Advertisement

Electromagnetic mass differences, equal-time commutators, and oscillating spectral functions

  • J. Sucher
Chiral Symmetry Currents and Current Algebras
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

A connection is suggested between the ambiguities in the definition of the equal-time commutator\([J_\mu ^{em} (0,\vec x),J_v^{em} (0)]\) and the experimental indications of an exponentially falling electromagnetic form factor for the nucleon. On this basis, a resolution is proposed of the difficulty of current algebra models which appear to give divergent expressions for the electromagnetic mass shifts of hadrons.

Keywords

Spectral Function Current Algebra Jeta Forro Factor Seagull Term 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Разности электромагнитных масс, коммутаторы при равных временах и осциллирующие спектральные функции

Резюме

Рассматривается соотношение между двусмысленностью в определении коммутатора при равных временах\([J_\mu ^{em} (0,\vec x),J_v^{em} (0)]\) и экспериментальными индикациями экспоненциально падающего электромагнитного форм-фактора для нуклона. На базе этого предлагается разрешение трудности модели алгебры токов, результирующей расходимые выражения для сдвигов электромагнитных масс гадронов.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. B. Halpern andG. Segré, Phys. Rev. Letters,19, 611, 1967 and ibid. (Erratum)19, 1000, 1967.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. C. Wick andB. Zumino, Phys. Letters,25B, 479, 1967.ADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Das, et al., Phys. Rev. Letters,18, 759, 1967.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev.,148, 1467, 1966.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Brandt andJ. Sucher, Phys. Rev. Letters,20, 1131, 1968.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Richard A. Brandt andJoseph Sucher, U. of Md. Technical Report No. 820, to appear in the Physical Review, (January, 1969).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Brandt, Phys. Rev.,166, 1795, 1968.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. H. Coward et al., Phys. Rev. Letters,20, 1292, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Imrie et al., Phys. Rev. Letters,20, 1074, 1968.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. T. Wu andC. N. Yang, Phys. Rev.,137, B708, 1965.CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Martin, Nuovo Cimento,37, 671, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. M. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. Letters,17, 661, 1966.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Harte, Phys. Rev.,165, 1557, 1968 and references cited therein.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. D. Lee, Phys. Rev.,168, 1714, 1968.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Such a point of view is of course debatable, in view of our relatively incomplete understanding of the weak interactions.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© with the authors 1969

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Sucher
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics and AstronomyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations