Charge-symmetry-breaking three-nucleon forces

Physical Review C - Nuclear Physics

Volumn 71, Issue 2, 2005, Pages

  Friar, J L ^a   Payne, G L ^b   Van Kolck, U ^c,d  

^a LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^c University of Arizona   (United States)

^d RIKEN BNL RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 18244369465     PISSN: 05562813     EISSN: 1089490X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.024003     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. E. M. Henley, in Isospin in Nuclear Physics, edited by D. H. Wilkinson (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969), p. 15; E. M. Henley and G. A. Miller, in Mesons and Nuclei, edited by M. Rho and G. E. Brown (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979), Vol. I, p. 405.
2. E. M. Henley, in Isospin in Nuclear Physics, edited by D. H. Wilkinson (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969), p. 15; E. M. Henley and G. A. Miller, in Mesons and Nuclei, edited by M. Rho and G. E. Brown (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979), Vol. I, p. 405.
3. G. A. Miller, B. M. K. Nefkens, and I. Šlaus, Phys. Rep. 194, 1 (1990); G. A. Miller and W. T. H. van Oers, in Symmetries and Fundamental Interactions in Nuclei, edited by W. Haxton and E. M. Henley (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995).
4. G. A. Miller, B. M. K. Nefkens, and I. Šlaus, Phys. Rep. 194, 1 (1990); G. A. Miller and W. T. H. van Oers, in Symmetries and Fundamental Interactions in Nuclei, edited by W. Haxton and E. M. Henley (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995).
5. th International Seminar on High Energy Physics Problems (ISHEPP 13), "Relativistic Nuclear Physics and Quantum Chromodynamics," Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia, September, 1996. These are all fairly recent reviews of charge symmetry.
6. th International Seminar on High Energy Physics Problems (ISHEPP 13), "Relativistic Nuclear Physics and Quantum Chromodynamics," Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia, September, 1996. These are all fairly recent reviews of charge symmetry.
7. th International Seminar on High Energy Physics Problems (ISHEPP 13), "Relativistic Nuclear Physics and Quantum Chromodynamics," Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia, September, 1996. These are all fairly recent reviews of charge symmetry.
8. th International Seminar on High Energy Physics Problems (ISHEPP 13), "Relativistic Nuclear Physics and Quantum Chromodynamics," Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia, September, 1996. These are all fairly recent reviews of charge symmetry.
9. S. Weinberg, Physica 96A, 327 (1979); Nucl. Phys. B363, 3 (1991); Phys. Lett. B251, 288 (1990); B295, 114 (1992).
10. S. Weinberg, Physica 96A, 327 (1979); Nucl. Phys. B363, 3 (1991); Phys. Lett. B251, 288 (1990); B295, 114 (1992).
11. S. Weinberg, Physica 96A, 327 (1979); Nucl. Phys. B363, 3 (1991); Phys. Lett. B251, 288 (1990); B295, 114 (1992).
12. S. Weinberg, Physica 96A, 327 (1979); Nucl. Phys. B363, 3 (1991); Phys. Lett. B251, 288 (1990); B295, 114 (1992).
13. P. F. Bedaque and U. van Kolck, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 52 (2002). This is a comprehensive current review of the application of χPT to nuclear physics.
14. U. van Kolck, Ph. D. thesis, University of Texas, 1993; Few-Body Syst. Suppl. 9, 444 (1995).
15. U. van Kolck, Ph. D. thesis, University of Texas, 1993; Few-Body Syst. Suppl. 9, 444 (1995).
16. U. van Kolck, J. L. Friar, and T. Goldman, Phys. Lett. B371, 169 (1996).
17. U. van Kolck, M. C. M. Rentmeester, J. L. Friar, T. Goldman, and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4386 (1998).
18. J. L. Friar and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C 60, 34006 (1999).
19. J. L. Friar, U. van Kolck, G. L. Payne, and S. A. Coon, Phys. Rev. C 68, 024003 (2003).
20. J. L. Friar, U. van Kolck, M. C. M. Rentmeester, and R. G. E. Timmermans, Phys. Rev. C 70, 044001 (2004).
21. E. Epelbaum and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B461, 287 (1999). This work was organized using a method that did not require explicitly calculating a potential.
22. M. Walzl, U.-G. Meißner, and E. Epelbaum, Nucl. Phys. A693, 663 (2001).
23. J. A. Niskanen, Phys. Rev. C 65, 037001 (2002).
24. A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B234, 189 (1984); H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B298, 187 (1993).
25. A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B234, 189 (1984); H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B298, 187 (1993).
26. J. L. Friar, Few-Body Syst. Suppl. 22, 161 (1997).
27. R. A. Brandenburg, S. A. Coon, and P. U. Sauer, Nucl. Phys. A294, 305 (1978).
28. R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C 51, 38 (1995).
29. Y. Wu, S. Ishikawa, and T. Sasakawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1875 (1990); 66 (E), 242 (1991).
30. Y. Wu, S. Ishikawa, and T. Sasakawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1875 (1990); 66 (E), 242 (1991).
31. S. C. Pieper, V. R. Pandharipande, R. B. Wiringa, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C 64, 014001 (2001) [see Table XI]; S. C. Pieper and R. B. Wiringa, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 51, 53 (2001).
32. S. C. Pieper, V. R. Pandharipande, R. B. Wiringa, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C 64, 014001 (2001) [see Table XI]; S. C. Pieper and R. B. Wiringa, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 51, 53 (2001).
33. A. Nogga, A. Kievsky, H. Kamada, W. Glöckle, L. E. Marcucci, S. Rosati, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. C 67, 034004 (2003).
34. J. L. Friar, B. F. Gibson, and G. L. Payne, Phys. Rev. C 42, 1211 (1990).
35. J. L. Friar, B. F. Gibson, and G. L. Payne, Phys. Rev. C 35, 1502 (1987). The finite size of the protons reduces the Coulomb energy by about 30 keV, and this size was not accurately known in 1987. Modification of the finite size would lead to a small change in the Coulomb energy, but this would have to be compensated by a corresponding change in the short-range pp force in order to maintain the fit to the pp scattering data. It is believed that such modifications would lead to no significant problems in our understanding of CSB.
36. R. Machleidt and H. Müther, Phys. Rev. C 63, 034005 (2001); G. Q. Li and R. Machleidt, ibid. 58, 1393 (1998).
37. R. Machleidt and H. Müther, Phys. Rev. C 63, 034005 (2001); G. Q. Li and R. Machleidt, ibid. 58, 1393 (1998).
38. U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C 49, 2932 (1994).
39. J. L. Friar, D. Hüber, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C 59, 53 (1999). This paper treats a variety of three-nucleon forces and includes a χPT derivation of an improved Tucson-Melbourne force, originally given in Ref. [27].
40. S. A. Coon, M. D. Scadron, P. C. McNamee, B. R. Barrett, D. W. E. Blatt, and B. H. J. McKellar, Nucl. Phys. A317, 242 (1979).
41. M. L. Goldberger and S. B. Treiman, Phys. Rev. 110, 1178 (1958); Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 380 (1960).
42. M. L. Goldberger and S. B. Treiman, Phys. Rev. 110, 1178 (1958); Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 380 (1960).
43. U. van Kolck, J. A. Niskanen, and G. A. Miller, Phys. Lett. B493, 65 (2000).
44. A. Gårdestig, C. J. Horowitz, A. C. Fonseca, C. Hanhart, G. A. Miller, J. A. Niskanen, A. Nogga, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C 69, 044606 (2004).
45. A. K. Opper et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 212302 (2003).
46. E. J. Stephenson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 142302 (2003).
47. R. B. Wiringa, Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. 146, 403 (2002). Some of the numbers in Table II have changed and are in much better agreement with experiment: see S. C. Pieper, K. Varga, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C 66, 044310 (2002).
48. R. B. Wiringa, Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. 146, 403 (2002). Some of the numbers in Table II have changed and are in much better agreement with experiment: see S. C. Pieper, K. Varga, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C 66, 044310 (2002).
49. M. D. Shuster, Phys. Lett. B61, 231 (1976).
50. S.-N. Yang, Phys. Rev. C 19, 1114 (1979); J. Phys. G 9, L115 (1983).
51. S.-N. Yang, Phys. Rev. C 19, 1114 (1979); J. Phys. G 9, L115 (1983).
52. C. Yalçin and E. Akşahin, Nucl. Phys. A360, 223 (1981); C. Yalçin, E. Akşahin, and A. Kolat, Phys. Lett. B109, 347 (1982).
53. C. Yalçin and E. Akşahin, Nucl. Phys. A360, 223 (1981); C. Yalçin, E. Akşahin, and A. Kolat, Phys. Lett. B109, 347 (1982).
54. N. The form that a three-body force takes is often dependent on the form one chooses for the two-body force. We have verified that the extra three-body forces in Ref. [37] are contained in the off-shell behavior of the peculiar two-body force that we discussed in Ref. [11]. For the reasons given in Sec. II we expect these forces to be small and we neglected them here. We thank E. Epelbaum and U.-G. Meißner for illuminating correspondence on the subject.