1: \documentclass[epj]{svjour}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: %
4: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
5: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
6: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
7: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
8: %\def\gn{\gamma_\nu}
9: %\def\g5{\gamma_5}
10: %\def\gm{\gamma_\mu}
11: %\def\pa{\partial}
12: %\def\vep{\varepsilon}
13: \def\ot{(1\leftrightarrow 2)}
14: %\def\sa{\vec \sigma_1}
15: %\def\sb{\vec \sigma_2}
16: %\def\sbb{\vec {\bar\sigma}_2}
17: %\def\qa{\vec q_1}
18: %\def\qb{\vec q_2}
19: %\def\q2{\vec q_2}
20: %\def\vq{\vec q}
21: %\def\Pa{\vec P_1}
22: %\def\Pb{\vec P_2}
23: %\def\vamn{\varepsilon^{a m n}}
24: %\def\s2q2{(\vec \sigma_2 \times \vec q_2)}
25: %\def\ta{\,\tau^{\,a}_1}
26: %\def\tb{\,\tau^{\,a}_2}
27: %\def\t1t2a{\,i\,(\vec \tau_1 \times \vec \tau_2)^a}
28: %\def\tb3{\,\tau^{\,3}_2}
29: %\def\t1t23{\,i\,(\vec \tau_1 \times \vec \tau_2)^3}
30: %\def\fot{\frac{1}{2}}
31: %
32: %-------------------------------------------------------------------
33: \newcommand{\noi}{\noindent}
34: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, (#4) #3 }
35: \def\NPA{{\em Nucl. Phys.} A}
36: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
37: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
38: \def\PRC{{\em Phys. Rev.} C}
39: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
40: \def\PRW{\em Phys. Rev.}
41: \def\FBS{\em Few--Body Systems}
42: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.} B}
43: %\def\EPJC{{\em Eur. Phys. J.} C}
44: %\def\ZPA{{\em Z. Phys.} A}
45: \def\PR{\em Phys. Rep.}
46: \def\IJMPA{{\em Int. J. Mod. Phys.} A}
47: \def\IJMPE{{\em Int. J. Mod. Phys.} E}
48: %\def\ARPNPS{\em Ann. Rep. Prog. Nucl. Part. Sci.}
49: %\def\HI{\em Hyperfine Interactions}
50: %\def\SJPN{\em Sov. J. Part. Nucl.}
51: \def\APNY{\em Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)}
52: \def\CPC{\em Comp. Phys. Comm.\,\,}
53: %\def\ARNPS{\em Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.\,\,}
54: \def\NC{\em Nuovo Cim.\,\,}
55: %\def\RMP{\em Rev. Mod. Phys.\,\,}
56: \def\ANP{\em Adv. Nucl. Phys.\,\,}
57: \def\JPG{{\em J. Phys.} G}
58: \def\AJ{\em Astrophys. J.\,\,}
59: %\def\CJPB{{\em Czech. J. Phys.} B}
60: \def\PPNP{\em Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.\,\,}
61: \def\HPHA{\em Helv. Phys. Acta\,\,}
62: %
63: %========================================================================
64: %%
65: \begin{document}
66: %
67: \title{Interactions of the solar neutrinos with the
68: deuterons}
69: %\subtitle{Do you have a subtitle?\\ If so, write it here}
70: \author{B.~Mosconi\inst{1} \and P.~Ricci\inst{2}% etc
71: \and \underline{E.~Truhl\'{\i}k}\inst{3}
72: % \thanks is optional - remove next line if not needed
73: %\thanks{\emph{Present address:} Insert the address here if needed}%
74: \thanks{Presented at the International Conference 'Nuclear
75: Physics in Astrophysics', Debrecen, Hungary, 16th-20th May, 2005.}
76: } % Do not remove
77: %
78: \institute{Universit$\grave{a}$ di Firenze, Department of Physics,
79: and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Firenze,
80: I-50019, Sesto Fiorentino (Firenze), Italy, \email{
81: mosconi@fi.infn.it} \and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare,
82: Sezione di Firenze, I-50019, Sesto Fiorentino (Firenze), Italy,
83: \email{ ricci@fi.infn.it} \and Institute of Nuclear Physics,
84: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, CZ--250 68 \v{R}e\v{z},
85: Czechia, \email{ truhlik@ujf.cas.cz}}
86: %
87: \date{Received: date / Revised version: date}
88: % The correct dates will be entered by Springer
89: %
90: \abstract{ Starting from chiral Lagrangians, possessing the
91: $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ local chiral symmetry, we derive weak
92: axial one--boson exchange currents in the leading order in the
93: $1/M$ expansion ($M$ is the nucleon mass), suitable for the nuclear
94: physics calculations beyond the threshold energies and with the
95: wave functions, obtained by solving the Schr\"odinger equation
96: with the one--boson exchange potentials. The constructed currents
97: obey the nuclear form of the partial conservation of the axial
98: current. We apply the space component of these currents in
99: calculations of the cross sections for the disintegration of
100: deuterons by the low energy neutrinos. The deuteron and the
101: $^{1}S_0$ final state nucleon--nucleon wave functions are derived
102: (i) from a variant of the OBEPQB potential and (ii) from the
103: Nijmegen 93 and Nijmegen I nucleon-nucleon interactions. The
104: extracted values of the constant $L_{1,\,A}$, entering the axial
105: exchange currents of the pionless effective field theory (EFT), are in
106: agreement with those predicted by the dimensional analysis.
107: The comparison of our cross sections with those obtained within
108: the pionless EFT and other potential model
109: calculations shows that the solar neutrino--deuteron cross
110: sections can be calculated within an accuracy of $\approx$ 3.3 \%.
111: %Insert your abstract here.
112: %
113: \PACS{
114: {11.40.Ha}{Partially conserved axial-vector
115: currents} \and
116: {25.30.-c}{Lepton-induced nuclear reactions}
117: } % end of PACS codes
118: } %end of abstract
119: %
120: \maketitle
121: %
122: \section{Introduction}\label{intro}
123: %Your text comes here.
124: The semileptonic weak nuclear interaction has been studied for
125: half a century. The cornestones of this field of research are (i)
126: the chiral symmetry, (ii) the conserved vector current and (iii)
127: the partial conservation of the axial current (PCAC). In the
128: formulation \cite{SLA}, the PCAC reads
129: %
130: \be q_\mu\,<\Psi_f|j^a_{5\mu}(q)|\Psi_i>\,=\,if_\pi
131: m^2_\pi\Delta^\pi_F(q^2)\, <\Psi_f|m^a_\pi(q)|\Psi_i>\,,
132: \label{PCAC}
133: \ee where $j^a_{5\mu}(q)$ is the total weak axial isovector hadron
134: current, $m^a_\pi(q)$ is the pion source (the pion
135: production/absor- ption amplitude) and $|\Psi_{i,f}>$ is the wave
136: function describing the initial (i) or final (f) nuclear state. It
137: has been recognized \cite{BS} in studying the triton beta
138: decay
139: %
140: \be ^{3}H\,\rightarrow\,^{3}He\,+\,e^-\,+\,{\bar \nu}\,,
141: \label{TBD} \ee
142: %
143: and the muon capture \cite{DFM}
144: \be
145: \mu^-\,+\,^{3}He\,\rightarrow\,^{3}H\,+\,\nu_\mu\,, \label{MCHe}
146: \ee \be \mu^-\,+\,d\,\rightarrow\,n\,+\,n\,+\,\nu_\mu\,, \label{MCD}
147: \ee
148: that in addition to the one--nucleon current,
149: the effect of the space component of weak axial exchange currents
150: (WAECs) enhances sensibly the Gamow--Teller matrix elements
151: entering the transition rates. This suggests that the current
152: $j^a_{5\mu}(q)$ can be understood for the system of $A$ nucleons
153: as the sum of the one- and two--nucleon components,
154: %
155: \be
156: j^a_{5\mu}(q)\,=\,\sum^A_{i=1}\,j^{a}_{5\mu}(1,i,q_i)\,+\,\sum^A_{i<j}\,
157: j^{a}_{5\mu}(2,ij,q)\,. \label{jtot} \ee
158: %
159: \par
160: Let us describe the nuclear system by the Schr\"odinger equation
161: %
162: \be
163: H|\Psi>\,=\,E|\Psi>\,,\quad H\,=\,T\,+\,V\,, \label{NEM}
164: \ee
165: %
166: where $H$ is the nuclear Hamiltonian, $T$ is the kinetic
167: energy and $V$ is the nuclear potential describing the interaction
168: between nucleon pairs. Taking for simplicity $A=2$, we obtain from
169: Eq.\,(\ref{PCAC}) in the operator form and from Eqs.\,(\ref{jtot})
170: and (\ref{NEM}) the following set of equations for the one- and
171: two--nucleon components of the total axial current
172: %
173: \bea \vec q_i \cdot \vec j^a_{\,5}(1,\vec
174: q_i)\,&=&\,[\,T_i\,,\,\rho^a_{\,5} (1,\vec q_i)\,]\,+\,if_\pi
175: m^2_\pi \Delta^\pi_F(q^2)\nonumber \\
176: & & \,\times\,m^a_\pi(1,\vec q_i)
177: \,,\quad i=1,2\,, \label{NCEoi} \\
178: \vec q \cdot \vec j^a_{\,5}(2,\vec q)\,&=&\,[\,T_1+T_2\,,\,
179: \rho^a_{\,5}(2,\vec q)\,]\,+\,([\,V\,,\,\rho^a_{\,5}(1,\vec q)\,]
180: \nonumber \\
181: & & +\ot)+if_\pi m^2_\pi \Delta^\pi_F(q^2)m^a_\pi(2,\vec q).
182: \label{NCEt} \eea
183: %
184: \par
185: If the WAECs are constructed so that they satisfy
186: Eq.\,({\ref{NCEt}), then the matrix element of the total current,
187: sandwiched between solutions of the nuclear equation of motion
188: (\ref{NEM}), satisfies the PCAC (\ref{PCAC}).
189: \par
190: It is known from the dimensional analysis \cite{KDR}, that the
191: space component of the WAECs, $\vec j^a_{\,5}(2,\vec q)$, is of the
192: order ${\cal O}(1/M^3)$. Being of a relativistic origin, it is
193: model dependent. This component of the WAECs was derived by
194: several authors in various models. In the standard nuclear physics
195: approach \cite{IT,ISTPR,Sci,TR,SMA}, the model systems of strongly
196: interacting particles contain various particles (effective degrees
197: of freedom), such as $N$, $\Delta(1236)$, $\pi$, $\rho$, $\omega$
198: and other baryons and mesons. Using these effective degrees of
199: freedom and chiral Lagrangians, it was possible to describe
200: reasonably nuclear electroweak phenomena in the whole region of
201: intermediate energies. In particular, the existence of mesonic
202: degrees of freedom in nuclei, manifesting themselves via meson
203: exchange currents, was proven to a high degree of reliability
204: \cite{DFM}.
205: \par
206: One of the employed Lagrangians is the one \cite{IT} containing
207: the heavy meson fields $\rho$ and $a_1$, taken as the Yang--Mills
208: gauge fields \cite{YM}. It reflects the $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$
209: local chiral symmetry. Another used Lagrangian has been built up
210: \cite{STG} within the concept of hidden local symmetries
211: \cite{HLSLM,BKY}. Besides possessing the chiral symmetry, our
212: Lagrangians are characterized by the following properties: (i)
213: They respect the vector dominance model, reproduce universality,
214: KSFRI, FSFR2, (ii) they provide correct anomalous magnetic moment
215: of the $a_1$ meson (iii) at the tree--level approximation, they
216: correctly describe elementary processes in the whole region of
217: intermediate energies ($E\,<\,1$ GeV) and (iv) the current algebra
218: prediction for the weak pion production amplitude is reproduced.
219: Using such an approach, the exchange currents are constructed as
220: follows. First, one derives the exchange amplitudes
221: $J^a_{5\mu}(2)$ as Feynman tree graphs. These amplitudes satisfy
222: the PCAC equation
223: \be
224: q_\mu\,
225: J^a_{5\mu}(2)\,=\,if_\pi\,m^2_\pi\,\Delta^\pi_F(q^2)\, M^a(2)\,,
226: \label{rPCAC}
227: \ee
228: where $M^a(2)$ are the associated pion
229: absorption/production amplitudes\footnote{We refer the reader for
230: more details to Ref.\,\cite{MRT}.}. The nuclear exchange currents
231: are constructed from these amplitudes in conjunction with the
232: equation, describing the nuclear states. Such exchange currents,
233: combined with the one-nucleon currents, should satisfy
234: Eq.(\ref{PCAC}). In the present case, we describe the nuclear
235: system by the Hamiltonian $H=T+V$ and the nuclear states by the
236: Schr\"odinger equation (\ref{NEM}). The nuclear exchange currents
237: are constructed within the extended S-matrix method, in analogy
238: with the electromagnetic meson exchange currents \cite{ATA}, as
239: the difference between the relativistic amplitudes $J^a_{5\mu}(2)$
240: and the first Born iteration of the weak axial one--nucleon
241: current contribution to the two--nucleon scattering amplitude,
242: satisfying the Lippmann--Schwinger equation. This method has
243: already been applied \cite{AHHST,TK1} to construct the space
244: component of the WAECs of the pion range.
245: \par
246: On the other hand, effective fields theories (EFTs) are being
247: developed since early 90's. In this approach, one starts from a
248: general chiral invariant Lagrangian with heavy particle degrees of
249: freedom integrated out and preserving $N$, $\Delta(1232)$ and
250: $\pi$ \cite{HHK}, or $N$ and $\pi$ \cite{PMR,PKMR}, or only
251: nucleons \cite{KSW,CRS}. Such EFTs rely on systematic counting rules
252: and on the existence of an expansion
253: parameter, governing a perturbation scheme that converges
254: reasonably fast. The expansion parameter is given as the ratio of
255: the light and heavy scales.
256: \par
257: In the pionless EFT \cite{KSW,CRS}, the heavy scale $\Lambda$ is
258: set to the pion mass $m_\pi$. This choice restricts the
259: application of the scheme to the processes taking place at
260: threshold energies, such as the interaction of solar neutrinos
261: with the deuterons \cite{MB2}. In the EFT with pions, the heavy
262: scale is $\Lambda\,\approx\,4\pi f_\pi\,\approx\,1$ GeV,
263: restricting the application of the EFT to low energies.
264: \par
265: The goal of this study is twofold: (i) The construction of the
266: WAECs of the heavy meson range, suitable in the standard nuclear
267: physics calculations beyond the long--wave limit, with the nuclear
268: wave functions generated from the Schr\"odinger equation using the
269: one--boson exchange potentials (OBEPs). (ii)
270: An application of the developed formalism to the description of
271: the interaction of the low energy neutrinos with the deuterons,
272: \bea
273: \nu_x\,+\,d\,&\longrightarrow&\,\nu'_x\,+\,n\,+\,p\,, \label{NCN} \\
274: \overline{\nu}_x\,+\,d\,&\longrightarrow&\,\overline{\nu}'_x\,+\,n\,+\,p\,, \label{NCA} \\
275: \nu_e\,+\,d\,&\longrightarrow&\,e^-\,+\,p\,+\,p\,, \label{CCN} \\
276: \overline{\nu}_e\,+\,d\,&\longrightarrow&\,e^+\,+\,n\,+\,n\,.
277: \label{CCA} \eea where $\nu_x$ refers to any active flavor of the
278: neutrino. The reactions (\ref{NCN}) and (\ref{CCN}) are important
279: for studying the solar neutrino oscillations, whereas the
280: reactions (\ref{NCA}) and (\ref{CCA}) occur in experiments with
281: reactor antineutrino beams. The cross sections for the reactions
282: (\ref{NCN}) and (\ref{CCN}) are important for the analysis of the
283: results obtained in the SNO detector \cite{SNO1,SNO2,SNO4}.
284: The standard nuclear physics calculations \cite{NSGK,YHH}
285: generally differ \cite{MB2} by 5\%-10\%, which
286: provides a good motivation to make independent calculations
287: aiming to reduce this uncertainty.
288: \par
289: In Ref.\,\cite{MB2}, the effective cross sections for the
290: reactions (\ref{NCN})-(\ref{CCA}) are presented in the form \be
291: \sigma_{EFT}(E_\nu)\,=\,a(E_\nu)\,+\,L_{1,\,A}\,b(E_\nu)\,.
292: \label{sigB} \ee The amplitudes $a(E_\nu)$ and $b(E_\nu)$ are
293: tabulated in \cite{MB2} for each of the reactions
294: (\ref{NCN})--(\ref{CCA}) from the lowest possible (anti)neutrino
295: energy up to 20 MeV, with 1 MeV step. The constant $L_{1,\,A}$
296: cannot be determined from reactions between elementary particles.
297: Here we extract $L_{1,\,A}$ from our cross sections calculated in
298: the approximations of \cite{MB2}:
299: only the $^{1}S_0$ wave is taken into account in the nucleon--nucleon
300: final state and the nucleon variables are treated
301: non-relativistically. The knowledge of $L_{1,\,A}$ allows us to
302: compare our cross sections with $\sigma_{EFT}(E_\nu)$.
303: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
304:
305: %Separate text sections with
306: \section{Weak axial nuclear exchange currents}
307: \label{sec:1}
308:
309: The starting quantities of our construction are the relativistic
310: Feynman amplitudes $J^a_{5\mu,B}(2)$ of the range $B$ ($B$=$\pi$,
311: $\rho$, $\omega$, $a_1$). These amplitudes satisfy the PCAC
312: constraint (\ref{rPCAC}). The WAECs $j^a_{5\mu,\,B}(2)$ of the
313: range $B$ are defined as \cite{MRT} \be
314: j^a_{5\mu,\,B}(2)\,=\,J^a_{5\mu,\,B}(2)\,-\,t^{a,\,FBI}_{5\mu,\,B}\,,
315: \label{JnaB} \ee where $t^{a,\,FBI}_{5\mu,\,B}$ is the first Born
316: iteration of the one--nucleon current contribution to the
317: two--nucleon scattering amplitude, satisfying the
318: Lippmann--Schwinger equation \cite{ATA}.
319: \par
320: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
321: \begin{figure}
322: %\centerline{ \epsfig{file=fig2.eps} }
323: \centerline{\epsfig{file=fig2.eps} }
324: %fig.2
325: \vskip 0.4cm
326: \caption{The kinematics of the first Born iteration.
327: The nucleon line in the intermediate state is on--shell. }
328: \label{figg2}
329: \end{figure}
330: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
331: The PCAC for the WAECs, defined in Eq.\,(\ref{JnaB}), is given by
332: \bea q_\mu
333: j^a_{5\mu,\,B}(2)\,&=&\,\left(\left[V_B,\rho^a_5(1)\right]\,
334: +\,\ot \right) \nonumber \\
335: & & +\,
336: i f_\pi m^2_\pi \Delta^\pi_F(\vec
337: q^{\,2}){m}^a_B(2)\, \,, \label{dWANEC} \eea where
338: the nuclear pion production/absorption amplitude is given by \be
339: {m}^a_B(2)\,=\,M^a_B(2)\,-\,m^{a,\,FBI}_B\,, \label{bMaB}
340: \end{equation}
341: $V_B$ is the potential of the range $B$ and $\rho^a_5(1)$ is the
342: one--nucleon axial charge density. We note here that the continuity equation
343: (\ref{dWANEC}) for our WAECs coincides with Eq.\,(\ref{NCEt}).
344: \par It follows from Eq.\,(\ref{dWANEC}) that in order to make
345: consistent calculations of the exchange current effects, one
346: should use OBEPs for the generation
347: of the nuclear wave functions and apply in the WAECs the same
348: couplings and strong form factors as in the potentials. In our
349: calculations, we employ the realistic OBE potentials OBEPQG
350: \cite{OPT}, Nijmegen 93 (Nijm93) and Nijmegen I (NijmI) \cite{SKTS}.
351: The potential
352: OBEPQG is the potential OBEPQB \cite{Mac}, extended by including
353: the $a_1$ exchange. The potential NijmI is the high quality
354: second generation potential with the $\chi^2$/data=1.03.
355: \par
356: In the next section, we use the WAECs, derived in the chiral
357: invariant models \cite{MRT,TK1,CT}, to calculate the cross
358: sections for the reactions (\ref{NCN})-(\ref{CCA}). By
359: comparing them with the EFT cross sections (\ref{sigB}),
360: we extract the value of the
361: constant $L_{1,\,A}$. We also compare our cross sections with
362: the cross sections of Refs.\,\cite{NSGK,YHH}. Our WAECs contain
363: the following components \cite{MRT}: the pair terms $\vec
364: j^{\,\,a}_{\,5,\,B}(pair)$ ($B=\pi$, $\rho$, $\omega$), the
365: non--potential exchange currents
366: ${\vec j}^{\,\,a}_{5,\,\pi}(\rho\pi)$,
367: ${\vec j}^{\,\,a}_{5,\,a_1\,\rho}(a_1)$ and the $\Delta$ excitation terms
368: $\vec j^{\,\,a}_{\,5,\,B}(\Delta)$ ($B=\pi$, $\rho$).
369: \par
370: The pion exchange
371: part of our model WAECs is similar to the one employed in
372: \cite{NSGK}. The representative cross sections,
373: presented in table I of Ref.\cite{NSGK},
374: are calculated using the AV18 potential \cite{AV18},
375: that is another high quality second generation
376: potential\footnote{However, its short range part is not an OBEP.}
377: and the $S$- and $P$-waves are taken into account in the
378: nucleon--nucleon final states.
379: \par
380: We also compare our results with those reported in
381: table I of Ref.\cite{YHH}, where the calculations were performed
382: (i) with the Paris potential \cite{P}; (ii)
383: with the currents taken in the impulse approximation; (iii)
384: with the $S$- and $P$-waves taken into account in the
385: nucleon--nucleon final states.
386:
387:
388: \section{Numerical results} \label{sec:2}
389:
390: Using the technique developed in Refs.\,\cite{JDW,ODW} one obtains
391: the equations for the cross sections $\sigma_{pot}(E_\nu)$ that
392: can be found in \cite{MRT}. The equations are the same as those of
393: Ref.\,\cite{NSGK}, but we treat the nucleon variables in the phase
394: space non-relativistically. In Ref.\,\cite{MB2}, the bounds on the
395: phase space are defined in the neutral channel by
396: \be
397: 0\,\le\,E'_\nu\,\le\,E_\nu-\nu-2M_r+2\left[M_r(M_r\,-\,|\epsilon_B|)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\,,
398: \label{EPMAX}
399: \ee
400: \be
401: Max\,\left[\,-1,\,\frac{E^2_\nu+E^{\prime\,2}_\nu+4M_r(|\epsilon_B|-q_0)}{2E_\nu
402: E'_\nu}\,\right]\,\le\,\cos\theta\,\le\,1\,,\label{COST}
403: \ee
404: where
405: $M_r$ is the reduced mass of the neutron-proton system and
406: \mbox{$\epsilon_B$=-2.2245 MeV} is the deuteron binding energy. We
407: have found that it is more effective to integrate numerically
408: within the bounds \be -1\,\le\,\cos\theta\,\le\,1\,,
409: \label{COST1} \ee \bea
410: 0\,&\le&\,E'_\nu\,\le\,E_\nu\cos\theta\,-\,2M
411: \,+\,\left[\,4M^2_r
412: \,+\,4M_r(E_\nu \right. \nonumber \\
413: &&\left. \,-|\epsilon_B|)-E^2_\nu(1-\cos^2\theta) -4M_r
414: E_\nu\cos\theta\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\,. \label{EPMAX1} \eea For
415: the charged channel, the momentum of the final lepton is
416: restricted by \be 0\,\le\,p_l\,\le\,p_{l,max}\,, \label{PLMAX} \ee
417: where $p_{l,max}$ is the solution of the equation \be
418: (E_\nu-p_l)^2\,+\,4M_r E(p_l)+4M_r(\Delta-E_\nu)\,=\,0\,.
419: \label{PLMAX} \ee Here $E(p_l)=(p^2_l+m^2_e)^\frac{1}{2}$ and \bea
420: \Delta &=& M_p-M_n+|\epsilon_B|\,,\,\, M_r=M_p\,,\,\, \nu\,e^-\,,
421: \label{NUEM}
422: \\
423: \Delta &=&
424: M_n-M_p+|\epsilon_B|\,,\,\,M_r=M_n\,,\,\,\bar{\nu}\,e^+\,.
425: \label{ANUEP} \eea \\
426: We extracted $L_{1,\,A}$ by comparing the cross section
427: $\sigma_{EFT}(E_\nu)$ with our cross sections
428: $\sigma_{pot}(E_\nu)$ using the least square fit and also
429: considering an average value of $L_{1,\,A}$
430: \be
431: \bar{L}_{1,\,A}\,=\,\frac{\sum^N_{i=1}\,L_{1,\,A}(i)}{N}\,,
432: \label{LB}
433: \ee
434: where
435: \be
436: L_{1,\,A}(i)\,=\,\frac{\sigma_{pot,i}\,-\,a_i}{b_i}\,.
437: \label{L1AI}
438: \ee
439: We estimated the quality of the fit by the
440: quantity $S$ defined as
441: \be
442: S\,=\,\frac{1}{N}\,\sum^N_{i=1}\,\frac{\sigma_{EFT,i}}{\sigma_{pot,i}}\,.
443: \label{S}
444: \ee
445: It was found that the fit providing the average
446: value (\ref{LB}) results in better agreement between
447: $\sigma_{EFT}(E_\nu)$ and $\sigma_{pot}(E_\nu)$ and we present the
448: results in table \ref{tab:1} only for this fitting procedure. We
449: also applied this fit to the cross sections of table I of \cite{NSGK}
450: (cf.\,the column NSGK).
451: \par
452: \begin{table}
453: \caption{ Values of the constant $L_{1,\,A}$ obtained by the
454: fit to the cross sections of the reactions (\ref{NCN})-(\ref{CCA})
455: calculated using the NijmI, Nijm93 and OBEPQG
456: potentials and by the fit (NSGK) to the cross sections of table I of
457: Ref.\cite{NSGK}.} \label{tab:1}
458: %\begin{center}
459: \begin{tabular}{|l||c||c|c|c||c|}\hline %\hline
460: reaction& & NijmI & Nijm93 & OBEPQG & NSGK \\\hline\hline
461: (\ref{NCN})&$\bar{L}_{1,\,A}$ & 4.6 & 5.2 & 4.8 & 5.4 \\
462: & S & 1.001 & 1.001 & 1.001 & 1.000 \\\hline
463: (\ref{NCA})&$\bar{L}_{1,\,A}$ & 4.9 & 5.5 & 5.1 & 5.5 \\
464: & S & 1.001 & 1.001 & 1.001 & 1.000 \\\hline
465: (\ref{CCN})&$\bar{L}_{1,\,A}$ & 4.1 & 5.0 & - & 6.0 \\
466: & S & 1.001 & 1.001 & - & 1.002 \\\hline
467: (\ref{CCA})&$\bar{L}_{1,\,A}$ & 4.5 & 5.4 & 6.9 & 5.6 \\
468: & S & 1.001 & 1.000 & 0.9996 & 0.9997\\\hline
469: \end{tabular}
470: %\end{center}
471: \end{table}
472: \par
473: %As it is seen from the table \ref{tab:1}, the electromagnetic
474: %nucleon-nucleon interaction is not incorporated in the OBEPQG
475: %potential.
476: \par
477: In table \ref{tab:2}, we present the scattering lengths and
478: the effective ranges, obtained from the NijmI, Nijm93,
479: OBEPQG and AV18 potentials and also the values used in the EFT
480: calculations \cite{MB2}. For the generation of the final state
481: nucleon--nucleon wave functions from the NijmI and Nijm 93
482: potentials, we used the program COCHASE \cite{HLS}. The program
483: solves the Schr\"odinger equation using the fourth--order
484: Runge--Kutta method. This can provide low--energy scattering
485: parameters that slightly differ from those
486: obtained by the Nijmegen group, employing the modified Numerov
487: method \cite{MR}. Some refit was necessary, in order to get the
488: correct low--energy scattering parameters in the neutron--proton
489: and neutron--neutron $^{1}S_0$ states.
490: \par
491: \begin{table*}
492: \caption{Scattering length and effective range (in fm)
493: for the nucleon--nucleon system in the $^{1}S_0$ state,
494: corresponding to the NijmI, Nijm93 \cite{SKTS}, OBEPQG
495: \cite{OPT}, AV18 \cite{AV18} potentials and as used in the EFT calculations
496: \cite{MB2}, and their experimental values.} \label{tab:2}
497: \begin{center}
498: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c||c||c|}\hline %\hline
499: & NijmI & Nijm93 & OBEPQG & AV18 & EFT & exp. \\\hline\hline
500: $a_{np}$ & -23.72 & -23.74 & -23.74 &-23.73 &-23.7 & -23.740$\pm$0.020$^1$ \\
501: $r_{np}$ & 2.65 & 2.68 & 2.73 & 2.70 & 2.70 & 2.77 $\pm$0.05$^1$ \\\hline
502: $a_{pp}$ & -7.80 & -7.79 & - & -7.82 & -7.82 & -7.8063$\pm$0.0026$^2$ \\
503: $r_{pp}$ & 2.74 & 2.71 & - & 2.79 & 2.79 & 2.794$\pm$0.014$^2$ \\\hline
504: $a_{nn}$ & -18.16 & -18.11 & -18.10 &-18.49 &-18.5 & -18.59$\pm$0.40$^3$ \\
505: $r_{nn}$ & 2.80 & 2.78 & 2.77 & 2.84 & 2.80 & 2.80$\pm$0.11$^4$ \\\hline
506: \end{tabular}\\
507: $^1$ Ref.\,\cite{CDB};\,
508: $^2$ Ref.\,\cite{BCSS};\,
509: $^3$ Ref.\,\cite{MS};\,
510: $^4$ Ref.\,\cite{TG}
511: \end{center}
512: \end{table*}
513:
514: %=========================================================================
515:
516: We shall now present the results for the reactions
517: (\ref{NCN})-(\ref{CCA}).
518: In comparing our results with \cite{MB2} we use in our calculations
519: their values
520: $G_F=1.166\times 10^{-5} GeV^{-2}$ and $g_A=-1.26$.
521: Instead we use the value $g_A=-1.254$, as employed
522: in \cite{NSGK} and \cite{YHH}, when comparing our results with
523: these works.
524: In the cross sections for the charged channel reactions (\ref{CCN})
525: and (\ref{CCA}) the value $\cos \theta_C = 0.975$ is taken for
526: the Cabibbo angle.
527:
528: \subsection{Reaction
529: $\nu_x\,+\,d\,\longrightarrow\,\nu'_x\,+\,n\,+\,p\,.$ }
530: \label{sec:21}
531:
532: In table \ref{tab:3}, we present the difference in \%,
533: between the cross sections, obtained with the NijmI and AV18 potentials
534: models and the EFT cross sections, calculated with the corresponding
535: $\bar{L}_{1,\,A}$ from table \ref{tab:1}. Besides, we give the
536: differences between the cross sections,
537: computed with the wave functions of various potential models.\\
538: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%table3*
539: \begin{table}
540: \caption{Cross section and the differences in \% between cross sections
541: for the reaction (\ref{NCN}).
542: In the first column, $E_\nu$ [MeV] is the neutrino energy,
543: in the second column, $\sigma_{NijmI}$ (in $10^{-42}\times$
544: cm$^2$) is the cross section calculated with the NijmI nuclear
545: wave functions.
546: Column 3 reports the differences between $\sigma_{Nijm I}$ (NijmI) and
547: the EFT cross section (\ref{sigB}) $\sigma_{EFT}$, calculated with the
548: corresponding constant $\bar{L}_{1,\,A}$ from table \ref{tab:1}. The
549: differences between $\sigma_{NSGK}$ (\cite{NSGK}, table I)
550: and $\sigma_{EFT}$ are reported in column 4. Further,
551: $\Delta_{1(2)}$ is the difference between the cross sections
552: $\sigma_{NijmI}$ ($\sigma_{Nijm93}$) and $\sigma_{NSGK}$;
553: $\Delta_3$ is the difference between the cross sections $\sigma_{NijmI}$
554: and $\sigma_{YHH}$, where the cross section
555: $\sigma_{YHH}$ is from (\cite{YHH}, table I).
556: } \label{tab:3}
557: %\begin{center}
558: \begin{tabular}{|l||c||c|c|c|c||c|c|c|}\hline
559: $E_\nu$ &$\sigma_{NijmI}$&NijmI&NSGK&$\Delta_1$&$\Delta_2$&$\Delta_3$
560: \\\hline\hline
561: 3&0.00335&1.2&0.4&-1.1&-0.5&- \\
562: 4&0.0306 &1.3&0.2&-0.8&-0.2&12.0 \\
563: 5&0.0948 &1.3&0.2&-0.9&-0.2&5.0 \\
564: 6&0.201 &1.1&0.1&-1.0&-0.3&10.2 \\
565: 7&0.353 &1.0&0.1&-1.1&-0.4&8.1 \\
566: 8&0.551 &1.0&0.2&-1.3&-0.5&10.1 \\
567: 9&0.798 &1.0&0.4&-1.5&-0.7&8.9 \\
568: 10&1.093&0.4&-0.1&-1.6&-0.8&7.6 \\
569: 11&1.437&0.8&0.5&-1.6&-1.0&9.4 \\
570: 12&1.831&-0.1&-0.3&-2.1&-1.2&8.5 \\
571: 13&2.274&-0.1&0.0&-2.3&-1.4&9.9 \\
572: 14&2.767&-0.4&0.0&-2.6&-1.7&9.5 \\
573: 15&3.308&-0.8&-0.1&-2.9&-2.0&10.3 \\
574: 16&3.898&-1.2&-0.3&-3.2&-2.2&9.9 \\
575: 17&4.537&-1.6&-0.4&-3.5&-2.5&10.6 \\
576: 18&5.223&-1.9&-0.3&-3.9&-2.9&10.3 \\
577: 19&5.957&-2.3&-0.4&-4.2&-3.2&10.7 \\
578: 20&6.738&-2.9&-0.6&-4.6&-3.6&10.6 \\\hline
579: \end{tabular}
580: %\end{center}
581: \end{table}
582: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
583: Comparing the columns NijmI and NSGK of table \ref{tab:3} we can see
584: that the NSGK cross section is closer to the EFT cross section. This means that
585: the standard approach and the pionless EFT differ, since the approximations,
586: made in our calculations and in EFT, coincide: the nucleon-nucleon
587: final state is restricted to the $^{1}S_0$ wave and the nucleon variables
588: are treated non-relativistically. Besides,
589: the inspection of columns $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$ shows that our cross
590: sections closely follow the NSGK cross section up to the energies when the
591: $P$- waves in the nucleon--nucleon final state start to contribute.
592: On the other hand,
593: as it follows from column $\Delta_3$, it is difficult to understand
594: the behavior of the cross section $\sigma_{YHH}$ in the whole interval
595: of the considered neutrino energies.
596:
597: \subsection{Reaction
598: $\bar{\nu}_x\,+\,d\,\longrightarrow\,\bar{\nu}'_x\,+\,n\,+\,p\,.$ }
599: \label{sec:22}
600:
601: In analogy with section \ref{sec:21}, we present in table \ref{tab:4} a
602: comparative analysis for the reaction (\ref{NCA}).
603:
604: \begin{table}
605: \caption{Cross section and the differences in \% between cross sections
606: for the reaction (\ref{NCA}). For notations, see table \ref{tab:3},
607: only instead of $E_\nu$, now
608: $E_{\bar{\nu}}$ is the antinetrino energy in MeV. } \label{tab:4}
609: \begin{center}
610: \begin{tabular}{|l||c||c|c|c|c||c|c|c|}\hline
611: $E_{\bar{\nu}}$&$\sigma_{NijmI}$&NijmI&NSGK&$\Delta_1$&$\Delta_2$&$\Delta_3$\\\hline\hline
612: 3&0.00332&0.6&0.1&-1.1&-0.5&- \\
613: 4&0.0302 &1.0&0.2&-0.8&-0.1&9.3 \\
614: 5&0.0928 &1.0&0.1&-0.8&-0.1&0.9 \\
615: 6&0.196 &1.1&0.3&-0.9&-0.1&5.7 \\
616: 7&0.342 &0.8&0.1&-1.0&-0.2&2.0 \\
617: 8&0.531 &1.4&0.8&-1.1&-0.3&3.1 \\
618: 9&0.765 &0.8&0.2&-1.2&-0.4&0.9 \\
619: 10&1.043&0.6&0.2&-1.4&-0.5&-1.7 \\
620: 11&1.364&0.1&-0.2&-1.6&-0.7&-0.7 \\
621: 12&1.729&-0.2&-0.4&-1.7&-0.8&-2.8 \\
622: 13&2.136&-0.3&-0.2&-1.9&-1.0&-2.1\\
623: 14&2.585&-0.5&-0.2&-2.1&-1.2&-3.9\\
624: 15&3.074&-0.7&-0.2&-2.4&-1.4&-4.1 \\
625: 16&3.604&-0.9&-0.1&-2.6&-1.7&-5.6\\
626: 17&4.173&-1.2&-0.2&-2.9&-1.9&-6.0 \\
627: 18&4.779&-1.6&-0.3&-3.3&-2.2&-7.6 \\
628: 19&5.422&-1.9&-0.3&-3.6&-2.5&-8.0 \\
629: 20&6.101&-2.2&-0.2&-3.9&-2.9&-9.4 \\\hline
630: \end{tabular}
631: \end{center}
632: \end{table}
633:
634: Clearly, our cross sections are closer to $\sigma_{EFT}$
635: and also to the cross section $\sigma_{NSGK}$,
636: than in the neutrino-deuteron case of table \ref{tab:3}.
637: The behavior of the cross section
638: $\sigma_{YHH}$ is as little understandable as for the reaction (\ref{NCN}).
639: \par One can also conclude from the differences given in the columns
640: NijmI, NSGK, $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$
641: of tables \ref{tab:3} and \ref{tab:4} that the cross sections for the
642: reactions (\ref{NCN}) and (\ref{NCA}) are described by both the potential
643: models and the pionless EFT with an accuracy better than 3\%.
644:
645:
646:
647:
648: \subsection{Reaction $\nu_e\,+\,d\,\longrightarrow\,e^-\,+\,p\,+\,p\,.$ }
649: \label{sec:23}
650:
651: \begin{table}
652: \caption{Cross section and the differences in \% between cross sections
653: for the reaction (\ref{CCN}). For notations, see table
654: \ref{tab:3}. } \label{tab:5}
655: %\begin{center}
656: \begin{tabular}{|l||c||c|c|c|c||c|c|c|}\hline
657: $E_\nu$&$\sigma_{NijmI}$&NijmI&NSGK&$\Delta_1$&$\Delta_2$&$\Delta_3$\\\hline\hline
658: 2&0.00338&-5.5&-0.6&-7.6&-6.7&- \\
659: 3&0.0455 &-0.5&-0.3&-3.0&-2.0&- \\
660: 4&0.153 & 0.5&-0.6&-1.9&-0.9&1.9 \\
661: 5&0.340 & 1.5& 0.1&-1.6&-0.6&2.9 \\
662: 6&0.613 & 1.9& 0.4&-1.6&-0.5&3.0 \\
663: 7&0.978 & 1.9& 0.4&-1.6&-0.6&3.0 \\
664: 8&1.438 & 0.0&-2.4&-1.8&-0.7&3.1 \\
665: 9&1.997 &-0.2&-2.3&-1.9&-0.8&2.9 \\
666: 10&2.655 & 0.1&-1.7&-2.1&-1.0&3.1 \\
667: 11&3.415 & 3.3& 3.3&-2.4&-1.2&2.8\\
668: 12&4.277 & 1.0& 0.3&-2.6&-1.5&2.5 \\
669: 13&5.243 & 0.7& 0.2&-2.9&-1.8&2.4\\
670: 14&6.311 & 0.4& 0.2&-3.2&-2.1&2.1\\
671: 15&7.484 & 0.0& 0.2&-3.6&-2.4&1.7 \\
672: 16&8.760 &-0.5&-0.1&-4.0&-2.8&1.4\\
673: 17&10.14 &-0.9&-0.1&-4.4&-3.2&1.0 \\
674: 18&11.62 &-1.3&-0.1&-4.8&-3.6&0.1 \\
675: 19&13.21 &-1.7&-0.0&-5.3&-4.1&-0.1 \\
676: 20&14.89 &-2.4&-0.3&-5.8&-4.5&-0.3 \\\hline
677: \end{tabular}
678: %\end{center}
679: \end{table}
680:
681: The comparison of the columns NijmI, NSGK, $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$
682: of table \ref{tab:5} shows that, disregarding the cross sections
683: for $E_\nu$=2 MeV, the cross sections
684: for the important reaction (\ref{CCN}) are described
685: with an accuracy of 3.3 \%. However, while our cross sections and the cross
686: section \cite{NSGK} are smooth functions of the neutrino energy,
687: the EFT cross section exhibits abrupt changes in the region
688: $7\,<\,E_\nu\,<\,12$ MeV. In our opinion, the reason can be an
689: incorrect treatment of the Coulomb interaction between protons in the
690: EFT calculations. We have verified that the non-relativistic approximation for
691: the Fermi function, employed in \cite{MB2} is valid with a good accuracy
692: in the whole interval of the solar neutrino energies.
693: \par
694: Inspecting the difference of the cross sections $\Delta_3$ shows that
695: the cross section \cite{YHH} is of the correct size in this case.
696:
697:
698:
699:
700:
701:
702: \subsection{Reaction $\bar{\nu}_e\,+\,d\,\longrightarrow\,e^-\,+\,n\,+\,n\,.$ }
703: \label{sec:24}
704:
705:
706: \begin{table}
707: \caption{Cross section and the differences in \% between cross sections
708: for the reaction (\ref{CCA}). For notations, see table
709: \ref{tab:3}. }
710: \label{tab:6}
711: %\begin{center}
712: \begin{tabular}{|l||c||c|c|c|c||c|c|c|}\hline
713: $E_{\bar{\nu}}$&$\sigma_{NijmI}$&NijmI&NSGK&$\Delta_1$&$\Delta_2$&$\Delta_3$\\\hline\hline
714: 5&0.0274 &-1.3&-0.9 &-2.4&-1.5&9.0 \\
715: 6&0.116 &0.1 &-0.1 &-2.1&-1.1&8.1 \\
716: 7&0.277 &0.2 &-0.2 &-1.8&-0.7&7.4 \\
717: 8&0.514 &0.5 &-0.1 &-1.7&-0.6&7.1 \\
718: 9&0.829 &0.4 &-0.2 &-1.7&-0.6&6.9 \\
719: 10&1.224 &0.9 &0.4 &-1.7&-0.6&6.8 \\
720: 11&1.697 &0.7 &0.2 &-1.9&-0.7&6.0\\
721: 12&2.249 &0.6 &0.1 &-2.0&-0.8&6.1 \\
722: 13&2.876 &0.4 &0.0 &-2.2&-1.0&5.5\\
723: 14&3.578 &0.4 &0.2 &-2.3&-1.1&5.2\\
724: 15&4.353 &0.0 &0.0 &-2.6&-1.3&4.9 \\
725: 16&5.200&-0.2 &0.1 &-2.8&-1.6&4.6\\
726: 17&6.115&-0.3 &0.2 &-3.1&-1.9&3.5 \\
727: 18&7.097&-0.5 &0.4 &-3.4&-2.1&3.2 \\
728: 19&8.143&-0.9 &0.2 &-3.8&-2.5&2.8 \\
729: 20&9.251&-1.2 &0.3 &-4.1&-2.8&2.4 \\\hline
730: \end{tabular}
731: %\end{center}
732: \end{table}
733:
734: It follows from table \ref{tab:6} that our cross sections
735: for the reaction (\ref{CCA}) are in a very good agreement with
736: the EFT \cite{MB2} and \cite{NSGK} calculations. This confirms our
737: conjecture that the treatment of the Coulomb interaction between
738: protons \cite{MB2} in the reaction (\ref{CCN}) is not correct.
739: \par The calculations \cite{YHH} provide too
740: a small cross section. The most probable reason for this large difference
741: is that the Paris potential does not describe the neutron--neutron
742: interaction correctly.
743:
744:
745: \section{Conclusions} \label{sec:3}
746:
747: We calculated here the cross sections for the reactions of the
748: solar neutrinos with the deuterons, (\ref{NCN})--(\ref{CCA}),
749: within the standard nuclear physics approach.
750: We took into account the weak axial exchange currents of the OBE type,
751: satisfying the nuclear continuity equation (\ref{NCEt}). These currents
752: were constructed from the Lagrangians, possessing the chiral local
753: $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ symmetry, in the tree approximation.
754: Using the OBE potentials NijmI, Nijm93 and OBEPQG, we made
755: consistent calculations.
756: We took into account the nucleon--nucleon interaction in the $^{1}S_0$
757: final state and we treated non-relativistically the nucleon variables.
758: \par
759: Our cross sections for the reactions
760: (\ref{NCN}), (\ref{NCA}) and (\ref{CCA}) agree with the EFT
761: cross sections \cite{MB2} and also with the cross sections
762: \cite{NSGK} within an accuracy better than 3 \%. The agreement for
763: the reaction (\ref{CCN}) is within 3.3 \%. In our opinion, the
764: agreement for the reaction (\ref{CCN}) can be improved by paying
765: more attention to the treatment of the
766: Coulomb interaction between the protons in the final state
767: in the pionless EFT calculations.
768:
769:
770: \begin{acknowledgement}
771: This work is supported in part by the grant GA CR 202/03/0210 and
772: by Ministero dell' Istruzione, dell'
773: Universit\`a e della Ricerca of Italy (PRIN 2003). We thank M. Rentmeester
774: for the correspondence.
775: \end{acknowledgement}
776:
777:
778:
779: \begin{thebibliography}{}
780: \bibitem{SLA} S.L. Adler, \Journal{\PRW}{139}{B1638}{1965}.
781: \bibitem{BS} R.J. Blin--Stoyle, \textit{Fundamental Interactions and the
782: Nucleus} (North--Holland/American Elsevier, Amsterdam--London/New
783: York 1973).
784: \bibitem{DFM} D.F. Measday, \Journal{\PR}{354}{243}{2001}.
785: \bibitem{KDR} K. Kubodera, J. Delorme and M. Rho,
786: \Journal{\PRL}{40}{755}{1978}.
787: \bibitem{IT} E. Ivanov and E. Truhl\'{\i}k,
788: \Journal{\NPA}{316}{437}{1979}.
789: \bibitem{ISTPR} I.S. Towner, \Journal{\PR}{155}{263}{1987}.
790: \bibitem{Sci} R. Schiavilla {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PRC}{58}{1263}{1999}.
791: \bibitem{TR} K. Tsushima and D.O. Riska, \Journal{\NPA}{549}{313}{1992}.
792: \bibitem{SMA} S.M. Ananyan, \Journal{\PRC}{57}{2669}{1998}.
793: \bibitem{YM} C.N. Yang and R.L. Mills, \Journal{\PRW}{96}{191}{1954}.
794: \bibitem{STG} J. Smejkal, E.Truhl\'{\i}k and H. G\"oller, \Journal{\NPA}{624}{655}{1997}.
795: \bibitem{HLSLM} U.-G. Meissner, \Journal{\PR}{161}{213}{1988}.
796: \bibitem{BKY} M. Bando, T. Kugo and K. Yamawaki,
797: \Journal{\PR}{164}{217}{1988}.
798: \bibitem{MRT} B. Mosconi, P. Ricci and E. Truhl\'{\i}k, nucl-th/0212042.
799: \bibitem{ATA} J. Adam, Jr., E. Truhl\'{\i}k and D. Adamov\'a, \Journal{\NPA}{494}{556}{1989}.
800: \bibitem{AHHST} J. Adam, Jr., Ch. Hajduk H. Henning, P.U. Sauer and
801: E. Truhl\'{\i}k,
802: \Journal{\NPA}{531}{623}{1991}.
803: \bibitem{TK1} E. Truhl\'{\i}k and F.C. Khanna, \Journal{\IJMPA}{10}{499}{1995}.
804: \bibitem{HHK} T.R. Hemmert, B.R. Holstein and J. Kambor,
805: \Journal{\JPG}{24}{1831}{1998}.
806: \bibitem{PMR} T.-S. Park, D.-P. Min and M. Rho,
807: \Journal{\PR}{233}{341}{1993}.
808: \bibitem{PKMR} T.-S. Park, K. Kubodera, D.-P. Min and M. Rho,
809: \Journal{\AJ}{507}{443}{1998}.
810: \bibitem{KSW} D.B. Kaplan, M.J. Savage and M.B. Wise,
811: \Journal{\NPB}{478}{629}{1996}; \Journal{\PLB}{424}{390}{1998}.
812: \bibitem{CRS} J.W. Chen, G. Rupak and M.J. Savage, \Journal{\NPA}{653}{386}{1999}.
813: %\bibitem{MB1} M. Butler and J.-W. Chen,
814: % \Journal{\NPA}{675}{575}{2000}.
815: \bibitem{MB2} M. Butler, J.-W. Chen and X. Kong,
816: \Journal{\PRC}{63}{035501}{2001}.
817: \bibitem{SNO1} SNO Collaboration, \Journal{\PRL}{87}{071301}{2001};
818: \Journal{\PRL}{89}{011301}{2002}.
819: \bibitem{SNO2} S.N. Ahmed {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PRL}{92}{181301}{2004}.
820: %\bibitem{SNO3} A.W.P.Poon, nucl-ex/0312001.
821: \bibitem{SNO4} B. Aharmin {\it et al.} (SNO collaboration),
822: nucl-ex/0502021.
823: \bibitem{NSGK} S. Nakamura, T. Sato, V. Gudkov and K. Kubodera,
824: \Journal{\PRC}{63}{034617}{2001}.
825: \bibitem{YHH}S. Ying, W.C. Haxton and E.M. Henley, \Journal{\PRC}{45}{1982}{1992}.
826: \bibitem{OPT} P. Obersteiner, W. Plessas and E. Truhl\'{\i}k,
827: in Proceedings of the XIII International Conference on Particles
828: and Nuclei, Perugia, Italy, June 28--July 2, 1993, ed. A.
829: Pascolini, World Scientific, Singapore, 1994, p.430.
830: \bibitem{SKTS}V.G.J. Stoks, R.A.M. Klomp, C.P.F. Terheggen and J.J. de Swart,
831: \Journal{\PRC}{49}{2950}{1994}.
832: \bibitem{Mac} R. Machleidt, \Journal{\ANP}{19}{189}{1989}.
833: \bibitem{CT} J.G. Congleton and E.
834: Truhl\'{\i}k, \Journal{\PRC}{53}{957}{1996}.
835: \bibitem{AV18}R.B.Wiringa, V.G.J.Stoks and R.Schiavilla,
836: \Journal{\PRC}{51}{38}{1995}.
837: \bibitem{P} M. Lacombe {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PRC}{21}{861}{1980}.
838: \bibitem{JDW} J.D. Walecka, Semi--leptonic weak interactions in nuclei, in
839: Muon physics, eds. V.W. Hughes and C.S. Wu, Academic Press, New
840: York, 1972.
841: \bibitem{ODW} J.S. O'Connell, T.W. Donnelly and J.D. Walecka,
842: \Journal{\PRC}{6}{719}{1972}.
843: \bibitem{CDB} R. Machleidt, \Journal{\PRC}{63}{024001}{2001}.
844: \bibitem{BCSS} J.R. Bergervoet, P.C. van Campen, W.A. van der Sanden and J.J. de Swart,
845: \Journal{\PRC}{38}{15}{1988}.
846: \bibitem{MS} R. Machleidt and I. Slaus, \Journal{\JPG}{27}{R69}{2001}.
847: \bibitem{TG} G.F. de T\'eramond and B. Gabioud, \Journal{\PRC}{36}{691}{1987}.
848: \bibitem{HLS} S. Hirschi, E. Lomon and N. Spencer, \Journal{\CPC}{9}{11}{1975}.
849: \bibitem{MR} M. Rentmeester, personal communication, 2005.
850: \end{thebibliography}
851:
852:
853: \end{document}
854: