Abelian anomaly. When quarks are dressed as described in
570: Sec.~\ref{subsec:Sp}, only a dressed-quark-photon vertex, $\Gamma_\mu$, can
571: satisfy the vector Ward-Takahashi identity:
572: \begin{equation}
573: \label{vwti}
574: q_\mu \, i\Gamma_\mu(\ell_1,\ell_2) = S^{-1}(\ell_1) -
575: S^{-1}(\ell_2)\,,
576: \end{equation}
577: where $q=\ell_1-\ell_2$ is the photon momentum flowing into the vertex. The
578: constraints that this identity and other features of a renormalisable quantum
579: field theory place on the form of $\Gamma_\mu$ have been explored extensively
580: in Refs.~\cite{ayse}.
581:
582: $\Gamma_\mu$ is the solution of an inhomogeneous BSE, and the pointwise
583: behaviour of the solution has been elucidated in the numerical studies of
584: Refs.~\cite{pieterGamma}. However, for our purposes we again prefer an
585: efficacious algebraic parametrisation and that is provided by~\cite{bc80}
586: \begin{eqnarray}
587: \nonumber \lefteqn{i\Gamma_\mu(\ell_1,\ell_2) =
588: i\Sigma_A(\ell_1^2,\ell_2^2)\,\gamma_\mu +
589: (\ell_1+\ell_2)_\mu\,}\\
590: & & \label{bcvtx}
591: \times \left[\sfrac{1}{2}i\gamma\cdot (\ell_1+\ell_2) \,
592: \Delta_A(\ell_1^2,\ell_2^2) + \Delta_B(\ell_1^2,\ell_2^2)\right]\,;\\
593: %
594: && \Sigma_F(\ell_1^2,\ell_2^2) = \sfrac{1}{2}\,[F(\ell_1^2)+F(\ell_2^2)]\,,\\
595: %
596: && \Delta_F(\ell_1^2,\ell_2^2) =
597: \frac{F(\ell_1^2)-F(\ell_2^2)}{\ell_1^2-\ell_2^2}\,,
598: \label{DeltaF}
599: \end{eqnarray}
600: where $F= A, B$; i.e., the scalar functions in Eq.~(\ref{SpAB}). A feature
601: of Eq.~(\ref{bcvtx}) is that $\Gamma_\mu$ is completely determined by the
602: dressed-quark propagator. Furthermore, when using the dressed-quark
603: propagator parametrisation, improvements on this vertex {\it Ansatz} can only
604: modify our results by $\lesssim 10\,$\%, as illustrated, e.g., in
605: Refs.~\cite{pichowsky,piloop}.
606:
607: Equations~(\ref{bcvtx})-(\ref{DeltaF}) and Refs.~\cite{ayse,pieterGamma,bc80}
608: consider only the CP preserving part of the dressed-vertex. When the
609: possibility of CP and T violation is admitted, additional contributions are
610: possible and the form that has most often been considered is that of
611: Eq.~(\ref{EDMvtxa}):
612: \begin{equation}
613: \label{EDMvtxaa}
614: \Gamma_\mu^-(\ell_1,\ell_2) =
615: %
616: \frac{e}{2 m}\,Q\,H^-(q^2)\,\gamma_5 \sigma_{\mu\nu}\, q_\nu\,,
617: \end{equation}
618: where: $e$ is the positron charge, $m$ is the $u=d$ current-quark mass;
619: $Q={\rm diag}[2/3,-1/3]$ is the quark charge fraction isospin matrix; and
620: $H^-={\rm diag}[h_u^-(q^2),h_d^-(q^2)]$ defines an analogous quark EDM
621: matrix, wherein we acknowledge that the quarks' EDMs may be
622: momentum-dependent. Plainly, adding this term preserves Eq.~(\ref{vwti}).
623:
624: As discussed in Ref.~\cite{martinb}, another contribution is possible:
625: \begin{eqnarray}
626: \nonumber \Gamma_\mu^+(\ell_1,\ell_2) & = & \frac{e}{2
627: \,m}\,Q\,H^+(q^2)\,i\gamma_5\\
628: %
629: & & \times \, \left[(\ell_1+\ell_2)_\mu - (\ell_1 + \ell_2) \cdot \hat{q}
630: \,\hat{q}_\mu \right] ,
631: \end{eqnarray}
632: where: $\hat q^2 = 1$; $H^+(q^2)$ is an obvious analogue of $H^-(q^2)$; and
633: adding this term also preserves Eq.~(\ref{vwti}). Note though that in any
634: calculation where the quarks are assumed to be on-shell, and hence described
635: by spinors for which $(i\gamma\cdot \ell + m) u(\ell)=0$, then
636: \begin{equation}
637: \label{gordonI}
638: i \bar u(\ell_1) \,\gamma_5\,(\ell_1+\ell_2)_\mu \, u(\ell_2)
639: = \bar u(\ell_1)\, \gamma_5 \, \sigma_{\mu\nu}\, q_\nu \,u(\ell_2)\,,
640: \end{equation}
641: and consequently the two structures are equivalent. However,
642: Eq.~(\ref{gordonI}) is not satisfied by the dressed-quarks in the bound state
643: nucleon: they are confined and may not even have a mass shell, so that in the
644: general case the two contributions are distinguishable and must be treated
645: separately. As an example, for the $\rho$-meson the different operator
646: structures generate individual contributions that differ by $\lesssim 20$\%
647: from their average value~\cite{martinb}.
648:
649: In our calculations then we employ the following algebraic {\it Ansatz} for
650: the dressed-quark-photon vertex
651: \begin{equation}
652: \label{vtxTotal}
653: \Gamma_\mu^Q(\ell_1,\ell_2)=
654: %
655: Q\,\Gamma_\mu(\ell_1,\ell_2)
656: %
657: + \Gamma_\mu^+(\ell_1,\ell_2)
658: %
659: + \Gamma_\mu^-(\ell_1,\ell_2) \,.
