text:
# Everyone Makes Mistakes - Including Feynman

## 1 Introduction

Alberto arrived at Cornell as a graduate student in September, 1955. I had come to Cornell as a research associate a few months earlier. Thus I have been acquainted with him for 45 years.

It was the time when experimental observations of some weak interaction processes, the so-called $`\theta \tau `$ puzzle in particular, began to expose the internal inconsistency in the theory of the weak interaction. Analyzing this problem in great depth, Lee and Yang concluded that parity conservation, assumed to be valid in previous theories of the weak interaction, was the most likely culprit. They suggested that parity symmetry is not valid in the weak interaction and proposed ways to test it experimentally . The experimental verification followed soon afterward . The two-component neutrino theory (discarded previously by Pauli) became the favored theory .

## 2 Radiative correction to muon decay

A detailed comparison of the 2-component theory with experiment would require accounting for radiative corrections. This is because they might be as large as $`\alpha \omega ^228.4/137`$, where $`\omega =\mathrm{ln}(m_\mu /m_e)=5.3316`$, according to the paper  on radiative corrections to the parity-conserving muon decay, on which Alberto worked before he came to Cornell. Its extention to the parity-non-conserving case is not difficult. Thus Alberto’s experience enabled us to jump-start the calculation of the parity-non-conserving muon decay and finish it on very short notice. The radiatively corrected muon decay spectrum we obtained in the two-component neutrino theory is

$`dN_r(x,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A[32x+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}f(x)+6\zeta {\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{m_\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{x}}`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`\xi \mathrm{cos}\theta \{12x+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}h(x)\}]x^2dxd\mathrm{\Omega },`$
where $`A,\xi ,\zeta `$ are functions of weak coupling constants, $`x=2p_e/m_\mu `$, and

$`f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(64x)u(x)+(66x)\mathrm{ln}x`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{3x^2}}[(5+17x34x^2)(\omega +\mathrm{ln}x)22x+34x^2],`$
$`h(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(24x)u(x)+(26x)\mathrm{ln}x`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{3x^2}}[(1x34x^2)(\omega +\mathrm{ln}x)`$
$``$ $`3+7x+32x^2{\displaystyle \frac{4(1x)^2}{x}}\mathrm{ln}(1x)],`$
with

$`u(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^2+\omega ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}2\mathrm{ln}2)+2\mathrm{ln}23+(2\omega 1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}})\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{ln}x\left[3\mathrm{ln}(1x)\mathrm{ln}x2\mathrm{ln}2\right]+L(1)2L(x),`$
and

$$L(x)=_0^x\mathrm{ln}(1t)(dt/t),L(1)=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}.$$
(4)
The radiative correction to the decay lifetime is large, being proportional to $`\omega ^2`$:

$$\frac{\tau \tau _0}{\tau _0}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }(\omega ^2+\mathrm{})0.02973.$$
(5)
We presented our result at the Rochester conference in the spring of 1957. Then, one day in 1958, lightening struck us. We received a preprint from Berman stating that he disagreed with our result. In particular, he mentioned that the radiative correction to the muon lifetime is linear, not quadratic, in $`\omega `$, contrary to our result. When we read his preprint, however, we suspected immediately that his result, which contains a term linear in $`\omega `$, must also be wrong. Alberto and I worked hard for a week or two and found that our intuition was in fact correct.

In the new result , spectral functions $`f(x)`$ and $`h(x)`$ have the same form as in (2), but $`u(x)`$ is replaced by

$`R(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega [1.5+2\mathrm{ln}(1x)2\mathrm{ln}x]2L(x)+2L(1)2`$ (6)
$``$ $`\mathrm{ln}x(2\mathrm{ln}x1)+(3\mathrm{ln}x1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}})\mathrm{ln}(1x).`$
The decay spectrum still contains terms linear in $`\omega (\mathrm{ln}(m_\mu /m_e))`$. However, the muon decay lifetime now has no dependence at all on $`\omega `$ and the net radiative correction is very small:

$$\frac{\tau \tau _0}{\tau _0}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\left(\frac{25}{4}\pi ^2\right)4.17\times 10^3.$$
(7)
To discuss our mistake in  that Berman pointed out, let me focus on the inner bremsstrahlung contribution to the muon decay, which contains the factor

$$\underset{i}{}_0^{k_{max}}\frac{d^3k}{ϵ}\left[\frac{p_2.e_i}{p_2.\kappa }\frac{p_1.e_i}{p_1.\kappa }\right]^2,$$
(8)
where $`p_1,p_2`$, and $`\kappa `$ are the 4-momenta of the muon, electron, and photon, and $`e_i`$ are the polarization vectors of the photon.

Recall that, in a covariant calculation, the virtual photon is often treated as a vector meson of mass $`\lambda `$ with the understanding that $`\lambda 0`$ in the physical limit. To be consistent with this, the real photon must also be regarded as a vector meson of mass $`\lambda `$. This means, in particular, that the sum in (8) must be carried out over four polarizations including time-like and longitudinal polarizations. Our mistake was that we had summed only over transverse polarizations. Furthermore, even in the limit $`\lambda 0`$, the contribution of non-transverse polarizations does not vanish if the photon has infrared divergence. As a matter of fact, this extra contribution has an $`\omega `$ dependence that cancels the leading $`\omega `$ dependence from transverse photons.

This was supposed to be well-known: it is related to Feynman’s famous error in matching non-relativistic and relativistic calculations of the Lamb shift that was discovered by French and mentioned in Footnote 13 of Feynman’s paper . Unfortunately, many people, including us, had forgotten or failed to appreciate the significance of his footnote and made the same mistake again and again. (It is true that the connection with our mistake is somewhat obscure since Feynman’s footnote does not deal directly with scattering states or decaying states.) In the end Berman agreed with us and revised his paper accordingly .

The lessons we learned from this episode are:

$``$ Although the differential spectrum of $`\mu e`$ decay diverges logarithmically as $`m_e/m_\mu 0`$, the total decay rate is finite in this limit.

$``$ Cancellation of infrared divergences is a necessary but not sufficient guarantee for the computation to be correct. (Many people were unaware of this and made the same mistake, even after our paper was published.)

We obtained a similar result for nuclear $`\beta `$ decay under some simplifying assumptions. The radiative correction to the $`\beta `$-ray spectrum in the V - A theory (for $`m_eE`$) is found to be

$`\mathrm{\Delta }Pd^3p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi ^4}}G^2E_m^5(1x)^2x^2dx`$ (9)
$`\{6\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_p}}\right)+3\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_p}{2E_m}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3}}`$
$`+4(\mathrm{ln}x1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{3x}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1x}{x}}\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{(1x)^2}{6x^2}}\mathrm{ln}x`$
$`+\mathrm{\Omega }[{\displaystyle \frac{4(1x)}{3x}}3+{\displaystyle \frac{(1x)^2}{6x^2}}+4\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1x}{x}}\right)]\},`$
where $`x=E/E_m`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{ln}(2E_m/m_e)`$, $`E_m`$ is the maximum total energy of the electron, and $`m_p`$ is the proton mass. The spectrum diverges logarithmically for $`m_e0`$. However, the correction to the lifetime has no $`\mathrm{ln}m_e`$ dependence:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }{\tau _0}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\left[6\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_p}\right)+3\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_p}{2E_m}\right)2.85\right].$$
(10)
Thus $`\beta `$ and $`\mu `$ decays share the same $`\mathrm{ln}m_e`$ dependence, suggesting that it is more general and not limited to these decays. (See Appendix A.1, too.)

Feynman came to Cornell in the fall of 1958 for three months. He explained to me how he and Berman made exactly the same mistake. Feynman had asked Berman to check our calculation for his thesis work. But, actually, Feynman himself was doing this calculation independently of Berman. At the end they compared notes and were satisfied that their results agreed. When confronted with our new result which differed from theirs, they checked the notes once again and found that they made the same mistake in copying the bottom equation of a page to the top of next page. Feynman was so disturbed by this mistake that he told me how sorry he was more than a few times while at Cornell.

## 3 Radiative correction to $`\pi e`$ decay

Feynman brought with him a new preprint of Berman on the radiative correction to $`\pi e`$ decay. As is well-known, in the $`VA`$ theory, the ratio of $`\pi e`$ and $`\pi \mu `$ decay rates is

$$R_0=\left(\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }\right)^2\left(\frac{m_\pi ^2m_e^2}{m_\pi ^2m_\mu ^2}\right)^21.28\times 10^4$$
(11)
if the radiative correction is not included. Berman’s result, including one loop radiative correction, was of the form

$$R=R_0\left(1\frac{3\alpha }{\pi }\mathrm{ln}(m_\mu /m_e)+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(12)
This $`R`$ has a rather large correction ( $`3\%`$ ) and looked strange since $`R/R_0`$ diverged for $`m_e/m_\mu 0`$. Feynman and I were so puzzled by this result, which seemed to contradict what was discovered in $`\mu `$ and $`\beta `$ decays, that we decided to check it with a fresh calculation. For the next two months we worked hard, totally independently of each other, except that we agreed to start from the same effective Lagrangian

$$gm_l\overline{\psi }_la\psi _\nu \varphi _\pi ,$$
(13)
where $`l`$ represents either a muon or an electron and $`a=(1+i\gamma _5)/2`$.

The radiative correction due to the virtual photon is straightforward :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }P_{VP}}{P_0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_\pi }}b(r)\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{min}}{m_\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}r+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{1r^2}}\mathrm{ln}r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right],`$ (14)
$`b(r)=2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+r^2}{1r^2}}\mathrm{ln}r+1\right),`$
where $`P_0`$ is the uncorrected $`\pi e`$ decay rate, $`r=m_e/m_\pi `$, $`\lambda _{min}`$ is the infrared cutoff mass, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the ultraviolet cutoff mass.

The total probability of the inner bremsstrahlung correction is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }P_{IB}}{P_0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}[b(r)(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{min}}{m_\pi }}\mathrm{ln}(1r^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}r+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}})`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2(107r^2)}{2(1r^2)^2}}\mathrm{ln}r+{\displaystyle \frac{2(1+r^2)}{1r^2}}L(1r^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1521r^2)}{8(1r^2)}}].`$
It follows from (14) and (15) that, to order $`\alpha `$, the rate of $`\pi e`$ decay is

$$P=P_0(1+\eta _e),$$
(16)
where

$`\eta _e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_\pi }}\right)b(r)\mathrm{ln}(1r^2){\displaystyle \frac{r^2(85r^2)}{2(1r^2)^2}}\mathrm{ln}r`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2(1+r^2)}{1r^2}}L(1r^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1925r^2}{8(1r^2)}}].`$
Infrared divergences have canceled out as expected.

When we finished the calculation, we compared the results and found that we agreed with each other. Unfortunately, we did not agree with Berman. In particular, our result did not have the $`\mathrm{ln}(m_\mu /m_e)`$ term. We thought for a while that Berman’s calculation was wrong. But, after scrutinizing our calculation very closely, I realized that it was we that were wrong. We committed a very subtle mistake: it was in our choice of the starting Lagrangian.

Berman started from an effective Lagrangian with the derivative coupling:

$$g\overline{\psi }_l\gamma _\mu a\psi _\nu (i\frac{\varphi _\pi }{x_\mu }eA_\mu \varphi _\pi ).$$
(18)
To simplify the algebra this is often turned into a non-derivative form

$$g(m_lm_\nu )\overline{\psi }_la\psi _\nu \varphi _\pi $$
(19)
by integration by parts and use of the equation of motion

$$i\frac{}{x_\mu }\overline{\psi _l}\gamma _\mu +eA_\mu \overline{\psi _l}+m_l\overline{\psi _l}=0.$$
(20)
Our Lagrangian (13) was obtained from the equivalent Lagrangian (19) assuming that $`m_\nu =0`$ and $`m_l`$ is the physical mass. Unfortunately, we did not realize initially that this equation is not valid to order $`e^2`$ if $`m_l`$ is the physical mass. The correct equation requires the self-mass term $`\delta m_l\overline{\psi _l}`$ on the right-hand side of (20). Or, equivalently, we may rewrite the corrected equation as

$$i\frac{}{x_\mu }\overline{\psi _l}\gamma _\mu +eA_\mu \overline{\psi _l}+m_l^0\overline{\psi _l}=0,$$
(21)
where $`m_l^0`$ is the bare mass. Berman’s Lagrangian (18) may thus be replaced by

$$gm_l^0\overline{\psi }_la\psi _\nu \varphi _\pi .$$
(22)
This means that we can turn our incorrect result into a correct one by simply replacing the renormalized mass with the bare mass. The appearance of bare mass in this context had been noticed by Ruderman .

The radiatively corrected decay ratio $`R`$ can thus be written as

$$R=R_0((1+\eta _e)/(1+\eta _\mu ))(1+\delta )$$
(23)
where $`\eta _e`$ and $`\eta _\mu `$ are defined by (17) and

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`(m_e^0/m_e)^2/(m_\mu ^0/m_\mu )^21`$
$`=`$ $`(3\alpha /\pi )\mathrm{ln}(m_\mu /m_e)`$
$`15.995(\alpha /\pi ).`$ (24)
This $`R`$ is in exact agreement with Berman’s result .

Measurement of the $`(\pi e)/(\pi \mu )`$ decay ratio was just starting at the time of this calculation. The experimental uncertainty was still so large that the presence or absence of the $`(1+\delta )`$ factor could not be tested experimentally. Later more accurate measurements confirmed this large effect

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`1.2265(34)(44)\times 10^4,`$
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`1.2346(35)(36)\times 10^4.`$ (25)
Our calculation of $`R`$ relied on an implicit untested assumption that the UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is common to both $`\pi e`$ and $`\pi \mu `$ decays. A justification of this assumption had to wait for the emergence of the Standard Model . The hadronic effect was also taken into account . This leads to the latest value

$$R=1.2352(5)\times 10^4.$$
(26)
Working with Feynman was a very interesting and instructive experience. Let me share one episode with you.

As is well-known, the integration over 3-body final states is quite non-trivial. I spent most of the two months checking my calculation of the inner bremsstrahlung term $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{IB}`$ again and again. In the end more than 30 pages of equations were needed to carry my conventional approach to the end. It also took about two months for Feynman to evaluate this integral.

Actually, I am not sure that he was working on this problem all the time. His office was next to mine so that I could hear that he was constantly practicing bongo drums using the cover of the heating system as a drum. When we finally finished the work and compared notes, however, I was astounded to find that his whole calculation was written on just two sheets of paper. What he was doing during the two months was not only playing bongo but also looking for new ways of doing the integration. And he actually found a very simple and elegant method !

Since this does not seem to be widely known, let me describe it here. The decay process $`\pi e+\overline{\nu }+\gamma `$ has 4-momentum conservation:

$$p_\pi =p_e+p_\nu +k.$$
(27)
$``$ Step 1: Take any final-state $`p_e`$ and go to the reference frame in which the space-components of $`p_\pi `$ and $`p_e`$ satisfy the relation

$$\stackrel{}{p}_\pi =\stackrel{}{p}_e.$$
(28)
Then $`\stackrel{}{p}_\nu `$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ are exactly back to back. Thus the angular integration becomes trivial. The result is a function of the fourth component $`E_e`$ of $`p_e`$ only, which can be easily converted to a covariant form.

$``$ Step 2: Go to the pion rest frame by an $`E_e`$-$`dependent`$ Lorentz transformation. Then the remaining integration over $`E_e`$ is almost trivial. That’s all.

Before we finished our work, Feynman went back to Caltech. After some exchange of letters discussing fine details of the calculation and the drafting of a report, Feynman told me to publish the paper by myself, which I did reluctantly . He did not explain why he did not want to put his name on it. I can only guess some reasons. One is that he was not comfortable with the appearance of unphysical mass in observable quantities. Since the Lagrangians used in these days were just effective Lagrangians and not renormalized ones, they did not provide a proper framework to deal with such a problem. Only within the context of renormalizable theories, such as the Standard Model, can one treat it properly in terms of the renormalization group.

Although the presence of the $`\mathrm{ln}(m_\pi /m_e)`$ term in the $`\pi e`$ decay rate seemed strange at first sight, it was actually not so strange. This is because the $`\pi e`$ decay amplitude in the $`VA`$ theory is proportional to $`m_e`$, which multiplies $`\mathrm{ln}(m_\mu /m_e)`$ and makes the whole amplitude vanish for $`m_e0`$. Note also that the $`\eta _e`$ part of the radiative correction to the $`\pi e`$ decay behaves in the same manner as those of $`\mu `$ and $`\beta `$ decays, namely, it has no $`\mathrm{ln}m_e`$ term.

## 4 Mass singularity

These examples convinced me that the striking cancellation of $`\mathrm{ln}m_e`$ terms in the total probability is a very general feature of quantum field theory. It seemed that the structure of general Feynman amplitudes in the massless limit deserved some attention. I spent the next few years trying to understand this problem.

The basic tool of analysis was the power counting rule to examine the behavior of Feynman integrals in the zero mass limit. As a function of (various) masses, the Feynman amplitude has a very complicated structure at zero-mass points. In general its value depends on the order and direction in which the zero-mass points are approached. It is found, nevertheless, that $`m0`$ in a propagator of mass $`m`$ does not cause divergence unless it is enhanced by putting vertex-sharing propagators (including external lines) on the mass shell. The result was reported in . Alberto used it in his derivation of differential equations for propagators and vertex functions in QED, and obtained results which are equivalent to the Callan-Symanzik equation . (See Appendix A. 3.)

## 5 Lepton anomalous magnetic moments

It turned out that the analysis of the mass singularity was very useful in studying the $`m_\mu /m_e`$ dependence of the muon anomalous magnetic moment . This was in fact the beginning of my active involvement in the $`g2`$ problem, from which I have not yet managed to extract myself. The paper  was extended to the study of higher-order muon anomalous moment based on the renormalization group technique .

The analytic tool developed in  to deal with general Feynman-parametric integrals also turned out to be very handy as the starting point of my work on the sixth- and eighth- order radiative corrections to the lepton $`g2`$ by a numerical method . After converting momentum space Feynman integrals into Feynman-parametric integrals analytically, we evaluated them numerically using the iterative-adaptive Monte Carlo integration routine VEGAS .

In the case of the electron $`g2`$, the best value of the coefficient of $`(\alpha /\pi )^3`$, obtained by VEGAS, is

$$A_6^{(num)}=1.181259(40).$$
(29)
This is in good agreement with the analytic result obtained by Laporta and Remiddi several months later, after many years of hard work :

$$A_6^{(anal)}=1.181241456\mathrm{}.$$
(30)
At present $`A_8`$, the coefficient of $`(\alpha /\pi )^4`$, is known only by the VEGAS integration. The most recent reported value of $`A_8`$ is

$$A_8^{(num)}=1.5098(384).$$
(31)
The project to reduce the uncertainty of $`A_8`$ by a factor of 3 or more by means of massively-parallel computers is approaching the final stage.

At present the best theoretical value of $`a_e`$, including small electroweak and hadronic terms, is

$$a_e(th)=1159652153.5(1.2)(28.0)\times 10^{12}$$
(32)
evaluated using the $`\alpha `$ obtained from the quantum Hall effect :

$$\alpha ^1(qH)=137.0360037(33).$$
(33)
The value $`\pm 1.2`$ in (32) is the remaining uncertainty in theory. The result (32) is to be compared with the measured values of $`a_e`$ obtained in Penning trap experiments :

$`a_e^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1159652188.4(4.3)\times 10^{12},`$
$`a_{e^+}`$ $`=`$ $`1159652187.9(4.3)\times 10^{12},`$ (34)
or their weighted average

$$a_e=1159652188.3(4.2)\times 10^{12}.$$
(35)
Theory is - 1.3 standard deviations away from experiment.

The QED contribution to $`a_\mu `$ has been computed through five loops

$`a_\mu (\mathrm{QED})`$ $`=`$ $`0.5\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)+0.765857376(27)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^2+24.05050898(44)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^3`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`126.07(41)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^4+930(170)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^5`$
$`=`$ $`116584705.7(2.9)\times 10^{11}.`$
The coefficients of $`(\alpha /\pi )^n`$ are mass-dependent. Many $`\mathrm{ln}(m_\mu /m_e)`$ terms as well as some mass-independent terms can be determined analytically by renormalization group considerations . Coefficients of $`\alpha ^2`$ and $`\alpha ^3`$ can be evaluated to any precision by expansion in mass ratios . The errors in the $`\alpha ^2`$ and $`\alpha ^3`$ terms come only from measurement uncertainties of $`m_e/m_\mu `$ and/or $`m_e/m_\tau `$. The coefficient of $`\alpha ^4`$ is known by numerical integration only. The coefficient of $`\alpha ^5`$ is only a rough estimate at present . The electroweak contribution has been evaluated to two-loop order

$$a_\mu (\mathrm{EW})=152(4)\times 10^{11}.$$
(37)
The current best estimate of the hadronic contribution is

$$a_\mu (\mathrm{had})=6739(67)\times 10^{11}.$$
(38)
The sum of (36), (37), and (38) gives the prediction of the Standard Model

$$a_\mu (\mathrm{theory})=116591597(67)\times 10^{11}.$$
(39)
This is in good agreement with the value

$$a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})=116592050(460)\times 10^{11}$$
(40)
obtained by combining the CERN result and the data taken through 1998 at Brookhaven National Laboratory .

## 6 Fine structure constant as test of quantum mechanics

As is seen from (32), the uncertainty in $`a_e(th)`$ is dominated by that of $`\alpha `$ given in (33). This means that this $`\alpha `$ is not accurate enough to test QED to the extent allowed by the precision of the measurement and theory of $`a_e`$. The situation is no better for other high precision values of $`\alpha `$ determined from the ac Josephson effect , measurement of $`h/m_n`$ ($`m_n`$ is the neutron mass) , muonium hyperfine structure , and Cesium $`D_1`$ line :

$$\alpha ^1(acJ\&\gamma _p^{^{}})=137.0359880(51)[3.7\times 10^8],$$
(41)
$$\alpha ^1(m_n)=137.0360119(51)[3.7\times 10^8],$$
(42)
$$\alpha ^1(\mu hfs)=137.0359932(83)[6.0\times 10^8],$$
(43)
$$\alpha ^1(C_sD_1)=137.0359924(41)[3.0\times 10^8].$$
(44)
Atom beam interferometry, single electron tunneling, fine structure of the helium atom, and bound electron $`g2`$, may also produce very precise values of $`\alpha `$.

This means, however, that it is the electron $`g2`$ that can provide the most precise value of $`\alpha `$ at present. ¿From the Seattle experiment and QED one obtains

$`\alpha ^1(a_e)`$ $`=`$ $`137.03599958(14)(50)`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`137.03599958(52)[3.8\times 10^9].`$
Errors on the first line are due to the $`\alpha ^4`$ term and measurement of $`a_e`$.

When new experiments are completed, the measurement uncertainty of $`a_e`$ may be reduced by an order of magnitude . Further improvement in theory will enable us to determine $`\alpha `$ with an uncertainty of less than 1 part in $`10^9`$.

Comparison of $`\alpha `$’s cited above shows that they are in agreement with each other at the level of $`10^7`$. However, these comparisons must be regarded as testing theories underlying these measurements, rather than testing QED. Since all these determinations of $`\alpha `$ are ultimately based on quantum mechanics, they may be regarded as testing of the internal consistency of quantum mechanics itself. It will be of great interest to see whether the good agreement still holds at the level of $`10^8`$ or beyond.

## 7 Concluding remark

Although the first paper Alberto and I wrote together  had an embarrassing error, it turned out to be a very productive error. If this paper did not have the mistake discussed in Sec. 2, we would not have noticed the striking cancellation of mass singularities in integrated quantities, which we emphasized in our subsequent work . I must also point out that we were very lucky to stumble upon this phenomenon. This was because we were studying the decay process rather than the scattering process. Decay processes have several mass scales (for instance $`m_e`$ and $`m_\mu `$) and it is thus easy to examine the limit $`m_e0`$ while keeping $`m_\mu `$ finite. The same cancellation mechanism is also present in scattering processes. However, it was not noticed previously because, in a system with just one mass scale, the mass singularity is not clearly separated from singularities associated with threshold behavior or high energy limits.

Although Alberto and I collaborated only for a couple of years and pursued separate routes afterwards, you will see that much of what we have done since then have roots in our early collaboration.

This work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation.

## Appendix A Communications with Sirlin

### A.1 Sirlin $``$ Kinoshita, November 10, 2000

Dear Tom,

I would like to thank you very much for coming to the Symposium and for your interesting talk. It was also very nice to meet with your wife and you after some time! (Although I saw you at the Yang Symposium last year).

Concerning your talk, Massimo Porrati gave me your transparencies and I noted some discrepancies in the citations to our papers. The problem is that we wrote a number of papers and letters and it is easy to confuse one with the other. Here are my observations:

i), ii) \[Errors in the transparencies corrected here.\]

iii) At the time we corrected our results, I did another check on the cancellation of mass singularities. I took the corrections for muon decay for scalar, pseudoscalar and tensor interactions (which we had from the earlier paper ), and checked that, once the real photon contribution was corrected, the mass singularity cancels in the integrated spectrum, as well as the integrated asymmetry. So, from the fact that the cancellation occurs for the five interactions in muon decay and for the V-A interaction in beta decay, we had at the time a very strong indication that this was associated with a powerful theorem, although the proof in the general case had to wait to your subsequent analysis in .

iv) Although it is true that we failed to appreciate the significance of Feynman’s footnote 13, I think that on the particular issue of summing over polarizations and matching the infrared divergences Feynman was peculiarly unclear. For example, there is a short book by him, called $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$Quantum Electrodynamics” (Benjamin/Cummings, 1961), which essentially contains the material of his 1953 Caltech lectures. On pages 150-151, he discusses the cancellation of infrared divergences between virtual and real soft photons in the case of electron scattering by an external potential, and he only includes the $`\mathrm{ln}(K_m/\lambda _{min})`$ term from the inner bremsstrahlung. It seems clear that he only considered the two transverse directions of polarization in this case and made the same type of incorrect approximations in the bremsstrahlung integrals as we did in .

Incidentally, in 1952 Daniel Amati and I were students in a memorable course in quantum mechanics that Feynman gave in Brazil. At the end of the course, we asked his guidance about QED and he sent several copies of his Caltech Lectures. While I waited in Argentina to go to UCLA, I read those notes. It is rather strange that he did not correct his notes or discuss this issue in greater detail.

v) While I was a post-doc at Columbia, I received a letter from Feynman, dated March 7, 1958, which I have kept. The letter was about two issues.

a) It turns out that we had briefly met at some Conference and found out that we were worried about the same problem, namely the fact that experimentalists had failed to find the decay $`\pi e+\overline{\nu }`$, and that the upper-bound in the branching ratio was $`<1/10^5`$, i.e a factor 12 lower than the theoretical prediction of the V-A theory! I told him that I was considering a modification of the theory with the $`e`$ and $`\nu `$ coming out at different space-time points, which would occur, for instance, if there were a heavy intermediate particle propagating between the two. In the modern context, this will be the case if leptoquarks actually exist. But of course the concept of quark and leptoquark had not been proposed at the time. Feynman told me that he had a different idea: assuming that the self energy of the electron is purely electromagnetic, he claimed that the most natural result for the branching ratio was about $`3.5\times 10^5`$. This still disagreed with experiment, but there was a factor 4 decrease in the predicted branching ratio. I thought that my approach was extremely speculative, but I did not see any way out (assuming, of course, that the experiments were correct). I wrote to T.D. Lee, who was on leave at Princeton, and he advised me to write a short paper, which I published in Phys. Rev. 111, 337 (1958). I sent a copy to Feynman, who replied in the letter of March 7, 1958. He thanked me for the paper and again mentioned his approach leading to the $`3\times 10^5`$ branching ratio. He also added $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$Maybe experiment is wrong”.

b) In the second paragraph he wrote that his student Sam Berman had found an error in the correction to the $`\rho `$-value that Behrends, Finkelstein, and I had published. He added that the correction of this error raises $`\rho `$ by about 0.01 (this is consistent with the conclusions in our paper , and the new Rosenson’s value became $`0.68\pm 0.05`$. He also added that he had not seen Crowe’s data. If my memory is right, after the Berman correction, Crowe’s value was $`0.68\pm 0.02`$. In any case, it is clear that at the moment Feynman was focusing, like we, on the corrections to the spectrum. In some sense, we were fortunate because the corrections to the lifetime became important soon afterwards (after the implications of the conserved-vector-current paper of Feynman and Gell-Mann became clear), and roughly by that time our results were corrected.

vi) After we received the Berman paper and corrected our results, I wrote back to Feynman (on April 29) that Berman’s point concerning the need to include all degrees of polarization associated with a $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$massive photon” was correct, but we did not agree with the second error he had mentioned, since it violated the theorem on cancellation of mass singularities. Of course, at the time we had only a heuristic argument for such cancellation, rather than your general argument, but the cancellations were so striking that, I think, both of us were convinced that there was an underlying theorem. I did not keep a copy of my letter to Feynman (in those days there were mimeographes rather than Xerox machines), but I do have a copy of a letter that Berman sent to me, dated May 6, 1958. In the letter he said that, after reading my letter of April 29 to Feynman, he rechecked his results and found complete agreement. He also said that, in preparing the preprint, a copying error was made, resulting in the spurious term with the mass singularity. Then he thanked me for informing him of this error, $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$which otherwise might have gone unnoticed”. Some time later, Berman passed through New York and asked me: what is this theorem you are talking about? If I remember correctly, I told him that at the time we did not have a general proof, but surely it was a theorem! In 1961, Berman and I overlapped at CERN, became good friends, and wrote a nice paper on a number of subtle points concerning the radiative corrections to muon and beta decays.

vii) Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if we had not made the error. Would we have noticed the cancellation of mass singularities in integrated quantities, and consequently convinced ourselves of the existence of an underlying theorem, or would we have missed this most interesting point? Because the cancellations are so striking, I think that we would have found it, but I am not certain. Feynman, with all his genius, missed it, perhaps because of the copying error! In any case, I often mention this famous error to my students, and tell them: $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$If you are going to make a mistake, make a good one and discover a theorem!”

Please, give my best regards to your wife and to Professor Salpeter.

All the best,

Alberto

### A.2 Kinoshita $``$ Sirlin, November 13, 2000

Dear Alberto,

Thanks for your informative e-mail. As you might imagine, I put together the material of my talk in a hurry and failed to detect errors in citing our papers. If there is going to be a proceeding of the symposium (which I strongly hope is the case), these errors will certainly be corrected. As a matter of fact, your e-mail contains informations which will be of interest to readers and historians. If you are not going to write it by yourself, do you think it a good idea to attach it to my article as an Appendix ? By the way, I remember vaguely that you referred to my mass singularity paper in your paper on the renormalization group equation, but I have not found the reference. Could you give me the proper reference ? I could then include it in the proceedings.

I am impressed that you keep some letters in your file. I am rather bad in keeping letters. I have one letter from Feynman written on a scratch paper, suggesting that I should write the paper by myself. It is somewhere in my file, but I have not yet located it. I also have Feynman’s original two sheet calculation in my cabinet, but do not know exactly where it actually is.

Please send my best regard to your wife.

Tom

### A.3 Sirlin $``$ Kinoshita, November 20, 2000

Dear Tom,

Thank you very much for your message. Sorry for my delay in answering: I have been sort of $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$swamped” by urgent departmental matters and classes. My paper on the renormalization group equation, which is rather pedagogical and is based on considerations of mass singularities, is $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$Mass Divergences and Callan-Symanzik Equations in Quantum Electrodynamics”, Phys. Rev. D5, 2132 (1972).

\[Several sentences are omitted here.\]

The idea of appending some of the information in my e-mail as an appendix to your article is fine with me and may be of some historical interest. As I mentioned, in case anybody is interested, I kept the Feynman and Berman letters I referred to. What I did not keep, and this is a pity, is a copy of my reply to Feynman, in which I stated that Berman’s additional term had to be wrong since it violated the cancellation of mass singularities in the corrections to the lifetime, although, of course, the understanding of this, in the general case, had to wait for your later work!

All the best,

Alberto


format: text

text:
# Proton-Proton Fusion in Effective Field Theory to Fifth Order

## Abstract

The proton-proton fusion process $`ppde^+\nu _e`$ is calculated at threshold to fifth order in pionless effective field theory. There are two unknown two-body currents contributing at the second and fourth orders. Combined with the previous results for $`\nu _ed`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_ed`$ scattering, computed to third order in the same approach, we conclude that a $``$10% measurement of reactor $`\overline{\nu }_ed`$ scattering measurement could constrain the $`ppde^+\nu _e`$ rate to $``$7% while a $``$3% measurement of $`\nu _ede^{}pp`$ could constrain the $`pp`$ rate to $``$2%.

preprint:   DOE/ER/40762-217 UMD-PP-01-031 preprint:
The reaction $`ppde^+\nu _e`$ is of central importance to stellar physics and neutrino astrophysics. Bethe and Critchfield proposed it to be the first reaction to ignite the $`pp`$ chain nuclear reactions that provided the principal energy and neutrinos in the Sun . Major efforts have been made to provide precise theoretical predictions for this reaction at zero energy . No direct experimental constraint is available for this process, and the accuracy of the theoretical predictions must always be weighed against the availability of empirical constraints. However, Schiavilla et al. recently calibrated the matrix element with complementary calculations of tritium beta decay to obtain an estimated uncertainty of less than 1% in the potential model.

Alternatively, effective field theory (EFT) can provide a connection between $`pp`$ fusion and other processes that might be accessible experimentally. Specifically, there is a direct connection between the reactions $`ppde^+\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _ede^{}pp`$ in that they both involve the same matrix elements. Further, in EFT, they can both be shown to depend on a single unknown counterterm (or two-body current) at third order. Otherwise, the nuclear physics input is identical. Further, all four $`\nu (\overline{\nu })`$-$`d`$ breakup channels depend on this same counterterm, meaning that a measurement in any one channel implies a measurement in all channels – including $`pp`$ fusion. To date, measurements are available for $`\overline{\nu }_ed`$ breakup using reactor antineutrinos with $`10`$-$`20\%`$ uncertainty  and possibly $`5\%`$ in the future . Also, the ORLaND proposal could provide a measurement of $`\nu _ede^{}pp`$ to a few percent level . It is important to understand the constraints that these measurements could on $`ppde^+\nu _e.`$

At the present time, $`\nu _ed`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_ed`$ breakup processes have been studied to the third order in pionless EFT depending on the unknown two-body counterterm $`L_{1,A}`$. Through varying $`L_{1,A}`$, the four channels of potential model results of refs. and  are reproduced to high accuracy. This confirms that the $`5\%`$ difference between refs. and  is largely due to different assumptions made to short distance physics. We will discuss this difference later in this letter.

For $`pp`$ fusion, an pionless EFT calculation has been performed to second order by Kong and Ravndall, with a resulting dependence on $`L_{1,A}`$. In this letter, we use the same approach to push the calculation to fifth order, which introduced another unknown two-body counterterm ($`K_{1,A}`$) that first enters at fourth order. Constraining $`K_{1,A}`$ using dimensional analysis, we conclude that a measurement of reactor $`\overline{\nu }_ed`$ with 10% uncertainty can constrain $`pp`$ fusion to 7% while a measurement of $`\nu _ede^{}pp`$ to 3% would constrain $`pp`$ fusion to 2%.

The method we use is pionless nuclear effective field theory, $`\mathrm{EFT}(\pi /)`$ , treating the electromagnetic interaction between protons in the manner developed in . The dynamical degrees of freedom are nucleons and non-hadronic external currents. Massive hadronic excitations such as pions and the delta are integrated out, resulting in contact interactions between nucleons. The nucleons are non-relativistic but with relativistic corrections built in systematically. Nucleon-nucleon interactions are calculated perturbatively with the small expansion parameter

$$Q\frac{(1/a_{pp},\gamma ,p,\alpha M_N)}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}$$
(1)
which is the ratio of the light to heavy scales. The light scales include the inverse S-wave nucleon-nucleon scattering length $`1/a_{pp}(a_{pp}=7.82`$ fm$`)`$ in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$, $`pp`$ channel, the deuteron binding momentum $`\gamma (=45.69`$ MeV) in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ channel, the proton momentum in the center-of-mass frame $`p`$, and the fine structure constant $`\alpha (=1/137)`$ times the nucleon mass $`M_N`$. The heavy scale $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, which dictates the scales of effective range and shape parameters is set by the pion mass $`m_\pi `$. The Kaplan-Savage-Wise renormalization scheme  is used to make the power counting  in $`Q`$ transparent. This formalism has been successfully applied to many processes involving the deuteron including Compton scattering , $`npd\gamma `$ for big-bang nucleosynthesis , $`\nu d`$ scattering  for physics at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory , and parity violation observables .

There are other power counting schemes which yield different orderings in the perturbative series and each has certain advantages. For example, the z-parametrization  recovers the exact deuteron wave function renormalization at second order; the dibaryon pionless EFT  resums the effective range parameter contributions at first order and simplifies the calculation tremendously by cleverly employing the equations of motion to remove redundancies in the theory. While one of these power countings could lead to more rapid convergence in any given calculation, for a high-order calculation as we present here the distinctions between different expansions are negligible.

Ignoring for the moment the weak interaction component, the relevant lagrangian in $`\mathrm{EFT}(\pi /)`$ can be written as a derivative expansion

$``$ $`=`$ $`N^{}\left(i_0+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{2M_N}}\right)N`$ (7)
$`C_0^{\left({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}\right)}(N^TP_iN)^{}(N^TP_iN)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{C_2^{\left({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}\right)}}{8}}[(N^TP_iN)^{}(N^T^2P_iN)+h.c.]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_4^{\left({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}\right)}}{16}}(N^T^2P_iN)^{}(N^T^2P_iN)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{C}_4^{\left({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}\right)}}{32}}[(N^T^4P_iN)^{}(N^TP_iN)+h.c.]`$
$`+\left({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}^1S_0,P_i\overline{P}_i\right)+\mathrm{},`$
where $`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{}`$ and where $`P_i=\sigma _2\sigma _i\tau _2/\sqrt{8}`$ and $`\overline{P}_i=\sigma _2\tau _2\tau _i/\sqrt{8}`$ project out $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channels respectively with $`\sigma (\tau )`$ acting on spin(isospin) indices. The coupling constants have been fit to data in . We only perform the calculation at threshold and thus the relativistic corrections and momentum transfer ($`𝐪`$) effects are suppressed by factors of $`\gamma ^2/M_N^2`$ and $`𝐪^2/\gamma ^2`$ , both of which are $`1\%`$. Thus, with the goal of presenting a calculation with a precision of less than 1%, the nonrelativistic and zero recoil limits are suitable approximations for us to make.

The weak interaction terms in the lagrangian can be written as

$$_W=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}l_+^\mu J_\mu ^{}+h.c.+\mathrm{},$$
(8)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi decay constant and $`l_+^\mu =\overline{\nu }\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)e`$ is the leptonic current. The hadronic current has vector and axial vector parts,

$`J_\mu ^{}=V_\mu ^{}A_\mu ^{}.`$The vector current matrix element vanishes in the zero recoil limit since it yields terms proportional to the wave function overlapping between two orthogonal states. The time component of the axial current gives center of mass motion corrections which vanish in our approximation. The spatial component of the axial vector is the dominant contribution, and can be written in terms of one-body and two-body currents

$`A_k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{2}}N^{}\tau ^{}\sigma _kN`$ (12)
$`+L_{1,A}[\left(N^TP_kN\right)^{}\left(N^T\overline{P}^{}N\right)+h.c.]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{K_{1,A}}{8}}[\left(N^T^2P_kN\right)^{}\left(N^T\overline{P}^{}N\right)+\left(N^TP_kN\right)^{}\left(N^T^2\overline{P}^{}N\right)+h.c.]`$
$`+\mathrm{},`$
where $`g_A=1.26`$, $`\tau ^{}=(\tau _1i\tau _2)`$, and the values of $`L_{1,A}`$ and $`K_{1,A}`$ are yet to be determined by data.

The hadronic matrix element is usually parametrized in the form

$$\left|d;j\left|A_k^{}\right|pp\right|g_AC_\eta \sqrt{\frac{32\pi }{\gamma ^3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(p)\delta _k^j,$$
(13)
where $`j`$ is the deuteron polarization state, and

$$C_\eta =\sqrt{\frac{2\pi \eta }{e^{2\pi \eta }1}},\eta =\frac{\alpha M_N}{2p}$$
(14)
is the well-known Sommerfeld factor. In the center of the Sun, the scale of $`p`$ is $``$1 MeV. Thus the Sommerfeld factor $`C_\eta ^2`$ changes rapidly with respect to $`p`$ while $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(p)`$ does not. It is sufficient to keep the $`p^2`$ correction for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(p)`$, since the higher order correction is $`𝒪(`$ $`(p/\alpha M_N)^4)`$. Using $`ϵ`$ to keep track of the $`Q`$ expansion we find that, to fifth order in the $`Q(ϵ)`$ expansion, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)`$ can be written in the compact form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1ϵ\gamma \rho _d}}\left\{e^\chi \gamma a_{pp}\left[1\chi e^\chi E_1(\chi )\right]ϵ\gamma ^2a_{pp}\left[\overline{L}_{1,A}\frac{ϵ^2\gamma ^2}{2}\overline{K}_{1,A}\right]\right\}+𝒪\left(ϵ^5\right).$$
(15)
This expression can be expanded to $`ϵ^4`$, and then $`ϵ`$ should be set to 1. $`\rho _d=1.764`$ fm is the effective range parameter in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ channel, $`\chi =\alpha M_N/\gamma `$ and

$$E_1(\chi )=_\chi ^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\frac{e^t}{t}.$$
(16)
$`\overline{L}_{1,A}`$ and $`\overline{K}_{1,A}`$ are the renormalization scale $`\mu `$-independent combinations of the $`\mu `$-dependent parameters $`L_{1,A}`$, $`K_{1,A}`$ and the nucleon-nucleon contact terms $`C_2`$ and $`C_4`$

$`\overline{L}_{1,A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu \gamma \right)}{M_NC_{0,1}^{(pp)}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{L_{1,A}}{g_A}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{2}}\left(C_{2,2}^{(pp)}+C_{2,2}^{(d)}\right)\right],`$ (17)
$`\overline{K}_{1,A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu \gamma \right)}{M_NC_{0,1}^{(pp)}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{K_{1,A}}{g_A}}M_N\left(\stackrel{~}{C}_{4,2}^{(pp)}+2C_{4,3}^{(d)}\right)\right].`$ (18)
¿From ref. , we have

$`C_{0,1}^{(pp)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{M_N}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{pp}}}\mu +\alpha M_N\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \sqrt{\pi }}{\alpha M_N}}+1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\gamma _E\right)}},`$ (19)
$`C_{2,2}^{(pp)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{8\pi }}r_0^{(pp)}C_{0,1}^{(pp)}{}_{}{}^{2},\stackrel{~}{C}_{4,2}^{(pp)}={\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{4\pi }}r_1^{(pp)}C_{0,1}^{(pp)}{}_{}{}^{2},`$ (20)
$`C_{2,2}^{(d)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{M_N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _d}{\left(\mu \gamma \right)^2}},C_{4,3}^{(d)}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{M_N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _d^2}{\left(\mu \gamma \right)^3}},`$ (21)
where the second subscripts of the $`C`$’s denote the scaling in powers of $`Q`$, $`\gamma _E=0.577`$ is Euler’s constant, and $`r_0^{(pp)}=2.79`$ fm is the $`pp`$ channel effective range. We take the $`pp`$ channel shape parameter to be the same as that in the $`np`$ channel $`r_1^{(pp)}=0.48`$ fm3. Any errors introduced by this are small numerically.

After expanding to $`ϵ^4`$ and setting $`\mu =m_\pi `$, we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)=2.58+0.011\left(\frac{L_{1,A}}{\text{1 fm}^3}\right)0.0003\left(\frac{K_{1,A}}{\text{1 fm}^5}\right).$$
(22)
At $`\mu =m_\pi `$, dimensional analysis as developed in refs.  would favour

$`\left|L_{1,A}\right|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\pi \left(m_\pi \gamma \right)^2}}6\text{ fm}^3,`$ (23)
$`\left|K_{1,A}\right|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\pi ^2\left(m_\pi \gamma \right)^3}}20\text{ fm}^5.`$ (24)
Two observations follow. First, if we take these naively estimated values (with positive signs, for example), then the expansion of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)`$ converges rapidly

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)=2.51\left(1+0.039+0.0290.0100.0001\right).$$
(25)
For other sign combinations, the series also converges rapidly and higher order effects are $`1\%`$. Second, eqs. (22) and (24) show that $`K_{1,A}`$ is likely to contribute to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)`$ at a level less than 1%. Thus eq. (22) is precise to 1% even with $`K_{1,A}`$ set to zero, meaning that we can write

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)=2.58+0.011\left(\frac{L_{1,A}}{\text{1 fm}^3}\right)+𝒪(1\%).$$
(26)
This the central result of this paper.

Ultimately the value of $`L_{1,A}`$ must be extracted from experimental data. Before we address this issue, let us look at what values of $`L_{1,A}`$ are found in fits to potential model calculations. Using the results of ref. , the recent potential model results for $`\nu (\overline{\nu })d`$ breakup of Nakamura, Sato, Gudkov, and Kubodera (NSGK)  are equivalent to

$$L_{1,A}^{NSGK}=5.6\text{ }\pm 2\text{fm}^3,$$
(27)
while the results of Ying, Haxton and Henley (YHH)  are equivalent to

$$L_{1,A}^{YHH}=0.94\pm 2\text{fm}^3.$$
(28)
The uncertainties represent a conservative estimate from EFT of 3% from ref.  (even though the NSGK results can be reproduced within 1% using the central value of $`L_{1,A}`$). Based on the size of the third-order contribution, the actual uncertainty may be as small as 1%, but further analysis is required to ascertain this. The (undefinable) errors from the potential models themselves are not included. As mentioned before, the differences between these two calculations are in their treatment of two-body physics. NSGK uses a model to include axial two-body meson exchange currents, while YHH includes vector two-body currents but not the more-important axial two-body currents. Given that $`L_{1,A}`$ is representative of the dominant axial effects in EFT, it is not surprising to see substantial differences in the value inferred by each calculation.

Similarly, eq. (26) translates the $`pp`$ fusion rate ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(0)=7.05`$-$`7.06`$) calculated by Schiavilla et al. into

$$L_{1,A}^{Schiavillaetal.}=6.5\pm 2.4\text{ fm}^3,$$
(29)
which is consistent with NSGK.

Experimentally, it is easy to relate the EFT $`\nu (\overline{\nu })`$-$`d`$ scattering results and $`pp`$ fusion rate through the third-order results for $`\nu (\overline{\nu })`$-$`d`$ provided in . The results for each channel are parameterized in the form

$$\sigma (E_\nu )=a(E_\nu )+b(E_\nu )L_{1,A}+𝒪(<3\%),$$
(30)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are functions of neutrino energy. These results, tabulated in ref. , can be easily related to the $`pp`$ fusion rate through eq. (26).

For reactor $`\overline{\nu }`$-$`d`$ scattering, one expects the rate to be peaked around 8 MeV, which can be interpreted to mean a measurement precise to 10% can determine the $`pp`$ fusion rate ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$) to 7%. With the experimental precision further improved to 5%, the $`pp`$ fusion rate can be determined to 4%. Alternatively, the proposed ORLaND  detector might measure $`\nu _ede^{}pp`$ to 3%, in turn constraining the $`pp`$ fusion rate to 2%.

In strong interaction processes involving external currents, delicate relations between operators are required to guarantee that there are no off-shell ambiguities in the final results. For example, in two-body systems two-body currents serve to absorb the off-shell effects from the two-body strong interactions. This means that different models that reproduce the same on-shell nucleon-nucleon scattering data might need quite distinct two-body currents to deal with off-shell effects. In the case of $`pp`$ fusion or $`\nu `$-$`d`$ scattering, electromagnetic matrix elements cannot be used to constrain weak matrix elements. Their operator structures are quite different at the quark level even they might appear the same in hadronic level. Using tritium $`\beta `$-decay to constrain the two-body current  is an excellent idea, in principle. However, contributions from three-body currents that are required to absorbed three-body off-shell effects are not yet constrained. In light of these facts, the need for a precise experimental measurement of $`\nu _e(\overline{\nu }_e)`$-$`d`$ breakup cannot be overstated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Ian Towner for useful discussions. M.B. is supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. J.-W.C. is supported, in part, by the Department of Energy under grant DOE/ER/40762-213.