The Proton Spin and U(1)-Problem

  • A. V. Efremov
Conference paper


The naive parton interpretation of the famous result of EMC [1] that the total contribution of the quarks to the proton spin \( \Delta \Sigma = \sum\nolimits_f {\int {dx(q_f^ + (x)\, - \,q_f^ - (x)\, + \,\tilde q_f^ + (x)\, - \,\tilde q_f^ - (x))} } \)is compatible with zero is not only in contradiction with the naive quark model but also with the whole our understanding of baryon spectroscopy. It is because the total spin of the sea quarks and gluons plus orbital momentum must be so large (> 6 !) that it is difficult to understand why the nucleon is the only stable state with J = I = 1/2 [2].


Orbital Momentum Skyrme Model Proton Spin Axial Anomaly Gluon Contribution 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    J. Ashman et. al. (EMC) Nucl.Phys. B328 (1989) 1Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    H. Lipkin. Phys. Lett. B237 (1990) 130Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    H. Rollnik. Proc. of this conf.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. V. Efremov, O. V. Teryaev. Preprint JINR, E2–88–287 (1988); G. Altarelli, G. G. Ross. Phys. Lett. B214 (1988) 381;Google Scholar
  5. R. D. Carlitz, J. C. Collins, A. M. Mueller. Phys. Lett. B214 (1988) 229Google Scholar
  6. [5]
    G. Altarelli, G. Parisi. Nucl. Phys. B126 (1977) 298ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [6]
    P. Ratcliffe. Phys. Lett. B192 (1987) 180Google Scholar
  8. [7]
    R. L. Jaffe, A. Manohar. Nucl. Phys. B337 (1990) 509;ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. G. Bodwin, J. Qui. Phys. Rev. D41 (1990) 2750Google Scholar
  10. [8] A. V. Efremov, J. Soffer, O. V. Teryaev. Nucl. Phys. B346 (1990)
    ; G. Altarelli, B. Lampe. Z. Phys. C47 (1990) 315Google Scholar
  11. [9]
    S. Forte. Phys. Lett. B224 (1989) 189;Google Scholar
  12. Nucl. Phys. B311 (1990) 1Google Scholar
  13. [10]
    G. Veneziano. Mod. Phys. Lett. A4 (1989) 1605;Google Scholar
  14. G. M. Shore, G. Veneziano. Phys. Lett. B244 (1990) 75Google Scholar
  15. [11]
    A. V. Efremov, J. Soffer, N. Törnqvist. Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 1495Google Scholar
  16. [12]
    G. Veneziano. Nucl. Phys. B159 (1979) 213MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [13]
    D. I. Diakonov, M. V. Edes, JETP 81 (1981) 434Google Scholar
  18. [14]
    O. Dumbrajs et. al. Nucl. Phys. B216 (1983) 277Google Scholar
  19. [15]
    N. Törnqvist, F. Zenczykowski. Phys. Rev. D29 (1984) 2139Google Scholar
  20. [16]
    A. V. Efremov, J. Soffer, N. Törnqvist. Preprint Marseille CPT-90/P.2402 (1990). Also N. Törnqvist report in this Proc.Google Scholar
  21. [17]
    S. Brodsky, J. Ellis, M. Karliner. Phys. Lett. B206 (1988) 309Google Scholar
  22. [18]
    J.E Mandula. Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 1403 and the Comment on the work by A. Efremov, J. Soffer, N. Törnqvist, Preprint Marseille CPT-90/P. 2451 (1990).Google Scholar
  23. [19]
    H. Fritzsch. Phys. Lett. B229 (1989) 122Google Scholar
  24. [20]
    A. E. Dorokhov, N. I. Kochelev. Preprint JINR, E2–89–858 (1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. V. Efremov
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Theoretical PhysicsJoint Institute for Nuclear ResearchMoscowUSSR

Personalised recommendations