660: \end{equation}
661:
662: \section{Results}
663: \label{sec:R}
664: The electromagnetic nucleon current is
665: \begin{eqnarray}
666: \label{Jnucleon}
667: J_\mu(P^\prime,P) & = & ie\,\bar u(P^\prime)\, \Lambda_\mu(q,P) \,u(P)\,, \\
668: %
669: & = & \nonumber i e \,\bar u(P^\prime)\,\left( \gamma_\mu F_1(q^2) +
670: \frac{1}{2M}\, \sigma_{\mu\nu}\,q_\nu\,F_2(q^2) \right. \\
671: %
672: & & + \left. \frac{1}{2 M}\, \gamma_5\sigma_{\mu\nu}\,q_\nu\,{\cal H}(q^2)
673: \right) u(P)\,,
674: \label{JnucleonB}
675: \end{eqnarray}
676: where: the spinors satisfy $\gamma\cdot P \, u(P) = i M u(P)$, $\bar u(P)\,
677: \gamma\cdot P = i M \bar u(P)$, with $M=0.94\,$GeV; $R=P^\prime + P$ and
678: $q\cdot P =0$; and $\Lambda_\mu$ is the nucleon-photon vertex. $F_1$ and
679: $F_2$ are the usual Dirac and Pauli electromagnetic form factors of the
680: nucleon, in terms of which the electric and magnetic form factors are
681: \begin{eqnarray}
682: G_E(q^2) & = & F_1(q^2) - \frac{q^2}{4 M^2} F_2(q^2)\,,\\
683: G_M(q^2) & = & F_1(q^2) + F_2(q^2)\,.
684: \end{eqnarray}
685: The remaining term yields ${\cal H}$ and hence the nucleon's EDM form factor,
686: which vanishes in the absence of a CP and T violating quark-photon coupling.
687: Equation~(\ref{JnucleonB}) is the general form because Eq.~(\ref{gordonI}) is
688: valid for an on-shell nucleon.
689:
690: With the specification of the elements in Sec.~\ref{sec:ME}, an impulse
691: approximation calculation of the electromagnetic properties of the nucleon is
692: straightforward using the expression for $\Lambda_\mu$ given in the appendix.
693: Each calculation requires the evaluation of a number of multidimensional
694: integrals, which we accomplish using Monte-Carlo methods, requiring a
695: statistical accuracy of $\lesssim 1\,$\%.
696:
697: \begin{table}
698: \caption{\label{tableB} Calculated values of a range of well-known physical
699: observables. The ``Obs.''\ column reports experimental values~\cite{expt} or
700: values employed in a typical meson exchange model~\protect\cite{harry}. The
701: remaining columns report our results, obtained using the Fadde'ev {\it
702: Ansatz} parameters in Eq.~(\protect\ref{Sets}).}
703: %
704: \vspace*{1ex}
705: %
706: \begin{ruledtabular}
707: \begin{tabular*}
708: {\hsize}
709: {l@{\extracolsep{0ptplus1fil}}c@{\extracolsep{0ptplus1fil}}c@{\extracolsep{0ptplus1fil}}c}
710: %{l|c|c|c}
711: & Obs. & Set~1 & Set~2 \\ \hline
712: %
713: $(r_p)^2\,($fm$^2$) & $(0.87)^2$ & $(0.78)^2$ & $(0.83)^2$ \\
714: %
715: $(r_n)^2\,($fm$^2$) & $-(0.34)^2$& $-(0.40)^2$ & $-(0.33)^2$ \\
716: %
717: $\mu_p \, (\mu_N)$ & $2.79$ & $2.83$ & $2.82$ \\
718: %
719: $\mu_n \, (\mu_N)$ &$-1.91$ &$-1.61$ &$-1.62$ \\
720: %
721: $\mu_n/\mu_p$ &$-0.68$ &$-0.57$ &$-0.57$ \\
722: %
723: $g_{\pi NN}$ &$13.4$ &$13.9$ &$15.4$ \\
724: %
725: $\langle r_{\pi NN}^2\rangle\,($fm$^2$)
726: %
727: & $(0.93$-$1.06)^2$ &$(0.63)^2$ &$(0.69)^2$ \\
728: %
729: $g_A$ &$1.26$ &$0.98$ &$1.27$ \\
730: %
731: $\langle r_{A}^2\rangle\,($fm$^2$)
732: %
733: &$(0.68\pm 0.12)^2$ &$(0.83)^2$ &$(0.77)^2$ \\
734: %
735: $g_{\rho NN}$ &$6.4$ &$6.66$ & $8.60$ \\
736: %
737: $f_{\rho NN}$ &$13.0$ &$15.8$ &$16.7$ \\
738: %
739: $g_{\omega NN}$ &$7$--$10.5$ & $12.2$ & $15.5$ \\
740: %
741: $f_{\omega NN}$ & & $6.5$ & $5.2$
742: \end{tabular*}
743: \end{ruledtabular}
744: %
745: \end{table}
746:
747: Our results for an illustrative range of well-known quantities are presented
748: in Table~\ref{tableB}, which serves to exemplify the accuracy of our scalar
749: diquark model of the nucleon. To display the sturdiness of the model we used
750: two parameter sets (dimensioned quantities in GeV)
751: \begin{equation}
752: \label{Sets}
753: \begin{array}{l|cc|cc}
754: & \mbox{\sc r} & m_{0^+} & \omega_{0^+} & \omega_\psi\\\hline
755: {\rm Set~1} & 0.5 & 0.62 & 0.79 & 0.23 \\
756: {\rm Set~2} & 1.0 & 0.63 & 0.59 & 0.18
757: \end{array}
758: \end{equation}
759: with, in each case, the values of $\omega_{0^+}$ and $\omega_{\psi}$
760: determined via a least-squares fit to the proton's electric form factor.
761: Set~1 is ``preferred'' because the value of {\sc r} is fixed to that obtained
762: in the Fadde'ev equation study described in Sec.~\ref{subsec:Nucleon}. (The
763: minor adjustment of $m_{0^+}$ is necessary to preserve neutrality of the
764: neutron subsequent to the variation of $\omega_{0^+}$, $\omega_{\psi}$, see
765: next paragraph.) In comparison with the form factors depicted in
766: Refs.~\cite{jacquesa,jacquesmyriad}, both of which used $\mbox{\sc r}=0$ and
767: hence overlooked an important qualitative outcome of Fadde'ev equation
768: studies, our calculated $G^n_E(q^2)$ is much improved cf.\ the data, as seen,
769: e.g., in Ref.~\cite{cdrqciv}. The other form factors are little affected.
770: (NB.\ Only the electromagnetic properties reported in Table~\ref{tableB} can
771: be calculated directly from the information provided herein. The remaining
772: quantities were calculated as described in Ref.~\protect\cite{jacquesmyriad}:
773: $\pi NN$ -- using Eq~(22) of that reference; vector meson -- using Eq.~(38);
774: and axial form factor -- using Eq.~(60).)
775:
776: We remark that there is a quantitative discrepancy between the values of
777: $\omega_{0^+}$, $\omega_\psi$ obtained here and those obtained in the
778: Fadde'ev equation study, Eqs.~(\ref{faddeevfit}), (\ref{psi3model}). That is
779: to be anticipated because here we are requiring a fit to wide range
780: observables in a circumscribed model space; i.e., the discrepancy is an
781: artefact of our scalar-diquark product {\it Ansatz}. However, our model's
782: simplicity and illustrative utility outweigh the defect because in this and
783: its earlier applications the qualitative implications of the defect are
784: readily identifiable.
785:
786: \subsection{Electric dipole moment}
787: Having established a context, we now report our results for the EDM. Using
788: Eq.~(\ref{vtxTotal}) one finds
789: \begin{equation}
790: \label{calH}
791: {\cal H} = \sfrac{M}{m}\, {\rm diag}\left(
792: %
793: \sum_{\stackrel{\sigma=+,-}{f=u,d}}\,w_f^\sigma(p)\,e_f\,h_f^\sigma,
794: \sum_{\stackrel{\sigma=+,-}{f=u,d}}\,w_f^\sigma(n)\,e_f\,h_f^\sigma
795: \right),
796: %
797: \end{equation}
798: an isospin matrix, where the calculated values of $w_f^\sigma(N)$ express the
799: dependence of the nucleon's EDM on its internal structure. Clearly, because
800: of isospin symmetry,
801: \begin{equation}
802: w_u^\sigma(p) = w_d^\sigma(n)\,,\;w_d^\sigma(p) = w_u^\sigma(n)\,.
803: \end{equation}
804: The $M/m$ multiplicative factor in Eq.~(\ref{calH}) makes explicit the
805: importance of the DCSB mechanism in amplifying the contribution from
806: dressed-quarks to the nucleon's EDM.
807:
808: Existing experiments constrain ${\cal H}(q^2=0)$ and in Table~\ref{tableC} we
809: report the relevant values of $w_f^\sigma(n)$. (There are no cancellations
810: between contributions from different $\Lambda_\mu^i$,
811: Eqs.~(\protect\ref{nucvtx})-(\protect\ref{L5}). The values are comparable in
812: magnitude to their analogues obtained using QCD Sum Rules, e.g.,
813: Ref.~\cite{bfhdb}.) The table makes clear the extent to which
814: Eq.~(\ref{gordonI}) (the on-shell assumption) is violated by the
815: dressed-quarks in the nucleon bound state: for the doubly represented quark
816: flavour the difference is quantitatively similar to that in the
817: $\rho$-meson~\cite{martinb}. The difference is much larger for the odd
818: flavour quark. However, that is likely an artefact of only retaining a
819: scalar diquark, in which case $\Lambda_\mu^3$ in Eq.~(\ref{Lambda3}) provides
820: a sole, unmatched contribution to $h^\pm$. On the information available we
821: therefore judge that the magnitude of this effect is best estimated from the
822: difference for the doubly represented flavour.
823:
824: \begin{table}
825: \caption{\label{tableC} Calculated values of the coefficients in
826: Eq.~(\protect\ref{calH}). (All quantities are dimensionless.) In the
827: absence of dressed-quark confinement and off-shell effects, the entries in
828: the two rightmost columns would be zero. The parameter values for Sets~1 and
829: 2 are given in Eq.~(\protect\ref{Sets}).}
830: %
831: \vspace*{1ex}
832: %
833: \begin{ruledtabular}
834: \begin{tabular*}
835: {\hsize}
836: {l@{\extracolsep{0ptplus1fil}}c@{\extracolsep{0ptplus1fil}}c@{\extracolsep{0ptplus1fil}}c@{\extracolsep{0ptplus1fil}}c@{\extracolsep{0ptplus1fil}}c@{\extracolsep{0ptplus1fil}}c}
837: %
838: & $w^+_d(n)$ & $w^+_u(n)$ & $w^-_d(n)$ & $w^-_u(n)$
839: & $\frac{w_d^--w_d^+}{w_d^-+w_d^+}$
840: & $\frac{w_u^--w_u^+}{w_u^-+w_u^+}$ \\ \hline
841: Set~1 & $0.560$ & $0.055$ & $0.756$ & $-0.111$ & 0.15 & 2.9 \\
842: Set~2 & $0.647$ & $0.043$ & $0.878$ & $-0.102$& 0.15 & 2.5
843: \end{tabular*}
844: \end{ruledtabular}
845: %
846: \end{table}
847:
848: Using Eqs.~(\ref{tableA}), (\ref{calH}) and the Set~1 results from
849: Table~\ref{tableC} we obtain
850: \begin{eqnarray}
851: \nonumber
852: h_n & = & 185.2 \, \sfrac{1}{3} \left( - 0.560 \,h_d^+ + 0.110\,h_u^+ \right.\\
853: %
854: & & \left. - 0.756\,h_d^- - 0.222\,h_u^- \right)\,, \label{hn} \\
855: %
856: \nonumber h_p & = & 185.2 \, \sfrac{1}{3} \left( -0.055 \, h_d^+ +
857: 0.111\,h_d^- \right. \\
858: %
859: & & \left. + 1.12 \, h_u^+ + 1.51\,h_u^-\right)\,.
860: \label{hp}
861: \end{eqnarray}
862: The ratio of the coefficients of $h_d^-$ and $h_u^-$ in Eq.~(\ref{hn}) is
863: $3.4$, while the value of this ratio obtained from Eq.~(\ref{dnCQM}) is
864: $2.0$. The difference between these values gauges the extent to which
865: $SU(6)$ spin-flavour symmetry is broken by quark$\,+\,$quark$\,=\,$diquark
866: clustering in the nucleon bound state. This difference may change a little
867: but will not vanish upon the inclusion of axial-vector diquark correlations
868: in the nucleon's Fadde'ev amplitude. (The limited effect that axial-vector
869: diquarks have on other observables that do not involve cancellations between
870: the $\Lambda_\mu^i$-contributions~\cite{cdrqciv,reinharddelta} makes us
871: confident of this.) The $h^+$ contributions do not have an analogue
872: perturbatively nor in the constituent quark model.
873:
874: We observe that hadronic loop insertions are unambiguously an additive
875: correction to our impulse approximation and, based on analyses of other
876: observables~\cite{cdrqciv,kevin,pichowsky,piloop,rhopipi}, we expect that for
877: realistic hadron masses their contribution will modify Eqs~(\ref{hn}),
878: (\ref{hp}) by $\lesssim 10\,$\%. This suppression is due to the
879: compositeness of the hadrons: away from the position of well-known kinematic
880: singularities, the need to extrapolate bound state properties
881: off-shell~\cite{fn:offshell}, for the evaluation of integrals over spacelike
882: momenta; and the integration cutoffs applied by the hadrons' finite size,
883: both lead to a quenching of the loop contributions.
884:
885: If we assume that CP-violating current-quark-level interactions yield $h_d\gg
886: h_u$, as is the case, e.g., in Higgs boson exchange models~\cite{martinb},
887: then
888: \begin{equation}
889: \label{factor}
890: h_n = - 40.6 \,\left(0.85\,h_d^+ + 1.15\,h_d^-\right)
891: \end{equation}
892: and Eq.~(\ref{dnub}) applies the following bound on the $d$-current-quark
893: gyroelectric ratios:
894: \begin{equation}
895: \label{hdU}
896: |0.85\,h_d^+ + 1.15\,h_d^-| < 14.7 \times 10^{-14}\,.
897: \end{equation}
898: Using Eq.~(\ref{hp}) it is clear that, for $h_d\gg h_u$, $d_p \lesssim 0.1\,
899: d_n$.
900:
901: The DCSB mechanism, which is responsible for turning the current-quark mass
902: into the constituent-quark mass, as reviewed in Sec.~\ref{subsec:Sp}, is
903: responsible for the suppression of $h_d$ with respect to $h_n$ by the factor
904: of $\sim 40$ in Eq.~(\ref{factor}). This value is a lower bound on the
905: magnitude of the effect. It will increase when using any reasonable {\it
906: Ansatz} that incorporates strong interaction dressing in $\Gamma_\mu^{\pm}$,
907: analogous to that described by $\Sigma_F$, $\Delta_F$ in the CP and T
908: preserving part of the vertex. We can estimate the scale of this effect by
909: comparing $\omega_u^-(p)(=\omega_d^-(n))$ and $\omega_d^-(p)(=\omega_u^-(n))$
910: with lattice estimates~\cite{tensor} of the proton's tensor charges: $\delta
911: u=0.839(60)$, $\delta d= -0.180(10)$. It is thus apparent that
912: Eq.~(\ref{hdU}) overestimates the upper bound by less than a factor of two.
913:
914: The result in Eq.~(\ref{ddSM}) corresponds to $|h_d^++h_d^-|\lesssim
915: 10^{-22}$, so Eq.~(\ref{hdU}) does not challenge the standard model.
916: However, with~\cite{epe} Re$(\epsilon^\prime/\epsilon)= (2.1 \pm 0.46)\times
917: 10^{-3}$, the calculation in Sec.~VI of Ref.~\cite{bruce99} corresponds to a
918: Weinberg model~\cite{minSCP} prediction of~\cite{bruce01}
919: \begin{equation}
920: |h_d^+ + h_d^- | = (0.3 \sim 9.0 )\times 10^{-14}\,.
921: \end{equation}
922: Hence this model is threatened by our estimate of the bound, Eq.~(\ref{hdU}),
923: which incorporates a well-constrained modelling of the effects of DCSB, and
924: the binding and confinement of dressed-quarks in the neutron.
925:
926: We emphasise that the results in Table~\ref{tableC} are independent of the
927: means used to calculate $h_f^\sigma$. Hence Eq.~(\ref{hn}) can be applied to
928: constrain any extension of the standard model. Here we have only exemplified
929: that using a particular candidate.
