Nucleon-Nucleon Scattering and Effective Field Theory: Including Pions Non-perturbatively
Extracted source text ยท arXiv nucl-th/9908055
\documentstyle[preprint,aps,tighten,epsf,floats]{revtex}
%%%%%%%%%%%%% Uncomment for A4 paper %%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\setlength{\textheight}{25.0cm}
%\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-.5cm}
%\setlength{\topmargin}{-1.5cm}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\setlength{\textwidth}{17cm}
\newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber\\}
\newcommand{\NNN}{$N\!N\!N$}
\newcommand{\NNNNNN}{$N\!N\!N\rightarrow N\!N\!N$}
\newcommand{\bk}{\bar{k}}
\newcommand{\bq}{\bar{q}}
\newcommand{\bp}{\bar{p}}
\newcommand{\bu}{\bar{u}}
\newcommand{\tPhi}{\tilde{\Phi}}
\newcommand{\tphi}{\tilde{\phi}}
\newcommand{\tX}{\tilde{X}}
\newcommand{\tY}{\tilde{Y}}
\newcommand{\tT}{\tilde{T}}
\newcommand{\tv}{\tilde{v}}
\newcommand{\ttt}{\tilde{t}}
\newcommand{\td}{\tilde{d}}
\newcommand{\tj}{\tilde{j}}
\newcommand{\tG}{\tilde{G}}
\newcommand{\la}{\langle}
\newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}
\newcommand{\pslash}{\not\hspace{-0.7mm}p}
\newcommand{\ben}{\begin{displaymath}}
\newcommand{\een}{\end{displaymath}}
\newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\eqn}[1]{\label{#1}}
\newcommand{\eq}[1]{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\eqs}[1]{Eqs.~(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\fign}[1]{\label{#1}}
\newcommand{\fig}[1]{Fig.~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\bPsi}{\bar{\Psi}}
\newcommand{\bPhi}{\bar{\Phi}}
\newcommand{\bphi}{\bar{\phi}}
\newcommand{\bfp}{{\bf p}}
\newcommand{\bfP}{{\bf P}}
\newcommand{\bfq}{{\bf q}}
\newcommand{\bfk}{{\bf k}}
\begin{document}
% \draft command makes pacs numbers print
\draft
\title{Nucleon-Nucleon Scattering and Effective Field Theory: Including Pions
Non-perturbatively}
% repeat the \author\address pair as needed
\author{ J. Gegelia}
\address{Department of Physics, The Flinders University of South Australia, \\
Bedford Park, SA 5042, Australia}
\date{\today}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Next to leading order effective field theory calculations are performed for $
{ }^1S_0$ $NN$ scattering using subtractive renormalization procedure. One
pion exchange and contact interaction potentials are iterated using
Lippman-Schwinger equation. Satisfactory fit to the Nijmegen data is obtained
for the momenta up to 300 MeV in the centre of mass frame. Phase shifts are also
compared with the results of KSW approach where pions are included
perturbatively.
\end{abstract}
% insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
\pacs{
03.65.Nk,
%Nonrelativistic scattering theory
11.10.Gh,
%Renormalization
12.39.Fe,
%Chiral Lagrangians
13.75.Cs.}
%Nucleon-nucleon interactions (including antinucleons, deuterons,
% etc.)
\section{Introduction}
There has been much recent interest in applications of
the chiral perturbation theory approach to
processes involving an arbitrary number of nucleons \cite{all} introduced by
Weinberg \cite{weinberg1,weinberg2}.
For processes involving more than one nucleon Weinberg's power counting is
applied to the potential rather than to the scattering amplitude. For
$n$-nucleon processes the
potential is defined as a sum of $n$-nucleon irreducible time-ordered
perturbation theory diagrams.
The amplitude is obtained by solving Lippmann-Schwinger equation (or
Schr\" odinger equation).
Iteration of the potential via
the Lippmann-Schwinger equation leads to divergences. One could try to
regularize the potential and include counter-terms, but due to the
non-renormalizability of the
theory one would have to include an infinite number of (counter-)terms with
more and more derivatives.
Hence, one has either to exactly solve the equation and after subtract
divergences explicitly, or otherwise draw all relevant diagrams,
subtract them and sum up. There
are not any equations for subtractively renormalised amplitudes.
%The low order calculations
%require inclusion of the contributions of an infinite number of counter-terms
%with
%higher and higher order derivatives (up to infinity). But this does not
%mean that Weinberg's power counting is not consistent, as was claimed in
%ref. \cite{kaplan3,savage}. Note that power counting
%should be applied to renormalised
%diagrams only, i.e. after inclusion of the contributions of counter-terms, so
%the
%involvement of higher order counter-terms into low-order calculations does not
%affect power counting at all.
Fortunately there exist practically more powerful approach, cut-off
EFT \cite{lepage}. Divergences appearing in diagrams can be
regulated using (sharp or smooth) cut-off regularization. One can keep cut-off
parameter of the order of the mass of lightest integrated particle and fit
coupling constants to
the experimental data as was done in ref. \cite{ordonez}. Cut-off EFT is
equivalent to subtractively renormalised EFT up to the order of considered
accuracy \cite{lepage,lepage1,gegelia2}.
Technically more convenient approach based on a new systematic power counting
has been suggested by Kaplan, Savage and Wise
(KSW counting) in \cite{kaplan2}. Pions are included perturbatively within this
new scheme. A similar power counting with perturbative
pions has been suggested by Lutz \cite{lutz}. As was mentioned in \cite{kaplan3}
the
expansion parameter in KSW counting is rather large. It raises a question of
the usefulness of suggested expansion. Arguments supporting as well as
criticising the perturbative inclusion of pions have been given in the
literature (see \cite{kapste} and citations therein. \cite{kapste} also contains
references to lots of papers devoted to EFT study of $NN$ interaction problem).
In Weinberg's power counting the one pion exchange potential is of leading order
and hence it has to be iterated via the Lippmann-Schwinger equation.
KSW counting suggests that contributions containing multiple iterations of the
one-pion exchange potential are higher order and hence need not be included in
low order calculations.
In this letter the results of the application of subtractive
renormalization procedure to the Weinberg's approach to ${ }^1S_0$
$NN$ scattering problem are briefly discussed (the details will be given in
separate paper). Leading order (contact
interaction plus
one-pion exchange) plus next-to-leading order contact interaction potential is
iterated using Lippman-Schwinger equation.
%This work uses some results of the work by D.B.Kaplan, M.J.Savage and M.B.Wise
%\cite{kaplan}.
According Weinberg's power counting the leading order potential for ${ }^1S_0$
$NN$ scattering is the following:
\be
V_0({\bf p},{\bf p'})=\tilde C+V_\pi ({\bf p},{\bf p'})
\label{potential}
\ee
where
\be
\tilde C\equiv C+{g_A^2\over 2f_\pi^2}, \ \
V_\pi ({\bf p},{\bf p'})\equiv -{4\pi\alpha_\pi\over \left( {\bf q}^2+
m_\pi^2\right)}, \ \ \alpha_\pi\equiv{g_A^2m_\pi^2\over 8\pi f_\pi^2}.
\label{potspel}
\ee
$C$ is determined by contact interaction terms in the effective Lagrangian
\cite{weinberg2}, ${\bf q}={\bf p}-{\bf p'}$, $g_A=1.25$ is the axial coupling
constant, $m_\pi =140 \ {\rm MeV}$ is the pion mass and $f_\pi =132 \ {\rm MeV}$
is the pion decay constant.
Substituting $V_0$ into the Lippman-Schwinger equation one finds for the Feynman
amplitude \cite{kaplan}:
\be
iA=iA_\pi-i{\tilde C\left[ \chi_{\bf p}\right]^2\over
1-\tilde CG_E}
\label{amplitude}
\ee
where the quantities $A_\pi$, $\chi_{\bf p}$ and $G_E$ correspond to diagrams
drawn in FIG. 1. $A_\pi$ and $\chi_{\bf p}$ are finite. The first diagram
contributing to $G_E$ is linearly and the second logarithmically divergent, all
other diagrams are finite. As $A$ contains divergences it is necessary to
regularize and renormalize it.
Let us introduce a cut-off into the potential:
\be
V_0^{\Lambda}({\bf p},{\bf p'})={\tilde C \Lambda^8\over \left( {\bf
p}^2+\Lambda^2\right)^2\left( {\bf p'}^2+\Lambda^2\right)^2}
+V_\pi ({\bf p},{\bf p'})
\label{cutpotential}
\ee
where $\Lambda $ is a cut-off parameter.
%%%%%%%%%%% Figure %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[t]
\hspace*{2cm} \epsfxsize=12cm\epsfbox{fig1.ps}
\vspace{10mm}
\caption{\fign{apgexi}{\it
Diagrams defining $A_\pi$, $\chi_{\bf p}$ and $G_E$. Solid and dashed lines
correspond to nucleon and pion respectively. Small circle in the diagram
defining
$\chi_{\bf p}$ indicates that factor $\tilde C$ is excluded from that vertex.}}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%% Figure %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[t]
\hspace*{3cm} \epsfxsize=10cm\epsfbox{fig2.ps}
\vspace{2mm}
\caption{\fign{xi}{\it
$\left[ \chi_{\bf p}({\bf 0})\right]^2$ plotted versus momentum in {\rm
MeV}. The solid and dashed lines correspond to the real and imaginary parts
respectively.}}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%% Figure %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[t]
\hspace*{3cm} \epsfxsize=10cm\epsfbox{fig3.ps}
\vspace{2mm}
\caption{\fign{npfig}{\it
Phase shifts in degrees versus centre of mass momentum. Solid line corresponds
to Nijmegen phase shift data. Long-dashed line is the leading
order EFT result. Dotted and short-dashed lines are the results of
next-to-leading order calculations. The dotted and small-dashed lines correspond
to non-perturbative and non-perturbative inclusion of next-to-leading order
potential $C_2\left( {\bf p}^2+{\bf p'}^2\right)/2$.}}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Substituting $V_0^\Lambda$ into the Lippmann-Schwinger equation one gets the
following expression for the amplitude:
\be
iA^\Lambda =iA_\pi-i{\tilde C\left[ \chi_{\bf p}^\Lambda \right]^2\over
1-\tilde CG_E^\Lambda}
\label{cutamplitude}
\ee
where $A_\pi$ is unchanged, $\chi_{\bf p}^\Lambda $ and $G_E^\Lambda $ are given
by the
same diagrams in FIG.1 with $\tilde C$ replaced by ${\tilde C \Lambda^8\over
\left( {\bf
p}^2+\Lambda^2\right)^2\left( {\bf p'}^2+\Lambda^2\right)^2}$.
Note that $\chi_{\bf p}^\Lambda=\chi_{\bf p}+0(1/\Lambda )$ and
$G_E^\Lambda =a_1\Lambda+a_2\ln \Lambda +G_E^f+0(1/\Lambda )$, where $G_E^f$ is
finite and $\Lambda $-independent.
It is straightforward to find $a_1$ and $a_2$ by calculating analytically first
two diagrams contributing to $G_E^\Lambda $.
One can numerically calculate $A_\pi $ and $A^\Lambda $ for different values of
$\Lambda $. Using these values of $A_\pi $ and $A^\Lambda $ one finds:
\be
{1\over A^\Lambda -A_\pi }=B_1(p)\Lambda +B_2(p)\ln\Lambda
+B_3(p).
\label{A-A}
\ee
Although $B_3(p)$ actually depends on $\Lambda $, for very large $\Lambda $ it
practically does not and $B_1(p)$ and $B_2(p)$ can be calculated very
accurately. Having calculated $a_1$, $a_2$, $B_1(p)$ and $B_2(p)$ one easily
finds:
\be
\left[ \chi_{\bf p}^\Lambda\right]^2={a_1\over B_1(p)}
\label{chi1}
\ee
\be
\left[ \chi_{\bf p}^\Lambda\right]^2={a_2\over B_2(p)}
\label{chi2}
\ee
Good agreement between numerical results obtained from (\ref{chi1}) and
(\ref{chi2}) suggests that numerical calculations are enough accurate.
