text:
# Evidence for a warm ISM in the Fornax dEs FCC046 and FCC207

## 1 Introduction

Dwarf ellipticals as a rule are pressure-supported objects, characterized by very low rotation velocities compared to their velocity dispersions (fast-rotating dEs do exist but they are rare, see De Rijcke et al. ). There is currently a number of models in vogue that attempt to explain this apparent lack of rotation as a result of significant mass-loss. According to the “wind-model”, proposed by Dekel & Silk , dEs form from average-amplitude density fluctuations. Most, if not all, of the ISM is subsequently blown away after it has been heated to velocities that exceed the galaxy’s escape velocity by the first burst of supernova explosions. This dramatic mass-loss causes a more anisotropic orbital structure and makes the galaxy puff up. A more sophisticated version of this scenario can be found in Mori et al.  who discuss the chemodynamical evolution of a $`10^{10}M_{}`$ dwarf galaxy. The first supernovae expell a supersonic outflow of gas from the center of the galaxy. Stars form in this expanding shell and subsequent supernova explosions further accelerate the expansion of the shell and enrich it with metals. This model explains the outward reddening of dEs as a metallicity effect and reflects in the characteristic exponential surface-brightness profile.

Other scenarios take into account the fact that dEs are found predominantly in high-density environments such as groups and clusters. Mori & Burkert  argue that ram-pressure stripping is able to completely remove the gas from a dE less massive than $`10^9M_{}`$ within a few $`10^8`$ years. More massive dEs might be able to retain some gas in the central region. Moore et al.  examine the role of tidal interactions between small spirals and giant cluster-members to produce dE-like objects. On its orbit through the cluster, a small galaxy is subjected to collisional shocks induced by other galaxies that tear large tidal tails off it, draining angular momentum from the remaining gas and stars. The perturbations heat the dwarf galaxy, raising the velocity dispersion, while the mass loss makes it inflate. Torques exerted by the collisions drive gas to the center were it is consumed in a starburst. This process could explain the density spike in so-called nucleated dEs.

Independent of which scenario is correct, one would expect that not much of an ISM, if any, is present in dEs and hence that they are not actively forming new stars. None the less, there is a growing amount of data that demonstrates that at least some dEs have been able to retain a sizable amount of dust and both cold and warm gas, and that some are forming stars. We give a few examples of recent detections of star-formation or of an ISM in dEs without attempting completeness. Young & Lo \[1997a, 1997b, 1997c\] detect Hi 21 cm emission and CO emission in virtually all Local Group dwarf spheroidals they examined (Leo A, NGC147, NGC185, NGC205, Sag DIG, LGS 3 and Phoenix). NGC185 shows H$`\alpha `$ emission in the form of a central extended emission region of 50 pc in diameter, probably a SNR. On the other hand, NGC205 is devoid of emitting regions. Hence, the presence of an ionised ISM in dEs should not be taken for granted. NGC205 and NGC185 also show a few dust patches. The dE A 0951$`+`$68, in the M81 group, posesses a high-excitation Hii region (Johnson et al. ). The observed extended blue light is regarded as evidence of a recent star formation event. NGC4486A, a relatively bright dE seen almost edge-on, contains a stellar and dust disk (Kormendy et al. ), reminiscent of the nuclear disks of spiral galaxies.

Sandage & Brucato (Sandage & Brucato , see also e.g. Quill et al. , Noreau & Kronberg , Marlowe et al. ) coined the name “amorphous dwarfs” for dwarf galaxies that have a disturbed appearance due to recent star formation and the presence of dust but are not irregular enough to be classified as Im. Marlowe et al.  argue that BCDs, Hii galaxies and amorphous galaxies are actually all members of the same class of star-forming dwarfs and owe their names mostly to the selection criteria involved. Most amorphous dwarfs in the sample of Marlowe et al.  have a two-component surface brightness profile : an exponential envelope and a bluer core component. Their amorphous dwarfs show strong H$`\alpha `$ emission ($`L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }10^{33}`$W). These authors argue that it is possible – at least in principle – that the cores and envelopes of BCDs and amorphous dwarfs will fade and reach an end-state similar to present-day nucleated dEs after they have used up their gas supply and star-formation has ended. However, star-formation in dwarf galaxies probably takes place in a series of mild star-bursts that deplete the gas rather slowly. Hence, dEs must have had ancestors that evolved more rapidly. The fact that dEs are found predominantly in clusters while BCDs are remarkably scarce in these high-density environments (Salzer ) might hold a clue : repeated encounters with giant galaxies and ram-pressure stripping may have sped up the gas-depletion process. It is clear that the present-day star-formation rate (SFR) and ISM-content hold important clues to understand the origin of dEs.

FCC046 (Fig. 2) and FCC207 (Fig. 2) (Ferguson ) were selected as targets for an ongoing ESO Large Programme to study the structure and dynamics of dEs. These were the only galaxies in our sample with published evidence of the presence of an ISM and recent star-formation. Ionised hydrogen was detected by Drinkwater et al.  in both galaxies. These authors interpret this as photo-ionisation by young stars and use Kennicutt’s  calibration between the total SFR and the H$`\alpha +`$\[Nii\] equivalent width (EW)

$$\mathrm{SFR}2.7\times 10^{12}\frac{L_B}{L_{B,}}\mathrm{EW}(\mathrm{H}\alpha +[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}])M_{}/\mathrm{yr},$$
(1)
with $`L_B`$ and $`L_{B,}`$ the B band luminosity of the galaxy and the sun, respectively, to estimate the SFRs in these galaxies at $`12\times 10^3M_{}`$/yr. Held & Mould  present UBV colors and metallicities of, amongst others, FCC207. They conclude that FCC207 is too blue in U$``$B (U$``$B$`=0.15`$) and too metal-poor for its B$``$V (B$``$V$`=0.78`$) and interpret this as a consequence of the presence of a young stellar population. This motivated us to investigate both objects more closely using BRI broad-band and H$`\alpha +`$\[Nii\] narrow-band imaging. In section 2, we discuss the details of the observations and data reduction. The B$``$R color maps are presented in section 3 and the results of the H$`\alpha +`$\[Nii\] narrow-band imaging are shown in section 4.

## 2 Observations and data reduction

The observations were carried out on 18 and 20 November 2001 with Yepun (VLT-UT4) using FORS2. We took 20 minute exposures of FCC046 and FCC207 with the H\_Alpha/2500+60 filter centered on 6604 Å and with a FWHM$`=64`$ Å. R band images obtained during a previous run (1-8 November 2000) served as off-band images. Two H$`\alpha `$-images of the spectrophotometric standard star LTT9239 were taken for flux-calibration. During these observations, the seeing (determined from the stars on the images) typically was $`0.7^{\prime \prime }0.8^{\prime \prime }`$ FWHM. The standard data reduction procedures (bias subtraction, flatfielding, cosmic removal, interpolation over bad pixels, sky subtraction) were performed with MIDAS 111ESO-MIDAS is developed and maintained by the European Southern Observatory. All science images were corrected for atmospheric extinction (using the R band extinction coefficient : $`k_e=0.13`$) and interstellar extinction (we used the Galactic extinction estimates from Schlegel et al.  : $`A_R=0.050`$ for FCC046 and $`A_R=0.039`$ for FCC207). The images were finally converted to units of electrons/second/pixel.

In order to find the correct scaling for the R-band images we adopted the following strategy. The pure emission “Em” can be recovered from a narrow-band image “Nb” and an R-band image “Rb” as

$$\mathrm{Em}=\mathrm{Nb}(c\times \mathrm{Rb}+\delta )$$
(2)
with $`c`$ the proper scaling constant and $`\delta `$ a correction for possible faulty sky-subtraction. To find the best values for $`c`$ and $`\delta `$, we first fitted the isophotes of the narrow-band and R-band images in an annulus between $`m_R=24.5`$ mag/$`\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`m_R=26.5`$ mag/$`\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }`$, which in retrospect did not contain any emission (hence Em$`=0`$), using the standard MIDAS FIT/ELL3 command. Thus, a smooth version of this annulus could be constructed for both images. The optimal $`c`$ and $`\delta `$ can be found by minimising the expression $`|\mathrm{Nb}(c\times \mathrm{Rb}+\delta )|`$ with Nb and Rb the smoothed versions of the annulus. With these values in hand, the pure-emission image can be obtained using relation (2). $`\delta `$ was very small for both FCC046 and FCC207, which makes us confident that the sky was properly subtracted in all images. Since the H$`\alpha `$ and R-band overlap, subtracting an R-band image in lieu of a continuum image entails a partial removal of some H$`\alpha +`$\[Nii\] light. The error thus introduced is of the order of the ratio of the effective widths of the filters (R-band : $`W=165.0`$ nm, H$`\alpha `$ : $`W=6.4`$ nm), i.e. less than 4%. Since this effect is negligible in comparison to the other possible sources of error, we did not correct for it.

A pixel-value in the pure-emission image (corrected for both atmospheric and interstellar extinction), denoted by $`N_g`$, expressed in electrons/second, can be converted to flux units, $`F_g^{}`$, using the formula

$$F_g^{}=N_g\times \frac{\phi _\mathrm{o}}{N_{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}_\lambda ^{}(\lambda )\phi _\mathrm{f}(\lambda )𝑑\lambda \mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2.$$
(3)
Here, $`_\lambda ^{}(\lambda )`$ is the spectrum of a flux-calibration standard star and $`N_{}`$ is the measured flux of that star, expressed in electrons/second. $`\phi _\mathrm{f}(\lambda )`$ is the transmission of the H$`\alpha `$ filter and $`\phi _\mathrm{o}`$ the transmission of the optics (which is basically constant for a narrow-band filter). The prime on $`F_g^{}`$ indicates that this is the flux incident on the CCD, after going through the telescope and instrument optics and the narrow-band filter. This can also be written as

$`F_g^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _\mathrm{o}[F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }\phi _\mathrm{f}(\lambda _{\mathrm{H}\alpha })+F_{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_1}\phi _\mathrm{f}(\lambda _{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_1})`$ (4)
$`+F_{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_2}\phi _\mathrm{f}(\lambda _{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_2})]`$
with $`F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$, $`F_{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_1}`$ and $`F_{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_2}`$ the incoming fluxes – i.e. before going through the telescope and instrument optics and the narrow-band filter – of respectively the H$`\alpha `$ 6563Å, the \[Nii\] 6548Å and the \[Nii\] 6583Å emission line (approximated as $`\delta `$-functions). This allows one to obtain the true incoming flux of the H$`\alpha `$ emission line as

$$F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }=\frac{\frac{N_g}{N_{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}_\lambda ^{}(\lambda )\phi _\mathrm{f}(\lambda )𝑑\lambda }{\phi _\mathrm{f}(\lambda _{\mathrm{H}\alpha })+\left[\frac{F_{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_1}}{F_{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_2}}\phi _\mathrm{f}(\lambda _{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_1})+\phi _\mathrm{f}(\lambda _{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_2})\right]\frac{F_{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_2}}{F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }}}.$$
(5)
The total incoming H$`\alpha +`$\[Nii\] flux is simply

$`F_{\mathrm{em}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_1}}{F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_2}}{F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }}}\right).`$ (6)
Since the H$`\alpha `$ filter is relatively flat-topped and the H$`\alpha `$ and \[Nii\] lines are well inside the filter transmission curve, the total flux is rather insensitive to the adopted relative line-strengths. In the following, we will assume the mean value $`F_{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_2}/F_{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_1}=3`$ for the ratio of the line-strengths of the two Nitrogen lines (Macchetto et al. , Phillips et al. ). The ratio $`F_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}_2}/F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$ is not known and is treated as a free parameter, varying between 0 and 2.

The rms scatter in the final pure-emission images is about 0.035 electrons/pixel/second (or $`2.5\times 10^{20}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$ for $`F_{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_2}/F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }=1.38`$, the average value found by Phillips et al.  for a sample of normal ellipticals).

## 3 B$``$R color maps

The B, R and I images were used to extract surface brightness, position angle and ellipticity profiles (see Figure 3). The deviations of the isophotes from a pure elliptic shape were quantified by expanding the intensity variation along an isophotal ellipse in a fourth order Fourier series with coefficients $`S_4`$, $`S_3`$, $`C_4`$ and $`C_3`$ :

$`I(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`I_0(1+C_3\mathrm{cos}(3(\theta \mathrm{PA}))+C_4\mathrm{cos}(4(\theta \mathrm{PA}))+`$ (7)
$`S_3\mathrm{sin}(3(\theta \mathrm{PA}))+S_4\mathrm{sin}(4(\theta \mathrm{PA})))`$
with PA the position angle. All photometric parameters were fitted by cubic splines as functions of semi-major axis distance. The galaxy nucleus (i.e. the brightest pixel) was used as zeropoint for both $`a`$ and $`b`$, the semi-minor axis distance. This allowed to reconstruct the surface brightness at a given point on the sky and to construct color profiles (e.g. B$``$R as a function of radius).

### 3.1 FCC207

FCC207 has de-reddened magnitudes $`m_I=14.39`$ mag, $`m_R=14.86`$ mag and $`m_B=16.19`$ mag (hence B$`\mathrm{R}=1.33`$ mag, R$`\mathrm{I}=0.47`$ mag). Its nucleus has a distorted shape : it is more elongated than the bulk of the galaxy (E3 versus E2) and is somewhat kidney-shaped. This is probably due to dust-absorption to the north of the nucleus, noticeable in the B$``$R color map (Figure 5) as a patch that is $`0.2`$ mag redder than its surroundings. The nucleus (B$`\mathrm{R}=0.90`$ mag) is significantly bluer than the bulk of the galaxy (B$`\mathrm{R}=1.25`$ mag). This behavior is similar to what e.g. Bremnes et al.  find in dwarf galaxies in nearby groups. A small, slightly east-west elongated blue object (B$`\mathrm{R}=1.10`$ mag) can be seen to the west of the nucleus. It is also visible in the H$`\alpha `$ image. Its elongation rules out the possibility that it is a faint foreground star. As can be seen in Figure 5, the B$`\mathrm{R}`$, B$`\mathrm{I}`$ and R$`\mathrm{I}`$ colors stay essentially constant outside the nucleus. If a young stellar population is present outside the nuclear region of FCC207 (the inner $`2^{\prime \prime }`$) then these stars are apparently well mixed with the older population.

### 3.2 FCC046

FCC046 is a rather blue object, with de-reddened magnitudes $`m_I=14.43`$ mag, $`m_R=14.88`$ mag and $`m_B=15.99`$ mag (hence B$`\mathrm{R}=1.11`$ mag, R$`\mathrm{I}=0.45`$ mag). The nucleus, a round (E0) and blue (B$`\mathrm{R}=0.10`$ mag) object (see Figure 7), is offset by 1.1′′ to the south-west of the center of the outer isophotes (see Figure 3). B$`\mathrm{R}`$, B$`\mathrm{I}`$ and R$`\mathrm{I}`$ color profiles are presented in Figure 7 and show a very different behavior than those of FCC207. The colors of the stellar population become redder towards larger radii. The nucleus of FCC046 is much bluer than those of nucleated dwarfs presented by Bremnes et al. (e.g. ). These authors typically find $`BR0.5`$ for the nucleus. The nucleus is resolved in the B-band image. This implies that the nucleus is much larger than would be expected for a typical dE. Even with the superior resolving power of HST, Lauer et al.  could not resolve the nuclei of 5 nucleated Virgo dEs. The diameter (FWHM) of the nucleus was estimated using the relation

$$\mathrm{FWHM}_{\mathrm{true}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{FWHM}_{\mathrm{obs}}^2\mathrm{FWHM}_{\mathrm{star}}^2}$$
(8)
with $`\mathrm{FWHM}_{\mathrm{true}}`$ the true dimension, $`\mathrm{FWHM}_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ its observed FWHM and $`\mathrm{FWHM}_{\mathrm{star}}`$ the average FWHM of the stars in the image. The seeing, estimated from 10 stars in the B-band image, was $`0.82^{\prime \prime }\pm 0.04^{\prime \prime }`$. The measured FWHM of the nucleus is $`\mathrm{FWHM}_{\mathrm{obs}}=1.1^{\prime \prime }`$ or $`\mathrm{FWHM}_{\mathrm{true}}65`$ pc (for $`H_0=75`$ km/s/Mpc and a Fornax systemic velocity $`v_{\mathrm{sys}}=1379`$ km/s). We fitted a two-component model to the B-band surface brightness of FCC046 : an axisymmetric component centered on the outer isophotes that represents the light of the underlying stellar population and a round component centered on the position of the nucleus. The results of this decomposition are presented in Figure 8. The nucleus has a blue magnitude $`m_B=18.55`$ mag ($`M_B=12.77`$) and comprises about 10% of the total B-band luminosity of the galaxy. It should be noted that the nucleus of FCC046 was apparently not visible on the photographic plates on which Ferguson’s catalog  was based, since it is classified as a dE4 (i.e. as a non-nucleated dwarf). The underlying stellar envelope deviates from an axisymmetric mass model and shows a pronounced lopsidedness, visible in Figure 3 as the bump in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ in the region $`\sqrt{ab}2^{\prime \prime }12^{\prime \prime }`$. This asymmetry may be due to an asymmetric distribution of few but bright young stars. This appears to be plausible since the dynamical time scale, estimated as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=\frac{2\pi r}{v_{\mathrm{circ}}}=\sqrt{\frac{16\pi ^2r^3}{GM(r)}}20\mathrm{Myr}$$
(9)
for typical values $`r0.5`$ kpc and $`M(r)10^9M_{}`$, is of the order of the life-time of the youngest stars so these would not have had time to disperse all over the face of the galaxy. The cause of persistent $`m=1`$ perturbations, that involve a sizable fraction of a galaxy’s mass, is still poorly understood. Interactions are often invoked, especially in bright galaxies, but examples of isolated lopsided galaxies are know (particularly in Hi, Baldwin et al. ). Since there is no galaxy detected within a $`20^{}\times 20^{}`$ square centered on FCC046, it seems unlikely that an encounter with another galaxy has caused the lopsidedness. Dynamical instabilities have also been invoked (Merritt  and references therein) but it remains unclear whether such a hypothesis may work for all galaxies.

## 4 H$`\alpha `$ imaging

### 4.1 The H$`\alpha `$ equivalent width

Drinkwater et al.  have measured H$`\alpha `$ EWs of 108 confirmed Fornax cluster members, including FCC046 and FCC207 with the FLAIR-II spectrograph on the UK Schmidt Telescope. The effective aperture diameter of this system is at least 6.7′′ (the fibre diameter) and could be as large as 15′′ (because of image movements due to tracking errors and differential atmospheric refraction). They find :

$`\mathrm{EW}(\mathrm{FCC046})`$ $`=`$ $`2.1\mathrm{\AA },`$
$`\mathrm{EW}(\mathrm{FCC207})`$ $`=`$ $`2.2\mathrm{\AA }.`$
For comparison, we calculated the EW inside some aperture radius $`r`$ from our images as :

$$\mathrm{EW}=\frac{F_{\mathrm{em}}(r)}{F_{\mathrm{cont}}(r)}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda $$
(10)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =64`$ Å the FWHM of the redshifted H$`\alpha `$ filter and $`F_{\mathrm{em}}(r)`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{cont}}(r)`$ the total number of counts inside a circular aperture with radius $`r`$ of respectively the H$`\alpha +`$\[Nii\] and the continuum image. We find :

$`\mathrm{FCC046}`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}F_{\mathrm{em}}=54.1\text{e}\text{-}\text{/sec}\hfill & \\ F_{\mathrm{cont}}(8^{\prime \prime })=3745\text{e}\text{-}\text{/sec}\hfill & \mathrm{EW}(8^{\prime \prime })=0.9\mathrm{\AA }\hfill \\ F_{\mathrm{cont}}(3.5^{\prime \prime })=1462\text{e}\text{-}\text{/sec}\hfill & \mathrm{EW}(3.5^{\prime \prime })=2.4\mathrm{\AA },\hfill \end{array}`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{FCC207}`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}F_{\mathrm{em}}=78.0\text{e}\text{-}\text{/sec}\hfill & \\ F_{\mathrm{cont}}(8^{\prime \prime })=3300\text{e}\text{-}\text{/sec}\hfill & \mathrm{EW}(8^{\prime \prime })=1.4\mathrm{\AA }\hfill \\ F_{\mathrm{cont}}(3.5^{\prime \prime })=1250\text{e}\text{-}\text{/sec}\hfill & \mathrm{EW}(3.5^{\prime \prime })=3.7\mathrm{\AA }.\hfill \end{array}`$ (18)
Given the possible sources of error (photon shot-noise, sky and continuum subtraction) that can affect our measurements, we consider these values in good agreement with the EWs measured by Drinkwater et al. .

### 4.2 The H$`\alpha +`$\[Nii\] and H$`\alpha `$ luminosities

Pure H$`\alpha +`$\[Nii\] emission images of FCC046 and FCC207 are presented in Figures 10 and 10. For FCC046, we find $`F_{\mathrm{em}}(\mathrm{FCC046})=1.531.57\times 10^{18}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$, corresponding to a total luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{em}}(\mathrm{FCC046})=6.216.37h_{75}^2\times 10^{30}\mathrm{W}`$. The range of values is given for $`F_{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_2}/F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }=02`$ (see Figure 11). The central emission peak comprises about half of the luminosity. It alone has a luminosity of about $`3\times 10^{30}`$ W. The total flux of FCC207 is somewhat higher : $`F_{\mathrm{em}}(\mathrm{FCC207})=1.932.18\times 10^{18}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$, which yields a total luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{em}}(\mathrm{FCC207})=7.838.84h_{75}^2\times 10^{30}\mathrm{W}`$. These numbers can be compared to those found by Buson et al. , Kim , Phillips et al.  and Shields  for normal elliptical and S0 galaxies. The luminosities of the central emission peaks in FCC046 and FCC207 are compared to those of ellipticals in Figure 12. Typical emission luminosities for these galaxies lie in the range $`L_{\mathrm{em}}=10^{33}10^{35}`$ W, i.e. more than a 1000 times brighter. The fact that the luminosity of the nuclear emission in these dEs agrees fairly well with the trend of normal Es – extrapolated over more than 2 magnitudes – suggests that the ionising mechanism, at least for the central emission, is the same and therefore somehow related to the stellar population.