930:
931: \section{Epilogue}
932: \label{sec:E}
933: The results are clear. Quantitatively -- Our value for $d_n$ will be
934: modified by the well-constrained inclusion of axial-vector diquark
935: correlations. However, based on the effect this has on other observables,
936: the correction should not exceed $15\,$\%. Qualitatively -- $1)$ The scale
937: of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking in QCD generates a significant
938: amplification of the contribution from a current-quark's EDM to that of the
939: bound state containing it: the minimal enhancement factor is roughly the
940: ratio of the constituent-quark and current-quark masses, and is
941: understandable and calculable through the necessary momentum-dependence of
942: the dressed-quark mass function. $2)$ Confinement and compositeness entail
943: that the dressed-quarks comprising the bound state are not on shell and hence
944: the two CP and T violating operator structures that are indistinguishable in
945: the free-quark limit yield materially different contributions to the EDM of
946: the bound state. As a consequence these operator structures must be analysed
947: and their strengths determined independently in any model that provides for
948: CP and T violation. Both these effects should be accounted for in using
949: $d_n$ as a means of constraining extensions of the standard CKM model. These
950: conclusions bear equally on the effects of operator structures we have
951: neglected.
952:
953: \appendix
954: \section{Impulse approximation}
955: As made clear in Sec.~2.3 of Ref.~\cite{revbasti}, when using an
956: antisymmetrised product {\it Ansatz} for the nucleon's Fadde'ev amplitude the
957: impulse approximation is
958: \begin{eqnarray}
959: \label{nucvtx}
960: \Lambda_\mu(q,P) &=&
961: \Lambda^1_\mu(q,P)
962: + 2 \sum_{i=2}^5\,\Lambda^i_\mu(q,P)\,,
963: \end{eqnarray}
964: where:
965: \begin{eqnarray}
966: \nonumber \Lambda^1_\mu(q,P) & = & 3 \int\!\!\sfrac{d^4 \ell}{(2\pi)^4}\,
967: \psi(\ell- \sfrac{2}{3}q;P) \,\Delta^{0^+}(K)\,\\
968: %
969: & & \times\,\psi(\ell;P)\,\Lambda_\mu^S(p_3+q,p_3) \,,
970: \label{L1}
971: \end{eqnarray}
972: with
973: %
974: $K=\ell + \sfrac{2}{3} P$,
975: %
976: $p_3= \sfrac{1}{3} P - \ell$,
977: %
978: $\Lambda_\mu^S(\ell_1,\ell_2) =
979: S(\ell_1)\,\Gamma_\mu^Q(\ell_1,\ell_2)\,S(\ell_2)$; and
980: %
981: \begin{eqnarray}
982: \nonumber \Lambda^2_\mu(q,P) & = & 6\int\!\!\sfrac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}\sfrac{d^4
983: \ell}{(2\pi)^4}\, \Omega(p_1+q,p_2,p_3)\,\Omega(p_1,p_2,p_3) \\
984: %
985: && \times \, {\rm tr}_{DF}\left[\Lambda_\mu^S(p_1+q,p_1) S(p_2)\right]\,
986: S(p_3)\,,
987: \end{eqnarray}
988: where
989: %
990: $p_1= \sfrac{1}{2} K + k$,
991: %
992: $p_2= \sfrac{1}{2} K - k$,
993: %
994: $6 = \varepsilon_{c_1 c_2 c_3} \varepsilon_{c_1 c_2 c_3}$ is the colour
995: contraction, and
996: \begin{eqnarray}
997: \nonumber \Omega(p_1,p_2,p_3) & = & \Delta^{0^+}(p_{\{12\}}) \,
998: \Gamma_{0^+}(\sfrac{1}{2}p_{[12]};p_{\{12\}})\, \\
999: %
1000: & & \times \,
1001: %
1002: \psi(\sfrac{1}{3}[p_{\{12\}}-2p_3];P) \,.
1003: \end{eqnarray}
1004: $\Lambda_\mu^2$ describes the photon probing the structure of the scalar
1005: diquark correlation, and contributes equally to both the proton and neutron.
1006: That contribution is trivially zero for the EDM. This merely reflects the
1007: fact that such a moment is forbidden to a scalar particle, so the only
1008: nontrivial contribution is that of the diquark's CP- and T-preserving
1009: electromagnetic form factor. The remaining terms are
1010: %
1011: \begin{eqnarray}
1012: \nonumber \Lambda^3_\mu(q,P) & = & 6\int\!\!\sfrac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}\sfrac{d^4
1013: \ell}{(2\pi)^4}\, \Omega(p_1,p_2,p_3)\, \\
1014: %
1015: && \nonumber \times\, \Omega(p_1+q,p_3,p_2)\,S(p_2) \, (i\tau_2)^{\rm T}\\
1016: %
1017: && \times\, \Lambda^S_\mu(p_1,p_1+q)\,(i \tau_2)\,S(p_3)\,,\\
1018: \label{Lambda3}
1019: %
1020: \nonumber \Lambda^4_\mu(q,P) & = & 6\int\sfrac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}
1021: \sfrac{d^4 \ell}{(2\pi)^4}\,\Omega(p_1,p_3,p_2+q)\, \\
1022: %
1023: && \nonumber \times \,\Omega(p_1,p_2,p_3) \,\Lambda^S_\mu(p_2+q,p_2) \\
1024: %
1025: && \times \,S(p_1) \, S(p_3)\,,\\
1026: %
1027: \nonumber \Lambda^5_\mu(q,P) & = & 6\int\sfrac{d^4
1028: k}{(2\pi)^4}\sfrac{d^4 \ell}{(2\pi)^4}\, \Omega(p_1,p_3+q,p_2)\, \\
1029: %
1030: && \nonumber \times \,\Omega(p_1,p_2,p_3)\, S(p_2)\,S(p_1)\,\\
1031: %
1032: && \times \, \Lambda_\mu^S(p_3+q,p_3)
1033: \,.
1034: \label{L5}
1035: \end{eqnarray}
1036:
1037: Of these five terms, the only $u$-quark contribution to the neutron EDM comes
1038: from $\Lambda^3_\mu$ -- the other four terms sum the contribution from the
1039: $d$-quark. (The situation is reversed for the proton.)
1040:
1041: Our numerical results are obtained by evaluating these integrals using
1042: Monte-Carlo methods and the input specified in Eqs.~(\ref{ssm}), (\ref{svm}),
1043: (\ref{dqprop}), (\ref{gdq}), (\ref{psi3model}) and (\ref{vtxTotal}).
1044:
1045: % If you have acknowledgments, this puts in the proper section head.
1046: \begin{acknowledgments}
1047: We acknowledge interactions with J.C.R.\ Bloch. This work was supported by
1048: the US Dept. of Energy, Nuclear Physics Division, under contract
1049: no.~\mbox{W-31-109-ENG-38}. SMS acknowledges financial support from the
1050: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SCHM 1342/3-1).
1051: \end{acknowledgments}
1052:
1053: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:
1054: %\bibliography{edm}
1055: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1056: %
1057: \bibitem{Tviol} K.R. Schubert, B. Wolff, J.C. Chollet, J.-M Gaillard,
1058: M.R. Jane, T.J. Ratcliffe and J.-P Repellin, Phys. Lett. {\bf 31B}, 662
1059: (1970).
1060: %
1061: \bibitem{epe} M.~Fabbrichesi, Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 86}, 322
1062: (2000).
1063: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909224;%%
1064: %
1065: \bibitem{mishaKpipi} J.C.R.~Bloch, M.A.~Ivanov, T.~Mi\-zutani, C.D.~Ro\-berts
1066: and S.M.~Schmidt, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 62}, 025206 (2000).
1067: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9910029;%%%
1068: %
1069: \bibitem{bertolini} S.~Bertolini, ``Final state interactions in
1070: $\epsilon^\prime/\epsilon$,'' hep-ph/0007137.
1071: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007137;%%
1072: %
1073: \bibitem{wolfenstein} L.~Wolfenstein, ``CP violation,'' in {\it Santa Fe
1074: 1998, Physics beyond the standard model}, edited by P. Herczeg, C.M. Hoffman,
1075: H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999), pp. 579-587,
1076: hep-ph/0011400.
1077: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011400;%%
1078: %
1079: \bibitem{royringo} M.S.~Freedman, G.R.~Ringo and T.W.~Dombeck, Nucl.\
1080: Instrum.\ Meth.\ {\bf A 396}, 181 (1997); and references therein.
1081: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 9804003;%%
1082: %
1083: \bibitem{edmexpt} P.G.~Harris, C.A.~Baker, K.~Green, P.~Iaydjiev, S.~Ivanov,
1084: D.J.R.~May, J.M.~Pendlebury, D.~Shiers, K.F.~Smith, M.~van der Grinten and
1085: P.~Geltenbort, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 904 (1999).
1086: %%CITATION = PRLTA,82,904;%%
1087: %
1088: \bibitem{bruce} X.-G~He, B.H.J.~McKellar and S.~Pakvasa, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\
1089: Phys.\ {\bf A 4}, 5011 (1989).
1090: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A4,5011;%%
1091: %
1092: \bibitem{meissner} C.~Chan, E.M.~Henley and T.~Meissner, ``Nucleon electric
1093: dipole moments from QCD sum rules,'' hep-ph/9905317.
1094: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905317;%%
1095: %
1096: \bibitem{bfhda} M.~Pospelov and A.~Ritz, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 573}, 177
1097: (2000).
1098: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908508;%%
1099: %
1100: \bibitem{dar} S.~Dar, ``The neutron EDM in the SM: A review,''
1101: hep-ph/0008248.
1102: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008248;%%
1103: %
1104: \bibitem{minSCP} S.~Weinberg, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 37}, 657 (1976).
1105: %%CITATION = PRLTA,37,657;%%
1106: %
1107: \bibitem{bfhdb} M.~Pospelov and A.~Ritz, ``Neutron EDM from electric and
1108: chromoelectric dipole moments of quarks,'' hep-ph/0010037.
1109: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010037;%%
1110: %
1111: \bibitem{derek} D.B.~Leinweber, Annals Phys.\ {\bf 254}, 328 (1997).
1112: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9510051;%%
1113: %
1114: \bibitem{regfe} R.T.~Cahill, C.D.~Roberts and J.~Praschifka, Austral.\ J.\
1115: Phys.\ {\bf 42}, 129 (1989).
1116: %%CITATION = AUJPA,42,129;%%
1117: %
1118: \bibitem{cjbfe} C.J.~Burden, R.T.~Cahill and J.~Praschifka, Austral.\ J.\
1119: Phys.\ {\bf 42}, 147 (1989).
1120: %
1121: \bibitem{reinhard} M.~Oettel, G.~Hellstern, R.~Alkofer and H.~Reinhardt,
1122: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 58}, 2459 (1998).
1123: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9805054;%%
1124: %
1125: \bibitem{jacquesa} J.C.R.~Bloch, C.D.~Roberts, S.M.~Schmidt, A.~Bender and
1126: M.R.~Frank, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 60}, 062201 (1999).
1127: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9907120;%%
1128: %
1129: \bibitem{jacquesmyriad} J.C.R.~Bloch, C.D.~Roberts and S.M.~Schmidt,
1130: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 61}, 065207 (2000).
1131: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9911068;%%
1132: %
1133: \bibitem{cdrqciv} M.B.~Hecht, C.D.~Roberts and S.M.~Schmidt, ``Contemporary
1134: applications of Dyson-Schwinger equations,'' nucl-th/0010024.
1135: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0010024;%%
1136: %
1137: \bibitem{cdragw} C.D.~Roberts and A.G.~Williams, Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\
1138: {\bf 33}, 477 (1994).
1139: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403224;%%
1140: %
1141: \bibitem{mr97} P.~Maris and C.D.~Roberts, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 56}, 3369
1142: (1997).
1143: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9708029;%%
1144: %
1145: \bibitem{latticequark} J.I.~Skullerud and A.G.~Williams, ``Quark propagator
1146: in Landau gauge,'' hep-lat/0007028.
1147: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0007028;%%
1148: %
1149: \bibitem{revbasti} C.D.~Roberts and S.M.~Schmidt, Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\
1150: {\bf 45}, S1 (2000).
1151: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0005064;%%
1152: %
1153: \bibitem{revreinhard} R.~Alkofer and L.~v.~Smekal, ``The infrared behavior of
1154: QCD Green's functions: Confinement, dynamical symmetry breaking, and hadrons
1155: as relativistic bound states,'' hep-ph/0007355, to appear in Phys. Rept.
1156: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007355;%%
1157: %
1158: \bibitem{martina} M.B.~Hecht and B.H.J.~McKellar, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 57},
1159: 2638 (1998).
1160: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704326;%%
1161: %
1162: \bibitem{martinb} M.B.~Hecht and B.H.J~McKellar, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 60},
1163: 065202 (1999).
1164: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906246;%%
1165: %
1166: \bibitem{fn:Euclidean} In our Euclidean formulation: $p\cdot q=\sum_{i=1}^4
1167: p_i q_i$; $\{\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu\}=2\,\delta_{\mu\nu}$; $\gamma_\mu^\dagger
1168: = \gamma_\mu$; $\sigma_{\mu\nu}= \sfrac{i}{2}[\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu]$; and
1169: tr$_D[\gamma_5\gamma_\mu\gamma_\nu\gamma_\rho\gamma_\sigma]=
1170: -4\,\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$, $\epsilon_{1234}= 1$.
1171: %
1172: \bibitem{pmqciv} P.~Maris, ``Continuum QCD and light mesons,''
1173: nucl-th/0009064.
1174: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0009064;%%
1175: %
1176: \bibitem{cdrpion} C.D.~Roberts, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A 605}, 475 (1996).
1177: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9408233;%%
1178: %
1179: \bibitem{mark} C.J.~Burden, C.D.~Roberts and M.J.~Thomson, Phys. Lett. {\bf
1180: B 371}, 163 (1996).
1181: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B371,163;%%
1182: %
1183: \bibitem{kevin} Yu.L~Kalinovsky, K.L.~Mitchell and C.D.~Roberts, Phys.\
1184: Lett.\ {\bf B 399}, 22 (1997).
1185: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9610047;%%
1186: %
1187: \bibitem{mrpion} P. Maris and C.D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 58}, 3659
1188: (1998).
1189: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9804062;%%
1190: %
1191: \bibitem{mishaSVY} M.A.\ Ivanov, Yu.L.\ Kalinovsky and C.D.\ Ro\-berts,
1192: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 034018 (1999).
1193: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9812063;%%
1194: %
1195: \bibitem{mikea} M.A.~Pichowsky and T.-S.H~Lee, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 1644
1196: (1997);
1197: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9612049;%%
1198: F.T.~Hawes and M.A.~Pichowsky, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 59}, 1743 (1999);
1199: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9806025;%%
1200: J.C.R.~Bloch, Yu.L.~Kalinovsky, C.D.~Roberts and S.M.~Schmidt, Phys.\ Rev.\ D
1201: {\bf 60}, 111502 (1999);
1202: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9906038;%%
1203: M.B.\ Hecht, C.D.\ Roberts and S.M.\ Schmidt, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 63}, 025213
1204: (2001).
1205: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0008049;%%
1206: %
1207: \bibitem{pichowsky} M.A.~Pichowsky, S.~Walawalkar and S.~Capstick, Phys.\
1208: Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 054030 (1999).
1209: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9904079;%%
1210: %
1211: \bibitem{simon} S.\ Capstick and B.D.\ Keister, ``Baryon magnetic moments in a
1212: relativistic quark model,'' nucl-th/9611055.
1213: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9611055;%%
1214: %
1215: \bibitem{mrt97} P.~Maris, C.D.~Roberts and P.C.~Tandy, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B
1216: 420}, 267 (1998).
1217: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9707003;%%
1218: %
1219: \bibitem{entire} H.J.~Munczek, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 175}, 215 (1986);
1220: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B175,215;%%
1221: C.J.~Burden, C.D.~Roberts and A.G.~Williams, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 285}, 347
1222: (1992).
1223: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B285,347;%%
1224: %
1225: \bibitem{fn:confinement} This is a sufficient condition for confinement
1226: because of the associated violation of reflection positivity, as discussed,
1227: e.g., in Sec.~6.2 of Ref.~\cite{cdragw}, Sec.~2.2 of Ref.~\cite{revbasti} and
1228: Sec.~2.4 of Ref.~\cite{revreinhard}.
1229: %
1230: \bibitem{ahlig} S.~Ahlig, R.~Alkofer, C.~Fischer, M.~Oettel, H.~Reinhardt and
1231: H.~Weigel, ``Production processes as a tool to study parameterizations of
1232: quark confinement,'' hep-ph/0012282.
1233: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012282;%%
1234: %
1235: \bibitem{firstdq} M.~Ida and R.~Kobayashi, Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 36},
1236: 846 (1966);
1237: %%CITATION = PTPKA,36,1966;%%
1238: %
1239: D.B.~Lichtenberg and L.J.~Tassie, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 155}, 1601 (1967).
1240: %%CITATION = PHRVA,155,1601;%%
1241: %
1242: \bibitem{regdq} R.T.~Cahill, J.~Praschifka and C.J.~Burden,
1243: Austral. J. Phys. {\bf 42}, 161 (1989);
1244: %%CITATION = AUJPA,42,161;%%
1245: R.T.~Cahill, {\it ibid} 171.
1246: %%CITATION = AUJPA,42,171;%%
1247: %
1248: \bibitem{dqandmu} M.B.~Hecht, C.D.~Roberts and S.M.~Schmidt, ``Diquarks and
1249: density,'' nucl-th/0012023.
1250: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0012023;%%%
1251: %
1252: \bibitem{conradsep} C.J.~Burden, L.~Qian, C.D.~Roberts, P.C.~Tandy and
1253: M.J.~Thomson, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 55}, 2649 (1997).
1254: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9605027;%%
1255: %
1256: \bibitem{latticediquark} M.~Hess, F.~Karsch, E.~Laermann and I.~Wetzorke,
1257: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 111502 (1998).
1258: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9804023;%%
1259: %
1260: \bibitem{reinharddelta} M.~Oettel, R.~Alkofer and L.~von Smekal, Eur.\ Phys.\
1261: J.\ {\bf A 8}, 553 (2000).
1262: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0006082;%%%
1263: %
1264: \bibitem{photonanomaly} M.~Bando, M.~Harada and T.~Kugo, Prog.\ Theor.\
1265: Phys.\ {\bf 91}, 927 (1994);
1266: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9312343;%%
1267: R.~Alkofer and C.D.~Roberts, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 369}, 101 (1996);
1268: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9510284;%%
1269: D.\ Kekez and D.\ Kla\-bu\-\v{c}ar, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 457}, 359 (1999);
1270: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812495;%%
1271: P.C.~Tandy, Fizika {\bf B 8}, 295 (1999).
1272: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902459;%%
1273: %
1274: \bibitem{ayse} A.~Bashir, A.~Kizilersu and M.R.~Pennington, Phys.\ Rev.\ D
1275: {\bf 57}, 1242 (1998);
1276: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707421;%%
1277: A.~Bashir, A.~Kizilersu and M.R.~Pennington, ``Analytic form of the one-loop
1278: vertex and of the two-loop fermion propagator in 3-dimensional massless
1279: QED,'' hep-ph/9907418.
1280: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907418;%%
1281: %
1282: \bibitem{pieterGamma} P.~Maris and P.C.~Tandy, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 61},
1283: 045202 (2000);
1284: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9910033;%%
1285: %
1286: P.~Maris and P.C.~Tandy, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 62}, 055204 (2000).
1287: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0005015;%%
1288: %
1289: \bibitem{bc80} J.S.~Ball and T.~Chiu, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 22}, 2542 (1980).
1290: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,2542;%%
1291: %
1292: \bibitem{piloop} R.~Alkofer, A.~Bender and C.D.~Roberts,
1293: Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A 10}, 3319 (1995).
1294: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A10,3319;%%
1295: %
1296: \bibitem{expt} K.L.~Miller {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 26}, 537
1297: (1982);
1298: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D26,537;%%
1299: T.~Kitagaki {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 28}, 436 (1983);
1300: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D28,436;%%
1301: %--New Measurement of the Charge Radius of the Neutron
1302: S.~Kopecky, P.~Riehs, J.A.~Harvey and N.W.~Hill, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf
1303: 74}, 2427 (1995);
1304: %
1305: S.G.~Karshenboim, Can.\ J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 77}, 241 (1999);
1306: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712347;%%
1307: D.E.~Groom {\it et al.}, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ {\bf C 15}, 1 (2000).
1308: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C15,1;%%
1309: %
1310: \bibitem{harry} T.~Sato and T.S.~Lee, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 54}, 2660 (1996).
1311: %%CITATION = PHRVA,C54,2660;%%
1312: %
1313: \bibitem{rhopipi} L.C.L.~Hollenberg, C.D.~Roberts and B.H.J.~McKellar, Phys.\
1314: Rev.\ C {\bf 46}, 2057 (1992);
1315: %%CITATION = PHRVA,C46,2057;%%
1316: %
1317: K.L.~Mitchell and P.C.~Tandy, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 55}, 1477 (1997).
1318: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9607025;%%
1319: %
1320: \bibitem{fn:offshell} The ambiguity inherent in this extrapolation is
1321: exemplified in Sec.~2.3 of Ref.~\cite{revbasti} and the only unambiguous
1322: procedure is described in Sec.~VI of Ref.~\cite{jacquesmyriad}.
1323: %
1324: \bibitem{tensor} S.~Aoki, M.~Doui, T.~Hatsuda and Y.~Kuramashi, Phys.\ Rev.\
1325: D {\bf 56}, 433 (1997).
1326: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9608115;%%
1327: %
1328: \bibitem{bruce99} D.~Chang, X.~He and B.H.J.~McKellar, ``Ruling out the
1329: Weinberg model of spontaneous CP violation,'' hep-ph/9909357.
1330: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909357;%%
1331: %
1332: \bibitem{bruce01} B.H.J.~McKellar, private communication.
1333: %
1334: \end{thebibliography}
1335:
1336: \end{document}
1337: %
1338: % ****** End of file template.aps ******
1339: %%%%%%----NOTES
1340: % If in two-column mode, this environment will change to single-column
1341: % format so that long equations can be displayed. Use
1342: % sparingly.
1343: %\begin{widetext}
1344: % put long equation here
1345: %\end{widetext}
1346:
1347: