text:
# Two-step contribution to the spin-longitudinal and transverse cross sections of the quasielastic (𝑝,𝑛) reactions

## I Introduction

In nucleon induced intermediate energy reactions, a single-step reaction model is the simplest way to understand the complex interaction between nucleon and nucleus. However, it is insufficient to explain the cross sections at large angles Luo ; Watanabe ; Tamura . Various groups Tamura ; Ogata  introduced multistep direct processes to compensate for the lack of cross sections in these regions. They calculated angular distributions of the two-step Tamura  and three-step direct processes Ogata  and found that multistep direct processes contribute significantly towards the understanding of nucleon induced intermeditate energy reactions.

The two-step processes have also been applied DePace ; Nakaoka  to the long-standing $`R_\mathrm{L}/R_\mathrm{T}`$ problem in spin-isospin excitations. With the random phase approximation (RPA), the spin-longitudinal response function $`R_\mathrm{L}`$ is enhanced and the peak of its energy spectrum is shifted downwards, while the spin-transverse response function $`R_\mathrm{T}`$ is quenched and its peak is shifted upwards Alberico . The theoretical ratio $`R_\mathrm{L}/R_\mathrm{T}`$ should be greater than 1. These quantities are extracted experimentally from the measurement of the polarization transfer coefficients McClelland ; Chen ; Taddeucci ; Wakasa . With these observables, the ratio is found to be less than 1 and is inconsistent with theoretical predictions.

The spin-longitudinal cross section $`ID_q`$ Bleszynski , which corresponds to $`R_\mathrm{L}`$ Ichimura , is roughly reproduced by the distorted-wave impulse approximation (DWIA) with the RPA correlation in the lower energy transfer region as shown in Fig. 1, but as the energy transfer increases the theoretical results become smaller than the experimental results Kawahigashi . In the spin-transverse cross section $`ID_p`$, which corresponds to $`R_\mathrm{T}`$, theoretical estimates reproduce only about half of the experimental result in the whole energy transfer region Kawahigashi .

Nakaoka and Ichimura Nakaoka  calculated the two-step contribution to $`ID_q`$ and $`ID_p`$ of the $`(p,n)`$ reactions within the framework of the plane-wave approximation to evaluate the relative contributions from the one- and the two-step processes. Theoretical results including two-step contributions were closer to the experimental results than the DWIA predictions for $`ID_q`$, but they still underestimated $`ID_p`$.

In this formalism we assumed that the path lengths of the incident particles in the target nucleus for the one-step and the two-step processes are nearly equal, and the effects of absorption in the one-step and the two-step processes are similar. Since we wanted to evaluate the relative contributions from the one-step and the two-step processes, we removed the effect of absorption from both processes.

Because of the singularity that appears in the Green’s function in the two-step processes, numerical integration is difficult. An on-energy shell approximation to the Green’s function was used as shown in our previous paper Nakaoka . However, since this approximation may not be reliable it is not used herein.

In this paper, we utilize the finite $`ϵ`$ in the denominator of the Green’s function in order to avoid the singularity and calculate the numerical integration beyond the on-energy shell in the transferred momentum space. Then the results are obtained by extrapolation in the limit of zero $`ϵ`$. In Sec. II, we briefly review the formalism of the one-step and the two-step cross sections. In Sec. III, we present the practical method of numerical calculation. In Sec. IV, the results of the one-step and the two-step cross sections in the plane-wave calculation are shown. The two-step cross sections with distortion are roughly estimated using the DWIA results and they are compared with experimental results. In Sec. V, we analyze the numerical results. Finally, these results are summarized in Sec. VI.

## II Formalism

Consider ($`p`$,$`n`$) reactions in which the target is excited to the continuum region, for which the multiple scattering formalism of Kerman, McManus and Thaler(KMT) Kerman  may be used. In order to see the relative contributions from the one-step and the two-step processes, we use a plane-wave approximation. The total Hamiltonian $`H`$ is written as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+V,`$ (1)
$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`H_\mathrm{p}+H_\mathrm{T},`$ (2)
where $`H_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`H_\mathrm{T}`$ are the projectile and the target Hamiltonians, respectively, and $`V`$ is the sum of the two-body interactions between the projectile and the target nucleons.

### II.1 One-step processes

The one-step $`T`$ matrix is written in the KMT formalism as

$$T_{n0}^{(1)}(𝐤_\mathrm{f},𝐤_\mathrm{i})\frac{A}{A1}𝐤_\mathrm{f}|\mathrm{\Phi }_n|\frac{A1}{A}\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}t_i|\mathrm{\Phi }_0|𝐤_\mathrm{i},$$
(3)
where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ are the eigenstates of the target nucleus with the excitation energy $`E_n^{\mathrm{int}}`$; $`𝐤_\mathrm{i}`$, $`𝐤_\mathrm{f}`$ are the incident and final momenta, respectively; $`t_i`$ is the transition matrix for the projectile and the $`i`$ th nucleon in the target; and $`A`$ is the target mass number.

In the impulse approximation, $`t_i`$ is approximated by the free nucleon-nucleon transition matrix (NN $`t`$ matrix) $`t_{\mathrm{NN}}`$. Further in the $`t\rho `$ approximation the one-step $`T`$ matrix is rewritten as

$$T_{n0}^{(1)}(𝐤_\mathrm{f},𝐤_\mathrm{i})=t_{\mathrm{NN}}(𝐪)\mathrm{\Phi }_n|\rho (𝐪)|\mathrm{\Phi }_0,n0,$$
(4)
where $`𝐪=𝐤_\mathrm{f}𝐤_\mathrm{i}`$ is the transferred momentum, and $`\rho (𝐪){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}}e^{i𝐪𝐫_i}`$ is the density operator in the momentum space without the spin dependence.

To analyze the spin observables we inevitably treat the spin dependence explicitly. We introduce the unit vectors

$$\widehat{𝐪}=\frac{𝐪}{|𝐪|},\widehat{𝐧}=\frac{𝐤_\mathrm{i}\times 𝐤_\mathrm{f}}{|𝐤_\mathrm{i}\times 𝐤_\mathrm{f}|},\widehat{𝐩}=\widehat{𝐪}\times \widehat{𝐧}.$$
(5)
In the coordinate system $`[\widehat{𝐪},\widehat{𝐧},\widehat{𝐩}]`$ the NN $`t`$ matrices can be decomposed as

$$t_{\mathrm{NN}}(𝐪)=\underset{\mu \overline{\mu }}{}\sigma _{0\mu }\sigma _{i\overline{\mu }}t_{\mu \overline{\mu }}(𝐪),$$
(6)
with $`\mu ,\overline{\mu }=u,q,n,p`$, where $`\sigma _{ju}=I_j,\sigma _{j\mu }=\sigma _j\widehat{\mu }(\mu u,j=0,i)`$. The operator $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ denote the spin operators of the projectile and the $`i`$ th nucleon in the target, respectively.

The spin-longitudinal cross section $`ID_q`$ and the spin-transverse cross section $`ID_p`$ of the ($`p`$,$`n`$) reactions can be written as Nakaoka ; Bleszynski

$`ID_q`$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{M_\mathrm{R}}}t_{qq}^{}(𝐪)R_{qq}(𝐪,\omega ^{\mathrm{int}})t_{qq}(𝐪),`$ (7)
$`ID_p`$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{M_\mathrm{R}}}t_{pp}^{}(𝐪)R_{pp}(𝐪,\omega ^{\mathrm{int}})t_{pp}(𝐪),`$ (8)
$`K`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\mathrm{i}\mu _\mathrm{f}}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mathrm{f}}{k_\mathrm{i}}}`$ (9)
where $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ is the invariant mass of the residual nucleus, $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the total energy of the system, $`\omega ^{\mathrm{int}}`$ is the energy transfer between the intrinsic states, and $`\mu _\mathrm{i}(\mu _\mathrm{f})`$ is the reduced energy of the projectile (ejectile). The factor $`|d\omega ^{\mathrm{int}}/d\omega |=\sqrt{s}/M_\mathrm{R}`$ is the variable transformation coefficient between the energy transfer $`\omega `$ in the center of momentum frame and $`\omega ^{\mathrm{int}}`$, and $`R_{\overline{\mu }^{}\overline{\mu }}(𝐪,\omega ^{\mathrm{int}})`$ is the response function of the spin density fluctuation

$$R_{\overline{\mu }^{}\overline{\mu }}(𝐪,\omega ^{\mathrm{int}})\underset{n0}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\rho _{\overline{\mu }^{}}^{}(𝐪)|\mathrm{\Phi }_n\mathrm{\Phi }_n|\rho _{\overline{\mu }}(𝐪)|\mathrm{\Phi }_0\delta (\omega ^{\mathrm{int}}E_n^{\mathrm{int}}),$$
(10)
where $`\rho _{\overline{\mu }}(𝐪){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}}e^{i𝐪𝐫_i}\sigma _{i\overline{\mu }}`$. The response functions $`R_{qq}`$ and $`R_{pp}`$ are nothing but the spin-longitudinal and the spin-transverse response functions $`R_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`R_\mathrm{T}`$, respectively. The nuclear correlations are not included in this paper.

### II.2 Two-step processes

In the two-step processes the $`T`$ matrix is written as

$$T_{n0}^{(2)}(𝐤_\mathrm{f},𝐤_\mathrm{i})=\frac{A}{A1}\underset{n^{}0}{}\frac{d𝐤_\mathrm{m}}{(2\pi )^3}𝐤_\mathrm{f}|\mathrm{\Phi }_n|\frac{A1}{A}\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}t_i|\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}|𝐤_\mathrm{m}\times G_n^{}(𝐤_\mathrm{m})𝐤_\mathrm{m}|\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}|\frac{A1}{A}\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}t_i|\mathrm{\Phi }_0|𝐤_\mathrm{i}.$$
(11)
Since we adopt a plane-wave approximation, the Green’s function is diagonal with respect to $`𝐤_\mathrm{m}`$ as

$$G_n^{}(𝐤_\mathrm{m})\frac{1}{E\sqrt{M^2+𝐤_\mathrm{m}^2}\sqrt{(M_\mathrm{T}+E_n^{}^{\mathrm{int}})^2+𝐤_\mathrm{m}^2}+iϵ},$$
(12)
where $`M`$ is the nucleon mass and $`M_\mathrm{T}`$ is the target mass.

The target gets excited after the first collision, but assuming that the particle-hole pair created in the first collision has nothing to do with the second collision, we get $`ID_q`$ and $`ID_p`$ as Nakaoka

$`ID_q`$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _1\frac{d𝐪_1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d𝐪_1^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{\mu _2\mu _2^{}}{}\underset{\mu _1\mu _1^{}}{}X_{\mu _2^{}\mu _2\mu _1^{}\mu _1}^{(2)}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(\sigma _{0\mu _1^{}}\sigma _{0\mu _2^{}}\sigma _q)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(\sigma _q\sigma _{0\mu _2}\sigma _{0\mu _1})},`$ (13)
$`ID_p`$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _1\frac{d𝐪_1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d𝐪_1^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{\mu _2\mu _2^{}}{}\underset{\mu _1\mu _1^{}}{}X_{\mu _2^{}\mu _2\mu _1^{}\mu _1}^{(2)}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(\sigma _{0\mu _1^{}}\sigma _{0\mu _2^{}}\sigma _p)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(\sigma _p\sigma _{0\mu _2}\sigma _{0\mu _1})},`$ (14)
respectively, where $`𝐪_1=𝐤_\mathrm{m}𝐤_\mathrm{i}`$, $`\omega _1`$ is the first-step energy transfer in the center of mass frame, and

$`X_{\mu _2^{}\mu _2\mu _1^{}\mu _1}^{(2)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_\mathrm{R}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A1}{A}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{\mu }_2\overline{\mu }_2^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{\mu }_1\overline{\mu }_1^{}}{}}t_{\mu _2^{}\overline{\mu }_2^{}}^{}(𝐪𝐪_1^{})t_{\mu _2\overline{\mu }_2}(𝐪𝐪_1)R_{\overline{\mu }_2^{}\overline{\mu }_2}(𝐪𝐪_1,𝐪𝐪_1^{};\omega ^{\mathrm{int}}\omega _1^{\mathrm{int}})`$ (15)
$`\times `$ $`G^{}(𝐤_\mathrm{i}+𝐪_1^{};\omega _1^{\mathrm{int}})G(𝐤_\mathrm{i}+𝐪_1;\omega _1^{\mathrm{int}})t_{\mu _1^{}\overline{\mu }_1^{}}^{}(𝐪_1^{})t_{\mu _1\overline{\mu }_1}(𝐪_1)R_{\overline{\mu }_1^{}\overline{\mu }_1}(𝐪_1,𝐪_1^{};\omega _1^{\mathrm{int}})`$
with $`\mu _1,\overline{\mu }_1=u,q_1,n_1,p_1`$ and $`\mu _2,\overline{\mu }_2=u,q_2,n_2,p_2`$. Here we define the unit vectors

$$\widehat{𝐪}_2=\frac{𝐪𝐪_1}{|𝐪𝐪_1|},\widehat{𝐧}_2=\frac{𝐤_\mathrm{f}\times \widehat{𝐪}_2}{|𝐤_\mathrm{f}\times \widehat{𝐪}_2|},\widehat{𝐩}_2=\widehat{𝐪}_2\times \widehat{𝐧}_2.$$
(16)
The excitation energy in the Green’s function was replaced with the first-step intrinsic energy transfer $`\omega _1^{\mathrm{int}}`$, and the response function is extended to a nondiagonal form with respect to the transferred momentum $`𝐪`$ as

$$R_{\overline{\mu }^{}\overline{\mu }}(𝐪,𝐪^{};\omega ^{\mathrm{int}})=\underset{n0}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\rho _{\overline{\mu }^{}}^{}(𝐪^{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_n\mathrm{\Phi }_n|\rho _{\overline{\mu }}(𝐪)|\mathrm{\Phi }_0\delta (\omega ^{\mathrm{int}}E_n^{\mathrm{int}}).$$
(17)
The factor $`(A1)/A`$ in Eq. (15) represents that the struck nucleon in the first step is never struck again in the second step.

The interference terms with $`T_{n0}^{(1)}`$ and $`T_{n0}^{(2)}`$ are neglected. Exact target states are the sum of 1$`p`$-1$`h`$ states, 2$`p`$-2$`h`$ states, and so on. The coefficients of 1$`p`$-1$`h`$ states are expected to be random with respect to the exact target states for a fixed 1$`p`$-1$`h`$ state. Then the target states can be represented by 1$`p`$-1$`h`$ states with a statistical distribution function.

It can be considered that the different order $`T`$ matrices mainly excite different number particle-hole states. Then, the final state of $`T_{n0}^{(1)}`$ is different from that of $`T_{n0}^{(2)}`$. Hence the contribution from the interference terms can be neglected.

In Fig. 2 the integration region in the transferred momentum space is shown. Outside the spheres drawn with solid lines the values of the response functions are negligible. With this property of the response functions the integration region is restricted within the overlap region of the two spheres.

In the limit of $`ϵ=0`$, the Green’s function is rewritten as

$`G`$ $`(𝐤_\mathrm{m};\omega _1^{\mathrm{int}})=𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E\sqrt{M^2+𝐤_\mathrm{m}^2}\sqrt{(M_\mathrm{T}+\omega _1^{\mathrm{int}})^2+𝐤_\mathrm{m}^2}}}`$ (18)
$``$ $`i\pi \delta \left(E\sqrt{M^2+𝐤_\mathrm{m}^2}\sqrt{(M_\mathrm{T}+\omega _1^{\mathrm{int}})^2+𝐤_\mathrm{m}^2}\right).`$
In our previous paper the principal part of the Green’s function is neglected (the on-energy shell approximation). With the $`\delta `$ functions the integration region was restricted onto the surface of the sphere drawn with a dashed line in Fig. 2.

Since the validity of this approximation is questionable it is removed. We first calculate the sevenfold integration in Eqs. (13) and (14) for several finite values of $`ϵ`$ in the Green’s function to avoid the singularity that appears at $`ϵ=0`$. We then extrapolate the results to those at $`ϵ=0`$.

## III Numerical calculation

### III.1 Suppression of energy transfer dependence

In Ref. Nakaoka  the process in which the incident particle loses the energy $`\omega _1`$ in the first collision and propagates in the intermediate state at the energy that is smaller by $`\omega _1`$ than the incident energy is described, but in this paper the $`\omega _1`$ dependence is removed from the NN $`t`$ matrices in the second step and from the Green’s functions to make the sevenfold integration easier.

To justify this approximation we show in Fig. 3 the $`\omega _1`$ dependence of the two-step cross sections with the on-energy shell approximation. The removal of the $`\omega _1`$ dependence from the NN $`t`$ matrices slightly decreases the two-step cross sections for both $`ID_q`$ and $`ID_p`$. Further removal of the $`\omega _1`$ dependence from the Green’s functions makes them increase a little. In spite of these procedures the total variations in the two-step cross sections with the on-energy shell approximation are negligible.

The suppression is also expected to have little effect on the estimation of the two-step cross sections without the on-energy shell approximation, because the on-energy shell approximation is a restriction of the integration region with respect to the transferred momentum space and has nothing to do with the integration of the energy transfer $`\omega _1`$.

### III.2 Parameters and mesh sizes

The two-step cross sections are calculated at $`ϵ=5.0`$, 10.0, 15.0, and 20.0 MeV. The mesh sizes of the numerical integration are almost the same as those in Ref. Nakaoka , although the $`z`$ axis is set parallel to the direction of $`𝐪`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _1^{\mathrm{int}}=10.0`$ MeV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_1^{\mathrm{int}}=0.2`$(1/fm), where $`q_1^{\mathrm{int}}=\{(A1)/A\}q_1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta _1=0.125`$. We set $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _1=\pi /96,\pi /48`$ for $`ϵ=5.0`$, and 10.0 MeV, respectively, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _1=\pi /24`$ for $`ϵ=15.0`$, and 20.0 MeV.

## IV Results

Figure 4 shows the two-step cross sections of 12C($`p`$,$`n`$) reaction at 494 MeV as a function of $`ϵ`$ at the energy transfer of 85 MeV. By extrapolating the calculated two-step cross sections toward $`ϵ=0.0`$ MeV, they are expected to be 1.90 and 1.93 times as much as the results with the on-energy shell approximation.

Figure 5 shows the cross sections of 12C($`p`$,$`n`$) reaction at 494 MeV as a function of the energy transfer in the laboratory frame, $`\omega _{\mathrm{lab}}`$, where the two-step cross sections without the on-energy shell approximation are extrapolated to $`ϵ=0.0`$ MeV. The two-step cross sections increase as the energy transfer increases. The results with the on-energy shell approximation are shown with dotted-dashed lines.

The ratios of the two-step cross sections to the one-step ones at $`\omega _{\mathrm{lab}}=125`$ MeV are about $`47\%`$ and $`114\%`$ for $`ID_q`$ and $`ID_p`$, respectively. Those with the on-energy shell approximation are revised to include the factor $`(A1)^2/A^2`$ in Eq. (15) and they are $`24\%`$ and $`59\%`$, respectively. The relative contribution is much larger in $`ID_p`$ than in $`ID_q`$. These data are displayed in Table 1.

The cross sections of 12C($`p`$,$`n`$) reaction at 346 MeV are shown in Fig. 6. The ratios are $`59\%`$ and $`116\%`$ at $`\omega _{\mathrm{lab}}=125`$ MeV, and those with the on-energy shell approximation are $`34\%`$ and $`66\%`$.

The cross sections of 40Ca($`p`$,$`n`$) reactions at 494 MeV and at 346 MeV are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. The ratios at $`\omega _{\mathrm{lab}}=121`$ MeV are shown in Table 1.

Since the two-step cross sections are calculated in the plane-wave approximation, it is difficult to know whether these results account for the underestimation of $`ID_q`$ and $`ID_p`$. One possible way of showing the two-step effects may be to multiply the uncorrelated DWIA results Kawahigashi  with the ratios of the two-step cross sections to the one-step cross sections in the plane-wave approximation. Then these renormalized contributions are added to the DWIA results with the RPA correlation, since the response functions without the RPA correlation were used in the plane-wave calculation of the one-step and the two-step cross sections.

The two-step contributions for the 12C($`p`$,$`n`$) reaction at 494 MeV thus obtained are shown in Fig. 9. The numerical results get closer to the experimental result both in $`ID_q`$ and $`ID_p`$ than the previous estimation with the on-energy shell approximation. The two-step cross sections have contributions comparable to the discrepancy between the DWIA results and the experimental ones.

The result for the 40Ca($`p`$,$`n`$) reaction at 494 MeV is displayed in Fig. 10. The calculated results approach the experimental results both in $`ID_q`$ and $`ID_p`$ and account for a significant portion of the previously underestimated spin-transverse cross section. Here one must note that the present estimation of the two-step contribution with distortion is crude, but Figs. 9 and 10 indicate to what extent the two-step processes are important to account for the discrepancy between the DWIA results and the experimental results.

## V Discussion

In this section a qualitative explanation for the origin of the difference between the results with and without the on-energy shell approximation is considered by first defining

$`\stackrel{~}{X}^{(2)}(\omega _1^{\mathrm{int}})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐪_1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d𝐪_1^{}}{(2\pi )^3}t_{\mathrm{NN}}(𝐪𝐪_1)t_{\mathrm{NN}}^{}(𝐪𝐪_1^{})R(𝐪𝐪_1,𝐪𝐪_1^{};\omega ^{\mathrm{int}}\omega _1^{\mathrm{int}})}`$ (19)
$`\times `$ $`G(𝐤_\mathrm{i}+𝐪_1)G^{}(𝐤_\mathrm{i}+𝐪_1^{})t_{\mathrm{NN}}(𝐪_1)t_{\mathrm{NN}}^{}(𝐪_1^{})R(𝐪_1,𝐪_1^{};\omega _1^{\mathrm{int}}),`$
which is Eq. (13) or (14) but the integration with $`\omega _1`$ is not included. Here we suppressed the spin dependence for simplicity. Because the on-energy shell approximation is a restriction of the integration region in the transferred momentum space, the accuracy of the on-energy shell approximation is considered only with regards to the integrations of the transferred momenta.

The quantity $`\stackrel{~}{X}^{(2)}`$ has to be the square of the absolute value of a complex number, because the cross section is obtained from the square of the $`T`$ matrix. Actually the response function is the sum of target excited states as written in Eq. (17) and each term is divided into a function of $`𝐪_1`$ and a function of $`𝐪_1^{}`$, and Eq. (19) is rewritten as the product of the integration of $`𝐪_1`$ and its complex conjugate, i.e., the integration of $`𝐪_1^{}`$.

Dividing the Green’s functions into the real part and the imaginary part, one gets

$`\stackrel{~}{X}^{(2)}(\omega _1^{\mathrm{int}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐪_1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d𝐪_1^{}}{(2\pi )^3}t_{\mathrm{NN}}(𝐪𝐪_1)t_{\mathrm{NN}}^{}(𝐪𝐪_1^{})R(𝐪𝐪_1,𝐪𝐪_1^{};\omega ^{\mathrm{int}}\omega _1^{\mathrm{int}})}`$ (20)
$`\times `$ $`\{\mathrm{Re}G(𝐤_\mathrm{i}+𝐪_1)\mathrm{Re}G(𝐤_\mathrm{i}+𝐪_1^{})+i\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤_\mathrm{i}+𝐪_1)\mathrm{Re}G(𝐤_\mathrm{i}+𝐪_1^{})`$
$``$ $`i\mathrm{Re}G(𝐤_\mathrm{i}+𝐪_1)\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤_\mathrm{i}+𝐪_1^{})+\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤_\mathrm{i}+𝐪_1)\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤_\mathrm{i}+𝐪_1^{})\}`$
$`\times `$ $`t_{\mathrm{NN}}(𝐪_1)t_{\mathrm{NN}}^{}(𝐪_1^{})R(𝐪_1,𝐪_1^{};\omega _1^{\mathrm{int}})`$
It is the fourth term that remains when the on-energy shell approximation is applied. The same argument as in the previous paragraph can be made with respect to the first term and the fourth term, and both of these two terms become positive. The second and the third terms are the complex conjugate of each other, and the sum gives a real number. However, the contributions to $`ID_q`$ and $`ID_p`$ from the second and the third terms are found to be small. In Fig. 4, they are only $`1.7\times 10^4`$ and $`2.7\times 10^4`$ out of $`1.29\times 10^2`$ mb and $`1.08\times 10^2`$ mb at $`ϵ=20.0`$ MeV, respectively. Therefore the cross sections obtained in Sec. IV are larger than those with the on-energy shell approximation.

The contributions from the fourth term are displayed in Fig. 4 with dotted lines. Their extrapolation toward $`ϵ=0.0`$ MeV seem to hit the results with the on-energy shell approximation. This shows that the results obtained in Sec. IV are consistent with the previous estimations with the on-energy shell approximation.

## VI Summary

Two-step contribution to the intermediate energy ($`p`$,$`n`$) reactions were calculated using the plane-wave approximation. We carried out the integration beyond the on-energy shell. The ratios of two-step to one-step contributions were found to be larger for the spin-transverse cross sections than for the spin-longitudinal cross sections. The two-step cross sections without the on-energy shell approximation are about twice as large as our previous results with the on-energy shell approximation.

The cross sections including two-step processes were compared with experimental results. We conclude that the two-step cross sections have contributions comparable to the discrepancy between the DWIA and the experimental results in the highly excited region for $`ID_q`$ and they account for a portion of the previously underestimated $`ID_p`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would be grateful to Professor Hideyuki Sakai, the University of Tokyo, Professor Munetake Ichimura, Hosei University, for useful advices, and to Professor Mark B. Greenfield, International Christian University, for improving the English of the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# MKPH-T-00-12 The Role of Meson Retardation in Deuteron Photodisintegration above Pion Threshold 2footnote 22footnote 2Supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 443).

## I Introduction

Recently we have constructed in , henceforth denoted as I, a realistic hadronic interaction model in the two-nucleon system which takes into account meson retardation completely. This model is based on meson, nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ degrees of freedom, and it is able to describe $`NN`$ scattering quite satisfactorily also above pion threshold. However, for technical reasons it only allows configurations where maximal one meson is present explicitly at a time. Within this restriction, full meson retardation in the potentials has been incorporated in a consistent manner. The motivation for this work was twofold: First of all, from the general principle of relativity any interaction has to be retarded taking into account the finite velocity of its propagation. With respect to the $`NN`$ interaction, this is particularly evident for energies above pion threshold, where an exchanged pion can become an onshell particle, so that the retarded meson propagator becomes singular describing the coupling of the $`NN`$ channel to the now open $`\pi NN`$ channel. Secondly, there is strong evidence in deuteron photodisintegration above $`\pi `$ threshold, in particular in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance region, that neglected retardation is one major cause for the failure to describe experimental data by quite sophisticated theoretical treatments which, however, are based on static interactions and corresponding static exchange currents. Indeed, first results have demonstrated clearly the considerable improvement of the theory if retardation is considered .

In the present work, we have studied deuteron photodisintegration in greater detail with respect to the influences of the various ingredients of the theoretical framework developed in I. In Sect. II we discuss the general structure of the e.m. current operator, which consists of the baryonic components, for example, the one-body spin, convection, and isobar currents, as well as of mechanisms where mesons, especially pions, are created or absorbed. The latter ones are a natural consequence of the incorporation of mesons as explicit degrees of freedom. As is well known, the internal absorption of a photon by a nucleon creating an intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar is of particular importance in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance region. Therefore, Sect. III is devoted to a careful determination of the corresponding $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling by studying the $`M_{1+}^{(3/2)}`$ multipole in pion photoproduction on the nucleon. In this way, all parameters of the theory are fixed in advance before studying electromagnetic reactions in the two-nucleon system. In the following Sect. IV the resulting effective current, acting in the baryonic space only, is derived. Special emphasis is devoted to the structure of the retarded MEC which has, in contrast to its static counterpart, a singular structure above $`\pi `$ threshold describing the coupling of the $`NN`$ to the $`\pi NN`$ channel. In Sect. V the question of gauge invariance is discussed. The results for total and differential cross sections as well as for selected polarization observables are presented in Sect. VI. Finally, Sect. VII contains a summary and an outlook.

## II The electromagnetic current operator

The transition amplitude $`T_{fi}`$, which describes the absorption of a photon by a hadronic system making a transition from an initial state $`|\stackrel{}{p}_i,i`$ to a final state $`|\stackrel{}{p}_f,f`$, is given in Coulomb gauge by the Fourier component of the e.m. current matrix element $`\stackrel{}{J}_{fi}(\stackrel{}{k})`$

$$\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{p}_f\stackrel{}{p}_i\stackrel{}{k})T_{fi}=\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )\stackrel{}{J}_{fi}(\stackrel{}{k}),$$
(1)
where the polarization vector of the incoming photon with momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and helicity $`\lambda `$ is denoted by $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )`$.

### A The general structure of the current

We begin with a brief discussion of the formal structure of the e.m. current. As has been described in detail in I, the model Hilbert space of the two-nucleon system consists of three orthogonal subspaces

$$^{[2]}=_{\overline{N}}^{[2]}_\mathrm{\Delta }^{[2]}_X^{[2]}$$
(2)
containing either two bare nucleons $`(_{\overline{N}}^{[2]})`$, one nucleon and one $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`_\mathrm{\Delta }^{[2]})`$, or two nucleons and one meson $`(_X^{[2]})`$. Accordingly, the current operator can be decomposed into various diagonal and non diagonal components. With the help of the projection operators $`P_{\overline{N}}`$, $`P_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`P_X`$ onto the above subspaces, respectively (see I), the current $`J^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})`$ can be written as a symbolic $`3\times 3`$ matrix

$$J^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J_{\overline{N}\overline{N}}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})& J_{\overline{N}\mathrm{\Delta }}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})& J_{\overline{N}X}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})\\ J_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})& J_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})& J_{\mathrm{\Delta }X}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})\\ J_{X\overline{N}}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})& J_{X\mathrm{\Delta }}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})& J_{XX}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})\end{array}\right).$$
(3)
Now, we will discuss the various components in detail. We distinguish between pure “baryonic” currents, “one-meson production/annihilation” currents, and the remaining currents, and divide the first one further into one- and two-body operators, labeled by a superscript “” and “”, respectively. The diagonal baryonic currents $`J_{\overline{N}\overline{N}}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})`$ and $`J_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})`$ are represented diagrammatically in Fig. 1. The two-body parts comprise effective exchange currents, like for example, heavy meson exchange currents, which are not generated explicitly via the elementary meson-baryon vertices and the meson production/annhilation currents. The transition current $`J_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})`$, also represented in Fig. 1, describes the e.m. excitation of a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance including two-body contributions.

The other transition current $`J_{X\overline{N}}^\mu `$ consists of three components, namely $`j_{X\overline{N}}^{(0)\mu }`$, $`j_{X\overline{N}}^{(1)\mu }`$, and $`j_{X\overline{N}}^{(1v)\mu }`$, where the superscript “(0)” or “(1)” indicates the order with respect to the meson-nucleon coupling constant. Of these, the one-meson production currents $`j_{X\overline{N}}^{(1)\mu }`$ and $`j_{X\overline{N}}^{(1v)\mu }`$ are shown in Fig. 2. Note that the current $`J_{X\mathrm{\Delta }}^\mu `$ is not present because it is set equal to zero (see the discussion in Sect. IV D). In detail, $`j_{X\overline{N}}^{(1)\mu }`$ denotes the contact current which is related to the Kroll-Rudermann term of pion photoproduction, and $`j_{X\overline{N}}^{(1v)\mu }`$ the vertex-current, which is generated by the hadronic vertex form factors. We include in $`J_{X\overline{N}}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})`$ in general only the pion as most important contribution to the retarded exchange currents with one exception, namely those parts which are necessary for generating the retarded $`\gamma \pi \rho /\omega `$ MEC. This current is of some relevance in deuteron photodisintegration and therefore is taken into account. The remaining current $`j_{X\overline{N}}^{(0)\mu }`$, which is a pure mesonic transition current, is shown in diagram (a) of Fig. 3 together with the two one-body parts of the diagonal component $`J_{XX}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})`$, describing the coupling of a photon to a nucleon (meson) with a spectating meson-nucleon (nucleon-nucleon) state (see diagrams (b) and (c), respectively). These contributions are denoted as $`j_{XX}^{\overline{N}\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ and $`j_{XX}^{X\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$, respectively. The current $`j_{X\overline{N}}^{(0)\mu }`$ gives an important contribution to the retarded MEC which, however, violates the one-meson-approximation, being another pathology of this approximation which we had alluded to in I. But neglecting it, would lead to a severe violation of gauge invariance for the retarded $`\pi `$ MEC. Therefore, it has to be included perturbatively in the construction of the corresponding effective exchange operator.

### B Explicit form of the current components

Most of the currents are obtained by the canonical method of minimal coupling, and the corresponding matrix elements of $`J^\mu `$ are derived in a straightforward manner and need not be given here explicitly. The nucleon one-body current, appearing in $`j_{\overline{N}\overline{N}}^{[1]\mu }`$ and $`j_{XX}^{\overline{N}\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$, needs some special consideration. Since we start from bare nucleons, the corresponding current $`j_{\overline{N}\overline{N}}^{[1]\mu }`$ is given by a Dirac current with vanishing anomalous magnetic moment $`\kappa `$. However, as discussed in detail in I, the bare nucleon becomes dressed by meson-nucleon loop contributions (see Appendix A of I). Consequently, the dressed nucleon acquires a nonvanishing anomalous magnetic moment by the presence of this meson cloud (see Fig. 4). However, it is not in agreement with the experimental value as needed for a realistic treatment of photonuclear reactions. Therefore, we substitute the dressed nucleon current of the model by the onshell current with the experimental value for $`\kappa `$. The corresponding nonrelativistic current is denoted by $`j_{real}^{nr,\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ and contains the usual convection and spin part. In addition, we also take into account the relativistic spin-orbit current as most important relativistic contribution of leading order. This relativistic contribution is quite important in photodisintegration of the deuteron, even at low energies .

It is obvious that the above substitution of the physical onshell nucleon current creates formally several inconsistencies. For example, the neglect of the explicit evaluation of the loop diagrams leads to a violation of unitarity if the nucleon current operator is evaluated in the two-nucleon system where the initial and/or final nucleon can become offshell. In this case, some of the loops implicitly present could become singular above pion threshold and, therefore, would lead to an imaginary part describing real meson production.

Now we will consider the remaining current contributions. The matrix elements of the vertex current $`j_{\overline{N}X}^{(1v)\lambda }`$ are given by

$`\overline{N}(\stackrel{}{p}^{})|\rho _{\overline{N}X_\pi }^{(1v)}(\stackrel{}{k})|\pi (\stackrel{}{q},\mu )\overline{N}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4)
$`\overline{N}(\stackrel{}{p}^{})|\stackrel{}{ȷ}_{\overline{N}X_\pi }^{(1v)}(\stackrel{}{k})|\pi (\stackrel{}{q},\mu )\overline{N}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{g_\pi ^0}{2M_N}}[\widehat{e},\tau _\mu ](2\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{k})i\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{F_\pi (\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})F_\pi ((\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{k})^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{k})^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}},`$ (5)
where $`\widehat{e}=e(1+\tau _3)/2`$, and a pion state with momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and isospin projection $`\mu `$ is denoted by $`|\pi (\stackrel{}{q},\mu )`$. As next, we identify the nucleon current contribution in the presence of a spectator meson, $`j_{XX}^{\overline{N}\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$, with the normal nucleon current

$`\pi (\stackrel{}{q},\mu )\overline{N}(\stackrel{}{p}^{})|j_{XX}^{\overline{N}\lambda }(\stackrel{}{k})|\pi (\stackrel{}{q}^{},\mu ^{})\overline{N}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\left(2\pi \right)^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\omega (\stackrel{}{q})\delta (\stackrel{}{q}^{}\stackrel{}{q})\overline{N}(\stackrel{}{p}^{})|j_{real}^{nr,\lambda }(\stackrel{}{k})|\overline{N}(\stackrel{}{p}).`$ (6)
The current components for the $`\gamma \pi \rho /\omega `$ currents cannot be obtained by minimal substitution, but from the usual interaction Lagrangian

$$_{\gamma \pi x}=\frac{eg_{\gamma \pi x}}{4m_x}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\left(^\nu A^\mu ^\mu A^\nu \right)\left(^\sigma \varphi _x^\lambda ^\lambda \varphi _x^\sigma \right)\varphi _\pi \text{with}x\{\rho ,\omega \}.$$
(7)
The electromagnetic coupling constants $`g_{\gamma \pi x}`$, as determined from the decay of the vector meson into a pion and a photon, are

$$g_{\gamma \pi \rho }=0.41,g_{\gamma \pi \omega }=2.02.$$
(8)
Now, we will turn to the currents in which a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar is involved. For the direct electromagnetic exitation $`\gamma +\overline{N}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we take the usual nonrelativistic form which contains a magnetic dipole ($`M1`$) and an electric quadrupole ($`E2`$) transition. The analysis of pion photoproduction on the nucleon indicates that the $`E2`$ transition is largely suppressed compared to the dominant $`M1`$ transition. Therefore, we neglect the $`E2`$ contribution and thus take as current

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{\Delta })|\stackrel{}{ȷ}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(\stackrel{}{k})|\overline{N}(\stackrel{}{p}_{\overline{N}})`$ $`=`$ $`e\tau _{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{p}_{\overline{N}}\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{G_{M1}^{0\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}}{2M_N}}i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}\times \stackrel{}{k}_{\gamma N},`$ (9)
with

$`\stackrel{}{k}_{\gamma N}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{k}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{\Delta }^{res}M_N}{M_\mathrm{\Delta }^{res}}}\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{\Delta },\text{where}M_\mathrm{\Delta }^{res}=1232\text{MeV}.`$ (10)
The corresponding $`\gamma \overline{N}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ charge, which is associated with the current contribution proportional to $`\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, is of minor importance and therefore neglected in this work. The $`M1`$ strength is determined by fitting the $`M_{1+}^{(3/2)}`$ multipole amplitude in pion photoproduction on the nucleon which will be the topic of the next section.

At the end of this section we will fix the remaining current contributions $`J_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})`$, $`J_{\overline{N}\overline{N}}^{[2]\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ and $`J_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}^{[2]\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$. Due to the absence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}`$ components in the deuteron wave function, the current $`J_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})`$ cannot contribute to the electromagnetic deuteron break-up. $`J_{\overline{N}\overline{N}}^{[2]\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ is identified with the $`\rho `$ MEC $`J^{(\rho )\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$, which is the most important two-body current besides the $`\pi `$ MEC. Note, that first of all in $`J_{\overline{N}\overline{N}}^{[2]\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ as well as in $`J_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}^{[2]\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ bare couplings occur, which have to be renormalized (see Eq. 48 in Sect. IV C). In our approach, $`J^{(\rho )\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ is taken in the strictly nonrelativistic form . One should note that, due to the neglect of retardation in $`\stackrel{}{J}^{(\rho )}(\stackrel{}{k})`$, this MEC is not fully consistent with the $`\rho `$ exchange of the Elster-Potential which serves as basic $`NN`$ interaction in this work (see I). Similarly, the second contribution $`J_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}^{[2]\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ is identified with the static pionic $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ MEC $`\stackrel{}{J}_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(\pi )}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ in the nonrelativistic limit . In photodisintegration, this current contribution is almost negligible.

## III The $`M_{1+}^{(3/2)}`$ multipole of pion photoproduction

In order to fix the coupling constant $`G_{M1}^{0\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}`$ for the $`M1`$ excitation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance, we now will consider the $`M_{1+}^{(3/2)}`$ multipole of pion photoproduction on the nucleon. The production amplitude is given by the sum of a Born and a resonance part (see Fig. 5)

$`t_{\pi \gamma }(z)`$ $`=`$ $`t_{\pi \gamma }^{Born}(z)+t_{\pi \gamma }^{Res}(z).`$ (11)
The resonance part is given in compact form by

$$t_{\pi \gamma }^{Res}(z)=v_{X_\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}g_\mathrm{\Delta }(z)\stackrel{~}{ȷ}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(z),$$
(12)
where $`g_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denotes the dressed $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator as introduced in I. The effective, energy dependent $`\gamma \overline{N}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current $`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(z)`$ contains a direct and a rescattering part, i.e.

$$\stackrel{~}{ȷ}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(z)=\frac{j_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}}{\overline{N}_{[1]}}+v_{\mathrm{\Delta }X_\pi }g_0(z)t_{\pi \gamma }^{Born}(z).$$
(13)
where $`g_0`$ denotes the nucleon propagator, and $`\overline{N}_{[1]}`$ a renormalization constant in the one-nucleon sector as defined in the Appendix A of I.

The dominant contributions to the Born amplitude to the $`M_{1+}^{(3/2)}`$ amplitude are displayed in Fig. 6. They consist of the time ordered pion pole diagrams and the crossed nucleon pole diagram. Following the procedure in , less important mechanisms like $`\omega `$ exchange will be taken into account effectively by a parameter $`b`$ which is close to unity. Thus we use explicitly as Born amplitude

$`\pi (\stackrel{}{q}\mu )N(\stackrel{}{q})|t_{M_{1+}^{(3/2)}}^{Born}(z)|\gamma (\stackrel{}{k})\overline{N}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`b{\displaystyle \frac{g_\pi }{2M}}[\widehat{e},\tau _\mu ^{}]\stackrel{}{ϵ}(2\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k})i\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k})F_\pi ((\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k})^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})`$ (16)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k})}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zk\omega (\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k})e_N^{nr}(\stackrel{}{q})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z\omega (\stackrel{}{q})\omega (\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k})e_N^{nr}(\stackrel{}{k})}}\right]`$
$`b{\displaystyle \frac{g_\pi }{4M_N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{e}\tau _\mu ^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}(2\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{k})i\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{q}+(\widehat{e}+\widehat{\kappa })\tau _\mu ^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\times \stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{q}}{zk\omega (\stackrel{}{q})e_N^{nr}(\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{k})}}F_\pi (\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}),`$
where the form factor $`F_\pi `$ and the pion-nucleon coupling constant $`g_\pi `$ are given by the underlying $`NN`$ interaction (here the Elster-potential, see Table I in I). The parameter $`b`$ and the renormalized $`\gamma \overline{N}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling constant $`G_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}=G_{M1}^{0\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}/\overline{N}_{[1]}`$ are fitted to the experimental data of Arndt et al.  (solution SM97K) yielding

$$G_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}=3.91\text{ and }b=0.84.$$
(17)
We would like to emphasize that Watson’s theorem  is exactly fulfilled below two-pion threshold. In view of small but significant differences of the experimental $`P_{33}`$-phases determined from $`\pi N`$ scattering versus pion photoproduction, we have determined $`G_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}`$ and $`b`$ as well as the hadronic parameters $`f_{\mathrm{\Delta }\pi N}^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }\pi N}`$, and $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ by a simultaneous fit of the $`M_{1+}^{(3/2)}`$ multipole and the $`P_{33}`$ partial wave of $`\pi N`$ scattering (see Figs. 7 and 8).

As next, we would like to introduce the effective strength $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(z,k)`$ which is defined by the matrix element of the effective current $`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}^\mu (z)`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ rest frame

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{\Delta }=0)|\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{ȷ}}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(z,\stackrel{}{k})|\overline{N}(\stackrel{}{p}_{\overline{N}})=e\tau _{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_{\overline{N}}+\stackrel{}{k})\frac{\stackrel{~}{G}_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(z,k)}{2M_N}i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}\times \stackrel{}{k},$$
(18)
where for initial onshell nucleons $`z`$ and k are related by $`z=W+iϵ`$ with $`W=e_N^{nr}(\stackrel{}{k})+k`$. In the later discussion of the results this coupling will be referred to as $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(\text{eff1})`$. Because of the occurrence of intermediate pion-nucleon loops in the rescattering amplitude (see Fig. 5), $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(z,k)`$ becomes complex above $`\pi `$ threshold. Modulus $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}(W,k)`$ and phase $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(W,k)`$ of the effective coupling

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(z=W+iϵ,k)=\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}(W,k)e^{i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(W,k)}$$
(19)
are shown by the full curves in Fig. 9. Obviously, the energy dependence of the modulus is rather weak.

Finally, we would like to compare briefly the effective $`\gamma \overline{N}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling of Wilhelm et al. . Similar to , the onshell matrix element of the resonant amplitude together with the Born terms are fitted directly to experimental data without explicitly evaluating the rescattering amplitude. The parameters $`b`$ and $`F_\pi `$ are set equal to one, and the energy dependent ansatz is used

$`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}(W,k)=\mu _0+\mu _2\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{m_\pi }}\right)^2+\mu _4\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{m_\pi }}\right)^4\text{ and }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(W,k)={\displaystyle \frac{q^3}{a_1+a_2q^2}},`$ (20)
where $`W=e_N^{nr}(\stackrel{}{q})+\omega _\pi (\stackrel{}{q})`$ and $`q`$ denotes the momentum of the outgoing pion. The free parameters are fitted to the data of Berends and Donnachie . This coupling, denoted henceforth by $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(\text{eff2})`$, is represented by the dotted curves in Fig. 9. Note that the modulus of this coupling is considerably smaller at low energies than the one of our approach, where the rescattering amplitude is explicitly evaluated. As will be seen in Sect. VI, this feature turns out to be one of the reasons for the considerable underestimation of the total cross section of deuteron photodisintegration in .

## IV The effective current operator in deuteron photodisintegration

After having fixed all current components of (3), we will now construct an effective current operator, which acts in pure hadronic space, by eliminating all explicit meson d.o.f. It is defined by

$$f|PJ_{eff}^\mu (z,\stackrel{}{k})P|i=f|J^\mu (\stackrel{}{k})|i.$$
(21)
The initial and final states are given by the effective deuteron and outgoing $`NN`$ scattering states, respectively. Their explicit forms are given in (55) and (47) through (49) of I. We will evaluate the effective current in the antilab system, where the final $`NN`$ scattering state is at rest and the deuteron has total momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$. In principle, one would then need a boost contribution for the moving deuteron which, however, can safely be neglected according to the findings in .

Inserting the various components of the current into the rhs of (21), it turns out that the effective current operator can be split into a nucleonic and a resonant part with superscripts “$`N`$” and “$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$”, respectively, which in turn can be divided into one- and two-body terms denoted by superscripts “$`[1]`$” and “$`[2]`$”, respectively (see Fig. 10)

$$J_{eff}^\mu (z,\stackrel{}{k})=J_{eff}^{N[1]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})+J_{eff}^{\mathrm{\Delta }[1]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})+J_{eff}^{N[2]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})+J_{eff}^{\mathrm{\Delta }[2]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k}).$$
(22)
We would like to remark, that in this evaluation we have included perturbatively the contributions from the one-meson-approximation violating diagram (a) of Fig. 3. In this context, we have to introduce into the corresponding expressions below projection operators $`P_{x_1x_2}`$ on a state consisting of two nucleons and two mesons of type $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$.

### A The nucleonic one-body contribution $`J_{eff}^{N[1]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$

According to the discussion in subsection II B, this component is represented by the physical onshell current including the relativistic spin-orbit part

$`{}_{}{}^{()}NN;\stackrel{}{p},\alpha )|PJ_{eff}^{N[1]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})P|d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_d}}{}_{}{}^{()}NN;\stackrel{}{p},\alpha )|P_{\overline{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{Z}_{[2]}^{os}}{\widehat{R}(z)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\left(j_{real}^{nr,\mu }(i,\stackrel{}{k})+j^{so\mu }(i,\stackrel{}{k})\right)P_{\overline{N}}|d,`$ (23)
where $`\alpha `$ characterizes additional quantum numbers, and the normalization constant $`N_d`$ is given in Eq. (56) of I. It differs from unity in retarded approaches only (e.g., $`N_d=0.992`$ for the Elster-potential).

### B The resonant one-body contribution $`J_{eff}^{\mathrm{\Delta }[1]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$

The component $`J_{eff}^{\mathrm{\Delta }[1]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ is given essentially by the effective $`\gamma \overline{N}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current

$`{}_{}{}^{()}NN;\stackrel{}{p},\alpha )|P_\mathrm{\Delta }J_{eff}^{\mathrm{\Delta }[1]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})P_{\overline{N}}|d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_d}}{}_{}{}^{()}NN;\stackrel{}{p},\alpha )|P_\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,2;ij}{}}\left(\stackrel{~}{ȷ}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}^\mu (i,ze_N(\stackrel{}{p}_j),\stackrel{}{k})\right)\widehat{R}^\pi (zk)P_{\overline{N}}|d.`$ (24)
Note that similar to the Elster-Potential, we consider only pion-nucleon loops in $`\widehat{R}^\pi (zk)`$. The effective current $`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}^\mu (z)`$ has the same functional form as given in (9) except that $`G_{M1}^{0\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}`$ is replaced be the effective excitation strength $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(W_{sub}+iϵ,k_{\gamma N})`$, where

$`W_{sub}(W,\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`WM_N{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2\mu _{N\mathrm{\Delta }}}}`$ (25)
denotes the invariant mass of the $`\pi N`$ subsystem which we have evaluated for the spectator onshell choice. In the actual evaluations in the two-nucleon system, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}`$ is calculated in the rest frame of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, similar to the treatment in the $`M_{1+}^{(3/2)}`$ multipole. The difference with respect to the one-nucleon sector is that $`k_{\gamma N}`$ and $`W_{sub}`$ are not related by an onshell relation, i.e., $`e_N^{nr}(k_{\gamma N})+k_{\gamma N}W_{sub}`$. Because of the explicit evaluation of the pion-nucleon loop in the rescattering Born amplitude (cut A in diagram (c) of Fig. 5), this feature does not lead to any complications in practice. On the other hand, in the treatment of Wilhelm et al.  such an offshell extrapolation of $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}`$ is not possible. Therefore, they have used an onshell prescription

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(W_{sub}+iϵ,k_{\gamma N})\{\begin{array}{cc}G_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }N}(E_\mathrm{\Delta })\hfill & \text{for}E_\mathrm{\Delta }=W_{sub}>m_\pi +M_N,\hfill \\ G_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }N}(M_N+m_\pi )\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
It turns out that this onshell treatment for $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}`$ is a very good approximation, at least for photodisintegration, compared to the exact calculation, where the arguments $`k_{\gamma N}`$ and $`W_{sub}`$ in (26) are treated independently.

### C The nucleonic meson exchange current $`J_{eff}^{N[2]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$

The matrix element of $`J_{eff}^{N[2]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ has the following structure

$`{}_{}{}^{()}NN;\stackrel{}{p},\alpha )|P_{\overline{N}}J_{eff}^{N[2]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})P_{\overline{N}}|d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_d}}{}_{}{}^{()}NN;\stackrel{}{p},\alpha )|P_{\overline{N}}J_{eff}^{N[2]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{R}(zk)}{\widehat{Z}_{[2]}^{os}}}P_{\overline{N}}|d,`$ (27)
where $`J_{eff}^{N[2]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ consists of a static $`\rho `$ MEC, a retarded $`\pi `$ MEC, and a retarded $`\gamma \pi \rho /\omega `$-current $`J^{(diss)\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$

$`J_{eff}^{N[2]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`J^{(\rho )\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})+J^{(\pi )\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})+J^{(diss)\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k}).`$ (28)
A new feature of retardation is the fact, that above pion threshold the retarded currents can be split into a part containing a pole and a regular part ($`nonpole`$)

$`J^{(\pi )/(diss)\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`J_{pole}^{(\pi )/(diss)\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})+J_{nonpole}^{(\pi )/(diss)\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k}).`$ (29)
The pole part describes the reabsorption of a real pion by a nucleon. Furthermore, the retarded $`\pi `$ MEC splits into a contact ($`c`$), pion-in-flight ($`f`$), vertex ($`v`$) and recoil contribution ($`r`$)

$`J^{(\pi )\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`J^{(\pi )/c\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})+J^{(\pi )/f\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})+J^{(\pi )/v\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})+J^{(\pi )/r\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k}).`$ (30)
A graphical illustration of these currents is given in Fig. 11. In addition, because of the nonvanishing $`\pi d`$ interaction $`V_{XX}^0`$, currents like those depicted in Fig. 12 would have to be taken into account. However, a detailed analysis has shown that these contributions can be neglected in deuteron photodisintegration. This approximation is realized by the substitution

$`G^X(z)=\left(zH_{0,XX}V_{XX}^0\right)^1`$ $``$ $`G_0(z)=\left(zH_{0,XX}\right)^1`$ (32)
in the above expressions (see Eq. (49) of I).

Explicitly, one obtains for the various components

$`J_{pole}^{(\pi )/c\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,2;ji}{}}v_{\overline{N}X_\pi }^0(j)G_0(z)j_{X_\pi \overline{N}}^{(1)\mu }(\stackrel{}{k},i),`$ (33)
$`J_{nonpole}^{(\pi )/c\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,2;ji}{}}j_{\overline{N}X_\pi }^{(1)\mu }(\stackrel{}{k},i)G_0(zk)v_{X_\pi \overline{N}}^0(j),`$ (34)
$`J_{pole}^{(\pi )/f\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,2;ji}{}}(v_{\overline{N}X_\pi }^0(j)G_0(z)j_{X_\pi X_\pi }^{(\pi )\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})G_0(zk)v_{X_\pi \overline{N}}^0(i)`$ (36)
$`+v_{\overline{N}X_\pi }^0(j)G_0(z)v_{X_\pi X_{\pi \pi }}^0(i)G_0(z)j_{X_{\pi \pi }\overline{N}}^{(0)\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})),`$
$`J_{nonpole}^{(\pi )/f\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,2;ji}{}}j_{\overline{N}X_{\pi \pi }}^{(0)\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})G_0(zk)v_{X_{\pi \pi }X_\pi }^0(i)G_0(zk)v_{X_\pi \overline{N}}^0(j),`$ (37)
$`J_{pole}^{(\pi )/v\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,2;ji}{}}v_{\overline{N}X_\pi }^0(j)G_0(z)j_{X_\pi \overline{N}}^{(1v)\mu }(\stackrel{}{k},i),`$ (38)
$`J_{nonpole}^{(\pi )/v\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,2;ji}{}}j_{\overline{N}X_\pi }^{(1v)\mu }(\stackrel{}{k},i)G_0(zk)v_{X_\pi \overline{N}}^0(j),`$ (39)
$`J_{pole}^{(\pi )/r\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,2;ji}{}}\left(v_{\overline{N}X_\pi }^0(j)G_0(z)j_{real}^{nr,\mu }(\stackrel{}{k},i)v_{X_\pi \overline{N}}^0(i)+v_{\overline{N}X_\pi }^0(i)G_0(z)j_{real}^{nr,\mu }(\stackrel{}{k},i)v_{X_\pi \overline{N}}^0(j)\right),`$ (40)
$`J_{nonpole}^{(\pi )/r\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (41)
$`J_{pole}^{(diss)\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,2;ji}{}}(v_{\overline{N}X_\pi }^0(i)G_0(z)j_{X_\pi X_x}^{(\pi )\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})G_0(zk)v_{X_x\overline{N}}^0(j)`$ (43)
$`+v_{\overline{N}X_\pi }^0(j)G_0(z)v_{X_\pi X_{\pi x}}^0(i)G_0(z)j_{X_{\pi x}\overline{N}}^{(0)\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})\left)\right|_{x\{\rho ,\omega \}},`$
$`J_{nonpole}^{(diss)\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,2;ji}{}}(j_{\overline{N}X_{\pi x}}^{(0)\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})G_0(zk)v_{X_{\pi x}X_x}^0(j)G_0(zk)v_{X_x\overline{N}}^0(i)`$ (47)
$`+v_{\overline{N}X_x}^0(i)G_0(z)j_{X_xX_\pi }^{(\pi )\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})G_0(zk)v_{X_\pi \overline{N}}^0(j)`$
$`+v_{\overline{N}X_x}^0(i)G_0(z)v_{X_xX_{\pi x}}^0(j)G_0(z)j_{X_{\pi x}\overline{N}}^{(0)\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$
$`+j_{\overline{N}X_{\pi x}}^{(0)\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})G_0(zk)v_{X_{\pi x}X_\pi }^0(j)G_0(zk)v_{X_\pi \overline{N}}^0(i)\left)\right|_{x\{\rho ,\omega \}}.`$
In the present evaluation, we have used a nonrelativistic reduction of the $`\pi \overline{N}`$ vertex for the sake of simplicity. The bare couplings have to be renormalized, of course, with the renormalization operator $`\widehat{Z}_{[2]}^{os}`$ in (27). Therefore, it is useful to introduce renormalized MECs according to

$`𝒥^{(\rho )/(\pi )/(diss)\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{Z}_{[2]}^{os}}}J^{(\rho )/(\pi )/(diss)\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{Z}_{[2]}^{os}}},`$ (48)
so that the relevant matrix element (27) has the structure

$`{}_{}{}^{()}NN;\stackrel{}{p},\alpha |PJ_{eff}^{N[2]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})P|d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_d}}{}_{}{}^{()}NN;\stackrel{}{p},\alpha |P_{\overline{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{Z}_{[2]}^{os}}{\widehat{R}(z)}}(𝒥^{(\rho )\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ (50)
$`+\widehat{R}^\pi (z)(𝒥^{(\pi )\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})+𝒥^{(diss)\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k}))\widehat{R}^\pi (zk))P_{\overline{N}}|d^{},`$
where the dressing operator $`\widehat{R}^\pi `$ is neglected in the $`\rho `$ MEC due to its minor importance.

Summarizing the various contributions to the nucleonic meson exchange currents, we include as retarded currents the $`\pi `$ and $`\gamma \pi \rho /\omega `$ MEC, whereas of the heavier mesons only the $`\rho `$ MEC will be retained in the static limit. All the other remaining $`\sigma `$, $`\delta `$, $`\omega `$, and $`\eta `$ MECs are completely neglected in view of their negligible contributions found previously in . Moreover, due to the use of Siegert operators  and the much larger mass of the heavy mesons, the role of the corresponding MEC is largely suppressed.

### D The resonant meson exchange current $`J_{eff}^{\mathrm{\Delta }[2]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$

In analogy to the nucleonic MEC, we construct the retarded $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ MEC which is depicted in Figs. 13 and 14. The currents represented in Fig. 13 are the contact, meson-in-flight, vertex, and dissociation contributions to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ MEC. In the static limit, they are already taken into account via the static $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ MEC (apart from the dissociation current) so that the problem of double counting arises. In view of the fact that this static $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ MEC leads to a very small contribution in deuteron photodisintegration, it is resonable to assume that retardation will not change this fact qualitatively. Therefore, we take the diagrams of Fig. 13 in the static limit as already contained in the static $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ MEC and consequently set $`J_{X\mathrm{\Delta }}^{[2]\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ equal to zero.

The recoil contribution of Fig. 14, on the other hand, is not contained in $`J_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}^{[2]\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$. Therefore, it is explicitly taken into account. Introducing again renormalized MECs, we obtain for the matrix element of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ MEC

$`{}_{}{}^{()}NN;\stackrel{}{p},\alpha |P_\mathrm{\Delta }J_{eff}^{\mathrm{\Delta }[2]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})P_{\overline{N}}|d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_d}}{}_{}{}^{()}NN;\stackrel{}{p},\alpha |P_\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝒥_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}^{[2]\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})+𝒥_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(\pi )/r\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})\widehat{R}^\pi (zk)\right)P_{\overline{N}}|d^{},`$ (51)
where the quantities $`𝒥_{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}^{[2]\mu }(\stackrel{}{k})`$ and $`𝒥_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(\pi )/r\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ are defined in analogy to (48).

### E The effective current operator in the static limit

Until now, we have only considered the retarded form of the effective current. In the static case, considerable simplifications occur. Whereas the one-body contributions remain unaltered (apart from the dressing factors which are, of course, not present in static calculations because in this case only physical instead of bare nucleons appear), we have to substitute the retarded meson-$`NN`$ propagators in Eqs. (33) through (47) by their static limits, i.e.

$$G_0(z)\text{ and }G_0(zk)\frac{1}{h_x},$$
(52)
where $`h_x`$ denotes the kinetic energy of a meson $`x`$. Consequently, the pole structure of the MEC is lost. The meson-nucleon vertices in the corresponding expressions are those used in the static Bonn-OBEPR potential  so that the sum of the pion-in-flight, vertex and contact MEC fulfils current conservation with the $`\pi `$ exchange part $`V_{OBEPR}^\pi `$ of the Bonn-OBEPR potential

$`\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{J}_{stat}^{\pi /c}(\stackrel{}{k})+\stackrel{}{J}_{stat}^{\pi /f}(\stackrel{}{k})+\stackrel{}{J}_{stat}^{\pi /v}(\stackrel{}{k})\right)`$ $`=`$ $`[V_{OBEPR}^\pi ,\rho _{real}^{nr}(\stackrel{}{k})].`$ (53)
Note however, that a static recoil contribution does not appear, because in the static limit the wave function renormalization current cancels exactly the recoil current . Likewise, the recoil contribution in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ MEC (Fig. 14) has to be neglected, too.

### F Inconsistencies in static approaches

At the end of the discussion of the effective current operator, we would like to point out some inconsistencies in static approaches, namely the fact that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current and the $`\pi `$ MEC are not independent from each other. From Fig. 15 it becomes evident that the Born terms of the $`M_{1+}^{(3/2)}`$ amplitude are related to a part of the $`\pi `$ MEC in the two-nucleon system, namely to a part of the pion-in-flight and the recoil current. A static treatment of the MEC leads therefore to serious inconsistencies. For example, the crossed nucleon pole graph is not contained in the static $`\pi `$ MEC because the respective recoil MEC is not present at all in static approaches due to its cancellation against the wave function renormalization current. How critical this inconsistency is has been demonstrated by Wilhelm et al.  in determining another effective $`\gamma \overline{N}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling, denoted henceforth by $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(\text{eff3})`$, in a fit to the data where the Born amplitude in (11) is set equal to zero so that it is contained effectively in this coupling. At least below the resonance position this “modified” coupling is considerably larger as the original coupling (compare the dashed and dotted curves in Fig. 9). In view of this rather large difference between the two couplings, Wilhelm et al.  had already suspected that retardation in the MEC may become important in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region. Using the modified parameters, a much improved description of the total cross section was achieved (see Sect. VI), though the differential cross section was still poorly described in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region. Moreover, it is obvious that the modified coupling is conceptually not very satisfying because the neglect of the Born amplitude leads formally to a vanishing rescattering amplitude, so that the resulting effective $`\gamma \overline{N}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling is identical to the bare one and therefore energy independent, in contrast to the present parametrization in Eq. (19).

## V The question of gauge invariance

Now, we would like to discuss the question whether the effective current $`J_{eff}^\mu (z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ is gauge invariant, i.e., is consistent with the hadronic interaction. As first, we will formulate the continuity equation for the effective operators. From the continuity equation for the full current operator

$$f|\left([H,J^0(\stackrel{}{k})]\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{J}(\stackrel{}{k})\right)|i=0$$
(54)
one obtains straightforwardly the relation

$$f|P\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{J}_{eff}(z_f,\stackrel{}{k})P|i=f|P\left(H_{eff}(z_f)\rho _{eff}(z_f,\stackrel{}{k})\rho _{eff}(z_f,\stackrel{}{k})H_{eff}(z_i)\right)P|i,$$
(55)
where $`z_{i/f}=E_{i/f}\pm iϵ`$, and the interaction part $`V_{eff}(z)`$ of the effective Hamiltonian consists of a disconnected and a connected part

$`V_{eff}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{eff}^{dis}(z)+V_{eff}^{con}(z),`$ (56)
with

$`V_{eff}^{dis}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{PP}^{[c]}+\left[V_{PX}^0G_0(z)V_{XP}^0\right]_{dis},`$ (57)
$`V_{eff}^{con}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{PP}^{0[2]}+\left[V_{PX}^0G_0(z)V_{XP}^0\right]_{con}.`$ (58)
Note that we have neglected $`V_{XX}^0`$ in $`V_{eff}^{con}`$ in view of the discussion in Sect. IV C.

Splitting the hadronic interaction and the current into one- and two-body parts, one obtains

$`f|P\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{J}_{eff}^{[1]}(z_f,\stackrel{}{k})P|i`$ $`=`$ $`f|P\left[\left(H_{0PP}+V_{eff}^{dis}(z_f)\right)\rho _{eff}^{[1]}(z_f,\stackrel{}{k})\rho _{eff}^{[1]}(z_f,\stackrel{}{k})\left(H_{0PP}+V_{eff}^{dis}(z_i)\right)\right]P|i,`$ (59)
$`f|P\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{J}_{eff}^{[2]}(z_f,\stackrel{}{k})P|i`$ $`=`$ $`f|P[V_{eff}^{con}(z_f)(\rho _{eff}^{[1]}(z_f,\stackrel{}{k})+\rho _{eff}^{[2]}(z_f,\stackrel{}{k}))`$ (61)
$`(\rho _{eff}^{[1]}(z_f,\stackrel{}{k})+\rho _{eff}^{[2]}(z_f,\stackrel{}{k}))V_{eff}^{con}(z_i)]P|i.`$
These equations serve as starting point for the discussion of gauge invariance. We will restrict ourselves to the pure nucleonic currents and interactions acting solely in $`_{\overline{N}}`$ for the sake of simplicity. Concering the one-body part in (59), it is clear from the very beginning that in retarded calculations, where $`V_{eff}^{dis}`$ is not zero, gauge invariance cannot exactly be fulfilled. Note that we do not evaluate explicitly the loops in Fig. 4 which enter into $`J_{eff}^{N[1]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ as has been discussed in subsection II B. On the other hand, the corresponding loop in $`V_{eff}^{dis}`$ has to be evaluated due to the requirement of unitarity of the hadronic interaction. Therefore, Eq. (59) is only valid in the onshell case, i.e., for

$$P_{\overline{N}}|i=|\overline{N}\overline{N};\stackrel{}{p}_i,\alpha _i,P_{\overline{N}}|f=|\overline{N}\overline{N};\stackrel{}{p}_f,\alpha _f,$$
(62)
where $`\stackrel{}{p}_{i/f}`$ is given by $`E_{i/f}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}e_N^{nr}(\stackrel{}{p}_{i/f})`$. Note that in this case $`V_{eff}^{dis}`$ is exactly zero. But in static approaches, Eq. (59) can always be fulfilled because of $`V_{eff}^{dis}0`$.

We now turn to the discussion of the two-body part in (61). According to (28), the effective current operator $`J_{eff}^{N[2]\mu }(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ consists of the $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ MEC and the $`\gamma \pi \rho /\omega `$ currents. With respect to the $`\rho `$ MEC, we refer to the discussion at the end of subsection II B. Concerning the $`\gamma \pi \rho /\omega `$ contribution, one should notice that the corresponding charge operator vanishes due to the use of nonrelativistic vertex structures, whereas the remaining spatial part $`\stackrel{}{J}^{(diss)}(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ is purely transverse

$$\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{J}^{(diss)}(z,\stackrel{}{k})=0.$$
(63)
Consequently, (61) is fulfilled with respect to the dissociation current. The remaining retarded $`\pi `$ MEC satisfies ($`z_i=z_fk`$)

$`\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{J}^{(\pi )}(z_f,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`V_{eff}^{\pi con}(z_f)\rho _{real}^{nr}(\stackrel{}{k})\rho _{real}^{nr}(\stackrel{}{k})V_{eff}^{\pi con}(z_i)+kJ^{(\pi )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(z_f,\stackrel{}{k})+𝒜(z_f,\stackrel{}{k})+\widehat{𝒪}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_N^3}}\right)`$ (64)
with the retarded $`\pi `$ exchange potential

$$V_{eff}^{\pi con}(z)=\left[V_{\overline{N}X_\pi }^{0nonrel}G_0(z)V_{X_\pi \overline{N}}^{0nonrel}\right]_{con}$$
(65)
– note that in (65) $`V_{\overline{N}X_\pi }^{0nonrel}`$ occurs due to the use of the nonrelativistic pion-nucleon vertex in the MEC –, and the auxiliary quantity

$`𝒜(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,2;ji}{}}\{\left(v_{\overline{N}X_\pi }^{0nonrel}(i)G_0(z)v_{X_\pi X_{\pi \pi }}^0(j)G_0(z)\rho _{X_{\pi \pi }\overline{N}}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{k})\right)(E_iH_{0\overline{N}\overline{N}})`$ (67)
$`(E_fH_{0\overline{N}\overline{N}})\left(\rho _{\overline{N}X_{\pi \pi }}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{k})G_0(zk)v_{X_{\pi \pi }X_\pi }^{0nonrel}(i)G_0(zk)v_{X_\pi \overline{N}}^0(j)\right)\}.`$
In general, only between plane waves the matrixelement of $`𝒜(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ vanishes, which fact indicates that in a retarded approach additional MECs of at least fourth order in the pion-nucleon coupling are necessary for ensuring gauge invariance. Examples for such contributions are depicted in Fig. 16. They are quite complicated and beyond the scope of the present work. In the static limit such MECs are not present because they either cancel out each other or cancel against corresponding wave function renormalization currents so that (61) is satisfied.

In summary, gauge invariance is fulfilled up to second order in the meson-nucleon coupling constant, whereas violations appear in higher order. However, we hope that by the use of the Siegert decomposition of the electric multipoles  at least a part of these neglected higher order contributions are taken into account implicitly.

## VI Results for deuteron photodisintegration

We now will discuss the results for deuteron photodisintegration. The formalism for calculating the various observables may be found in the review . As currents we consider all currents discussed before, i.e., the one-body spin and convection current as well as the spin-orbit current and $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ MEC. The parameters of the coupling constants are chosen consistently with the underlying $`NN`$ interction. We have included all multipoles up to $`L4`$. For the electric transitions we have used the Siegert operators  which incorporate a large fraction of MEC contributions. They include besides the usual one-body density also two-body charge terms as described in Sect. IV C. The remaining MEC contributions beyond the Siegert operators are evaluated explicitly. In view of the fact, that retardation is most important at short distances, we have considered retardation in the contact, vertex, meson-in-flight and dissociation MECs only for multipoles up to $`L2`$, while for $`L>2`$ the static expressions are used, which is sufficient as we have checked in detail.

### A Retardation effects in a pure nucleonic model

We will begin the discussion by studying first the influence of retardation in a pure nucleonic model, where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ d.o.f. as well as the $`\pi d`$ channel are switched off so that only a pure $`NN`$ interaction and the corresponding currents are taken into account. For the sake of simplicity, the dissociation current is also switched off. In detail, we consider four different types of calculations which differ with respect to static or retarded potentials and MECs, comprising contact, vertex and meson-in-flight currents, and with respect to the recoil MEC. We will denote them by N(potential, current, recoil current), and list the four cases which we consider in Table I. As static potential we use the Bonn OBEPR model, while for the retarded interaction we take the Elster model.

It is obvious that due to the neglect of explicit $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ d.o.f. no realistic description is possible above about $`k_{lab}=100`$ MeV. But here we are interested mainly in the relative sensitivity of the cross sections with respect to the various static and retarded approaches. For this reason we show in Fig. 17 only the ratios of the total cross sections with respect to N(stat,stat,0). One readily notices that retardation in the hadronic interaction, i.e., going from N(stat,stat,0) to N(ret,stat,0), leads to a drastic reduction of the cross section which amounts to about 25 percent at $`k_{lab}`$ = 240 MeV. On the other hand, retardation in the meson-in-flight, contact and vertex MECs is almost negligible. It turns out that retardation is important only in the lowest multipole transitions to the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ partial waves, which are of minor importance in the total cross section, except directly at threshold. In general, the influence of retardation in the MEC decreases rapidly with increasing multipole order. On the other hand, the recoil current contribution turns out to be very important as is evident comparing N(ret,ret,0) with N(ret,ret,1) in Fig. 17. It is of particular importance in the contributions of the $`{}_{}{}^{1}D_{2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}F_{2}^{}`$ partial waves.

In summary, it turns out that below $`\pi `$ threshold, the static and the full retarded calculations predict the same cross section within a few percent. This result is at variance with the previous work of Schmitt et al, in which retardation in potential and current had been considered using a $`p/M_N`$ expansion below $`\pi `$ threshold. A sizeable decrease of the cross section was found in retarded calculations compared to a static approach. In contrast to the present work, also the wave function renormalization current was included but no renormalization of the continuum wave functions was applied. Only the bound deuteron wave function had been renormalized globally by a constant. In a correct approach, however, the wave function renormalization current should have been left out as well as the renormalization of the deuteron state. This erroneous treatment lead to the mentioned decrease of the cross section.

In the energy region above $`\pi `$ threshold, the equivalence between static and retarded frameworks breaks down, the difference increasing with increasing energy as can be seen in Fig. 17. This is not surprising, because above $`\pi `$ threshold the pion can become an onshell particle which fact is only taken into account by the retarded $`\pi NN`$ propagators, whereas for a static framework no coupling between the $`NN`$ and the open $`\pi NN`$ channel is possible, i.e., retarded and static approaches exhibit a different behaviour.

### B Retardation effects in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance region

Now we will turn to the energy region of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance, applying our full model which includes explicitly $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ degrees of freedom. In detail, we will consider four different static and five different retarded approaches whose nomenclature is explained in Tables II and III. The corresponding hadronic interaction models are described in detail in I and are therefore not repeated in this paper. We have restricted the full inclusion of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ d.o.f. to partial waves with total angular momentum $`j3`$, and use for $`j4`$ – similar to  – the impulse approximation  in which the $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ components are given in first order perturbation theory by

$`P_\mathrm{\Delta }|NN;\stackrel{}{p},\alpha ^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`G_0^{(\mathrm{\Delta })}(z)V_{[2]\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}^{con}(z)P_{\overline{N}}|NN;\stackrel{}{p},\alpha ^{()},`$ (68)
where the nucleonic component $`|NN;\stackrel{}{p},\alpha ^{()}`$ is obtained in pure nucleonic space from a realistic $`NN`$ potential.

As first we consider the results of the static MEC cases in Figs. 18 and 19. The model CC(stat1), which has already been used by Wilhelm et al, shows the already mentioned significant underestimation of the total cross section by about 30 % at $`k_{lab}=260`$ MeV. Moreover, above $`k_{lab}=300`$ MeV the differential cross sections develop a dip structure around $`90^{}`$ in clear contradiction to the experimental data. Due to the slightly stronger $`\gamma \overline{N}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling in the model CC(stat2) – compare the couplings $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(\text{eff}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{M1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}}(\text{eff}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$ in Fig. 9 – this model leads to a noticeable enhancement of $`\sigma _{tot}`$ which is, however, not sufficient to bridge the gap to experiment. The additional improvements, in the approach CC(stat3), especially the incorporation of the $`\gamma \pi \rho /\omega `$ currents, lead to a further enhancement of the cross section for $`k_{lab}\stackrel{<}{__\stackrel{~}{}}340`$ MeV. Compared to the recent Mainz data , the theoretical underestimation of $`\sigma _{tot}`$ amounts to not more than 10 % at $`k_{lab}=260`$ MeV but increases to about 40 % at $`k_{lab}=440`$ MeV. Moreover, the dip problem in the differential cross section has not been resolved. The last static model CC(stat4) shows, as has already been discussed in , a rather good description of the total cross section in the peak region due to the substantially stronger $`\gamma \overline{N}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling, but again the dip problem as well as the underestimation of the cross section at higher energies remains. Moreover, as has been stressed in Sect. IV F, this approach is quite unsatisfactory from a conceptual point of view.

The results for the retarded current models are shown in Figs. 20 and 21. The effect of introducing retardation in the hadronic interaction but keeping the currents still static can be seen by comparing CC(stat3) with CC(ret4). One readily notes a drastic decrease of the cross section. This fact has been noted already for the pure nucleonic case discussed in the previous subsection. Switching on in addition retardation in the currents (transition CC(ret4) $``$ CC(ret2)) leads, however, to a drastic increase which overcompensates the reduction of the cross section by the retardation in the hadronic interaction. It turns out that within about 10 % an overall satisfactory description of the total cross section over the whole energy region is achieved. Concerning the differential cross sections, apart from energies below the resonance maximum, the description of the experimental data is almost quantitative, too. Especially the above mentioned dip structure occurring in the static treatment vanishes completely. This is mainly due to the additional consideration of the $`N`$-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-mass difference in $`V_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^0`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^0`$, and due to the recoil current contributions. On the other hand, similar to the pure nucleonic case, retardation in the pion-in-flight, vertex, contact as well as in the dissociation currents is negligible in the total and differential cross sections. With respect to the influence of the $`\pi d`$ channel, it turns out that this mechanism leads to a noticeable enhancement below about $`k_{lab}`$ = 300 MeV. This result is at variance with the results of Tanabe and Ohta  who found a decrease of $`\sigma _{tot}`$ when they incorporated the $`\pi d`$ channel. On the other hand, the influence of the $`\pi d`$ channel on the $`{}_{}{}^{1}D_{2}^{}`$ channel is qualitatively the same than in our approach. Thus, the reason for this difference is unclear.

As next topic, we discuss in Fig. 22 the influence of the parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{\Delta }N\rho }`$ describing the additional $`\rho N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling in Eq. (76) of I. Comparing the results of CC(ret1), CC(ret2) and CC(ret3), which differ by the value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{\Delta }N\rho }`$, but which are equivalent concerning the description of the $`{}_{}{}^{1}D_{2}^{}`$ channel in $`NN`$ scattering, it turns out that the value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{\Delta }N\rho }`$ is of considerable importance for energies above about $`k_{lab}=380`$ MeV. But similar to $`NN`$ scattering, an optimal value for $`\alpha _{\mathrm{\Delta }N\rho }`$ could not be determined because of the rather large differences between the different experimental data sets at higher energies .

Finally, we discuss a few polarization observables. At first, we will consider the linear photon asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for which new experimental data is available . In Fig. 23, the results for the approaches CC(stat3), CC(ret4) and CC(ret2) are depicted. The static approach CC(stat3) yields quite a good description for energies up to about $`k_{lab}=300`$ MeV. For higher energies, however, an oscillatory structure appears which vanishes completely if retardation in the hadronic interaction is switched on (CC(stat3) $``$ CC(ret4)). Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ decreases drastically with increasing photon energy. The additional inclusion of retardation in the currents (CC(ret4) $``$ CC(ret2)) leads to an overall reduction of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ except for the highest energy for which a significant change of the shape appears. Compared to the experimental data one finds a satisfactory overall description of the qualitative features. But one notes also some significant deviations around $`90^{}`$, where theory predicts an asymmetry considerably smaller than experiment. This is particularly significant at $`k_{lab}=220`$ MeV in view of the small error bars, while for higher energies the larger errors make the deviations less significant. It is interesting to note that for $`k_{lab}=220`$ MeV also the differential cross section exhibits around $`90^{}`$ a sizeable deviation of the theory by about 10 %.

Finally, we show in Figs. 24 and 25 the proton and neutron polarization, respectively. At $`k_{lab}=240`$ MeV, the different approaches yield very similar results which are also in good agreement with the experimental data. At $`k_{lab}=400`$ MeV hadronic retardation results in a strong overall decrease of the polarization for both neutron and proton (transition CC(stat3) $``$ CC(ret4)). Switching on the current retardation leads however to a strong polarization increase in the forward and backward direction while around $`90^{}`$ the polarization is much less affected. This feature is clearly at variance with the few proton polarization data. Due to the fact that in general polarization observables are more sensitive to small reaction mechanisms, one reason for this failure may be the fact that apart from the dominant $`{}_{}{}^{1}D_{2}^{}`$ channel several other partial waves (for example the $`P`$\- and the $`{}_{}{}^{3}F_{3}^{}`$ waves) are described only fairly well within the present model (see I for further details). Thus, one has to await future improvements of the hadronic interaction model in order to see whether this failure could be resolved. Certainly, more data of higher accuracy are needed in addition.

## VII Summary and outlook

In this paper we have presented the electromagnetic part of a model which is able to incorporate complete retardation in the two-body $`\pi `$ MEC and thus is suited for the study of electromagnetic reactions in the two-nucleon sector above pion threshold up to about 500 MeV excitation energy. The electromagnetic current of the hadronic system comprises the nucleonic one-body currents, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation and meson exchange currents. The electromagnetic excitation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance has been fixed by fitting the $`M_{1+}^{(3/2)}`$ multipole of pion photoproduction. Within the present framework, it is possible to construct the necessary retarded $`\pi `$ MEC as an effective two-body current operator. In this context we would like to emphasize, that we do not use any wave function renormalization , because this procedure is applicable in retarded models only for energies below the $`\pi `$ threshold. Consequently, recoil contributions besides the meson-in-flight, vertex and contact MEC have been taken into account in addition. The retarded $`\pi `$ MEC is, however, only partially consistent to the corresponding retarded $`NN`$ interaction. This is mainly due to the neglect of – technically very complicated – MEC of at least fourth order in the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant which are not present in static approaches. On the other side, due to the use of the Siegert operators for the electric multipoles, such explicitly neglected mechanisms are at least partially taken into account. We furthermore would like to emphasize that in the present model all free parameters are fixed in advance before studying electromagnetic reactions on the two-nucleon system. In order to test the quality of the developed framework, we have studied photodisintegration of the deuteron, where until now serious problems existed in the theoretical description above $`\pi `$ threshold. While below $`\pi `$ threshold, say up to about 100 MeV, both frameworks, static and retarded, are equivalent, this equivalence, however, breaks down when approaching $`\pi `$ threshold and even more so above, e.g., the total cross section in the retarded framework is considerably enhanced compared to the one in the static framework. Within about 10 %, we obtain a satisfacory description of the experimental data over the whole energy region of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance. This improvement is the combined result of various additional independent mechanisms beyond the ones already considered in . These additional ingredients comprise besides the very important retardation effects the dissociation currents, the $`\pi d`$ channel and the explicit evaluation of the rescattering amplitude in fixing the $`\gamma \overline{N}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling. Furthermore, also the theoretical description of the differential cross section is considerably improved. Thus, for the first time a model is available which is able to describe the total as well as the differential cross section up to about $`k_{lab}`$ = 450 MeV. However, some problems in desribing the linear photon asymmetry as well as the proton polarization at higher energies are still present.