$\left[ \chi_{\bf p}\right]^2$ obtained this way is plotted in FIG. 2. The same
quantity was calculated in \cite{kaplan} using a different method. The
agreement between FIG. 2 and the results of \cite{kaplan} is quite
satisfactory.
Having calculated $\left[ \chi_{\bf p}^\Lambda \right]^2\left( \approx
\left[ \chi_{\bf p}\right]^2\right)$ it is not difficult to
calculate the sum $\tilde G_E^\Lambda \left( \approx \tilde G_E\right)$ of all
finite regularised (unregularised) diagrams contributing to
$G_E^\Lambda \ \left( G_E\right)$.
Phase shifts corresponding to subtractive renormalization procedure
can be calculated performing following steps:
1. Calculate $A_\pi$, calculate $A^\Lambda $ for very large $\Lambda $
($\Lambda\sim 10^5 {\rm MeV}$ has been taken);
2. Calculate
\be
W(p)=-{1\over \tilde C}+\tilde G_E^\Lambda =
{\left[ \chi_{\bf p}^\Lambda\right]^2 \over A^\Lambda -A_\pi}
-I^\Lambda (p)-I_\pi^\Lambda (p)
\label{w}
\ee
where $I^\Lambda (p)$ and $I_\pi^\Lambda (p)$ correspond to the first and second
divergent diagrams contributing to $G_E^\Lambda $ respectively.
3. Calculate two divergent diagrams contributing to $G_E$ analytically, subtract
the second logarithmically
divergent diagram at $p^2=-\mu^2$ and the first
linearly divergent diagram at $p^2=-\nu^2 (=-\kappa \mu^2)$ (one is free to
subtract these two diagrams at
different points). In calculations of this work $\mu =240 \ {\rm MeV}$ and $\nu
=800 \ {\rm MeV}$ were taken
($\kappa =100/9$).
Note that the
large value of the second subtraction point (800 MeV) does not affect the power
counting.
Subtracted diagrams give:
\be
I^R_\pi (p)={g_A^2\over 2f^2}\left( {m_\pi M\over 4\pi}\right)^2\left[
i\tan^{-1}\left( {2p\over m_\pi }\right) -{1\over 2}\ln \left( 1+{4p^2\over
m_\pi^2}\right) +\ln\left( 1+{2\mu\over m_\pi}\right)\right]
\label{IRpi}
\ee
and
\be
I^R(p)={M(\nu +ip)\over 4\pi }
\label{IR}
\ee
4. Calculate renormalized amplitude:
\be
A^R=A_\pi +{\left[ \chi_{\bf p}^\Lambda\right]^2\over W(p)+I^R(p)+I^R_\pi (p)}
\label{AR}
\ee
5. Fit $C$ so as to reproduce phase shifts for very low energies ($p\sim 5 \
{\rm
MeV}$). One gets
$C=-1/(17348 \ {\rm MeV}^2)$.
6. Calculate phase shifts. Comparing phase shifts calculated for $\Lambda
=1\times 10^5 \ {\rm MeV},
2\times 10^5 \ {\rm MeV},
3\times 10^5 \ {\rm MeV}, 4\times 10^5 \ {\rm MeV}$ one sees that $A^R$ is
practically cut-off independent for very large $\Lambda $.
These leading order phase shifts are plotted in FIG. 3.
As was argued in \cite{kaplan} $C_2$ coupling constant of the part of
the next-to-leading order potential
\be
V_1=C_2\left( {\bf p}^2+{\bf p'}^2\right)/2
\label{v1}
\ee
is larger than assumed by Weinberg's
power counting. This suggests that contributions of this part of
the next-to-leading order potential are larger than of
others. This observation simplifies the actual next-to-leading order
calculations significantly. It is possible
to sum up all diagrams obtained by iterating Lippman-Schwinger equation for the
potential $V=V_0+V_1$, where $V_0$ and $V_1$ are given by (\ref{potential}) and
(\ref{v1}) respectively. The result obtained in \cite{kaplan} using dimensional
regularization reads:
\be
A_1({\bf p})=A_\pi -{\left[ \chi_{\bf p}\right]^2\over \left[ \tilde C
-\alpha_\pi m_\pi MC_2+C_2{\bf p}^2\right]^{-1}-G_E}
\label{A1}
\ee
As $\chi_{\bf p}$ and $\tilde G_E$ are already calculated
(although these quantities were calculated using cut-off regularization, as was
mentioned above
the effect of finite cut-off is extremally small and hence
negligible), it is
straightforward to apply the same subtraction scheme to (\ref{A1}), fix $C_2$
so as to fit the data for $p=10 \ {\rm MeV}$
%using global fit to data, advocated
%by authors of \cite{kaplan2},
and calculate the phase shifts. The results are plotted in FIG. 3.
One can see that agreement with Nijmegen phase shift data \cite{nijmegen}
is quite
good. Obtained value
$C_2=1/(8.5\times 10^9 \ {\rm MeV}^4)$
is indeed larger than assumed by Weinberg's counting.
One also can include $V_1$ perturbatively expanding (\ref{A1}) in $C_2$ and
retaining
only first two terms. Calculated phase shifts are also plotted in FIG. 3.
Comparing the phase shifts for perturbative and non-perturbative inclusion of
$V_1$ one sees that deviation is small for momenta up to 300 MeV. This suggests
that higher order contributions of $V_1$ are small as is expected from power
counting arguments.
On the other hand it is straightforward to include pions perturbatively (as was
done in \cite{Gegelia}) following ideas of KSW counting. Using Those values for
$C$ and $C_2$ which were obtained above one gets {\it negative} phase shifts.
this suggests that the higher order contributions of the one pion exchange
potential are by no means small. Note that subtraction scheme used here is
different from the one considered in \cite{Gegelia}. In \cite{Gegelia} finite
diagrams were subtracted as well.
Repeating the calculations of this work with non-perturbatively included one
pion exchange potential using PDS scheme and substituting the
``best fit'' parameters from \cite{kaplan2} one gets again {\it negative} phase
shifts.
This comparison of the phase shifts calculated using perturbative and
non-perturbative inclusion of pions supports the conclusion of \cite{Gegelia}
that the consistency of the perturbative
inclusion of pions in EFT approach to the $NN$-scattering problem is
questionable.
\medskip
\medskip
\medskip
{\bf ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}
%I would like to thank B.Blankleider
% and N.Clisby
%for commenting on the manuscript.
This work was carried out whilst the author was a recipient of an
Overseas Postgraduate
Research Scholarship and a Flinders University Research Scholarship
at the Flinders University of South Australia.
%\newpage
%\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\begin{references}
%\bibitem{wein1979}
%S.Weinberg, {\it Physica} {\bf 96 A} (1979) 327;
\bibitem{weinberg1}
S.Weinberg, Phys.Lett. {\bf B251} (1990) 288;
\bibitem{weinberg2}
S.Weinberg, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B363} (1991) 3;
\bibitem{all}
{\it Nuclear Physics with Effective Field Theory}, ed.\ R.\ Seki, U.\
van~Kolck, and M.~J.\ Savage (World Scientific, 1998);
\newline
U.\ van~Kolck, {\tt nucl-th/9902015}, and references therein.
\bibitem{lepage}
G.P.Lepage, nucl-th/9706029;
\bibitem{ordonez}
C.Ordonez, L.Ray and U. van Kolck, Phys.Rev. C {\bf 53} (1996) 2086;
\bibitem{lepage1}
G.P.Lepage, {\it What is Renormalization?,} in {\it From actions to Answers,}
edited by T.DeGrand and D.Toussaint, World Scientific Press (Singapore,1990).
\bibitem{gegelia2}
J.Gegelia, nucl-th/9805008, to be published in Journ. of Phys. G;
%\bibitem{cohenc55}
%T.D.Cohen, Phys.Rev. C {\bf 55} (1997) 67;
%\bibitem{phillips1}
%D.R.Phillips and T.D.Cohen, Phys.Lett. {\bf B390}, 7 (1997), nucl-th/9607048.
%\bibitem{scaldeferri}
%K.A.Scaldeferri, D.R.Phillips, C.-W.Kao, and T.D.Cohen, Phys.Rev.C56:679-688,
%1997, nucl-th/9610049.
%\bibitem{unp}
%D.R.Phillips, S.R.Beane, and T.D.Cohen, hep-th/9706070;
%\bibitem{beane}
%S.R.Beane, T.D.Cohen and D.R.Phillips, nucl-th/9709062;
\bibitem{kaplan2}
D.B.Kaplan, M.J.Savage and M.B.Wise, Phys.Lett. {\bf B424} (1998)390,
nucl-th/9801034;
\bibitem{lutz}
M.Lutz, in proceedings of the workshop ``The Standard Model at Low Energies''
held at ECT* in Trento, Italy, from April 29 to May 10, 1996, hep-ph/9606301;
Nucl. Phys. {\bf A642} (1998) 171;\\
nucl-th/9906028;
\bibitem{kaplan3}
D.B.Kaplan, M.J.Savage and M.B.Wise, nucl-th/9802075;
%\bibitem{kapland}
%D.B.Kaplan, M.J.Savage and M.B.Wise, nucl-th/9804032;
\bibitem{kapste}
D.B.Kaplan, J.V.Steele, nucl-th/9905027;
\bibitem{kaplan}
D.B.Kaplan, M.J.Savage and M.B.Wise, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B478} (1996) 629;
%\bibitem{savage}
%M.J.Savage, nucl-th/9804034;
%\bibitem{kaplan4}
%D.B.Kaplan, nucl-th/9804061;
%\bibitem{luke}
%M.Luke and A.V.Manohar, Phys.Rev.{\bf D55} (1997) 4129;
%\bibitem{gasser}
%J.Gasser, M.E.Sainio and \v Svarc, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B307} (1988) 779;
%\bibitem{park}
%T.-S.Park, K.Kubodera, D.-P.Min and M.Rho, nucl-th/9807054;
%\bibitem{gegelia}
%J.Gegelia, Phys.Lett. {\bf B429} (1998) 227, nucl-th/9802038;
%\bibitem{wigner}
%E.P.Wigner, Phys. Rev. {\bf 98} (1955) 145;
%\bibitem{bog}
%N.N.Bogoliubov and D.V.Shirkov, {\it Introduction to the Theory of Quantized
%Fields}, translated by G.M.Volkoff, Interscience, New York, 1959;
%\bibitem{gold}
%M.L. Goldberger and K.M. Watson, {Collision Theory}, John Wiley and Sons,
%Inc.(1964)
%\bibitem{epelbaoum}
%E.Epelbaoum, W.Gl\" ockle, Ulf-G. Meissner nucl-th/9801064;
%\bibitem{epelbaoum1}
%E.Epelbaoum, W.Gl\" ockle, Ulf-G. Meissner nucl-th/9804005;
%\bibitem{birse}
%M.C.Birse, nucl-th/9804028;
%\bibitem{donoghue}
%John F.Donoghue and Barry R.Holsten, hep-ph/9803312;
%\end{thebibliography}
%\bibitem{steel}
%James V.Steele and R.J.Furnstahl, nucl-th/9808022;
%\bibitem{8038}
%Thomas D. Cohen, James M. Hansen, nucl-th/9808038.
\bibitem{nijmegen}
Partial wave analysis of the Nijmegen University theoretical high energy physics
group, obtained from WorldWide Web page lttp://nn-online.sci.kun.nl/
\bibitem{Gegelia}
J.\ Gegelia, {\tt nucl-th/9806028};
\end{references}
\end{document}