The total H$`\alpha `$-flux of FCC046 is $`F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }=4.1715.7\times 10^{19}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$, depending on the value of $`F_{[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ii}]_2}/F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$. This translates into a total H$`\alpha `$ luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }=1.696.37h_{75}^2\times 10^{30}\mathrm{W}`$, about half of which is emitted by the central peak corresponding to the galaxy’s nucleus. The total H$`\alpha `$-flux of FCC207 is somewhat higher : $`F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }=5.9519.3\times 10^{19}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$, corresponding to $`L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }=2.417.83h_{75}^2\times 10^{30}\mathrm{W}`$. Binette et al.  propose photo-ionisation by post-AGB stars as a source for the central emission in elliptical galaxies. Using their prescriptions, we derive central H$`\alpha `$ luminosities of the order of $`2\times 10^{30}`$ W, i.e. comparable to what is observed. Hence, blindly interpreting the central H$`\alpha `$ emission as evidence for star-formation may be somewhat audacious. We can however check our results and use Kennicutt’s  calibration between the total SFR and the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity,

$$\mathrm{SFR}8.93\times 10^{35}L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }E_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }$$
(19)
with $`E_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }=1`$ mag the internal extinction factor. We obtain

$`\mathrm{SFR}(\mathrm{FCC046})`$ $`=`$ $`0.41.4\times 10^3M_{}/\mathrm{yr}`$
$`\mathrm{SFR}(\mathrm{FCC207})`$ $`=`$ $`0.51.8\times 10^3M_{}/\mathrm{yr},`$ (20)
in good agreement with the estimates based on the EWs given by Drinkwater et al. .

### 4.3 Hii masses

The total mass in ionised hydrogen can be written as

$$M_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{ii}}=\frac{L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }}{4\pi j_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }}m_\mathrm{H}N_e$$
(21)
with $`L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$ the total H$`\alpha `$ luminosity, $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ the mass of the hydrogen atom and $`N_e`$ the electron density in the gas. The hydrogen H$`\alpha `$ emissivity $`j_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$ is given by

$$4\pi j_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }=N_e^2\alpha _{\mathrm{H}\alpha }h\nu _{\mathrm{H}\alpha }=3.544\times 10^{32}N_e^2\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cm}^3$$
(22)
in “case B” recombination, i.e. complete re-absorption of all Lyman photons in an optically thick nebula (Osterbrock , Spitzer , Macchetto et al ). Each Lyman photon emitted from a level with $`n3`$ is later on converted to (a) Balmer photon(s) plus one Lyman $`\alpha `$ photon, thus raising the flux in the Balmer lines. The production coefficient $`\alpha _{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$ (calculated for $`T=10^4`$ K) is insensitive to the electron density (it changes by only 4% if $`N_e`$ is raised from 1 cm-3 to 106 cm-3) and varies as $`T^{0.8}`$ as a function of temperature. Using equations (21) and (22), the ionised hydrogen mass can be written concisely as :

$`M_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{ii}}`$ $`=`$ $`23.72\left({\displaystyle \frac{1000\mathrm{cm}^3}{N_e}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }}{10^{30}\mathrm{W}}}\right)M_{}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`2.85\left({\displaystyle \frac{1000\mathrm{cm}^3}{N_e}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{F_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }}{10^{23}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cm}^2}}\right)\times `$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{10\mathrm{Mpc}}}\right)^2M_{},`$
cf. Kim . In the following, we will assume the value $`N_e=1000`$ cm-3 for the electron density to be in accord with most other authors and to be able to directly compare our ionised hydrogen masses with the literature (however, Spitzer  advocates $`N_e=100`$ cm-3 as a typical value for both Galactic Hii regions with diameters of the order of 100 pc and for supernova remnants). Using equation (23), the mass of the ionised hydrogen gas in FCC046 can be estimated at $`M_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{ii}}40150M_{}`$ and at $`M_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{ii}}60190h_{75}^2M_{}`$ in FCC207.

### 4.4 FCC046 : a starforming dE?

The $`\mathrm{H}\mathrm{ii}`$ emission of FCC046 is distributed over a bright central region and six fainter clouds, labeled Cl1 to CL6 in Figure 10. Cl1, Cl2, Cl5, and Cl6 are identifiable in the B$``$R color map. Cl1 and CL6 are part of the bluish nebulosity to the north of the nucleus whereas Cl2 and Cl5 show up as individual blue spots, about 0.1 mag bluer than their immediate surroundings. The diameters (FWHM) of these clouds were estimated using equation (8). We fitted gaussian profiles to 11 stars in the pure-emission image of FCC046 and found $`\mathrm{FWHM}_{\mathrm{star}}=0.78^{\prime \prime }\pm 0.06^{\prime \prime }`$. Hence, clouds with an observed FWHM smaller than 0.84′′ (or a diameter smaller than $`30`$ pc) cannot be regarded as resolved. Clouds Cl1, Cl3, and Cl6 are resolved under the given seeing conditions. In Table 1, the diameters and luminosities of the clouds are listed. In the fourth column, we give the emission rate of hydrogen ionising photons $`Q_{\mathrm{max}}`$ needed to produce the luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{em}}`$ if the clouds would be Hii regions (i.e. we assume that all the light is in the H$`\alpha `$ line to obtain an upper limit for $`Q`$) :

$$Q_{\mathrm{max}}=L_{\mathrm{em}}\frac{\alpha _B}{h\nu _{\mathrm{H}_\alpha }\alpha _{\mathrm{H}_\alpha }}$$
(24)
with $`\alpha _B=2.59\times 10^{13}`$ cm3s-1 the “case B” recombination coefficient for $`T=10^4`$ K (Osterbrock ). An upper limit for the diameter of a Hii region, $`D_{\mathrm{max}}`$, is then given by

$$D_{\mathrm{max}}=\left(\frac{6Q_{\mathrm{max}}}{\pi N_e^2\alpha _B}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(25)
The values in Table 1 are calculated for $`N_e=100`$ cm-3.

In Figure 13, the diameters ($`D=\sqrt{ab}`$ with $`a`$ and $`b`$ respectively the long and short axes FWHM) and H$`\alpha +`$\[Nii\] luminosities of M33 SNR remnants and of the six clouds identified in FCC046 are presented (Long et al. ). The properties of the largest clouds are consistent with those of SNRs. The luminosities of the clouds are also compatible with those of Hii regions ionised by the light of single 05-B0 stars but at least Cl1, Cl3 and Cl6 seem too large for this interpretation. Though suggestive, this of course does not mean that they necessarily are SNRs. Nebulae around Wolf-Rayet stars could be a plausible alternative and are found in many irregulars and have appropriate luminosities and diameters (Hunter & Gallagher , Chu & Lasker ). It is striking that these emission clouds, whatever their interpretation, are not found predominantly inside the bluish nebulosity to the north of the nucleus, something that would be expected if the blue light is coming from a young population of stars. Their true nature can of course only be assessed by spectroscopy.

## 5 Conlusions

The similarities of the broad-band colours of FCC046 to those of star-forming or amorphous dwarfs, its relatively strong core and the presence of emission clouds support the conclusion that FCC046 is actively forming stars, albeit at a very leasurely pace when compared to BCDs and amorphous dwarfs who are about a factor 1000 more luminous in H$`\alpha `$. The nuclear emission of FCC046 and FCC207 can be adequately accounted for by photo-ionisation by post-AGB stars although a contribution of H$`\alpha `$ emission from star-formation cannot be excluded. Only the emission from the six clouds observed in FCC046 (supernova remants, Wolf-Rayet nebulae) can be interpreted as unambiguous evidence for recent or ongoing star-formation. The presence of physically different emission regions makes the interpretation of this emission in terms of a star-formation rate cumbersome. High-resolution spectroscopy of a broad wavelength region is required to measure the strengths of H$`\alpha `$, H$`\beta `$ and of telltale O, N and S emission lines in the visible part of the spectrum. These can be used as diagnostics to probe the physical nature of the different emission clouds.

Drinkwater et al  find no distinct class of star-forming BCD galaxies but instead observe H$`\alpha `$ emission in dwarf galaxies of all sizes and types. Among these, starforming dEs like FCC046 may prove to be the descendents of more fiercely star-forming dwarfs like BCDs which are not (or no longer) present in Fornax. As a check, we fitted exponentials to the surface brightness profiles of FCC046 and FCC207 and compared the extrapolated B-band central surface brightnesses and the scale-lengths with those of the Virgo dEs, BCDs, and dIrrs presented in Drinkwater & Hardy . Both galaxies have scale-lengths in between those of BCDs and dEs, and quite high B-band central surface brightnesses compared to the dEs in the Drinkwater & Hardy sample. These results support our conjecture that dEs that contain ionised gas and possibly ongoing low-powered star-formation can be considered as amissing link between BCDs and traditional dEs.

## Acknowledgments

This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments. SDR wishes to thank Dr. Victor Debattista for useful comments on the causes of lopsidedness. WWZ acknowledges the support of the Austrian Science Fund (project P14783) and of the Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur.


format: text

text:
# An Effective Field Theory for the Three-Body System

## 1 Introduction

The need for a model-independent approach to the three-nucleon system is clear. The plethora of two-body potentials, each capable of describing two-body data extremely well, fail when applied to the three-body problem without an additional three-body force constructed to fit the data.

Effective Field Theories (EFTs) offer a systematic and model-independent treatment of nuclear and hadronic physics at low energies . In an EFT we hope to take advantage of a separation of scales by expanding observables in powers of the ratio $`Q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, where $`Q`$ denotes a generic low-energy scale and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ a typical scale of the underlying physics. The expansion will be useful if the seperation of scales is large enough to ensure quick convergence.

An EFT is defined by a Lagrangian containing all possible local terms consistent with the symmetries of the underlying theory. Although this will invariably lead to an infinite number of terms, we hope to organise them according to some ”power-counting”, related to the number of low-energy scales in each term. EFTs are well-developed and understood for two-body physics and now the three-body problem is an area of keen interest.

The mathematical tool that allows us to determine the power-counting is the renormalisation group (RG) . If we are concerned with problems where the wavelengths of the particles are far longer than the range of the interaction, the scattering is insensitive to the detailed structure of that interaction. Replacing the interaction with contact interactions and forming an EFT Lagrangian leads to UV divergences from the high-momentum modes of loop diagrams. Accordingly we regulate the loop diagrams with a floating UV cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Since all observables should be independent of this cut-off we renormalise the theory by absorbing the resulting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dependence into the EFT couplings. Solving the resulting RG equation provides a frame-work for constructing power-counting schemes. The resulting EFT absorbs the effects of the short-range physics and parameterises it on a power-series in $`Q`$.

The key to constructing power-counting schemes is fixed points. After rescaling all quantities in terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we may look for solutions to the RG equation which are independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Such solutions are referred to as fixed points. Since these have no scale attached to them solutions of the RG equation tend to one of them as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$. Study of the scaling behaviour of solutions close to the fixed points leads to different power-counting schemes.

## 2 Two-body EFT

The simplest EFT has only one field, the field of the asymptotic particles being considered. Such a theory is known as a “pionless” EFT in nuclear physics. For a two-body system the Lagrangian takes the form,

$$_{2B}=\psi ^{}(i_0+\frac{^2}{2M})+\frac{C_0}{4}|\psi |^4+\frac{C_2}{4}\left(\psi ^{}(\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{})^2\psi ^{}\right)\psi ^2+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)+\mathrm{}$$
(1)
Using the RG method outlined above one may construct two different power-counting schemes for such a system. The RG equation for the leading term $`C_0`$ is,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\widehat{C}_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\widehat{C}_0(1+\widehat{C}_0),$$
(2)
where the hat signifies a dimensionless rescaled coupling. There are clearly two fixed point solutions to this equation, $`\widehat{C}_0=0`$ and $`\widehat{C}_0=1`$. These lead to the two different schemes.

Perturbing about the fixed point $`\widehat{C}_0=0`$ leads to Weinberg or naive counting in which the leading perturbation scales with $`Q`$. This counting system is useful for weakly interacting systems.

Perturbing about the second fixed point $`\widehat{C}_0=1`$ leads to KSW counting, in which the leading perturbation scales with $`Q^1`$. The fixed-point solution corresponds to a system with a bound-state at exactly zero energy, consequently this expansion is useful for strongly attractive systems with a shallow bound-state and is the expansion most useful in nuclear and atomic physics. The counting scheme is equivalent to the effective range expansion. The couplings, $`C_0`$ and $`C_2`$, can be directly related to the scattering length, $`a_2`$, and effective range, $`r_2`$, respectively.

Once a power-counting scheme is chosen the free parameters in the couplings can be fixed using experimental data. The resulting theory is then predictive for other processes.

## 3 Building a Three-Body EFT

Our aim is to extend the KSW EFT to describe three-body interactions, by using the already determined two-body couplings and constructing a counting scheme for the three-body couplings,

$$_{3B}=\frac{D_0}{36}|\psi |^6+\frac{D_2}{36}\left(\psi ^{}(\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{})^2\psi ^{}\right)\psi ^{}\psi ^3+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)+\mathrm{}$$
(3)
In scattering of a third particle from a bound pair the two-body contact potential leads to a particle exchange force with a range $`a_2`$. In nuclear physics in particular, the length scale set by the scattering length is far longer than any other scale in the problem. We hope to use this seperation of scales to construct an EFT for three-bodies.

We may treat the long-range physics, $`Q1/a_2`$ exactly by working in terms of the distorted waves (DWs) of the particle-exchange potential . The tool for constructing the power-counting schemes is then the distorted wave renormalisation group (DWRG) in which the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is applied in the basis of the distorted waves. This method ensures that all non-analytic behaviour resulting from the long-range potential is factored out in terms constructed from the DWs.

To apply the DWRG method to the three-body problem we must find the three-body wavefunction for a system with a finite two-body scattering length and zero effective-range. This two-body interaction can be expressed simply as a boundary condition on the wavefunction at zero seperation. For the three-body wavefunction this takes the form,

$$\left[\frac{\psi (r_{23},r_1)}{r_{23}}\right]_{r_{23}=0}=\frac{1}{a_2}\left[\psi (r_{23},r_1)\right]_{r_{23}=0},$$
(4)
where we are using the three-body Jacobian coordinate system. When this is applied to the integral equation for the three-body wavefunction we obtain an integro-differential equation for the projection of the wavefunction, $`\varphi (r_1)=\psi (r_{23}=0,r_1)`$. This is equivalent to the equation given by Skorniakov and Ter-Martirosian . Generally, the equations for $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ must be solved numerically. In the zero-energy limit we can solve them analytically. These analytic solutions give the short-range asymptotic behaviour of the full solutions

$$\psi (r_{23},r_1)=𝒩(ka_2)f(\theta )\mathrm{sin}(s_0\mathrm{ln}(kR)+\eta (R_0)),$$
(5)
where $`R`$ and $`\theta `$ are the hyperradius and hyperangle respectively, $`f`$ is some known function, $`k=\sqrt{4(a_2^2+ME)/3}`$, $`s_01`$, $`𝒩`$ is some numerically computed normalisation. Here, $`\eta `$ is an arbitrary phase that must be fixed by applying a boundary condition at some $`R_0`$, $`\eta (R_0)=s_0\mathrm{ln}(kR_0)`$. This solution is precisely that found by Efimov .

Using the DWRG method, we may use this result to construct the power-counting for the three-body system. One finds that the DWRG equation has no true fixed point but a logarithmic evolution. Perturbations around this lead to an expansion of the form $`𝒟_{n,m}p^{2n}a_2^m\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{2nm}`$, where $`p`$ is the on-shell momentum, $`n,m0`$, $`𝒟_{n,m}`$ are free dimensionless parameters that should be of order one and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is the scale at which the EFT breaks down. This expansion provides the power-counting for the system.

The leading term is marginal, i.e. it is dimensionless and does not scale with $`Q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. As expected, such a marginal perturbation leads to logarithmic behaviour in $`Q`$ which necessitates the introduction of a new scale. In this case the scale is in fact $`R_0`$, the scale appearing in the boundary condition on the three-body wavefunction.

It is important to notice that since the leading three-body term is marginal, it occurs at next-to-leading order in the expansion (two-body leading term occurs at $`Q^1`$) rather than the naively expected next-to-next-to-leading order.

The final result may be expressed as a DW effective range expansion,

$$𝒩(pa_2)\mathrm{cot}(\delta _{3B})=(pa_2)+\underset{n,m}{}𝒟_{n,m}p^{2n}a_2^m\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{2n2m}.$$
(6)
$`\delta _{3B}`$ is the correction to the phaseshift due to the three-body force and $`𝒩`$ and $``$ are numerically computed functions.

## 4 Conclusion

This analysis shows the importance of the three-body force in this system. The marginal behaviour of this force means that it must be included in the low-energy EFT. It, or equivalently the boundary condition on the three-body wave function at short distances, is required to resolve the ambiguities in the three-body system with zero-range two-body forces. In nuclear physics, its role can be seen from the fact that different phenomenological nucleon-nucleon potentials lead to quite different predictions for three-nucleon binding energies and scattering lengths. However, these predictions all lie on a single “Phillips line”  showing that their differences can be expressed in a single effective parameter $`R_0`$, the scale appearing the marginal term of the three-body potential.


text:
# HIGH PRECISION LASER AND MICROWAVE SPECTROSCOPY OF ANTIPROTONIC HELIUM

## 1 Antiprotonic helium

The precision spectroscopy of antiprotonic helium is being performed by the ASACUSA collaboration $`^\mathrm{?}`$ at the Antiproton Decelerator (AD) facility of CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. The experiments constitute an extension of those performed previously by the PS205 collaboration at LEAR$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Here, highly excited states of the neutral three-body system $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$–He2+–e$`{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$He+ (cf. Fig. 1) are investigated by means of laser and microwave spectroscopy. These states are formed when antiprotons are stopped in helium (in the current experiments, helium gas of about 6 K and $`0.12`$ bar). Antiprotons are captured by replacing one of the two ground-state electrons of helium and therefore occupy states with principal quantum numbers around $`n_0=\sqrt{M^{}/m}`$ (=38.3 for $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$$`^4`$He+), where $`M^{}`$ is the reduced mass of the $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$–He2+ system, and $`m`$ the electron mass. Fig. 1 shows the energy level diagram of $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$$`^4`$He+, which is divided in a metastable zone (solid lines) and a short-lived one (wavy lines). For the metastable levels the Auger transition rate is much smaller than the radiative transition rate, leading to lifetimes of $`\tau `$ $`\mu `$s, while for the short-lived ones the Auger rate is much higher than the radiative one, resulting in lifetimes of $`\tau <`$ 10 ns. Antiprotons initially captured around $`n_0`$ undergo radiative transitions following cascades with $`\mathrm{\Delta }v\mathrm{\Delta }(nl1)=0`$ ($`n`$ = principle and $`l`$ = angular momentum quantum number) until they reach a short-lived state from which they ionize via Auger transitions. The $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$He++ ion is then rapidly destroyed by Starck-mixing in the dense surrounding helium medium.

This picture was proven to be correct by a series of laser spectroscopy experiments at LEAR ($`^\mathrm{?}`$ and references in $`^\mathrm{?}`$). A laser pulse tuned to the transition at the end of a cascade will deexcite the antiprotons from the metastable to the short-lived state, thus forcing them to immediately annihilate. Using this signature, a total of 10 resonant transitions in $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$$`^4`$He+ and 3 in $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$$`^3`$He+ could be found at LEAR, thus confirming for the first time experimentally the long-held belief that exotic particles are initially captured around $`n_0=\sqrt{M^{}/m}`$.

## 2 Laser spectroscopy of antiprotonic helium and CPT test of the antiproton charge and mass

The AD is in operation since the year 2000. It provides pulses of $`200`$ ns length containing $`24\times 10^7`$ antiprotons of 100 MeV/c momentum (5.3 MeV kinetic energy). The distance between pulses is about 100 seconds. For the experiments at the AD a completely new experimental setup was designed and installed, adopted to the pulsed structure of the antiproton beam with very low repetition rate. Laser spectroscopy of $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$He+ was started from the begin of operation of the AD, and many new transitions in $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$$`^4`$He+ and $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$$`^3`$He+ were found. This allows for a much more systematic study of state properties and theoretical calculations.

At LEAR, we had succeeded in measuring the transition wavelength for one transition with the best accuracy of 0.5 ppm ($`5\times 10^7`$) $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In order to improve this, we used a new laser system and more sophisticated calibration of the wavelength measuring device against an iodine reference cell $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In the first experiment, we also extended the measurements to six transitions including two newly found ones in the UV region ($`(n,l)=(35,33)(34,32)`$ at 372 nm and $`(33,32)(32,31)`$ at 296 nm) where theoretical calculations are supposed to be most accurate. Two transitions had very large widths ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }>15`$ GHz) because of the short lifetime of their daughter states, which makes both the experimental and theoretical accuracy very low. For the other four “narrow” transitions ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }<50`$ MHz), the experimental error was reduced by a factor of four to $`1.3\times 10^7`$, and all four transition wavelengths agreed with the most sophisticated three-body calculations by Korobov $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and Kino et al. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ to better than $`5\times 10^7`$ (cf. Fig. 2) $`^\mathrm{?}`$. At this level of precision the calculations need to take into account relativistic corrections, the Lamb shift and QED corrections up to order $`\alpha ^4`$, so that this experiment constitutes a stringent test of the validity of three-body bound state QED calculations.

On the other hand, the agreement between experiment and theory can be used to perform a CPT test on the proton/antiproton charge and mass, since the theorists use in their calculations the numerically better known mass and charge of the proton. The energy levels itself are governed by the Rydberg constant $`RyM_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}Q_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}^2`$. Taking into account the fact that the antiproton cyclotron frequency $`\omega _{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}Q_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}/M_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}`$ is known $`^\mathrm{?}`$ to be equal to the proton one to better than 1 in $`10^{10}`$, the agreement of theory and experiment for the transition energies in antiprotonic helium results in an upper limit for the equality of proton and antiproton charge and mass of $`6\times 10^8`$ (90% confidence level) $`^\mathrm{?}`$, a factor of 8 better than our own results at LEAR $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and a factor of 300 better than previous measurements using X-rays of heavy antiprotonic atoms $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

In 2001 we went one step ahead and used an Radio Frequency Quadrupole Decelerator (RFQD $`^\mathrm{?}`$) to further decelerate the antiprotons to $`60`$ keV. These ultra-low energy antiprotons can be stopped in helium gas of 30 K and 0.8 mbar, about a factor 1000 lower density than usual. This allows to essentially eliminate the systematic error coming from the extrapolation of the transition wavelength to zero density necessary in the previous experiments. Furthermore, we extended the number of transitions investigated to 7 in $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$$`^4`$He+ and, for the first time, included 6 transitions of $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$$`^3`$He+. Preliminary analysis shows that we can expect a further improvement of a factor $`3\mathrm{}4`$ for the experimental accuracy after analyzing all new data.

## 3 Measurement of the hyperfine structure of antiprotonic helium

The main highlight of the 2001 run was the first observation of the hyperfine splitting of the $`(37,35)`$ state using a laser-microwave-laser triple resonance method $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In this case “hyperfine” structure means the level splitting arising from the interaction of the magnetic moments of the constituents of $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$He+. The uniqueness of the resulting structure comes from the fact that the antiproton in metastable states carries a very large angular momentum of $`L_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}`$ $`=33\mathrm{}39`$, which leads through the interaction $`\stackrel{}{L_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}}\stackrel{}{S_e}`$ with the electron spin $`S_e`$ to the dominant splitting which we call hyperfine (HF) splitting. The antiproton spin $`S_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}`$ leads to a further, about two orders of magnitude smaller splitting called super-hyperfine (SHF) structure, resulting in a quadruplet structure (cf. Fig. 3).

The two-laser microwave triple resonance method $`^\mathrm{?}`$ allows to observe the transitions $`\nu _{\mathrm{H}F}^+`$ and $`\nu _{\mathrm{H}F}^{}`$ within the quadruplet that are associated with a flip of the electron spin. The measured values agree well with the calculated ones by Korobov and Bakalov $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, but less with published values of Yamanaka and Kino $`^\mathrm{?}`$. New results of Kino et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$, however, are very close to our experimental results. The experiment has therefore fully confirmed the presence of a quadruplet structure originating from the hyperfine coupling of $`\stackrel{}{L}_{\overline{p}}`$, $`\stackrel{}{S}_e`$, and $`\stackrel{}{S}_{\overline{p}}`$, as predicted by Bakalov and Korobov $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The latest values of both theoretical groups agree with our result on the level of the theoretical accuracy which is determined from omitting order-$`\alpha ^25\times 10^5`$ corrections from the calculations. This again shows the impressive accuracy that the variational three-body QED calculations are able to achieve. The experimental accuracy is $`3\times 10^5`$, slightly smaller than the theoretical uncertainty.

The excellent agreement between experiment and theory proves the validity of the theoretical expressions of Bakalov and Korobov for the HFS of $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$He+. The microwave resonance frequencies, $`\nu _{\mathrm{H}F}^+`$ and $`\nu _{\mathrm{H}F}^{}`$ , are primarily related to the dominant $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ orbital magnetic moment. On the other hand, the splitting between $`\nu _{\mathrm{H}F}^+`$ and $`\nu _{\mathrm{H}F}^{}`$ is caused by the $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ spin, and is directly proportional to the spin-magnetic moment $`\mu _{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}`$ of the antiproton. The observation of a splitting in agreement with the theoretical value implies that the spin-magnetic moment of proton and antiproton are equal within the experimental error of 1.6 %. This is consistent with an earlier (more precise) determination of $`\mu _{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}`$ from a fine structure measurement of antiprotonic lead $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

## 4 Summary and Outlook

Fig. 4 illustrates the development of the laser spectroscopy measurements as well as the theoretical calculations over the years. It shows a step-by-step progress, in which an advance of experiments was followed by an improvement of the theoretical calculations, which was repeated several times. The experimental results provided the grounds for an advancement of three-body QED calculations to a precision that has never been reached before for a three-body system with two heavy centers (antiproton and helium nucleus). The agreement between theory and experiment could be used to perform a CPT test on the equivalence of proton and antiproton charge and mass with an accuracy of 60 ppb, which will be improved by a factor $`3\mathrm{}4`$ in the near future. Making use of the ultra-low energy antiproton beam provided by the ASACUSA RFQD, and two-photon transitions with a new laser system currently under development, we expect to increase the experimental precision by about another order of magnitude in the next two years.

The first measurement of microwave-induced transitions within a state in $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$He+ proves its unusual hyperfine structure due to the large angular moment of the antiproton. The agreement with theory provides a measurement of the orbital angular moment of $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ with an accuracy of $`6\times 10^5`$. The value for the spin magnetic moment agrees with earlier (more precise) measurements. An improvement of the accuracy of one order of magnitude is necessary to improve the value for $`\mu _{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}`$ , which is known to only 0.3%.


text:
# Perturbative and Non-perturbative Lattice Calculations for the Study of Parton Distributions

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Lattice QCD provides non-perturbative techniques for the computation of the Mellin moments of the structure functions of hadrons from first principles, without model assumptions. Many results have been obtained in the past years from the lattice, and include the calculation of the lowest moments of various structure functions of the quarks: the unpolarized structure functions, the spin-dependent structure functions $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$, and the transversity structure function $`h_1`$.

Lattice perturbation theory is essential for the renormalization of the relevant operators. Perturbative calculations of renormalization factors have been carried out for the lowest three moments of all structure functions, in the case of Wilson and also of overlap fermions (which do not break chiral symmetry). For many operators these renormalization factors are also known in the improved theory. Perturbative renormalization factors have also been calculated for some higher-twist matrix elements (4-quark operators).

## 2 STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS

It is not possible to compute a complete structure function directly on the lattice (which is set up in Euclidean space). The reason is that the structure functions describe the physics close to the light cone, and this region of Minkowski space shrinks to a point when one goes to Euclidean space, where Monte Carlo simulations are performed. However, on a Euclidean lattice it is possible to compute the moments of the structure functions, using the operator product expansion:

$$_0^1x^n_{(i)}(x,Q^2)C^{(n,i)}(\frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2})h|O^{(n,i)}(\mu )|h.$$

The Wilson coefficients contain the short-distance physics, and can be perturbatively computed in the continuum. The matrix elements contain the long-distance physics, and can computed using numerical simulations, supplemented by a lattice renormalization of the relevant operators.

Operators of twist two (twist: dimension minus spin) dominate the expansion above. Moments of the unpolarized structure functions (which give the unpolarized distribution $`q`$), of the spin-dependent structure functions $`g_1`$ (which gives the helicity distribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$) and $`g_2`$, and of the transversity structure function $`h_1`$ (which gives the transversity distribution $`\delta q`$) are measured by towers of hadronic matrix elements:

$`x^n`$ $``$ $`h|\overline{\psi }\gamma _{\{\mu }D_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}D_{\mu _n\}}\psi |h`$
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^n`$ $``$ $`h|\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma _{\{\mu }D_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}D_{\mu _n\}}\psi |h`$
$`x^n_{g_2}`$ $``$ $`h|\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma _{[\mu }D_{\{\mu _1}D_{\mu _2]}\mathrm{}D_{\mu _n\}}\psi |h`$
$`(\delta x)^n`$ $``$ $`h|\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \{\mu _1}D_{\mu _2}\mathrm{}D_{\mu _n\}}\psi |h.`$
## 3 OPERATOR RENORMALIZATION

To obtain physical continuum matrix elements from the lattice, the results of Monte Carlo simulations need to be renormalized from the lattice to a continuum scheme. To obtain these renormalization factors one has to compute 1-loop matrix elements on the lattice as well as in the continuum. The lattice operators at tree level, for $`p\pi /a`$, have the same matrix elements as the original continuum operators, so that at 1 loop

$`O_i^{\mathrm{lat}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_0^2}{16\pi ^2}}\left(\gamma _{ij}\mathrm{log}a^2p^2+R_{ij}^{\mathrm{lat}}\right)O_j^{\mathrm{tree}}`$
$`O_i^{\mathrm{cont}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^2}{16\pi ^2}}\left(\gamma _{ij}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}}+R_{ij}^{\mathrm{cont}}\right)O_j^{\mathrm{tree}},`$
where for the continuum one chooses the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, since the Wilson coefficients are known in this scheme. In general $`R_{ij}^{\mathrm{lat}}R_{ij}^{\mathrm{cont}}`$, and the 1-loop renormalization factors on the lattice and in the continuum are different. The anomalous dimensions are equal, and thus for $`\mu =1/a`$ only a finite renormalization connects the two schemes. The matching between Monte Carlo numbers and the renormalized physical results is then

$$O_i^{\mathrm{cont}}=\left(\delta _{ij}\frac{g_0^2}{16\pi ^2}\left(R_{ij}^{\mathrm{lat}}R_{ij}^{\mathrm{cont}}\right)\right)O_j^{\mathrm{lat}}.$$

Since Lorentz symmetry is broken on the lattice (which is invariant under the hypercubic group), and for Wilson fermions also chiral symmetry, the mixing of operators under renormalization is more complicated than in the continuum theory. Operators multiplicatively renormalizable in the continuum may mix with other operators when they are put on the lattice. Sometimes these mixing coefficients are even power divergent, that is they behave like $`1/a^n`$. In general then the matching factors $`R_{ij}^{\mathrm{lat}}R_{ij}^{\mathrm{cont}}`$ are not square matrices.

## 4 WILSON FERMIONS

Most calculations are done using the discretization of the (Euclidean) QCD action proposed by Wilson. Wilson fermions however break chiral symmetry, and this causes an additive mass renormalization even for a zero bare mass, and a heavy pion ($`m_\pi 500MeV`$). Extrapolations to the chiral limit are then needed, and this source of systematic errors has to be controlled.

Lattice perturbation theory is quite cumbersome: there are more vertices and more diagrams than in the continuum, the expressions contain a huge number of terms, and the integrals are more complicated. The Wilson quark propagator is

$$\delta ^{ab}a\frac{\mathrm{i}_\mu \gamma _\mu \mathrm{sin}ak_\mu +am_f+2r_\mu \mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{ak_\mu }{2}}}{_\mu \mathrm{sin}^2ak_\mu +\left[2r_\mu \mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{ak_\mu }{2}}+am_f\right]^2},$$

which in the continuum limit gives

$$\delta ^{ab}\frac{\mathrm{i}_\mu \gamma _\mu k_\mu +m_f}{_\mu k_\mu ^2+m_f^2},$$

and the gluon propagator (in covariant gauge) is

$$\frac{\delta ^{ab}}{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{a^2}}_\lambda \mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{ak_\lambda }{2}}}\left[\delta _{\mu \nu }(1\alpha )\frac{\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{ak_\mu }{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{ak_\nu }{2}}}{_\lambda \mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{ak_\lambda }{2}}}\right].$$

The lattice theory has exact gauge invariance at any finite $`a`$. This causes the presence in the action of the group elements $`U_\mu =\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}ag_0A_\mu )`$ instead of the algebra elements $`A_\mu `$. One has then to expand the $`U_\mu `$’s in terms of the $`A_\mu `$’s, and this generates an infinite number of vertices, of which only a finite number is needed at any given order in $`g_0`$. The quark-quark-gluon vertex is

$$g_0(t^a)^{bc}\left(\mathrm{i}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{cos}\frac{as_\mu }{2}+r\mathrm{sin}\frac{as_\mu }{2}\right)$$
(1)
(where $`s=p_1+p_2`$, the momenta of the quarks), which for $`a0`$ gives $`g_0(t^a)^{bc}\mathrm{i}\gamma _\mu `$, while the quark-quark-gluon-gluon vertex is

$$\frac{1}{2}ag_0^2\delta _{\mu \nu }\{t^a,t^b\}^{cd}\left(\mathrm{i}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{sin}\frac{as_\mu }{2}+r\mathrm{cos}\frac{as_\mu }{2}\right).$$
(2)
This is an irrelevant vertex (is zero in the continuum limit), but still gives non-vanishing contributions to Feynman diagrams in divergent loops.

Also in the pure gauge part there is an infinite number of vertices. The 3-gluon vertex is

$`\mathrm{i}g_0f^{abc}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a}}\{\delta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{a(kp)_\rho }{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{aq_\mu }{2}}`$
$`+\delta _{\nu \rho }\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{a(pq)_\mu }{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{ak_\nu }{2}}`$
$`+\delta _{\rho \mu }\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{a(qk)_\nu }{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{ap_\rho }{2}}\},`$
which in the continuum limit becomes

$$\mathrm{i}g_0f^{abc}\left\{\delta _{\mu \nu }(kp)_\rho +\delta _{\nu \rho }(pq)_\mu +\delta _{\rho \mu }(qk)_\nu \right\}.$$

The 4-gluon vertex is too complicated to be reported here. Furthermore, the gauge measure at order $`g_0^2`$ gives a $`1/a^2`$ mass counterterm. Finally, using a Faddeev-Popov procedure one can obtain the Feynman rules for the ghost propagator and the ghost interactions. The effective ghost-gauge field interaction is not linear in the gauge potential $`A_\mu `$, and thus also in this sector new vertices appear that have no continuum analog, like the ghost-ghost-gluon-gluon vertex.

## 5 OVERLAP FERMIONS

A Dirac operator $`D=\gamma _\mu D_\mu `$ which satisfies the Ginsparg-Wilson relation $`\gamma _5D+D\gamma _5=a/\rho D\gamma _5D`$ defines fermions with maintain an exact chiral symmetry also for non-zero lattice spacing and also keep all other fundamental properties.

One of the possible solutions of the Ginsparg-Wilson relation is given by overlap fermions. In the massless case the overlap-Dirac operator is

$$D_N=\frac{1}{a}\rho \left[1+\frac{X}{\sqrt{X^{}X}}\right],X=D_W\frac{1}{a}\rho ,$$

where $`D_W`$ is the Wilson-Dirac operator. For $`0<\rho <2r`$ one has the right spectrum of massless fermions. Additive mass renormalization is then forbidden, and one avoids a source of systematic errors always present using Wilson fermions.

The massless quark propagator in the overlap is more complicated than in Wilson, and is

$$\delta ^{ab}\left(\frac{\mathrm{i}_\mu \gamma _\mu \mathrm{sin}ak_\mu }{2\rho \left(\omega (k)+b(k)\right)}+\frac{a}{2\rho }\right),$$

where $`b(k)=1/a(2r_\mu \mathrm{sin}^2ak_\mu /2\rho )`$,
$`\omega (k)=\sqrt{X_0^{}(k)X_0(k)}`$, and

$$X_0(k)=\frac{1}{a}\left(\mathrm{i}\underset{\mu }{}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{sin}ak_\mu +2r\underset{\mu }{}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{ak_\mu }{2}\rho \right).$$

The overlap vertices can be expressed in terms of the vertices of the QED Wilson action $`W_{1\mu }`$ and $`W_{2\mu }`$, which are the vertices (1) and (2) without the color matrices, and of the quantity $`X_0`$. For example, the quark-quark-gluon vertex is

$`(t^a)^{bc}\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega (p_1)+\omega (p_2)}}[W_{1\mu }(p_1,p_2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega (p_1)\omega (p_2)}}X_0(p_2)W_{1\mu }^{}(p_1,p_2)X_0(p_1)].`$
The quark-quark-gluon-gluon vertex is very long and will not be given here (see for example ).

## 6 IMPROVEMENT

It is very expensive to decrease the errors due to the granularity of the lattice just by reducing the lattice spacing $`a`$, because the cost would grow like $`a^5`$ in the quenched theory, and in full QCD it would grow even faster. Halving the discretization errors in this way would then be at least $`30`$ times more expensive. A more effective way is to improve actions and operators.

$`O(a)`$ improvement removes the contributions of order $`a`$ to the systematic error arising from the finiteness of the lattice spacing by adding a counterterm to the fermion action, so that

$$p\left|\widehat{𝒪}_L\right|p^{}_{MC}=a^d\left[p\left|\widehat{𝒪}\right|p^{}_{ph}+O(a^2)\right].$$

For Wilson fermions, this is achieved in on-shell matrix elements adding a counterterm whose coefficient $`c_{sw}`$ has to be exactly tuned. Only for its appropriate value, for a given $`g_0`$, the $`O(a)`$ effects are canceled and one gets a faster convergence to the continuum limit. Due to this action counterterm one has to add to the Wilson vertex (1) the improved quark-quark-gluon interaction vertex 111The fermion propagator and the vertices with an even number of gluons are instead not modified by the improvement. Neither is the gluon propagator: the first corrections to the pure gauge action are already of order $`a^2`$.

$$c_{sw}g_0\frac{r}{2}(t^a)^{bc}\mathrm{cos}\frac{aq_\mu }{2}\underset{\lambda }{}\sigma _{\mu \lambda }\mathrm{sin}aq_\lambda ,$$

where $`q`$ is the difference between the incoming and outgoing momenta of the quarks. In addition to this, one also has to improve the various operators, that is one must add a basis of higher dimensional (irrelevant) operators with the same quantum numbers, with $`dim(\stackrel{~}{O}_i)=dim(O)+1`$:

$$OO^{\mathrm{imp}}=(1+b_Oam)O+a\underset{i}{}c_i\stackrel{~}{O}_i.$$

The $`O(a)`$ improvement for overlap fermions is much simpler. The action is already improved, and thus there is no need of new interactions. The improved operators are given, to all orders, by

$$O^{\mathrm{imp}}=\overline{\psi }\left(1\frac{1}{2\rho }aD_N\right)\stackrel{~}{O}\left(1\frac{1}{2\rho }aD_N\right)\psi $$

(while for Wilson fermions the improvement construction is different for each operator). One thus gets full $`O(a)`$ improvement without tuning any coefficients, and to all orders of perturbation theory. For Wilson fermions, instead, one has to determine the coefficients of the operator counterterms order by order in perturbation theory. 222This appears to be a difficult task, and even for the first moment of unpolarized distributions all lowest-order improvement coefficients have not yet been determined.

## 7 FORM CODES

Due to the complexity of the calculations, to the possible great number of diagrams, and above all to the huge amount of terms in each diagram, computer codes have to be used. To evaluate the Feynman diagrams and obtain the algebraic expressions for the renormalization factors, we have thus developed sets of computer codes written in the symbolic manipulation language FORM. These codes take as input the Feynman rules for the particular combination of operators, propagators (Wilson or overlap) and vertices (Wilson, improved, or overlap) appearing in each diagram, expand them in the lattice spacing $`a`$ at the appropriate order, evaluate the gamma algebra on the lattice, and then work out everything until the final expressions are obtained. The main difficulty in developing such codes is that the (Euclidean) Lorentz group $`O(4)`$ breaks down to the hypercubic group $`W_4`$. A representation which is irreducible under the (Euclidean) Lorentz group is thus in general reducible under the symmetry group of the lattice. This gives rise to a whole new class of problems, of which the most serious concerns the Einstein summation convention.

The FORM language has been developed having in mind the usual continuum calculations. There are therefore many useful built-in features which are sometimes somewhat of an hindrance when one tries to perform lattice perturbative calculations. A blind use of them would give, for example,

$$\underset{\lambda }{}\gamma _\lambda p_\lambda \mathrm{sin}k_\lambda p/\mathrm{sin}k_\lambda .$$

One thus needs to develop special routines to cope with the gamma algebra on the lattice.

Integrals are done over the first Brillouin zone

$$_{\frac{\pi }{a}}^{\frac{\pi }{a}}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}f(ak,ap)_\pi ^\pi \frac{d^4k^{}}{(2\pi )^4}a^4f(k^{},ap)$$

with the rescaling $`k^{}=ak`$, and in general an expansion in $`ap`$ is needed. FORM codes become then necessary also because of the huge number of terms arising from the Taylor expansions of the Fourier transforms of operators, propagators, vertices and covariant derivatives. The $`n`$-th moment of a parton distribution behaves like

$$\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }D_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}D_{\mu _n}\psi \frac{1}{a^n},$$

because $`D1/a`$, and thus one has to perform an expansion in $`a`$ to order $`n`$ for every quantity. For example, the Wilson quark propagator to $`O(a)`$ is

$`\delta ^{ab}D^1(k)\{(\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{sin}k_\mu +2r{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu }{2}})`$
$`+a[(\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\gamma _\mu q_\mu \mathrm{cos}k_\mu +r{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}q_\mu \mathrm{sin}k_\mu +m_f)`$
$`D^1(k)\left(\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho }{}}\gamma _\rho \mathrm{sin}k_\rho +2r{\displaystyle \underset{\rho }{}}\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{k_\rho }{2}}\right)`$
$`\times (2{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}q_\mu \mathrm{sin}k_\mu \mathrm{cos}k_\mu `$
$`+4r{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu }{2}}(r{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}q_\nu \mathrm{sin}k_\nu +m_f))]\},`$
where the denominator is

$$D(k)=\underset{\mu }{}\mathrm{sin}^2k_\mu +\left(2r\underset{\mu }{}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{k_\mu }{2}\right)^2.$$

As a consequence, a huge number of terms appear (at least in the initial stages of the manipulations), and also the gamma algebra becomes quite cumbersome to do by hand. All this also implies a limitation on the number of moments of structure functions that one can compute. 333This comes on top of the limitation coming from operator mixing: when an operator has more than four indices, two of them have to be equal, and this opens the door to lots of mixings, often with power-divergent coefficients.

## 8 RESULTS

We have calculated the renormalization in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme of several operators measuring the lowest moments of structure functions . In some cases for a given moment we have computed two operators, labeled $`(a)`$ and $`(b)`$, which belong to two different representations of the discrete Euclidean Lorentz group (see Table 1). 444In the operators $`(a)`$ all Lorentz indices are distinct. Operator mixing for overlap fermions is simpler than for Wilson fermions: chiral symmetry is not broken and thus it prohibits any mixing with operators of different chirality. Mixing coefficients which are power-divergent like $`a^n`$ in the continuum limit can be eliminated from the start from overlap calculations if the corresponding operators belong to multiplets with the wrong chirality. In the Wilson case, indeed, the operators measuring the moments of the $`g_2`$ structure function present additional mixings with wrong-chirality operators with power-divergent coefficients. Furthermore, the $`Z`$’s of the $`n`$-th moments of $`q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ are not constrained to be equal anymore.

For reasons of computing power, structure functions have been studied mostly in the quenched approximation, and only recently computations in full QCD have become feasible. On the lattice the Grassmann variables have to be analytically integrated, and the partition function

$$Z=𝒟U𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi \mathrm{e}^{S_g[U]\overline{\psi }(\mathit{}[U]+m_f)\psi }$$

becomes in the simulations

$$Z=𝒟Udet(\mathit{}[U]+m_f)\mathrm{e}^{S_g[U]},$$

which is equivalent to use an effective action

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}[U]=S_g[U]\mathrm{ln}det(\mathit{}[U]+m_f).$$

Quenching amounts to doing simulations with $`det(\mathit{}[U]+m_f)=1`$. This means that there are no sea quarks: all internal quark loops are neglected. Although it looks quite drastic, it is not a bad approximation for many physical quantities, and apparently (as it has been understood recently) also for structure functions.

Structure functions in full Wilson QCD have been the major progress in the past couple of years . The first studies with dynamical Wilson quarks have shown no statistically significant differences between quenched and full QCD results. Previously it had been conjectured that quenching was the cause of the observed discrepancies of lattice results with experiment. Evidently this is not the case, at least for the values of Wilson quark masses attainable at present.

The largest discrepancies appear for unpolarized quark distributions. The spin-dependent $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ structure functions have also been extensively studied, as well as the axial charge $`g_A=\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ (which deviates less from experiment) and the $`h_1`$ transversity structure function , whose lowest moment is the tensor charge $`\delta u\delta d`$.

One limitation of present simulations is given by the difficulty to compute numerically diagrams which are disconnected (except through gluon lines). The disconnected diagrams are however flavor independent, and do not contribute to the difference between $`u`$ and $`d`$ structure functions (for $`SU(2)`$ degeneracy). This means that quantities like $`g_A=\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ and $`x^n_{ud}`$ do not receive contributions from disconnected diagrams. Their lattice results seem also to be closer to the experimental numbers.

The chiral extrapolations of the lattice data linear in $`m_qm_\pi ^2`$ could also be responsible for the discrepancies with experiment. It has been recently suggested that extrapolations using chiral perturbation theory could solve these discrepancies (see  and references therein). In fact, the pion cloud of the nucleon is not adequately described by current lattices. Extrapolation formulae which use chiral perturbation theory look like

$`x^n_{ud}=A_n\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{(3g_A^2+1)}{(4\pi f_\pi )^2}}m_\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_\pi ^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)\right]`$
$`+B_n(m_\pi r_0)^2+C_n(a/r_0)^2,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a phenomenological cutoff related to the size of the source generating the pion cloud.

These extrapolation formulae seem able to resolve the discrepancy with experiment. However, results can be reproduced only with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s with a range so wide to have no predictive power, and the currently available lattice data do not even discriminate between linear and chiral perturbation theory fits. The problems is that the available pions are not sufficiently light. A smaller pion mass ($`m_\pi <250MeV`$) is needed before the parameters of the chiral expansions can be well determined on the lattice. Such calculations require about 8 Teraflops for one year. The next generation of computers, coming in a couple of years, will be able to perform these calculations.

There is no doubt that the pion cloud of the proton is very important. For it to be adequately included in the lattice box and properly measured in Monte Carlo simulations, the pion correlation length should be much smaller than the lattice size. This points to the use of larger lattices.

Higher-twist corrections have also been studied . The lattice results for the twist four ($`1/Q^2`$) corrections are (in a few particular cases) quite small. The renormalization factors of four-quark operators like $`_a\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma _5t^a\psi \overline{\psi }\gamma _\nu \gamma _5t^a\psi `$ have been calculated in perturbation theory, and the twist-4 results for the first moment of the unpolarized pion and proton structure functions turn out to be much smaller than the corresponding twist-2 matrix elements computed on the lattice, and also smaller than the phenomenological numbers. These are not however complete and systematic studies, like the ones concerning leading-twist operators. Only particular flavor and isospin combinations could be considered, to avoid mixing with lower-dimensional operators.

## 9 CONCLUSIONS

The lattice provides invaluable techniques for investigating moments of structure functions non-perturbatively from first-principles. The matching to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme is done by computing renormalization factors in perturbation theory (Wilson and overlap). Simulations with Wilson fermions are now also performed in full QCD, but many discrepancies between lattice and experiment remain. More control on the systematic errors is required.


text:
# 1 Dilatonic brane worlds

## 1 Dilatonic brane worlds

There has been a great deal of interest in ‘brane world’ models, in which matter and fundamental gauge interactions are localized on a four-dimensional spacetime surface or 3-brane, while gravity is free to propagate in the higher dimensional bulk spacetime . In such models, a fine tuned relation between the bulk curvature and the brane tension has to be specified in order to switch off the effective cosmological constant on the brane. Without any specific dynamical mechanism to justify it, this fine-tuning may be seen as a new version of the cosmological constant problem in this context.

This was the starting point for a series of efforts aimed at resolving this fine tuning problem by means of a dynamical mechanism, called ‘self-tuning’ . A static scalar field, $`\varphi `$, which loosely models the dilaton and moduli fields of string theory, is added to the bulk. The extra degree of freedom is then used to ensure the existence of a solution of the dynamical equations with a zero effective brane cosmological constant, whatever the value of the brane tension. Typically a conformally flat solution of the form

$$ds^2=e^{2A(z)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dz^2,$$
(1)
with

$$A(z)+\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{|z|}{z_{}}\right),\varphi (z)\pm \mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{|z|}{z_{}}\right),$$
(2)
is used (we have assumed a $`Z_2`$-symmetric bulk). Significantly, the constant $`z_{}`$ is undetermined by the bulk field equations. The boundary conditions relate $`z_{}`$ to the brane tension, $`T`$. Since $`z_{}`$ is arbitrary, these can be satisfied for any value of $`T`$, and so the brane tension does not need to be fine tuned.

There are several problems with this mechanism. For example, why should one value of $`z_{}`$ be favoured over another, and is the solution stable? A dynamical analysis of the system is required to address these issues.

However, the model has a far more serious flaw. By integrating over the fifth dimension we obtain an effective four dimensional theory on the brane. The effective Planck mass is then

$$M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2=M_s^3_0^{z_{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑ze^{2A},$$
(3)
where where $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the maximum value of $`z`$, so $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{}`$ if $`z_{}>0`$, and $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=|z_{}|`$ if $`z_{}<0`$. For $`z_{}>0`$ it is obvious that $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is never finite. Alternatively if we choose $`z_{}<0`$, $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is finite, but the curvature diverges as $`z\pm z_{}`$. Thus no solution of the form (2) is acceptable. A similar problem occurs in a wide range of conformally flat dilatonic brane world models .

## 2 A higher order gravity tensor

In four dimensions, the vacuum field equations for gravity are taken to be $`G_{ab}+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}=0`$ since this is the most general tensor which (a) is symmetric, (b) depends only on the metric and its first two derivatives, (c) is divergence free, and (d) is linear in second derivatives of the metric.

But in five dimensions there is another possibility. Variation of an action containing the Gauss-Bonnet term,

$$_{\mathrm{GB}}=R^24R_{ab}R^{ab}+R^{abcd}R_{abcd},$$
(4)
gives the second order Lovelock tensor

$$H_{ab}=(RR_{ab}2R_{ac}R^c{}_{b}{}^{}2R^{cd}R_{acbd}+R_a{}_{}{}^{cde}R_{bcde}^{})\frac{1}{4}g_{ab}_{\mathrm{GB}},$$
(5)
which also satisfies the above four conditions.

Thus, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we should take the five dimensional vacuum field equations to be $`G_{ab}+2\alpha H_{ab}+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}=0`$, where $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are constants.

A further motivation for higher order curvature terms is that they also appear in the low energy effective field equations arising from most string theories . Since brane worlds are motivated by string theories, it is particularly natural to include the extra terms in the five-dimensional field equations. In this case we expect $`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1M_s^2`$.

We will consider a string theory inspired model with the bulk action

$$S_5=\frac{M_s^3}{2}d^5x\sqrt{g}\left\{R\frac{4}{3}(\varphi )^2+\alpha e^{4\varphi /3}\left[_{\mathrm{GB}}+\frac{16}{27}(\varphi )^4\right]2\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{4\varphi /3}\right\}$$
(6)
The corresponding action in the string frame, which is related to (6) by a conformal transformation, is

$$S_{\mathrm{string}}=\frac{M_s^3}{2}d^5x\sqrt{\overline{g}}e^{2\varphi }\left\{\overline{R}+4(\varphi )^2+\alpha \left[\overline{}_{\mathrm{GB}}+\mathrm{}\right]\mathrm{\Lambda }\right\}.$$
(7)
Note that the $`R`$, $`_{\mathrm{GB}}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ terms have the same couplings to $`\varphi `$ in the string frame. However, since they have different dependencies on $`g_{ab}`$, this is no longer true in the Einstein frame.

The brane contribution to the action, including boundary terms  is

$$S_4=M_s^3d^4x\sqrt{h}\left\{[K]+\alpha e^{4\varphi /3}[_\mathrm{B}]+Te^{2\varphi /3}\right\},$$
(8)
where

$$_\mathrm{B}=2KK_{ac}K^{ac}\frac{4}{3}K_{ac}K^{cb}K^a{}_{b}{}^{}\frac{2}{3}K^34G_{ab}^{(4)}K^{ab},$$
(9)
$`h_{ab}`$ is the induced metric on the brane, and $`K_{ab}`$ is the extrinsic curvature.

## 3 A non-singular solution

Variation of generalised boundary term (8) gives the junction conditions on brane . Note that the resulting expression has no dependence on the thickness of the brane. This would not be the case for any other second order combination of $`R_{abcd}`$.

The bulk field equations are rather complicated, but for a conformally flat solution (1) with the logarithmic ansatz

$$A(z)=x\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{|z|}{z_{}}\right),\varphi (z)=\varphi _0\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{|z|}{z_{}}\right),$$
(10)
they all reduce to algebraic equations

$$\frac{2\alpha }{z_{}^2}=\frac{1x}{16x^34x^2}e^{4\varphi _0/3}>0$$
(11)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha =\frac{3(40x^5+24x^452x^3+16x^2+3x1)(1x)}{8(16x^34x^2)^2}.$$
(12)
The expression for the effective four dimensional Planck mass now includes additional $`\alpha `$ dependent corrections, but it is qualitatively similar to expression (3). To obtain a finite $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ when $`z_{}>0`$ (i.e. no singularities) we need to find solutions with $`x<1/2`$.

Using figure 1, which is a plot of (12), we see that non-singular solutions with localised gravity exist if $`22.2\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha <5/12`$ . We expect $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha 1`$, so this is quite natural. If we set $`\alpha =0`$, we see that the only solution is $`x=1`$, which has infinite $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. Thus the Gauss-Bonnet term has not removed the singularity from the $`\alpha =0`$ solutions, but has instead produced a new branch of solutions.

Using the junction conditions we also obtain an algebraic expression for the brane tension

$$T=\frac{(x)(312x2x^216x^3)\sqrt{1x}}{\sqrt{2\alpha }(14x^26x^3)^{3/2}}\mathrm{sgn}(z_{}).$$
(13)
Thus $`T>0`$ for $`x<0`$ when $`z_{}>0`$, so our non-singular, finite $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ solutions do work for models with positive tension branes. Unfortunately these solutions are not suitable for the ‘self-tuning’ mechanism, since the value of $`T`$ is uniquely determined by the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and so the solution requires fine-tuning after all. It may be that we need to use a different potential, or it could be that the mechanism has some flaw which was previously obscured by the singularity. Further work is required to determine the precise nature of the problem.

Acknowledgements.  I wish to thank Pierre Binétruy, Christos Charmousis, Jean-François Dufaux and Jihad Mourad for many useful discussions. I am also grateful to the conference organisers for giving me the opportunity to speak. This work was supported by EU network HPRN–CT–2000–00152.


text:
# 1 Differential cross-sections for the 𝑑⃗𝑝→³𝐻𝑒𝜋^𝑜 reaction in collinear geometry. The parameter 𝜂 is the pion c.m. momentum in units of pion masses. Solid, dashed, dot-dashed lines refer, respectively, to results with Bonn B, Bonn A, and Paris potentials. Data from Ref. [13-15].

PRODUCTION MECHANISMS AND

POLARIZATION OBSERVABLES FOR

$`p+d^3He+\pi ^o`$ NEAR THRESHOLD

L. Canton a,b, G. Pisenta,b, W. Schadowb,1, and J.P. Svenneb,c

aIstituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Padova, via Marzolo, n. 8 Italy

bDipartimento di Fisica dell’Università, Padova, via Marzolo, n. 8 Italy

cDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg MB, Canada

1 Permanent Address: Capgemini Ernst & Young, Düsseldorf, Germany

## Abstract

Pion production at threshold from nucleon-deuteron collisions is considered, with reference to the outgoing channel where the three-nucleon system is bound. The available experimental data are compared with calculations using accurate nuclear wavefunctions coming from rigorous solutions of the three-nucleon quantum mechanical equations. The dominant contributions for pion production are obtained through matrix elements involving pion-nucleon rescattering mechanisms in S- and P-waves. S-wave rescattering includes also an isoscalar contribution which is enhanced because of the off-shell effects. P-wave rescattering includes also diagrams involving explicitly the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ degrees of freedom. It is found that the pion-nucleon S-wave off-shell effects in the isospin-even channel are of considerable importance. Initial-state interactions between the proton and the deuteron have in general minor effects on the spin-averaged and spin-dependent observables, except when the polarization observable involves interference terms amongst the various helicity amplitudes.

Keywords: Polarization phenomena. Pion production. Few-nucleon systems.

Introduction

Since the seminal paper by Ruderman , these reactions have been often studied phenomenologically by means of the “deuteron model”, and still are nowadays . On the contrary, we have followed a microscopic approach  based on explicit $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation, two-body mechanisms with $`\pi `$N rescattering in S-wave, and supplemented by the one-body $`\pi `$NN vertex. Approaches of this type have been initiated in the late seventies \[4-6\] but since then not much progress has been accomplished owing to the complexities connected with the treatment of the $`NNNN\pi `$ inelasticities in the three-nucleon system. Nowadays, the calculations can be performed with more accurate knowledge of the nuclear wavefunctions, and by including a much larger number of intermediate three-nucleon states. ISI (Initial State Interactions) can be calculated through an Alt-Grassberger-Sandhas scheme , where realistic nucleon-nucleon transition matrices are used. Anti-symmetrization prescriptions due to identity of the nucleons can be fully taken into account.

We discuss here the results we have recently obtained by means of this approach. Details about the model calculation are given in Refs. \[3,8-10\].

The model

The starting point is the phenomenological low-energy interaction Lagrangian, coupling the pion with the nucleon field

$`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{m_\pi }}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5\stackrel{}{\tau }\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}4\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _I}{m_\pi ^2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }\mathrm{\Psi }\left[\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\times _\mu \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right]4\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _O}{m_\pi }}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }\left[\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right]`$ (1)
and with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ field

$`_{\mathrm{int}}^\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{m_\pi }}(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu \stackrel{}{T}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}+h.c.).`$ (2)
The calculations herein illustrated have been performed with the following set of parameters: $`f_{\pi NN}^2/4\pi =0.0735`$, $`f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2/4\pi =0.32`$, $`\lambda _I=0.045`$ and $`\lambda _O=0.006`$. A crucial aspect is represented by the off-shell extrapolations of these parameters in the evaluation of the $`\pi `$-production matrix elements. For the S-waves terms we have ($`t`$ is the square of the transverse four-momentum of the $`\pi `$N system)

$$\lambda _I^{OFF}=\lambda _I^{ON}\frac{m_\rho ^2}{m_\rho ^2t}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^2t}\lambda _O^{OFF}=\lambda _O^{ON}\frac{a_{SR}+a_\sigma \frac{m_\sigma ^2}{m_\sigma ^2t}}{a_{SR}+a_\sigma }.$$
(3)
The form on the left denotes the isospin-odd contribution in terms of a $`\rho `$-exchange model, while on the r.h.s. we describe the isospin-even term as the combined effect of phenomenological short-range (SR) processes and an effective scalar-meson ($`\sigma `$) exchange. The two combined effects act in opposite directions . The form on the right leads to an off-shell enhancement of the probability amplitude for pion production in the scalar-isoscalar channel. It remains a still open question if this form mimics other physical effects, such as short-range heavy-meson exchange contributions . Further details, such as the treatment of the fully antisymmetrized matrix elements with respect to the Faddeev three-nucleon wavefunction, or the treatment of ISI in the nucleon-deuteron channel, or finally the description of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagation in the three-baryon system, are not discussed here. For these aspects, reference is made to previous works \[3,8-10\].

Results

In Fig. 1, the differential cross-section for the $`dp^3He\pi ^o`$ process in collinear kinematics is shown. In the considered energy range, the results in forward direction are always larger than the corresponding ones in backward direction, so that they are easily identified in the figure. The theoretical curves are for bound-states (deuteron and 3N system) calculated with different nucleon-nucleon potentials. Calculations of production mechanisms include the isoscalar and isovector terms in S-wave, as well as the polar P-wave contribution and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-rescattering term. The results indicate the sensitivity of the reaction to details of the nuclear wavefunctions. Fig. 2 illustrates the effects on the same observable caused by the various production mechanisms. The dot-dashed line includes only the P-wave terms, while the dashed curve takes into account in addition the effects of S-wave $`\pi `$-N rescattering in the isospin-odd (i.e., $`\rho `$-exchange) channel. The solid curve is the same of that in Fig. 1 and depicts the results obtained when adding the rescattering term in the isospin-even channel. Similar results have been obtained also with other nucleon-nucleon potentials. The angular distribution of the cross section is shown in Fig. 3. The results are compared with recent data obtained by the $`GEM`$ collaboration . The corresponding energy range is in between the threshold region and the peak of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance. The data at backward angles agree with previous measurements performed at Saclay , but the new data in forward direction are substantially smaller. The thin broken curve represents the theoretical calculations without $`\pi `$N rescattering in the isospin-even (the so-called “$`\sigma `$”-exchange) channel; one obtains an evident underestimation (by a factor ranging between two and three) of the differential cross-section in the forward direction. Inclusion of the r.h.s. term in Eq. (3) provides a much better description of the angular distribution, as shown by the two thick lines. The last two curves differ because neutron-deuteron ISI have been included in the solid line via the solution of an AGS equation. To include ISI effects, the nucleon-nucleon interactions in partial waves with $`J2`$ have been replaced with PEST-1 potentials111J.Haidenbauer, Private Communication. Results suggest that ISI in the considered energy range do not play a major role for spin-averaged observables. In a previous study  we found that these ISI effects play a significant role in spin observables involving strong interference effects amongst the various helicity amplitudes. This is the case of $`A_y`$ around the threshold region.

In Figs. 4 and 5 the deuteron tensor analyzing power $`T_{20}`$ is considered in collinear kinematics. In both directions, the $`\pi N`$ rescattering mechanism in the isoscalar channel has a major effect on this observable, and is determinant for understanding the energy dependence of $`T_{20}`$. It is worth observing that, very close to threshold, the results with the $`\rho `$-exchange diagram alone (thin lines) are close to $`\sqrt{2}`$. This is the geometrical limit for $`T_{20}`$ and is somewhat consistent with experiments performed in the threshold limit. However, the energy dependence for this observable (as soon as one moves away from the threshold limit) is totally out of phase, and one needs to include also the term on the r.h.s. of Eq. (3) to reproduce the trend of the experimental data. The results at backward angles (Fig.5) exhibit also a significant dependence upon the nucleon-nucleon potential employed in the calculation of the nuclear bound-states. This suggests that in this way one could probe short-range aspects of the nucleon-nucleon correlations.

Summary and Conclusions

We have calculated the $`p+d\pi +(A=3)`$ reaction employing elementary production mechanisms obtained from the non-relativistic reduction of the phenomenological pion-nucleon and pion-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ Lagrangian of Eqs. (1,2). The corresponding matrix elements between three-nucleon states have been evaluated within a large-basis space, consisting of 464 three-nucleon partial waves. Total angular momenta of the system up to $`7/2`$ for both parities have been considered. The prescriptions required by the Pauli principle have been taken into account through the application of the permutation formalism to the three-nucleon system. Finally, these matrix elements have been folded with the nuclear wavefunctions to obtain the probability amplitudes, and full details of the procedure can be found in Refs. \[3,8-10\].

The results obtained suggest that, in addition to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-rescattering mechanism and to the $`\rho `$-exchange rescattering process in S-wave, one has to include also an S-wave rescattering mechanism generated by the $`\pi `$N interaction in the isoscalar channel. This channel is weak in elastic pion-nucleon scattering, but could be well enhanced in meson production processes because the corresponding kinematics is quite off-shell. At the present stage it is not clear if these phenomenological off-shell effects, proposed many years ago in the Literature (see Refs. ), mimic more fundamental effects, such as for instance heavy-meson exchanges contributions. If this is the case, it is surprising that the form expressed by the r.h.s. of Eq. (3) is needed not only for the absolute normalization of the cross-section at threshold, but also for the shape of the angular distributions recently measured by the $`GEM`$ collaboration at energies ranging between the threshold region and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance peak. And last but not least, the same effect is able to account for the energy dependence of $`T_{20}`$ in collinear geometry in the energy range close to threshold, while the results obtained without this contribution fail badly in reproducing this energy trend.

It is concluded that further investigations are needed to clarify these aspects. On the theoretical side, accurate investigations with alternative phenomenological models for the $`\pi `$N amplitudes should be welcome; in addition the role of the heavy-meson exchange diagrams should be investigated separately. The numerical accuracy in treating the three-nucleon dynamics should be improved further, and the role of relativity in the three-nucleon system for processes above the pion threshold should be deeply investigated. On the experimental side, further measurements are needed in order to constrain the ambiguities in the determination of the production amplitudes. With respect to this point, experiments to measure additional spin observables, such as $`C_{yy}`$  in both collinear and non-collinear kinematics, should be considered of great utility.

References

* M. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. 87, 383 (1952).
* W.R. Falk, Phys.Rev. C 61 034005 (2000).
* L. Canton and W. Schadow, Phys. Rev. C 61, 064009 (2000).
* A.M. Green and E. Maqueda, Nucl. Phys. A316, 215 (1979).
* A.M. Green and M.E. Sainio, Nucl. Phys. A329 477 (1979).
* M.E. Sainio, Nucl. Phys. A389 573 (1982).
* E.O. Alt, P. Grassberger, W. Sandhas, Nucl. Phys. B2, 167 (1967).
* L. Canton and W. Schadow, Phys. Rev. C 56, 1231 (1997).
* L. Canton et al. Phys. Rev. C 57, 1588 (1998).
* L. Canton et al. Nucl. Phys. A684, 417c (2001).
* J. Hamilton, High Energy Physics, E.H.S. Burhop ed. (Academic, New York, 1967).
* S. Schneider et al. nucl-th/0209051 (from arXiv.org)
* C. Kerboul et al.  Phys. Lett. B 181, 28 (1986).
* V. Nikulin et al.  Phys. Rev. C 54, 1732 (1996).
* GEM collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A690, 473 (2001).
* O.V. Maxwell, W. Weise, and M. Brack, Nucl. Phys. A348, 338 (1980).
* E. Hernandez and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B350 158, (1995).
* V.P. Ladygin and N.B. Ladygina, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 58, 1283 (1995).