1: \documentclass[aps,psfig,epsfig,preprint] {revtex4}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \usepackage{color}
4: \usepackage{bm}
5: \newcommand{\pr}{\prime}
6: \newcommand{\na}{\nabla}
7: \newcommand{\C}{\cdot}
8: \newcommand{\ep}{\epsilon}
9: \newcommand{\vep}{\varepsilon}
10: \newcommand{\vphi}{\varphi}
11: \newcommand{\integralp}{\int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}}
12: \newcommand{\commu}[2]{[#1, #2]}
13: \newcommand{\acommu}[2]{\{#1, #2\}}
14: \newcommand{\lraw}{\longrightarrow}
15: \newcommand{\llaw}{\longleftarrow}
16: \newcommand{\Gafunc}[1]{\Gamma(#1-\frac{D}{2})}
17: \newcommand{\quadiv}[1]{\frac{#1 N_c}{(4\pi)^{D/2}}
18: (\frac{\mu^2}{m^2})^{\epsilon/2}\Gafunc{1}}
19: \newcommand{\logdiv}[1]{\frac{#1 N_c}{(4\pi)^{D/2}}
20: (\frac{\mu^2}{m^2})^{\epsilon/2}\Gafunc{2}}
21: \newcommand{\LNc}[2]{\frac{#1 N_c}{#2(4\pi)^2}}
22: \newcommand{\pa}{\partial}
23: \newcommand{\intddp}[1]{\int {\frac{d^D p}{(2\pi)^D}}#1}
24: \newcommand{\intdp}[1]{\int {\frac{d^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}}#1}
25: \newcommand{\td}{\tilde}
26: \newcommand{\sla}[1]{\slash\!\!\! #1}
27: \newcommand{\sct}[1]{\over{|\hspace{#1 in}|}}
28: \def\qq{Q\!\!\!\! Q}
29: \begin{document}
30: \draft
31: \title{
32: {\normalsize \hskip4.2in USTC-ICTS-06-05} \\{\bf Nucleon-antinucleon
33: Interaction from the Modified Skyrme Model}}
34:
35: \author{Gui-Jun Ding\footnote{e-mail address: dinggj@mail.ustc.edu.cn},
36: Mu-Lin Yan\footnote{e-mail address: mlyan@ustc.edu.cn}}
37:
38: \affiliation{\centerline{Interdisciplinary Center for Theoretical
39: Study,} \centerline{University of Science and Technology of China,
40: Hefei, Anhui 230026, China} }
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43: We calculate the static nucleon-antinucleon interaction potential
44: from the modified Skyrme model with additional $B^{\mu}B_{\mu}$ term
45: using the product ansatz. The static properties of single baryon are
46: improved in the modified Skyrme model. State mixing is taken into
47: account by perturbation theory, which substantially increases the
48: strength of the central attraction. We obtain a long and mid range
49: potential which is in qualitative agreement with some
50: phenomenological potentials.
51:
52: PACS numbers:13.75.Cs, 12.39.Dc, 11.10.Lm
53: \end{abstract}
54: \maketitle
55: \section{introduction}
56: The Skyrme model is considered as the low energy limit of the
57: quantum chromodynamics(QCD), it models QCD in the classical or large
58: number of colors ($N_{C}$) limit and baryon is regarded as the
59: soliton in the pion field \cite{skyrme1,skyrme2,adkins1,adkins2}.
60: Upon quantizing a slowly rotating Skyrmion, static property of
61: nucleons and $\Delta$ have been calculated with the results in
62: agreement with experimental data within 30\% \cite{adkins1,adkins2}.
63: Recently it has been widely used to discuss the exotic hadrons
64: \cite{exotic,YLWM,DY05}. The minimal version of the model consists
65: of the following Lagrangian terms: the non-linear Sigma term with
66: chiral order $\mathcal{O}(p^2)$ and the Skyrme term with
67: $\mathcal{O}(p^4)$. Even though the minimal version of Skyrme model
68: (Min-SKM) can be regarded as a successful phenomenological model in
69: spite of its simplicity, it can not be used to study the problem of
70: quark spin contents of proton or EMC effects \cite{yan,yan1,Dia}
71: which are important QCD effects in baryon physics. This is a very
72: unsatisfied defect for Min-SKM. In order to cure this disease,
73: additional terms with $\mathcal{O}(p^6)$ or high orders have to be
74: added into the model's Lagrangian to construct modified Skyrme
75: Models. Among them, the simplest one is the model with the Min-SKM
76: Lagrangian plus only one additional $B_\mu B^\mu$ term \cite{yan1},
77: where $B_\mu$ is the baryon current ( or Goldstone-Wilczek current
78: ). Hereafter, we shortly call this simplest modified Skyrme model as
79: Mod-SKM. It is expected that the Mod-SKM should be more realistic
80: than Min-SKM. To discuss this issue, and to fix the parameters in
81: Mod-SKM is one of the aims of this paper. Moreover the Mod-SKM can
82: be obtained by considering the infinite $\omega$ mass limit of the
83: vector meson $\omega$ term of the chiral Lagrangian studied in Ref
84: \cite{adkins3}.
85:
86:
87: An interesting application of the Skyrme model is the investigation
88: of the baryon-baryon interaction, especially the
89: nucleon-nucleon($NN$) interaction
90: \cite{nucleon1,nucleon2,nucleon3,nucleon4,nucleon5,nucleon6}. The
91: Skyrme picture gives us a qualitative understanding of the principal
92: features of the $NN$ interaction: it has the correct long-range one
93: pion exchange potential which dominates the tensor force. There is a
94: strong short range repulsion, and finally there is a pronounced
95: central attraction at intermediate range, albeit weakly attractive
96: while comparing with the phenomenological potential. However, the
97: recent development of obtaining the $NN$ interaction from the Skyrme
98: model has shown that the combined effect of the careful treatment of
99: the nonlinear equations and the configuration mixing is to give
100: substantial central midrange attraction for the $NN$ system that is
101: in qualitative agreement with the data \cite{nucleon5}.
102:
103: The $NN$ and $N\overline{N}$ potentials have been investigated by
104: means of the Min-SKM and the algebraic methods in Ref.
105: \cite{amado1,amado2,amado3}. The phenomenon and puzzles in the
106: baryon-antibaryon physics have attracted much attention recently due
107: to the remarkable discovery of baryon-antibaryon enhancements in the
108: $J/\psi$ and $B$ decays \cite{Bes1,Bes2,Bes3,belle1,belle2,belle3}.
109: The $N\overline{N}$ interaction and the possible nucleon-antinucleon
110: bound states have been investigated from the constituent quark model
111: \cite{constituent,DY06,rDY06}. In the Skyrme model, the interactions
112: between classical Skyrmion and antiskyrmion, i.e., $S\overline{S}$,
113: were explored in \cite{YLWM,DY05}. In the present paper, we shall
114: study the $N \overline{N}$ potential using the Mod-SKM and following
115: the methods developed in Refs. \cite{nucleon5,amado1,amado2}.
116:
117:
118: It is well-known that phenomenologically the $N\overline{N}$
119: potential is not as well established as the $NN$ potential. At
120: distance less than about 1 fermi the interaction is dominated by
121: annihilation. However, at larger distance, a meaningful potential
122: can be defined and studied either by $G$ parity transformation on
123: the $NN$ meson exchange potential or phenomenologically.
124:
125: We will compare our Mod-SKM's results to some phenomenological
126: potentials. The $B^{\mu}B_{\mu}$ term in Mod-SKM reflects the effect
127: of $\omega$ meson exchange \cite{adkins3,jackson,oka}. We will see
128: that at large distance, where the product ansatz makes the best
129: sense, the potentials based on the Skyrme model agree qualitatively
130: and, in most cases, quantitatively with the phenomenological
131: interactions. At intermediate and short distance, we do less well,
132: but at these distances the product ansatz is not valid. However, the
133: results are still suggestive.
134:
135: In the following section, we give the Mod-SKM's Lagrangian, then
136: reproduce a number of static properties of single baryon which is
137: both qualitatively appealing and quantitatively satisfactory. In
138: Sec.III we study the skyrmion-antiskyrmion interaction in Mod-SKM,
139: and project them to the nucleon space by the algebraic methods
140: \cite{amado1,amado2,amado3}. We also consider the effects of
141: rotational excitations by including intermediate states $\Delta$ and
142: $\overline{\Delta}$, and evaluate the corrections to the
143: $N\overline{N}$ potential in perturbation theory. Sec.IV closes this
144: paper with some discussions related to the present study.
145:
146: \section{the modified skyrme model and the static properties of single baryon}
147: The Skyrme model lagrangian is generalized to include additional
148: $B^{\mu}B_{\mu}$ term which simulates the effects of $\omega$ meson,
149: and this modified Skyrme model lagrangian provides a better
150: description of both the single baryon static properties and the low
151: energy $NN$ interaction \cite{jackson,oka}. This lagrangian has the
152: following form
153: \begin{equation}
154: \label{1}{\cal
155: L}=\frac{F^2_{\pi}}{16}{\rm{Tr}}(\partial_{\mu}U\partial^{\mu}U^{\dag})+\frac{1}{32e^2}
156: {\rm{Tr}}([U^{\dagger}\partial_{\mu}U,U^{\dagger}\partial_{\nu}U]^2)+\frac{1}{8}m^2_{\pi}F^2_{\pi}{\rm{Tr}}(U-1)
157: -\frac{3\pi^2N_C}{5m^2}B^{\mu}B_{\mu}
158: \end{equation}
159: where $U$ is a $SU(2)$ valued field $U=\exp[2i\tau_a\pi_a/F_{\pi}]$,
160: $B^{\mu}$ is the topological current
161: $B^{\mu}=\frac{1}{24\pi^2}\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}{\rm{Tr}}[(U^{\dagger}\partial_{\nu}U)
162: (U^{\dagger}\partial_{\alpha}U)(U^{\dagger}\partial_{\beta}U)]$, and
163: $e,\;F_{\pi},\; m$ are parameters to be determined. The first term
164: is the lagrangian of meson fields in the nonlinear sigma model and
165: the second term is the so called Skyrme term which stabilizes the
166: soliton. The third term is the pion mass term and the fourth term is
167: the additional $B^{\mu}B_{\mu}$ term. $U$ transforms as
168: $U\rightarrow U'=LUR^{\dagger}$ under the chiral group
169: $SU(2)_{L}\times SU(2)_{R}$, where both $L$ and $R$ are $SU(2)$
170: matrices.
171:
172: The chiral soliton model \cite{adkins3} where, as an alternative to
173: the Skyrme term, the vector meson $\omega$ term $\beta
174: \omega^{\mu}B_\mu$ stabilizes the soliton, provides a support for
175: the interpretation of the $B_{\mu}B^{\mu}$ term which emerges in the
176: limit $m_{\omega}\rightarrow\infty$. In traditional nuclear
177: interaction theories within the potential framework which are based
178: on the single meson exchange mainly, it is shown that
179: $N\overline{N}$ system is more attractive than the $NN$ system due
180: to the fact that in the theories there is a strong $\omega$
181: exchange, so inclusion of this term which models the effect of the
182: $\omega$ meson could help in a better description of the $N \bar N$
183: system. Furthermore, the study of the quark spin content also
184: support that we should add this six derivative term in order to
185: yield a spin content consistent with the present experiment
186: \cite{yan,spin}. Generally terms in ${\cal L}$ with more than two
187: time derivatives can lead to pathological runaway solutions when the
188: adiabatic approximation is relaxed and present obvious difficulties
189: in quantizing the theory. But the Lagrangian of Mod-SKM have, at
190: most, two time derivatives, hence there is no such difficulty.
191:
192:
193: For the case with single static Skyrmion, we use the so called
194: hedgehog ansatz:
195: \begin{equation}
196: \label{2}U_0(\mathbf{r})=\exp[i\tau_a\hat{r}_a F(r)]
197: \end{equation}
198: where $F(r)$ is the chiral angle which minimizes the static soliton
199: energy subject to the boundary condition $F(0)=\pi$~and~
200: $F(\infty)=0$. From Eq. (\ref{1})and Eq. (\ref{2}), we get the mass
201: of classical soliton:
202: \begin{equation}
203: \label{3}M_s=\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{F_{\pi}}{e}\int_{0}^{\infty}\{x^2F'^2+2S^2+4S^2(2F'^2+\frac{S^2}{x^2})+
204: 2\mu^2x^2(1-C)+\nu^2\frac{S^4}{x^2}F'^2\}
205: \end{equation}
206: with
207: \begin{eqnarray}
208: \nonumber && x=eF_{\pi}r,~~~
209: \mu^{2}=\frac{m^{2}_{\pi}}{e^2F^2_{\pi}}\;,
210: ~~~F'=\frac{dF}{dx}\;,\\
211: \label{4}&&\nu^2=\frac{18e^4F^2_{\pi}}{5\pi^2m^2}\;,~~~
212: S={\sin}F\;,~~~ C={\cos}F.
213: \end{eqnarray}
214: In Eq. (\ref{3}), the term proportional to $\nu^2$ comes from the
215: $B^\mu B_\mu $ term and is absent in the conventional Skyrme model.
216: Minimizing $M_s$ with respect to $F$, $\delta M_s=0$, we have the
217: following equation for $F$,
218: \begin{equation}
219: \label{5}(\frac{x^2}{4}+2S^2+\frac{\nu^2}{4}\frac{S^4}{x^2})F''+(\frac{\nu^2}{2}\frac{S^3C}{x^2}+2SC)F'^2
220: +(\frac{x}{2}-\frac{\nu^2}{2}\frac{S^4}{x^3})F'-(\frac{1}{2}SC+\frac{2S^3C}{x^2}+\frac{1}{4}\mu^2x^2S)=0
221: \end{equation}
222: From the above equation, we can see that the chiral angle $F$
223: asymptotically tends to the following expression when $r$ goes to
224: infinity,
225: \begin{equation}
226: \label{6}F(r)\rightarrow
227: \mathcal{A}(\frac{1}{m_{\pi}eF_{\pi}r^2}+\frac{1}{eF_{\pi}r})\;e^{-m_{\pi}r}
228: ~~~(r\rightarrow\infty)
229: \end{equation}
230: The coefficient $A$ is related to the pion-nucleon coupling constant
231: $g_{{\pi}NN}$ through \cite{adkins1},
232: \begin{equation}
233: \label{7}g_{{\pi}NN}=\frac{4{\pi}M_{N}\mathcal{A}}{3e m_{\pi}}
234: \end{equation}
235: Associated with the chiral symmetry, the vector current
236: $J^{{\mu}a}_{V}$ and axial vector current $J^{{\mu}a}_{A}$ can be
237: obtained from the Skyrme lagrangian Eq. (\ref{1}) following the
238: standard procedure,
239: \begin{eqnarray}
240: \nonumber&&J^{{\mu}a}_{V}=\frac{iF^2_{\pi}}{8}{\rm{Tr}}[\frac{\tau_{a}}{2}\;(\partial^{\mu}UU^{\dag}+\partial^{\mu}U^{\dag}U)]
241: -\frac{i}{8e^2}{\rm{Tr}}\{[\frac{\tau_a}{2},\partial_{\nu}UU^{\dagger}][\partial^{\mu}UU^{\dagger},\partial^{\nu}UU^{\dagger}]\\
242: \label{8}&&+[\frac{\tau_a}{2},\partial_{\nu}U^{\dagger}U][\partial^{\mu}U^{\dagger}U,\partial^{\nu}U^{\dagger}U]\}-\frac{3N_{C}i}{20m^2}
243: \;\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}B_{\nu}{\rm{Tr}}[\frac{\tau_{a}}{2}(\partial_{\alpha}UU^{\dag}\partial_{\beta}UU^{\dag}-\partial_{\alpha}U^{\dag}U\partial_{\beta}U^{\dag}U)],\\
244: \nonumber&&J^{{\mu}a}_{A}=\frac{iF^2_{\pi}}{8}{\rm{Tr}}[\frac{\tau_{a}}{2}\;(\partial^{\mu}UU^{\dag}-\partial^{\mu}U^{\dag}U)]
245: -\frac{i}{8e^2}{\rm{Tr}}\{[\frac{\tau_a}{2},\partial_{\nu}UU^{\dagger}][\partial^{\mu}UU^{\dagger},\partial^{\nu}UU^{\dagger}]\\
246: \label{9}&&-[\frac{\tau_a}{2},\partial_{\nu}U^{\dagger}U][\partial^{\mu}U^{\dagger}U,\partial^{\nu}U^{\dagger}U]\}-\frac{3N_{C}i}{20m^2}
247: \;\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}B_{\nu}{\rm{Tr}}[\frac{\tau_{a}}{2}(\partial_{\alpha}UU^{\dag}\partial_{\beta}UU^{\dag}+\partial_{\alpha}U^{\dag}U\partial_{\beta}U^{\dag}U)]
248: \end{eqnarray}
249: The classical field configuration of the hedgehog form does not have
250: definite spin and isospin. However, nucleons carry both spin and
251: isospin, and in any reasonable model of nucleons the appropriate
252: spin and isospin states must appear. Following the conventional way,
253: we perform the collective coordinate quantization. We make a time
254: dependent $SU(2)$ rotation of our static soliton solution,
255: \begin{equation}
256: \label{10}U(x)=A(t)U_0(x)A^{\dag}(t)
257: \end{equation}
258: then
259: \begin{equation}
260: \label{11}L=-M_s+I\;\rm{Tr}(\partial_0A^{\dagger}(t)\partial_0A(t))
261: \end{equation}
262: where $A(t)\in SU(2)$-matrix is the collective coordinate, and $I$
263: is the moment of inertia, which is given by
264: \begin{equation}
265: \label{12}I=\frac{1}{F_{\pi}e^3}\frac{2\pi}{3}\int^{\infty}_{0}dx\{S^2[x^2+4(x^2F'^2+S^2)]+\nu^2S^4F'^2\}
266: \end{equation}
267: If the $SU(2)$ matrix $A(t)$ is parameterized by
268: $A(t)=a_0+i\tau_{n}a_n$, with $a^2_0+\sum^{3}_{n=1}a^2_n=1$, the
269: Hamiltonian is
270: \begin{equation}
271: \label{13}H=M_s-\frac{1}{8I}\sum^{3}_{n=0}(\frac{\partial}{{\partial}a_n})^2=M_s+\frac{\mathbf{S}^2}{2I}=M_s+\frac{\mathbf{I}^2}{2I}
272: \end{equation}
273: Noting that the $I$ in the denominator is the moment of inertia,
274: $\mathbf{S}$ and $\mathbf{I}$ are the spin and isospin operators
275: respectively. As in Ref. \cite{adkins1}, we can calculate the static
276: properties of single baryon. In going from the classical results to
277: the quantum results for rotation operators we must symmetrize them
278: \cite{spin}, {\it i.e.,} we perform the Weyl order of these
279: operators.
280:
281: From Eq. (\ref{13}) the masses of nucleon and $\Delta$ respectively
282: are
283: \begin{equation}
284: \label{14}M_N=M_s+\frac{3}{8I}\;,~~~~~M_{\Delta}=M_s+\frac{15}{8I}
285: \end{equation}
286: The isoscalar and isovector mean square electric radii are
287: \begin{eqnarray}
288: \label{15}&&\langle
289: r^2\rangle_{E,I=0}=\frac{1}{(eF_{\pi})^2}\int^{\infty}_{0}dx\frac{-2}{\pi}x^2S^2F'\\
290: \label{16}&&\langle
291: r^2\rangle_{E,I=1}=\frac{1}{(eF_{\pi})^2}\frac{1}{Ie^3F_{\pi}}\int^{\infty}_{0}dx\{\frac{2\pi}{3}
292: x^4S^2[1+4(F'^2+\frac{S^2}{x^2})]+\frac{2\pi}{3}\nu^2x^2S^4F'^2\}
293: \end{eqnarray}
294: The corresponding proton and neutron mean square charge radii are
295: \begin{eqnarray}
296: \nonumber&&\langle r^2\rangle_{E,p}=\frac{1}{2}(\langle
297: r^2\rangle_{E,I=0}+\langle r^2\rangle_{E,I=1})\;,\\
298: \label{17}&&\langle r^2\rangle_{E,n}=\frac{1}{2}(\langle
299: r^2\rangle_{E,I=0}-\langle r^2\rangle_{E,I=1})
300: \end{eqnarray}
301: After some somewhat tedious but straightforward calculations, we can
302: obtain the proton and neutron's magnetic moment which are
303: respectively,
304: \begin{eqnarray}
305: \nonumber&&\mu_{p}=2M_N(\frac{1}{12I}\langle
306: r^2\rangle_{E,I=0}+\frac{I}{6})\;,\\
307: \label{18}&&\mu_{n}=2M_N(\frac{1}{12I}\langle
308: r^2\rangle_{E,I=0}-\frac{I}{6})
309: \end{eqnarray}
310: In the above, we have symmetrized the rotation operators, and the
311: proton and neutron's magnetic momentum are defined through
312: \begin{eqnarray}
313: \nonumber&&\langle p,1/2|\mu^3|p,1/2\rangle=\frac{1}{2M_N}\mu_p\;,\\
314: \label{19}&&\langle n,1/2|\mu^3|n,1/2\rangle=\frac{1}{2M_N}\mu_n
315: \end{eqnarray}
316: After some lengthy calculations, we can also get the axial coupling
317: constant\cite{adkins1}:
318: \begin{eqnarray}
319: \nonumber
320: g_A&=&-\frac{2\pi}{9e^2}\int^{\infty}_{0}dxx^2\{\frac{2CS}{x}[1+4(F'^2+\frac{S^2}{x^2})]+F'(1+\frac{8S^2}{x^2})\}-\frac{12}{5\pi
321: m^2}\int^{\infty}_{0}dxS^2F'\{(eF_{\pi})^2(\frac{2CS}{3x}F'\\
322: \label{20}&&+\frac{S^2}{3x^2})-(4xCSF'+S^2)\frac{1}{18I^2}\}
323: \end{eqnarray}
324: There are three parameters in the modified Skyrme model, {\it i.e.,}
325: $e$, $F_{\pi}$, $m$, the pion mass is $m_{\pi}=138\rm{MeV}$, and the
326: number of color $N_C=3$. In the conventional Skyrme model, there is
327: always a conflict between $e$- and $F_{\pi}$-datum input setting
328: for giving correct nucleon and $\Delta$ masses or giving correct
329: strength of the pion tail \cite{nucleon3,nucleon5,amado2}. But a
330: satisfactorily simultaneous description of the nucleon, $\Delta$
331: mass and the strength of the pion tail is possible by properly
332: choosing the parameters $e$,$F_{\pi}$, $m$ in Mod-SKM. Throughout
333: our calculation we choose the three parameters as
334: $e=19.48,\;\;F_{\pi}=129.11\rm{MeV},\;\;m=420\rm{MeV}$, this
335: parameter setting gives $g_{{\pi}NN}\approx13.5$ through Eq.
336: (\ref{7}), which leads to the correct one-pion exchange potential of
337: $N\overline{N}$ interaction as the distance tends to infinity. The
338: connection between the Mod-SKM and the chiral soliton model
339: including $\omega$ meson \cite{adkins3}, allows us relate the
340: parameter $m$ to the coupling $\beta$, i.e.,
341: $m=\sqrt{\frac{2}{5}}\frac{3\pi m_{\omega}}{\beta}$, and the best
342: fit of the parameters in Ref. \cite{adkins3} gives
343: $m\approx298.8$MeV, which is not too far from the value of $m$ in
344: this work. The static properties of single baryon are summarized in
345: the Table I, and the results of conventional Skyrme model
346: \cite{adkins2} as well as the experimental values are also given in
347: Table I.
348:
349: \begin{table}[hptb]
350: \begin{center}
351: \caption{Static properties of single baryon in the modified Skyrme
352: model compared to those in the conventional one \cite{adkins2} and
353: to the experimental results.}
354: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline\hline
355: Physical Quantity & Modified Skyrme Model & Conventional Skyrme
356: Model & Experiment Results\\ \hline
357: $M_N$&938.9 \rm{MeV}(input)&938.9 \rm{MeV}(input)&938.9 \rm{MeV}\\
358: \hline
359: $M_{\Delta}$&1232 \rm{MeV}(input)&1232\ rm{MeV}(input)&1232 \rm{MeV}\\
360: \hline
361: $M_{\pi}$&138 \rm{MeV}(input)&138 \rm{MeV}(input)&138 \rm{MeV}\\
362: \hline
363: $e$&19.48&4.84&---\\
364: \hline
365: $F_{\pi}$&129.11 \rm{MeV}&108 \rm{MeV}&186 \rm{MeV}\\
366: \hline
367: $\langle r^2\rangle^{1/2}_{E,I=0}$&0.71 \rm{fm}&0.68 \rm{fm}&0.72 \rm{fm}\\
368: \hline
369: $\langle r^2\rangle^{1/2}_{E,I=1}$&1.04 \rm{fm}&1.04 \rm{fm}&0.88 \rm{fm}\\
370: \hline
371: $\mu_{p}$&2.01&1.97&2.79\\
372: \hline
373: $\mu_{n}$&-1.20&-1.23&-1.91\\
374: \hline
375: $g_{A}$&0.82&0.65&1.24\\
376: \hline\hline
377: \end{tabular}
378: \end{center}
379: \end{table}
380:
381: In Table I we can see that the prediction of the Mod-SKM are closer
382: to the experimental values than those of the conventional Skyrme
383: model \cite{adkins2}, so we expect that Mod-SKM provides a better
384: description to other static properties of baryons including the low
385: energy $N\overline{N}$ interaction.
386:
387: \section{adiabatic $N\overline{N}$ interaction}
388:
389: \subsection{FORMULATION}
390:
391: We now study, in the product ansatz, the interaction energy of the
392: Skyrmion-antiSkyrmion($S\overline{S}$) system, which is
393: a function of separation between $S$ and $\overline{S}$ and the relative orientation.
394: This interaction energy can be calculated numerically. We rotate
395: the two solitons independently in $SU(2)$ space,
396: \begin{eqnarray}
397: \nonumber&&U_0(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R}/2)\rightarrow
398: AU_0(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R}/2)A^{\dagger}\;,\\
399: \label{21}&&U^{\dagger}_0(\mathbf{r}+\mathbf{R}/2)\rightarrow
400: BU^{\dagger}_0(\mathbf{r}+\mathbf{R}/2)B^{\dagger}
401: \end{eqnarray}
402: where both $A$ and $B$ are $SU(2)$ matrices. In order to obtain the
403: static $N\overline{N}$ interaction, we describe the $N\overline{N}$
404: configuration with the product ansatz (exact in the large $R$ limit)
405: as follows,
406: \begin{equation}
407: \label{22}
408: U(\mathbf{r})=AU_0(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R}/2)A^{\dagger}BU^{\dagger}_0(\mathbf{r}+\mathbf{R}/2)B^{\dagger},
409: \end{equation}
410: where one baryon located at $\mathbf{R}/2$ and the antibaryon at
411: $-\mathbf{R}/2$. Retaining only the potential energy density in the
412: modified Skyrme lagrangian (\ref{1}), the energy in the field of Eq.
413: (\ref{22}) is the same as in
414: \begin{equation}
415: \label{23}
416: U(\mathbf{r})=U_0(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R}/2)CU^{\dagger}_0(\mathbf{r}+\mathbf{R}/2)C^{\dagger}
417: \end{equation}
418: where $C=A^{\dagger}B=c_4+i\bm{\tau}\cdot\mathbf{c}$ is a $SU(2)$
419: matrix too. Discarding non-static terms containing time derivatives,
420: the static $N\overline{N}$ potential is defined by,
421: \begin{equation}
422: \label{24}V(\mathbf{R},C)=-\int d^3x{\cal L}[U(\mathbf{r})]-2M_s
423: \end{equation}
424: $V(\mathbf{R},C)$ can be written in the notation of Vinh Mau {\it et
425: al.} \cite{nucleon2} as
426: \begin{equation}
427: \label{25}V(\mathbf{R},C)=V_1(R)+V_2(R)c^2_4+V_3(R)(\mathbf{c}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}})^2+V_4(R)c^4_4+V_5(R)c^2_4(\mathbf{c}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}})^2
428: +V_6(R)(\mathbf{c}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}})^4
429: \end{equation}
430: where $V_i(i=1-6)$ are functions of $R$. Generally, for
431: $S\overline{S}$, the symmetry $\mathbf{R}\rightarrow-\mathbf{R}$ is
432: broken by the product ansatz, and we need three additional terms for
433: a consistent expansion,
434: \begin{eqnarray}
435: \nonumber
436: V(\mathbf{R},C)&=&V_1(R)+V_2(R)c^2_4+V_3(R)(\mathbf{c}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}})^2+V_4(R)c^4_4+V_5(R)c^2_4(\mathbf{c}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}})^2
437: +V_6(R)(\mathbf{c}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}})^4\\
438: \label{26}&&+V_7(R)c_4(\mathbf{c}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}})+V_8(R)c^3_4(\mathbf{c}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}})+V_9(R)c_4(\mathbf{c}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}})^3
439: \end{eqnarray}
440: These terms odd in $\mathbf{R}$ are artifacts of the symmetry of the
441: product ansatz and should be discarded. One can use the symmetrized
442: energy $\frac{V(\mathbf{R},C)+V(-\mathbf{R},C)}{2}$ to extract
443: $V_1(R)$ to $V_6(R)$, since the $V_7(R)$ to $V_9(R)$ terms drop out
444: in this combination.
445:
446: Next, we have to map the Skyrmion-antiSkyrmion($S\overline{S}$)
447: interaction to the nucleon-antinicleon($N\overline{N}$) interaction.
448: This problem has been tackled in various ways by various groups for
449: the $NN$ case \cite{nucleon1,nucleon2,amado1}. Each of the forms
450: used in these works can always be cast in the form of the algebraic
451: model \cite{amado1}. So we will also use the algebraic method for
452: mapping the $S\overline{S}$ interaction to the $N\overline{N}$
453: interaction \cite{nucleon5,amado1,amado2}. This method allows us to
454: study both the large $N_C$ limit, as well as to include the finite
455: $N_C$ effects explicitly in a systematic way. Most of the formulas
456: given below can be found in Refs. \cite{nucleon5,amado1,amado2},
457: however for the sake of completeness we remind here the important
458: ones.
459:
460: The algebraic model consists of two sets of $U(4)$ algebras, one
461: for each Skyrmion (or antiSkyrmion), as well as the radial
462: coordinate $\mathbf{R}$. This method was developed in Ref.
463: \cite{nucleon5,amado1} for the $NN$ system, and also generalized to
464: the $N\overline{N}$ system \cite{amado2,amado3}. In large $N_C$
465: limit, the $S\overline{S}$ interaction can be expanded in terms of
466: three operators: the identity, the operator $W$ and the operator
467: $Z$,
468: \begin{eqnarray}
469: \nonumber&&W=T^{\alpha}_{pi}T^{\beta}_{pi}/N^2_C\;,\\
470: \label{27}&&Z=T^{\alpha}_{pi}T^{\beta}_{pj}[3\hat{R}_{i}\hat{R}_{j}-\delta_{ij}]/N^2_C.
471: \end{eqnarray}
472: Here $\alpha$ and $\beta$ label two different sets of bosons, used
473: to realize the $U(4)$ algebra, and $T$ is an one-body operator with
474: spin and isospin $\mathbf{1}$. The semiclassical (large $N_C$) limit
475: of these operators can be given in terms of $\mathbf{\hat{R}}$ and
476: $C=c_4+i\bm{\tau}\cdot\mathbf{c}$ as \cite{amado1}
477: \begin{eqnarray}
478: \nonumber W_{cl}(A,B)&=&3c^2_4-\mathbf{c}^2=4c^2_4-1\;,\\
479: \label{28}
480: Z_{cl}(A,B,\mathbf{\hat{R}})&=&6(\mathbf{c}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}})^2-2\mathbf{c}^2=2c^2_4-2+6(\mathbf{c}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}})^2
481: \end{eqnarray}
482: The $S\overline{S}$ interaction can be expressed as
483: \begin{equation}
484: \label{29}V(\mathbf{R},C)=\upsilon_1(R)+\upsilon_2(R)W_{cl}+\upsilon_3(R)Z_{cl}+\upsilon_4(R)W_{cl}^2+\upsilon_5(R)W_{cl}Z_{cl}+\upsilon_6(R)Z_{cl}^2
485: \end{equation}
486: in the semiclassical limit. We can obtain the relations between
487: $V_i$ and $\upsilon_i(i=1-6)$ by comparing Eq. (\ref{25}) and Eq.
488: (\ref{29})
489: \begin{eqnarray}
490: \nonumber&&V_1(R)=\upsilon_1(R)-\upsilon_2(R)-2\upsilon_3(R)+\upsilon_4(R)+2\upsilon_5(R)+4\upsilon_6(R)\;,\\
491: \nonumber&&V_2(R)=4\upsilon_2(R)+2\upsilon_3(R)-8\upsilon_4(R)-10\upsilon_5(R)-8\upsilon_6(R)\;,\\
492: \nonumber&&V_3(R)=6\upsilon_3(R)-6\upsilon_5(R)-24\upsilon_6(R)\;,\\
493: \nonumber&&V_4(R)=16\upsilon_4(R)+8\upsilon_5(R)+4\upsilon_6(R)\;,\\
494: \nonumber&&V_5(R)=24\upsilon_5(R)+24\upsilon_6(R)\;,\\
495: \label{30}&&V_6(R)=36\upsilon_6(R)
496: \end{eqnarray}
497: Six independent choices of the matrix $C$ can yield enough
498: independent linear equations to determine $\upsilon_i(R)(i=1-6)$ or
499: equivalently $V_i(R)(i=1-6)$ through Eq. (\ref{30}), and the
500: numerical results for $\upsilon_i(R)(i=1-6)$ coming from the Mod-SKM
501: are shown in Fig. 1. From this figure it can be seen that the first
502: three term $\upsilon_1(R)$, $\upsilon_2(R)$ and $\upsilon_3(R)$ are
503: dominant. It seems a good approximation to neglect the interaction
504: terms which are nonlinear in the expansion of operator $W$ and $Z$.
505: In the following discussion, we will mostly concentrate on the first
506: three terms, then the leading term in this expansion is given by the
507: following form:
508: \begin{equation}
509: \label{31}V(\mathbf{R},C)=\upsilon_1(R)+\upsilon_2(R)W+\upsilon_3(R)Z
510: \end{equation}
511:
512: The algebraic operators $W$ and $Z$ have simple expectation values
513: for the nucleons \cite{amado1}
514: \begin{eqnarray}
515: \nonumber\langle
516: N|T^{\alpha}_{pi}|N\rangle&=&-\frac{N_{C}}{3}P_{N}\langle
517: N|\tau^{\alpha}_p\sigma^{\alpha}_i|N\rangle\;,\\
518: \nonumber\langle
519: N\overline{N}|W|N\overline{N}\rangle&=&\frac{1}{9}P^2_N\langle
520: N\overline{N}|{\bm{\sigma}^1\cdot\bm{\sigma}^2\bm{\tau}^1\cdot\bm{\tau}^2}|N\overline{N}\rangle\;,\\
521: \label{32}\langle
522: N\overline{N}|Z|N\overline{N}\rangle&=&\frac{1}{9}P^2_N\langle
523: N\overline{N}|(3\bm{\sigma}^1\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}}\bm{\sigma}^2\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}}-\bm{\sigma}^1\cdot\bm{\sigma}^2)\bm{\tau}^1\cdot\bm{\tau}^2|N\overline{N}\rangle
524: \end{eqnarray}
525: Here $P_N$ is the finite $N_C$ correction factor
526: $P_N=1+\frac{2}{N_C}$. By using Eq. (\ref{32}) we take the
527: $N\overline{N}$ matrix element of the interaction and evaluate the
528: $N\overline{N}$ potential, which only contains three independent
529: multipole component, {\it i.e.,} the central part $V_c$, the
530: spin-spin part $V_s$, and the tensor term $V_t$:
531: \begin{equation}
532: \label{33}V^{(0)}(\mathbf{R})=V_c(R)+V_s(R)\bm{\sigma}^1\cdot\bm{\sigma}^2\bm{\tau}^1\cdot\bm{\tau}^2+V_t(R)
533: (3\bm{\sigma}^1\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}}\bm{\sigma}^2\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}}-\bm{\sigma}^1\cdot\bm{\sigma}^2)\bm{\tau}^1\cdot\bm{\tau}^2
534: \end{equation}
535: with
536: \begin{equation}
537: \label{34}V_c=\upsilon_1\;,~~~V_s=\frac{\upsilon_2P^2_N}{9}\;,~~~V_t=\frac{\upsilon_3P^2_N}{9}
538: \end{equation}
539: The $N\overline{N}$ potential in the above is calculated by
540: projecting Eq. (\ref{31}) to the nucleon degrees of freedom only,
541: and this is the correct procedure for large separation. However, at
542: short distance the nucleons may deform or excite as they interact,
543: and they can be virtually whatever the dynamics requires, for
544: example, $\Delta(\rm{or}\;\overline{\Delta})$. This means that we
545: need to consider the state mixing effect. In the case of $NN$
546: interaction, we saw that states mixing plays an important role in
547: obtaining the phenomenologically correct potential. We expect the
548: state mixing effect to be very important in the $N\overline{N}$
549: interaction as well. The state mixing comes into effect at the
550: distance where the product ansatz makes no longer sense, so our
551: results at short and intermediate distances should be suggestive,
552: although we include state mixing. As a guide, we study the effects
553: of the intermediate states $N\overline{\Delta}$,
554: $\Delta\overline{N}$ and $\Delta\overline{\Delta}$ perturbatively,
555: then to second order, the $N\overline{N}$ interaction is given by
556: \begin{equation}
557: \label{35}V(\mathbf{R})=\langle
558: N\overline{N}|V(\mathbf{R},C)|N\overline{N}\rangle+\sum_s\;'\;\frac{\langle
559: N\overline{N}|V(\mathbf{R},C)|s\rangle\langle
560: s|V(\mathbf{R},C)|N\overline{N}\rangle}{E_{N\overline{N}}-E_s}
561: \end{equation}
562: Here $E_{N\overline{N}}$ is the two nucleon energy and $E_s$ is the
563: energy of the relevant excited state. The first term on the right is
564: the direct nucleon-antinucleon projection of $V(\mathbf{R},C)$ and
565: it is exactly the expression $V^{(0)}(\mathbf{R})$. The second term
566: is the correction due to rotational or excited states. It is clear
567: from the energy denominator that the second term is attractive. We
568: need to evaluate the three sets of matrix elements $\langle
569: N\overline{N}|V(\mathbf{R},C)|N\overline{\Delta}\rangle\langle
570: N\overline{\Delta}|V(\mathbf{R},C)|N\overline{N}\rangle$, $\langle
571: N\overline{N}|V(\mathbf{R},C)|\Delta\overline{N}\rangle\langle
572: \Delta\overline{N}|V(\mathbf{R},C)|N\overline{N}\rangle$ and
573: $\langle
574: N\overline{N}|V(\mathbf{R},C)|\Delta\overline{\Delta}\rangle\langle
575: \Delta\overline{\Delta}|V(\mathbf{R},C)|N\overline{N}\rangle$, and
576: the final result for the first order correction to the
577: $N\overline{N}$ interaction is \cite{nucleon5,amado2}
578: \begin{eqnarray}
579: \nonumber
580: &&V^{(1)}_{PT}(\mathbf{R})=-\frac{Q^2_N}{\delta}\{[\frac{1}{3}Q^2_NP^{\tau}_0+
581: (\frac{16}{27}P^2_N+\frac{5}{27}Q^2_N)P^{\tau}_1][\upsilon^2_2(R)+2\upsilon^2_3(R)]\\
582: \nonumber&&+(\bm{\sigma}^1\cdot\bm{\sigma}^2)[-\frac{1}{18}Q^2_NP^{\tau}_0+(\frac{16}{81}P^2_N-\frac{5}{162}Q^2_N)P^{\tau}_1][\upsilon^2_2(R)-\upsilon^2_3(R)]+
583: (3\bm{\sigma}^1\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}}\bm{\sigma}^2\cdot\mathbf{\hat{R}}-\bm{\sigma}^1\cdot\bm{\sigma}^2)\\
584: \label{36}&&\times[-\frac{1}{18}Q^2_NP^{\tau}_0+(\frac{16}{81}P^2_N-\frac{5}{162}Q^2_N)P^{\tau}_1][\upsilon^2_3(R)-\upsilon_2(R)\upsilon_3(R)]\}
585: \end{eqnarray}
586: Here $Q_N$ is another finite $N_C$ correction factor
587: $Q_N=\sqrt{(1-1/N_C)(1+5/N_C)}$. $\delta$ is the $N-\Delta$ energy
588: difference, which is about 300 MeV, and $P^{\tau}_{T}(T=0,1)$ is a
589: projection operator onto the isospin $T$,
590: $P^{\tau}_{0}=\frac{1}{4}(1-\bm{\tau}_1\cdot\bm{\tau_2})$,
591: $P^{\tau}_{1}=\frac{1}{4}(3+\bm{\tau}_1\cdot\bm{\tau_2})$.
592:
593:
594: \subsection{RESULTS}
595: For each total isospin $T=0,1$ we parameterize the $N\overline{N}$
596: interaction potential by:
597: \begin{equation}
598: \label{37}V^{T}_{N\overline{N}}=V^{T}_c+V^{T}_s\bm{\sigma}^1\cdot\bm{\sigma}^2+V^{T}_{t}(3\bm{\sigma}^1\cdot\hat{\mathbf{R}}\bm{\sigma}^2\cdot\hat{\mathbf{R}}-\bm{\sigma}^1\cdot\bm{\sigma}^2)
599: \end{equation}
600: We now calculate $V^{T}_c$, $V^{T}_s$, $V^{T}_t$ for each isospin
601: $T$($T$=0,1) following the methods outlined above. Such a
602: calculation requires considerable computing time. We would like to
603: compare the Skyrmion model potentials with the realistic
604: nucleon-antinucleon interaction potentials. However, we can not
605: relate our results to the modern $N\overline{N}$ interaction
606: potential such as the Paris potential \cite{paris} and the Julich
607: potential \cite{julich}, since their central parts contain explicit
608: momentum dependent terms. For that reason we compare our results
609: with the phenomenological potentials of Bryan-Phillips \cite{bp} and
610: of the Nijmegen group \cite{nij}. These potentials provide
611: successful descriptions of both the $N\overline{N}$ scattering
612: experiments data and the spectrum of resonances, and they are not
613: qualitatively different from each other. At large distance all these
614: potentials can be correctly described by the one-boson exchange
615: mechanism and the $N\overline{N}$ potential can be obtained by
616: $G$-parity transformation of the corresponding parts of the $NN$
617: interaction potential. Using equation of motion and the asymptotic
618: form Eq. (\ref{6}) of the chiral angle $F(r)$, the $N\overline{N}$
619: interaction based on the Mod-SKM tends to one pion exchange
620: potential in the large distance region \cite{nucleon6},
621: \begin{equation}
622: \label{38}V^{N\overline{N}}(r)\rightarrow\frac{-1}{4\pi}(\frac{g_{\pi
623: NN}}{2M_N})^2(\bm{\tau}^1\cdot\bm{\tau}^2)(\bm{\sigma}^1\cdot\bm{\nabla})(\bm{\sigma}^2\cdot\bm{\nabla})\frac{e^{-m_{\pi}r}}{r}~~~~(r\rightarrow\infty)
624: \end{equation}
625: The parameters $e, F_{\pi}, m$ are properly chose to guarantee that
626: the long distance tail of the $N\overline{N}$ interaction will agree
627: with the phenomenology. In order to model the annihilation effect at
628: short distance, various cut off has been used in the Bryan-Phillips,
629: Nijmegen, and other similar potentials. At short distance, the
630: interaction is dominated by the strong absorptive potential of order
631: 1 GeV, and it is significantly different from the meson exchange
632: potential. Furthermore, the Skyrme model at short distance is no
633: longer meaningful. so we should not take seriously the comparison of
634: our results with the phenomenological potentials at 1 fm and less,
635: however the results are still indicative at short distance. We find
636: that the principal feature of the phenomenological $N\overline{N}$
637: interaction emerges from the careful calculation of that interaction
638: based on the Mod-SKM, {\it i.e.,} the strong central attraction.
639:
640: Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show the central potential $V^{T}_{C}$ calculated
641: from Eq. (\ref{35}) and the first term of the right hand of Eq.
642: (\ref{35}) only. In order to keep the figures clear, we plot the
643: potential curves of $T=0$ and $T=1$ separately. For the case with
644: the nucleon only, the results of $V^{T}_{C}$ are independent of the
645: isospin $T$, and less attractive than the phenomenological
646: potentials. When the perturbation corrections due to the effects of
647: the intermediate states $N\overline{\Delta}$, $\Delta\overline{N}$
648: and $\Delta\overline{\Delta}$ (i.e., $\Delta$ mixing effects) are
649: taken into account, the results of $V^{T}_{C}$ show significant
650: attraction effects explicitly, and are closer to the Bryan-Phillips
651: and Nijmegen potential. These perturbation results are rather
652: realistic. The effects of $\Delta$($\overline{\Delta}$) mixing are
653: so striking in the case of $T=1$ that the perturbation result is
654: more attractive than the phenomenological potential for $T=1$.
655: Furthermore, we would like to mention that, due to isospin
656: conservation, the $N\Delta$ transition is missing in the $T=0$
657: channel which differentiates then the effect of the perturbation
658: result between the $T=0$ and the $T=1$ channels.
659: % both the nucleon only result and the perturbation result agree at large distance.
660: As a cross-check of our numerical calculation, we reproduce the
661: results of Ref. \cite{amado2}, the nucleon only results of Ref.
662: \cite{amado2} are also shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 in order to
663: illustrate the role of $B^{\mu}B_{\mu}$ term. From these figures it
664: can be seen that the central potentials from the Mod-SKM are in
665: better agreement with the phenomenology potentials.
666:
667: In Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, we show the $T=0$ and $T=1$ spin-dependent
668: potentials. In these cases the nucleon only potential and the
669: perturbative results are quite similar. From 1 fm to about 1.5 fm,
670: the potentials from the modified Skyrme model are not so close to
671: the phenomenological potentials. Especially in the $T=0$ case, both
672: the nucleon only and perturbative analysis give a positive spin-spin
673: potential, in contrast to the negative values of the
674: phenomenological potentials. It is important to see if the more
675: complete Skyrme calculations can repair this disagreement. However,
676: the smallness of the potential is reproduced. In our calculation,
677: that small value arises from the cancelations of large terms.
678:
679: Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 show the tensor potential $V^{T}_{t}$. Being
680: similar to case of the spin-dependent potential, the nucleon only
681: potential and the perturbative results are also quite similar.
682: Particularly at large distance, these results agree with the
683: phenomenological potential, but the agreement is not so good at
684: intermediate distance. However, the difference between the
685: theoretical and the phenomenological results is of the order of 10
686: MeV, compared to the static soliton mass or the nucleon mass which
687: is about 1GeV, the difference is small enough. Here again, an
688: improved Skyrme model dynamical calculation, going beyond the
689: product ansatz, using diagonalization for state mixing and including
690: explicitly the vector meson ($\rho,\omega$) and some high derivative
691: terms in the Lagrangian, might lead to a better agreement.
692:
693: \section{conclusion and discussion}
694: We have shown that the modified Skyrme model with product ansatz can
695: give $N\overline{N}$ interaction which is in qualitatively agreement
696: with the phenomenological potential, and it provides a better
697: description of the static properties of single baryon than the
698: minimal version Skyrme model. We see that the configuration mixing
699: is very important to be included, and we roughly estimate this
700: effect by perturbation theory. More sophisticated method of
701: considering the state mixing effect is the Born-Oppenheimer
702: approximation. The potential curves in the Born-Oppenheimer
703: approximation are similar to the perturbative results, especially
704: for the spin-dependent and the tensor potential
705: \cite{nucleon5,amado2}.
706:
707: To go from this work to a theory that can be confronted with
708: experiment in detail is a difficult challenge, {\it i.e,} predicting
709: the nucleon-antinucleon scattering cross section, the polarization,
710: and the spectrums of the nucleon-antinucleon system {\it etc}. There
711: are non-adiabatic effects that are particularly important at small
712: $R$, and there are other mesons which should be included in the
713: Skyrme lagrangian. The effects due to vector mesons may be
714: particularly important at small distances. Obtaining the static
715: nucleon-antinucleon interaction from Skyrme model based on large
716: $N_C$ QCD can be a promising approach. We expect we can further
717: discuss whether or not there exists nucleon-antinucleon bound
718: state(baryonium) in this framework.
719: \section *{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}
720: \indent
721:
722: We would like to thank Hui-Min Li and Yu-Feng Lu for their help with
723: the numerical calculations. The computations were carried out at
724: USTC-HP Laboratory of High Peformance Computating. This work is
725: partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China
726: under Grant Numbers 90403021, and by the PhD Program Funds
727: 20020358040 of the Education Ministry of China and KJCX2-SW-N10 of
728: the Chinese Academy.
729:
730: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
731: \bibitem{skyrme1}T.H.R.Skyrme, Proc.\ Roy.\ Soc.\ Lond.\ A {\bf 260}, 127 (1961).
732: \bibitem{skyrme2}T.H.R.Skyrme, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 31}, 556 (1962).
733: \bibitem{adkins1}G.~S.~Adkins, C.~R.~Nappi and E.~Witten, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 228}, 552 (1983).
734: \bibitem{adkins2}G.~S.~Adkins and C.~R.~Nappi, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 233}, 109 (1984).
735: \bibitem{exotic}D.~Diakonov, V.~Petrov and M.~V.~Polyakov, Z.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 359}, 305 (1997)
736: [arXiv:hep-ph/9703373]; J.~R.~Ellis, M.~Karliner and
737: M.~Praszalowicz, JHEP {\bf 0405}, 002 (2004)[arXiv:hep-ph/0401127].
738: \bibitem{YLWM} M.L.Yan, S.Li, B.Wu and B.Q.Ma, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72},
739: 034027 (2005).
740: \bibitem{DY05} G.J.Ding, M.L. Yan, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 72},
741: 015208 (2005).
742: \bibitem{yan}B.~A.~Li, M.~L.~Yan and K.~F.~Liu, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43}, 1515
743: (1991).
744: \bibitem{yan1} B.~A.~Li and M.~L.~Yan, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 282},
745: 435 (1992).
746: \bibitem{Dia} D. Diakonov {\it et al}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B480} 341
747: (1996).
748: \bibitem{adkins3}G.~S.~Adkins and C.~R.~Nappi, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 137}, 251 (1984).
749: %\bibitem{review}I.~Zahed and G.~E.~Brown,
750: %Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 142}, 1 (1986); G.~Holzwarth and B.~Schwesinger,
751: %Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\ {\bf 49}, 825 (1986); H.~Weigel, Int.\ J.\
752: %Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 11}, 2419 (1996)[arXiv:hep-ph/9509398].
753: \bibitem{nucleon1}A.~Jackson, A.~D.~Jackson and V.~Pasquier, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 432}, 567 (1985).
754: \bibitem{nucleon2}R.~Vinh Mau, M.~Lacombe, B.~Loiseau, W.~N.~Cottingham and
755: P.~Lisboa, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 150}, 259 (1985); M.~Lacombe,
756: B.~Loiseau, R.~Vinh Mau and W.~N.~Cottingham, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf
757: 169}, 121 (1986).
758: \bibitem{nucleon3}T.~S.~Walhout and J.~Wambach, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 67}, 314 (1991).
759: \bibitem{nucleon4}A.~Hosaka, M.~Oka and R.~D.~Amado, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 530}, 507 (1991).
760: \bibitem{nucleon5}N.~R.~Walet and R.~D.~Amado, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 68}, 3849 (1992)
761: [arXiv:nucl-th/9210015];Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 47}, 498 (1993).
762: \bibitem{nucleon6}H.~Yabu and K.~Ando, Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 74}, 750 (1985).
763: \bibitem{amado1}M.~Oka, R.~Bijker, A.~Bulgac and R.~D.~Amado, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 36}, 1727 (1987).
764: \bibitem{amado2}Y.~Lu and R.~D.~Amado, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 54}, 1566 (1996)[arXiv:nucl-th/9606002].
765: \bibitem{amado3}Y.~Lu, P.~Protopapas and R.~D.~Amado, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 57}, 1983 (1998)[arXiv:nucl-th/9710046].
766: \bibitem{Bes1}BES Collaboration, J.~Z.~Bai {\it et al.},
767: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91}, 022001 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ex/0303006].
768: \bibitem{Bes2}BES Collaboration, M.~Ablikim {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 262001 (2005)
769: [arXiv:hep-ex/0508025].
770: \bibitem{Bes3}BES Collaboration, M.~Ablikim {\it et al.},
771: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 112002 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ex/0405050].
772: \bibitem{belle1}Belle Collaboration, K.~Abe {\it et al.},
773: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 181803 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ex/0202017].
774: \bibitem{belle2}Belle Collaboration, M.~Z.~Wang {\it et al.},
775: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90}, 201802 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ex/0302024].
776: \bibitem{belle3}Belle Collaboration, Y.~J.~Lee {\it et al.} ,
777: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 211801 (2004)[arXiv:hep-ex/0406068].
778: \bibitem{constituent} D.~R.~Entem and F.~Fernandez, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 73}, 045214
779: (2006).
780: \bibitem{DY06} G.J. Ding, J.~l.~Ping and M.L. Yan, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74},
781: 014029 (2006).
782: \bibitem{rDY06}G.~J.~Ding and M.~L.~Yan, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ A {\bf 28}, 351 (2006)[arXiv:hep-ph/0511186].
783: \bibitem{jackson}A.~Jackson, A.~D.~Jackson, A.~S.~Goldhaber, G.~E.~Brown and
784: L.~C.~Castillejo, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 154} (1985) 101.
785: \bibitem{oka}M.~Oka, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 36}, 720 (1987).
786:
787: \bibitem{spin}R.~Johnson, N.~W.~Park, J.~Schechter, V.~Soni and H.~Weigel,Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 42}, 2998
788: (1990); A.~Blotz, M.~Praszalowicz and K.~Goeke, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf
789: 53}, 485 (1996)[arXiv:hep-ph/9403314]; G.~Kaelbermann,
790: J.~M.~Eisenberg and A.~Schafer, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 339}, 211
791: (1994)[arXiv:hep-ph/9409299].
792: \bibitem{paris} J.~Cote, M.~Lacombe, B.~Loiseau, B.~Moussallam and R.~Vinh Mau,
793: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 48}, 1319 (1982); M.~Pignone, M.~Lacombe,
794: B.~Loiseau and R.~Vinh Mau, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 50} (1994) 2710;
795: B.~El-Bennich, M.~Lacombe, B.~Loiseau and R.~Vinh Mau, Phys.\ Rev.\
796: C {\bf 59} (1999) 2313.
797: \bibitem{julich}T.~Hippchen, J.~Haidenbauer, K.~Holinde and V.~Mull,
798: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 44}, 1323 (1991).
799: \bibitem{bp}R.~A.~Bryan and R.~J.~N.~Phillips, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 5}, 201 (1968).
800: \bibitem{nij}P.~H.~Timmers, W.~A.~van der Sanden and J.~J.~de Swart,
801: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 29}, 1928 (1984)[Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 30}, 1995
802: (1984)].
803: \end{thebibliography}
804:
805:
806: \begin{figure}[hptb]
807: \begin{center}
808: \label{fig1}
809: \includegraphics*[width=11cm]{conspot2.EPS}
810: \caption{Various terms of the Skyrmion-antiSkyrmion potential
811: potential Eq. (\ref{29}). $\upsilon_1(R)$ is shown by the solid
812: line, $\upsilon_2(R)$ by the dashed line, $\upsilon_3(R)$ by the
813: dotted line, $\upsilon_4(R)$ by the dash-dotted line,
814: $\upsilon_5(R)$ by the dash-dot-dotted line, and $\upsilon_6(R)$ by
815: the short dash-dotted line. }
816: \end{center}
817: \end{figure}
818:
819: \begin{figure}[hptb]
820: \begin{center}
821: \label{fig2}
822: \includegraphics*[width=11cm]{rvc0.EPS}
823: \caption{The central potential $V^{T}_c$ as a function of distance
824: $R$ for the $T=0$ channel. The solid line is the nucleon only
825: result, the dashed line is the result of the states mixing by
826: perturbation theory. The dash-dot-dotted line is the nucleon only
827: potential in conventional Skyrme model \cite{amado2}. The
828: phenomenological potentials based on meson exchange are shown by
829: dash-dotted line for the Bryan-Phillips potential and by dotted line
830: for the Nijmegen potential.}
831: \end{center}
832: \end{figure}
833:
834: \begin{figure}[hptb]
835: \begin{center}
836: \label{fig3}
837: \includegraphics*[width=11cm]{rvc1.EPS}
838: \caption{The central potential $V^{T}_c$ as a function of distance
839: $R$ for the $T=1$ channel, labeling of the curves is the same as
840: that in Fig. 2.}
841: \end{center}
842: \end{figure}
843:
844: \begin{figure}[hptb]
845: \begin{center}
846: \label{fig4}
847: \includegraphics*[width=11cm]{rvs0.EPS}
848: \caption{The spin-dependent potential $V^{T}_s$ as a function of
849: distance $R$ for the $T=0$ channel, labeling of the curves is the
850: same as that in Fig. 2.}
851: \end{center}
852: \end{figure}
853:
854: \begin{figure}[hptb]
855: \begin{center}
856: \label{fig5}
857: \includegraphics*[width=11cm]{rvs1.EPS}
858: \caption{The spin-dependent potential, same as Fig. 4 but for
859: $T=1$.}
860: \end{center}
861: \end{figure}
862:
863: \begin{figure}[hptb]
864: \begin{center}
865: \label{fig6}
866: \includegraphics*[width=11cm]{rvt0.EPS}
867: \caption{The tensor potential $V^{T}_t$ as a function of distance
868: $R$ for the $T=0$ channel, labeling of the curves is the same as
869: that in Fig. 2.}
870: \end{center}
871: \end{figure}
872:
873: \begin{figure}[hptb]
874: \begin{center}
875: \label{fig7}
876: \includegraphics*[width=11cm]{rvt1.EPS}
877: \caption{The tensor potential, same as Fig. 6 but for $T=1$}
878: \end{center}
879: \end{figure}
880:
881:
882: %\begin{figure}[hptb]
883: %\begin{center}
884: %\includegraphics*[5pt,580pt][400pt,800pt]{f3.eps}
885: %\caption{The configuration in common quark model, where gray circles
886: %denote quarks and red circles denote antiquarks}.
887: %\end{center}
888: %\end{figure}
889:
890: \end{document}
891: