1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphics}
3: \usepackage{psfrag}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{psfig}
6: \usepackage{epsf}
7: \usepackage{float}
8: %\usepackage{draftcopy}
9: \usepackage{amssymb,stmaryrd,latexsym}
10: \textheight 23.cm
11: \textwidth 17.cm
12: \topmargin -1.7cm
13: \hoffset -2.5cm
14: \headsep 1.5cm
15: \parindent 1.2em
16:
17: \newcommand{\str}{\quad \Rightarrow \quad}
18: \newcommand{\fiverm}{\small}
19: \newcommand{\sevenrm}{\small}
20: \newcommand{\fet}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}
21: \newcommand{\lapprox}{{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.3}
22: \begin{array}{c} {\tiny < } \cr {\tiny \sim} \end{array}}}
23: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
24: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
25: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
26: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
27: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber \\ }
28: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\#\arabic{footnote}}
29: \newcommand{\ve}{\varepsilon}
30: \newcommand{\krig}[1]{\stackrel{\circ}{#1}}
31: \newcommand{\barr}[1]{\not\mathrel #1}
32: \newcommand{\vs}{\vspace{-0.2cm}}
33: \newcommand{\pr}{\overrightarrow}
34: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber}
35: \newcommand{\Mp}{M_\pi}
36: \newcommand{\Mpz}{M_\pi^2}
37: \newcommand{\Mpn}{M_{\pi^0}}
38: \newcommand{\Mpp}{M_{\pi^+}}
39: \newcommand{\Mpnz}{M_{\pi^0}^2}
40: \newcommand{\Mppz}{M_{\pi^+}^2}
41: \newcommand{\lev}{\overleftarrow}
42: \newcommand{\LOI}{{\rm LO}\!\!\!\!/}
43: \newcommand{\3}{{\ss}}
44:
45: \begin{document}
46:
47: %%{\bf DRAFT}
48:
49:
50: \hfill {\tiny JLAB-THY-04-228}
51:
52: \hfill {\tiny HISKP(TH)-04/07}
53:
54: \hfill {\tiny FZJ-IKP-TH-2004-04}
55: %%{\bf \today}
56:
57: %\hfill nucl-th/0405048
58:
59:
60: \vspace{1cm}
61:
62: \begin{center}
63:
64:
65: {{\Large\bf
66: The two--nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order}}\footnote{Work
67: supported in part by U.S.~Department of Energy under contract number DE-AC05-84ER40150.}
68:
69: \end{center}
70:
71: \vspace{.3in}
72:
73: \begin{center}
74:
75: {\large
76: E. Epelbaum,$^\ast$\footnote{email: epelbaum@jlab.org}
77: W. Gl\"ockle,$^\dagger$\footnote{email:
78: walter.gloeckle@tp2.ruhr-uni-bochum.de}
79: Ulf-G. Mei{\ss}ner$^\star$$^\ddagger$\footnote{email:
80: meissner@itkp.uni-bonn.de}}
81:
82: \bigskip
83:
84: $^\ast${\it Jefferson Laboratory, Theory Division, Newport News, VA 23606, USA}
85:
86: \bigskip
87:
88: $^\dagger${\it Ruhr-Universit\"at Bochum, Institut f{\"u}r
89: Theoretische Physik II\\ D-44870 Bochum, Germany}\\
90:
91: \bigskip
92:
93: $^\star${\it Universit\"at Bonn, Helmholtz-Institut f{\"u}r
94: Strahlen- und Kernphysik (Theorie)\\ D-53115 Bonn, Germany}\\
95:
96: \bigskip
97:
98: $^\ddagger${\it Forschungszentrum J\"ulich, Institut f\"ur Kernphysik
99: (Theorie)\\ D-52425 J\"ulich, Germany}
100:
101: \end{center}
102:
103: \vspace{.6in}
104:
105: \thispagestyle{empty}
106:
107: \begin{abstract}
108: \noindent
109: We consider the two--nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (N$^3$LO)
110: in chiral effective field theory. The two--nucleon potential at N$^3$LO consists
111: of one-, two- and three-pion exchanges and a set of contact interactions with zero,
112: two and four derivatives. In addition, one has to take into account various
113: isospin--breaking and relativistic corrections. We employ spectral function
114: regularization for the multi--pion exchanges. Within this framework,
115: it is shown that the three-pion exchange contribution is negligibly small.
116: The low--energy constants (LECs) related to pion-nucleon vertices
117: are taken consistently from studies of pion-nucleon scattering in
118: chiral perturbation theory. The total of 26 four--nucleon LECs has been determined by
119: a combined fit to some $np$ and $pp$ phase shifts from the Nijmegen analysis
120: together with the $nn$ scattering length. The description of nucleon--nucleon
121: scattering and the deuteron observables at N$^3$LO is improved
122: compared to the one at NLO and NNLO. The theoretical uncertainties in observables are
123: estimated based on the variation of the cut--offs in the spectral function representation
124: of the potential and in the regulator utilized in the Lippmann--Schwinger equation.
125: \end{abstract}
126:
127: \vfill
128:
129: \pagebreak
130:
131: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
132: \section{Introduction}
133: \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
134: \label{sec:intro}
135:
136:
137: Since the seminal work of Weinberg \cite{wein} to derive the forces between
138: two, three, $\ldots$ nucleons from chiral effective field theory,
139: there has been a flurry of activities to work out the consequences of such an
140: approach, to improve that scheme or to construct alternatives, for reviews see
141: \cite{border,BvK}. Here, we will be dealing with a modified Weinberg scheme,
142: in which pions are treated nonperturbatively and the power counting is
143: applied to the nucleon-nucleon potential. The potential consists of
144: one-, two-, $\ldots$ pion--exchanges (1PE, 2PE, $\ldots$) and a string
145: of contact interactions with an increasing number of derivatives (zero, two,
146: four, $\ldots$) that parameterize the shorter ranged components of the
147: nuclear force (the precise framework is specified
148: in more detail below). Such an approach has a variety of advantages over
149: more conventional schemes or phenomenological models. First, it offers a systematic
150: method to improve calculations by going to ever increasing orders in the
151: power counting and it allows to give theoretical uncertainties.
152: Second, one can consistently derive two- and three-nucleon forces (see e.g.
153: \cite{E3NF}), which has never been achieved before and paves e.g. the way for
154: a new look at the problem of nuclear matter. Third, nucleon and nuclear
155: properties can be calculated from one effective Lagrangian, which is of
156: particular importance if one intends to extract neutron properties from
157: (electromagnetically induced) measurements on light nuclei in a controlled theoretical way.
158: In this paper, we present the nucleon-nucleon potential
159: at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (N$^3$LO) in the chiral expansion,
160: extending our earlier work, and we apply this potential to observables in
161: two--nucleon systems.
162: Our work differs from the one of Entem and Machleidt (EM), who first presented an
163: N$^3$LO potential in Ref.~\cite{EM3}, in various ways. First, they use the
164: two--pion exchange contributions based on dimensional regularization,
165: which have a very singular short-range behavior. We employ spectral function
166: regularization, which allows for a better separation between the long- and
167: short-distance contributions. Second, EM present results only for one
168: choice of the cut-off necessary to regulate the high-momentum components
169: in the Lippman-Schwinger equation to generate the scattering and the bound
170: states.\footnote{The results for two different choices of the cut--off in
171: the Lippmann--Schwinger equation are shown in \cite{Machl_INT}.}
172: We perform systematic variations of this cut-off and other parameters
173: which allows us to give not only central values but also theoretical uncertainties.
174: Third, our treatment of the isospin breaking effects differs from the one
175: of EM (which is based on our earlier work \cite{WME}). Fourth, we employ
176: a relativistic version of the Schr\"odinger equation, which allows to
177: calculate consistently relativistic corrections also in three and four nucleon
178: systems. Other less significant differences will be discussed in due course.
179: We believe that with the material presented here an important step has been
180: made to put precision calculations in nuclear physics on a firm theoretical basis,
181: which not only allows to readdress many issues that have already been investigated
182: in quite a detail but will also open new areas of testing chiral dynamics in
183: few-nucleon systems or shed more light on the issue of the nuclear forces in the
184: limit of vanishing quark masses (see \cite{Betal,BeSa1,CHlim,BeSa2} for earlier work
185: on that topic).
186:
187: \medskip
188: \noindent Our manuscript is organized as follows. In sec.~\ref{sec:pot}, we
189: explicitly give the potential at N$^3$LO. The contributions up to NNLO have
190: already been extensively discussed in \cite{ubi,fr94,norb,EGM1,EGM2,EGMs1}.
191: The N$^3$LO corrections due to two-- and three--pion
192: exchange have been derived recently in \cite{NK21,NK31,NK32} using dimensional regularization
193: to regularize divergent loop integrals. Throughout this work, we use a
194: different regularization scheme for the potential, namely the
195: spectral function regularization (SFR). This approach has been recently
196: proposed and successfully applied at NLO and NNLO \cite{EGMs1,EGMs2}. As demonstrated in these
197: references, the SFR scheme allows to significantly improve
198: the convergence of chiral Effective Field Theory (EFT) for the two--nucleon system.
199: We also give an overview of various isospin--breaking interactions including
200: electromagnetic forces and discuss the regularization procedure necessary to
201: render the (iterated) potential finite.
202: In section \ref{sec:LS} we deal with the scattering equation. In order to account for the
203: relativistic corrections to the nucleon kinetic energy, we have decided to use the Lippmann--Schwinger
204: equation with the relativistic expression for the kinetic energy. Such an approach can naturally be extended
205: to few--nucleon systems and to processes with external probes.
206: We also discuss how to cast the relativistic Lippmann--Schwinger equation into a nonrelativistic form, which
207: might be useful in certain applications.
208: Various deuteron properties are considered in section \ref{sec:bs} using both relativistic
209: and nonrelativistic Schr\"odinger equations.
210: The fitting procedure to determine the low--energy constants (LECs)
211: and the accuracy of the fits are detailed in sec.~\ref{sec:fit}.
212: Results for phase shifts
213: and the deuteron (bound state) properties are displayed and discussed in
214: sec.~\ref{sec:res}. Our findings are summarized in sec.~\ref{sec:summ}. The appendices
215: contain details on the kinematics, the partial wave decomposition,
216: the momentum space treatment of the Coulomb interaction
217: and the effective range expansion.
218: \bigskip
219: \noindent
220:
221: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
222: \section{The two--nucleon potential at N$^3$LO}
223: \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
224: \setcounter{equation}{0}
225: \label{sec:pot}
226:
227: \subsection{General remarks}
228: \label{sec:GenRem}
229:
230: Before going into details of calculations, we would like to make certain general remarks.
231: As already pointed out in the introduction, we strictly follow the scheme suggested by
232: Weinberg \cite{wein}. In this approach one uses the EFT technique to derive nuclear forces
233: from the most general (approximately) chiral invariant effective Lagrangian.
234: The NN S--matrix is obtained via (non--perturbative) solution of the Lippmann--Schwinger
235: (LS) equation. In most practical calculations (including the present one), the later step
236: can only be performed numerically.
237:
238: \medskip\noindent
239: Starting from the most general chiral invariant effective Hamiltonian
240: density for pions and nucleons one can derive energy-independent and hermitean nuclear forces by
241: a variety of methods including the method of unitary transformation, see e.g. \cite{CHlim}.
242: The resulting nucleonic forces are ordered by the power of the generic low--momentum scale $Q$
243: related to the three--momenta of nucleons, the pion mass and typical four--momenta
244: of virtual pions:
245: \beq
246: V \sim \mathcal{O} \left[ \frac{1}{F_\pi^2} \left( \frac{Q}{\Lambda_\chi} \right)^\nu \right]
247: \eeq
248: where $F_\pi$ is the pion decay constant and $\Lambda_\chi$ is the chiral symmetry breaking scale
249: or, more generally, the smaller of the chiral symmetry breaking scale and
250: the scale $\Lambda_{\rm LEC}$
251: associated with the LECs accompanying four--nucleon contact interactions (as discussed below).
252: The power $\nu$ for a given diagram can be calculated using the rules of dimensional analysis
253: \cite{wein}
254: \beq
255: \label{powc}
256: \nu = -2 + 2 E_n + 2 (L -C) + \sum_i V_i \Delta_i~,
257: \eeq
258: where $E_n$, $L$, $C$ and $V_i$ are the numbers of nucleons, loops, separately connected pieces and vertices of
259: type $i$, respectively. Further, the quantity $\Delta_i$, which defines the dimension of a vertex of
260: type $i$, is given by
261: \beq
262: \label{deltai}
263: \Delta_i = d_i + \frac{1}{2} n_i - 2~,
264: \eeq
265: with $d_i$ the number of derivatives or $M_\pi$ insertions and $n_i$ the number of
266: nucleon lines at the vertex $i$. One has $\Delta_i \geq 0$
267: as a consequence of chiral invariance.
268: This leads to $\nu \geq 0$ for connected diagrams with two and more nucleons.
269: One also recognizes that the graphs with loops are suppressed and that $(n+1)$--nucleon
270: forces appear at higher orders than the $n$--nucleon ones. We note, however, that
271: the formula (\ref{powc}) does not apply to a specific sort of diagrams, sometimes referred to
272: as reducible, whose contributions are
273: enhanced due to the
274: presence of anomalously small energy denominators resulting from purely nucleonic intermediate states.
275: Such reducible diagrams are responsible for the non--perturbative aspect in the few--nucleon problem and
276: must be summed up to infinite order. They, however, do not contribute to the nuclear potential and result
277: from iteration of the potential in the Lippmann--Schwinger equation.
278:
279: \medskip\noindent
280: It remains to specify our way of counting the nucleon mass. In the single--nucleon sector it appears to be
281: natural to treat the nucleon mass $m$ in the same way as the chiral symmetry breaking scale $\Lambda_\chi \sim 1\,$GeV.
282: As argued in \cite{wein}, in the few--nucleon sector consistency requires that the nucleon mass is
283: considered as a much larger scale compared to the chiral symmetry breaking scale. If one adopts the
284: counting rule $m \sim \Lambda_\chi$, no nonperturbative resummation of the amplitude is required from the
285: point of view of the chiral power counting. In this work we adopt the counting rule $m/Q \sim
286: (\Lambda_\chi/Q )^2$, which has also been used in \cite{ubi}.
287: %(XXX really needed??)
288:
289: \medskip\noindent
290: In the following sections we will discuss various contributions to the NN potential up to N$^3$LO
291: including isospin--breaking corrections.
292:
293: \subsection{Contact terms}
294: We consider first the contact terms of the two--nucleon potential. To the accuracy
295: we are working, the potential in the center--of--mass
296: system (cms) for initial and final nucleon momenta $\vec{p}$ and $\vec{p}~'$,
297: respectively, takes the form:\footnote{We use the notation of ref.~\cite{EGM2}
298: (ref.~\cite{Machl_INT}) for $V^{(0)}$ and $V^{(2)}$ ($V^{(4)}$).}
299: \beqa\label{Vcon}
300: V_{\rm cont} &=& V^{(0)}_{\rm cont} + V^{(2)}_{\rm cont} + V^{(4)}_{\rm cont}~, \no\\
301: V^{(0)}_{\rm cont} &=& C_S + C_T \, \vec{\sigma}_1 \cdot \vec{\sigma}_2~,\no\\
302: V^{(2)}_{\rm cont} &=& C_1 \, \vec{q}\,^2 + C_2 \, \vec{k}^2 +
303: ( C_3 \, \vec{q}\,^2 + C_4 \, \vec{k}^2 ) ( \vec{\sigma}_1 \cdot \vec{\sigma}_2)
304: + iC_5\, \frac{1}{2} \, ( \vec{\sigma}_1 + \vec{\sigma}_2) \cdot ( \vec{q} \times
305: \vec{k})\no\\
306: && {} + C_6 \, (\vec{q}\cdot \vec{\sigma}_1 )(\vec{q}\cdot \vec{\sigma}_2 )
307: + C_7 \, (\vec{k}\cdot \vec{\sigma}_1 )(\vec{k}\cdot \vec{\sigma}_2 )~,\nn
308: V^{(4)}_{\rm cont} &=& D_1 \, \vec q \,^4 + D_2 \, \vec k \,^4 + D_3 \, \vec q\,^2 \vec k \,^2
309: + D_4 \, (\vec q \times \vec k )^2 \no\\
310: && {} + \Big( D_5 \, \vec q \,^4 + D_6 \, \vec k \,^4 + D_7 \, \vec q\,^2 \vec k \,^2
311: + D_8 \, (\vec q \times \vec k )^2 \Big) (\vec \sigma_1 \cdot \vec \sigma_2 ) \no\\
312: && {} + i \,\Big( D_{9} \, \vec q \,^2 + D_{10} \, \vec k \,^2 \Big) \frac{\vec \sigma_1
313: + \vec \sigma_2 }{2} \cdot (\vec q \times \vec k ) \nn
314: && {} + \Big( D_{11} \, \vec q \,^2 + D_{12} \, \vec k \,^2 \Big) (\vec \sigma_1 \cdot \vec q )
315: (\vec \sigma_2 \cdot \vec q \Big)
316: + \Big( D_{13} \, \vec q \,^2 + D_{14} \, \vec k \,^2 \Big) (\vec \sigma_1 \cdot \vec k )
317: (\vec \sigma_2 \cdot \vec k ) \no\\
318: && {} + D_{15} \, \Big(\vec \sigma_1 \cdot ( \vec q \times \vec k ) \, \vec
319: \sigma_2 \cdot (\vec q \times \vec k) \Big)
320: \eeqa
321: with $\vec{q} = \vec{p}~'-\vec{p}$ and $\vec{k} = (\vec{p}+\vec{p}~')/2$.
322: The superscripts denote the corresponding chiral order as defined in eq.~(\ref{powc}).
323: Notice that
324: the contact operator basis in eq.~(\ref{Vcon}) represents just one particular choice among many others.
325: One could equally well use another set of 24 independent contact operators
326: including for instance terms which contain the product of isospin matrices
327: $\vec \tau_1 \cdot \vec \tau_2$. A one--to--one correspondence between different sets of
328: contact operators can be established upon performing antisymmetrization of the potential,
329: see ref.~\cite{Ephd} for more details.
330: Notice that we have only shown isospin--invariant terms in eq.~(\ref{Vcon}).
331: Isospin--breaking short--range corrections will be specified below.
332:
333: \medskip\noindent
334: The terms in eq.~(\ref{Vcon}) feed into the matrix--elements of the two S--waves
335: ($^1S_0$, $^3S_1$), the four P--waves
336: ($^1P_1$, $^3P_1$, $^3P_2$, $^3P_0$), the four D--waves
337: ($^1D_2$, $^3D_2$, $^3D_3$, $^3D_1$)
338: and the two lowest transition potentials
339: ($^3D_1 - ^3S_1$, $^3F_2 - ^3P_2$) in the following way:
340: \beqa\label{VC}
341: \langle ^1S_0 | V_{\rm cont}| ^1S_0 \rangle&=& \tilde C_{1S0} + C_{1S0} ( p^2 + p '^2) +
342: D_{1S0}^1 \, p^2 \, {p'}^2 + D_{1S0}^2 \, ({p}^4+{p}'^4)~,\nn
343: \langle ^3S_1 | V_{\rm cont}| ^3S_1 \rangle&=& \tilde C_{3S1} + C_{3S1} ( p^2 + p '^2) +
344: D_{3S1}^1 \, p^2 \, {p'}^2 + D_{3S1}^2 \, ({p}^4+{p}'^4)~,\nn
345: \langle ^1P_1 | V_{\rm cont}| ^1P_1 \rangle&=& C_{1P1} \, p \, p' +
346: D_{1P1} \,p \, p' \, ({p}^2 + p' \, ^2)~,\nn
347: \langle ^3P_1 | V_{\rm cont}| ^3P_1 \rangle&=& C_{3P1} \, p \, p' + D_{3P1} \,p \, p' \, ({p}^2 \,
348: +p ' \, ^2 )~,\nn
349: \langle ^3P_0 | V_{\rm cont}| ^3P_0 \rangle&=& C_{3P0} \, p \, p' + D_{3P0} \,p \, p' \, ({p}^2
350: +p ' \, ^2 )~,\nn
351: \langle ^3P_2 | V_{\rm cont}| ^3P_2 \rangle&=& C_{3P2} \, p \, p' + D_{3P2} \,p \, p' \, ({p}^2
352: +p ' \,^2 )~,\nn
353: \langle ^1D_2 | V_{\rm cont}| ^1D_2 \rangle&=& D_{1D2} \, {p}^2\,{p}'^2~,\nn
354: \langle ^3D_2 | V_{\rm cont}| ^3D_2 \rangle&=& D_{3D2} \, {p}^2\,{p}'^2~,\nn
355: \langle ^3D_1 | V_{\rm cont}| ^3D_1 \rangle&=& D_{3D1} \, {p}^2\,{p}'^2~,\nn
356: \langle ^3D_3 | V_{\rm cont}| ^3D_3 \rangle&=& D_{3D3} \, {p}^2\,{p}'^2~,\nn
357: \langle ^3S_1 | V_{\rm cont}| ^3D_1 \rangle&=& C_{3D1 - 3S1} \, p^2
358: + D_{3D1 - 3S1}^1 \, {p}^2\,{p}'^2 + D_{3D1 - 3S1}^2 \, p^4~,\nn
359: \langle ^3D_1 | V_{\rm cont}| ^3S_1 \rangle&=& C_{3D1 - 3S1} \, {p '}^2
360: + D_{3D1 - 3S1}^1 \, {p}^2\,{p}'^2 + D_{3D1 - 3S1}^2 \, {p '}^4~,\nn
361: \langle ^3P_2 | V_{\rm cont}| ^3F_2 \rangle&=& D_{3F2 - 3P2}\, {p}^3\,{p}'~, \nn
362: \langle ^3F_2 | V_{\rm cont}| ^3P_2 \rangle&=& D_{3F2 - 3P2}\, {p}\,{p '}^3~,
363: \label{V4ct}
364: \eeqa
365: with $p = |\vec{p}\,|$ and ${p}' = |\vec{p}\,'|$.
366: The spectroscopic LECs are related to the ones in eq.~(\ref{Vcon}) according
367: to the following relations:
368: \beqa\label{VC_Vcon}
369: \tilde C_{1S0} &=& 4 \pi (C_S - 3 C_T )~, \nn
370: \tilde C_{3S1} &=& 4 \pi (C_S + C_T )~, \nn
371: C_{1S0} &=& \pi (4 C_1 + C_2 -12C_3
372: -3C_4 -4C_6 -C_7)~, \nn
373: C_{3S1} &=& \frac{\pi}{3} \, ( 12C_1 + 3C_2 +12C_3
374: +3C_4 +4C_6 +C_7) ~,\no\\
375: C_{1P1} &=& \frac{2\pi}{3} \, ( -4C_1 + C_2 +12C_3
376: -3C_4 +4C_6 -C_7) ~, \no \\
377: C_{3P1} &=& \frac{2\pi}{3} \, ( -4C_1 + C_2 - 4C_3
378: +C_4 + 2C_5 -8C_6 + 2C_7)~\no\\
379: C_{3P2} &=& \frac{2\pi}{3} \, ( -4C_1 + C_2 - 4C_3
380: +C_4 - 2C_5 )~, \no \\
381: C_{3P0} &=& \frac{2\pi}{3} \, ( -4C_1 + C_2 - 4C_3
382: +C_4 + 4C_5 +12C_6 - 3C_7)~, \no \\
383: C_{3D1 - 3S1} &=& C_{\epsilon 1} = \frac{2\sqrt{2}\pi}{3} \, ( 4C_6 + C_7)~,\nn
384: D_{1S0}^1 &=& \frac{\pi}{6} ( 80 D_1 +5 D_2 + 4 D_3 + 16 D_4 - 240 D_5 - 15 D_6 -12 D_7
385: -48 D_8 -80 D_{11} -4 D_{12} \nn
386: && \mbox {\hskip 0.5 true cm} -4 D_{13} -5 D_{14} -16 D_{15} ) \nn
387: D_{1S0}^2 &=& \frac{\pi}{4} ( 16 D_1 + D_2 + 4 D_3 - 48 D_5 - 3 D_6 - 12 D_7 - 16 D_{11} - 4 D_{12}
388: - 4 D_{13} - D_{14} )~, \nn
389: D_{3S1}^1 &=& \frac{\pi}{18} ( 240 D_1 +15 D_2 + 12 D_3 + 48 D_4 + 240 D_5 + 15 D_6 + 12 D_7
390: + 48 D_8 +80 D_{11} + 4 D_{12} \nn
391: && \mbox {\hskip 0.5 true cm} + 4 D_{13} + 5 D_{14} + 16 D_{15} ) \nn
392: D_{3S1}^2 &=& \frac{\pi}{12} ( 48 D_1 + 3 D_2 + 12 D_3 + 48 D_5 + 3 D_6 + 12 D_7 + 16 D_{11} + 4 D_{12}
393: + 4 D_{13} + D_{14} )~, \nn
394: D_{1P1} &=& - \frac{\pi}{3} ( 16 D_1 - D_2 - 48 D_5 + 3 D_6 - 16 D_{11} + D_{14} )~, \nn
395: D_{3P1} &=& - \frac{\pi}{6} ( 32 D_1 - 2 D_2 + 32 D_5 - 2 D_6 - 8 D_9 - 2 D_{10} + 48 D_{11}
396: +4 D_{12} - 4 D_{13} - 3 D_{14} )~, \nn
397: D_{3P2} &=& - \frac{\pi}{30} ( 160 D_1 - 10 D_2 + 160 D_5 - 10 D_6 + 40 D_9 + 10 D_{10} + 16 D_{11}
398: - 4 D_{12} + 4 D_{13} - D_{14} )~, \nn
399: D_{3P0} &=& - \frac{\pi}{3} ( 16 D_1 - D_2 + 16 D_5 - D_6 - 8 D_9 - 2 D_{10} - 32 D_{11}
400: - 4 D_{12} + 4 D_{13} + 2 D_{14} )~, \nn
401: D_{1D2} &=& \frac{2 \pi}{15} ( 16 D_1 + D_2 - 4 D_3 - 4 D_4 - 48 D_5 - 3 D_6 + 12 D_7 + 12 D_8
402: - 16 D_{11} + 4 D_{12}+ 4 D_{13}
403: \nn
404: && \mbox {\hskip 0.5 true cm} - D_{14} + 4 D_{15})~, \nn
405: D_{3D2} &=& \frac{\pi}{15} ( 32 D_1 + 2 D_2 - 8 D_3 - 8 D_4 + 32 D_5 + 2 D_6 - 8 D_7 - 8 D_8
406: - 8 D_9 + 2 D_{10} + 48 D_{11} \nn
407: && \mbox {\hskip 0.5 true cm} - 12 D_{12} - 12 D_{13} + 3 D_{14} + 16 D_{15})~, \nn
408: D_{3D1} &=& \frac{\pi}{45} ( 96 D_1 + 6 D_2 - 24 D_3 - 24 D_4 + 96 D_5 + 6 D_6 - 24 D_7 - 24 D_8
409: - 72 D_9 +18 D_{10} \nn
410: && \mbox {\hskip 0.5 true cm} - 80 D_{11} + 20 D_{12} + 20 D_{13} - 5 D_{14} -
411: 64 D_{15})~, \nn
412: D_{3D3} &=& \frac{2 \pi}{15} ( 16 D_1 + D_2 - 4 D_3 - 4 D_4 + 16 D_5 + D_6 - 4 D_7 - 4 D_8 + 8 D_9
413: - 2 D_{10} - 4 D_{15})~, \nn
414: D_{3D1 - 3S1}^1 &=& D_{\epsilon 1}^1 = \frac{\sqrt{2} \pi}{18} (112 D_{11} - 4 D_{12} - 4 D_{13} + 7 D_{14} - 16 D_{15} )~, \nn
415: D_{3D1 - 3S1}^2 &=& D_{\epsilon 1}^2 = \frac{\sqrt{2} \pi}{6} (16 D_{11} + 4 D_{12} + 4 D_{13} + D_{14} )~, \nn
416: D_{3F2 - 3P2} &=& D_{\epsilon 2} = - \frac{\sqrt{6} \pi}{15} ( 16 D_{11}
417: - 4 D_{12} + 4 D_{13} - D_{14} )~,
418: \eeqa
419: These 24 constants are not fixed by chiral symmetry and have to be determined
420: by a fit to data or phase shifts and mixing parameters in the corresponding channels.
421: {}From each of the two S--waves, we can determine four parameters, whereas each of the four
422: P--waves and the mixing parameter $\epsilon_1$ contain two free
423: parameters. Further, one free parameter contributes to each of the four D--waves and
424: to the mixing parameter $\epsilon_2$.
425: Of course, we have to account for the channel coupling
426: in the mixed spin--triplet partial waves.
427: Once the spectroscopic LECs have been
428: determined, the original $C_S, C_T, C_1,\ldots,C_7$ and $D_1, \ldots , D_{15}$
429: are fixed uniquely.
430: %We remark that all LECs related to contact operators and
431: %discussed in the present work have to be understood as renormalized quantities.
432:
433:
434: \subsection{One--, two-- and three--pion exchange}
435: \label{sec:pion_pot}
436: Consider now one--, two-- and three--pion exchange (3PE) contributions
437: $V_{1\pi}$, $V_{2\pi}$ and $V_{3\pi}$, respectively. At N$^3$LO ($Q^4$) in the low--momentum
438: expansion $Q$ they can be written as:
439: \beqa
440: \label{Vschem}
441: V_{1\pi} &=& V_{1\pi}^{(0)} + V_{1\pi}^{(2)} + V_{1\pi}^{(3)} + V_{1\pi}^{(4)} + \ldots \,, \nn
442: V_{2\pi} &=& V_{2\pi}^{(2)} + V_{2\pi}^{(3)} + V_{2\pi}^{(4)} + \ldots \,, \nn
443: V_{3\pi} &=& V_{3\pi}^{(4)} + \ldots \,.
444: \eeqa
445: Here the superscripts denote the corresponding chiral order and the ellipses refer to
446: $Q^5$-- and higher order terms which are not considered in the present work.
447: Contributions due to exchange of four-- and more pions are further suppressed:
448: $n$--pion exchange diagrams start to contribute at the order $Q^{2n-2}$,
449: see e.g.~\cite{wein}.
450:
451: \medskip\noindent
452: In the following we will give explicit expressions for the individual contributions
453: in eq.~(\ref{Vschem}). The pion--exchange NN potential in the two--nucleon center--of--mass system (c.m.s)
454: takes the form:
455: \beqa
456: V &=& V_C + \fet \tau_1 \cdot \fet \tau_2 \, W_C + \left[
457: V_S + \fet \tau_1 \cdot \fet \tau_2 \, W_S \right] \, \vec \sigma_1 \cdot \vec \sigma_2
458: + \left[ V_T + \fet \tau_1 \cdot \fet \tau_2 \, W_T \right]
459: \, \vec \sigma_1 \cdot \vec q \, \vec \sigma_2 \cdot \vec q \\
460: && {}+ \left[
461: V_{LS} + \fet \tau_1 \cdot \fet \tau_2 \, W_{LS} \right] \, i ( \vec \sigma_1 + \vec \sigma_2 )
462: \cdot ( \vec q \times \vec k )
463: + \left[
464: V_{\sigma L} + \fet \tau_1 \cdot \fet \tau_2 \, W_{\sigma L} \right] \, \vec \sigma_1
465: \cdot (\vec q \times \vec k ) \vec \sigma_2 \cdot (\vec q \times \vec k ) \,,
466: \nonumber
467: \eeqa
468: where the superscripts $C$, $S$, $T$, $LS$ and $\sigma L$ of the scalar functions
469: $V_C$, $\ldots$, $W_{\sigma L}$ refer to central, spin--spin, tensor, spin--orbit and
470: quadratic spin--orbit components, respectively.
471:
472:
473: \medskip\noindent
474: The leading order 1PE potential is given by
475: \beq
476: \label{opep}
477: W_{T}^{(0)} (q) = -\biggl(\frac{g_A}{2F_\pi}\biggr)^2 \,
478: \frac{\vec{\sigma}_1 \cdot\vec{q}\,\vec{\sigma}_2\cdot\vec{q}}
479: {q^2 + M_\pi^2}~.
480: \eeq
481: At NLO one has to take into account various corrections
482: which result from one--loop diagrams with the leading vertices and
483: tree graphs with one insertion of the $d_{16}$-- and $\tilde d_{28}$--vertices
484: (in the notation of ref.~\cite{Fet98})
485: from the dimension three Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{\pi N}$ and $l_{3,4}$--vertices
486: from the dimension four Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{\pi}$.
487: All these graphs lead just to renormalization of the LECs $g_A$, $F_\pi$ and
488: the pion mass $M_\pi$, see \cite{CHlim} for more
489: details. In addition, one has a contribution from the 1PE graphs with
490: one $g_A$--vertex replaced by the $d_{18}$--vertex from the dimension three
491: $\pi N$ Lagrangian. This correction leads to the so-called
492: Goldberger--Treiman discrepancy and can be accounted for by the replacement
493: %*EE
494: \beq
495: \label{d18}
496: g_A \rightarrow g_A - 2 d_{18}M_\pi^2
497: \eeq
498: in Eq.~(\ref{opep}).
499: The corrections at NNLO arise from one--loop diagrams with one subleading $\pi NN$ vertex
500: and lead to renormalization of the LEC $g_A$ \cite{norb}.
501: The corrections to 1PE at N$^3$LO are due to two--loop diagrams with all vertices of the
502: lowest chiral dimension, one--loop graphs with one subleading vertex from $\mathcal{L}_{\pi N}$
503: or $\mathcal{L}_{\pi}$ and tree graphs with two subleading vertices or one sub--subleading vertex.
504: After performing renormalization of the LECs, one finds the N$^3$LO contribution to the 1PE
505: potential to be proportional to \cite{Norbert04}:
506: \beq
507: \label{opep2}
508: W_{T}^{(4)} (q) \propto
509: \frac{1}{q^2 + M_\pi^2} F (q^2) \,,
510: \eeq
511: where the function
512: %*EE
513: $F (q^2) = \alpha_1 M_\pi^4 + \alpha_2 M_\pi^2 q^2 + \alpha_3 q^4$ can be viewed as the pion--nucleon form--factor.
514: The latter does not represent an observable quantity.
515: Expressing the function $F(q)$ as
516: \beq
517: F (q^2) = (\alpha_1 - \alpha_2 + \alpha_3) M_\pi^4+
518: (q^2 + M_\pi^2) (\alpha_2 M_\pi^2 + \alpha_3 (q^2 - M_\pi^2))
519: \eeq
520: the N$^3$LO contribution reduces to a renormalization of the 1PE potential (\ref{opep})
521: and contact interactions. Notice that one also encounters an additional
522: correction to the Goldberger--Treiman discrepancy.
523: In addition, one has to take into account relativistic $1/m^2$--corrections to the
524: static 1PE potential,
525: which depend on a particular choice of the unitary transformation
526: in the NN system and the form of the scattering (or bound state) equation, see ref.~\cite{Friar99} for details.
527: The final expression for the 1PE potential
528: adopted in the present work
529: takes the form
530: \beq
531: \label{opep_full}
532: V_{1\pi} (q) = -\biggl(\frac{g_A}{2F_\pi}\biggr)^2 \,
533: \left( 1 - \frac{p^2 + p'{}^2}{2 m^2} \right) \vec{\tau}_1 \cdot
534: \vec{\tau}_2 \, \frac{\vec{\sigma}_1 \cdot\vec{q}\,\vec{\sigma}_2\cdot\vec{q}}
535: {q^2 + M_\pi^2}~,
536: \eeq
537: where, as in our previous work \cite{EGMs2},
538: we take the larger value $g_A = 1.29$ instead of $g_A = 1.26$ in order to
539: account for the Goldberger--Treiman discrepancy. This corresponds to the
540: pion-nucleon coupling constant $g_{\pi N} =13.1$.
541:
542: \medskip\noindent
543: We now turn to the 2PE contributions. The 2PE potential $V_{2\pi}^{(2)} + V_{2\pi}^{(3)}$
544: is discussed in \cite{fr94,norb,EGM1,EGM2} and in \cite{ubi} using an energy--dependent formalism.
545: While dimensional regularization or equivalent schemes have been used in \cite{fr94,norb,EGM2}
546: to calculate matrix elements of the potential, a finite momentum cut--off approach has been
547: applied in \cite{ubi}. The N$^3$LO corrections have been recently obtained by Kaiser
548: using dimensional regularization \cite{NK21}.
549: In the following, we will adopt the SFR method to obtain the non--polynomial contributions
550: to the 2PE potential with the short--range components being explicitly excluded, see \cite{EGMs1}
551: for more details. The expressions for the 2PE potential in the SFR scheme up to NNLO have
552: already been given in \cite{EGMs2}. To keep the presentation self--contained, we
553: give below the corresponding (non--polynomial) terms at NLO
554: \beqa
555: \label{2PE_nlo}
556: W_C^{(2)} (q) &=& - \frac{1}{384 \pi^2 F_\pi^4}\,
557: L^{\tilde \Lambda} (q) \, \biggl\{4M_\pi^2 (5g_A^4 - 4g_A^2 -1) + q^2(23g_A^4 - 10g_A^2 -1)
558: + \frac{48 g_A^4 M_\pi^4}{4 M_\pi^2 + q^2} \biggr\}\nn
559: V_T^{(2)} (q) &=& -\frac{1}{q^2} V_S^{(2)} (q) = - \frac{3 g_A^4}{64 \pi^2 F_\pi^4} \,L^{\tilde \Lambda} (q)
560: \eeqa
561: and at NNLO:
562: \beqa
563: \label{2PE_nnlo}
564: V_C^{(3)} (q) &=& -\frac{3g_A^2}{16\pi F_\pi^4} \biggl\{2M_\pi^2(2c_1 -c_3) -c_3 q^2 \biggr\}
565: (2M_\pi^2+q^2) A^{\tilde \Lambda} (q) \nn
566: W_T^{(3)} (q) &=& -\frac{1}{q^2} W_S^{(3)} (q) = - \frac{g_A^2}{32\pi F_\pi^4} \, c_4 (4M_\pi^2 + q^2)
567: A^{\tilde \Lambda}(q)\,,
568: \eeqa
569: where the NLO and NNLO loop functions $L^{\tilde \Lambda} (q)$ and $A^{\tilde \Lambda} (q)$
570: are given by
571: \beq
572: \label{def_LA}
573: L^{\tilde \Lambda} (q) = \theta (\tilde \Lambda - 2 M_\pi ) \, \frac{\omega}{2 q} \,
574: \ln \frac{\tilde \Lambda^2 \omega^2 + q^2 s^2 + 2 \tilde \Lambda q
575: \omega s}{4 M_\pi^2 ( \tilde \Lambda^2 + q^2)}~, \quad \quad
576: \omega = \sqrt{ q^2 + 4 M_\pi^2}~, \quad \quad
577: s = \sqrt{\tilde \Lambda^2 - 4 M_\pi^2}\,.
578: \eeq
579: and
580: \beq
581: A^{\tilde \Lambda} (q) = \theta (\tilde \Lambda - 2 M_\pi ) \, \frac{1}{2 q} \,
582: \arctan \frac{q ( \tilde \Lambda - 2 M_\pi )}{q^2 + 2 \tilde \Lambda M_\pi}\,.
583: \eeq
584: The N$^3$LO corrections to the 2PE potential $V_{2\pi}^{(4)}$ have been
585: recently calculated by Kaiser \cite{NK21}. They arise from the one--loop
586: ``bubble'' diagrams with both dimension two $\pi \pi NN$ vertices of the
587: $c_{1,\ldots , 4}$--type and
588: from the diagrams which contain the third order pion--nucleon amplitude and lead to
589: one--loop and two--loop graphs. We begin with the first group
590: of corrections, for which one finds:
591: \beqa
592: \label{2PE_nnnlo}
593: V_C^{(4)} (q) &=& \frac{3}{16 \pi^2 F_\pi^4} \, L^{\tilde \Lambda} (q) \,
594: \left\{ \left[ \frac{c_2}{6} \omega^2 + c_3 (2 M_\pi^2 + q^2 ) - 4 c_1 M_\pi^2
595: \right]^2 + \frac{c_2^2}{45} \omega^4 \right\}
596: \nonumber \\
597: W_T^{(4)} (q) &=& -\frac{1}{q^2} W_S^{(4)} (q) = \frac{c_4^2}{96 \pi^2 F_\pi^4} \omega^2
598: \, L^{\tilde \Lambda} (q)\,.
599: \eeqa
600: No closed expressions can be given for some of the corrections from
601: the second group.\footnote{Entem and Machleidt were able to
602: calculate most of the integrals in eqs.~(\ref{TPE2loop}) analytically (for $\tilde \Lambda = \infty$)
603: and to express the corresponding contributions to the potential in terms
604: %*EE
605: of the loop functions $L^\infty (q)$ and $A^\infty (q)$ \cite{EM2}.}
606: It appears to be convenient to give the contributions to the
607: potential using the (subtracted) spectral function representation:
608: \beqa
609: V_{C,S} (q) &=& - \frac{2 q^6}{\pi} \int_{2M_\pi}^\infty \, d \mu
610: \frac{\rho_{C,S} (\mu )}{\mu^5 ( \mu^2 + q^2 )}\,, \quad \quad
611: V_T (q) = \frac{2 q^4}{\pi} \int_{2M_\pi}^\infty \, d \mu
612: \frac{\rho_{T} (\mu )}{\mu^3 ( \mu^2 + q^2 )}\,, \nn
613: W_{C,S} (q) &=& - \frac{2 q^6}{\pi} \int_{2M_\pi}^\infty \, d \mu
614: \frac{\eta_{C,S} (\mu )}{\mu^5 ( \mu^2 + q^2 )}\,, \quad \quad
615: W_T (q) = \frac{2 q^4}{\pi} \int_{2M_\pi}^\infty \, d \mu
616: \frac{\eta_{T} (\mu )}{\mu^3 ( \mu^2 + q^2 )}\,.
617: \eeqa
618: For the spectral functions $\rho_i (\mu)$ ($\eta_i (\mu)$) one finds:
619: \cite{NK21}:
620: \beqa
621: \label{TPE2loop}
622: \rho_C^{(4)} (\mu ) &=& - \frac{3 g_A^4 (\mu^2 - 2 M_\pi^2 )}{\pi \mu (4 F_\pi)^6}
623: \, \theta ( \tilde \Lambda - \mu ) \,
624: \bigg\{ (M_\pi^2 - 2 \mu^2 ) \bigg[ 2 M_\pi + \frac{2 M_\pi^2 - \mu^2}{2 \mu}
625: \ln \frac{\mu + 2 M_\pi}{\mu - 2 M_\pi } \bigg] \nn
626: && \mbox{\hskip 5 true cm} + 4 g_A^2 M_\pi (2 M_\pi^2 - \mu^2 )
627: \bigg\}\,, \nn
628: \eta_S^{(4)} (\mu ) &=& \mu^2 \eta_T^{(4)} (\mu ) = -
629: \frac{g_A^4 (\mu^2 - 4 M_\pi^2 )}{\pi (4 F_\pi)^6}
630: \, \theta ( \tilde \Lambda - \mu ) \,
631: \left\{ \left(M_\pi^2 - \frac{\mu^2}{4} \right) \ln \frac{\mu + 2 M_\pi}{\mu - 2 M_\pi }
632: + (1 + 2 g_A^2 ) \mu M_\pi \right\}\,, \nn
633: \rho_S^{(4)} (\mu ) &=& \mu^2 \rho_T^{(4)} (\mu ) = -
634: \theta ( \tilde \Lambda - \mu ) \, \left\{
635: \frac{g_A^2 r^3 \mu}{8 F_\pi^4 \pi}
636: (\bar d_{14} - \bar d_{15} ) -
637: \frac{2 g_A^6 \mu r^3}{(8 \pi F_\pi^2)^3} \left[ \frac{1}{9} - J_1 + J_2 \right] \right\}\,, \nn
638: \eta_C^{(4)} (\mu ) &=& \theta ( \tilde \Lambda - \mu ) \, \Bigg\{
639: \frac{r t^2}{24 F_\pi^4 \mu \pi} \left[ 2 (g_A^2 - 1) r^2 - 3 g_A^2 t^2 \right] (\bar d_1 + \bar d_2 ) \nn
640: && {}+ \frac{r^3}{60 F_\pi^4 \mu \pi} \left[ 6 (g_A^2 - 1) r^2 - 5 g_A^2 t^2 \right] \bar d_3
641: - \frac{r M_\pi^2}{6 F_\pi^4 \mu \pi} \left[ 2 (g_A^2 - 1) r^2 - 3 g_A^2 t^2 \right] \bar d_5 \nn
642: && {} - \frac{1}{92160 F_\pi^6 \mu^2 \pi^3} \Big[ - 320 (1 + 2 g_A^2 )^2 M_\pi^6 +
643: 240 (1 + 6 g_A^2 + 8 g_A^4 ) M_\pi^4 \mu^2 \nn
644: && {} \mbox{\hskip 3 true cm} - 60 g_A^2 (8 + 15 g_A^2 ) M_\pi^2 \mu^4
645: + (-4 + 29 g_A^2 + 122 g_A^4 + 3 g_A^6 ) \mu^6 \Big] \ln \frac{2 r + \mu}{2 M_\pi} \nn
646: && {} - \frac{r}{2700 \mu ( 8 \pi F_\pi^2 )^3} \Big[ -16 ( 171 + 2 g_A^2 ( 1 + g_A^2)
647: (327 + 49 g_A^2)) M_\pi^4 \nn
648: && {} \mbox{\hskip 3 true cm} + 4 (-73 + 1748 g_A^2 + 2549 g_A^4 + 726 g_A^6 ) M_\pi^2 \mu^2 \nn
649: && {} \mbox{\hskip 3 true cm} - (- 64 + 389 g_A^2 + 1782 g_A^4 + 1093 g_A^6 ) \mu^4 \Big] \nn
650: && {} + \frac{2 r}{3 \mu ( 8 \pi F_\pi^2 )^3} \Big[
651: g_A^6 t^4 J_1 - 2 g_A^4 (2 g_A^2 -1 ) r^2 t^2 J_2 \Big] \Bigg\}\,,
652: \eeqa
653: where we have introduced the abbreviations
654: \beq
655: r = \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{ \mu^2 - 4 M_\pi^2}\,, \quad \quad \quad
656: t= \sqrt{\mu^2 - 2 M_\pi^2}\,,
657: \eeq
658: and
659: \beqa
660: J_1 &=& \int_0^1 \, dx \, \bigg\{ \frac{M_\pi^2}{r^2 x^2} - \bigg( 1 + \frac{M_\pi^2 }{r^2 x^2} \bigg)^{3/2}
661: \ln \frac{ r x + \sqrt{ M_\pi^2 + r^2 x^2}}{M_\pi} \bigg\}\,,\nonumber \\
662: J_2 &=& \int_0^1 \, dx \, x^2 \bigg\{ \frac{M_\pi^2}{r^2 x^2} - \bigg( 1 + \frac{M_\pi^2 }{r^2 x^2} \bigg)^{3/2}
663: \ln \frac{ r x + \sqrt{ M_\pi^2 + r^2 x^2}}{M_\pi} \bigg\}\,.
664: \eeqa
665: We use the scale--independent LECs $\bar d_{1}, \; \bar d_{2}, \; \bar d_{3}, \; \bar d_{5}, \; \bar d_{14}$ and
666: $\bar d_{15}$ defined in \cite{Fet98}.
667: In addition, one has to take into account the leading relativistic $1/m$--corrections
668: to the 2PE potential:
669: \beqa
670: \label{tpe1m}
671: V_C^{(4)} (q) &=& \frac{3 g_A^4}{512 \pi m F_\pi^4} \bigg\{ \frac{2 M_\pi^5}{\omega^2}-
672: 3 ( 4 M_\pi^4 - q^4 ) A^{\tilde \Lambda} (q) \bigg\}\,,\nonumber \\
673: W_C^{(4)} (q) &=& \frac{g_A^2}{128 \pi m F_\pi^4} \Bigg\{ \frac{3 g_A^2 M_\pi^5}{\omega^2}
674: - \bigg[ 4 M_\pi^2 + 2 q^2 - g_A^2 \left( 7 M_\pi^2 + \frac{9}{2} q^2 \right) \bigg] (2 M_\pi^2 + q^2 )
675: A^{\tilde \Lambda} (q) \Bigg\}\,, \nn
676: V_T^{(4)} (q) &=& -\frac{1}{q^2} V_S^{(4)} (q) = \frac{9 g_A^2}{512 \pi m F_\pi^4} \left(
677: 4 M_\pi^2 + \frac{3}{2} q^2 \right) A^{\tilde \Lambda} (q) \,, \nn
678: W_T^{(4)} (q) &=& -\frac{1}{q^2} W_S^{(4)} (q) = - \frac{g_A^2}{256 \pi m F_\pi^4} \left[
679: 8 M_\pi^2 + 2 q^2 - g_A^2 \left( 8 M_\pi^2 + \frac{5}{2} q^2 \right) \right] A^{\tilde \Lambda} (q) \,, \nn
680: V_{LS}^{(4)} (q) &=& - \frac{3 g_A^4}{64 \pi m F_\pi^4} (2 M_\pi^2 + q^2 ) A^{\tilde \Lambda} (q) \,, \nn
681: W_{LS}^{(4)} (q) &=& - \frac{g_A^2 ( 1 - g_A^2)}{64 \pi m F_\pi^4}
682: (4 M_\pi^2 + q^2 ) A^{\tilde \Lambda} (q) \,.
683: \eeqa
684: Notice that these relativistic corrections differ from the ones given in
685: ref.~\cite{norb}. In fact, the specific form of the terms in eq.~(\ref{tpe1m})
686: depends on the form of the Schr\"odinger (or Lippmann--Schwinger) equation,
687: see \cite{Friar99} for more details. The relativistic corrections given in
688: eq.~(\ref{tpe1m}) are consistent with the relativistic Schr\"odinger equation
689: (\ref{schroed_rel}) and with the $1/m^2$--corrections to the 1PE potential in eq.~(\ref{opep_full}).
690:
691: \medskip\noindent
692: Three--pion exchange starts to contribute at N$^3$LO. The corresponding expressions
693: for the spectral functions and the potential (obtained using dimensional regularization)
694: have been given by Kaiser in \cite{NK31,NK32,NK33}. It has been pointed out in these
695: references that the 3PE potential is much weaker than the N$^3$LO 2PE contributions
696: at physically interesting distances $r > 1$ fm. Having the explicit expressions for the
697: 3PE spectral functions, it is easy to calculate the potential in the SFR scheme.
698: It is obvious even without performing the explicit calculations that the finite--range
699: part of the 3PE potential in the SFR scheme is strongly suppressed at intermediate
700: and short distances compared to the result obtained using DR. This is because the
701: short range components which dominate the 3PE spectrum are explicitly excluded
702: in this approach. To illustrate that let us consider the isoscalar spin--spin
703: contribution proportional to $g_A^4$, which has been found in \cite{NK32} to provide
704: the strongest 3PE potential for $0.6$ fm $< r <$ $1.4$ fm. The corresponding DR spectral functions
705: $\rho_{S, \; 3 \pi}^{\rm DR} (\mu )$ and $\rho_{T, \; 3\pi}^{\rm DR} (\mu )$ are
706: given by \cite{NK32}:
707: \beqa
708: \label{3pe_spect}
709: \rho_{S, \;3 \pi}^{\rm DR} (\mu ) &=& - \frac{g_A^4 (\mu - 3 M_\pi )^2}{35 \pi (32 F_\pi^3)^2}
710: \bigg[ 2 M_\pi^2 - 12 \mu M_\pi - 2 \mu^2 + 15 \frac{M_\pi^3}{\mu}
711: +2 \frac{M_\pi^4}{\mu^2} + 3 \frac{M_\pi^5}{\mu^3} \bigg] \,, \nn
712: \rho_{T, \; 3 \pi}^{\rm DR} (\mu ) &=& - \frac{g_A^4 (\mu - 3 M_\pi )}{35 \pi (32 \mu F_\pi^3)^2}
713: \bigg[ \mu^3 + 3 \mu^2 M_\pi + 2 \mu M_\pi^2 + 6 M_\pi^3 + 18 \frac{M_\pi^4}{\mu}
714: -9 \frac{M_\pi^5}{\mu^2} -27 \frac{M_\pi^6}{\mu^3} \bigg]\,.
715: \eeqa
716: The finite--range part of the spin--spin potential $V_{S} (r)$ can be obtained
717: from the corresponding spectral functions via
718: \beq
719: V_{S} (r) = - \frac{1}{6 \pi^2 r} \int_{3 M_\pi}^\infty d \mu \, \mu \,
720: e^{-\mu r} \left( \mu^2 \rho_T (\mu ) - 3 \rho_S (\mu ) \right)\,.
721: \eeq
722: Using the spectral functions in eq.~(\ref{3pe_spect}) one then gets
723: for $V_{S, \; 3\pi}^{\rm DR} (r)$:
724: \beq
725: V_{S, \; 3 \pi}^{\rm DR} (r) = \frac{g_A^4}{2 (8 \pi F_\pi^2)^3} \frac{e^{-3 M_\pi r}}{r^7}
726: (1 + M_\pi r)^2 (2 + M_\pi r)^2\,.
727: \eeq
728: Introducing the cut--off $\tilde \Lambda$ in the spectral functions via
729: $\rho_{S, \; 3 \pi}^{\rm SFR} (\mu ) = \rho_{S, \; 3 \pi}^{\rm DR} (\mu ) \, \theta
730: ( \tilde \Lambda - \mu )$ and $\rho_{T, \; 3 \pi}^{\rm SFR} (\mu ) =
731: \rho_{T, \; 3 \pi}^{\rm DR} (\mu ) \, \theta ( \tilde \Lambda - \mu )$
732: we obtain for the SFR potential $V_{S, \; 3\pi}^{\rm SFR} (r)$:
733: \beqa
734: V_{S, \; 3\pi}^{\rm SFR} (r) &=& V_{S, \; 3 \pi}^{\rm DR} (r) - \frac{g_A^4}{30 (32 \pi F_\pi^2)^3}
735: \frac{e^{-3 y}}{r^7} \bigg[ 120 + 120 y + 60 y^2 + 20 y^3 + 5 y^4 + y^5 \\
736: &-& {} 25 M_\pi^2 r^2 (6 + 6 y + 3 y^2 + y^3 ) + 45 M_\pi^3 r^3 (2 + 2 y + y^2)
737: + 30 M_\pi^4 r^4 (1 + y) - 63 M_\pi^5 r^5 \bigg]\,,
738: \nonumber
739: \eeqa
740: where we have introduced the abbreviation $y = \tilde \Lambda r$.
741: In Fig.~\ref{fig:pic1} we plot $V_{S, \; 3 \pi}^{\rm DR} (r)$ and $V_{S, \; 3 \pi}^{\rm SFR} (r)$
742: for $r$ from $0.5$ to $2$ fm. The potential calculated using
743: the spectral function regularization is much smaller in magnitude
744: compared to the one obtained using dimensional regularization.
745: Clearly, such a suppression does not take place at very large $r$,
746: where $V_{S, \; 3 \pi}^{\rm SFR} (r)$ approaches $V_{S, \; 3\pi}^{\rm DR} (r)$.
747: At such distances, however, the 3PE potential becomes negligibly small
748: compared to the 1PE and 2PE contributions simply due to its shorter range.
749: As a consequence, the 3PE potential can be neglected everywhere except
750: the region of very small $r$, where it anyhow becomes unreliable. This
751: is further exemplified in Fig.~\ref{fig:pic2}, where we show the ratio of the
752: N$^3$LO isoscalar spin--spin contributions of 3PE and 2PE
753: using both regularization schemes for a wide range of $r$.
754: It turns out that the 3PE contribution reaches for $r > 0.5$ fm at most $2\%-8\%$
755: of the corresponding N$^3$LO 2PE contribution depending on the
756: choice of the spectral function cut--off.
757: We therefore neglect all 3PE contributions in the present analysis.
758:
759:
760:
761: \medskip\noindent
762: Although we have regularized the 2PE contributions by cutting off the large--mass
763: components in the spectrum (or, equivalently, by explicitly shifting the
764: corresponding short--distance components to contact terms),
765: the resulting potential still behaves incorrectly
766: at large momenta (or equivalently at short distances).
767: The effective potential is valid for small values
768: of the momentum transfer $q$ and becomes meaningless for momenta $q \gtrsim \Lambda_\chi$.
769: Moreover, since the potential $V$ grows with increasing momenta $q$,
770: the scattering equation is ultraviolet divergent and needs to be regularized.
771: Following the standard procedure, see e.g.~\cite{EGM2},
772: we introduce an additional cut--off in the LS equation by
773: multiplying the potential $V (\vec p, \; \vec p \, ')$ with a regulator function
774: $f^\Lambda$,
775: \beq
776: \label{pot_reg}
777: V (\vec p, \; \vec p \, ') \rightarrow f^\Lambda ( p ) \,
778: V (\vec p, \; \vec p \, ')\, f^\Lambda (p ' )\,.
779: \eeq
780: In what follows, we use the exponential regulator function
781: \beq
782: \label{reg_fun}
783: f^\Lambda (p ) = \exp [- p^6/\Lambda^6 ]~.
784: \eeq
785: We will specify the values of the cut--offs below.
786:
787:
788: \medskip\noindent
789: It should be understood that our treatment of the effective potential is
790: based on the heavy baryon formalism. As demonstrated in \cite{rob00,higa03},
791: heavy baryon expansion becomes formally invalid for certain two--pion exchange contributions
792: at very large distances. This problem with the heavy baryon
793: formalism has been first observed in the single--nucleon sector and can be dealt with
794: using e.g. the Lorentz invariant scheme proposed by Becher and Leutwyler \cite{bech99}.
795: It is clear, however, that the NN interaction due to two--pion exchange becomes very weak at
796: large distances, so that the problem with the formal inconsistency of the heavy baryon
797: approach is expected to have little relevance for practical applications.
798:
799:
800: \medskip\noindent
801: Last but not least, we would like to comment on some key features of the SFR
802: scheme adopted in the present work. First of all, it is crucial to understand that
803: this approach does not affect the ``chiral features'' of the NN potential.
804: We remind the reader that the resulting effective NN potential consists of the long--
805: and short--range pieces. Spontaneously broken approximate chiral symmetry of QCD leads
806: to highly non--trivial constraints for the the long--range part of the potential,
807: which is given by the terms nonpolynomial in momenta. The short--range part of the
808: potential given by a series of the most general contact interactions with increasing
809: power of momenta
810: is not affected by chiral symmetry with the exception of the quark--mass dependence
811: of the corresponding LECs, which is not relevant for the present analysis. In other words,
812: only the long--distance asymptotics of the potential is constrained by chiral symmetry.
813: The SFR scheme does, per constraction, not affect the long--distance asymptotics of the
814: potential and leads to the same result as obtained using DR, see \cite{EGMs1} for more details.
815: The only difference to the DR result is given by a series of the short--range interactions.
816: It is, therefore, obvious, that the the SFR method does not affect the constraints of the
817: chiral symmetry implemented in the NN potential. Further, we point out that the equivalence of the SFR
818: and the finite cut--off regularization has only been established at a one--loop level
819: and does not hold true for both loop integrals of the N$^3$LO 2PE contribution. The prominent
820: feature of the applied regularization scheme is given by the fact, that it only affects
821: the two--nucleon interaction. One can, therefore, directly adopt the values for
822: various LECs resulting from the single--nucleon sector analyses, where dimensional
823: regularization has been used. On the contrary, if a finite momentum cut--off regularization would
824: be applied to both loop integrals entering the N$^3$LO 2PE contribution,
825: one would need to re--extract the values of the corresponding LECs from
826: pion--nucleon scattering and the process $\pi N \rightarrow \pi \pi N$
827: using the same regularization scheme.
828:
829:
830:
831:
832:
833:
834:
835:
836:
837:
838: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
839: \subsection{Isospin--breaking effects}
840: \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
841: %\setcounter{equation}{0}
842: \label{sec:isosp}
843:
844: Isospin--breaking nuclear forces have been extensively studied within effective field
845: theory approaches, see e.g.~\cite{kolck,vKNij,kolck96,Ep99,WME,friar03}, as well as using more
846: phenomenological methods, see e.g.~\cite{coon96,nis02} for some recent references.
847: In the Standard Model, isospin--violating effects have their origin
848: in both strong (i.e. due to the different masses of the up and down quarks)
849: and electromagnetic interactions (due to different charges of the up and down quarks).
850: The electromagnetic effects can be separated
851: into the ones due to soft and hard photons. While effects of hard photons
852: are incorporated in effective field theory
853: by inclusion of electromagnetic short distance operators in the
854: effective Lagrangian, soft photons have to be taken into account explicitly.
855:
856: \medskip\noindent
857: In the present analysis we are rather limited in the treatment of isospin--violating interaction, which have
858: to be included precisely in the way it is done by the Nijmegen group \cite{nijpwa}. This is due to the fact that we
859: are using the Nijmegen phase shifts instead of the real data as an input to fit the unknown LECs.
860: Let us explain this point in more detail.
861: With the only exception of the $^1S_0$ partial wave, the {\it np} isovector phase shifts in the Nijmegen PWA are not
862: obtained independently from {\it np} data, but rather extracted from the
863: proton--proton ({\it pp}) phase shifts using the assumption
864: that the differences in the phase shifts result entirely due
865: to isospin--breaking effects associated with $m_p \neq m_n$ and $M_{\pi^\pm} \neq M_{\pi^0}$ in
866: the 1PE potential as well as due to electromagnetic interactions. In order to be consistent with
867: the Nijmegen phase shift analysis, we therefore have to neglect various isospin--breaking corrections
868: and adopt the same isospin--breaking and electromagnetic interactions as in \cite{nijpwa}.
869: Nevertheless, we have decided to overview the dominant isospin--breaking contributions
870: and to remind the reader on their relative size
871: following mainly the lines of reference \cite{WME} but extending the consideration
872: to higher orders. For a detailed review of charge--symmetry breaking in the nucleon--nucleon interaction
873: the reader is referred to \cite{friar03}.
874:
875: \medskip\noindent
876: Consider first isospin breaking in the strong interaction. The QCD quark mass term can be expressed as
877: \begin{equation}
878: \label{eq1}
879: \mathcal{L}_{\rm mass}^{\rm QCD} = -\frac{1}{2}\bar{q} \,
880: (m_{\rm u}+m_{\rm d})(1-\epsilon\tau_{3})\,q~,
881: \end{equation}
882: where
883: \beq\label{epsdef}
884: \epsilon \equiv {m_d-m_u \over m_d+m_u} \sim {1 \over 3}~.
885: \eeq
886: The above numerical estimation is based on the light quark mass values
887: utilizing a modified $\overline{\rm MS}$ subtraction scheme
888: at a renormalization scale of 1~GeV.
889: The isoscalar term in eq.~(\ref{eq1}) breaks chiral but
890: preserves isospin symmetry. It leads to the nonvanishing pion mass,
891: $M_\pi^2 = (m_u + m_d ) B \neq 0$,
892: where $B$ is a low--energy constant that describes the strength of the bilinear light quark condensates.
893: All chiral symmetry
894: breaking interactions in the effective Lagrangian are proportional to positive powers of $M_\pi^2$.
895: The isovector term ($\propto \tau_3$) in eq.~(\ref{eq1}) breaks isospin symmetry and generates
896: a series of isospin--breaking effective interactions $\propto (\epsilon M_\pi^2)^n$
897: with $n \geq 1$.
898: It therefore appears to be natural to count strong isospin violation in terms of $\epsilon M_\pi^2$. However, we note already here that isospin-breaking effects are
899: in general much smaller than indicated by the numerical value of $\epsilon$, because the
900: relevant scale for the isospin--conserving contributions is $\Lambda_\chi$ rather than
901: $m_u+m_d$.
902:
903:
904: \medskip\noindent
905: Electromagnetic terms in the effective Lagrangian can be generated using the method of external sources,
906: see e.g. \cite{urech95,MS,MM} for more details. All such terms are proportional to the nucleon charge matrix
907: $Q_{\rm ch}= e \, (1 + \tau_3 )/2$, where $e$ denotes the electric charge.\footnote{Or equivalently, one can use
908: the quark charge matrix $e \, (1/3 + \tau_3 )/2$.}
909: More precisely, the vertices which contain (do not contain) the photon fields are proportional to $Q^{n}_{\rm ch}$
910: ($Q^{2n}_{\rm ch}$), where $n=1,2,\ldots$. Since we are interested here in nucleon--nucleon scattering in the absence of
911: external fields, so that no photon can leave a Feynman diagram, it is convenient to introduce the
912: small parameter $e^2 \sim 1/10$ for isospin--violating effects caused by the electromagnetic interactions.
913:
914: \medskip\noindent
915: Due to its perturbative nature induced by the small parameters $\epsilon M_\pi^2$ and $e^2$, we
916: treat the strong and electromagnetic
917: isospin violation in addition to the power counting of the isospin symmetric potential
918: mentioned in section~\ref{sec:GenRem}. Although not necessary, in practical applications it often appears to be more
919: convenient to have a single expansion parameter. Thus, one has to relate the quantities $\epsilon$,
920: $e$ to the generic low--momentum scale $Q$ related to external three--momenta of nucleons and the pion mass
921: ($p \sim p' \sim M_\pi \sim Q$) and introduced before.
922: Here and below, we
923: will make use of the following simple counting rules\footnote{This suggests a
924: slightly different counting of the strong isospin--breaking effects as compared to \cite{WME}.
925: Most of the conclusions of
926: \cite{WME} remain, however, unchanged. The important difference is that the leading isospin--violating short--range interaction
927: is now proportional to the quark mass difference, while electromagnetic contact terms are shifted to higher orders.}:
928: \beq\label{CountRules1}
929: \epsilon \sim e \sim \frac{Q}{\Lambda_\chi}\,.
930: \eeq
931: The counting of the electric charge is consistent with the one commonly used in the pion and pion--nucleon
932: sectors, see e.g. \cite{urech95,fet99,fet00,fet01}
933: %*EE
934: (it differs, however, from what is commonly used
935: in the description of extremely non-relativistic hadronic bound state, see e.g. \cite{Bern}).
936: In addition to the above mentioned counting rules, we need to deal with the extra $1/(4 \pi)^2$--factors,
937: which typically arise when calculating loop integrals. For pion loops, such factors are naturally
938: incorporated in the chiral power counting through the relation $\Lambda_\chi \sim 4 \pi F_\pi$.
939: For photon loops we will further assume, that
940: \beq\label{CountRules2}
941: \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi )^2} \sim \frac{Q^4}{\Lambda_\chi^4}\,,
942: \eeq
943: which simply means that the factors $1/(4 \pi)^2$ provide two additional powers of the small parameter.
944: In the following, we will denote the order of various isospin--violating interactions by ``$\LOI$'',
945: ``N$\LOI$'', $\ldots$ in order to distinguish the above mentioned phenomenological extension of the counting rules
946: from the usual chiral power counting in the isospin--conserved case.
947: Certainly, one has always the option to discard this generalization of the chiral counting rules
948: and to perform separate expansions in $\epsilon$, $e$ and $Q/\Lambda_\chi$.
949: Notice further that eqs.~(\ref{CountRules1}) and (\ref{CountRules2}) suggest a
950: different counting of the strong isospin--breaking effects compared to ref.~\cite{WME}.
951: In that work strong and electromagnetic effects have been classified using a separate expansion
952: without introducing a unified expansion scheme.
953: The $\LOI$, N$\LOI$, $\ldots$ contributions in the present work should therefore not be confused with
954: the corresponding terms in \cite{WME}. Last but not least, the above counting scheme is similar
955: to the one adopted e.g.~in \cite{kolck,kolck96}, where effects $\sim \alpha /\pi$ were also
956: considered as being one order suppressed compared to the ones $\sim \epsilon M_\pi^2/\Lambda_\chi^2$.
957:
958:
959:
960: \medskip\noindent
961: Let us now apply the power counting rules to estimate isospin--violating corrections to hadronic masses,
962: see also \cite{friar03} for a similar estimation.
963: We begin with the pion mass. It is well known that the pion mass does not receive contributions linear in
964: the quark mass difference and the strong contribution to the pion mass starts at the second order in $m_d - m_u$.
965: Consequently, the leading strong term can be estimated as $(\Delta M_\pi^2)_{\rm str} \equiv
966: (M_{\pi^\pm}^2 - M_{\pi^0}^2 )_{\rm str}
967: \propto (\epsilon M_\pi^2 )^2 \Lambda_\chi^{-2}$, which is of the order $\nu =6$ to be compared to $\nu=2$
968: for the isospin--symmetric term $\propto M_\pi^2$. One thus expects the strong contribution to the pion mass difference
969: $(\Delta M_\pi )_{\rm str} \equiv (M_{\pi^\pm} - M_{\pi^0} )_{\rm str}$ to have
970: the size $\sim 0.1 \ldots 0.3$ MeV depending on whether
971: one substitutes in the numerical estimation $M_\rho$ or $4 \pi F_\pi$ for $\Lambda_\chi$.
972: Clearly, we cannot predict whether the shift is positive or negative.
973: The leading electromagnetic contribution to $\Delta M_\pi^2$ is of the order $(\Delta M_\pi^2)_{\rm em}
974: \sim e^2 (4 \pi)^{-2} \Lambda_\chi^2$,
975: which is a $\nu = 4$--effect according to our counting rules. Numerically, one estimates the size of
976: the pion mass difference to be
977: $( \Delta M_\pi )_{\rm em}\sim 1 \ldots 3$ MeV. We see that both power counting arguments and
978: numerical estimations suggest that the pion
979: mass difference is mainly of electromagnetic origin.
980: %This agrees well with the empirical observations, see \cite{don93}
981: %for unrelated discussion on the size of electromagnetic effects.
982: Furthermore, the estimated size of the electromagnetic
983: shift agrees well with the observed value $M_{\pi^\pm} - M_{\pi^0} = 4.6$ MeV.
984: All these statements can also be backed by hard calculations, for a classical review see \cite{GLmass}.
985: %*EE
986: For the nucleon mass difference, the strong contribution is linear in the quark mass differences and can be estimated as:
987: $(\Delta m)_{\rm str} \equiv (m_n - m_p )_{\rm str} \sim (\epsilon M_\pi^2) \Lambda_\chi^{-1} \sim 6 \ldots 9$ MeV.\footnote{This too large value reflects our earlier statement about the use
988: of the parameter $\epsilon$ to estimate isospin-breaking corrections.}
989: According to the counting rules, this is the $\nu = 3$--effect. Electromagnetic shift appears at $\nu = 4$ and
990: is expected to be of the order $(\Delta m)_{\rm em}
991: \sim e^2 (4 \pi)^{-2} \Lambda_\chi \sim 0.5 \ldots 0.7$ MeV. In reality, the effects are of opposite sign and the
992: difference between them is less pronounced.
993: One observes $(m_n-m_p)_{\rm str} \simeq 2.1\,$MeV
994: and $(m_n-m_p)_{\rm em} \simeq - 0.8\,$MeV, leading to the physical value of
995: $m_n - m_p = 1.3\,$MeV (see again \cite{GLmass} for more details).
996:
997: \medskip\noindent
998: We are now in the position to discuss various isospin--breaking contributions to the two--nucleon force.
999: As explained in \cite{WME}, the leading--order (i.e. $\LOI$) isospin--breaking interactions are due to the pion
1000: mass difference in the 1PE potential and the static Coulomb interaction. The latter is clearly of the order\footnote{The
1001: factor $F_\pi^2$ results from the common normalization of the isospin--symmetric part of the
1002: two--nucleon potential adopted in this work.
1003: This factor can be understood e.g. from looking at the 1PE potential in eq.~(\ref{opep}).}
1004: $\sim e^2 Q^{-2} F_\pi^2$, while the former is
1005: \beq
1006: \sim \frac{\Delta M_\pi^2}{M_\pi^{2}} \sim
1007: \left( \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi)^{2}} \Lambda_\chi^2 \right) \frac{1}{M_\pi^{2}} = \mathcal{O}
1008: \left[ \frac{Q^2}{\Lambda_\chi^2} \right] \,,
1009: \eeq
1010: where we used of
1011: the counting rules (\ref{CountRules1}) and (\ref{CountRules2}) together with $M_\pi \sim Q$.
1012: Thus, the $\LOI$ isospin--breaking force is of the order $\nu = 2$.
1013: Consider now N$\LOI$ corrections to this result, which appear at $\nu = 3$.
1014: The pion--nucleon coupling constant
1015: receives strong isospin--violating contributions of the order $\epsilon M_\pi^2 / \Lambda_\chi^2$.
1016: The corresponding LECs in the pion--nucleon Lagrangian are denoted by $d_{17}$, $d_{18}$ and $d_{19}$ in
1017: the notation of Ref.~\cite{Fet98}. This charge dependence of the pion--nucleon coupling constant
1018: leads to isospin--violating 1PE of the order $\nu = 3$. In addition, one has to take into account
1019: strong isospin--breaking contact interaction of the kind
1020: \beq
1021: \label{cont_str}
1022: \epsilon M_\pi^2\, (N^\dagger \tau_3 N ) \, (N^\dagger N)\,,
1023: \eeq
1024: which leads to charge symmetry breaking.
1025: We can check the accuracy of our estimation numerically using the values for the LECs found in \cite{WME}.
1026: According to eq.~(\ref{cont_str}), we expect the ratio of the isospin--breaking terms to isospin--conserving ones
1027: to be typically of the size: $\epsilon M_\pi^2 /\Lambda_\chi^2 \sim 0.5\% \ldots 1.1\%$, where the uncertainty results again from
1028: using two different estimations for $\Lambda_\chi$. Picking up the numbers from Table 2 in \cite{WME} we find for
1029: this ratio the values $0.8\%$, $0.8\%$ and $3.1\%$ for three different
1030: values of the (sharp) cut--off $\Lambda$ in the Lippmann--Schwinger equation: $\Lambda=300$, $\Lambda=400$ and $\Lambda=500$ MeV.
1031: Thus, our numerical estimation is consistent with the results of \cite{WME}.
1032: The NN$\LOI$ corrections are of the order $\nu = 4$ and arise from various sources.
1033: First, one has to take into account isospin--breaking in the 2PE potential due to electromagnetic
1034: corrections to the pion--nucleon coupling, see e.g.\cite{kolck96}.
1035: The correction due to the pion mass difference in the leading 2PE potential can be estimated as:
1036: \beq
1037: \sim \frac{\Delta M_\pi^2 }{M_\pi^{2}} \, \frac{Q^2}{ \Lambda_\chi^{2}} = \mathcal{O}
1038: \left[ \frac{Q^4}{\Lambda_\chi^4} \right] \,.
1039: \eeq
1040: Another isospin--violating two--pion exchange interaction at this order is generated
1041: by the triangle and football diagrams with one insertion of the isospin--breaking
1042: $\pi \pi NN$ vertex with the LEC $c_5$ (using again the notation of \cite{Fet98}).
1043: This vertex is proportional to $\epsilon M_\pi^2$ and is thus formally of the lower order than
1044: the electromagnetic $\pi \pi NN$ vertices $\propto e^2/(4 \pi)^2$.
1045: As we have seen on an example of the nucleon mass difference, in practice, both effects might be
1046: of a comparable size. For a recent work on this kind of isospin--breaking forces see \cite{nis02}.
1047: The remaining contributions are given by the
1048: static $\pi \gamma$--exchange of the order $\sim e^2/(4 \pi )^2$ and by two independent contact interactions
1049: \beq
1050: \label{cont_em}
1051: \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi )^2} \, (N^\dagger \tau_3 N )\, (N^\dagger \tau_3 N) \quad \quad \mbox{and}
1052: \quad \quad \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi )^2} \, (N^\dagger \tau_3 N )\, (N^\dagger N)\,
1053: \eeq
1054: which lead to both charge independence and charge symmetry breaking.
1055: Notice that, in practice, the effect of the second interaction cannot be disentangled from the effect of
1056: term in eq.~(\ref{cont_str}).
1057:
1058: \medskip\noindent
1059: Let us now estimate the size of isospin violation in the NN scattering due to the nucleon mass difference.
1060: We first note that the first relativistic corrections to the isospin--symmetric part of the two--nucleon force
1061: appear at at N$^3$LO ($\nu = 4$) and are given by $1/m^2$--corrections to the 1PE and
1062: $1/m$--corrections to the leading 2PE potential.
1063: Consequently, the size of the corresponding isospin--violating terms can be estimated as
1064: \beq
1065: \frac{\Delta m}{m} \, \frac{Q^4}{\Lambda_\chi^4} \sim \frac{\epsilon M_\pi^2}{m \Lambda_\chi} \, \frac{Q^4}{\Lambda_\chi^4}
1066: = \mathcal{O} \left[ \frac{Q^8}{\Lambda_\chi^8} \right] \,,
1067: \eeq
1068: Such terms therefore contribute only at the order $\nu=8$. In addition to the above mentioned corrections,
1069: one has to account for the fact that the neutron--proton mass difference leads to energy shifts
1070: of virtual states when calculating two--pion exchange diagrams. This can also easily been understood in
1071: the language of the heavy baryon formalism: factoring out the exponential factor $\exp ( i m_p v \cdot x)$
1072: from the proton and neutron fields, where $v$ and $x$ denote the proton velocity and position, the neutron
1073: propagator receives a shift in the denominator $\propto (m_n - m_p)$ after integrating out the small field components.
1074: It is then easy to see that the isospin--violating 2PE is suppressed against its isospin--conserving part
1075: by a factor:
1076: \beq
1077: \sim \frac{\Delta m}{Q} \sim \frac{\epsilon M_\pi^2}{\Lambda_\chi Q} = \mathcal{O} \left[\frac{Q^2}{\Lambda_\chi^2} \right]\,.
1078: \eeq
1079: Therefore, neutron--proton mass difference in 2PE starts to contribute at $\nu = 4$.
1080: This sort of charge symmetry breaking corrections has been studied recently in \cite{coon96,friar03}.
1081: Notice further that, as pointed out in \cite{friar03}, certain loop integrals in the 2PE contributions
1082: give only one power of $(4 \pi)$ instead of expected two powers and are, therefore, enhanced.
1083: We will not take this enhancement into account in the present work.
1084: Apart from the above mentioned corrections to the nucleon-nucleon force, the
1085: neutron--proton mass difference
1086: has to be taken into account in kinematical relations as discussed in appendix \ref{sec:kinem}, as well as
1087: in the expression for the kinetic energy of the nucleons. Let us consider this last effect. Its contribution
1088: to the scattering amplitude can be estimated by looking at the Lippmann--Schwinger equation
1089: \beq
1090: T = V + V \, G_0 \, T\,,
1091: \eeq
1092: where $G_0$ refers to the free propagator of two nucleons. Both terms on the right-hand-side of the above
1093: equation are of the same order $\nu = 0$. Taking into account the nucleon mass difference in $G_0$ leads
1094: therefore to a correction to the T--matrix of the order
1095: \beq
1096: \sim \frac{\Delta m}{m} \sim \frac{\epsilon M_\pi^2}{m \Lambda_\chi} = \mathcal{O}
1097: \left[ \frac{Q^4}{\Lambda_\chi^4} \right] \,,
1098: \eeq
1099: and thus contribute at $\nu = 4$. Notice that this estimation is valid for both relativistic
1100: and nonrelativistic expressions for the two--nucleon propagator $G_0$.
1101:
1102: \medskip\noindent
1103: All other isospin--violating corrections are suppressed by further powers of the small parameter.
1104: We would like, however, to point out an important limitation of our estimation due to the fact
1105: that we do not explicitly account for the long--range nature of electromagnetic forces. Consider, for example,
1106: the leading one--pion and one--photon exchange forces. For simplicity, we will restrict ourselves to the
1107: $^1S_0$ proton--proton channel, where the 1PE potential takes the form:
1108: \beq
1109: V_{1 \pi}^{(0)} (q) = \biggl(\frac{g_A}{2F_\pi}\biggr)^2 \, \frac{q^2}
1110: {q^2 + M_\pi^2}~.
1111: \eeq
1112: The static Coulomb interaction,
1113: \beq
1114: \label{coul}
1115: V_{\rm Coulomb} (q) = \frac{e^2}{q^2}\,,
1116: \eeq
1117: is suppressed compared to $V_{1 \pi}^{(0)} (q)$ by two powers of the small
1118: parameter $Q/\Lambda_\chi$ according to the power counting.
1119: Such an estimation works fairly well for momenta $q$ of the order $q \sim M_\pi$,
1120: for which we get $V_{1 \pi}^{(0)} (q = M_\pi) \sim 23$ GeV$^{-2}$ and
1121: $V_{\rm Coulomb} (q= M_\pi) \sim 5$ GeV$^{-2}$. The power counting, however, breaks down for
1122: small momenta $q \ll M_\pi$ due to the long--range nature of the Coulomb interaction.
1123: For example, for $q = M_\pi/4$ one gets: $V_{1 \pi}^{(0)} (q = M_\pi/4) \sim 3$ GeV$^{-2}$ while
1124: $V_{\rm Coulomb} (q= M_\pi/4) \sim 82$ GeV$^{-2}$. Consequently, the Coulomb interaction provides the
1125: dominant contribution to the potential for small momenta and requires
1126: a nonperturbative treatment at low energy.
1127: A possible way out of the above mentioned inconsistency
1128: would be to develop separate and systematic power counting for momenta
1129: much smaller than the pion mass. This is, however, beyond the scope of the present work.
1130: Notice that a similar idea with two different power counting regimes has been applied recently to
1131: the nucleon Compton scattering in order to extend the region of applicability of the effective field theory in the
1132: $\Delta$--region \cite{pasc03}. In the present analysis, we will simply take
1133: into account higher--order corrections to the
1134: long--range electromagnetic interactions when determining the values of the LECs
1135: in order to correct for the low--momentum behavior of the NN potential.
1136: The first long--range corrections beyond the ones considered above result from two--photon exchange, whose size can be estimated
1137: as
1138: \beq
1139: \sim \frac{e^2}{Q^2} \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi)^2} F_\pi^2 = \mathcal{O}
1140: \left[ \frac{Q^6}{\Lambda_\chi^6} \right]\,.
1141: \eeq
1142: It thus formally appears at the order $\nu = 6$.
1143: In addition, at the same order $\nu = 6$ one has to take into account relativistic $1/m$ corrections to the
1144: static one--photon exchange, which provide a contribution of the following size:
1145: \beq
1146: \sim \frac{e^2}{Q^2} \, F_\pi^2 \, \frac{Q^2}{m^2} = \frac{e^2}{m^2} \, F_\pi^2 = \mathcal{O}
1147: \left[ \frac{Q^6}{\Lambda_\chi^6} \right]\,.
1148: \eeq
1149: The relative sizes of various isospin--breaking contributions discussed above
1150: are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:isosp}.
1151: In what follows, we will give explicit expressions for the above mentioned interactions.
1152:
1153:
1154: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1155: \subsubsection{Finite--range isospin--breaking forces}
1156: \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
1157: %\setcounter{equation}{0}
1158: \label{sec:isospFR}
1159:
1160: Let us now give the explicit expressions for the finite--range isospin--violating interactions
1161: up to N$\LOI$.
1162: The dominant $\nu = 2$ contribution ($\LOI$) due to $M_{\pi^\pm} \neq M_{\pi^0}$ can be
1163: taken into account by replacing the isospin--conserving expression
1164: %*EE
1165: $V_{1\pi} (q)$ in eq.~(\ref{opep_full}) by:
1166: \beqa
1167: \label{ope}
1168: V_{1\pi, \; pp} (q) &=& V_{1\pi, \; nn} (q)= -\biggl(\frac{g_A}{2F_\pi}\biggr)^2 \, \vec{\tau}_1 \cdot
1169: \vec{\tau}_2 \, \frac{\vec{\sigma}_1 \cdot\vec{q}\,\vec{\sigma}_2\cdot\vec{q}}
1170: {q^2 + M_{\pi^0}^2} \, \left( 1 - \frac{p^2 + p'{}^2}{2 m^2} \right) ~, \nn
1171: V_{1\pi, \; np, \; {T=1}} (q) &=& -\biggl(\frac{g_A}{2F_\pi}\biggr)^2 \, \vec{\tau}_1 \cdot
1172: \vec{\tau}_2 \, \vec{\sigma}_1 \cdot\vec{q}\,\vec{\sigma}_2\cdot\vec{q}
1173: \left( \frac{2}{q^2 + M_{\pi^\pm}^2} - \frac{1}{q^2 + M_{\pi^0}^2} \right)
1174: \, \left( 1 - \frac{p^2 + p'{}^2}{2 m^2} \right)\,, \nn
1175: V_{1\pi, \; np, \; {T=0}} (q) &=& -\biggl(\frac{g_A}{2F_\pi}\biggr)^2 \, \vec{\tau}_1 \cdot
1176: \vec{\tau}_2 \, \frac{\vec{\sigma}_1 \cdot\vec{q}\,\vec{\sigma}_2\cdot\vec{q}}{q^2 + M_{\pi}^2}
1177: \, \left( 1 - \frac{p^2 + p'{}^2}{2 m^2} \right)\,,
1178: \eeqa
1179: where $T$ denotes the total isospin, $M_{\pi^\pm}$ and $M_{\pi^0}$ are the masses of the charged and neutral pions, respectively,
1180: and
1181: \beq\label{avmass}
1182: \Mp = \frac{2}{3} \Mpp + \frac{1}{3} \Mpn = 138.03~{\rm MeV}~.
1183: \eeq
1184: The 1PE potential gets further charge independence and charge symmetry breaking
1185: contributions at N$\LOI$ and NN$\LOI$ due to isospin violating
1186: pion--nucleon couplings. The final expression for the 1PE potential is then of the kind:
1187: $\eta_i V_{1 \pi}^{(0)}$, where
1188: $\eta_i$ are the channel--dependent constants: $\eta_{nn} \neq \eta_{np} \neq \eta_{pp}$.
1189: Unfortunately, the actual size of isospin--violating corrections to the pion--nucleon coupling is
1190: not well determined at presence \cite{kolck96}.
1191:
1192: %Furtehr corrections result from pion mass difference in the NLO part of the two--pion exchange
1193: %potential \cite{friar99}, $\pi \gamma$--exchange \cite{bira98} as well as two charge--dependent
1194: %contact interactions without derivatives. The letters only contribute to S--waves and enable
1195: %an accurate fit of all three $^1S_0$ scattering length $a_{pp}$, $a_{np}$, and $a_{nn}$.
1196: %In the present work we however have to take into account only this short--range terms and to omite
1197: %the two remaining subleading contributions in order to be consistent with the results of Nijmegen partial
1198: %wave analysis which are used in our fits instead of real data.
1199: %Indeed, taking into account e.g. isospin violation in the two--pion exchange potential would lead to charge
1200: %independence breaking in the {\it np} and {\it pp} triplet P--wave phase shifts (which comes out parameter--free
1201: %at this order) not consistent with the Nijmegen PWA. For the sake of completeness, we will nevertheless
1202: %briefly discuss the above mentioned corrections.
1203: \medskip\noindent
1204: The pion mass difference
1205: in the 2PE can be incorporated as outlined in ref.\cite{FvK}.
1206: It is most convenient to consider the isoscalar and isovector 2PE piece
1207: separately,
1208: \beq
1209: V_{2\pi} = V_{2\pi}^0 + V_{2\pi}^1 \, \vec{\tau}_1 \cdot
1210: \vec{\tau}_2~.
1211: \eeq
1212: The isoscalar part $V_{2\pi}^0$ can be expressed as \cite{FvK}
1213: \beq
1214: V_{2\pi}^0 = \frac{2}{3} V_{2\pi}^0 (\Mpp, \Mpp ) +
1215: \frac{1}{3} V_{2\pi}^0 (\Mpn, \Mpn ) = V_{2\pi}^0 (\Mp, \Mp ) + {\cal O}\left[ \left(\frac{\Mpp - \Mpn}{\Mpp}
1216: \right)^2 \right]~,
1217: \eeq
1218: where the arguments of $V_{2\pi}^0$ denote the masses of exchanged pions.
1219: %*EE
1220: % and
1221: %\beq\label{avmass}
1222: %\Mp = \frac{2}{3} \Mpp + \frac{1}{3} \Mpn = 138.03~{\rm MeV}~.
1223: %\eeq
1224: For the isovector 2PE $V_{2\pi}^1$, one has the general structure
1225: \beqa\label{TPE1}
1226: V_{2\pi}^1 &=& \tau_1^3 \, \tau_2^3 \, V_{2\pi}^1 (\Mpp, \Mpp )
1227: + (\vec{\tau}_1 \cdot \vec{\tau}_2 -\tau_1^3 \, \tau_2^3 ) \,
1228: V_{2\pi}^1 (\Mpp, \Mpn ) \nonumber \\
1229: &=& \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1230: V_{2\pi}^1 (\Mpp , \Mpp ) & {\rm for}~~pp~~{\rm and}~~nn~, \\
1231: 2V_{2\pi}^1 (\Mpp , \Mpn ) - V_{2\pi}^1 (\Mpp , \Mpp ) \sim V_{2\pi}^1 (\Mpn , \Mpn )
1232: & {\rm for}~~np, T = 1~. \end{array}\right. \quad
1233: \eeqa
1234: The result in the last line of the above equation is valid modulo
1235: $(( \Mpp - \Mpn )/ \Mpp)^2$--corrections.
1236: For the $T=0$ case the 2PE potential reads $V_{2 \pi} (M_\pi, \, M_\pi )$.
1237:
1238: \medskip\noindent
1239: The $\pi\gamma$ exchange diagrams have been calculated in
1240: ref.\cite{vKNij} and we give below the results obtained in that paper
1241: omitting all computational details. Due to isospin, only charged pion
1242: exchange can contribute to the $\pi\gamma$ potential $V_{\pi\gamma}$
1243: and thus it only affects the $np$ system. The potential has the form
1244: \beqa\label{Vpiga}
1245: V_{\pi\gamma} (\vec{q} \, ) &=& -{g_A^2 \over 4F_\pi^2 \Mppz} \,
1246: (\vec{\tau}_1 \cdot \vec{\tau}_2 -\tau_1^3 \, \tau_2^3 ) \,
1247: \vec{\sigma}_1 \cdot \vec{q} \, \vec{\sigma}_2 \cdot \vec{q} \,\, V_{\pi\gamma}
1248: (\beta)~, \nonumber \\
1249: V_{\pi\gamma}(\beta ) &=& {\alpha \over \pi} \biggl[ -{ (1-\beta^2)^2
1250: \over 2\beta^4 (1+\beta^2) } \ln(1+\beta^2) + {1\over 2\beta^2}
1251: - {2\bar{\gamma} \over 1+\beta^2} \biggr]~.
1252: \eeqa
1253: Here, $\beta = |\vec{q} \,|/\Mpp$ and $\bar{\gamma}$ is a
1254: regularization scheme dependent constant.
1255: The analytical form of
1256: $V_{\pi\gamma}$ is similar to the one of the 1PE potential, but it differs in
1257: strength by the factor $\alpha/\pi \simeq 1/400$.
1258:
1259: \medskip\noindent
1260: Finally, the expressions for the remaining isospin--violating 2PE contributions at NN$\LOI$
1261: have been given in \cite{friar03}.
1262:
1263:
1264: \subsubsection{Long--range (soft) isospin--breaking forces}
1265: \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
1266: %\setcounter{equation}{0}
1267: \label{sec:isospIR}
1268:
1269: We now discuss long--range isospin--breaking interactions
1270: which are often referred to in the literature as
1271: ``electromagnetic forces''.
1272: The static Coulomb force in eq.~(\ref{coul}) does certainly not completely represent
1273: the electromagnetic interaction between two nucleons but only its leading
1274: contribution. The first long--range corrections to the static Coulomb force are either suppressed
1275: by $m^{-2}$ (relativistic corrections to the static one--photon exchange)
1276: or by an additional power of the fine--structure constant $\alpha$ (two--photon exchange).
1277: Although all these effects are formally of higher order,
1278: we nevertheless prefer to take them into account explicitly for the following reasons.
1279: First of all, the effects of these interactions are magnified at low energy due to their long--range nature.
1280: Further, as explained above, in our analysis we have to take into account isospin--breaking effects in the same
1281: way as it is done in \cite{nijpwa}.
1282: The electromagnetic interaction for the {\it pp} and {\it np} case is given by
1283: \beqa
1284: \label{vc1vc2}
1285: V_{\rm EM} (pp) &=& V_{\rm C1} + V_{\rm C2} + V_{\rm VP} + V_{\rm MM} (pp)\,, \nn
1286: V_{\rm EM} (np) &=& V_{\rm MM} (np)\,, \nn
1287: V_{\rm EM} (nn) &=& V_{\rm MM} (nn)\,,
1288: \eeqa
1289: where $V_{\rm C1}$ and $V_{\rm C2}$ are usually referred to as ``improved Coulomb potential''.
1290: They take into account the relativistic $1/m^2$--corrections to the static
1291: Coulomb potential and include contributions of the two--photon--exchange diagrams \cite{austin}.
1292: The explicit coordinate--space expressions read:
1293: \beqa
1294: \label{modCoul}
1295: V_{\rm C1} &=& \frac{\alpha '}{r} \,, \nn
1296: V_{\rm C2} &=& - \frac{1}{2 m_p^2} \left[ (\Delta + k^2 ) \frac{\alpha}{r} +
1297: \frac{\alpha}{r} (\Delta + k^2 ) \right] \sim - \frac{\alpha \alpha '}{m_p r^2}\,,
1298: \eeqa
1299: where $\Delta$ denotes the Laplacian.
1300: The energy--dependent constant
1301: $\alpha '$ is given by
1302: \beq
1303: \alpha ' = \alpha
1304: \frac{m_p^2 + 2 k^2}{m_p \sqrt{m_p^2 + k^2}}\,.
1305: \eeq
1306: Here $k$ is the c.m.s.~scattering momentum.
1307: The term $V_{\rm C2}$ is chosen in such a way that it leads to an exact cancellation between the proper
1308: two--photon and the iterated one--photon exchange, see \cite{austin} for more details.
1309: The approximation made in the second line of eq.~(\ref{modCoul}) is based upon using Coulomb distorted--wave
1310: Born approximation (CDWBA), see \cite{Berg88} for more details. The modified
1311: Coulomb potential $V_{\rm C1}$ in eq.~(\ref{modCoul}) can be treated in momentum space in the
1312: same way as the usual static Coulomb potential as described
1313: in appendix \ref{sec:coul}.\footnote{Clearly, one has to use the appropriately adjusted regular and
1314: irregular Coulomb functions $F_l (r)$ and $G_l (r)$.}
1315: The magnetic moment interaction $V_{\rm MM}$ in eq.~(\ref{vc1vc2}) is given by \cite{stoks90}:
1316: \beqa
1317: \label{vmm}
1318: V_{\rm MM} (pp) &=& - \frac{\alpha}{4 m_p^2 r^3} \left[ \mu_p^2 S_{12} + (6 + 8 \kappa_p )
1319: \vec L \cdot \vec S \right]\,, \nn
1320: V_{\rm MM} (np) &=& - \frac{\alpha \kappa_n}{2 m_n r^3} \left[ \frac{\mu_p}{2 m_p} S_{12} + \frac{1}{m}
1321: (\vec L \cdot \vec S + \vec L \cdot \vec A ) \right] \,, \nn
1322: V_{\rm MM} (nn) &=& - \frac{\alpha \mu_n^2}{4 m_n^2 r^3} S_{12} \,,
1323: \eeqa
1324: where $\mu_p=2.793$ and $\mu_n=-1.913$ are the proton and neutron magnetic moments and
1325: $\kappa_p= \mu_p -1$, $\kappa_n= \mu_n$ their anomalous magnetic moments. Further,
1326: $\vec L$ is the orbital angular momentum, $\vec A = ( \vec \sigma_1 - \vec \sigma_2 )/2$
1327: and $S_{12} = ( \vec \sigma_1 \cdot \vec r )
1328: ( \vec \sigma_2 \cdot \vec r )/r^2 - \vec \sigma_1 \cdot \vec \sigma_2/3$.
1329: The corresponding expressions in momentum space can be found e.g. in \cite{stoksPhD}.
1330: Finally, the vacuum polarization potential $V_{\rm VP}$ derived by Ueling \cite{ueling},
1331: see also \cite{durand}, reads:
1332: \beq
1333: \label{vp}
1334: V_{\rm VP} = \frac{2 \alpha}{3 \pi} \frac{\alpha '}{r} \int_1^\infty dx \,
1335: e^{-2 m_e r x} \left( 1 + \frac{1}{2 x^2} \right) \frac{(x^2 -1)^{1/2}}{x^2}\,,
1336: \eeq
1337: where $m_e$ is the electron mass. Clearly, the vacuum polarization potential is not of an infinitely long range.
1338: Its range is governed by the electron mass, which is still tiny compared to the relevant mass
1339: scales in the nucleon--nucleon problem. This is similar to the treatment of vacuum polarization
1340: in EFT approaches for hadronic bound states, see e.g. \cite{ES}.
1341:
1342: \medskip\noindent
1343: It is important to realize that the expressions (\ref{vc1vc2}) refer
1344: to point--like nucleons and only define the long--distance
1345: asymptotics of the corresponding electromagnetic interaction. The short--distance structure is more
1346: complicated and not shown explicitly. In particular, we do not include zero--range (for point--like nucleons)
1347: terms as well as electromagnetic form factors which can, in principle, be calculated consistently in EFT.
1348: Such short--range terms with the nucleon form factors of a dipole form are, for example,
1349: included in the Argonne V18 potential.
1350: Last but not least, we note that the above consideration of the electromagnetic effects is based on the
1351: ``nonrelativistic'' Schr\"odinger equation (\ref{Schroed_nonrel}), which will be defined in the next section.
1352: To close this section let us point out some well known
1353: practical complications which arise due to the presence of the long--range electromagnetic forces.
1354: \begin{itemize}
1355: \item
1356: Asymptotic states are affected by electromagnetic interactions. The S-matrix has to be formulated in terms of
1357: asymptotic Coulomb states.
1358: \item
1359: The formally suppressed (as compared to the strong nuclear force) electromagnetic interactions are enhanced at low energy.
1360: The Coulomb interaction requires a nonperturbative treatment. Even the effects due to magnetic moment interaction
1361: might be large for certain observables under specific kinematical conditions. For example,
1362: in the {\it np} system, it gives rise to a forward--angle dip structure for the
1363: analyzing power.
1364: \item
1365: The expansion of the scattering amplitude in partial waves converges very slowly in the presence
1366: of magnetic moment interactions.
1367: \end{itemize}
1368:
1369: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1370: \section{Scattering equations}
1371: \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
1372: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1373: \label{sec:LS}
1374:
1375:
1376: We start with the relativistic Schr\"odinger equation (\ref{schroed_rel})
1377: and assume the potential to be of a finite range. The treatment of the nucleon--nucleon scattering
1378: problem in the presence of the long--range Coulomb interaction is relegated to
1379: appendix~\ref{sec:coul}.
1380: The scattering states are described by the Lippmann--Schwinger equation
1381: corresponding to the Schr\"odinger equation (\ref{schroed_rel}).
1382: The LS equation (for the $T$--matrix) projected onto states with orbital angular momentum
1383: $l$, total spin $s$ and total angular momentum $j$ is
1384: \beq\label{LSeq}
1385: T^{sj}_{ll'} (p,p') = V^{sj}_{ll'} (p,p') + \sum_{l''} \,
1386: \int_0^\infty \frac{dp'' \, {p''}^2}{(2 \pi )^3} \, V^{sj}_{ll''} (p,p'')
1387: \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{{p'}\,^2+m^2}- 2\sqrt{{p''}^2 + m^2} +i\eta} T^{sj}_{l''l'} (p'',p')~,
1388: \eeq
1389: with $\eta \to 0^+$.
1390: In the uncoupled case, $l$ is conserved. The partial wave projected
1391: potential $V^{sj}_{l',l} (p',p)$ can be obtained using the formulae collected in appendix~\ref{sec:pw}.
1392: The relation between the $S$-- and on--the--energy shell $T$--matrix is given by
1393: \beq
1394: \label{Sdef}
1395: S_{l l'}^{s j} (p) = \delta_{l l'} - \frac{i}{8 \pi^2}
1396: \, p \, \sqrt{p^2 + m^2} \, T_{l l'}^{s j} (p)~.
1397: \eeq
1398: The phase shifts in the uncoupled cases can be obtained from the
1399: $S$--matrix via
1400: \beq
1401: S_{jj}^{0j} = e^{ 2 i \delta_{j}^{0j} } \; , \quad
1402: S_{jj}^{1j} = e^{ 2 i \delta_{j}^{1j} } \;,
1403: \eeq
1404: where we have used the notation $\delta^{sj}_l$.
1405: Throughout, we use the so--called Stapp parametrization~\cite{stapp}
1406: of the $S$--matrix in the coupled channels ($j>0$):
1407: \beqa
1408: S &=& \left( \begin{array}{cc} S_{j-1 \, j-1}^{1j} & S_{j-1 \, j+1}^{1j} \\
1409: S_{j+1 \, j-1}^{1j} & S_{j+1 \, j+1}^{1j} \end{array} \right) \nn
1410: &=&
1411: \left( \begin{array}{cc} \cos{(2 \epsilon)} \exp{(2 i \delta^{1j}_{j-1})} &
1412: i \sin{(2 \epsilon)} \exp{(i \delta^{1j}_{j-1} +i \delta^{1j}_{j+1})} \\
1413: i \sin{(2 \epsilon)} \exp{(i \delta^{1j}_{j-1} +i \delta^{1j}_{j+1})} &
1414: \cos{(2 \epsilon)} \exp{(2 i \delta^{1j}_{j+1})} \end{array} \right)~.
1415: \eeqa
1416: For the discussion of the effective range expansion for the $^3S_1$ partial wave
1417: we will use the different parametrization of the $S$--matrix, namely the one due to
1418: Blatt and Biedenharn \cite{Bl52}. The connection between these two sets of parameter
1419: is given by the following equations:
1420: \beqa
1421: \label{blattb}
1422: \delta_{j-1} + \delta_{j+1} &=& \hat{\delta}_{j-1} + \hat{\delta}_{j+1}\;, \nn
1423: \sin ( \delta_{j-1} - \delta_{j+1} ) &=& \frac{\tan ( 2 \epsilon)}{\tan (2 \hat{\epsilon})}\;, \nn
1424: \sin (\hat{\delta}_{j-1} - \hat{\delta}_{j+1}) &=& \frac{\sin ( 2 \epsilon)}{\sin (2 \hat{\epsilon})}\;,
1425: \eeqa
1426: where $\hat{\delta}$ and $\hat{\epsilon}$ denote the quantities in the
1427: Blatt--Biedenharn parametrization
1428: and we have omitted the superscripts for $\delta$'s.
1429:
1430: \medskip\noindent
1431: To close this section we would like to remind the reader that the Schr\"odinger
1432: and Lippmann--Schwinger equations (\ref{schroed_rel}) and (\ref{LSeq})
1433: may be cast into a nonrelativistic form.
1434: One way to do that is using the Kamada--Gl\"ockle transformation \cite{KGT},
1435: which relates the relativistic and nonrelativistic c.m.s.~momenta $\vec p$ and $\vec q$
1436: via:
1437: \beq
1438: \label{momenta}
1439: T_{\rm kin} = 2 \sqrt{p^2 + m^2} -2 m = \frac{q^2}{m}\,.
1440: \eeq
1441: The potential $\tilde V$ to be used in the nonrelativistic
1442: Schr\"odinger equation
1443: \beq
1444: \label{schr_nr1}
1445: \left[ \frac{q^2}{m} + \tilde V \right] \phi
1446: = E \phi\,,
1447: \eeq
1448: is defined in the partial--wave projected representation as
1449: \beq
1450: \label{Vnonrel_true}
1451: \tilde V^{sj}_{ll'} (q, \,q ') = \sqrt{\left(1+\frac{q^2}{2 m^2} \right)
1452: \sqrt{1+\frac{q^2}{4 m^2}}} \;V^{sj}_{ll'} \left( \sqrt{q^2+\frac{q^4}{4 m^2}},
1453: \sqrt{q' \,^2+\frac{q ' \,^4}{4 m^2}} \right) \sqrt{\left(1+\frac{q ' \,^2}{2 m^2} \right)
1454: \sqrt{1+\frac{q ' \, ^2}{4 m^2}}}\,,
1455: \eeq
1456: where $V^{sj}_{ll'} (p, \, p' )$ is the potential entering the relativistic Schr\"odinger
1457: equation (\ref{schroed_rel}). The wave--function $\phi$ is related to $\Psi$ in eq.~(\ref{schroed_rel})
1458: via
1459: \beq
1460: \label{phipsi}
1461: \phi ( q) = \sqrt{\left(1+\frac{q^2}{2 m^2} \right)
1462: \sqrt{1+\frac{q^2}{4 m^2}}} \; \Psi\left( \sqrt{q^2+\frac{q^4}{4 m^2}} \right)\,.
1463: \eeq
1464: The S--matrix is defined via
1465: \beq
1466: \label{Sdef1}
1467: \tilde
1468: S_{l l'}^{s j} (q) = \delta_{l l'} - \frac{i}{8 \pi^2}
1469: \, q \, m \, \tilde T_{l l'}^{s j} (q)~,
1470: \eeq
1471: where the T--matrix $\tilde T_{l l'}^{s j}$ satisfies the usual nonrelativistic Lippmann--Schwinger
1472: equation
1473: \beq
1474: \label{LSeq_nonrel}
1475: \tilde T^{sj}_{ll'} (q,q') = \tilde V^{sj}_{ll'} (q,q') + \sum_{l''} \,
1476: \int_0^\infty \frac{dq'' \, {q''}^2}{(2 \pi )^3} \, \tilde V^{sj}_{ll''} (q,q'')
1477: \frac{m}{q' \, ^2- {q''}\,^2 +i\eta} \tilde T^{sj}_{l''l'} (q'',q')~.
1478: \eeq
1479: It can be demonstrated \cite{KGT} that the S--matrix $ \tilde S^{sj}_{ll'}$
1480: equals for any given energy the S--matrix $S^{sj}_{ll'}$ defined in eq.~(\ref{Sdef}),
1481: that is $ \tilde S^{sj}_{ll'} (q) = S^{sj}_{ll'} (p)$.
1482: %%
1483: Another commonly used way to cast the relativistic Schr\"odinger equation (\ref{schroed_rel})
1484: into a nonrelativistic--like form is based upon the algebraic manipulations with this
1485: equation, see \cite{Friar99}.
1486: More precisely, adding $2 m$ to both sides in eq.~(\ref{schroed_rel}) with subsequent squaring them,
1487: subtracting $4 m^2$ and dividing both sides by $4 m$ leads to
1488: \beq\label{Schroed_nonrel}
1489: \left[ \frac{p^2}{m} + \bar V \right] \Psi
1490: = \frac{k^2}{m} \Psi\,,
1491: \eeq
1492: where the momentum $k$ is related to the energy $E$ in eq.~(\ref{schroed_rel}) via
1493: \beq
1494: \label{rel_kin}
1495: E = 2 \sqrt{k^2 + m^2} - 2 m\,,
1496: \eeq
1497: and the potential operator $\bar V$ is given by
1498: \beq
1499: \label{pot_nonrel_symb}
1500: \bar V = \left\{ \frac{\sqrt{p^2 + m^2}}{2 m} , \; V \right\} + \frac{V^2}{4 m}\,,
1501: \eeq
1502: or, in the partial--wave projected basis, by
1503: \beq
1504: \label{pot_nonrel}
1505: \bar V^{sj}_{ll'} (p,p') = \left( \frac{\sqrt{p^2 + m^2}}{2 m}+\frac{\sqrt{p'\,^2 + m^2}}{2 m} \right)
1506: V^{sj}_{ll'} (p,p')
1507: +\frac{1}{4 m} \sum_{l''} \,
1508: \int_0^\infty \frac{dp'' \, {p''}^2}{(2 \pi )^3} \, V^{sj}_{ll''} (p,p'')
1509: V^{sj}_{l''l'} (p'',p')\,.
1510: \eeq
1511: The curly bracket in eq.~(\ref{pot_nonrel_symb}) denote an anticommutator.
1512: Notice that contrary to the previously described approach, the ``nonrelativistic''
1513: Schr\"odinger equation (\ref{Schroed_nonrel}) still requires relativistic kinematics
1514: in relating the energy and momentum, see eq.~(\ref{rel_kin}).
1515: The S-- and T--matrices $\bar S_{l l'}^{s j}$ and $\bar T_{l l'}^{s j}$ are defined via
1516: eqs.(\ref{Sdef1}) and (\ref{LSeq_nonrel}), respectively (with $\tilde S$, $\tilde T$, $q$, $q '$ being replaced
1517: by $\bar S$, $\bar T$, $p$, $p'$).
1518: At any given momentum $p$ one has $\bar S_{l l'}^{s j} (p) = S_{l l'}^{s j} (p)$.
1519: We have also checked numerically that both equations (\ref{schr_nr1}) and (\ref{Schroed_nonrel})
1520: lead to identical results.
1521: %%
1522: It should be understood that both ways to cast the relativistic
1523: Schr\"odinger equation (\ref{schroed_rel}) into a nonrelativistic form discussed in this section
1524: are limited to the two--nucleon problem. To the best of our knowledge, no extension to different systems
1525: has yet been offered.
1526: Consequently, three-- and more--nucleon observables calculated using a nonrelativistic approach
1527: with the NN potential $\tilde V$ or $\bar V$ will lead to different results.
1528: One should therefore use the relativistic Schr\"odinger equation (or Faddeev--Yakubovsky equations)
1529: with the potential $V$
1530: in such cases. The same applies for processes with external probes.
1531:
1532:
1533:
1534: \section{Bound state}
1535: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1536: \label{sec:bs}
1537:
1538: We now turn to bound state (i.e.~deuteron) properties.
1539: The deuteron binding energy $E_{\rm d}$ and wave function $\Psi_l^{\rm d} (p)$
1540: can be obtained from the homogeneous part of eq.(\ref{LSeq}):
1541: \beq\label{LSb1}
1542: \Psi_l^{\rm d} (p) = \frac{1}{E_{\rm d} - (2 \sqrt{p^2 + m^2} - 2 m )} \, \sum_{l'} \, \int_0^\infty \frac{dp'
1543: \, {p'}^2}{(2 \pi )^3} \, V^{sj}_{l,l'} (p,p') \, \Psi_{l'}^{\rm d} (p')~,
1544: \eeq
1545: with $s=j=1$ and $l=l'=0,2$, or, alternatively, from the nonrelativistic--like equation
1546: \beq\label{LSb2}
1547: \Psi_l^{\rm d} (p) = \frac{1}{E_{\rm d} + E_{\rm d}^2/(4 m) - p^2/m} \, \sum_{l'} \, \int_0^\infty \frac{dp'
1548: \, {p'}^2}{(2 \pi )^3} \, {\bar V}^{sj}_{l,l'} (p,p') \, \Psi_{l'}^{\rm d} (p')~,
1549: \eeq
1550: where ${\bar V}^{sj}_{l,l'} (p,p')$ is related to ${V}^{sj}_{l,l'} (p,p')$ via eq.~(\ref{pot_nonrel}).
1551: Here we have used the relation (\ref{rel_kin}) between the binding energy and momentum.
1552: In addition, one can also use the nonrelativistic Schr\"odinger approach as described in the
1553: previous section, which leads to:
1554: \beq\label{LSb3}
1555: \phi_l^{\rm d} (p) = \frac{1}{E_{\rm d} - p^2/m} \, \sum_{l'} \, \int_0^\infty \frac{dp'
1556: \, {p'}^2}{(2 \pi )^3} \, {\tilde V}^{sj}_{l,l'} (p,p') \, \phi_{l'}^{\rm d} (p')~,
1557: \eeq
1558: where ${\tilde V}^{sj}_{l,l'} (p,p')$ is defined via eq.~(\ref{Vnonrel_true}).
1559: The wave functions $\phi_l^{\rm d} (p)$ and $\Psi_l^{\rm d} (p)$ are related via eq.~(\ref{phipsi}).
1560:
1561: \medskip\noindent
1562: We will now regard the so--called static properties of the deuteron using the nonrelativistic--like equation (\ref{LSb2}).
1563: The latter is fully equivalent to the relativistic equation (\ref{LSb1}) and leads to the same wave function,
1564: but has the advantage that one can apply the standard nonrelativistic formulae to study various deuteron properties.
1565: We denote by $u(r)$ and $w(r)$ the S-- and D--wave components of the coordinate
1566: space wave function $\Psi_{l}^{\rm d} (r)$ and by $u(p)$ and $w(p)$ the
1567: momentum space representations of $u(r)/r$ and $w(r)/r$:
1568: \beq
1569: u(p) = \frac{2}{\pi} \int_0^\infty u(r) j_0(pr) r dr \quad \quad \mbox{and} \quad \quad
1570: w(p) = \frac{2}{\pi} \int_0^\infty w(r) j_0(pr) r dr\,.
1571: \eeq
1572: The wave functions $u$ and $w$ are normalized according to:
1573: \beq
1574: \int_0^\infty dp \, p^2 \, [{u}(p)^2
1575: + {w}(p)^2] = \int_0^\infty dr \, [{u}(r)^2+{w}(r)^2] =
1576: 1\,.
1577: \eeq
1578: The probability $P_{\rm d}$ to find the nucleons inside of the deuteron in a D--state can be calculated via
1579: \beq
1580: \label{Pd}
1581: P_{\rm d}=\int_0^\infty dp \, p^2 \,
1582: {w}(p)^2 = \int_0^\infty dr \, w(r)^2\,.
1583: \eeq
1584: Further, one can compute the deuteron quadrupole moment $Q_{\rm d}$ and the matter root--mean--square (rms) radius
1585: $\sqrt{\langle r^2 \rangle^{\rm d}_m}$
1586: through the following equations:
1587: \beqa
1588: \label{quadr}
1589: Q_{\rm d} &=& \frac{1}{20} \int_0^\infty dr \, r^2
1590: \, w(r) \, [\sqrt{8} u(r) - w(r) ] \nn
1591: &=& -\frac{1}{20}\int_0^\infty dp \,
1592: \biggl\{ \sqrt{8} \biggl[ p^2 \frac{d {u}(p)}{dp}
1593: \frac{d {w}(p)}{dp} + 3p {w}(p) \frac{d {u}(p)}{dp}
1594: \biggr] +
1595: p^2\biggl(\frac{d {w}(p)}{dp}\biggr)^2 +6 {w}(p)^2
1596: \biggr\}
1597: \eeqa
1598: and
1599: \beq
1600: \sqrt{\langle r^2 \rangle^{\rm d}_m} \label{rd}
1601: = \frac{1}{2}\,\biggl[ \,
1602: \int_0^\infty dr \, r^2 \, [{u}(r)^2+{w}(r)^2] \, \biggr]^{1/2} \,.
1603: \eeq
1604: The wave functions $u(r)$ and $w(r)$ behave at large $r$ as:
1605: \beq
1606: u(r) \sim A_S \, {\rm e}^{-\gamma\, r}\,, \quad \quad \quad \quad
1607: w(r) \sim A_D \, {\rm
1608: e}^{-\gamma \, r} \, \biggl(
1609: 1+ \frac{3}{\gamma r} + \frac{3}{(\gamma r)^2} \biggr)\,,
1610: \eeq
1611: where $A_S$ and $A_D$ are the asymptotic normalization factors of the S-- and D--states, respectively,
1612: and $\gamma = \sqrt{| m E_{\rm d} + E_{\rm d}^2/4 |}$. Instead of the quantities $A_S$ and $A_D$, one often introduces
1613: the deuteron normalization $N_{\rm d}$ and the asymptotic D/S ratio $\eta_{\rm d}$ according to:
1614: \beq
1615: N_{\rm d}^2 = A_S^2 + A_D^2\,, \quad \quad \quad \quad
1616: \eta_{\rm d} = \frac{A_D}{A_S}\,.
1617: \eeq
1618: Not all of the above mentioned deuteron properties are observable and can be measured experimentally.
1619: The D--state probability $P_{\rm d}$ is well known to be unobservable
1620: \cite{friar79}. The deuteron electric quadrupole moment corresponds to
1621: the quadrupole form factor at $| \vec q \,| = 0$, where $\vec q$
1622: denotes the momentum transfer.
1623: Clearly, the expression (\ref{quadr}), which gives just the deuteron expectation value
1624: of the quadrupole operator $Q_{ij}$
1625: \beq
1626: Q_{ij} \equiv \frac{1}{4} (3 r_i r_j - \delta_{ij} r^2 )\,,
1627: \eeq
1628: is only an approximation to the experimentally measured value for the quadrupole moment, which i.e.~does not take into
1629: account two--nucleon currents and relativistic corrections, see e.g. \cite{kohno83} for more details.
1630: A related discussion in the framework of EFT can be found in \cite{CP}.
1631: %%
1632: The situation is similar with the deuteron matter rms--radius $\sqrt{\langle r^2 \rangle^{\rm d}_m}$, which
1633: is related to the experimentally measured deuteron charge rms--radius $\sqrt{\langle r^2 \rangle^{\rm d}_{ch}}$ via
1634: \cite{klar86,mart95,friar97}:
1635: \beq
1636: \langle r^2\rangle^{\rm d}_{ch} =
1637: \langle r^2\rangle^{\rm d}_{pt} +\langle r^2\rangle^{p}_{ch} + \langle r^2\rangle^{n}_{ch}\,,
1638: \eeq
1639: where
1640: $\sqrt{\langle r^2\rangle^{p}_{ch}}= 0.886(11)$ fm (taking the mean of the three recent values form
1641: Refs.\cite{RR,MR,IS} and adding the errors in quadrature)
1642: and $\langle r^2\rangle^{n}_{ch}=-0.113(5)$ fm$^2$
1643: \cite{kop95} are the proton and neutron ms--radii, respectively, and
1644: the ``point--nucleon'' radius of the deuteron $ \langle r^2\rangle^{\rm d}_{pt}$ is given by
1645: \beq
1646: \langle r^2\rangle^{\rm d}_{pt} = \langle r^2\rangle^{\rm d}_{m} + \langle r^2\rangle^{\rm d}_{B}\,.
1647: \eeq
1648: Here $\langle r^2\rangle^{\rm d}_{B}$ subsumes the ``nuclear'' effects due to
1649: two--body currents as well as relativistic corrections.
1650: Notice that while the ``point--nucleon'' deuteron radius is measurable, the matter
1651: radius $\langle r^2\rangle^{\rm d}_{m}$
1652: is clearly not an observable quantity. In particular, the separate contributions
1653: $\langle r^2\rangle^{\rm d}_{m}$ and $\langle r^2\rangle^{\rm d}_{B}$
1654: change by a unitary transformation in the two--nucleon system, see \cite{friar97} for more details.
1655: For one specific choice of such a transformation, the effects due to two--nucleon currents
1656: in $\langle r^2\rangle^{\rm d}_{B}$ are estimated to be of the order
1657: $\sim 0.016$ fm$^2$ \cite{friar97}.
1658: %%
1659: Contrary to the previously discussed deuteron quadrupole moment and rms--radius, the asymptotic quantities
1660: $A_S$ and $A_D$ (or, equivalently, $N_{\rm d}$ and $\eta_{\rm d}$) as well as the deuteron binding energy are
1661: observables related to the ``pure'' nucleon--nucleon system. In particular, the binding energy gives the position of the
1662: NN S--matrix pole, while the normalization $N_{\rm d}$ is related to the residue of the pole in the following way, see
1663: e.g.~\cite{stoksPhD,jen00}:
1664: \beq
1665: \label{nd}
1666: N_{\rm d}^2 = \lim_{p \to k_{\rm d}} \frac{(p - k_{\rm d} )}{8 \pi^2} p m \hat{\bar T}{}_{00}^{11} ( p )\,.
1667: \eeq
1668: Here $k_{\rm d} \equiv i \gamma$ and $\hat{\bar T}{}_{00}^{11} ( p )$ is the $l=l'=0$--component of the diagonalized T--matrix
1669: $\hat{\bar T}{}^{11} \equiv U \bar{T}{}^{11} U^{-1}$, where
1670: \beq
1671: U = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \cos \hat \epsilon & \sin \hat\epsilon \\ - \sin \hat\epsilon & \cos
1672: \hat\epsilon \end{array} \right)\,,
1673: \eeq
1674: and $\hat \epsilon$ is the Blatt and Biedenharn mixing angle \cite{Bl52}. Alternatively, one can rewrite
1675: equation (\ref{nd}) in terms of the Blatt and Biedenharn eigenphase shift $\hat \delta_0 (p)$ as:
1676: \beq
1677: \label{nd2}
1678: N_{\rm d}^2 = \lim_{p \to k_{\rm d}} \frac{ 2 i (p - k_{\rm d} )}{1 - i \tan \big[\hat \delta_0 (p) \big]}\,.
1679: \eeq
1680: Notice that the T--matrix becomes real and the phase shift $\delta_0 (p)$ imaginary at negative energies.
1681: Finally, we point out that the asymptotic D/S ratio $\eta_{\rm d}$ is given by the negative of the
1682: Blatt and Biedenharn mixing angle at the deuteron pole:
1683: \cite{stoksPhD}:
1684: \beq
1685: \label{etaD}
1686: \eta_{\rm d} = - \tan \hat \epsilon ( k_{\rm d} )\,.
1687: \eeq
1688:
1689: \medskip\noindent
1690: Up to now we have discussed the deuteron properties in the context of the nonrelativistic--like
1691: equation (\ref{LSb2}). As already pointed out before, one could alternatively use the nonrelativistic
1692: equation (\ref{LSb3}). Both schemes are completely equivalent for the two--nucleon system and lead
1693: to the same phase shifts and the deuteron binding energy. It is also clear from eq.~(\ref{etaD})
1694: that the asymptotic D/S ratio $\eta_{\rm d}$ does not change when one uses eq.~(\ref{LSb3})
1695: instead of eq.~(\ref{LSb2}). On the other hand, the normalization
1696: $N_{\rm d}$ or, equivalently, the asymptotic normalization $A_S$ will change. Eq.~(\ref{nd2})
1697: takes the form
1698: \beq
1699: \label{nd3}
1700: \tilde N_{\rm d}^2 = \lim_{\tilde p \to \tilde k_{\rm d}}
1701: \frac{ 2 i (\tilde p - \tilde k_{\rm d} )}{1 - i \tan \big[\hat{\tilde \delta}_0 (\tilde p) \big]}\,.
1702: \eeq
1703: if one uses the nonrelativistic Schr\"odinger equation (\ref{LSb3}). Here, $\tilde k_{\rm d} = i \sqrt{|m E_{\rm d}|}$
1704: is the nonrelativistic deuteron binding momentum and $\hat{\tilde \delta}_0$ is the S--wave eigenphase shift
1705: calculated using eq.~(\ref{LSeq_nonrel}). Since both schemes are phase equivalent, one has:
1706: \beq
1707: \hat{\tilde \delta}_0 (\tilde p) = \hat \delta_0 ( \tilde p \sqrt{1 + \tilde p^2/(4 m^2)} )\,.
1708: \eeq
1709: Here we made use of the relation (\ref{momenta}) between the relativistic and nonrelativistic momenta.
1710: We have therefore:
1711: \beqa
1712: \label{nd4}
1713: \tilde N_{\rm d}^2 &=& \lim_{\tilde p \to \tilde k_{\rm d}}
1714: \frac{ 2 i (\tilde p - \tilde k_{\rm d} )}{1 - i \tan \big[\hat{\delta}_0 ( \tilde p
1715: \sqrt{1 + \tilde p^2/(4 m^2)} ) \big]} \nn
1716: &=& \lim_{p \to k_{\rm d}}
1717: \frac{ 2 i \left( \sqrt{2 m^2 ( \sqrt{1 + p^2/m^2} -1)} - \sqrt{2 m^2 ( \sqrt{1 + k_{\rm d}^2/m^2} -1)} \right)}
1718: {1 - i \tan \big[\hat{\delta}_0 ( p ) \big]} \nn
1719: &\cong & N_{\rm d}^2 \left( 1 + \frac{3 E_{\rm d}}{8 m} \right)\,.
1720: \eeqa
1721: Here we have again used the relation (\ref{momenta}) between the relativistic and nonrelativistic momenta.
1722: The result in the third line of eq.~(\ref{nd4}) is valid up to corrections of the order $E_{\rm d}^2/m^2$.
1723: It can be rewritten in terms of the asymptotic S--wave normalization as follows:
1724: \beq
1725: \label{ASfin}
1726: \tilde A_S = A_S \left[ 1 + (1 + \eta_{\rm d}^2 ) \frac{3 E_{\rm d}}{16 m} \right]\,.
1727: \eeq
1728: %%
1729: To end this section, we note that the other deuteron properties such as $P_{\rm d}$ in eq.~(\ref{Pd}),
1730: $Q_{\rm d}$ in eq.~(\ref{quadr})\footnote{It would be more appropriate to introduce a special notation
1731: for the quadrupole moment defined in eq.~(\ref{quadr}) using nonrelativistic impulse approximation in
1732: a way similar to the deuteron rms--radius. Unfortunately, no such notation appears in the literature,
1733: which might lead to a confusion. It should be understood that while the deuteron quadrupole moment
1734: represents the response of the deuteron to an external electromagnetic field and is certainly measurable,
1735: Eq.~(\ref{quadr}) gives only an approximation, which is model-dependent and not observable.}
1736: and $\sqrt{\langle r^2\rangle^{\rm d}_{m}}$ in eq.~(\ref{rd}),
1737: which are not observable, are expected to change when calculated using the nonrelativistic wave function
1738: from eq.~(\ref{LSb3}). For a recent reviews on the deuteron the reader is referred to
1739: refs.~\cite{vanorden,GG}.
1740:
1741:
1742:
1743:
1744:
1745:
1746: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1747: \section{The fits}
1748: \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
1749: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1750: \label{sec:fit}
1751:
1752: In this section we discuss the determination
1753: and specify the values
1754: of the various LECs adopted in the present analysis.
1755: Throughout this work, we use the following values
1756: for the pion decay constant $F_\pi$,
1757: the pion masses $M_{\pi^\pm}$, $M_{\pi^0}$ and the proton and neutron masses $m_p$ and $m_n$:
1758: $F_\pi =92.4$ MeV, $M_{\pi^\pm} = 139.5702$ MeV, $M_{\pi^0} = 134.9766$ MeV,
1759: $m_p=938.2720$ MeV, $m_n=939.5653$ MeV.
1760:
1761: \medskip\noindent
1762: For the 1PE potential, we use the expression (\ref{opep_full}) with $g_A = 1.29$. This larger value of
1763: the LEC $g_A$ as compared to the standard one $g_A = 1.26$ is in order to account for the Goldberger--Treiman
1764: discrepancy as discussed in section \ref{sec:pion_pot}.
1765: Notice further that we take into account the pion mass difference as given in eq.~(\ref{ope}).
1766: The leading 2PE potential given in eq.~(\ref{2PE_nlo}) is parameter--free. The NNLO and N$^3$LO 2PE contributions
1767: in eqs.~(\ref{2PE_nnlo}), (\ref{2PE_nnnlo})--(\ref{TPE2loop})
1768: depend on the LECs $c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$ and $c_4$ from the second--order $\pi N$ Lagrangian as well as on
1769: $\bar d_1 + \bar d_2$, $\bar d_3$, $\bar d_5$ and $\bar d_{14} - \bar d_{15}$ from the third--order $\pi N$ Lagrangian.
1770: For the LECs $c_{1,4}$ we adopt the central values
1771: from the $Q^3$--analysis of the $\pi N$ system \cite{Paul}:
1772: $c_1=-0.81$ GeV$^{-1}$, $c_4=3.40$ GeV$^{-1}$. For the constant $c_3$ the
1773: value $c_3=-3.40$ GeV$^{-1}$ is used, which is on the lower side but still
1774: consistent with the results from reference~\cite{Paul}: $c_3=-4.69 \pm 1.34$ GeV$^{-1}$.
1775: The same value for $c_3$ has been adopted in our NNLO analysis \cite{EGMs2}.
1776: Further, this value was found in Ref.~\cite{EM2} to be consistent with empirical
1777: NN phase shifts as well as the results from dispersion and conventional
1778: meson theories.
1779: Notice, however, that it is about 25\% smaller in magnitude than the
1780: value extracted from the partial wave analysis of the {\it pp} and {\it np} data \cite{rentm03}.
1781: The LEC $c_2$ could not be fixed accurately analyzing pion--nucleon scattering
1782: inside the Mandelstam triangle in \cite{Paul}. We therefore adopt the central value found in the
1783: third--order analysis \cite{Fet98}: $c_2 = 3.28$ GeV$^{-1}$. For the combinations of $d_i$'s, we
1784: again use the values found in \cite{Fet98}: $\bar d_1 + \bar d_2 = 3.06$ GeV$^{-2}$,
1785: $\bar d_3 = - 3.27$ GeV$^{-2}$, $\bar d_5 = 0.45$ GeV$^{-2}$ and
1786: $\bar d_{14} - \bar d_{15} = -5.65$ GeV$^{-2}$.
1787:
1788: \medskip\noindent
1789: We now turn to short--range contact interactions.
1790: The two $\nu=0$ --LECs $C_{S,T}$, seven $\nu=2$ --LECs $C_{1 \ldots 7}$ as well as
1791: fifteen $\nu=4$ --LECs $D_{1 \ldots 15}$ in eq.~(\ref{Vcon}) are unknown and have to be
1792: fixed from a fit to data (i.e.~to Nijmegen phase shifts). Contributions of the contact interactions
1793: to various partial waves are given in eq.~(\ref{VC}). Thus, we have to determine 8 LECs in the
1794: $^3S_1 - ^3D_1$ channel, 4 LECs in the $^1S_0$ channel, 3 LECs in the $^3P_2 - ^3F_2$ channel,
1795: 2 LECs in each of the $^1P_1$, $^3P_1$, $^3P_0$ partial waves and 1 LEC in each of the
1796: $^1D_2$, $^3D_2$, $^3D_3 - ^3G_3$ channels.
1797: %%
1798: In addition to the above mentioned isospin--conserving contact interactions, we have two
1799: isospin--violating contact terms with unknown coefficients, see eqs.~(\ref{cont_str}) and (\ref{cont_em}).
1800: Both terms contribute to the
1801: $^1S_0$ partial wave and provide charge--dependent contributions to the LEC $\tilde C_{1S0}$. In the following,
1802: we will therefore distinguish between $\tilde C_{1S0}^{pp}$, $\tilde C_{1S0}^{np}$ and $\tilde C_{1S0}^{nn}$.
1803: We also note that we always use the proper kinematics as given in appendix \ref{sec:kinem}.
1804: %
1805: Let us now specify precisely our way of fixing the LECs. The LECs contributing to isovector channels
1806: $^3P_2 - ^3F_2$, $^3P_1$, $^3P_0$ and $^1D_2$ have been fixed from a fit to Nijmegen {\it pp}
1807: phase shifts \cite{nijpwa}, which are much more precise than the corresponding {\it np} phase shifts.
1808: The isovector {\it np} phase shifts are then extracted from the {\it pp} ones in a parameter--free way
1809: by taking into account the proper 1PE potential and switching off the electromagnetic interaction.
1810: This is precisely the same procedure as used in the Nijmegen PWA \cite{nijpwa}.
1811: %
1812: In the $^1S_0$ partial wave we have to take into account isospin--violating contact interactions as discussed above.
1813: We determine the LECs $\tilde C_{1S0}^{pp}$, $\tilde C_{1S0}^{np}$, $C_{1S0}$, $D_{1S0}^1$ and $D_{1S0}^2$
1814: from a combined fit in the $^1S_0$ {\it pp} and {\it np} channels. The LEC $\tilde C_{1S0}^{nn}$ is then
1815: obtained from the requirement to reproduce the experimental value \cite{how98,gonz99}
1816: $a_{\rm nn} =-18.9$ fm for the {\it nn} scattering length.
1817: %
1818: All remaining LECs are fixed from a fit to {\it np} phases from Nijmegen PWA \cite{nijpwa}.
1819: We notice that contrary to our NLO and NNLO analysis \cite{EGM2,EGMs2},
1820: we had to use here a large energy interval, i.e. up to $E_{\rm lab} = 200$ MeV,
1821: in order to fix the LECs.
1822: This is because of two reasons: first, the phase shifts in the $^1S_0$ and in the $^3S_1$--$^3D_1$ channels simply
1823: do not show enough structure beyond $E_{\rm lab} = 100$ MeV in order to fix reliably 4 and 8 parameters, respectively.
1824: Secondly, phase shifts at low energy are not very sensitive to higher--order contact interactions
1825: except maybe in the two S--waves.
1826:
1827: \medskip\noindent
1828: It remains to specify the values for the cut--offs $\Lambda$ and $\tilde \Lambda$ which enter the
1829: Lippmann--Schwinger equation and the spectral--function representation of the two--pion exchange
1830: potential, respectively.
1831: Certainly, both cut--offs are introduced in order to remove high--momentum
1832: components of the interacting nucleon and pion fields, which are beyond the range of applicability of
1833: the chiral EFT. We remind the reader that from the formal point of view, one
1834: can choose any value for the SFR cut--off which is large enough so that the relevant physics is still
1835: present. Even the choice $\tilde \Lambda = \infty$, which is equivalent
1836: to dimensional regularization, is formally possible since all terms with
1837: positive powers of $\tilde \Lambda$ (and $\propto \ln \tilde \Lambda$) can be absorbed by redefinition
1838: of the corresponding LECs. It has been argued in \cite{EGMs2}, however, that
1839: the choice $\tilde \Lambda = 500 \ldots 700$ MeV leads to a natural separation of the
1840: long-- and short--range parts of the nuclear force
1841: and allows to improve the convergence of the low--momentum expansion.
1842: In the present analysis we use this range for $\tilde \Lambda$.
1843:
1844: \medskip\noindent
1845: While $\tilde \Lambda$ is related to perturbative renormalization of
1846: the pion loop integrals, the cut--off $\Lambda$ specifies the way of nonperturbative renormalization
1847: of the Lippmann--Schwinger equation.
1848: Contrary to the SFR cut--off $\tilde \Lambda$, one, in general, cannot
1849: arbitrarily increase the value of $\Lambda$ \cite{Lepage,Lepage_INT,Geg01,Geg04}. This is because one needs
1850: an infinite number of counter terms in order to absorb all divergences arising through iteration
1851: of the potential in the Lippmann--Schwinger equation.\footnote{It has been shown in \cite{beane00}
1852: that $1/r^n$ singular potentials, which arise e.g.~from pion
1853: exchange contributions, can be renormalized by a one--parameter square--well counterterm, see
1854: \cite{Betal} for a related work. Although
1855: the authors of \cite{beane00} have demonstrated that the low-energy NN observables can be made independent
1856: of the square-well width by adjusting the square-well strength, the power counting scheme adopted in
1857: the present work is not consistent with such an approach.}
1858: Keeping $\Lambda$ finite and of the order of the separation scale in the NN problem, one
1859: expects the contribution of the higher--order counter terms to be suppressed by powers of the generic
1860: low--momentum scale provided that the corresponding LECs are of natural size \cite{Lepage,Lepage_INT}.
1861: In our previous NLO and NNLO analyses \cite{ep2002} based on the
1862: dimensionally regularized expressions for the potential we have used $\Lambda = 500 \ldots 600$ MeV
1863: with the regulator function being defined as $f^\Lambda (p ) = \exp [- p^4/\Lambda^4 ]$.
1864: In the more recent study \cite{EGMs2} based on the SFR approach we have
1865: increased this range to $\Lambda = 450 \ldots 650$ MeV using $f^\Lambda (p ) = \exp [- p^6/\Lambda^6 ]$.
1866: We have, however, found in \cite{EGMs2}, that the upper values
1867: of $\Lambda$ are already rather close to its critical value $\Lambda^c$,
1868: above which one encounters spurious deeply--bound states. Notice that the values of various LECs
1869: start to strongly vary for $\Lambda \sim \Lambda^c$ leaving the natural range.
1870: In order to avoid such a situation we slightly reduce the range of variation of $\Lambda$
1871: to $450 \ldots 600$ MeV in the present analysis. To be more specific, we will use the following cut--off combinations
1872: (all values in MeV):
1873: \beq
1874: \label{cutoffs}
1875: \{ \Lambda, \; \tilde \Lambda \} = \{ 450, \; 500 \}, \; \{ 600, \; 600 \}, \;
1876: \{ 450, \; 700 \}, \; \{ 600, \; 700 \}\,.
1877: \eeq
1878: For $\tilde \Lambda = 500$ MeV the value $\Lambda = 600$ MeV is already found to be close to $\Lambda^c$.
1879: We therefore replace the cut--off combination $\{ 600, \; 500 \}$ by $\{ 600, \; 600 \}$.
1880: %Clearly, the precise value of $\Lambda^c$ depends on the SFR cut--off $\tilde \Lambda$,
1881: %which defines the (shortest) range of the two--pion exchange potential included explicitely in our calculation.
1882: %One therefore expects the lower values $\Lambda^c$ for smaller values of $\tilde \Lambda$.
1883: %While $\Lambda = 600$ MeV is found to be far enough from $\Lambda^c$ for $\tilde \Lambda = 700$ MeV,
1884: %this is no more the case for $\tilde \Lambda = 500$ MeV. We will comment more on that later on.
1885: Notice that further reducing of the $\Lambda$--values beyond $\Lambda = 450$ MeV is, in principle, possible
1886: but leads to a strong increase of the theoretical uncertainty. We therefore refrain from doing that.
1887: Finally, we notice that a more elegant regularization
1888: prescriptions, like e.g. lattice regularization, would allow to regularize
1889: pion loop integrals and the Lippmann--Schwinger equation in the same way without
1890: introducing two independent scales $\Lambda$ and $\tilde \Lambda$.
1891: For a related recent discussion of the role and optimal choice of the cut--off $\Lambda$ in the
1892: LS equation the reader is referred to Refs.~\cite{Lepage_INT,Geg04}.
1893:
1894:
1895:
1896: \medskip\noindent
1897: Let us now give the precise definition of the phase shifts considered in the present work and remind
1898: the reader on the type of phase shifts used in the Nijmegen PWA \cite{nijpwa}.
1899: We will adopt here the notation of ref.~\cite{Berg88} and denote by $\delta^{\rm V}_{\rm W}$ the phase shift
1900: generated by the potential $W$ with respect to the solution with $V$ as the interaction.
1901: \begin{itemize}
1902: \item{{\it pp} phases.}
1903:
1904: The full phase shifts $\delta_{\rm EM+N}$ of electromagnetic plus strong interaction
1905: can be expressed as:
1906: \beq
1907: \label{ph0}
1908: \delta_{\rm EM+N} = \delta_{\rm EM} + \delta^{\rm EM}_{\rm EM + N}\,.
1909: \eeq
1910: The above expression applies to uncoupled channels. For
1911: coupled channels one has to translate the addition law for the phase shifts into a multiplication
1912: law for the corresponding S--matrices
1913: \beq
1914: \label{Smul}
1915: S_{\rm EM + N} = (S_{\rm EM} )^{1/2} S_{\rm EM + N}^{EM} (S_{\rm EM} )^{1/2}\,,
1916: \eeq
1917: %since the magnetic moment interaction (\ref{vmm}) contains
1918: %a tensor part,
1919: see \cite{stoks90,Berg90} for further details.
1920: Such a modification for coupled channels will, however, not change the conclusions of this
1921: section. We will therefore not consider the coupled case in detail in what follows.
1922: The last term in eq.~(\ref{ph0}) corresponds to the phase shifts
1923: of the electromagnetic plus nuclear interaction with respect to electromagnetic wave functions.
1924: These phase shifts $\delta^{\rm EM}_{\rm EM + N}$ are the ones which are given in the Nijmegen PWA \cite{nijpwa}.
1925: Notice that the electromagnetic phase shift $\delta_{\rm EM}$ can be represented as
1926: \beq
1927: \label{ph1}
1928: \delta_{\rm EM} = \delta_{\rm C1} + \delta_{\rm C1+ C2}^{\rm C1} + \delta_{\rm C1+ C2+MM}^{\rm C1+C2} +
1929: \delta_{\rm C1+ C2+MM+VP}^{\rm C1+C2+MM} = \delta_{\rm C1} + \rho + \phi + \tau \,,
1930: \eeq
1931: where we have introduced the abbreviations $\rho \equiv \delta_{\rm C1+ C2}^{\rm C1}$,
1932: $\phi \equiv \delta_{\rm C1+ C2+MM}^{\rm C1+C2}$ and
1933: $\tau \equiv \delta_{\rm C1+ C2+MM+VP}^{\rm C1+C2+MM}$. In practice, the quantities
1934: $\rho$, $\phi$ and $\tau$ are usually calculated using the CDWBA.
1935: %(XXX spell out?)
1936: This is justified
1937: due to the smallness of the corresponding interactions $V_{\rm C2}$, $V_{\rm MM}$ and $V_{\rm VP}$. In this case
1938: one has approximately:
1939: \beq
1940: \phi \sim \delta_{\rm C1 + MM}^{\rm C1}\,, \quad \quad \quad
1941: \tau \sim \delta_{\rm C1 + VP}^{\rm C1}\,.
1942: \eeq
1943: For more details the reader is
1944: referred to refs.~\cite{Berg88,stoks90}.
1945:
1946:
1947: \medskip\noindent
1948: The phase shifts $\delta^{\rm EM}_{\rm EM + N}$ obtained in the Nijmegen PWA do, however, not correspond
1949: to the type of phase shifts, which is usually considered in practical calculations, namely the phase shifts
1950: $\delta^{\rm C1}_{\rm C1 + N}$ of the modified Coulomb plus strong interactions with respect to the
1951: phase shifts of the modified Coulomb potential. These phase shifts can easily be calculated for any
1952: given nuclear potential using
1953: e.g. the method described in appendix \ref{sec:coul}. The {\it pp} phases considered in the
1954: present work are of that type. We therefore need to relate $\delta^{\rm C1}_{\rm C1 + N}$ to the previously
1955: discussed phase shifts $\delta^{\rm EM}_{\rm EM + N}$.
1956: This can be done by noting that the total phase shift $\delta_{\rm EM+N}$ can be expressed in the form:
1957: \beq
1958: \label{ph2}
1959: \delta_{\rm EM+N} = \delta_{\rm C1} + \delta^{\rm C1}_{\rm C1 + C2 + MM +VP + N}\,.
1960: \eeq
1961: In the coupled case one has to modify this relation in a way analogous to eq.~(\ref{Smul}).
1962: Again, due to the smallness of the potentials $V_{\rm C2}$, $V_{\rm MM}$ and $V_{\rm VP}$ one can make use of the DWBA to relate
1963: $\delta^{\rm C1}_{\rm C1 + C2 + MM+ VP + N}$ and $\delta^{\rm C1}_{\rm C1 + N}$,
1964: which leads to \cite{Berg88}:
1965: \beqa
1966: \label{ph3}
1967: (\delta^{\rm C1}_{\rm C1 + C2 + MM+ VP + N})_l - (\delta^{\rm C1}_{\rm C1 + N})_l &\equiv & \tilde \Delta_l \\
1968: &=& (\delta^{\rm C1+N }_{\rm C1 + N+ C2 + MM+ VP} )_l \nn
1969: &\sim& \frac{-m_p}{k} \int_0^\infty dr \, \chi_l (r) \left[ V_{\rm C2} (r) + V_{\rm MM} (r) +V_{\rm VP} (r) \right] \chi_l (r)\,,
1970: \nonumber
1971: \eeqa
1972: where $l$ is the angular momentum and $\chi_l (r)$ is the wave function for the potential $V_{\rm C1}+ V_{\rm N}$.
1973: Combining now eqs.~(\ref{ph0})--(\ref{ph3}) we end up with the following formula which relates the phase shifts
1974: $\delta^{\rm C1}_{\rm C1 + N}$ we are calculating to the ones $\delta^{\rm EM}_{\rm EM + N}$ of the Nijmegen PWA:
1975: \beq
1976: \label{phfin}
1977: (\delta^{\rm C1}_{\rm C1 + N})_l \sim (\delta^{\rm EM}_{\rm EM + N})_l - \tilde \Delta_l + \rho_l + \phi_l + \tau_l\,.
1978: \eeq
1979: This formula can be further simplified if one notes that for all $l \geq 1$ the wave functions $\chi_l (r)$
1980: near the threshold are almost not affected by the nuclear interaction \cite{Berg88}. Thus, one can approximately
1981: replace in eq.~(\ref{ph3}) the wave functions $\chi_l (r)$ by the regular Coulomb wave functions, which leads to
1982: $\tilde \Delta_l \sim \rho_l + \phi_l + \tau_l $. Therefore, for all partial waves except $^1S_0$ one has:
1983: $(\delta^{\rm C1}_{\rm C1 + N})_l \sim (\delta^{\rm EM}_{\rm EM + N})_l$. In the case of the $^1S_0$
1984: partial wave, it has been argued based on explicit calculations
1985: that the quantity $\tilde \Delta_0$ is ``sufficiently model--independent''
1986: for a wide range of nuclear forces at least in the case $V_{\rm C2}=0$. Notice that the magnetic
1987: moment interaction in eq.~(\ref{vmm}) does not contribute in that and all other spin--singlet channels. The values
1988: of $\tilde \Delta_0$ based on the Nijmegen N78 potential \cite{nag78} as well as for the
1989: $\tau_0$ and $\rho_0$ are given in \cite{Berg88} at various energies.
1990: In the present analysis, we will use these
1991: values for the above mentioned quantities in order to relate our $^1S_0$ phase shift to the one of the Nijmegen PWA via
1992: eq.~(\ref{phfin}).\footnote{The quantity $\tilde \Delta_l$
1993: in \cite{Berg88} does not contain the contribution due to magnetic moment interaction, which has been neglected in
1994: that work. In our analysis we only need to know $\tilde \Delta_l$ explicitly for $l=0$ and therefore can still
1995: use the result of \cite{Berg88}.}
1996: Notice that a more accurate way to determine the phase shifts $(\delta^{\rm C1}_{\rm C1 + N})_l$ would be
1997: to define the regularized expressions for electromagnetic interactions and to calculate the
1998: quantities $\rho$, $\phi$, $\tau$ and $\tilde \Delta_l$ explicitly (one can still use DWBA). We, however,
1999: believe that there is no need for such a refinement at the level of accuracy of N$^3$LO.
2000:
2001: \medskip\noindent
2002: Let us now summarize our way of calculating phase shifts in the {\it pp} system. We compute the phase shifts
2003: $\delta^{\rm C1}_{\rm C1 + N}$ of the modified Coulomb plus nuclear potential $V_{\rm C1} + V_{\rm N}$ with respect
2004: to wave functions of the $V_{\rm C1}$--potential. The strong interaction part of the chiral nuclear force
2005: at order N$^3$LO is discussed in section \ref{sec:pot}.
2006: It has to be used in the relativistic Schr\"odinger equation (\ref{schroed_rel}), while
2007: the electromagnetic interactions in eqs.(\ref{vc1vc2}),
2008: including the modified Coulomb force $V_{\rm C1}$, are to be used in
2009: the nonrelativistic--like equation (\ref{Schroed_nonrel}). We therefore first apply
2010: eq.~(\ref{pot_nonrel}) to derive the modified strong potential for use in
2011: eq.~(\ref{Schroed_nonrel}).\footnote{Notice that in principle, the modified potential should contain contributions
2012: due to electromagnetic interactions. Equation (\ref{pot_nonrel}) should actually be applied to the sum of the
2013: strong interaction and electromagnetic potentials $V_{\rm N}$ and $V_{\rm em}$. The modified potential would
2014: then contain pieces $\propto V_{\rm N}$, $V_{\rm em}$, $(1/m) \, V_{\rm N} V_{\rm N}$,
2015: $(1/m) \, V_{\rm N} V_{\rm em}$ and $(1/m) \,V_{\rm em} V_{\rm em}$. Applying eq.~(\ref{pot_nonrel}) only to
2016: the strong potential $V_{\rm N}$ and adding the appropriate (modified) electromagnetic contributions, we thus
2017: miss terms $\propto (1/m) \, V_{\rm N} V_{\rm em}$. Such contributions are suppressed by a factor $Q/m$ compared to the
2018: $\pi \gamma$--exchange in eq.~(\ref{Vpiga}) and beyond the accuracy of the present
2019: calculation.}
2020: We then calculate phase shifts $\delta^{\rm C1}_{\rm C1 + N}$ in momentum space as described
2021: in appendix \ref{sec:coul}. In the fitting procedure the calculated phase shifts $\delta^{\rm C1}_{\rm C1 + N}$ are
2022: compared with the phases $\delta^{\rm EM}_{\rm EM + N}$ of the Nijmegen PWA \cite{nijpwa}. For all partial
2023: waves except $^1S_0$ we use the approximation $(\delta^{\rm C1}_{\rm C1 + N} )_l \sim ( \delta^{\rm EM}_{\rm EM + N} )_l$.
2024: For the $^1S_0$ phase, we make use of equation (\ref{phfin}), where the quantities $\tilde \Delta_l$, $\rho_l$
2025: and $\tau_l$ are taken from reference \cite{Berg88}.
2026:
2027: \item{{\it np} phases.}
2028:
2029: As already pointed out in section \ref{sec:isospIR}, the electromagnetic interaction
2030: in the {\it np} case is given entirely in terms of magnetic moment interaction
2031: $V_{\rm MM} (np)$. Consequently, eq.~(\ref{ph0}) takes the form
2032: \beq
2033: \label{phase_np}
2034: \delta_{\rm MM+N} = \delta_{\rm MM} + \delta^{\rm MM}_{\rm MM + N}\,.
2035: \eeq
2036: The {\it np} phase shifts of the Nijmegen PWA as well as in our analysis correspond to the phase
2037: shifts $\delta_{\rm MM + N}^{\rm MM}$ of nuclear plus magnetic moment interactions with respect to magnetic
2038: moment interaction wave functions. Notice that the term in $V_{\rm MM} (np)$ in eq.~(\ref{vmm})
2039: proportional to $\vec A$ gives rise to the so--called
2040: ``class IV'' isospin--breaking force \cite{Hen79}, which mixes spin--singlet and spin--triplet states.
2041: The contribution of this term is very small and usually only taken into account when constructing the
2042: magnetic moment scattering amplitude, see e.g.~\cite{V18}. In our analysis we
2043: make use of the standard approximation \cite{V18}
2044: \beq
2045: \delta^{\rm MM}_{\rm MM + N} \sim \delta_{\rm N},
2046: \eeq
2047: for all $l \neq 0$--states. Therefore and because of the fact that the
2048: magnetic moment interaction does not contribute to the $^1S_0$ channel, we have to take into account $V_{\rm MM} (np)$
2049: explicitly only in the $^3S_1$--$^3D_1$ partial wave. In that case the phase shift $\delta^{\rm MM}_{\rm MM + N}$
2050: is calculated by subtracting $\delta_{\rm MM}$ from $\delta_{\rm MM+N}$, where the phase shifts
2051: $\delta_{\rm MM}$ are obtained using the Born approximation.
2052:
2053: %Further, it is crucial to realize that the isospin--breaking nuclear force
2054: %is parameter--free for all $l \geq 1$ at the order we are working. Up to N$\LOI$ in the notation of
2055: %\cite{WME}, it is given by the neutral--to--charged pion mass difference in the one-- and the leading two--pion
2056: %exchange as well as by the $\pi \gamma$--exchange potential. In our work we follow the strategy of the Nijmegen group
2057: %\cite{nijpwa} for isovector phase shifts with $l \neq 0$ and fix the unknown isospin--invariant contact
2058: %interactions by fit to the {\it pp} phases of \cite{nijpwa}, which are much more precise than the corresponding
2059: %{\it np} phase shifts. The letters are then obtained by taking into account the appropriate nuclear isospin--breaking
2060: %effects and by switching off the Coulomb interaction. It is therefore clear that we have to use the same isospin--breaking
2061: %effects as used by the Nijmegen group (i.e. to neglect the $\pi \pi$ and $\pi \gamma$ contributions)
2062: %in order to be consistent. The contact terms which contribute to
2063: %isoscalar phase shifts are fixed from fit to {\it np} phases.
2064:
2065:
2066: \item{{\it nn} phases.}
2067:
2068: As in the previously considered case of neutron--proton scattering, in the {\it nn} system
2069: one has to take into account only magnetic
2070: moment interaction. Decomposing the phase shifts as in eq.~(\ref{phase_np})
2071: one can make use of the approximation $\delta^{\rm MM}_{\rm MM + N} \sim
2072: \delta_{\rm N}$ in all
2073: {\it nn} partial waves.
2074: As already stated before, this approximation is accurate for partial waves with $l \neq 0$.
2075: In the case of the $^1S_0$ partial wave, the phase shift is still given by $\delta_{\rm N}$
2076: since the long--range magnetic moment interaction does not contribute to this channel.
2077: Therefore, {\it nn} phase shifts in all partial waves correspond to $\delta_{\rm N}$.
2078: \end{itemize}
2079:
2080:
2081:
2082:
2083:
2084: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2085: \section{Results and discussion}
2086: \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
2087: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2088: \label{sec:res}
2089:
2090: \subsection{Phase shifts}
2091: \label{sec:phases}
2092:
2093:
2094: In the following sections, we will show the results for the {\it np} phase shifts.
2095: Before showing the results of our analysis, let us make a simple estimate for the
2096: expected theoretical uncertainty at N$^3$LO. Following the reasoning of ref.~\cite{EGMs2},
2097: we expect for the uncertainty of
2098: a scattering observable at c.m.s.~momentum $k$ at N$^3$LO to be of
2099: the order $\sim (\max [ k, \, M_\pi] /\lambda)^{5}$. To provide a fair estimate,
2100: we identify the hard scale $\lambda$ with the smallest value of the ultraviolet
2101: cut--off, i.e.~we adopt $\lambda \sim 450$ MeV. This results in the following
2102: estimations for the theoretical (maximal) uncertainty:
2103: \bigskip
2104: \hskip 3 true cm
2105: \begin{minipage}{10cm}
2106: \begin{itemize}
2107: \item[]
2108: $\sim$ 0.5\% at $E_{\rm lab} \sim 50$ MeV and below,
2109: \item[]
2110: $\sim$ 7\% at $E_{\rm lab} \sim 150$ MeV,
2111: \item[]
2112: $\sim$ 25\% at $E_{\rm lab} \sim 250$ MeV.
2113: \end{itemize}
2114: \end{minipage}
2115:
2116: \medskip\noindent
2117: One should keep in mind that the above estimations are fairly rough.
2118: For a detailed discussion on the theoretical uncertainty, especially at NLO and NNLO,
2119: the reader is referred to \cite{EGMs2}.
2120:
2121:
2122:
2123: \subsubsection{S--waves}
2124: \label{sec:SW}
2125:
2126: The phase shifts in the $^1S_0$ and $^3S_1$ partial waves are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
2127: Both are visibly improved compared to the NNLO result.
2128: For $E_{\rm lab} = 50$ MeV, 150 MeV and 250 MeV we find the phase shift in the
2129: $^1S_0$ partial wave in the ranges $40.42^\circ \ldots 40.72^\circ$,
2130: $16.04^\circ \ldots 17.03^\circ$ and $2.22^\circ \ldots 4.76^\circ$, respectively.
2131: These values agree well with the ones from the Nijmegen PSA: $\delta = 40.54^\circ$,
2132: $\delta = 16.94^\circ$ and $\delta = 1.96^\circ$. The relative uncertainty of our results
2133: is in agreement with the above estimations except for $E_{\rm lab} = 250$ MeV,
2134: where the phase shift is close to $0$. The results for the $^3S_1$ partial wave are similar to the
2135: ones in the $^1S_0$ channel. The uncertainty due to the cut--off variation
2136: is found to be smaller in this case.
2137:
2138: \medskip\noindent
2139: The pertinent S--wave LECs are tabulated in table~\ref{tab:LEC1} for the four pairs of cut-offs
2140: (\ref{cutoffs}). Here, several remarks are in order. First, we note that, in general,
2141: one has to expect multiple solutions for the LECs. This problem has already been discussed
2142: in \cite{EGM2} at NLO and NNLO. For the $^1S_0$ channel, we have to fix
2143: five LECs $\tilde C_{1S0}^{pp}$, $\tilde C_{1S0}^{np}$, $C_{1S0}$, $D_{1S0}^1$, $D_{1S0}^2$, from a fit to
2144: Nijmegen {\it pp} and {\it np} phase shifts. We did find multiple solutions for LECs which describe the data equally well
2145: if we neglect isospin breaking and fix
2146: $\tilde C_{1S0}^{np}$, $C_{1S0}$, $D_{1S0}^1$, $D_{1S0}^2$ from a fit to the Nijmegen {\it np} phase shift.
2147: Taking into account isospin breaking effects and performing a combined fit
2148: to both {\it pp} and {\it np} phase shifts turns out to improve the situation and help to
2149: sort out the true solution. We found a single solution for the LECs for the cut--off
2150: combinations $\{ \Lambda, \; \tilde \Lambda \} = \{ 450, \; 700 \}$ and
2151: $\{ 600, \; 700 \}$. For the two other cut--off combinations
2152: several local minima in the $\chi^2$--plot have been observed. We then adopted the values for the
2153: LECs corresponding to the global minimum. We have checked that these values result
2154: from the ones for different $\{ \Lambda, \; \tilde \Lambda \}$ by a continuous change of
2155: the cut--offs.
2156:
2157: \medskip\noindent
2158: The situation in the $^3S_1$--$^3D_1$--channel is even more complex since one has to determine eight LECs.
2159: Our results for the LECs are shown in tables~\ref{tab:LEC1}, \ref{tab:LEC2} and \ref{tab:LEC3}.
2160: Due to the large dimension of the parameter space, we cannot definitely claim that the
2161: found values for the LECs correspond to a true global minimum of the $\chi^2$.
2162:
2163: \medskip\noindent
2164: Let us now comment on the naturalness of the determined LECs.
2165: In general, the natural size for the LECs can be (roughly) estimated as follows:
2166: \beq
2167: \tilde C_i \sim \frac{4 \pi}{F_\pi^2}\,, \quad \quad
2168: C_i \sim \frac{4 \pi}{F_\pi^2 \Lambda_{\rm LEC}^2}\,, \quad \quad
2169: D_i \sim \frac{4 \pi}{F_\pi^2 \Lambda_{\rm LEC}^4}\,,
2170: \eeq
2171: where $\Lambda_{\rm LEC}$ is the scale entering the values of the LECs and
2172: the factor $4 \pi$ results from the angular integration in the partial wave decomposition,
2173: see appendix~\ref{sec:pw} for the details. The S--wave LECs shown in table~\ref{tab:LEC1}
2174: are of the natural size except the LECs $D_{1S0}^1$ and $D_{3S1}^1$, which are
2175: somewhat large in magnitude. Indeed, estimating the scale $\Lambda_{\rm LEC}$ as
2176: $\Lambda_{\rm LEC} \sim 500$ MeV leads to $| D_i | \sim 2.4$ in the same units as used in
2177: table~\ref{tab:LEC1}. Still, the higher--order contact interactions are suppressed compared
2178: to the lower--order operators at low momenta.
2179: For example, for the cut--off combination $\{ 450, \; 500 \}$ and
2180: $p = p' = M_\pi$ the contributions of the contact operators at various orders are given by:
2181: \beqa
2182: \langle ^1S_0 | V_{\rm cont}^{\rm np} (p, \; p' \,)| ^1S_0 \rangle \bigg|_{p = p' = M_\pi}
2183: &=& \bigg[\tilde C_{1S0}^{\rm np} + C_{1S0} ( p^2 + p '^2) +
2184: \Big( D_{1S0}^1 \, p^2 \, {p'}^2 + D_{1S0}^2 \, ({p}^4+{p}'^4) \Big) \bigg]_{p = p' = M_\pi} \nn
2185: &=& \Big[-0.091 + 0.057 +(-0.010+0.003) \Big] \times 10^4 \mbox{ GeV}^{-2}\,.
2186: \eeqa
2187:
2188:
2189:
2190:
2191:
2192:
2193: \subsubsection{P--waves}
2194: \label{sec:PW}
2195:
2196: Our results for the {\it np} P--waves and the mixing angle $\epsilon_1$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
2197: All phase shifts are visibly improved compared to the NLO and NNLO results. One has, however,
2198: to keep in mind that two independent parameters appear now in each of these channels
2199: instead of one parameter at both NLO and NNLO. The results of the Nijmegen PWA are reproduced
2200: in our N$^3$LO analysis within the theoretical uncertainty in all phase shifts with exception
2201: of $^1P_1$ at larger energies.
2202: %*EE
2203: In the case of the $^3P_2$ partial wave, the band is dominated
2204: by variation of the SFR cut--off. In particular, lower values for this cut--off lead to a better
2205: agreement with the data at higher energies.
2206: At $E_{\rm lab} = 250$ MeV, the N$^3$LO phase shifts
2207: deviate from the data by an amount of up to $\sim 8^\circ$. The typical size of the P--wave phase shifts
2208: at this energy is of the order $\sim 25^\circ$. The uncertainty in the calculated phase shifts due
2209: to the cut--off variation agrees therefore fairly well with the estimation in section \ref{sec:phases}.
2210: We remind the reader that the theoretical bands at NLO and NNLO are expected to have a similar
2211: width, since the effective potential at these orders contains the same
2212: set of contact interactions (counter terms). As explained in detail in \cite{EGMs2}, the
2213: uncertainty resulting from the cut--off variation at NLO is smaller than the actual theoretical
2214: uncertainty at this order.
2215:
2216:
2217: \medskip\noindent
2218: The pertinent P--wave LECs are tabulated in table~\ref{tab:LEC2} four these four pairs of cut-offs.
2219: As in the previously discussed case of the S--waves, we found multiple solutions for the LECs.
2220: The physical solution can easily be determined due
2221: to the smaller number of parameters (two unknown LECs in each P--wave).
2222: To illustrate this point consider the $^3P_1$ partial wave with the cut--offs
2223: $\{ \Lambda, \; \tilde \Lambda \} = \{ 450, \; 500 \}$. We find
2224: two solutions for the LECs $C_{3P1}$ and $D_{3P1}$ fitting to the Nijmegen {\it pp}
2225: phase shifts:
2226: \beqa
2227: \label{LECs_3P1}
2228: &&
2229: C_{3P1} = -0.6334\,, \mbox{\hskip 1.5 true cm} D_{3P1} = 4.2359\,, \nn
2230: \mbox{and} && C_{3P1} = 5.9620\,, \mbox{\hskip 1.8 true cm} D_{3P1} = -20.6154 \,,
2231: \eeqa
2232: where we used the same units as in Table~\ref{tab:LEC2}. Both sets of parameters lead to
2233: an accurate description of the data, which is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3P1}. The solution
2234: in the first line of eq.~(\ref{LECs_3P1}) satisfies the naturalness assumption for the
2235: LECs and has been adopted in the present analysis. Notice further that the value
2236: $C_{3P1} = -0.6334 \times 10^4$ GeV$^{-2}$ is close to the NLO and NNLO values for these LECs
2237: (for the same cut--off combination) $C_{3P1} = -0.4932 \times 10^4$ GeV$^{-2}$ and
2238: $C_{3P1} = -0.7234\times 10^4$ GeV$^{-2}$, respectively. The results for other partial waves
2239: are similar. All LECs $C_i$ in the P--waves are found to be of natural size and take the values
2240: which are close to the ones at NLO and NNLO. The P--wave LECs $D_i$ are natural as well.
2241:
2242:
2243:
2244: \medskip\noindent
2245: Let us now comment on isospin--breaking.
2246: As already explained before, the LECs in the isovector partial waves are fitted to
2247: the {\it pp} phase shifts. To calculate the corresponding {\it np} phase shifts, we
2248: switch off the electromagnetic interaction and adjust for the proper pion mass in the
2249: 1PE potential. The differences between
2250: the corresponding {\it pp} and {\it np} phase shifts at three different energies $E_{\rm lab} = 10$, $25$ and
2251: $50$ MeV are shown in Tables \ref{tab1a}, \ref{tab1b} and \ref{tab1c}, respectively.
2252: In general, we see that the effects due to removal of the Coulomb interaction, $\Delta_i^\gamma$, agree very well with the
2253: ones of Nijmegen PWA. The uncertainty due to the cut--offs variation becomes larger at higher energies.
2254: The effects due to including the pion mass difference, $\Delta_i^\pi$, show typically somewhat larger deviations from
2255: the Nijmegen PWA. This is presumably to a large extent due to a different treatment of the 1PE force: while
2256: we use the potential in momentum space with high momenta being cut off, the
2257: Nijmegen group performs calculations in coordinate space,
2258: and chooses to cut--off the long--range potential at $1.4$ fm.
2259: Although both methods certainly lead to the same long--distance
2260: asymptotics of the 1PE potential, they differ significantly in the treatment of its shorter--range part.
2261: The largest deviations from $\sim 15\%$ at $E_{\rm lab} = 10$ MeV to $\sim 20\%$--$30\%$ at
2262: $E_{\rm lab} = 50$ MeV for $\Delta_i^\pi$ from the Nijmegen PWA are observed in the $^3P_2$ partial wave.
2263: It is comforting to see that both isospin--violating effects (i.e.~due to the Coulomb force and the pion mass difference
2264: in 1PE) are in most cases of the same size, as it is also expected from power counting arguments, see section
2265: \ref{sec:isosp} for more details. We also note that these two effects have often opposite sign and tend to
2266: cancel. For example, one observes at $E_{\rm lab}=10$ MeV \cite{nijpwa}: $\Delta_{\rm 3P0} \equiv
2267: \Delta_{\rm 3P0}^\gamma + \Delta_{\rm 3P0}^\pi = 0.371^\circ -0.447^\circ = -0.076^\circ$.
2268:
2269:
2270:
2271:
2272:
2273:
2274: \subsubsection{D-- and higher partial waves}
2275: \label{sec:DW}
2276:
2277: The results for D--, F-- and G--waves are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig3}, \ref{fig4} and \ref{fig5},
2278: respectively. We remind the reader that at N$^3$LO there is one adjustable constant $D_i$ in each of the D--waves,
2279: while F-- and higher partial waves are parameter--free. As depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig3}, the shape
2280: of the $^3D_3$ partial wave is still not properly reproduced at N$^3$LO, although it is greatly improved
2281: compared to NLO and NNLO predictions. This phase shift is, however, rather small as compared to other
2282: D--wave phase shifts, and thus one expects relatively small effect of this phase shift on the NN scattering
2283: observables. We also note that the absolute deviation from the data in this channel is not larger than in the
2284: other D--waves.
2285: %%
2286: Most of the F-- and G--waves are at N$^3$LO in agreement with the data.
2287: One observes that the theoretical bands do not get thinner at N$^3$LO, which
2288: might at first sight appear strange. This, however, is naturally explained by the fact
2289: that there are no short--range contact terms in these channels. Such terms start to contribute to
2290: F--waves at N$^5$LO ($Q^6$) and to G--waves at N$^7$LO ($Q^8$). Consequently, one should expect
2291: the uncertainty due to the cut--off variation to be of the same size for calculations up to these high
2292: orders in the chiral expansion.
2293: %
2294: Clearly, peripheral partial waves are strongly dominated by the 1PE potential, which represents the
2295: longest--range part of the strong nuclear force. Indeed, one observes that the phase shifts are
2296: mostly well reproduced already at NLO, while NNLO and N$^3$LO corrections only produce minor changes.
2297: Notice further that due to the smallness of the phase shifts, the Born approximation works very well in
2298: high partial waves and the phase shifts are essentially given by the diagonal (in momentum space) matrix
2299: elements of the two--nucleon potential. It is then clear that the bands arise almost completely due
2300: to multiplying the potential by the regulator function.
2301: %*EE
2302: The only exception from this rule is given by the $^1D_2$ partial wave,
2303: where the SFR cut--off has a larger impact on the phase shift at higher energy than the cut--off in the
2304: Lippmann--Schwinger equation. In particular, the
2305: lower values of this cut--off lead to larger values of the phase shift.
2306:
2307: \medskip\noindent
2308: The determined LECs $D_i$ are tabulated in Table~\ref{tab:LEC3}. All of them are of natural size.
2309:
2310:
2311: \subsection{S--wave effective range expansion}
2312: \label{sec:ERE}
2313:
2314: We now regard the S--wave effective range parameters and begin with the {\it np} system.
2315: In that case one can make use of the usual effective range expansion for finite--range potentials,
2316: eq.~(\ref{ere1}). The reason is that the long--range magnetic moment interaction does not
2317: contribute to states with $l=0$. Notice, however, that one should not use the standard effective range
2318: expansion for the $^3D_1$ partial wave and mixing angle $\epsilon_1$,
2319: which are modified in the presence of the
2320: long--range ($\sim 1/r^3$) magnetic moment interaction.
2321: Our results for the $^3S_1$ and $^1S_0$ scattering length, effective range and
2322: shape coefficients $v_{2,3,4}$ are summarized in Tables \ref{tab1} and \ref{tab2}.
2323: The results for the $^1S_0$ scattering length and effective range are improved compared
2324: to the NLO and NNLO predictions of \cite{EGMs2}. The N$^3$LO result for the scattering length fills a
2325: small gap between the NNLO prediction and the value of the Nijmegen PWA. The uncertainty
2326: due to the cut--off variation for all effective range parameters turns out to be smaller at N$^3$LO compared to NNLO, as
2327: it should. We observe a minor discrepancy for the shape coefficient $v_2$, which might however simply reflect the
2328: lack of numerical accuracy, with which this quantity is calculated. The description of the $^3S_1$ effective range
2329: parameters is similar to the one in the $^1S_0$ channel.
2330:
2331: \medskip\noindent
2332: Next, we consider the {\it pp} system. This case is much more complex since one has to account for
2333: electromagnetic interaction. Ideally, one should use the phase shifts $\delta_{\rm EM +N}^{\rm EM}$
2334: and the expression for the effective range function given in \cite{Berg88} to obtain
2335: the effective range expansion for the nuclear force in presence of the long--range electromagnetic interactions,
2336: which in the $^1S_0$ channel are given by the improved Coulomb and vacuum polarization potentials
2337: in eqs.(\ref{modCoul}) and (\ref{vp}). In the present analysis we have used a simplified description for the
2338: {\it pp} phase shift as explained in section \ref{sec:fit}. We do not calculate explicitly the
2339: phase shifts $\delta_{\rm EM +N}^{\rm EM}$ but rather the ones $\delta_{\rm C1 +N}^{\rm C1}$
2340: of nuclear plus modified Coulomb potential with respect to Coulomb wave functions,
2341: adjusting for the difference as explained in section \ref{sec:fit}. We have therefore made use of eq.~(\ref{ere2})
2342: to calculate the {\it pp} scattering length and effective range. We obtain the following values:
2343: \beq
2344: \label{ere_pp}
2345: a_{pp} = -7.795 \ldots -7.812 \; \mbox{fm}\,,
2346: \quad \quad \quad \quad
2347: r_{pp} = 2.73 \ldots 2.76 \; \mbox{fm}\,,
2348: \eeq
2349: where the uncertainty is due to the cut--off variation.
2350: These values agree nicely with the experimental ones \cite{Berg90}:
2351: \beq
2352: \label{app}
2353: a_{pp}^{\rm exp} = -7.8149 \pm 0.0029\; \mbox{fm}\,,
2354: \quad \quad \quad \quad
2355: r_{pp}^{\rm exp} = 2.769 \pm 0.014 \; \mbox{fm}\,.
2356: \eeq
2357: One should, however, keep in mind that we made an approximation and neglected the
2358: effects due to the long--range part of the vacuum polarization potential and the
2359: interaction in the second line of eq.~(\ref{modCoul}). As found in \cite{Berg88}
2360: neglecting these electromagnetic interactions affects the values of $a_{pp}$
2361: and $r_{pp}$ by an amount smaller than $0.01$ fm, which is within the theoretical
2362: uncertainty of the present analysis.
2363:
2364: \medskip\noindent
2365: Finally, we consider the {\it nn} system. Since no long--range electromagnetic
2366: interactions contribute to the $^1S_0$ partial wave, one can use the effective range
2367: expansion (\ref{ere1}). Since we have used the
2368: ``standard value'' for the {\it nn} scattering length $a_{nn}$
2369: \beq
2370: a_{nn}^{\rm std} = -18.9 \pm 0.4 \, \mbox{fm}
2371: \eeq
2372: as an input to fix the LEC of the leading isospin--violating short--range interaction,
2373: we can only make predictions for the effective range $r_{nn}$:
2374: \beq
2375: r_{nn} = 2.76 \ldots 2.80 \; \mbox{fm}\,.
2376: \eeq
2377: This agrees with the experimental number \cite{Mill90}
2378: \beq
2379: r_{nn}^{\rm exp} = 2.75 \pm 0.11 \; \mbox{fm}\,.
2380: \eeq
2381: Notice that there is still some controversy about the experimental value of
2382: the {\it nn} scattering length extracted using different reactions. For example,
2383: the value $a_{nn}^{\rm exp} = - 18.50 \pm 0.53$ fm has been reported from
2384: studying the $^2$H($\pi^-$, {\it n}$\gamma$){\it{n}} process \cite{how98}, while measurements
2385: of the neutron deuteron breakup reaction lead on one hand to
2386: $a_{nn}^{\rm exp} = - 18.7 \pm 0.6$ fm \cite{Gonz99} and on the other hand to
2387: different values, $a_{nn}^{\rm exp} = - 16.1 \pm 0.4$ fm
2388: and $a_{nn}^{\rm exp} = - 16.3 \pm 0.4$ fm \cite{Hu00}.
2389:
2390: \medskip\noindent
2391: Last but not least, we would like to point out that the relation between the values of the
2392: effective range parameters, which would result if there would be no electromagnetic interaction,
2393: and the observed ones is highly nontrivial. Neglecting electromagnetic nucleon mass shifts, we can, for example,
2394: switch off the Coulomb interaction in the {\it pp} system and recalculate
2395: the effective range coefficients using eq.~(\ref{ere1}). This leads to:
2396: \beq
2397: \label{ere_pp_str}
2398: \tilde a_{pp} = -16.00 \ldots -16.63 \; \mbox{fm}\,,
2399: \quad \quad \quad \quad
2400: r_{pp} = 2.81 \ldots 2.86 \; \mbox{fm}\,.
2401: \eeq
2402: Although the value for $\tilde a_{pp}$ is fairly close to the one for the {\it nn} and {\it np}
2403: scattering lengths, as one would expect from the approximate isospin invariance of the strong interaction,
2404: it should be understood that effects due to electromagnetic interaction are not completely removed from these quantities.
2405: To clarify this point let us take a look at the leading
2406: {\it nn}, {\it np} and {\it pp} short--range interactions:
2407: \beqa
2408: \label{betas}
2409: \tilde C_{1S0}^{nn} &=& (\tilde C_{1S0}^{nn} )_{\rm str} + \beta_{nn} \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi)^2}\,,
2410: \nonumber\\
2411: \tilde C_{1S0}^{np} &=& (\tilde C_{1S0}^{np} )_{\rm str} + \beta_{np} \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi)^2}\,, \nn
2412: \tilde C_{1S0}^{pp} &=& (\tilde C_{1S0}^{pp} )_{\rm str} + \beta_{pp} \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi)^2}\,.
2413: \eeqa
2414: Here the LECs $(\tilde C_{1S0}^{i} )_{\rm str}$ are entirely due to the strong interaction.
2415: If only linear terms in the quark mass difference are included, see eq.~(\ref{cont_str}), these LECs are related
2416: with each other as $(\tilde C_{1S0}^{pp} )_{\rm str} + (\tilde C_{1S0}^{nn} )_{\rm str} = 2 (\tilde C_{1S0}^{np} )_{\rm str}$
2417: and the difference $(\tilde C_{1S0}^{pp} )_{\rm str} - (\tilde C_{1S0}^{nn} )_{\rm str}$ is proportional to $\epsilon M_\pi^2$.
2418: The terms $\propto \beta_i$ in eq.~(\ref{betas}) are due to the short--range electromagnetic interactions,
2419: see eq.~(\ref{cont_em}).\footnote{The fact that we have three independent LECs $\beta_{nn}$, $\beta_{np}$
2420: and $\beta_{pp}$ and only two terms in eq.~(\ref{cont_em}) might appear confusing.
2421: In fact, we have only shown explicitly electromagnetic isospin--breaking and omitted isospin
2422: conserving terms in eq.~(\ref{cont_em}). One of the two electromagnetic isospin conserving contact interactions
2423: contribute to $^1S_0$ and one to $^3S_1$ NN scattering. Therefore, three and not two independent
2424: electromagnetic terms contribute to $^1S_0$ NN scattering.} Since we do not know the values of the LECs
2425: $\beta_i$ in eq.~(\ref{betas}) and it is not possible to disentangle them from $\tilde C_{1S0}^{i}$ in
2426: the two--nucleon system, we cannot extract the values for NN observables due to the strong interaction out of the
2427: experimentally measured quantities. Notice that the LECs $\beta_i$ might (at least in principle) be determined
2428: from processes with external pions.
2429: %(XXX check the above statement. Not sure whether it is true...)
2430: Notice further that the {\it pp} scattering length with the long--range
2431: Coulomb interaction being switched off is even not a well--defined quantity in an effective field theory approach since
2432: it is sensitive to details of the strong interaction at short distances. Indeed, the extracted scattering length
2433: $\tilde a_{pp}$ in eq.~(\ref{ere_pp_str}) shows a significant cut--off dependence. Clearly, the scattering length
2434: due to pure strong interaction is perfectly well defined and the cut--off dependence is (largely)
2435: absorbed by the appropriate ``running'' of $\beta_{pp}$. For related discussion on the proton--proton
2436: scattering length in context of effective field theory see \cite{kong00,gegelia03}.
2437: Furthermore, a useful approximation for the
2438: quantity $\tilde a_{pp}$ based on the short--range nature of the strong interaction and
2439: the fact that the scattering length is large can be found in \cite{jackson50}.
2440:
2441:
2442:
2443: \subsection{Two--nucleon scattering observables}
2444: \label{sec:NNobs}
2445:
2446: Once the NN phase shifts are calculated, all two--nucleon scattering observables
2447: can be obtained in a straightforward way using e.g.~the formulae
2448: collected in \cite{stoksPhD}.
2449: %%
2450: In Figs.~\ref{fig6}, \ref{fig7}, \ref{fig8} and \ref{fig9} we show the {\it np}
2451: differential cross section and vector analyzing power at $E_{\rm lab} =$25,
2452: 50, 96 and 143 MeV at NNLO and N$^3$LO in comparison with the data and the Nijmegen PWA results.
2453: In this calculation, we have included all {\it np} partial waves up to $j \leq 8$
2454: and did not take into account the magnetic moment interaction.
2455: %%
2456: At the lowest energy we have considered, $E_{\rm lab} = 25$ MeV, both NNLO and N$^3$LO
2457: results are consistent with the ones of the Nijmegen PWA. The small disagreement with the
2458: Nijmegen PWA in the analyzing power at forward direction is due to the neglected magnetic moment
2459: interaction. At higher energies the NNLO predictions become less precise. At N$^3$LO
2460: the uncertainty in the cross--section due to the cut--off variation at the largest energy we have calculated,
2461: $E_{\rm lab} = 143$ MeV, is less than 10\%. It is comforting to see that NNLO and N$^3$LO
2462: results overlap in most cases and are both in agreement with the Nijmegen PWA.
2463: We further notice that the small but visible deviations
2464: of our N$^3$LO result for the differential cross section from the Nijmegen PWA curve at
2465: forward and backward angles and higher energies is most probably due to the lack of partial waves with
2466: $j>8$ in our calculations. The convergence of the partial wave expansion is well known to be
2467: slow in these particular cases. For example, it has been found in \cite{Fachr01} that
2468: a sum up to $j = 16$ is needed to obtain convergence for the cross section at $E_{\rm lab} = 300$ MeV
2469: within 1\%.
2470:
2471:
2472:
2473:
2474:
2475:
2476:
2477: \subsection{Deuteron properties}
2478: \label{sec:deut}
2479:
2480: We now turn to the bound state properties. We stress that we do not use the deuteron
2481: binding energy as a fit parameter as it is frequently done but rather adopt the same
2482: LECs as obtained in the fit to the low phases. In Table~\ref{tab3} we collect the
2483: resulting deuteron properties in comparison to the NLO and NNLO results from \cite{EGMs2}.
2484: All results for the deuteron properties in this table have been calculated using the formulae given in
2485: section \ref{sec:bs} based on the relativistic wave function $\Psi^{\rm d} (p)$.
2486: %%Notice that we did not use the deuteron binding energy in the determination of the LECs.
2487: First, we note a clear improvement at N$^3$LO in the chiral expansion. The predicted
2488: binding energy at N$^3$LO is within 0.4\% of the experimental value. This has to be
2489: compared with 1\%--1.5\% ($\sim$2\%--2.5\%) deviation at NNLO (NLO).
2490: Also visibly improved is the asymptotic S--wave normalization strength $A_S$, which
2491: now deviates from the experimental (central) value by 0.3\% as compared to $\sim$1.1\% ($\sim$1.9\%)
2492: at NNLO (NLO). Our predictions for the asymptotic D/S--ratio have a tendency to slightly reduce
2493: its value when going from NLO to NNLO to N$^3$LO. The results at all orders are in
2494: agreement with the data within the experimental uncertainty. Further, our N$^3$LO result for $\eta_{\rm d}$
2495: agrees well with the one of the Nijmegen PWA \cite{Swart95}, $\eta_{\rm d} = 0.0253(2)$.
2496: %%
2497: We do not observe any improvement for the quadrupole momentum $Q_{\rm d}$ at N$^3$LO, which shows an even
2498: larger deviation from the data compared to NNLO (6\% - 8\% versus 4\% - 5\%). We, however, remind the
2499: reader that the present calculation of $Q_{\rm d}$ is based on formulae of section \ref{sec:bs}. It is
2500: incomplete and does, in particular, not take into account the contribution of the two--nucleon current.
2501: Notice that apart from the pion--exchange two--nucleon currents, there are contributions from
2502: two--nucleon contact current, where the corresponding LEC cannot be fixed from nucleon--nucleon
2503: scattering. Such current results from the operator in the effective Lagrangian with
2504: four nucleon fields, one photon field and two derivatives.
2505: It appears natural to fix the value of the accompanying LEC from the requirement to reproduce the
2506: value of the deuteron quadrupole moment. For the calculations of the various deuteron properties
2507: including the quadrupole moment as well as other two--nucleon observables in pionless EFT the reader
2508: might consult Refs.~\cite{chen99_1,chen99_2}. Notice that the situation with the quadrupole moment
2509: is analogous to the one described in
2510: \cite{walzl01} for the deuteron magnetic moment. In that case the corresponding
2511: short--range two--nucleon current results from the operator with just one derivative and thus appears even at a
2512: lower order.
2513: %
2514: The situation with the deuteron rms-radius is similar to the one with the quadrupole moment:
2515: we observe a larger deviation from the data at N$^3$LO as compared to the NLO and NNLO results.
2516: Notice however that the deviations at N$^3$LO from the experimental number are still of the order
2517: of 0.5\% or less.
2518: The above comment on the missing contributions in the quadrupole moment calculation
2519: applies to the deuteron rms-radius as well.
2520: At N$^3$LO one should account for the contribution due to the short--range two--nucleon
2521: current, which results from the contact operator with four nucleon fields,
2522: one photon field and two derivatives, see \cite{chen99_1} for more details.
2523: It is remarkable that the cut--off dependence of $\sqrt{\langle r^2 \rangle^{\rm d}_m}$ at N$^3$LO is
2524: significantly larger compared to NLO and NNLO. This implicitly confirms our previous statement
2525: about the necessity to incorporate the short--range current at this order. The cut--off dependence
2526: of the corresponding LEC will compensate the cut--off dependence of $\sqrt{\langle r^2 \rangle^{\rm d}_m}$
2527: making the deuteron ``point--nucleon'' radius cut--off independent up to higher--order corrections.
2528: The complete N$^3$LO calculation of the quadrupole moment and the ``point--nucleon''
2529: electric charge radius of the deuteron will be presented in a separate publication.
2530: %%
2531: As a numerical check, we have recalculated all deuteron properties using the nonrelativistic
2532: wave function $\phi^{\rm d} (p)$ in eq.~({\ref{LSb3}). As expected from the discussion in section \ref{sec:bs},
2533: we reproduce the values for $E_{\rm d}$ and $\eta_{\rm d}$. The asymptotic S--wave normalization $A_S$
2534: changes by $\tilde A_S - A_S = 0.00039$ fm$^{-1/2}$. This has to be compared
2535: with the value $\tilde A_S - A_S = 0.000392$ fm$^{-1/2}$ from eq.~(\ref{ASfin}).
2536: The quadrupole moment and the rms--radius change by 0.4\% and 0.1\%, respectively.
2537: %%
2538: Finally, we show the deuteron wave function in coordinate space in fig.~\ref{fig10}
2539: for a particular cut--off choice, together with results obtained
2540: at NLO and NNLO. One observes a stronger suppression of the S--wave component
2541: at short distances compared to NLO and NNLO, as well as the lower probability for the deuteron to be in the D--state.
2542: The latter observation follows also from the smaller value of $P_{\rm d}$ quoted in Table~\ref{tab3}.
2543: The shape of the wave function changes for different cut--off choices.
2544: We remind the reader that the deuteron wave function is not observable (except at very large distances).
2545:
2546:
2547: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2548: \section{Summary}
2549: \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
2550: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2551: \label{sec:summ}
2552:
2553: In this paper, we have considered the interactions between two nucleons at N$^3$LO
2554: in chiral effective field theory. The pertinent results of this study can be summarized as
2555: follows:
2556: \begin{itemize}
2557: \item[i)]The two--nucleon potential at N$^3$LO consists of one-, two- and three-pion
2558: exchanges and a set of contact interactions with zero, two and four derivatives, respectively,
2559: according to the chiral power counting, see also table~\ref{tab:isosp}.
2560: We have applied spectral function regularization to the
2561: multi-pion exchange contributions. This allows for a better separation of the low and high momentum
2562: components in the pion loop diagrams than dimensional regularization. Within this framework,
2563: we have shown that three-pion exchange can safely be neglected. The
2564: corresponding cut--off is varied from 500 to 700 MeV. The LECs
2565: related to the dimension two and three $\bar NN\pi\pi$
2566: vertices are taken consistently from studies of pion-nucleon scattering in
2567: chiral perturbation theory, \cite{Fet98,Paul}.
2568: In the isospin limit, there are 24 LECs related to four--nucleon
2569: interactions which feed into the
2570: S--, P-- and D--waves and various mixing parameters, cf. Eq.~(\ref{VC}).
2571: \item[ii)]We have reviewed
2572: the various isospin breaking mechanisms and
2573: proposed a novel ordering scheme, based on one small parameter that collects
2574: strong as well as electromagnetic isospin violation,
2575: cf. Eq.~(\ref{CountRules1}) accompanied by a particular counting rule for
2576: photon loops, see Eq.~(\ref{CountRules2}). This differs from the scheme
2577: proposed and applied in Ref.~\cite{WME}. In the actual calculations, we have
2578: included the leading charge-independence and charge-symmetry breaking
2579: four--nucleon operators, the pion mass difference in the 1PE,
2580: the kinematical effects due to the nucleon mass difference
2581: and the same electromagnetic corrections as done by
2582: the Nijmegen group (the static Coulomb potential and various corrections to
2583: it, magnetic moment interactions and vacuum polarization). This is done because
2584: we fit to the Nijmegen partial waves. In the future, it would be important to
2585: also include isospin violation in the 2PE, $\pi\gamma$-exchange and the isospin
2586: breaking corrections to the pion-nucleon scattering amplitude (which have been
2587: consistently determined in \cite{fet01}).
2588: \item[iii)]We have discussed in some detail the form of the scattering equation
2589: that is used to iterate the potential and similar for the bound state. We use
2590: the Lippmann-Schwinger equation with the relativistic form of the kinetic
2591: energy. Such an approach can easily be extended to external probes or
2592: few--nucleon systems. We have also discussed the reduction to a
2593: nonrelativistic form which be might of easier use in some applications.
2594: The LS equation is regulated in the standard way, cf. Eq.~(\ref{pot_reg}),
2595: with the cut-off varied from 450 to 600~MeV.
2596: \item[iv)]The total of 26 four--nucleon LECs has been determined by
2597: a combined fit to some $np$ and $pp$ phase shifts from the Nijmegen analysis
2598: together with the $nn$ scattering length value $a_{nn} = -18.9\,$fm, as
2599: detailed in section~\ref{sec:fit}. The resulting LECs are of natural
2600: size except $D_{1S0}^1$ and $D_{3S1}^1$. Comparing to the fits at NLO and NNLO, we had to extend the
2601: fit range to higher energies for the reasons discussed in
2602: section~\ref{sec:fit}.
2603: \item[v)] The description of the low phase shifts (S, P, D) is excellent, see
2604: Figs.~\ref{fig1}-\ref{fig3}. In all cases, the N$^3$LO result is better
2605: than the NNLO one with a sizeably reduced theoretical uncertainty. This
2606: holds in particular for the problematic $^3P_0$ wave which was not well
2607: reproduced at NNLO. The peripheral waves (F, G, H, $\ldots$),
2608: that are free of parameters, are also well described with the
2609: expected theoretical uncertainty related to the cut--off variations,
2610: see Figs.~\ref{fig4}-\ref{fig5}. We stress that the description of the
2611: phases in general improves when going from LO to NLO to NNLO to N$^3$LO,
2612: as it is expected in a converging EFT.
2613: \item[vi)] The resulting S-wave scattering lengths and range parameters in the $np$
2614: (cf. tables \ref{tab1} and \ref{tab2}) and $pp$ systems (cf. Eq.~(\ref{ere_pp}))
2615: are in good agreement with the ones obtained in the Nijmegen PWA. In addition,
2616: we can give theoretical uncertainties for all these quantities, which are
2617: mostly in the one percent range.
2618: \item[vii)] The scattering observables (differential cross sections,
2619: analyzing powers) for the $np$ system displayed in
2620: Figs.~\ref{fig6}-\ref{fig9} are well described, with a small theoretical
2621: uncertainty at the order considered here.
2622: \item[viii)] The deuteron properties are further predictions. In particular,
2623: we have not included the binding energy in the fits, the deviation from the
2624: experimental value is in the range from 0.4 to 0.07$\%$. The asymptotic S-wave
2625: normalization and the asymptotic $D/S$ are also well described. The remaining
2626: discrepancies in the quadrupole moment and the rms matter radius are related
2627: to the short-ranged two-nucleon current not considered here.
2628: \end{itemize}
2629:
2630: \noindent
2631: In the future, these studies should be extended in various directions. In
2632: particular, one should construct the electroweak current operators to the
2633: same accuracy and work out the corresponding three--nucleon force, which
2634: is of special interest since it does not contain any novel LECs. Furthermore,
2635: a more systematic study of isospin violation in the two-- and three--nucleon
2636: systems based on the formalism developed here should be pursued. Work along
2637: these lines is under way.
2638:
2639:
2640: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2641: \section*{Acknowledgments}
2642:
2643: We are grateful to Franz Gross, Barry Holstein, Rocco Schiavilla and Bob Wiringa
2644: for several discussions and comments. E.E.~also acknowledge the hospitality of the
2645: Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington, Seattle,
2646: where part of this research was conducted. This work has been supported by the
2647: U.S.~Department of Energy Contract No.~DE-AC05-84ER40150 under which the
2648: Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson
2649: National Accelerator Facility.
2650:
2651:
2652: \bigskip
2653:
2654: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2655: \appendix
2656: \def\theequation{\Alph{section}.\arabic{equation}}
2657: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2658: \section{Kinematics}
2659: \label{sec:kinem}
2660:
2661: Consider two nucleons moving with momenta $\vec p_1$ and $\vec p_2$.
2662: We use the relativistic kinematics for relating the energy $E_{\rm lab}$ of two nucleons
2663: in the laboratory system to the square of the nucleon momentum $\vec p$ in the center--of--mass system, which
2664: is defined by the condition $\vec p_1 + \vec p_2 =0$.\footnote{It would be more
2665: appropriate to call such a system center--of--momenta or rest--frame and not center--of--mass
2666: as usually done in the literature.} The relation between $E_{\rm lab}$ and $\vec{p} \, ^2$ reads
2667: (here and in what follows: $p \equiv | \vec p |$):
2668: \begin{itemize}
2669: \item
2670: Proton--proton case:
2671: \beq
2672: p^2 = \frac{1}{2} m_p E_{\rm lab}\,.
2673: \eeq
2674: \item
2675: Neutron--neutron case:
2676: \beq
2677: p^2 = \frac{1}{2} m_n E_{\rm lab}\,.
2678: \eeq
2679: \item
2680: Neutron--proton case:
2681: \beq
2682: p^2 = \frac{m_p^2 E_{\rm lab} (E_{\rm lab} + 2 m_n)}{(m_n+m_p)^2 + 2 E_{\rm lab} m_p}\,.
2683: \eeq
2684: \end{itemize}
2685: \noindent
2686: The relativistic Schr\"odinger equation for two protons or two neutrons
2687: in the c.m.~system reads:
2688: \beq
2689: \label{schroed_rel}
2690: \left[ \left( 2 \sqrt{p^2 + m} - 2 m \right) + V \right] \Psi
2691: = E \Psi\,,
2692: \eeq
2693: where $m$ is the proton or neutron mass.
2694: For the neutron--proton system it takes the form
2695: \beq
2696: \left[ \left( \sqrt{p^2 + m_n^2} + \sqrt{p^2 + m_p^2} - m_n - m_p \right) + V \right] \Psi
2697: = E \Psi\,.
2698: \eeq
2699: The free Hamiltonian $H_0$ can be expressed in terms of the mass $m$ defined as
2700: \beq
2701: m = \frac{ 2 m_p m_n}{m_p + m_n}\,,
2702: \eeq
2703: in the following way
2704: \beq
2705: \label{kinet_approx}
2706: H_0 = \sqrt{p^2 + m_n^2} + \sqrt{p^2 + m_p^2} - m_n - m_p \simeq 2 \sqrt{p^2 + m^2} - 2 m
2707: % +(m_p - m_n ) \, \mathcal{O}
2708: %\left( \frac{m_p - m_n}{m_p + m_n} \right)
2709: \,,
2710: \eeq
2711: modulo terms which are proportional to $(m_p - m_n )^2$. Taking into account such terms goes beyond the
2712: accuracy of the present analysis. We will therefore use the approximate expression
2713: (\ref{kinet_approx}) in this work, which leads to the Schr\"odinger equation of the type
2714: (\ref{schroed_rel}).
2715:
2716:
2717: \section{Partial wave decomposition of the $NN$ potential}
2718: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2719: \label{sec:pw}
2720:
2721: In this appendix we describe the partial wave decomposition of the two--nucleon potential.
2722: For that we first rewrite the potential $V$ in the form
2723: \begin{eqnarray}
2724: \label{pot_dec}
2725: V &=& V_C + V_\sigma \; \vec{\sigma}_1 \cdot \vec{\sigma}_2 + V_{SL} \; i \; \frac{1}{2}
2726: (\vec{\sigma}_1 + \vec{\sigma}_2 ) \cdot
2727: ( \vec{k} \times \vec{q} ) + V_{\sigma L} \; \vec{\sigma}_1 \cdot (
2728: \vec{q} \times
2729: \vec{k} ) \; \vec{\sigma}_2 \cdot ( \vec{q} \times \vec{k} ) \nonumber \\
2730: && {} + V_{\sigma q} \; ( \vec{\sigma}_1 \cdot \vec{q} ) \; (\vec{\sigma}_2 \cdot
2731: \vec{q} ) + V_{\sigma k} \; (\vec{\sigma}_1 \cdot \vec{k}) \; (\vec{\sigma}_2 \cdot \vec{k})~,
2732: \end{eqnarray}
2733: with six functions $V_C (p, p', z), \; \ldots , \; V_{\sigma k} (p, p', z)$
2734: depending on $p \equiv | \vec{p}\,|$, $p' \equiv | \vec{p} \, '|$ and
2735: the cosine of the angle between the two momenta is called $z$.
2736: %$z \equiv \cos ( \widehat{\vec{p} \vec{p} \, '})$.
2737: These functions may depend on the isospin matrices $\fet{\tau}$ as well.
2738: To perform the partial wave decomposition of $V$, i.~e.~to express it in the
2739: standard $lsj$ representation, we have followed the steps of ref.~\cite{Er71}.
2740: In particular, we start from the helicity state representation $|\hat{p} \, \lambda_1 \lambda_2 \rangle$,
2741: where $\hat{p} = \vec{p}/p$ and $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are
2742: the helicity quantum numbers corresponding to nucleons 1 and 2,
2743: respectively. We then expressed the potential in the $| j m \lambda_1 \lambda_2 \rangle$ representation
2744: using the transformation matrix
2745: $\langle \hat{p} \, \lambda_1 \lambda_2 | j m \lambda_1 \lambda_2 \rangle$, given
2746: in ref.~\cite{Er71}. The final step is to switch to the $| lsj \rangle$ representation.
2747: The corresponding transformation matrix $\langle lsjm| jm\lambda_1 \lambda_2 \rangle$ is given in refs.~\cite{Ja59},
2748: \cite{Er71}.
2749:
2750: \medskip\noindent
2751: For $j>0$, we obtain the following expressions for the non--vanishing matrix elements in the $| lsj\rangle$
2752: representation:
2753: \begin{eqnarray}
2754: \langle j0j | V | j0j \rangle &=& 2 \pi \int_{-1}^{1} \, dz \, \left\{ V_C - 3 V_\sigma
2755: + {p '}^2 {p}^2 (z^2 -1) V_{\sigma L} - q^2 V_{\sigma q} - k^2 V_{\sigma k}
2756: \right\} P_j (z)~, \nonumber \\
2757: \langle j1j | V | j1j \rangle
2758: &=& 2 \pi \int_{-1}^{1} \, dz \, \left\{ \left[ V_C + V_\sigma + 2
2759: p' p z V_{SL} - {p'}^2 p^2 (1 + 3 z^2) V_{\sigma L} + 4 k^2 V_{\sigma q} +
2760: \frac{1}{4} q^2 V_{\sigma k} \right] \right. \nonumber \\
2761: && {} \times P_j (z) + \left. \left[- p' p \, V_{SL} +
2762: 2 {p'}^2 p^2 z V_{\sigma L} -2 p' p \, (V_{\sigma q} - \frac{1}{4} V_{\sigma k} )\right] \right. \nonumber \\
2763: && {} \times \left( P_{j-1} (z) +
2764: P_{j+1} (z) \right) \bigg\}~, \nonumber
2765: \end{eqnarray}
2766: \begin{eqnarray}
2767: \label{aa13}
2768: \langle j\pm 1,1j | V | j \pm 1, 1j \rangle &=& 2 \pi \int_{-1}^{1} \, dz \, \left\{
2769: p' p \left[ -V_{SL} \pm \frac{2}{2j+1} \left( - p' p z V_{\sigma L} + V_{\sigma q} -
2770: \frac{1}{4} V_{\sigma k} \right) \right] \right. \nonumber \\
2771: && {} \times P_j (z) + \bigg[ V_C + V_\sigma + p' p z V_{SL} + {p'}^2 p^2 (1-z^2) V_{\sigma L} \nn
2772: && {} \left. \left. \pm\frac{1}{2j+1} \left( 2 {p'}^2 p^2 V_{\sigma L} -
2773: ({p'}^2 + p^2)(V_{\sigma q} +
2774: \frac{1}{4} V_{\sigma k} ) \right) \right] P_{j\pm 1} (z) \right\} \nonumber \\
2775: \langle j\pm 1,1j | V | j \mp 1, 1j \rangle &=& \frac{\sqrt{j(j+1)}}{2j+1} 2 \pi \int_{-1}^{1} \, dz \,
2776: \Bigg\{- p' p \, (4 V_{\sigma q} - V_{\sigma k} ) P_j (z)~, \nonumber \\
2777: && {} + \left[\mp \frac{2 {p'}^2 p^2}{2j+1} V_{\sigma L} + {p'}^2 \Big(2 V_{\sigma q}+\frac{1}{2}
2778: V_{\sigma k}\Big) \right] P_{j\mp 1} (z) \nonumber \\
2779: && {} \left. + \left[\pm \frac{2 {p'}^2 p^2}{2j+1} V_{\sigma L} + {p}^2 \Big(2 V_{\sigma q}+\frac{1}{2}
2780: V_{\sigma k}\Big) \right] P_{j\pm 1} (z) \right\}~.
2781: \end{eqnarray}
2782: Here, $P_j (z)$ are the conventional Legendre polynomials.
2783: For $j=0$ the two non--vanishing matrix elements are
2784: \begin{eqnarray}
2785: \label{aa14}
2786: \langle 000 | V | 000 \rangle &=& 2 \pi \int_{-1}^{1} \, dz \, \left\{
2787: V_C - 3 V_\sigma
2788: + {p '}^2 {p}^2 (z^2 -1) V_{\sigma L} - q^2 V_{\sigma q} - k^2 V_{\sigma k}
2789: \right\}~, \nonumber \\
2790: \langle 110 | V | 110 \rangle &=& 2 \pi \int_{-1}^{1} \, dz \, \bigg\{ z V_C
2791: + z V_\sigma + p' p (z^2 -1) V_{SL} + {p'}^2 p^2 z (1-z^2) V_{\sigma L} \nn
2792: && {}\left. - \left( ( {p'}^2 + p^2 )
2793: z - 2 p' p \right) V_{\sigma q} - \frac{1}{4}
2794: \left( ( {p'}^2 + p^2 )
2795: z + 2 p' p \right) V_{\sigma k} \right\}~.
2796: \end{eqnarray}
2797: Note that sometimes another notation is used in which an additional overall
2798: minus sign enters the expressions for the
2799: off--diagonal matrix elements with $l=j+1, \, l'=j-1$ and $l=j-1, \, l'=j+1$.
2800:
2801:
2802:
2803: \section{Momentum space treatment of the Coulomb interaction}
2804: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2805: \label{sec:coul}
2806:
2807: In this appendix we would like to explain our way of treating the
2808: nucleon--nucleon scattering problem in the presence of the
2809: Coulomb interaction in momentum space (following closely Ref.~\cite{WME}).
2810: The starting point is the nonrelativistic Schr\"odinger equation of the
2811: form (\ref{schr_nr1}) or (\ref{Schroed_nonrel}), where the
2812: the potential consists of two pieces: the short--range one given
2813: by the strong interaction and the long--range one given by the Coulomb force.
2814:
2815: \medskip\noindent
2816: As the Coulomb potential is of infinite range, the S--matrix has
2817: to be formulated in terms of asymptotic Coulomb states. Therefore, the
2818: phase shifts for a given angular momentum $l$
2819: due to the strong potential in the presence of the
2820: long--range electromagnetic interactions, denoted by $\delta_l^l$,
2821: are defined in terms of a linear combination of (ir)regular
2822: Coulomb--functions $F(G)$ as
2823: \beq\label{ucwave}
2824: \chi_{l}^l (r) = F_{l}(r) + \tan(\delta_l^l) \, G_{l}(r)
2825: \eeq
2826: analogously to the expression for an arbitrary potential of short range
2827: (i.e. in the absence of the Coulomb force)
2828: \beq\label{plainasym}
2829: \chi_{l}^s (r) = F^0_{l}(r) + \tan(\delta_l^s) \, G^0_{l}(r)
2830: \eeq
2831: with $F^0$, $G^0$ denoting solutions of the Coulomb problem with zero
2832: charge (conventionally expressed in terms of Bessel and Neumann
2833: functions) and the corresponding phase shift is called $\delta_l^s$.
2834: So far, we have restricted ourselves to uncoupled channels. We will
2835: consider the coupled case later on.
2836:
2837: \medskip\noindent
2838: As eq.(\ref{ucwave}) exhibits asymptotical Coulomb-states,
2839: we have to re-express our Lippmann-Schwinger-equation
2840: in terms of them. A very convenient scheme for inclusion of the Coulomb
2841: force in momentum space was suggested long time ago by Vincent and Phatak
2842: \cite{VP} and is
2843: used in the present analysis. In what follows we will briefly
2844: describe this approach.
2845:
2846:
2847: \medskip\noindent
2848: The starting point of this technique is the observation, that for a potential of the form
2849: \begin{equation}\label{VsC}
2850: V = V_{\rm C} + V_{\rm S}
2851: \end{equation}
2852: with
2853: \begin{equation}\label{cond}
2854: V_{\rm S}\,\psi_{l} = 0 \,\,\,(r\ge R)~,
2855: \end{equation}
2856: and $\psi_{l}$ the two--nucleon wave-function for a given angular momentum,
2857: two exact solutions for the wave-function can be given for every point
2858: on a sphere with radius $R+\epsilon$. One is of the form as in eq.(\ref{ucwave}),
2859: and another one according to eq.(\ref{plainasym}) with
2860: the phase shifts calculated for the following potential as in eq.(\ref{VsC}),
2861: with V$_{\rm C}$, however, being the Fourier-transformed Coulomb-potential
2862: integrated to the radius $R$,
2863: \beqa\label{Coulombpot}
2864: V_{\rm C}(\mid \vec{q}\,'- \vec{q}\mid) &=&
2865: \int_{0}^{R}d^{3}r \, e^{i(\vec{q}\,'-\vec{q}\,) \cdot
2866: \vec{r}}\,\,\frac{\alpha}{r} \nonumber\\
2867: &=&
2868: \frac{4\pi \alpha}{\mid \vec{q}~'-\vec{q}\mid^{2}}
2869: (1-\cos(\mid \vec{q}~'-\vec{q}\mid R))~.
2870: \eeqa
2871: Here, $\vec{q}, \vec{q}\,'$ are the cms momenta and $\alpha$ is the fine-structure
2872: constant. On the above-defined sphere, both wave functions describe
2873: the same system.
2874: Now we know how to obtain an expression for the strong phase shift
2875: $\delta_l^l$ in the presence of the Coulomb interaction
2876: in terms of the short-range shift $\delta_l^s$ in the absence of
2877: electromagnetism: We only have to match the two solutions.
2878: This is most conveniently done by requiring the logarithmic derivative
2879: of both solutions to be equal, what enables us to express the strong
2880: shift in the presence of the Coulomb force in a Wronskian form:
2881: \beq
2882: \tan(\delta_l^l)\,=\,\frac{\tan(\delta_l^s)\lbrack
2883: F,G_0\rbrack + \lbrack F,F_0\rbrack}{\lbrack F_0,G\rbrack
2884: + \tan(\delta_l^s)\lbrack G_0,G\rbrack}
2885: \eeq
2886: with
2887: \beq
2888: \lbrack F,G \rbrack\,=\,\biggl(G\frac{dF}{dr}-F\frac{dG}{dr}\biggr)_{r=R}
2889: \eeq
2890:
2891: \medskip\noindent
2892: Let us now extend the previous consideration to the coupled case. For that we
2893: replace eq.~(\ref{ucwave}) by the matrix equation:
2894: \beq\label{ucwave_coup}
2895: \chi^l (r) = F(r) - m q K^l G(r)\,,
2896: \eeq
2897: where $K^l$ is the K--matrix for the strong potential in the presence of the Coulomb interaction,
2898: $\chi^l (r)$ is the $2 \times 2$ matrix which contains the
2899: wave functions
2900: \beq\label{coul_cop}
2901: \chi^l (r) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \chi^l_{j-1, \, j-1} (r) & \chi^l_{j-1, \, j+1} (r)\\
2902: \chi^l_{j+1, \, j-1} (r) & \chi^l_{j+1, \, j+1} (r) \end{array} \right)\,,
2903: \eeq
2904: and $F(r)$ and $G(r)$ are the $2 \times 2$ matrices which contain the
2905: Coulomb wave functions
2906: \beq
2907: F(r) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} F_{j-1} (r) & 0\\
2908: 0 & F_{j+1} (r) \end{array} \right)\,, \quad \quad
2909: G(r) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} G_{j-1} (r) & 0\\
2910: 0 & G_{j+1} (r) \end{array} \right)\,.
2911: \eeq
2912: All subscripts in the above equations refer to the values of the angular momentum $l$.
2913: Analogously, the equation (\ref{plainasym}) has to be replaced by
2914: \beq\label{plainasym_coup}
2915: \chi^s (r) = F^0(r) - m q K^s G^0(r)\,,
2916: \eeq
2917: where $K^s$ is the K--matrix for the strong potential only.
2918:
2919: \medskip\noindent
2920: Matching now the wave function $\chi^l (r)$ with $\chi^s (r)$,
2921: calculated from the potential $V$ defined in eqs.~(\ref{VsC}) and (\ref{Coulombpot}),
2922: at some radius $R$ by equating the corresponding logarithmic derivatives
2923: as described above one obtains for the K--matrix $K^l$:
2924: \beq
2925: K^l =
2926: \frac{1}{mq} \left[ F (F_0 - m q K^s G_0 )^{-1} (F_0 ' - m q K^s G_0 ' ) - F ' \right]
2927: \left[ G (F_0 - m q K^s G_0 )^{-1} (F_0 ' - m q K^s G_0 ' ) - G ' \right]^{-1}\,.
2928: \eeq
2929:
2930: %In the present analysis we have also incorporated relativistic corrections to
2931: %the Coulomb interaction in the same way as it is done by the Nijmegen group. As
2932: %already pointed out in text, this is acieved by replacing the usual nonrelativistic
2933: %Coulomb potential by the energy--dependent one of the form \cite{austin}
2934: %\beq
2935: %\label{impr_coul}
2936: %V_C ' = \frac{\alpha '}{r}, \quad \quad \quad \mbox{where} \quad \alpha ' = \alpha
2937: %\frac{m_p^2 + 2 k^2}{m_p \sqrt{m_p^2 + k^2}}\,.
2938: %\eeq
2939: %Here $k$ is the absolute value of the c.m.~momentum of two protons.
2940: %The modified
2941: %Coulomb potential in eq.~(\ref{impr_coul}) can be treated in momentum space in the
2942: %same way as the standard Coulomb potential as described
2943: %above.\footnote{Clearly, one has to use the appropriately adjusted regular and
2944: %irregular Coulomb functions $F_l (r)$ and $G_l (r)$.}
2945: %Notice that the relativistic corrections given in eq.~(\ref{impr_coul}) are
2946: %designed to be used in eq.~(\ref{Schroed_nonrel}) which assumes relativistic
2947: %konematics in relating the c.m.s.~energy and momentum. In the present
2948: %analysis we therefore first compute the corresponding ``nonrelativistic'' strong potential
2949: %using eq.~(\ref{pot_nonrel}). The integration is performed numerically using
2950: %Gauss--Legendre quadrature. We then add the modified Coulomb force to the
2951: %resulting potential and solve the corresponding Lippmann--Schwinger equation in
2952: %momentum space following the lines of this appendix.
2953:
2954:
2955:
2956: \medskip \noindent
2957: The only remaining difficulty is the determination of the
2958: matching radius $R$, because the
2959: given solution is wrong as long as (\ref{cond}) is not valid. On the
2960: other hand, it is not possible to extend $R$ to arbitrarily
2961: large values, because the
2962: cosine in eq.(\ref{Coulombpot}) will cause rapid
2963: oscillations. $R \sim 10$ fm turns out to be a good choice, see
2964: \cite{WME}. We use the value $R=12$ fm in the present analysis.
2965:
2966:
2967:
2968: \section{Effective range expansion}
2969: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2970: \label{sec:efr}
2971:
2972: In this appendix we collect the formulae for the S--wave effective range expansion.
2973: In the simplest case of the scattering with the finite--range potential, the
2974: quantity $k \cot ( \delta_0 )$, where $\delta_0$ is the S--wave phase shift and
2975: $k$ is the c.m.s.~momentum, is well known
2976: to have the low--momentum (or effective range) expansion:
2977: \beq
2978: \label{ere1}
2979: k \cot (\delta_0 ) = -\frac{1}{a} + \frac{1}{2} r k^2 +
2980: v_2 k^4 + v_3 k^6 + v_4 k^8 +\mathcal{O} (k^{10})\,.
2981: \eeq
2982: Here $a$ is the scattering length, $r$ the effective range and $v_{2,3,4}$
2983: the shape parameters.
2984:
2985: \medskip\noindent
2986: In the presence of the long--range potential the effective range expansion has to be
2987: modified. In that case one usually defines an effective range function
2988: instead of the quantity $k \cot ( \delta_0 )$,
2989: in which the left--hand singularities due to the long--range interaction are
2990: removed, see reference \cite{Berg88} for more details.
2991: In the case of the modified Coulomb potential given in eq.~(\ref{modCoul}),
2992: the effective range function $F_C$ takes the form \cite{Berg88}
2993: \beq
2994: F_C = C_0^2 (\eta ') \, k \, \cot (\delta_0^{C} ) + 2 k \, \eta ' \, h (\eta ' )\,,
2995: \eeq
2996: where the quantity $\eta '$ is given by
2997: \beq
2998: \eta ' = \frac{m_p}{2 k} \alpha ' \,,
2999: \eeq
3000: and the functions $C_0^2 (\eta ')$ (the Sommerfeld factor) and $h (\eta ' )$ read
3001: \beq
3002: C_0^2 (\eta ') = \frac{2 \pi \eta '}{e^{2 \pi \eta '} - 1} \,, \quad \quad \mbox{and} \quad \quad
3003: h (\eta ' ) = {\rm Re} \Big[ \Psi ( 1 + i \eta ' ) \Big] - \ln (\eta ' ) \,.
3004: \eeq
3005: Here, $\Psi$ denotes the digamma function. Notice that the phase shift $\delta_0^C$ is the
3006: S--wave phase shift of the finite--range plus Coulomb potential with respect to
3007: Coulomb wave functions. In the notation of section \ref{sec:fit}, $\delta_0^C$ should be written
3008: as $\delta_{\rm C1 + N}^{\rm C1}$.
3009: The effective range expansion for the function $F_C$ is
3010: \beq
3011: \label{ere2}
3012: F_C = -\frac{1}{a^C} + \frac{1}{2} r^C k^2 +
3013: v_2^C k^4 + v_3^C k^6 + v_4^C k^8 +\mathcal{O} (k^{10})\,.
3014: \eeq
3015:
3016: \medskip\noindent
3017: In a general case of an arbitrary long--range interaction, the effective
3018: range function may be obtained e.g.~along the lines of Ref.~\cite{hink71}
3019: provided that the long--range potential is weak enough to be treated perturbatively.
3020: For more discussion on the effective range expansion in presence of electromagnetic
3021: interaction the reader is referred to \cite{Berg88}.
3022:
3023:
3024:
3025:
3026: \bigskip\bigskip\bigskip
3027: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% REFS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3028:
3029: %\newpage
3030:
3031:
3032: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
3033: \bibitem{wein} S.~Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 363} (1991) 3.\vs
3034: \bibitem{border} S.~R.~Beane, P.~F.~Bedaque, W.~C.~Haxton, D.~R.~Phillips and M.~J.~Savage,
3035: in M.~Shifman: At the frontier of particle physics, vol. 1, p. 133-269
3036: (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001).\vs
3037: \bibitem{BvK} P.~F.~Bedaque and U.~van Kolck,
3038: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 52} (2002) 339.\vs
3039: \bibitem{E3NF} E.~Epelbaum, A.~Nogga, W.~Gl\"ockle, H.~Kamada, U.-G.~Mei{\ss}ner and H.~Witala,
3040: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 66} (2002) 064001.\vs
3041: \bibitem{EM3} D.~R.~Entem and R.~Machleidt, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 68} (2003) 041001.\vs
3042: \bibitem{Machl_INT} R.~Machleidt, {\it Some Issues Concerning the Nucleon--Nucleon Interaction Based upon
3043: Chiral Effective Field Theory}, talk given at the INT program Theories of Nuclear Forces
3044: and Nuclear Systems, September 29 - December 5 2003, INT, Seattle (USA).\vs
3045: \bibitem{WME} M.~Walzl, U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner and E.~Epelbaum,
3046: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 693} (2001) 663.\vs
3047: \bibitem{Betal} S.~R.~Beane, P.~F.~Bedaque, M.~J.~Savage and U.~van Kolck,
3048: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 700} (2002) 377.\vs
3049: \bibitem{BeSa1} S.~R.~Beane and M.~J.~Savage, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 713} (2003) 148.\vs
3050: \bibitem{CHlim} E.~Epelbaum, U.-G.~Mei{\ss}ner and W.~Gl\"ockle, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 714} (2003) 535.\vs
3051: \bibitem{BeSa2} S.~R.~Beane and M.~J.~Savage, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 717} (2003) 91.\vs
3052: \bibitem{ubi} C.~Ord\'{o}\~{n}ez, L.~Ray and U.~van Kolck,
3053: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 53} (1996) 2086.\vs
3054: \bibitem{fr94} J.L.~Friar, S.A.~Coon, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 49} (1994) 1272. \vs
3055: \bibitem{norb} N.~Kaiser, R.~Brockmann and W.~Weise,
3056: Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 625} (1997) 758.\vs
3057: \bibitem{EGM1} E.~Epelbaum, W.~Gl\"ockle and U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner,
3058: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 637} (1998) 107.\vs
3059: \bibitem{EGM2} E.~Epelbaum, W.~Gl\"ockle and U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner,
3060: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 671} (2000) 295.\vs
3061: \bibitem{EGMs1} E.~Epelbaum, W.~Gl\"ockle and U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner,
3062: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ A {\bf 19} (2004) 125.\vs
3063: \bibitem{NK21} N.~Kaiser, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 64} (2001) 057001.\vs
3064: \bibitem{NK31} N.~Kaiser, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 61} (2000) 014003.\vs
3065: \bibitem{NK32} N.~Kaiser, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 62} (2000) 024001.\vs
3066: \bibitem{EGMs2} E.~Epelbaum, W.~Gl\"ockle and U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner,
3067: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ A {\bf 19} (2004) 401.\vs
3068: \bibitem{Ephd} E.~Epelbaum, doctoral thesis, published in {\it Berichte des Forschungszentrums
3069: J\"ulich}, No. 3803 (2000).\vs
3070: \bibitem{Fet98} N.~Fettes, U.-G.~Mei{\ss}ner, and S.~Steininger, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 640} (1998) 199.\vs
3071: \bibitem{Norbert04} N.~Kaiser, private communication.\vs
3072: \bibitem{Friar99} J.L.Friar, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 60} (1999) 034002.\vs
3073: \bibitem{EM2} D.~R.~Entem and R.~Machleidt, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 66} (2002) 014002.\vs
3074: \bibitem{NK33} N.~Kaiser, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 63} (2001) 044010.\vs
3075: \bibitem{rob00} M.R.~Robilotta, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 63} (2001) 044004.\vs
3076: \bibitem{higa03} R.~Higa and M.R.~Robilotta, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 68} (2003) 024004.\vs
3077: \bibitem{bech99} T.~Becher and H.~Leutwyler, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 9} (1999) 643.\vs
3078: \bibitem{kolck} U.~van Kolck, Ph.D.~Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1993, UMI-94-01021-mc.\vs
3079: \bibitem{vKNij} U.~van Kolck et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80} (1998) 4386.\vs
3080: \bibitem{kolck96} U.~van Kolck, J.L. Friar, T. Goldman, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 371} (1996) 169.\vs
3081: \bibitem{Ep99} E.Epelbaum, U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 461} (1999) 287.\vs
3082: \bibitem{friar03} J.L. Friar et al., Phys. Rev. C {\bf 68} (2003) 024003.\vs
3083: \bibitem{coon96} S.A. Coon, J.A. Niskanen, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 53} (1996) 1154.\vs
3084: \bibitem{nis02} J.A. Niskanen, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 65} (2002) 037001.\vs
3085: \bibitem{nijpwa} V.G.J.~Stoks et al., Phys. Rev. C {\bf 48} (1993) 792.\vs
3086: \bibitem{urech95} R.~Urech, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 433} (1995) 234.\vs
3087: \bibitem{MS} U.-G.~Mei{\ss}ner and S.~Steininger, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 419} (1998) 403.\vs
3088: \bibitem{MM} G.~M\"uller and U.-G.~Mei{\ss}ner, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 556} (1999) 265.\vs
3089: \bibitem{fet99} N. Fettes, U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner and S. Steininger, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 451} (1999) 233.\vs
3090: \bibitem{fet00} N. Fettes and U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner, Phys.Rev. C {\bf 63} (2001) 045201.\vs
3091: \bibitem{fet01} N. Fettes and U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 693} (2001) 693.\vs
3092: \bibitem{Bern}J.~Gasser, M.~A.~Ivanov, E.~Lipartia, M.~Mojzis and A.~Rusetsky,
3093: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 26} (2002) 13.\vs
3094: \bibitem{GLmass}J.~Gasser and H.~Leutwyler, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 87} (1982) 77.\vs
3095: \bibitem{pasc03} V. Pascalutsa, D.R. Phillips, nucl--th/0308065.\vs
3096: \bibitem{FvK}J. Friar and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 60} (1999) 034006.\vs
3097: \bibitem{austin} G.J.M.~Ausin and J.J.~de Swart, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 50} (1983) 2039.\vs
3098: \bibitem{Berg88} J.R.~Bergervoet et al., Phys. Rev. C {\bf 38} (1988) 15.\vs
3099: \bibitem{stoks90} V.G.~Stoks, and J.J.~de Swart, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 42} (1990) 1235.\vs
3100: \bibitem{stoksPhD} V.G.~Stoks, Ph.D.~Thesis, Nijmegen, 1990.\vs
3101: \bibitem{ueling} E.A.~Ueling, Phys. Rev. {\bf 48} (1935) 55. \vs
3102: \bibitem{durand} L.~Durand III, Phys. Rev. {\bf 108} (1957) 1597.\vs
3103: \bibitem{ES}D.~Eiras and J.~Soto, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 491} (2000) 101.\vs
3104: \bibitem{stapp} H.P.~Stapp, T.J.~Ypsilantis and N.~Metropolis,
3105: Phys. Rev. {\bf 105} (1957) 302.\vs
3106: \bibitem{Bl52} J.M.~Blatt and L.C.~Biedenharn, Phys. Rev. {\bf 86} (1952) 399,
3107: Rev. Mod, Phys. {\bf 24} (1952) 258. \vs
3108: \bibitem{KGT} H.~Kamada and W.~Gl\"ockle, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80} (1998) 2547. \vs
3109: \bibitem{friar79} J.L. Friar, Phys. \ Rev. \ C~{\bf 20} (1979) 325. \vs
3110: \bibitem{kohno83} M. Kohno, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. {\bf 9} (1983) L85.\vs
3111: \bibitem{CP} D.~R.~Phillips and T.~D.~Cohen, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 668} (2000) 45.\vs
3112: \bibitem{klar86} S. Klarsfeld et al., Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 456} (1986) 373.\vs
3113: \bibitem{mart95} J. Martorell, D.W.L. Sprung, D.C. Zheng, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 51} (1995) 1127. \vs
3114: \bibitem{friar97} J.L. Friar, J. Martorell, and D.W.L. Sprung, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 56} (1997) 4579.\vs
3115: \bibitem{RR} R.~Rosenfelder, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 479} (2000) 381.\vs
3116: \bibitem{MR} K.~Melnikov and T.~van Ritbergen, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84} (2000) 1673.\vs
3117: \bibitem{IS} I.~Sick, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 576} (2003) 62.\vs
3118: \bibitem{kop95} S. Kopecky et al.,Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74} (1995) 2427.\vs
3119: \bibitem{jen00} B.K. Jennings, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 62} (2000) 027602.\vs
3120: \bibitem{vanorden} M. Garcon and J.W. Van Orden, Adv. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 26} (2001) 293.\vs
3121: \bibitem{GG} R.~Gilman and F.~Gross, J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 28} (2002) R37.\vs
3122: \bibitem{rentm03} M.C.M.~Rentmeester, R.G.E.~Timmermans and J.J.~de Swart, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 67}
3123: (2003) 044001.\vs
3124: \bibitem{Paul} P. B\"uttiker and U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 668} (2000) 97.\vs
3125: \bibitem{how98} C.R. Howell et al., Phys. Lett. B {\bf 444} (1998) 252.\vs
3126: \bibitem{gonz99} D.E. Gonz$\acute{a}$lez Trotter et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83} (1999) 3788.\vs
3127: \bibitem{Lepage} P. Lepage, nucl--th/9706029.\vs
3128: \bibitem{Lepage_INT} P.~Lepage, {\it Tutorial: Renormalizing the Schr\"odinger Equation},
3129: talk given at the INT program Effective Field Theories and Effective Interactions,
3130: June 25 - August 5 2000, INT, Seattle (USA).\vs
3131: \bibitem{Geg01} J. Gegelia and G. Japaridze, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 517} (2001) 476.\vs
3132: \bibitem{Geg04} J. Gegelia and S. Scherer, nucl--th/0403052.\vs
3133: \bibitem{beane00} S.R. Beane et al., Phys. Rev. A {\bf 64} (2001) 042103. \vs
3134: \bibitem{ep2002} E. Epelbaum et al., Eur. Phys.J. {\bf A} 15 (2002) 543. \vs
3135: \bibitem{Berg90} J.R.~Bergervoet et al., Phys. Rev. C {\bf 41} (1990) 1435.\vs
3136: \bibitem{nag78} M.M.~Nagels, T.A.~Rijken, and J.J.~de Swart, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17} (1978) 768.\vs
3137: \bibitem{Hen79} E.M.~Henley and g.A.~Miller, in {\it Mesons in Nuclei}, edited by M.~Rho and
3138: D.~Wilkinson, North Holland, 1979, p.406.\vs
3139: \bibitem{V18} R.B. Wiringa et al., Phys. Rev. C {\bf 51} (1995) 38.\vs
3140: \bibitem{Mill90} G.A. Miller, M.K. Nefkens, and I. Slaus, Phys. Rep. {\bf 194} (1990) 1.\vs
3141: \bibitem{Gonz99} D.E. Gonzales Trotter et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83} (1999) 3788.\vs
3142: \bibitem{Hu00} V. Huhn et al., Phys. Rev. C {\bf 63} (2000) 014003.\vs
3143: \bibitem{kong00} X. Kong, and F. Ravndal, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 665} (2000) 137.\vs
3144: \bibitem{gegelia03} J. Gegelia, Eur. Phys. J. A {\bf 19} (2004) 355.\vs
3145: \bibitem{jackson50} J.D. Jackson, and J.M. Blatt, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 22} (1950) 77\vs
3146: \bibitem{Fachr01} I. Fachruddin, Ch. Elster, and W. Gl\"ockle, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 689}, (2001) 507c.\vs
3147: \bibitem{Swart95} J.J. de Swart, C.P.F. Terheggen, and V.G.J. Stoks, nucl-th/9509032.\vs
3148: \bibitem{chen99_1} J.-W. Chen, G. Rupak, and M.J. Savage, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 653} (1999) 386.\vs
3149: \bibitem{chen99_2} J.-W. Chen, G. Rupak, and M.J. Savage, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 464} (1999) 1.\vs
3150: \bibitem{walzl01} M. Walzl and U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner, Phys.Lett. B {\bf 513} (2001) 37.\vs
3151: \bibitem{Er71} K.~Erkelenz, R.~Alzetta and K.~Holinde, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 176} (1971) 413. \vs
3152: \bibitem{Ja59} M.~Jacob and G.~Wick, Ann. of Phys. {\bf 7} (1959) 404 .\vs
3153: \bibitem{VP}C.~M.~Vincent and S.~C.~Phatak, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 10} (1974) 391.\vs
3154: \bibitem{hink71} O. Hinckelmann and L. Spruch, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 3} (1971) 2. \vs
3155: \bibitem{Rentm99} M.C.M. Rentmeester, private communication, 1999. \vs
3156: \bibitem{le82} C. van der Leun and C. Alderlisten, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 380} (1982) 261.\vs
3157: \bibitem{bi79} D.M. Bishop and L.M. Cheung, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 20} (1979) 381.\vs
3158: \bibitem{er83} T.E.O. Ericson and M. Rosa--Clot, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 405} (1983) 497.\vs
3159: \bibitem{rod90} N.L. Rodning and L.D. Knutson, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 41} (1990) 898.\vs
3160: \bibitem{said} SAID on-line program, R.A. Arndt et al., http://gwdac.phys.gwu.edu.\vs
3161: \bibitem{nnonline} Nijmegen NN on-line program, http://nn-online.sci.kun.nl.\vs
3162: \bibitem{fink90} G. Fink et al., Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 518} (1990), 561.\vs
3163: \bibitem{sro86} J. Sromicki et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 57} (1986), 2359.\vs
3164: \bibitem{wil84} J. Wilczynski et al., Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 425} (1984), 458.\vs
3165: \bibitem{mont77} T.C. Montgomery et al., Phys. Rev. C {\bf 16} (1977) 499.\vs
3166: \bibitem{fitz80} D.H. Fitzgerald et al., Phys. Rev. C {\bf 21} (1980) 1190.\vs
3167: \bibitem{gar80} R. Garrett et al., Phys. Rev. C {\bf 21} (1980) 1149.\vs
3168: \bibitem{lang65} A. Langsford et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf 74} (1965), 241.\vs
3169: \bibitem{rom78} J.L. Romero et al., Phys. Rev. C {\bf 17} (1978) 468.\vs
3170: \bibitem{roe92} T. R\"onnqvist et al., Phys. Rev. C {\bf 45} (1992) R496.\vs
3171: \bibitem{sta57} G.H. Stafford et al., Lett. Nuovo Cim. {\bf 5} (1957) 1589.\vs
3172: \bibitem{gri58} T.C. Griffith et al., Proc. Phys. Soc. London, Sect. A {\bf 71} (1958) 305.\vs
3173: \bibitem{ra01} J. Rahm et al., Phys. Rev. C {\bf 63} (2001) 044001.\vs
3174: \bibitem{ber76} A.J. Bersbach et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 13} (1976) 535.\vs
3175: \bibitem{kuc61} A.F. Kuckes et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf 121} (1961) 1226.\vs
3176: \end{thebibliography}
3177:
3178:
3179: \pagebreak
3180:
3181: \centerline {{\large \bf TABLES}}
3182:
3183:
3184: \begin{table*}[htb]
3185: \vspace{1.cm}
3186: \begin{center}
3187: \begin{tabular}{||p{5.1cm}|p{5.1cm}|p{5.1cm}||}
3188: \hline \hline
3189: {} & {} & {} \\[-1.5ex]
3190: \centerline{Isospin--symmetric} & Isospin--breaking, finite--range & Isospin--breaking, long--range\\[-1ex]
3191: \hline \hline
3192: {} & {} & {} \\[-1.5ex]
3193: {\bf LO} ($\nu = 0$):
3194:
3195: static 1PE, contact terms without derivatives
3196:
3197: &
3198:
3199: \vskip 0.3 true cm
3200: \centerline{$-$} &
3201: \vskip 0.3 true cm
3202: \centerline{$-$}
3203: \\
3204: {\bf NLO} ($\nu = 2$):
3205:
3206: leading 2PE, contact terms with 2 derivatives
3207:
3208: &
3209: {$\fet \LOI$} ($\nu = 2$):
3210:
3211: $M_{\pi^\pm} \neq M_{\pi^0}$ in 1PE
3212:
3213: &
3214: {$\fet \LOI$} ($\nu = 2$):
3215:
3216: static 1$\gamma$--exchange
3217: \\
3218: {\bf NNLO} ($\nu = 3$):
3219:
3220: subleading 2PE
3221:
3222: &
3223: {\bf N$\fet \LOI$} ($\nu = 3$):
3224:
3225: isospin breaking in 1PE ($\propto \epsilon M_\pi^2$),
3226: contact term without derivatives $\propto \epsilon M_\pi^2$
3227:
3228: &
3229:
3230: \vskip 0.2 true cm
3231: \centerline{$-$}\\
3232: {\bf N$^3$LO} ($\nu = 4$):
3233:
3234: sub--subleading 2PE, leading 3PE,
3235: $1/m^2$--corrections to 1PE, $1/m$--corrections to 2PE,
3236: contact terms with 4 derivatives
3237:
3238: &
3239:
3240: {\bf NN$\fet \LOI$} ($\nu = 4$):
3241:
3242: isospin breaking in 1PE ($\propto e^2/(4 \pi)^2$),
3243: $M_{\pi^\pm} \neq M_{\pi^0}$ in 2PE, triangle and football 2PE diagrams $\propto c_5$, $\pi \gamma$--exchange,
3244: $m_n \neq m_p$ in 2PE and in the LS equation,
3245: contact terms without derivatives $\propto e^2/(4 \pi)^2$
3246:
3247: &
3248: \vskip 1.5 true cm
3249: \centerline{$-$}\\
3250:
3251: \vskip 0.3 true cm
3252: \centerline{$\ldots$} &
3253: \vskip 0.3 true cm
3254: \centerline{$\ldots$} &
3255: {\bf N$\fet{^4 \LOI}$} ($\nu = 6$):
3256:
3257: $1/m^2$--corrections to the static 1$\gamma$--exchange,
3258: 2$\gamma$--exchange. \\[1ex]
3259: \hline \hline
3260: \end{tabular}
3261: \vskip 0.3 true cm
3262: \parbox{16.5cm}{
3263: \caption{Dominant contributions to the isospin--symmetric and isospin--breaking parts of the
3264: two--nucleon force. \label{tab:isosp}}
3265: }
3266: \end{center}
3267: \end{table*}
3268:
3269:
3270:
3271: \pagebreak
3272:
3273:
3274: \begin{table*}[htb]
3275: \begin{center}
3276: \begin{tabular}{||c||r|r|r|r||}
3277: \hline \hline
3278: & & & & \\[-1.5ex]
3279: LEC & $\{ 450, \; 500\}$ & $\{ 600, \; 600\}$ & $\{ 450, \; 700\}$ & $\{ 600, \; 700\}$ \\[0.8ex]
3280: \hline \hline
3281: & & & & \\[-1.5ex]
3282: $\tilde C_{1S0}^{\rm pp}$ & $-0.0834$ & $-0.0800$ & $-0.1247$ & $-0.0436$ \\[0.2ex]
3283: $\tilde C_{1S0}^{\rm np}$ & $-0.0913$ & $-0.0892$ & $-0.1289$ & $-0.0544$ \\[0.2ex]
3284: $\tilde C_{1S0}^{\rm nn}$ & $-0.0880$ & $-0.0851$ & $-0.1272$ & $-0.0494$ \\[0.2ex]
3285: $C_{1S0}$ & $1.5007$ & $1.8075$ & $2.1217$ & $1.8950$ \\[0.2ex]
3286: $D_{1S0}^1$ & $-26.9836$ & $-16.7678$ & $-24.7288$ & $-17.6295$ \\[0.2ex]
3287: $D_{1S0}^2$ & $3.7402$ & $-2.5565$ & $0.8214$ & $-2.0771$ \\[1ex]
3288: \hline
3289: & & & & \\[-1.5ex]
3290: $\tilde C_{3S1}$ & $-0.1498$ & $0.1782$ & $-0.1599$ & $0.0746$ \\[0.2ex]
3291: $C_{3S1}$ & $0.4144$ & $-0.9058$ & $0.6275$ & $-0.3557$ \\[0.2ex]
3292: $D_{3S1}^1$ & $-26.3516$ & $-13.4902$ & $-23.8555$ & $-12.4078$ \\[0.2ex]
3293: $D_{3S1}^2$ & $4.8091$ & $2.6661$ & $4.3807$ & $1.8895$ \\[1ex]
3294: \hline \hline
3295: \end{tabular}
3296: \vskip 0.3 true cm
3297: \parbox{16.5cm}{
3298: \caption{The S---wave LECs $\tilde C_i$, $C_i$ and $D_i$ at N$^3$LO
3299: for the different cut--off combinations
3300: $\big\{ \Lambda \, [\mbox{MeV}], \; \tilde \Lambda \, [\mbox{MeV}] \big\}$.
3301: The values of the $\tilde C_i$ are in $10^4$ GeV$^{-2}$, of the $C_i$ in $10^4$ GeV$^{-4}$
3302: and of the $D_i$ in $10^4$ GeV$^{-6}$. \label{tab:LEC1}}
3303: }
3304: \end{center}
3305: \end{table*}
3306:
3307:
3308:
3309:
3310:
3311: \begin{table}[H]
3312: \begin{center}
3313: \begin{tabular}{||c||r|r|r|r||}
3314: \hline \hline
3315: & & & & \\[-1.5ex]
3316: LEC & $\{ 450, \; 500\}$ & $\{ 600, \; 600\}$ & $\{ 450, \; 700\}$ & $\{ 600, \; 700\}$ \\[0.8ex]
3317: \hline \hline
3318: & & & & \\[-1.5ex]
3319: $C_{1P1}$ & $0.1862$ & $0.3374$ & $0.2072$ & $0.3444$ \\[0.2ex]
3320: $D_{1P1}$ & $2.3257$ & $1.9180$ & $2.3968$ & $1.9213$ \\[1ex]
3321: \hline
3322: & & & & \\[-1.5ex]
3323: $C_{3P0}$ & $1.1729$ & $1.2034$ & $1.1913$ & $1.2031$ \\[0.2ex]
3324: $D_{3P0}$ & $1.0892$ & $1.2500$ & $1.2190$ & $1.4116$ \\[1ex]
3325: \hline
3326: & & & & \\[-1.5ex]
3327: $C_{3P1}$ & $-0.6334$ & $-0.6602$ & $-0.7576$ & $-0.7193$ \\[0.2ex]
3328: $D_{3P1}$ & $4.2369$ & $3.8465$ & $4.2099$ & $3.8756$ \\[1ex]
3329: \hline
3330: & & & & \\[-1.5ex]
3331: $C_{3P2}$ & $-0.5542$ & $-0.5812$ & $-0.6217$ & $-0.6114$ \\[0.2ex]
3332: $D_{3P2}$ & $4.1956$ & $4.2270$ & $4.0340$ & $4.1723$ \\[1ex]
3333: \hline
3334: & & & & \\[-1.5ex]
3335: $C_{\epsilon 1}$ & $-0.4516$ & $-0.2726$ & $-0.5045$ & $-0.3352$ \\[0.2ex]
3336: $D_{\epsilon 1}$ & $2.6303$ & $1.7686$ & $2.0296$ & $1.5516$ \\[1ex]
3337: \hline \hline
3338: \end{tabular}
3339: \vskip 0.3 true cm
3340: \parbox{16.5cm}{
3341: \caption{The LECs $C_i$ and $D_i$ in the P--waves and $\epsilon_1$
3342: at N$^3$LO for the different cut--off combinations
3343: $\big\{ \Lambda \, [\mbox{MeV}], \; \tilde \Lambda \, [\mbox{MeV}] \big\}$.
3344: The values of the $C_i$ ($D_i$) are in $10^4$ GeV$^{-4}$
3345: ($10^4$ GeV$^{-6}$). \label{tab:LEC2}}
3346: }
3347: \end{center}
3348: \end{table}
3349:
3350:
3351:
3352:
3353:
3354:
3355: \begin{table}[H]
3356: \begin{center}
3357: \begin{tabular}{||c||r|r|r|r||}
3358: \hline \hline
3359: & & & & \\[-1.5ex]
3360: LEC & $\{ 450, \; 500\}$ & $\{ 600, \; 600\}$ & $\{ 450, \; 700\}$ & $\{ 600, \; 700\}$ \\[0.8ex]
3361: \hline \hline
3362: & & & & \\[-1.5ex]
3363: $D_{1D2}$ & $-2.2450$ & $-2.1874$ & $-2.3398$ & $-2.2203$ \\[1ex]
3364: \hline
3365: & & & & \\[-1.5ex]
3366: $D_{3D1}$ & $-1.3988$ & $-1.7483$ & $-1.2250$ & $-1.6620$ \\[1ex]
3367: \hline
3368: & & & & \\[-1.5ex]
3369: $D_{3D2}$ & $-1.4180$ & $-0.9023$ & $-1.3578$ & $-0.8580$ \\[1ex]
3370: \hline
3371: & & & & \\[-1.5ex]
3372: $D_{3D3}$ & $-2.0792$ & $-1.5493$ & $-1.7522$ & $-1.4841$ \\[1ex]
3373: \hline
3374: & & & & \\[-1.5ex]
3375: $D_{\epsilon 2}$ & $0.2333$ & $0.2901$ & $0.2274$ & $0.2892$ \\[1ex]
3376: \hline \hline
3377: \end{tabular}
3378: \vskip 0.3 true cm
3379: \parbox{16.5cm}{
3380: \caption{The D--wave LECs $D_i$ at N$^3$LO for the different cut--off combinations
3381: $\big\{ \Lambda \, [\mbox{MeV}], \; \tilde \Lambda \, [\mbox{MeV}] \big\}$.
3382: The values of the $D_i$ are in $10^4$ GeV$^{-6}$. \label{tab:LEC3}}
3383: }
3384: \end{center}
3385: \end{table}
3386:
3387:
3388:
3389:
3390: \begin{table*}[htb]
3391: \begin{center}
3392: \begin{tabular}{||c||c|c|c||r|r|r||}
3393: \hline \hline
3394: {} & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{} \\[-1.5ex]
3395: & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{Chiral N$^3$LO} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{Nijmegen PWA} \\[1ex]
3396: \hline
3397: {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} \\[-1.8ex]
3398: $i$ & $\Delta^\gamma_i$ & $\Delta^\pi_i$ & $\Delta_i$
3399: & $\Delta^\gamma_i$ & $\Delta^\pi_i$ & $\Delta_i$ \\[0.8ex]
3400: \hline \hline
3401: {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} \\[-1.5ex]
3402: $^3P_0$ & $0.359 \ldots 0.360$ & $-0.456 \ldots -0.454$ & $-0.096 \ldots -0.094$ & $0.371$ & $-0.447$ & $-0.076$ \\
3403: $^3P_1$ & $-0.187 \ldots -0.184$ & $ 0.191 \ldots 0.192$ & $ 0.005 \ldots 0.008$ & $-0.186$ & $0.183$ & $-0.003$ \\
3404: $^3P_2$ & $0.092 \ldots 0.093$ & $-0.031 \ldots -0.030$ & $ 0.061 \ldots 0.062$ & $0.092$ & $-0.035$ & $0.057$ \\
3405: $^1D_2$ & $0.014 \ldots 0.015$ & $-0.024 \ldots -0.024$ & $-0.010 \ldots -0.009$ & $0.014$ & $-0.023$ & $-0.009$ \\[1ex]
3406: \hline \hline
3407: \end{tabular}
3408: \vspace{0.1cm}
3409: \caption{Effects (in degrees) on the phase shifts $\delta_i$, $i = \{ ^3P_0, \; ^3P_1, \; ^3P_2, \; ^1D_2 \}$, due to
3410: removal of the Coulomb interactions ($\Delta^\gamma_i$)
3411: and subsequently including the pion mass differences in the 1PE potential
3412: ($\Delta^\pi_i$) at $E_{\rm lab} = 10$ MeV.
3413: The shifts $\Delta^\gamma_i$, $\Delta^\pi_i$ and $\Delta_i$ are defined as follows: $\Delta^\gamma_i = (\bar \delta_{\rm pp})_i
3414: - (\delta_{\rm pp})_i$, $\Delta^\pi_i = (\delta_{\rm np})_i - (\bar \delta_{\rm pp})_i$,
3415: $\Delta_i \equiv \Delta^\gamma_i + \Delta^\pi_i = (\delta_{\rm np})_i - (\delta_{\rm pp})_i$ and $(\bar \delta_{\rm pp})_i$
3416: denotes the {\it pp} phase shifts calculated in the absence of the Coulomb interaction.
3417: The Nijmegen PWA results are from \cite{nijpwa}. The cut--offs $\Lambda$ and $\tilde \Lambda$ are varied
3418: as specified in eq.~(\ref{cutoffs}).
3419: \label{tab1a}}
3420: \end{center}
3421: \end{table*}
3422:
3423:
3424:
3425: \vskip 1 true cm
3426: \begin{table*}[htb]
3427: \begin{center}
3428: \begin{tabular}{||c||c|c|c||r|r|r||}
3429: \hline \hline
3430: {} & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{} \\[-1.5ex]
3431: & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{Chiral N$^3$LO} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{Nijmegen PWA} \\[1ex]
3432: \hline \hline
3433: {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} \\[-1.8ex]
3434: $i$ & $\Delta^\gamma_i$ & $\Delta^\pi_i$ & $\Delta_i$
3435: & $\Delta^\gamma_i$ & $\Delta^\pi_i$ & $\Delta_i$ \\[0.8ex]
3436: \hline
3437: {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} \\[-1.5ex]
3438: $^3P_0$ & $0.320 \ldots 0.325$ & $-0.789 \ldots -0.784$ & $-0.465 \ldots -0.464$ & $0.342$ & $-0.785$ & $-0.443$ \\
3439: $^3P_1$ & $-0.222 \ldots -0.218$ & $ 0.293 \ldots 0.293$ & $ 0.071 \ldots 0.075$ & $-0.221$ & $0.275$ & $0.054$ \\
3440: $^3P_2$ & $0.185 \ldots 0.190$ & $-0.099 \ldots -0.093$ & $ 0.088 \ldots 0.096$ & $0.184$ & $-0.115$ & $0.069$ \\
3441: $^1D_2$ & $0.029 \ldots 0.031$ & $-0.048 \ldots -0.048$ & $-0.020 \ldots -0.017$ & $0.031$ & $-0.046$ & $-0.015$ \\[1ex]
3442: \hline \hline
3443: \end{tabular}
3444: \vspace{0.1cm}
3445: \caption{Effects on the phase shifts $\delta_i$, $i = \{ ^3P_0, \; ^3P_1, \; ^3P_2, \; ^1D_2 \}$, due to
3446: removal of the Coulomb interactions ($\Delta^\gamma_i$)
3447: and subsequently including the pion mass differences in the 1PE potential
3448: ($\Delta^\pi_i$) at $E_{\rm lab} = 25$ MeV. For notations see Table \ref{tab1a}.
3449: \label{tab1b}}
3450: \end{center}
3451: \end{table*}
3452:
3453:
3454: \begin{table*}[htb]
3455: \vspace{0.6cm}
3456: \begin{center}
3457: \begin{tabular}{||c||c|c|c||r|r|r||}
3458: \hline \hline
3459: {} & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{} \\[-1.5ex]
3460: & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{Chiral N$^3$LO} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{Nijmegen PWA} \\[1ex]
3461: \hline \hline
3462: {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} \\[-1.8ex]
3463: $i$ & $\Delta^\gamma_i$ & $\Delta^\pi_i$ & $\Delta_i$
3464: & $\Delta^\gamma_i$ & $\Delta^\pi_i$ & $\Delta_i$ \\[0.8ex]
3465: \hline
3466: {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} \\[-1.5ex]
3467: $^3P_0$ & $0.091 \ldots 0.109$ & $-0.879 \ldots -0.866$ & $-0.775 \ldots -0.770$ & $0.119$ & $-0.896$ & $-0.777$ \\
3468: $^3P_1$ & $-0.236 \ldots -0.227$ & $ 0.320 \ldots 0.323$ & $ 0.084 \ldots 0.095$ & $-0.233$ & $0.297$ & $0.064$ \\
3469: $^3P_2$ & $0.251 \ldots 0.260$ & $-0.175 \ldots -0.161$ & $ 0.078 \ldots 0.098$ & $0.253$ & $-0.221$ & $0.032$ \\
3470: $^1D_2$ & $0.045 \ldots 0.050$ & $-0.041 \ldots -0.041$ & $ 0.003 \ldots 0.008$ & $0.049$ & $-0.034$ & $0.015$ \\[1ex]
3471: \hline \hline
3472: \end{tabular}
3473: \vspace{0.3cm}
3474: \parbox{16cm}{
3475: \caption{Effects on the phase shifts $\delta_i$, $i = \{ ^3P_0, \; ^3P_1, \; ^3P_2, \; ^1D_2 \}$, due to
3476: removal of the Coulomb interactions ($\Delta^\gamma_i$)
3477: and subsequently including the pion mass differences in the 1PE potential
3478: ($\Delta^\pi_i$) at $E_{\rm lab} = 50$ MeV. For notations see Table \ref{tab1a}.
3479: }\label{tab1c}}
3480: \end{center}
3481: \end{table*}
3482:
3483:
3484:
3485:
3486: %\vspace{1cm}
3487:
3488: \begin{table*}[htb]
3489: \vspace{0.6cm}
3490: \begin{center}
3491: \begin{tabular}{||l||c|c|c||c||}
3492: \hline \hline
3493: {} & {} & {} & {} & {}\\[-1.5ex]
3494: & {NLO} & {NNLO} & {N$^3$LO} &{Nijmegen PWA} \\[1ex]
3495: \hline \hline
3496: {} & {} & {} & {} & {}\\[-1.5ex]
3497: $a$ [fm] & $-23.447 \ldots -23.522$ & $-23.497 \ldots -23.689$ & $-23.585 \ldots -23.736$ & $-$23.739 \\[1ex]
3498: $r$ [fm] & $2.60 \ldots 2.62$ & $ 2.62 \ldots 2.67$ & $2.64 \ldots 2.68$ & 2.68 \\[1ex]
3499: $v_2$ [fm$^3$] & $-0.46 \ldots - 0.47$ & $- 0.48 \ldots - 0.52 $ & $-0.49 \ldots -0.51$ & $-$0.48 \\[1ex]
3500: $v_3$ [fm$^5$] & $4.3 \ldots 4.4$ & $ 4.0 \ldots 4.2 $ & $4.0 \ldots 4.1$ & 4.0 \\[1ex]
3501: $v_4$ [fm$^7$] & $- 20.7 \ldots -21.0$ & $-19.9 \ldots - 20.5$ & $-19.8 \ldots -20.2$ & $-$20.0 \\[1ex]
3502: \hline \hline
3503: \end{tabular}
3504: \vspace{0.3cm}
3505: \parbox{16cm}{
3506: \caption{Scattering length and range parameters for the $^1S_0$ partial wave using the
3507: NLO and NNLO potential \cite{EGMs2} compared to the N$^3$LO results and to the
3508: Nijmegen phase shift analysis (PWA). The values
3509: $v_{2,3,4}$ are based on the {\it np} Nijm II potential and the values of the scattering length
3510: and the effective range are from ref.~\cite{Rentm99}.
3511: }\label{tab1}}
3512: \end{center}
3513: \end{table*}
3514:
3515: \begin{table*}[htb]
3516: \vspace{1.cm}
3517: \begin{center}
3518: \begin{tabular}{||l||c|c|c||c||}
3519: \hline \hline
3520: {} & {} & {} & {} & {}\\[-1.5ex]
3521: & {NLO} & {NNLO} & {N$^3$LO} &{Nijmegen PWA} \\[1ex]
3522: \hline \hline
3523: {} & {} & {} & {} & {}\\[-1.5ex]
3524: $a$ [fm] & $5.429 \ldots 5.433$ & $5.424 \ldots 5.427$ & $5.414 \ldots 5.420$ & $5.420$ \\[1ex]
3525: $r$ [fm] & $1.710 \ldots 1.722$ & $1.727 \ldots 1.735$ & $1.743 \ldots 1.746$ & $1.753$ \\[1ex]
3526: $v_2$ [fm$^3$] & $0.06 \ldots 0.07 $ & $0.04 \ldots 0.05 $ & $0.04 \ldots 0.05$ & $0.04$ \\[1ex]
3527: $v_3$ [fm$^5$] & $0.77 \ldots 0.81 $ & $ 0.71 \ldots 0.76 $ &$0.69 \ldots 0.70$ & $0.67$ \\[1ex]
3528: $v_4$ [fm$^7$] & $-4.3 \ldots -4.4 $ & $-4.1 \ldots - 4.2$ & $-4.0 \ldots -4.1$ & $-4.0$ \\[1ex]
3529: \hline \hline
3530: \end{tabular}
3531: \vspace{0.3cm}
3532: \parbox{13cm}{
3533: \caption{Scattering length and range parameters for the $^3S_1$ partial wave
3534: using the
3535: CR NLO and NNLO potential \cite{EGMs2} compared to the N$^3$LO results and to the Nijmegen PWA \cite{Swart95}.
3536: \label{tab2}}
3537: }
3538: \end{center}
3539: \end{table*}
3540:
3541:
3542: \pagebreak
3543: \begin{table*}[htb]
3544: %\vspace{1.cm}
3545: \begin{center}
3546: \begin{tabular}{||l||c|c|c||c||}
3547: \hline \hline
3548: {} & {} & {} & {} & {}\\[-1.5ex]
3549: & {NLO} & {NNLO} & {N$^3$LO} & {Exp} \\[1ex]
3550: \hline \hline
3551: {} & {} & {} & {} & {}\\[-1.5ex]
3552: $E_{\rm d}$ [MeV] & $-2.171 \ldots -2.186$ & $-2.189 \ldots -2.202$ & $-2.216 \ldots -2.223$ & $-$2.224575(9) \\[1ex]
3553: % \hline
3554: $Q_{\rm d}$ [fm$^2$] & $0.273 \ldots 0.275$ & $0.271 \ldots 0.275$ & $0.264 \ldots 0.268$ & 0.2859(3) \\[1ex]
3555: % \hline
3556: $\eta_{\rm d}$ & $0.0256 \ldots 0.0257$ & $0.0255 \ldots 0.0256$ & $0.0254 \ldots 0.0255$ & 0.0256(4)\\[1ex]
3557: % \hline
3558: $\sqrt{\langle r^2 \rangle^{\rm d}_m}$ [fm]
3559: & $1.973 \ldots 1.974$ & $1.970 \ldots 1.972$ & $1.973 \ldots 1.985$
3560: %(XXXcheck)
3561: & 1.9753(11) \\[1ex]
3562: % \hline
3563: $A_S$ [fm$^{-1/2}$] & $0.868\ldots 0.873$ & $0.874 \ldots 0.879$ & $0.882 \ldots 0.883$ & 0.8846(9)\\[1ex]
3564: % \hline
3565: $P_{\rm d}\; [\%]$ & $3.46 \ldots 4.29$ & $3.53 \ldots 4.93 $ & $2.73 \ldots 3.63$ & -- \\[1ex]
3566: \hline \hline
3567: \end{tabular}
3568: \vspace{0.3cm}
3569: \parbox{15.8cm}{\caption{Deuteron properties derived from the chiral potential
3570: at N$^3$LO
3571: compared to the NLO and NNLO results from \cite{EGMs2}
3572: and the data. Here, $E_{\rm d}$ is the
3573: binding energy, $Q_{\rm d}$ the quadrupole moment, $\eta_{\rm d}$ the asymptotic
3574: $D/S$ ratio, $\sqrt{\langle r^2 \rangle^{\rm d}_m}$ the root--mean--square matter radius, $A_S$ the
3575: strength of the asymptotic S--wave normalization and $P_{\rm d}$ the D-state
3576: probability. The data for $E_{\rm d}$ are from \cite{le82}, for $Q_{\rm d}$ from \cite{bi79,er83},
3577: for $\eta_{\rm d}$ from \cite{rod90} and for $A_S$ from \cite{er83}. For the rms--radius we
3578: actually show the experimental value for the deuteron ``point--nucleon'' rms--radius from \cite{friar97}.
3579: In the N$^3$LO calculation, the cut--offs are varied as specified in eq.~(\ref{cutoffs}).
3580: \label{tab3}}
3581: }
3582: \end{center}
3583: \end{table*}
3584:
3585: \vfill
3586: \eject
3587:
3588: \newpage
3589:
3590:
3591:
3592: \vspace{1cm}
3593:
3594: \begin{figure*}[htb]
3595: \centerline{{\large \bf FIGURES}}%
3596: \vskip 1 true cm
3597: %\vspace{0.5cm}
3598: \centerline{
3599: \psfig{file=pic1.ps,width=11cm}}
3600: \vspace{0.3cm}
3601: \centerline{\parbox{14cm}{
3602: \caption[fig4]{\label{fig:pic1} Isoscalar spin--spin 3PE potential using dimensional (DR) and
3603: spectral function regularization (SFR). The cut--off in the spectral function varies in the
3604: range $\tilde \Lambda = 500 \ldots 700$ MeV.
3605: }}}
3606: \vspace{0.5cm}
3607: %\end{figure*}%
3608: %
3609: %\begin{figure*}[htb]
3610: %\vspace{0.5cm}
3611: \centerline{
3612: \psfig{file=pic2.ps,width=11cm}}
3613: \vspace{0.3cm}
3614: \centerline{\parbox{14cm}{
3615: \caption[fig4]{\label{fig:pic2} The ratio of the isoscalar spin--spin 3PE and
3616: 2PE N$^3$LO contributions using dimensional (DR) and spectral function
3617: regularization (SFR). The cut--off in the spectral function varies in the
3618: range $\tilde \Lambda = 500 \ldots 700$ MeV.
3619: }}}
3620: \vspace{0.5cm}
3621: \end{figure*}
3622:
3623:
3624: \begin{figure*}[htb]
3625: \vspace{0.5cm}
3626: \centerline{
3627: \psfig{file=sw_v2.ps,width=12cm}}
3628: \vspace{0.3cm}
3629: \centerline{\parbox{14cm}{
3630: \caption[fig4]{\label{fig1} S--wave {\it np} phase shifts versus the nucleon laboratory energy. The
3631: grid, light shaded and dark shaded bands show the NLO, NNLO \cite{EGMs2} and N$^3$LO results, respectively.
3632: The cut--offs $\Lambda$ and $\tilde \Lambda$ at N$^3$LO are varied as specified in eq.~(\ref{cutoffs}).
3633: The filled circles depict the Nijmegen PWA results \cite{nijpwa}
3634: and the open triangles are the results from the Virginia Tech PWA \cite{said}.
3635: }}}
3636: \vspace{0.5cm}
3637: \end{figure*}
3638:
3639:
3640: \begin{figure*}[htb]
3641: \vspace{0.5cm}
3642: \centerline{
3643: \psfig{file=pw_v2.ps,width=15cm}}
3644: \vspace{0.3cm}
3645: \centerline{\parbox{14cm}{
3646: \caption[fig4]{\label{fig2} P--wave {\it np} phase shifts and mixing angle $\epsilon_1$ versus
3647: the nucleon laboratory energy. For notation see Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
3648: }}}
3649: \vspace{0.5cm}
3650: \end{figure*}
3651:
3652:
3653: \begin{figure*}[htb]
3654: \vspace{0.5cm}
3655: \centerline{
3656: \psfig{file=3P1.ps,width=12cm}}
3657: \vspace{0.3cm}
3658: \centerline{\parbox{14cm}{
3659: \caption[fig4]{\label{fig:3P1} $^3P_1$--wave {\it np} phase shift versus
3660: the nucleon laboratory energy. The solid and dashed lines correspond
3661: to the LECs $C_{3P1}$ and $D_{3P1}$ from the first and second lines in eq.~(\ref{LECs_3P1}), respectively.
3662: For remaining notations see Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
3663: }}}
3664: \vspace{0.5cm}
3665: \end{figure*}
3666:
3667:
3668: \begin{figure*}[htb]
3669: \vspace{0.5cm}
3670: \centerline{
3671: \psfig{file=dw_v2.ps,width=15cm}}
3672: \vspace{0.3cm}
3673: \centerline{\parbox{14cm}{
3674: \caption[fig4]{\label{fig3} D--wave {\it np} phase shifts and mixing angle $\epsilon_2$ versus
3675: the nucleon laboratory energy. For notation see Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
3676: }}}
3677: \vspace{0.5cm}
3678: \end{figure*}
3679:
3680:
3681: \begin{figure*}[htb]
3682: \vspace{0.5cm}
3683: \centerline{
3684: \psfig{file=fw_v2.ps,width=15cm}}
3685: \vspace{0.3cm}
3686: \centerline{\parbox{14cm}{
3687: \caption[fig4]{\label{fig4} F--wave {\it np} phase shifts and mixing angle $\epsilon_3$ versus
3688: the nucleon laboratory energy. For notation see Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
3689: }}}
3690: \vspace{0.5cm}
3691: \end{figure*}
3692:
3693: \begin{figure*}[htb]
3694: \vspace{0.5cm}
3695: \centerline{
3696: \psfig{file=gw_v2.ps,width=15cm}}
3697: \vspace{0.3cm}
3698: \centerline{\parbox{14cm}{
3699: \caption[fig4]{\label{fig5} G--wave {\it np} phase shifts and mixing angle $\epsilon_4$ versus
3700: the nucleon laboratory energy. For notation see Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
3701: }}}
3702: \vspace{0.5cm}
3703: \end{figure*}
3704:
3705:
3706:
3707:
3708: \begin{figure*}[htb]
3709: \vspace{0.5cm}
3710: \centerline{
3711: \psfig{file=obs25_v2.ps,width=15cm}}
3712: \vspace{0.3cm}
3713: \centerline{\parbox{14cm}{
3714: \caption[fig4]{\label{fig6}
3715: {\it np} differential cross section and vector analyzing power at $E_{\rm lab} = 25$ MeV.
3716: The Nijmegen PWA result is taken from \cite{nnonline}.
3717: Data for the cross section are taken from \cite{fink90} and for the analyzing power
3718: from \cite{sro86,wil84}. The cut--offs $\Lambda$ and $\tilde \Lambda$ are varied
3719: as specified in eq.~(\ref{cutoffs}).
3720: }}}
3721: \vspace{0.5cm}
3722: \end{figure*}
3723:
3724: \begin{figure*}[htb]
3725: \vspace{0.5cm}
3726: \centerline{
3727: \psfig{file=obs50_v2.ps,width=15cm}}
3728: \vspace{0.3cm}
3729: \centerline{\parbox{14cm}{
3730: \caption[fig4]{\label{fig7}
3731: {\it np} differential cross section and vector analyzing power at $E_{\rm lab} = 50$ MeV.
3732: Data for the cross section are taken from \cite{fink90,mont77} and for the analyzing power
3733: from \cite{fitz80,gar80,lang65,rom78,wil84}. For remaining notations see Fig.~\ref{fig6}.
3734: }}}
3735: \vspace{0.5cm}
3736: \end{figure*}
3737:
3738: \begin{figure*}[htb]
3739: \vspace{0.5cm}
3740: \centerline{
3741: \psfig{file=obs96_v2.ps,width=15cm}}
3742: \vspace{0.3cm}
3743: \centerline{\parbox{14cm}{
3744: \caption[fig4]{\label{fig8}
3745: {\it np} differential cross section and vector analyzing power at $E_{\rm lab} = 96$ MeV.
3746: Data for the cross section are taken from \cite{gri58,ra01,roe92}. Data for the analyzing power
3747: are at $E_{\rm lab} = 95$ MeV and taken from \cite{sta57}. For remaining notations see Fig.~\ref{fig6}.
3748: }}}
3749: \vspace{0.5cm}
3750: \end{figure*}
3751:
3752: \begin{figure*}[htb]
3753: \vspace{0.5cm}
3754: \centerline{
3755: \psfig{file=obs143_v2.ps,width=15cm}}
3756: \vspace{0.3cm}
3757: \centerline{\parbox{14cm}{
3758: \caption[fig4]{\label{fig9}
3759: {\it np} differential cross section and vector analyzing power at $E_{\rm lab} = 143$ MeV.
3760: Data for the cross section are at $E_{\rm lab} = 142.8$ MeV and taken from \cite{ber76} and for the analyzing power
3761: from \cite{kuc61}. For remaining notations see Fig.~\ref{fig6}.
3762: }}}
3763: \vspace{0.5cm}
3764: \end{figure*}
3765:
3766:
3767:
3768: \begin{figure*}[htb]
3769: \vspace{0.5cm}
3770: \centerline{
3771: \psfig{file=deut.ps,width=15cm}}
3772: \vspace{0.3cm}
3773: \centerline{\parbox{14cm}{
3774: \caption[fig4]{\label{fig10}
3775: Coordinate space representation of the S-- (upper panel) and D--wave
3776: (lower panel) deuteron wave functions at NLO, NNLO and N$^3$LO for the cut--offs:
3777: $\Lambda = 550$ MeV, $\tilde \Lambda = 600$ MeV.}}}
3778: \vspace{0.5cm}
3779: \end{figure*}
3780:
3781:
3782:
3783:
3784:
3785: \end{document}
3786:
3787:
3788:
3789:
3790:
3791:
3792:
3793: