1: \documentclass[prc,twocolumn,showpacs,showkeys,preprintnumbers,
2: nofootinbib,superscriptaddress,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{graphics}
4: \usepackage{amsmath}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6: \newcommand{\etal}{\textit{et al.}}
7: \begin{document}
8: \title{Hints on the quadrupole deformation of the $\Delta$(1232)}
9: \author{C.~\surname{Fern\'andez-Ram\'{\i}rez}}
10: \email{cesar@nuc2.fis.ucm.es}
11: \affiliation{Instituto de Estructura de la Materia,
12: CSIC. Serrano 123, E-28006, Madrid. Spain.}
13: \affiliation{Departamento de F\'{\i}sica At\'omica, Molecular y Nuclear.
14: Universidad de Sevilla. Apdo. 1065, E-41080, Sevilla. Spain.}
15: \author{E.~\surname{Moya de Guerra}}
16: \affiliation{Instituto de Estructura de la Materia,
17: CSIC. Serrano 123, E-28006, Madrid. Spain.}
18: \affiliation{Departamento de F\'{\i}sica
19: At\'omica, Molecular y Nuclear. Facultad de
20: Ciencias F\'{\i}sicas. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
21: Avda. Complutense s/n, E-28040, Madrid. Spain.}
22: \author{J.M.~\surname{Ud\'{\i}as}}
23: \affiliation{Departamento de F\'{\i}sica
24: At\'omica, Molecular y Nuclear. Facultad de
25: Ciencias F\'{\i}sicas. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
26: Avda. Complutense s/n, E-28040, Madrid. Spain.}
27: \date{\today}
28: \begin{abstract}
29: The E2/M1 ratio (EMR) of the $\Delta$(1232) is
30: extracted from the world data in pion photoproduction by means of
31: an Effective Lagrangian Approach (ELA).
32: This quantity has been derived within a
33: crossing symmetric, gauge invariant, and chiral symmetric
34: Lagrangian model which also contains a consistent modern treatment of the
35: $\Delta$(1232) resonance.
36: The \textit{bare} s-channel $\Delta$(1232)
37: contribution is well isolated and
38: Final State Interactions (FSI) are effectively taken into account
39: fulfilling Watson's theorem.
40: The obtained EMR value,
41: EMR$=(-1.30\pm0.52)$\%,
42: is in good agreement with the
43: latest lattice QCD calculations [Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 021601 (2005)]
44: and disagrees with results of current quark model calculations.
45: \end{abstract}
46: \pacs{14.20.Gk,14.20.Dh,25.20.Lj,13.60.Le}
47: \keywords{E2/M1 ratio, $\Delta$(1232), pion photoproduction}
48: \maketitle
49:
50: From general symmetry principles,
51: the emission of a photon by a spin-3/2 system that becomes
52: spin-1/2, involves transverse electric quadrupole (E2) and
53: magnetic dipole (M1) multipolarities.
54: Likewise, this is the case of
55: the absorption of a real photon by a spin-1/2 to reach spin-3/2.
56: In the absence of knowledge of the internal structure of the system,
57: an estimate of the ratio between the two multipolarities can be made by
58: resorting to Weisskopf \cite{Weisskopf} units for multipole
59: strengths in nuclear systems.
60: For the excitation of a nucleon into a $\Delta$(1232)
61: ($\gamma + N \to \Delta$)
62: this estimate gives
63: \begin{equation}
64: R_W=\sqrt{\left( \frac{S_{\text{E2}}}{S_{\text{M1}}} \right)}=
65: 1.07 \cdot 10^{-3} R_0^2 \left( M_\Delta - M_N \right) \: ,
66: \end{equation}
67: with the nucleon radius $R_0$ in fm and the mass difference in MeV.
68: In what follows we refer to this value as the Weisskopf ratio ($R_W$).
69: Taking a radius $R_0=0.875$ \cite{PDG2004}
70: and a mass difference $\left( M_\Delta - M_N \right)\simeq 270$ MeV
71: one gets $R_W \simeq 0.22$.
72:
73: Within the quark model, a single quark spin flip is the standard picture
74: for the photoexcitation of the nucleon into a $\Delta$, assuming
75: spherically symmetric ($L=0$) radial wave functions of both parent
76: and daughter. Under these premises, an E2 transition cannot take place,
77: as it was first noticed by Becchi and Morpurgo in their
78: 1965 paper \cite{Becchi}, where they concluded that a value of the
79: $\text{E2}/\text{M1}$ ratio (EMR)
80: much smaller than $R_W$ should be considered as a test
81: of the model. As early as 1963 values of EMR small but different from zero
82: were reported in the literature \cite{Gourdin}
83: which was supported by further experiments
84: later on \cite{Davidson,Blanpied,Mainz}.
85: A non-vanishing E2 multipolarity evokes
86: a deformed nucleon picture \cite{Glashow}.
87: In an extreme rotational model approximation the nucleon could be considered
88: as the head of a $K^\pi=\frac{1}{2}^+$ rotational band
89: ($\frac{1}{2}^+,\frac{3}{2}^+,\frac{5}{2}^+, \dots$),
90: in analogy to rotational nuclear bands.
91: In this picture the electromagnetic current and
92: multipoles for the transition between the members of the band
93: can be parametrized in terms of intrinsic single particle and collective
94: multipoles \cite{EMoya}.
95: In particular, the E2 multipole for the transition ($\gamma + N \to \Delta$)
96: would be given in terms of the intrinsic quadrupole moment ($Q_0$)
97: by the relation \cite{EMoya,Bohr}
98: \begin{equation}
99: \mathcal{M}\left( \text{E2} \right)=
100: < \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{2} 2 0 | \frac{3}{2} \frac{1}{2} >
101: \sqrt{\frac{5}{8\pi}} Q_0 = 0.282 Q_0 \: .
102: \end{equation}
103: In turn, $Q_0$ would be related to the spectroscopic
104: quadrupole moment of the $\Delta$ by
105: \begin{equation}
106: Q_0=-5Q_\Delta \: .
107: \end{equation}
108:
109: Hence, the relationship between the static $\Delta$(1232)
110: quadrupole moment and the E2 multipole for the $N \to \Delta$ transition is
111: \begin{equation}
112: \mathcal{M}\left(\text{E2} , N \to \Delta \right)
113: =-\frac{5}{\sqrt{4\pi}} Q_\Delta \:.
114: \end{equation}
115:
116: Within this picture, a negative (positive) static quadrupole moment
117: implies a prolate (oblate) intrinsic deformation,
118: which is not always well stated in the literature.
119:
120: Over the last few years much effort has been invested in
121: the determination of
122: quadrupole deformation in
123: the nucleon \cite{Bernstein,Krusche}.
124: Because the spin of the nucleon is 1/2, a possible intrinsic
125: quadrupole deformation is not directly observable and
126: its study requires research on its lowest-lying excitation
127: -- $\Delta$(1232) --
128: and its decay through pion emission. Hints on the possible deformation
129: will be deduced via the EMR.
130: In the context of the quark model,
131: De R\'ujula, Georgi, and Glashow \cite{DeRujula}
132: were the first to suggest a tensor force arising from one-gluon
133: exchange and leading to d-state admixtures.
134: On the other hand Buchmann and collaborators \cite{Buchmann}
135: pointed out that a non-zero E2 transition could be due to one-gluon or
136: meson-exchange currents.
137: While debate on the physical interpretation of the EMR
138: may still be far from closed, a more precise determination
139: of the EMR value is both possible and mandatory.
140:
141: Extensive experimental programs have been
142: developed at Brookhaven \cite{Blanpied}
143: and Mainz \cite{Mainz}, that have resulted in an
144: improvement in the quantity and quality of the pion photoproduction
145: data \cite{Drechsel}.
146: However, in order to extract the EMR from
147: experiment, a realistic model of the reaction must be employed
148: that takes into account the Final State Interaction (FSI)
149: of the outgoing pion
150: as well as the relevant symmetries.
151: Only then can the ratio deduced from the
152: experimental data be compared to the predictions of nucleonic models
153: | namely, quark models \cite{Becchi,Buchmann},
154: skyrme models \cite{Wirzba}, and
155: lattice QCD \cite{Leinweber,Alexandrou}.
156: Theoretical
157: interest in this topic has been strongly renewed and
158: either new or well-known approaches have been (re)investigated with
159: the latest theoretical advances such as
160: new dynamical models \cite{Sato,Fuda,Tjon}
161: and non-pathological spin-3/2 treatments \cite{Tjon,cefera}.
162: A complete account of the experimental and theoretical work done on
163: this topic goes well beyond the scope of this paper. For a review
164: of the subject we refer the reader to Ref. \cite{Krusche}.
165:
166:
167: A key point in the extraction of the EMR is the reaction model
168: used for the analysis of data.
169: Reaction models have to be developed
170: carefully
171: in order to consider the underlying physics and to
172: minimize model dependencies as well as
173: theoretical uncertainties.
174: Ambiguities in the contribution of the background
175: terms, unitarization,
176: or even formal elements
177: (such as the recently improved spin-3/2 description
178: or the crossing symmetry)
179: can spoil the determination of the parameters of the
180: resonances.
181: This is so even for a well isolated
182: resonance as is the $\Delta$(1232).
183: A determination of the $\Delta$(1232) parameters requires one to
184: study the photoproduction reaction not only
185: in the first resonance region, as commonly has been done,
186: but in further kinematical regions
187: in order to keep under control the high energy behavior of the
188: resonance contribution.
189: For example, in a Breit-Wigner model,
190: the inclusion of Regge poles, which take into account
191: heavy meson exchanges, does affect the determination of the
192: $\Delta$(1232) coupling constants because of the modification
193: of the tail of the resonance \cite{Aznauryan}.
194:
195:
196: \begin{figure}
197: \begin{center}
198: \scalebox{0.65}{\includegraphics{fig1.ps}}
199: \end{center}
200: \caption{Feynman diagrams for Born terms: ($a$) s-channel,
201: ($b$) u-channel, ($c$) t-channel,
202: and ($d$) Kroll-Rudermann.} \label{fig:diag1}
203: \end{figure}
204:
205:
206:
207: From the theoretical point of view,
208: the Effective Lagrangian Approach (ELA)
209: is a very suitable
210: and appealing method to study pion photoproduction
211: and nucleon excitations.
212: It is also a reliable, accurate, and formally well established
213: approach in the nucleon mass
214: region.
215:
216:
217: In this Rapid Communication
218: we employ a realistic model
219: for pion photoproduction
220: on free nucleons from threshold up to 1 GeV
221: based on the ELA
222: that we have recently elaborated.
223: Details on the model will be published somewhere else
224: and can be found in \cite{cefera}.
225: In what follows we provide a brief description of the model.
226: In addition to Born (Fig. \ref{fig:diag1})
227: and vector meson exchange terms
228: ($\rho$ and $\omega$, diagram ($e$) in Fig. \ref{fig:diag2}),
229: the model includes
230: all the four star resonances in Particle Data Group (PDG)
231: \cite{PDG2004} up to 1.7 GeV mass
232: and up to spin-3/2:
233: $\Delta$(1232), N(1440), N(1520), $\Delta$(1620), N(1650),
234: and $\Delta$(1700) --- diagrams ($f$) and ($g$) in Fig. \ref{fig:diag2}.
235: The main advantages of our
236: model compared to previous ones \cite{pions}
237: resides on the treatment of resonances.
238: In particular, we avoid some pathologies in the Lagrangians
239: of the spin-3/2 resonances (such as $\Delta$(1232)),
240: present in previous models,
241: implementing a modern approach
242: due to Pascalutsa \cite{Pascalutsa}.
243: Under this approach the (spin-3/2 resonance)-nucleon-pion and
244: the (spin 3/2 resonance)-nucleon-photon
245: vertices have to fulfill the condition
246: $q_\alpha {\mathcal O}^{\alpha ...}=0$ where $q$ is the four-momentum
247: of the spin-3/2 particle, $\alpha$ the vertex index which couples
248: to the spin-3/2 field, and the dots stand for other possible
249: indices. In particular, we write the simplest interacting
250: (spin-3/2 resonance)-nucleon-pion
251: Lagrangian as \cite{Pascalutsa}
252: \begin{equation}
253: {\mathcal L}_{int}=-\frac{h}{f_\pi M^*} \bar{N} \epsilon_{\mu
254: \nu \lambda \beta} \gamma^\beta \gamma^5 \left( \partial^\mu
255: N^{*\nu}_j \right) \left( \partial^\lambda \pi_j \right) +
256: HC \: ,\label{GIcoupling}
257: \end{equation}
258: where $HC$ stands for hermitian conjugate,
259: $h$ is the strong coupling constant,
260: $f_\pi=92.3$ MeV is the leptonic
261: decay constant of the pion, $M^*$ the mass of the resonance, and
262: $\pi_j$, $N$, and $N^{*\nu}_j$, the pion, nucleon, and spin-3/2
263: fields respectively.
264:
265: \begin{figure}
266: \begin{center}
267: \scalebox{0.65}{\includegraphics{fig2.ps}}
268: \end{center}
269: \caption{Feynman diagrams for vector meson exchange ($e$) and
270: resonance excitations: ($f$) s-channel and ($g$)
271: u-channel.} \label{fig:diag2}
272: \end{figure}
273:
274: The model also displays
275: chiral symmetry, gauge invariance,
276: and crossing symmetry.
277: The dressing of the resonances \cite{Leupold} is considered by means of a
278: phenomenological width which takes into account
279: decays into one $\pi$, one $\eta$, and two $\pi$.
280: The width is built in order to fulfill crossing symmetry and contributes
281: to both s- and u- channels of the resonances.
282: In order to regularize the high energy behavior of the model we include
283: a crossing symmetric and gauge invariant form factor for Born and
284: vector meson exchange terms
285: \cite{Davidson01-1}, as well as
286: form factors in the resonance contributions
287: consistent with the phenomenological widths.
288: We assume that the FSI factorizes and can be
289: included through the distortion of the
290: $\pi N$ final state wave function.
291: Factorization of FSI
292: has been successfully
293: applied to electron scattering knock-out reactions \cite{Udias}.
294:
295: A detailed calculation of the distortion would require one to
296: calculate higher order pion loops or to develop a
297: phenomenological potential FSI model.
298: The first approach is overwhelmingly complex
299: and the second would introduce additional model-dependencies,
300: which are to be avoided in the present analysis,
301: in as much as we are
302: concerned here with the bare properties
303: of the $\Delta$(1232).
304: We rather include FSI in a phenomenological way by
305: adding a phase $\delta_{\text{FSI}}$ to the electromagnetic multipoles.
306: We determine this phase so that the total phase of the electromagnetic
307: multipole is identical to the one of the
308: energy dependent solution of SAID \cite{SAIDdata}.
309: In this way
310: Watson's theorem \cite{Watson} is fulfilled below the two pion threshold
311: and we are able to disentangle
312: the electromagnetic vertex from FSI effects.
313:
314: In order to obtain a reliable set of
315: electromagnetic coupling constants of the nucleon resonances
316: we have fitted the experimental electromagnetic multipoles
317: using modern minimization techniques
318: based upon genetic algorithms.
319: We have obtained
320: different fits which are compared in Ref. \cite{cefera}.
321: In this Rapid Communication
322: we focus on two fits obtained including FSI
323: and using two different prescriptions
324: for the determination of the masses of the resonances.
325: The first one uses the set of masses
326: and widths provided by Vrana, Dytman, and Lee \cite{Vrana},
327: and the second one uses a set
328: established by means of a speed plot calculation from
329: the current solution of the SAID $\pi N$ partial wave analysis
330: \cite{SAIDdata}.
331:
332: In Fig. \ref{fig:delta} we show our
333: fits to $M_{1+}^{3/2}$ and $E_{1+}^{3/2}$ multipoles
334: for both sets of parameters.
335:
336: Caution must be taken with the various definitions of EMR
337: employed in the literature.
338: We should distinguish between
339: the intrinsic (or \textit{bare} EMR of the $\Delta$(1232) and
340: the directly measured
341: value which is often called \textit{physical} or \textit{dressed}
342: EMR value \cite{Sato,Tjon}
343: and which is obtained as the ratio between the
344: imaginary parts of $E_{1+}^{3/2}$
345: and $M_{1+}^{3/2}$ at the $E_\gamma$ value at which
346: $\text{Re}M_{1+}^{3/2}=0=\text{Re}E_{1+}^{3/2}$.
347: Since all the reaction models are fitted to the experimental electromagnetic
348: multipoles, they generally reproduce the physical EMR value. As seen
349: in Fig. \ref{fig:delta} this is also the case in our model, where
350: we get
351: \begin{equation}
352: \frac{\text{Im}E_{1+}^{3/2}}{\text{Im} M_{1+}^{3/2}}
353: =\left( -3.9 \pm 1.1 \right) \%
354: \end{equation}
355: for $328 \text{ MeV} \leq E_\gamma \leq 343 \text{ MeV}$.
356: This value compares well
357: with the value obtained by LEGS Collaboration in \cite{Blanpied},
358: $\left( -3.07\pm 0.26 \rm (stat.+syst.) \pm 0.24 \rm (model) \right) \%$,
359: and is somewhat higher than the PDG value
360: $\left( -2.5\pm 0.5 \right) \%$.
361:
362: However, this measured EMR value is not easily
363: computed with the theoretical models
364: of the nucleon and its resonances.
365: Instead, in order to compare to models of nucleonic structure,
366: it is better to extract the \textit{bare} EMR value
367: of $\Delta$(1232) which is defined as:
368: \begin{equation}
369: \text{EMR}=\frac{G_E^\Delta}{G_M^\Delta}\times 100\% \: , \label{eq:EMR}
370: \end{equation}
371: This depends only on the intrinsic characteristics
372: of the $\Delta$(1232) and can thus
373: be compared directly to predictions from nucleonic models. It is not, however,
374: directly measurable but must be inferred (in a model dependent way)
375: from reaction models, precisely what we aim in this Rapid Communication.
376:
377: \begin{figure}
378: \begin{center}
379: \rotatebox{0}{\scalebox{0.4}[0.4]{\includegraphics{delta3.ps}}}
380: \end{center}
381: \caption{Comparison among the fits from sets \#1
382: (solid: real part, short-dashed: imaginary part)
383: and \#2 (dashed: real part, dotted: imaginary part) and the
384: SAID energy independent solution (data) for
385: $M_{1+}^{3/2}$ and $E_{1+}^{3/2}$ electromagnetic multipoles \cite{SAIDdata}.
386: A detailed discussion on electromagnetic multipoles can be found
387: in Ref. \cite{cefera}.}
388: \label{fig:delta}
389: \end{figure}
390:
391:
392: \begin{table}
393: \caption{Intrinsic (or bare) EMR (from eq. (\ref{eq:EMR}))
394: and parameters of $\Delta$(1232)
395: for the two fits considered.
396: $M_\Delta$ is the mass,
397: $A_{1/2}^\Delta$ and $A_{3/2}^\Delta$ the helicity amplitudes,
398: $G_E^\Delta$ the electric form factor, and
399: $G_M^\Delta$ the magnetic form factor.
400: Masses and widths for set \#1 have been taken from Ref. \cite{Vrana}
401: and for set \#2 they have been calculated using the
402: speed plot technique \cite{cefera}.} \label{tab:ratios}
403: \begin{ruledtabular}
404: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
405:
406: & Set \#1 & Set \#2 \\
407:
408: \hline
409: $M_\Delta$ (MeV) & $1215\pm2$&$ 1209\pm2$ \\
410: $A_{1/2}^\Delta$ (GeV$^{-1/2}$) &$-0.123\pm0.003$&$-0.123\pm0.003$ \\
411: $A_{3/2}^\Delta$ (GeV$^{-1/2}$) &$-0.225\pm0.005$&$-0.224\pm0.004$ \\
412: $G_E^\Delta$ &$-0.076\pm0.042$&$-0.071\pm0.042$ \\
413: $G_M^\Delta$ &$ 5.650\pm0.070$&$ 5.701\pm0.071$ \\
414: EMR &$\left( -1.35\pm0.74 \right)\%$&$\left( -1.24\pm0.74\right)\%$ \\
415: \end{tabular}
416: \end{ruledtabular}
417: \end{table}
418:
419: The connection between both definitions of EMR values
420: is straightforward when FSI are neglected as can be found in the paper
421: by Jones and Scadron \cite{Jones}. In our formalism, both values
422: can be connected from the
423: definitions of the electromagnetic multipoles \cite{cefera} and their
424: connection to the $\gamma + N \to \Delta$ transition Lagrangian
425: \begin{equation}
426: {\mathcal L}_{em}=\frac{3e}{2M M^+} \bar{N}
427: \left[ ig_1 \tilde{F}_{\mu \nu}+g_2 \gamma^5 F_{\mu \nu}
428: \right] \partial^\mu N^{*\nu}_3 + HC \: ,
429: \end{equation}
430: where $M^+=M+M_\Delta$,
431: $F_{\mu \nu}$ is the electromagnetic field,
432: $\tilde{F}_{\mu \nu}=\frac{1}{2}
433: \epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta} F^{\alpha \beta}$,
434: and $g_1$ and $g_2$ are the coupling constants that can be related to
435: the electric and magnetic form factors through
436: $G_E^\Delta=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{M_\Delta - M}{M^+}g_2$ and
437: $G_M^\Delta= g_1 + \frac{1}{2}\frac{M_\Delta - M}{M^+}g_2$ \cite{Pasc99}.
438: In our calculation, the numerical differencies between the dressed and the
439: bare EMR values are attributed to FSI.
440:
441:
442: In Table \ref{tab:ratios} we quote
443: our extracted bare EMR values obtained from Eq. (\ref{eq:EMR}) together
444: with the mass, helicity amplitudes, and
445: electromagnetic form factors at the photon point of the $\Delta$(1232).
446:
447:
448: In our calculations we have considered the pole mass of the resonance
449: instead of the Breit-Wigner mass \cite{Sato,Fuda,Tjon}.
450: One must be aware of the fact that electromagnetic coupling
451: constants are very sensitive
452: to the mass and that the width of the $\Delta$(1232)
453: and the multipoles vary rapidly
454: in the region around the peak of the $\Delta$(1232).
455: Thus, a variation in the mass
456: of the resonance affects the determination of the EMR value.
457: This is also seen in Table \ref{tab:ratios}.
458: Out of the two results given in Table \ref{tab:ratios}
459: we adopt as our final result the average value
460: for the bare EMR$=\left( -1.30\pm0.52 \right) \%$.
461:
462: \begin{table*}
463: \caption{Comparison of EMR values from nucleonic models and
464: EMR values extracted from data predicted
465: through several reaction models (see text).} \label{tab:models}
466: \begin{ruledtabular}
467: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
468: Physical EMR, experiments & EMR& Ref.\\
469: \hline
470: Particle Data Group & $\left(-2.5 \pm 0.5 \right) \%$ & \cite{PDG2004} \\
471: LEGS Collaboration &
472: $\left(-3.07 \pm 0.26 {(\rm stat.+syst.)}\pm 0.24 {\rm (model)}\right) \%$
473: & \cite{Blanpied} \\
474: \hline
475: Physical EMR, reaction models & & \\
476: \hline
477: Sato and Lee &$-2.7$\% & \cite{Sato} \\
478: Fuda and Alharbi &$-2.09$\% & \cite{Fuda} \\
479: Pascalutsa and Tjon &$\left( -2.4\pm0.1 \right)$\% & \cite{Tjon} \\
480: \textbf{Present work (average)}&$\left( \mathbf{-3.9 \pm 1.1} \right) \%$
481: & \\
482:
483: \hline
484: Extractions of bare EMR, reaction models & & \\
485:
486: \hline
487: Sato and Lee &$-1.3$\% & \cite{Sato} \\
488: Pascalutsa and Tjon &$\left( 3.8\pm1.6 \right)$\% & \cite{Tjon} \\
489: \textbf{Present work (average)}&$\left( \mathbf{-1.30\pm0.52} \right) \%$
490: & \\
491: \hline
492:
493: Bare EMR, predictions from nucleonic models & & \\
494:
495: \hline
496: Non-relativistic quark model& 0\% & \cite{Becchi}\\
497: Constituent quark model &$-3.5$\% & \cite{Buchmann} \\
498: Skyrme model& $\left( -3.5\pm1.5 \right) $\%& \cite{Wirzba}\\
499: Lattice QCD (Leinweber \etal)& $\left( 3 \pm 8 \right)$\%
500: & \cite{Leinweber}\\
501: Lattice QCD (Alexandrou \etal)& &\cite{Alexandrou} \\
502: ($Q^2=0.1$ GeV$^2$, $m_\pi = 0$)
503: &$\left( -1.93 \pm 0.94 \right)$\%& \\
504: ($Q^2=0.1$ GeV$^2$, $m_\pi = 370$ MeV)
505: &$\left( -1.40 \pm 0.60 \right)$\%& \\
506:
507: \end{tabular}
508: \end{ruledtabular}
509: \end{table*}
510:
511:
512: In Table \ref{tab:models} we compare our average EMR values
513: (bare and dressed) to
514: the ones extracted by other authors using other models for pion
515: photoproduction, as well as to
516: predictions of nucleonic models.
517: Our bare result is similar to that from Ref. \cite{Sato}.
518: However, it disagrees with the bare value derived with
519: the dynamical model of
520: Pascalutsa and Tjon \cite{Tjon}, where a positive deformation
521: of the $\Delta$(1232) (EMR$=\left( 3.8\pm1.6 \right)\%$) is inferred.
522: We compare to their model because, together with the one
523: we employ in this work,
524: they were the only available models that include
525: non-pathological $\Delta$(1232)
526: Lagrangians. The discrepancy
527: is not so worrysome if we recall that
528: dynamical models have ambiguities in the determination
529: of the bare value of EMR \cite{Wilhelm} that is highly
530: model dependent as it stems
531: from the comparison among different dynamical models,
532: namely Refs. \cite{Sato,Fuda,Tjon}.
533: More recently \cite{Pasc05} the dependence of the
534: effective chiral perturbation theory on the small expansion parameters
535: was fully exploited to reconcile the (bare) lattice QCD calculations
536: with the physical EMR values.
537:
538: In conclusion, the bare
539: EMR value derived from the multipole experimental data with our realistic
540: ELA model is compatible with some of the predictions of the nucleonic models.
541: In particular it agrees very well with the latest
542: lattice QCD calculations \cite{Alexandrou}
543: and suggests the need for further improvements in quark models.
544: The comparison of our extracted EMR value to $R_W$ is indicative
545: of a small oblate deformation of the $\Delta$(1232).
546: In our work we show that an ELA which
547: takes into account FSI is also able to
548: reconcile the physical EMR value with the lattice QCD calculations
549: prediction for EMR.
550: We consider that our picture and that of Ref. \cite{Pasc05}
551: are complementary. Thus, both pictures will help to understand
552: the issue of the $\Delta$(1232) deformation as well as the
553: properties of other resonances.
554:
555: \begin{acknowledgments}
556: C.F.-R. work is being developed under Spanish
557: Government grant UAC2002-0009.
558: This work has been supported in part under contracts of
559: Ministerio de Educaci\'on y Ciencia (Spain)
560: BFM2002-03562, BFM2003-04147-C02-01, and FIS2005-00640.
561: \end{acknowledgments}
562:
563: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
564: \bibitem{Weisskopf} J. Blatt and V.F. Weisskopf,
565: Theoretical Nuclear Physics. Dover, 1991.
566: \bibitem{PDG2004} S. Eidelman \etal, Phys. Lett. B 592, 1 (2004).
567: \bibitem{Becchi} C.M. Becchi and G. Morpurgo,
568: Phys. Lett. 17, 352 (1965).
569: \bibitem{Gourdin} M. Gourdin and Ph. Salin,
570: Nuovo Cimento 27, 193 (1963); Nouvo Cimento 27, 309 (1963).
571: \bibitem{Davidson} R. Davidson, N.C. Mukhopadhyay, and R. Wittman,
572: Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 804 (1986).
573: \bibitem{Blanpied} G. Blanpied \etal,
574: Phys. Rev. C 64, 025203 (2001).
575: \bibitem{Mainz}
576: C. Molinari \etal, Phys. Lett. B 371, 181 (1996);
577: J. Peise \etal, Phys. Lett. B 384, 37 (1996);
578: R. Beck \etal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 606 (1997);
579: F. Wissmann \etal, Nucl. Phys. A 660, 232 (1999).
580: \bibitem{Glashow} S.L. Glashow, Physica A 96, 27 (1979).
581: \bibitem{EMoya} E. Moya de Guerra, Phys. Rep. 138, 293 (1986).
582: \bibitem{Bohr} A. Bohr and B. Mottelson,
583: Nuclear Structure, Volume II: Nuclear Deformations.
584: World-Scientific, Singapur, 1998.
585: \bibitem{Bernstein} A.M. Bernstein, Eur. Phys. J. A 17, 349 (2003).
586: \bibitem{Krusche} B. Krusche and S. Schadmand,
587: Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 399 (2003).
588: \bibitem{DeRujula} A. De R\'ujula, H. Georgi, and S.L. Glashow,
589: Phys. Rev. D 12, 147 (1975).
590: \bibitem{Buchmann} A.J. Buchmann, E. Hern\'andez, and A. Faessler,
591: Phys. Rev. C 55, 448 (1997);
592: A. Faessler, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 44, 197 (2000).
593: \bibitem{Drechsel} D. Drechsel, O. Hanstein, S.S. Kamalov, and L. Tiator,
594: Nucl. Phys. A 645, 145 (1999). \url{http://www.kph.uni-mainz.de/MAID/}
595: \bibitem{Wirzba} A. Wirzba and W. Weise,
596: Phys. Lett. B 188, 6 (1987).
597: \bibitem{Leinweber} D.B. Leinweber, T. Draper, and R.M. Woloshyn,
598: Phys. Rev. D 48, 2230 (1993).
599: \bibitem{Alexandrou} C. Alexandrou, Ph. de Forcrand,
600: H. Neff, J.W. Negele, W. Schroers, and A. Tsapalis,
601: Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 021601 (2005).
602: \bibitem{Sato} T. Sato and T.-S.H. Lee,
603: Phys. Rev. C 63, 055201 (2001).
604: \bibitem{Fuda} M.G. Fuda and H. Alharbi,
605: Phys. Rev. C 68, 064002 (2003).
606: \bibitem{Tjon} V. Pascalutsa and J.A. Tjon,
607: Phys. Rev. C 70, 035209 (2004).
608: \bibitem{cefera} C. Fern\'andez-Ram\'{\i}rez,
609: E. Moya de Guerra, and J.M. Ud\'{\i}as,
610: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.), in press, \url{arXiv:nucl-th/0509020}.
611: \bibitem{Aznauryan} I.G. Aznauryan,
612: Phys. Rev. C 67, 015209 (2003).
613: \bibitem{pions} R.M. Davidson, N.C. Mukhopadhyay,
614: and R.S. Wittman, Phys. Rev. D 43, 71 (1991);
615: H. Garcilazo and E. Moya de Guerra,
616: Nucl. Phys. A 562, 521 (1993);
617: T. Feuster and U. Mosel, Nucl. Phys. A 612, 375 (1997).
618: \bibitem{Pascalutsa} V. Pascalutsa, Phys. Rev. D 58, 096002 (1998).
619: \bibitem{Leupold} L. Jahnke and S. Leupold, \url{arXiv:nucl-th/0601072}
620: \bibitem{Davidson01-1} R.M. Davidson and R. Workman,
621: Phys. Rev. C 63, 058201 (2001); Phys. Rev. C 63, 025210 (2001).
622: \bibitem{Udias} J.M. Ud\'{\i}as, J.A. Caballero,
623: E. Moya de Guerra, J.E. Amaro, and T.W. Donnelly,
624: Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5451 (1999);
625: J.M. Ud\'{\i}as and J.R. Vignote,
626: Phys. Rev. C 62, 034302 (2000);
627: J.M. Ud\'{\i}as, J.A. Caballero, E. Moya de Guerra, J.R. Vignote,
628: and A. Escuderos, Phys. Rev. C 64, 024614 (2001).
629: \bibitem{SAIDdata} R.A. Arndt, W.J. Briscoe, R.L. Workman,
630: and I.I. Strakovsky,
631: SAID database, \url{http://gwdac.phys.gwu.edu}
632: \bibitem{Watson} K.M. Watson, Phys. Rev. 95, 228 (1954);
633: M. Ross, Phys. Rev. 94, 454 (1954).
634: \bibitem{Vrana} T.P. Vrana, S.A. Dytman, and T.-S.H. Lee,
635: Phys. Rep. 328, 181 (2000).
636: \bibitem{Pasc99} V. Pascalutsa and R. Timmermans,
637: Phys. Rev. C 60, 042201(R) (1999).
638: \bibitem{Jones} H.F. Jones and M.D. Scadron,
639: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 81, 1 (1973).
640: \bibitem{Wilhelm} P. Wilhelm, Th. Wilbois, and H. Arenh\"ovel,
641: Phys. Rev. C 54, 1423 (1996).
642: \bibitem{Pasc05} V. Pascalutsa and M. Vanderhaeghen,
643: Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 232001 (2005).
644: \end{thebibliography}
645: \end{document}
646: