1: % MACRO FILE
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: % headings
4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
6: %\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}.}
7: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}.}
8: \renewcommand{\thesubsection} {\thesection \arabic{subsection}.}
9: \renewcommand{\thesubsubsection} {\thesubsection \arabic{subsubsection}.}
10: \renewcommand{\theparagraph} {\thesubsubsection \arabic{paragraph}.}
11: \renewcommand{\thesubparagraph} {\theparagraph \arabic{subparagraph}.}
12: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
13: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
15: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
16:
17: \hoffset -0.6in
18: \voffset -.6in
19: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.6in}
20: \setlength{\textheight}{9.4in}
21: \def\baselinestretch{1.0}
22: \topmargin 0.3in
23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24: %
25: % some journal abbreviations
26: %
27: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
28: \def\an#1#2#3{{Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf #1} #2 (#3)}}
29: \def\ap{{Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)}\ }
30: \def\ijm#1#2#3{{Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A~#1} #2 (#3)}}
31: \def\mpl{{Mod. Phys. Lett. A}~}
32: \def\nc#1#2#3{{Nuovo Cimento {\bf #1~A} #2 (#3)}}
33: \def\npb#1#2#3{{Nucl. Phys. {\bf B~#1} #2 (#3)}}
34: \def\plb#1#2#3{{Phys. Lett. {\bf B~#1} #2 (#3)}}
35: \def\prd#1#2#3{{Phys. Rev. {\bf D~#1} #2 (#3)}}
36: \def\prl#1#2#3{{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf #1} #2 (#3)}}
37: \def\prt#1#2#3{{Phys. Rep. {\bf #1} #2 (#3)}}
38: \def\ptp{{Prog. Theor. Phys.}\ }
39: \def\rmp{{Rev. Mod. Phys.}\ }
40: \def\rnc{{Riv. Nuovo Cimento}\ }
41: \def\sjnp{{Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.}\ }
42: \def\spj{{Sov. Phys. JETP}\ }
43: \def\spl{{JETP Lett.}\ }
44: \def\zp#1#2#3{{Z. Phys. {\bf C~#1} #2 (#3)}}
45: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
46: % Useful definitions present in the text
47: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
48: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}
49: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}
50: \def\CP{CP violation}
51: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}
52: \def\smo{Standard Model}
53: \def\al{\alpha^{\phantom{2}}_S}
54: %
55: \def\ri{\rightarrow}
56: \def\ov{\overline}
57: \def\ti#1{\widetilde #1}
58: \def\ha#1{\widehat #1}
59: \def\gsim{\ \rlap{\raise 2pt \hbox{$>$}}{\lower 2pt \hbox{$\sim$}}\ }
60: \def\lsim{\ \rlap{\raise 2pt \hbox{$<$}}{\lower 2pt \hbox{$\sim$}}\ }
61: %
62: \def\Vtd{V_{td}^{\phantom{*}}}
63: \def\Vts{V_{ts}^{\phantom{*}}}
64: \def\Vtb{V_{tb}^{\phantom{*}}}
65: \def\Vcb{V_{cb}^{\phantom{*}}}
66: \def\Vcs{V_{cs}^{\phantom{*}}}
67: \def\Vud{V_{ud}^{\phantom{*}}}
68: \def\Vus{V_{us}^{\phantom{*}}}
69: \def\Vtds{V_{td}^*}
70: \def\Vtss{V_{ts}^*}
71: \def\Vcss{V_{cs}^*}
72: \def\Vtbs{V_{tb}^*}
73: \def\Vcbs{V_{cb}^*}
74: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
75: \usepackage{feynmp} %%% for Feynman diagrams; a few
76: %%% nice definitions for it come
77: %%% later, just after the
78: %%% \begin{document}
79:
80: \usepackage{epsfig}
81:
82: \usepackage[dvips]{color} %%% for colours in the graphs
83: \usepackage{graphicx} %%% for pictures and figures
84: \usepackage{amssymb}
85: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
86: %\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
87:
88: \setlength{\unitlength}{1pt} %%% always good to have...
89:
90: \newcommand{\3}{\ss}
91: \newcommand{\ia}{{\"{\i}}} %not necessary if \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} is used
92: \newcommand{\disc}{\discretionary{}{}{}}%makes optional hyphenation without "-"
93: \newcommand{\absatz}{\vspace{2ex}\noindent}
94:
95: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
96: % Mathematical Defs.
97: %
98:
99: \newcommand{\dis}{\displaystyle} \newcommand{\non}{\nonumber}
100:
101: \newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}}
102: \newcommand{\ii}{\mathrm{i}} \newcommand{\dd}{\mathrm{d}}
103: \newcommand{\tr}{\mathrm{tr}} \newcommand{\T}{\mathrm{T}}
104:
105:
106: \newcommand{\Av}{\vec{A}} \newcommand{\deint}[2]{\dd^{#1}\! #2\;}
107: \newcommand{\deintdim}[2]{\frac{\dd^{#1}\! #2}{(2\pi)^{#1}}\;}
108:
109: \newcommand{\kv}{\vec{k}} \newcommand{\pv}{\vec{\,\!p}\!\:{}}
110: \newcommand{\qv}{\vec{\,\!q}\!\:{}}
111:
112: %Eff. Nuclear Theory
113:
114: \newcommand{\mpi}{m_\pi} \newcommand{\fpi}{f_\pi}
115: \newcommand{\MeV}{\mathrm{MeV}} \newcommand{\fm}{\mathrm{fm}}
116:
117: %Old Stuff
118:
119: \newcommand{\xv}{\vec{x}} \newcommand{\yv}{\vec{y}}
120: \newcommand{\dedreix}{\dd^{3}\:\!\! x\;} \newcommand{\dedreiy}{\dd^{3}\:\!\!
121: y\;} \newcommand{\de}{\partial} \newcommand{\dev}{\vec{\de}}
122:
123:
124: % Definition of all the nice cal-letters
125:
126: \newcommand{\calC}{\mathcal{C}}\newcommand{\calD}{\mathcal{D}}
127: \newcommand{\calE}{\mathcal{E}}\newcommand{\calF}{\mathcal{F}}
128: \newcommand{\calI}{\mathcal{I}}\newcommand{\calK}{\mathcal{K}}
129: \newcommand{\calL}{\mathcal{L}}\newcommand{\calO}{\mathcal{O}}
130: \newcommand{\calP}{\mathcal{P}}\newcommand{\calR}{\mathcal{R}}
131: \newcommand{\calT}{\mathcal{T}}\newcommand{\calY}{\mathcal{Y}}
132:
133: \begin{document}
134: \begin{fmffile}{higfeyn}
135: \fmfset{curly_len}{2mm} \fmfset{dash_len}{1.5mm} \fmfset{wiggly_len}{3mm}
136: \newcommand{\feynbox}[2]{\mbox{\parbox{#1}{#2}}}
137: \newcommand{\fs}{\scriptstyle} % adjusts the size of labels in feynmf-diagrams
138: \newcommand{\hq}{\hspace{0.5em}} \newcommand{\hqm}{\hspace{-0.25em}}
139:
140: \fmfcmd{vardef ellipseraw (expr p, ang) = save radx; numeric radx; radx=6/10
141: length p; save rady; numeric rady; rady=3/10 length p; pair center;
142: center:=point 1/2 length(p) of p; save t; transform t; t:=identity xscaled
143: (2*r*h) yscaled (2*rady*h) rotated (ang + angle direction length(p)/2 of
144: p) shifted center; fullcircle transformed t enddef;
145: %
146: style_def ellipse expr p= shadedraw ellipseraw (p,0); enddef;}
147:
148: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
149: % This is a nice title page including abstract ....
150: %
151:
152: %\begin{titlepage}
153:
154: \sloppy
155: \hfill{\phantom{.}}
156:
157: \rightline{ISU-HET-01-4}
158: \rightline{nucl-th/0104088}
159: \rightline{April, 2001}
160:
161: \vspace{1.0cm}
162:
163: \begin{center}
164: {\Large {\bf Effective Range in Doublet S-wave\\
165: \vskip 0.3truecm
166: Neutron-Deuteron Scattering}}
167:
168: \vspace{1.0cm}
169:
170: {\large F. Gabbiani}
171: \bigskip
172:
173: {\it Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50014, USA\\}
174:
175: \medskip
176:
177: {Email: \tt fg@eft.physics.iastate.edu}
178: \end{center}
179:
180: \vspace{1cm}
181:
182: \begin{abstract}
183:
184: The effective field theory approach is applied to the three-nucleon
185: process of $S=1/2$ neutron-deuteron scattering in the S-wave,
186: including the effective range parameters summed at all orders. This is
187: achieved through a modification of the power counting, following a
188: recent suggestion in the literature. It is shown that with this
189: procedure, while the convergence of the loop integrals improves, one
190: cannot meaningfully include a three-body effective term to describe
191: low-energy data affected by the presence of the triton bound state.
192: \end{abstract}
193:
194: \vspace{0.5cm}
195:
196: \section{Introduction}
197: Recently, three-body interactions in nucleon systems have attracted
198: considerable attention, both within more classical approaches based on potential
199: models \cite{hub} and in the context of effective field theories \cite{weinberg,KSW}
200: (EFT's) \cite{bosons,3stooges,hm,gegelia,3stooges2}.
201:
202: The three-nucleon system is a natural test-ground for the
203: understanding of nuclear forces that has been reached in the
204: two-nucleon system. A convenient example is given by neutron-deuteron
205: scattering \cite{3stooges,3stooges2,pbhg}, since in this case Coulomb
206: interactions are negligible. Neutron-deuteron scattering involves two
207: $S$-wave channels, corresponding to total spin $S=3/2$ and $S=1/2$. In
208: the $S=3/2$ channel all spins are aligned and the two-nucleon
209: interactions are only in the $^3 \mathrm{S}_1$ partial wave. The
210: two-body interaction is attractive but the Pauli exclusion principle
211: forbids the three nucleons to be at the same point in
212: space. Therefore this channel is insensitive to short-distance
213: physics and disallows a three-body bound state. Thus
214: one is able to obtain precise ($\sim 4\%$) predictions in a
215: straightforward way \cite{3stooges,3stooges2,pbhg}. In the $S=1/2$
216: channel two-nucleon interaction can take place either in the $^3
217: \mathrm{S}_1$ or in the $^1 \mathrm{S}_0$ partial waves. This leads to
218: an attractive interaction which implies a three-body bound state, the
219: triton. The $S=1/2$ channel also shows a strong sensitivity to
220: short-distance physics as the Pauli principle does not apply.
221:
222: In this note EFT is applied to the latter channel, but including the
223: effective range parameters for the $^3 \mathrm{S}_1$ and $^1
224: \mathrm{S}_0$ $NN$ scattering partial waves in
225: the calculation, following a suggestion proposed in \cite{besa}. In
226: that paper the authors argued that taking both the scattering length
227: $a$ and the effective range $r$ in the $NN$ scattering effective range
228: expansion of order $Q^{-1}$, and summing range corrections to all
229: orders, improves convergence and may solve problems encountered in the
230: pionful theory \cite{FMS} with KSW power counting \cite{KSW}. The
231: authors then successfully applied this modified power counting to a
232: few two-body processes. It is therefore important to test this new
233: scheme on a three-body system. It will be shown that the new power
234: counting improves the convergence of the loop integrals necessary for
235: the $nd$ scattering calculation, so that the cutoff introduced in
236: \cite{bosons,3stooges2} is no longer needed for the system of integral
237: equations {\it without} a three-body interaction term. However, even
238: this improved ultraviolet behavior of the kernels in the integral
239: equations is not enough, since adding a three-body interaction
240: introduces new divergences which make the equations insensitive to the
241: three-body term in the Lagrangian, as it will be shown below.
242:
243: This independence of the amplitudes with respect to an additional
244: parameter prevents us from applying the fitting procedure of
245: ref.~\cite{3stooges} and therefore from predicting the energy
246: dependence of the $nd$ phase shifts.
247:
248: \section{Formalism}
249:
250: It is convenient to use a Lagrangian \cite{david,pbhg}
251: expressed in terms of two auxiliary fields $d^i$ and $t^A$ with the quantum
252: numbers of the deuteron and of a dibaryon field in the ${}^1\mathrm{S}_0$
253: channel of $NN$ scattering respectively:
254: \begin{eqnarray}\label{dlag}
255: \mathcal{L}_{Nd}&=&N^\dagger (\ii \partial_0
256: +\frac{\dev^2}{2 M})N+\non\\
257: &&+d^{i \dagger} \left[-(\ii \partial_0
258: +\frac{\nabla^2}{4
259: M})-\Delta^{(-1)}_d-\Delta^{(0)}_d\right]d^i
260: +\;y_d\left[d^{i \dagger} (N^\T P^i_d
261: N) +\mathrm{h.c.}\right] +\\
262: &&+t^{A \dagger} \left[-(\ii \partial_0 +
263: \frac{\nabla^2}{4
264: M})-\Delta^{(-1)}_t-\Delta^{(0)}_t\right]t^A
265: +\;y_t\left[t^{A \dagger} (N^\T P^A_t
266: N) +\mathrm{h.c.}\right] +
267: \dots\non
268: \end{eqnarray}
269: where $N={p\choose n}$ is the nucleon doublet of two-component
270: spinors, the subscripts $d$ and $t$ denote the ${}^3\mathrm{S}_1$ and ${}^1\mathrm{S}_0$
271: channel of $NN$ scattering, and $M$ is the average nucleon
272: mass. $P^i_d$ and $P^A_t$ are the projectors onto the $^3 \mathrm{S}_1$ and $^1
273: \mathrm{S}_0$ channels, respectively
274: \begin{equation}\label{proj}
275: \left(P^i_d\right)^{b\beta}_{a\alpha}=
276: \frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}\; (\sigma_2\sigma^i)_\alpha^\beta
277: \;(\tau_2)_a^b \;\;,\;\;
278: \left(P^A_t\right)^{b\beta}_{a\alpha}=
279: \frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}\; (\sigma_2)_\alpha^\beta
280: \;(\tau_2\tau^A)_a^b \;\;,
281: \end{equation}
282: with $\sigma$ ($\tau$) the Pauli matrices acting in spin (isospin)
283: space. The coefficients $y_i$,
284: $\Delta^{(-1)}_i$ and $\Delta^{(0)}_i$ encode all short distance
285: physics -- like pion and $\omega$ exchanges, quarks and gluons, and
286: resonances like the $\Delta$. Here it is necessary to split both
287: $\Delta$'s into leading ($\Delta^{(-1)}$) and subleading pieces
288: ($\Delta^{(0)}$).
289:
290: Since the theory is nonrelativistic, all particles propagate forward in time,
291: the nucleon tadpoles vanish, and the propagator for the nucleon fields is
292: \beq
293: \label{nucprop}
294: iS(p)=\frac{i}{p_0-p^2/2M +i\epsilon}\,.
295: \eeq
296: The deuteron and dibaryon propagators are more complicated because of the coupling
297: to two-nucleon states. For instance, the bare deuteron propagator is simply a constant,
298: $-i/\Delta_d^{-1}$, but the full propagator gets dressed by nucleon loops
299: to all orders as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:deuteronpropagator}.
300:
301: \begin{figure}[!htb]
302: \begin{center}
303: \feynbox{40\unitlength}{
304: \begin{fmfgraph*}(40,40)
305: \fmfleft{i} \fmfright{o} \fmf{double,width=thin}{i,o}
306: \end{fmfgraph*}}
307: \hq$=$\hq \feynbox{40\unitlength}{
308: \begin{fmfgraph*}(40,40)
309: \fmfleft{i} \fmfright{o} \fmf{vanilla,width=1.5*thick}{i,o}
310: \end{fmfgraph*}}
311: \hq$+$\hq \feynbox{40\unitlength}{
312: \begin{fmfgraph*}(40,40)
313: \fmfleft{i} \fmfright{o}
314: \fmf{vanilla,width=1.5*thick,tension=5}{i,v1}
315: \fmf{vanilla,width=1.5*thick,tension=5}{o,v2}
316: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,left=0.65}{v1,v2}
317: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,left=0.65}{v2,v1}
318: \end{fmfgraph*}}
319: \hq$+$\hq \feynbox{70\unitlength}{
320: \begin{fmfgraph*}(70,40)
321: \fmfleft{i} \fmfright{o}
322: \fmf{vanilla,width=1.5*thick,tension=5}{i,v1}
323: \fmf{vanilla,width=1.5*thick,tension=5}{v2,v3}
324: \fmf{vanilla,width=1.5*thick,tension=5}{v4,o}
325: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,left=0.65}{v1,v2}
326: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,left=0.65}{v2,v1}
327: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,left=0.65}{v3,v4}
328: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,left=0.65}{v4,v3}
329: \end{fmfgraph*}}
330: \hq$+$\hq \feynbox{100\unitlength}{
331: \begin{fmfgraph*}(100,40)
332: \fmfleft{i} \fmfright{o}
333: \fmf{vanilla,width=1.5*thick,tension=5}{i,v1}
334: \fmf{vanilla,width=1.5*thick,tension=5}{v2,v3}
335: \fmf{vanilla,width=1.5*thick,tension=5}{v4,v5}
336: \fmf{vanilla,width=1.5*thick,tension=5}{v6,o}
337: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,left=0.65}{v1,v2}
338: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,left=0.65}{v2,v1}
339: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,left=0.65}{v3,v4}
340: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,left=0.65}{v4,v3}
341: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,left=0.65}{v5,v6}
342: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,left=0.65}{v6,v5}
343: \end{fmfgraph*}}
344: \hq$+\;\dots$
345: \end{center}
346: \caption{\label{fig:deuteronpropagator} \sl The deuteron propagator
347: at LO from the Lagrangian (\protect\ref{dlag}). The thick solid
348: line denotes the bare propagator \protect$\frac{-\ii}{\Delta^{(-1)}_d}$,
349: the double line its dressed counterpart.}
350: \end{figure}
351: %
352: The nucleon-loop integral has a linear
353: ultraviolet (UV) divergence which can be absorbed
354: in $y^2_d/\Delta^{-1}_d$, and a finite piece determined by the unitarity
355: cut. Summing the resulting geometric series leads to the deuteron (and
356: analogously the dibaryon) propagators in terms
357: of physical quantities at LO:
358: \begin{eqnarray}\label{props}
359: \ii\triangle^{ij}_{d}(p) \;=\;\ii\delta^{ij}\,\triangle_{d}(p)& =&
360: \frac{4\pi \ii}{M y^2_{d}}\;
361: \frac{\delta^{ij}}{\gamma_{d}-\sqrt{\frac{\pv^2}{4}-M
362: p_0-\ii\varepsilon}}\;\;,\non\\
363: \ii\triangle^{AB}_{t}(p) \;=\;\ii\delta^{AB}\,\triangle_{t}(p)& =&
364: \frac{4\pi \ii}{M y^2_{t}}\;
365: \frac{\delta^{AB}}{\gamma_{t}-\sqrt{\frac{\pv^2}{4}-M
366: p_0-\ii\varepsilon}}\;\;.
367: \end{eqnarray}
368: $\gamma_d=\sqrt{M B} = 45.7066\;\MeV$ and the deuteron binding energy
369: is $B=2.225\;\MeV$. The typical momentum $\gamma_t=1/a_t$ of the
370: virtual bound state is extracted from the scattering length in this
371: channel, $a_t=-23.714\;\fm$.
372:
373: \section{\mbox{\boldmath $S$ = $1/2$ $nd$} Scattering}
374:
375: The Lagrangian (\ref{dlag}) can now be used to describe the
376: $nd$-scattering in the $S=1/2$ channel. The treatment involves coupled
377: channel equations both in the $^3\mathrm{S}_1$ and $^1\mathrm{S}_0$
378: partial waves. The spin zero dibaryon field $t$ also contributes in
379: intermediate states of $nd$ amplitudes. It is possible to obtain a
380: system of two coupled integral equations (previously derived
381: using a different method \cite{skorny}) for the
382: $d+N\rightarrow d+N$ amplitude $i t^{ij}_d(\vec{k},\vec{p},\epsilon)$
383: and for the $d+N\rightarrow t+N$ amplitude $i
384: t^{iA}_t(\vec{k},\vec{p},\epsilon)$, pictorially represented in
385: Fig.~\ref{fig:LOfaddeevdoublet}.
386: %
387: \begin{figure}[!htb]
388: \begin{center}
389:
390: \vspace*{3ex}
391:
392: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.6pt}
393:
394: \feynbox{104\unitlength}{
395: \begin{fmfgraph*}(104,64)
396: \fmfleft{i2,i1} \fmfright{o2,o1}
397: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=3}{i1,v1}
398: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=1.5}{v1,v3,v2}
399: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=3}{v2,o1}
400: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{i2,v4,o2} \fmffreeze
401: \fmf{ellipse,rubout=1,label=$\fs t_{\mathrm{d}}^{ij}$,
402: label.dist=0.25w,label.side=right}{v3,v4}
403: \end{fmfgraph*}}
404: \hq$=$\hq \feynbox{104\unitlength}{
405: \begin{fmfgraph*}(104,64)
406: \fmfleft{i2,i1} \fmfright{o2,o1}
407: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=4}{i1,v1,v2}
408: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{v2,o1}
409: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=4}{v3,v4,o2}
410: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{i2,v3} \fmffreeze
411: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{v2,v3}
412: \end{fmfgraph*}}
413: \hq$+$\hq \feynbox{192\unitlength}{
414: \begin{fmfgraph*}(192,64)
415: \fmfleft{i2,i1} \fmfright{o2,o1}
416: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=3}{i1,v1}
417: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=1.5}{v1,v6,v5}
418: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=3}{v5,v2}
419: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{v2,o1} \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{i2,v7}
420: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,tension=0.666}{v7,v4}
421: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=4}{v4,v3,o2} \fmffreeze
422: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{v4,v2} \fmf{ellipse,rubout=1,label=$\fs
423: t_{\mathrm{d}}^{ij}$,
424: label.dist=0.15w,label.side=right}{v6,v7}
425: \end{fmfgraph*}}
426: \hq$+$\hq \feynbox{192\unitlength}{
427: \begin{fmfgraph*}(192,64)
428: \fmfleft{i2,i1} \fmfright{o2,o1}
429: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=3}{i1,v1}
430: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=1.5}{v1,v6}
431: \fmf{dbl_dashes,width=thin,tension=1.5}{v6,v5}
432: \fmf{dbl_dashes,width=thin,tension=3}{v5,v2}
433: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{v2,o1} \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{i2,v7}
434: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,tension=0.666}{v7,v4}
435: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=4}{v4,v3,o2} \fmffreeze
436: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{v4,v2} \fmf{ellipse,rubout=1,label=$\fs
437: t_{\mathrm{t}}^{iA}$,
438: label.dist=0.15w,label.side=right}{v6,v7}
439: \end{fmfgraph*}}
440:
441: \vspace*{4ex}
442:
443: \feynbox{104\unitlength}{
444: \begin{fmfgraph*}(104,64)
445: \fmfleft{i2,i1} \fmfright{o2,o1}
446: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=3}{i1,v1}
447: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=1.5}{v1,v3}
448: \fmf{dbl_dashes,width=thin,tension=1.5}{v2,v3}
449: \fmf{dbl_dashes,width=thin,tension=3}{o1,v2}
450: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{i2,v4,o2} \fmffreeze
451: \fmf{ellipse,rubout=1,label=$\fs t_{\mathrm{t}}^{iA}$,
452: label.dist=0.25w,label.side=right}{v3,v4}
453: \end{fmfgraph*}}
454: \hq$=$\hq \feynbox{104\unitlength}{
455: \begin{fmfgraph*}(104,64)
456: \fmfleft{i2,i1} \fmfright{o2,o1}
457: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=4}{i1,v1,v2}
458: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{v2,o1}
459: \fmf{dbl_dashes,width=thin,tension=4}{o2,v4,v3}
460: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{i2,v3} \fmffreeze
461: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{v2,v3}
462: \end{fmfgraph*}}
463: \hq$+$\hq \feynbox{192\unitlength}{
464: \begin{fmfgraph*}(192,64)
465: \fmfleft{i2,i1} \fmfright{o2,o1}
466: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=3}{i1,v1}
467: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=1.5}{v1,v6,v5}
468: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=3}{v5,v2}
469: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{v2,o1} \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{i2,v7}
470: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,tension=0.666}{v7,v4}
471: \fmf{dbl_dashes,width=thin,tension=4}{o2,v3,v4} \fmffreeze
472: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{v4,v2} \fmf{ellipse,rubout=1,label=$\fs
473: t_{\mathrm{d}}^{ij}$,
474: label.dist=0.15w,label.side=right}{v6,v7}
475: \end{fmfgraph*}}
476: \hq$+$\hq \feynbox{192\unitlength}{
477: \begin{fmfgraph*}(192,64)
478: \fmfleft{i2,i1} \fmfright{o2,o1}
479: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=3}{i1,v1}
480: \fmf{double,width=thin,tension=1.5}{v1,v6}
481: \fmf{dbl_dashes,width=thin,tension=1.5}{v6,v5}
482: \fmf{dbl_dashes,width=thin,tension=3}{v5,v2}
483: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{v2,o1} \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{i2,v7}
484: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin,tension=0.666}{v7,v4}
485: \fmf{dbl_dashes,width=thin,tension=4}{o2,v3,v4} \fmffreeze
486: \fmf{vanilla,width=thin}{v4,v2} \fmf{ellipse,rubout=1,label=$\fs
487: t_{\mathrm{t}}^{iA}$,
488: label.dist=0.15w,label.side=right}{v6,v7}
489: \end{fmfgraph*}}
490:
491: \vspace*{1ex}
492:
493: \setlength{\unitlength}{1pt}
494:
495: \end{center}
496: \caption{\label{fig:LOfaddeevdoublet} \sl The coupled set of Faddeev
497: equations
498: % (\protect\ref{faddeevequationdoublet1}/\ref{faddeevequationdoublet2})
499: which need to be solved for \protect$t_{\mathrm{d},\mathrm{t}}$ at LO in the
500: doublet channel. The double dashed line denotes the dibaryon field
501: \protect$t^{iA}_t$.}
502: \end{figure}
503: %
504:
505: A momentum cutoff $\Lambda$ has to be introduced in the integral
506: equations. In the limit $\Lambda\to \infty$ these equations do not
507: have a unique solution because the phase of the asymptotic solution is
508: undetermined \cite{danilov}. For a finite $\Lambda$ this phase is
509: fixed and the solution is unique. However, the equations with a cutoff
510: display a strong cutoff dependence that does not appear in any order
511: in perturbation theory. The amplitude $t_d(p,k=\mbox{const.})$ shows a
512: strongly oscillating behavior \cite{3stooges}. This cutoff dependence
513: is not created by divergent Feynman diagrams. It is a nonperturbative
514: effect and appears although all individual diagrams are superficially
515: UV finite. For an extended discussion on this effect, see
516: \cite{3stooges}.
517:
518: The solution is to add one-parameter
519: three-body force counterterm $H(\Lambda)/\Lambda^2$
520: that runs with the cutoff $\Lambda$ \cite{bosons}. This counterterm
521: represents a three-body force which is obtained by including
522: \begin{eqnarray}
523: \label{3bod}
524: {\cal L}_3 = -\frac{2MH(\Lambda)}{\Lambda^2} \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! &&
525: \left\{ \frac{1}{2}{y_d^2} N^\dagger
526: ({d^i}{\sigma}_i)^\dagger ({d^i}{\sigma}_i) N \right. \non \\
527: && +\frac{1}{6} y_d y_t \left[ N^\dagger ({d^i}{\sigma}_i)^\dagger
528: (t^A \tau_A) N + h.c. \right] \\
529: && \left. +\frac{1}{2}{y_t^2} N^\dagger
530: (t^A \tau_A)^\dagger (t^A \tau_A) N \right\}\, \non
531: \end{eqnarray}
532: in the Lagrangian (\ref{dlag}). This yields the equations:
533: \begin{eqnarray}\label{inteh1}
534: t_d(k,p)&=&\;4 y^2_d M
535: \left[K(p,k)+\frac{2H(\Lambda)}{\Lambda^2}\right]+
536: \frac{1}{\pi}\int\limits_0^\Lambda dq\; q^2\;
537: t_d(k,q)\;
538: \frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{3 q^2}{4}-ME-
539: \ii\varepsilon}-\gamma_d}\;\times\nonumber\\
540: % &&\phantom{+\;\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\limits_0^\Lambda dq\; q^2\;}
541: &&\times\; \left[K(p,q)+\frac{2H(\Lambda)}{\Lambda^2}\right]-
542: \;\frac{3}{\pi}\frac{y_d}{y_t}\int\limits_0^\Lambda dq\; q^2\;
543: t_t(k,q)\;
544: \frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{3 q^2}{4}-ME- \ii\varepsilon}-\gamma_t}\;
545: \times\nonumber\\
546: % &&\phantom{-\;\frac{3}{\pi}\frac{y_d}{y_t}\int\limits_0^\Lambda dq\; q^2\;}
547: &&\times\; \left[K(p,q)+\frac{2H(\Lambda)}{3\Lambda^2}\right]\;\;,
548: \end{eqnarray}
549: \begin{eqnarray}\label{inteh2}
550: t_t(k,p)&=&-\;12 {y_d y_t M}
551: \left[K(p,k)+\frac{2H(\Lambda)}{3\Lambda^2}\right]+\;\frac{1}{\pi}\int\limits_0^\Lambda dq\; q^2\;
552: t_t(k,q)\;\frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{3 q^2}{4}-ME- \ii\varepsilon}-\gamma_t}\;
553: \times \nonumber\\
554: % &&\phantom{+\;\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\limits_0^\Lambda dq\; q^2\;}
555: &&\times\; \left[K(p,q)+\frac{2H(\Lambda)}{\Lambda^2}\right]-
556: \;\frac{3}{\pi}\frac{y_t}{y_d}\int\limits_0^\Lambda dq\; q^2\;
557: t_d(k,q)\;
558: \frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{3 q^2}{4}-ME- \ii\varepsilon}-\gamma_d}
559: \;\times\nonumber\\
560: % &&\phantom{-\;\frac{3}{\pi}\frac{y_t}{y_d}\int\limits_0^\Lambda dq\; q^2\;}
561: &&\times\;\;
562: \left[K(p,q)+\frac{2H(\Lambda)}{3\Lambda^2}\right]\;\;,
563: \end{eqnarray}
564: where $k$ ($p$) denote the incoming (outgoing) momenta in the center-of-mass
565: frame, $M E = 3k^2/4 - \gamma_d^2$ is the total energy,
566: the kernel $K(p,q)$ is given by
567: \beq
568: K(p,q)=\frac{1}{2pq}\ln\left(\frac{q^2+pq-p^2-ME}{q^2-pq-p^2-ME}\right)\,,
569: \eeq
570: and $H(\Lambda)$ is defined as follows:
571: \beq
572: \label{runH}
573: H(\Lambda)=- \frac{\sin[s_0\ln({\Lambda}/{\Lambda_\star})-
574: {\rm arctg}(1/s_0)]}
575: {\sin[s_0 \ln({\Lambda}/{\Lambda_\star})+
576: {\rm arctg}(1/s_0)]} \;.
577: %\approx -\tan(s_0\ln({\Lambda}/{\Lambda_\star})-\pi/4)\,.
578: \eeq
579: In eq. (\ref{runH}) $s_0\approx 1.0064$
580: and $\Lambda_*$ is a dimensionful parameter that determines
581: the asymptotic phase of the off-shell amplitude
582: \cite{bosons}, and is fitted to reproduce the experimental value
583: for the $S=1/2$ $nd$ scattering
584: length, $a_3^{(1/2)}=(0.65 \pm 0.04)\mbox{ fm}$ \cite{dilg},
585: yielding $\Lambda_* = 0.9 \mbox{ fm}^{-1}$.
586:
587: \section{Effective Range Expansion}
588:
589: The cutoff dependence is expected to be eliminated from the equations
590: if the effective range parameters $\rho_d$ and $r_{0t}$ are included
591: in the effective range expansion and are treated like the scattering
592: length $a$, \ie\ taken of order $Q^{-1}$, and summed to all orders.
593: Ref. \cite{besa} gave reasons to conclude that this power counting
594: should improve the overall convergence. In the ${}^3\mathrm{S}_1$
595: channel, the expansion around the deuteron pole gives
596: \begin{equation}
597: k \cot(\delta)=-\gamma_d+\frac{1}{2} \rho_d ( k^2+\gamma^2_d) + \dots
598: \end{equation}
599: for the nucleon-nucleon phase shifts. In the singlet channel
600: ${}^1\mathrm{S}_0$, no real bound state exists, so the condition to
601: impose is that the effective range expansion
602: \begin{equation}
603: \label{acondition}
604: k \cot(\delta)=-{1 \over a_t}+\frac{1}{2} r_{0t} k^2 + \dots
605: \end{equation}
606: is satisfied. Resumming the effective ranges $\rho_d$ and $r_{0t}$ in the
607: full deuteron and dibaryon propagators generates
608: \begin{eqnarray}
609: \label{full}
610: \ii\triangle^{\rho_d,ij}_{d}(p) \;=\;\ii\delta^{ij}\,\triangle^{(\rho_d)}_{d}(p)
611: &=&-\;\frac{4\pi \ii}{M y^2_d}\;
612: \frac{\delta^{ij}}{-\gamma_{d}+\frac{1}{2} \rho_d (M p_0-\frac{\pv^2}{4}
613: +\gamma^2_d)+
614: \sqrt{\frac{\pv^2}{4}-M p_0-\ii\varepsilon}}\;\;,\non\\
615: \smallskip
616: \ii\triangle^{r_{0t},AB}_{t}(p) \;=\;\ii\delta^{AB}\,\triangle^{(r_{0t})}_{t}(p)
617: &=&-\;\frac{4\pi \ii}{M y^2_t}\;
618: \frac{\delta^{AB}}{-\gamma_t+\frac{1}{2} r_{0t} (M p_0-\frac{\pv^2}{4})+
619: \sqrt{\frac{\pv^2}{4}-M p_0-\ii\varepsilon}}\;\;. \non \\
620: \end{eqnarray}
621: The numerical values $\rho_d=1.765\;\fm$ and $r_{0t}=2.73\;\fm$
622: \cite{nij} have been used\footnote{For an early computation including
623: effective ranges and comparisons with potential models, see \cite{ss}.}.
624:
625: It is still possible to introduce in the computation a three-body
626: term, which now is independent from the cutoff $\Lambda$ and is in
627: fact a constant contact interaction. The resulting integral equations
628: are completely analogous to (\ref{inteh1}), (\ref{inteh2}), but now
629: with the propagators (\ref{full}). The integration is carried on the
630: full real positive axis without any cutoff. The integral equations are
631: then solved numerically using the techniques outlined in \cite{pbhg}.
632:
633: The solutions for the amplitudes coming from the equations do not show any
634: visible dependence on the three-body interaction term $H$. It is possible to
635: extract the energy dependence for $k \cot(\delta)$, where $k$ is the
636: incoming momentum of the particles in the center of mass frame, from
637: the behavior of the on-shell amplitude $t_d(k,k)$. Results are plotted
638: on Fig. \ref{fig:badres}. Compare with the results given in
639: ref. \cite{3stooges2} (Fig. \ref{fig:bhvk}).
640: \begin{figure}[htb]
641: \centerline{
642: \begin{minipage}[t]{.44\linewidth}\centering
643: \mbox{\epsfig{file=trit.ps,width=7.25cm}}
644: \caption{Energy dependence for $S=1/2$ $nd$ scattering with $H = 0$ or
645: with $H \neq 0$ and $\Lambda \rightarrow \infty$ when the effective
646: ranges are included in the calculation.}
647: \label{fig:badres}
648: \end{minipage}
649: \hspace{0.6cm}
650: \begin{minipage}[t]{.44\linewidth}\centering
651: \mbox{\epsfig{file=bhvk.ps,width=7.25cm}}
652: \caption{Cutoff-insensitive energy dependence for $S=1/2$ $nd$
653: scattering for $\Lambda_*=0.9\mbox{ fm}^{-1}$, as given in
654: ref. \protect\cite{3stooges2}, without resumming the effective ranges.
655: Data are from the phase-shift analysis of van Oers and Seagrave
656: \protect\cite{vOers} (crosses) and a measurement by Dilg {\it et al.}
657: \protect\cite{dilg} (diamond).}
658: \label{fig:bhvk}
659: \end{minipage}}
660: \end{figure}
661:
662: The explanation for this outcome stems from the fact that, while the
663: convergence of the equations has improved because of the inclusion of
664: the effective ranges (which multiply a factor $\propto$ $q^2$ in the
665: denominator of the propagators), this is not yet sufficient to make
666: the equations completely convergent. After subtracting from the
667: amplitudes $t_{d,t}(k,p)$ the parts satisfying the (convergent)
668: equations {\it without} the three-body term $H$, the remaining parts
669: $t^{\prime}_{d,t}(k,p)$ are described by equations containing linear
670: divergences (plus convergent terms). Regularizing these divergences by
671: introducing a cutoff $\Lambda$ drives $t^{\prime}_{d,t}(k,p)$ to
672: approximate quantities $\propto$ $1/\Lambda$, \ie\ to negligibly small
673: numbers if the cutoff is set sufficiently
674: high. $t_{d,t}(k,p)$ are then effectively cutoff-independent,
675: but independent from $H$ as well.
676:
677: \section{Conclusions}
678:
679: The study of three-nucleon systems using EFT methods in the $S=1/2$
680: channel is more complicated than for the $S=3/2$ channel. While for
681: the latter $nd$ scattering accurate predictions are obtained
682: \cite{3stooges2}, the $S=1/2$ channel displays a strong cutoff
683: dependence even though all individual diagrams are UV finite. This
684: dependence can be eliminated at LO only for the equations without
685: three-body interactions, if the effective range parameters, obtained
686: from the effective range expansion in $N N$ scattering, are taken into
687: account in the deuteron and dibaryon propagators. This is achieved
688: modifying the usual power-counting scheme, assuming $\rho_d$ and $r_{0t}$
689: of order $Q^{-1}$ like the scattering length $a$.
690:
691: Unfortunately this improvement is not sufficient to eliminate all the
692: infinities originated in the loop diagrams from the integral
693: equations. The remaining divergent terms have the effect of driving
694: the three-body-dependent parts of the amplitudes to negligible values,
695: while the amplitude parts dependent only on the finite equations
696: (those {\it without} the three-body term) prevail.
697:
698: This makes eqs. (\ref{inteh1}), (\ref{inteh2}), after the inclusion of
699: the effective range parameters, insensitive to the three-body term
700: necessary to describe the influence of the triton bound state and to
701: reproduce the experimental data for $nd$ scattering in the S-wave
702: doublet channel.
703:
704: Alternatively, one can argue that the three-body force term arise not
705: at LO but at NLO. Yet in this case it must generate a contribution to
706: the amplitude much bigger than the $\sim$~30~\% variation one
707: expects going from LO to NLO.
708:
709: Therefore this test of the new power-counting
710: procedure does not yield the successful results achieved in the
711: two-body problem case. Yet it is possible that a better treatment of
712: this problem implies the explicit inclusion of the triton propagator
713: in the theory, analogously to what has been done so far for the
714: deuteron and the dibaryon, and according to the spirit of
715: ref. \cite{besa}.
716:
717: \section*{Acknowledgments}
718: I would like to thank Paulo Bedaque for several discussions and Silas
719: Beane for comments. This research was supported in part by the
720: U.S. Department of Energy grant DE-FG02-01ER41155.
721:
722: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
723:
724: \bibitem{hub} D.~H\"uber {\it et al.}, LA-UR-99-4996, Oct 1999,
725: nucl-th/9910034; E.~Epelbaum {\it et al.}, {\it Invited talk at 17th
726: European Conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics}, Evora, Portugal,
727: 11-16 Sep 2000, nucl-th/0009067; H.~Wita{\l}a {\it et al.}, {\it
728: Phys. Rev.} {\bf C63}, 024007 (2001).
729:
730: \bibitem{weinberg} S.~Weinberg, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B251}, 288 (1990);
731: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B363}, 3 (1991); C.~Ord\'{o}\~{n}ez and
732: U.~van~Kolck, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B291}, 459 (1992);
733: U.~van~Kolck, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf C49}, 2932 (1994);
734: C.~Ord\'{o}\~{n}ez, L.~Ray, and U.~van~Kolck, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}
735: {\bf 72}, 1982 (1994); {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf C53}, 2086 (1996);
736: {\it Nuclear Physics with Effective Field Theory}, edited by
737: R.~Seki, U.~van~Kolck, and M.J.~Savage (World Scientific,
738: Singapore, 1998);
739: {\it Nuclear Physics with Effective Field Theory II}, edited by
740: P.F.~Bedaque, M.J.~Savage, R.~Seki, and U.~van~Kolck
741: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999).
742:
743: \bibitem{KSW}
744: D.B.~Kaplan, M.J.~Savage, and M.B.~Wise,
745: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B534}, 329 (1998);
746: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B424}, 390 (1998);
747: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf C59}, 617 (1999).
748:
749: \bibitem{bosons}P.F.~Bedaque, H.-W.~Hammer, and U.~van~Kolck,
750: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 82}, 463 (1999); {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A646},
751: 444 (1999).
752: % 3 body triton, bosons
753:
754: \bibitem{3stooges}P.F.~Bedaque, H.-W.~Hammer, and U.~van~Kolck,
755: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf C58}, R641 (1998); P.F.~Bedaque and U.~van~Kolck,
756: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B428}, 221 (1998).
757: % 3 body no triton
758:
759: \bibitem{hm} H.-W.~Hammer and T.~Mehen, nucl-th/0011024.
760:
761: \bibitem{gegelia}
762: J.~Gegelia, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A680}, 303 (2000);
763: B.~Blankleider and J.~Gegelia, nucl-th/0009007.
764:
765: \bibitem{3stooges2}P.F.~Bedaque, H.-W.~Hammer, and U.~van~Kolck,
766: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A676}, 357 (2000).
767: % 3 body triton
768:
769: \bibitem{pbhg} P.F.~Bedaque and H.W.~Grie\3hammer,
770: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A671}, 357 (2000); F.~Gabbiani, P.F.~Bedaque, and
771: H.W.~Grie\3hammer, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A675}, 601 (2000).
772:
773: \bibitem{besa} D.B.~Kaplan and J.V.~Steele, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf C60},
774: 0604002 (1999); S.R.~Beane and M.J.~Savage, {\it NT@UW-00-028}, Nov 2000,
775: nucl-th/0011067.
776:
777: \bibitem{FMS} S.~Fleming, T.~Mehen, and I.W.~Stewart, {\it
778: Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A677}, 313 (2000).
779:
780: \bibitem{david}D.B.~Kaplan, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B494}, 471 (1997).
781:
782: \bibitem{skorny}G.V.~Skorniakov and K.A.~Ter-Martirosian, {\it Sov.
783: Phys. JETP} {\bf 4}, 648 (1957).
784:
785: \bibitem{danilov}G.S.~Danilov and V.I.~Lebedev, {\it Sov. Phys. JETP}
786: {\bf 17}, 1015 (1963); G.S. Danilov, {\it Sov. Phys. JETP} {\bf 13},
787: 349 (1961).
788:
789: \bibitem{dilg}W.~Dilg, L.~Koester, and W.~Nistler, {\it Phys. Lett.}
790: {\bf B36}, 208 (1971).
791:
792: \bibitem{nij}V.G.J.~Stoks, R.A.M.~Klomp, M.C.M.~Rentmeester, and
793: J.J.~de~Swart, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf C48}, 792 (1993);
794: J.J.~de~Swart, C.P.F.~Terheggen, and V.G.J.~Stoks,
795: {\it Invited talk at the 3rd International Symposium
796: ``Dubna Deuteron 95''}, Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia, July 4-7, 1995,
797: nucl-th/9509032; T.D.~Cohen and J.M.~Hansen, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf
798: C59}, 3047 (1999).
799:
800: \bibitem{ss}I.V.~Simenog and D.V.~Shapoval,
801: {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 47}, 620 (1988);
802: %{\it Yad. Fiz.} {\bf 47}, 971 (1988);
803: {\it Few Body Syst.} {\bf 8}, 145 (1990).
804:
805: \bibitem{vOers}W.T.H.~van Oers and J.D.~Seagrave, {\it Phys. Lett.}
806: {\bf B24}, 562 (1967).
807:
808: \end{thebibliography}
809:
810: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
811:
812: \end{fmffile}
813: \end{document}
814: