text:
# 1 ⟨𝑟⟩₍₂₎ from (e,e) data.

LA-UR-03-7323

Zemach Moments for Hydrogen and Deuterium
J. L. Friar1 and Ingo Sick2
1Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
2Dept. für Physik und Astronomie, Universität Basel
CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland

Abstract

We determine the Zemach moments of hydrogen and deuterium for the first time using only the world data on elastic electron-proton and electron-deuteron scattering. Such moments are required for the calculation of the nuclear corrections to the hyperfine structure of these hydrogenic atoms. We compare the resulting HFS predictions to the available high-precision data and provide an estimate of the size of the nuclear polarization corrections necessary to produce agreement between experimental HFS and theoretical calculations.

Introduction. Nuclear and atomic size scales differ by nearly five orders of magnitude, which makes nuclear corrections to atomic energy levels very tiny. The exceptional precision of modern microwave and optical measurements of atomic level spacings nevertheless makes these nuclear effects significant. The recent measurement of the 1S-2S interval in hydrogen to an unprecedented accuracy of 2 parts in $`10^{14}`$ is affected in the tenth significant figure by the finite size of the proton, and this explains the strong interest of the atomic physics community in the value of the proton’s $`r.m.s.`$ charge radius. The situation for the deuterium atom is similar.

The cloudy history of experimental values for the proton radius has recently been clarified by a comprehensive analysis of all the world’s electron-proton scattering data. That work separated the charge and magnetic scattering, incorporated (significant) Coulomb corrections, and carefully treated systematic (as well as statistical) uncertainties. The resulting value of $`r^2_p^{1/2}`$= 0.895(18)fm is significantly higher than most older values, and is in line with values obtained from analyses of the Lamb shift in atomic hydrogen. With the inclusion of sufficiently large QED corrections of order $`\alpha ^8`$  it should soon be possible to extract values of the proton radius from the hydrogen 1S-2S interval that are an order of magnitude more precise than that of Ref.. Even more precise values of the proton radius might result from the ongoing PSI experiment to measure the Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen.

The other area where the finite size (or internal structure) of the proton plays a significant role is the hyperfine structure of the nS levels of hydrogen. A combined analysis of various experiments measuring the 1S hyperfine splitting is given in Ref., which advocates a value

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{hfs}}^{\mathrm{exp}}=\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}420\hspace{0.17em}405.751\hspace{0.17em}768}(1)\mathrm{kHz}$$

that has an accuracy of better than one part in $`10^{12}`$. The size of the proton affects the sixth significant figure. It is the magnetic nature of the hyperfine interaction that leads to this enhanced sensitivity to nuclear (i.e. short-range) properties. Hyperfine structure is much more sensitive than the Lamb shift to the high-frequency components of the electromagnetic interactions that bind atoms.

The hyperfine mechanisms are traditionally divided into three categories: pure QED, recoil, and nuclear size and structure. The pure QED contributions are listed and discussed in Refs. and , and uncalculated terms are expected to be significantly smaller that 1 ppm relative to the Fermi hyperfine splitting. Recoil (or nuclear-mass-dependent) terms are usually lumped together with the nuclear corrections. Because of the sensitivity to high-frequency or short-range interaction terms, QED for systems with a fundamental anomalous magnetic moment is not renormalizable, and as a result some recoil corrections are divergent without nuclear form factors. Although nominally the same size as the static nuclear-size correction (i.e. the Zemach correction of about $``$40 ppm relative to the Fermi hyperfine splitting and discussed below), the leading-order recoil correction is substantially smaller (about 5 ppm) and has only a logarithmic dependence on nuclear structure, which produces a rather smaller uncertainty, as well.

Although one would naively expect (in analogy with the Lamb shift) that for HFS the leading-order nuclear-size correction is given by a simple average over the nuclear magnetic density, this is not the case. The leading-order nuclear size and structure corrections for hyperfine splittings actually arise from two-photon-exchange diagrams and are usually divided into contributions from elastic and inelastic nuclear intermediate states (plus appropriate nuclear seagull terms). The inelastic contributions (polarization corrections) can be expressed as integrals over the spin-dependent electron-scattering structure functions, $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$, and are very difficult to calculate reliably. An upper limit of $`\pm `$ 4 ppm exists, although calculations using resonance models and existing data find smaller values (typically 1-2 ppm). The nuclear-structure-dependent corrections for the proton are therefore completely dominated by the elastic part, and that is the purview of this work.

For the deuteron the HFS is also known with excellent accuracy

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{hfs}}^{\mathrm{exp}}=\mathrm{327\hspace{0.17em}384.352\hspace{0.17em}522}(2)\mathrm{kHz}$$

where nuclear effects amount to about 138 ppm. The deuteron presents a very different theoretical problem based on very different scales. Because the deuteron is so loosely bound it is very susceptible to breakup reactions. The deuteron Zemach correction is about –100 ppm (see below), leaving an inelastic contribution of about 240 ppm. The bulk of the nuclear-size corrections to hyperfine structure is therefore generated by inelastic contributions, although the elastic contribution is clearly important, particularly in view of the cancellation. It is extremely valuable for any theorists attempting to perform these calculations to be able to judge the quality of their work by comparison to appropriate experimental results. For this reason we also determine the Zemach moment for the deuterium atom, even though it is not the dominant part of the nuclear contribution.

Zemach moments.  The bulk of the electron-nucleus magnetic interaction is short ranged and confined to the vicinity of the nucleus. This is also the only region of the electron’s wave function that is significantly affected by the nuclear charge distribution, and the leading-order size effect was shown by Zemach to depend on the product of the proton’s elastic charge and magnetic form factors (a convolution in configuration space) in the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{Zemach}}=2Z\alpha mr_{(2)}E_\mathrm{F}`$ (1)
$`r_{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3rrd^3r^{}\rho _{\mathrm{ch}}(|𝐫𝐫^{}|)\rho _{\mathrm{mag}}(r^{})}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{q^2}}(G_\mathrm{E}(q^2)G_\mathrm{M}(q^2)1)`$
where $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi hyperfine splitting, $`m`$ is the electron mass, $`Z`$ is the nuclear charge, $`\alpha `$ is the fine-structure constant, $`G_\mathrm{E}(q^2)`$ $`(G_\mathrm{M})`$ is the charge (magnetic) form factor depending only on the momentum transfer (squared), $`q^2>0`$. The subtraction term ($``$1) is necessary in order to avoid double counting the nuclear charge and magnetic moment. The convoluted configuration-space densities $`\rho _{\mathrm{ch}}`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{mag}}`$ are simple Fourier transforms of the form factors, both of which are normalized to 1 at $`q^2=0`$.

The same problems that have plagued extraction of the proton’s and deuteron’s charge radii have also complicated the calculation of $`r_{(2)}`$ via the momentum-space integral above. Most calculations have relied on a common dipole shape for both charge and magnetic form factors and have presented results based on various values of the single parameter in such shapes. That parameter also determines the value of the (common) mean-square radius, which historically has had well-scattered values. Results for the proton typically have been in the vicinity of $`r_{(2)}1.0`$ fm and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{Zemach}}/E_\mathrm{F}40`$ ppm. We will use the electron-scattering data themselves, together with well-tested techniques for extracting the form factors, to evaluate $`r_{(2)}`$.

Determination of $`𝐫_{(\mathrm{𝟐})}`$ In previous papers  we have described our analysis of the world data on $`ep`$ and $`ed`$ scattering. Here, we use these results to determine the Zemach moments.

The proton cross sections up to the maximum momentum transfer $`q_{max}=4fm^1`$ have been fit with a 5-parameter continued fraction expansion for both $`G_E(q)`$ and $`G_M(q)`$. The deuteron data up to $`q_{max}=8fm^1`$ have been fit with a 10-parameter SOG parameterization for the electric monopole (C0), magnetic dipole (M1) and electric quadrupole (C2) form factors. The references to the cross sections and polarization data included are listed in refs.. In the fits, the Coulomb distortion of the electron waves, neglected in all work before , has been included.

The separation of longitudinal (charge) and transverse (magnetization) contributions to the (e,e) cross sections is automatically performed during the fit of the cross section data. For the case of the deuteron, the separation of monopole and quadrupole contributions is also achieved as all the available polarization data are included in the data set.

An important feature of these fits is the fact that charge and magnetic form factors are simultaneously fit to the available data set. The error matrix of the fit then contains all the correlations between the two (three) form factors, resulting from the fact that the observed cross sections depend on a linear combination of charge and magnetic form factors. These correlations obviously are important when computing the uncertainty in the Zemach integral, eq.2. As the charge/magnetic- (L/T)-separation leads to an anticorrelation between $`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$ and the Zemach moment depends on $`G_EG_M`$, the Zemach moment actually to some degree can be determined better than quantities depending only on $`G_E`$ or $`G_M`$, such as, e.g. the $`rms`$-radii. In order to calculate the statistical uncertainty of $`r_{(2)}`$, we use the corresponding error matrix.

The systematic uncertainties of the data, mainly errors in the absolute normalization of the cross sections, are also affecting the uncertainty of the Zemach moments. We determine this uncertainty by changing the individual data sets by their quoted systematic uncertainty, refitting the form factors and adding quadratically the resulting changes of the Zemach moments.

From the parameterization of the data we determine the contribution to the integral eq.2 up to $`q=q_{max}`$. We add the contribution from $`q_{max}`$ to $`q=\mathrm{}`$ using a dipole form factor. We have verified that, due to the smallness of the product $`G_EG_M`$ at large $`q`$, more realistic values for $`G(q)`$ do not make a significant difference.

The results are listed in Table 1. The error bar given covers both the statistical and the systematic uncertainties of the data.

For comparison, we have also calculated the moments for some standard parameterizations of the form factors. When using for the proton the conventional dipole form factor, one finds 1.023$`fm`$, while the Hoehler 8.2 fit  gives 1.038$`fm`$. For the deuteron, a dipole parameterization, with the best-fit charge $`rms`$-radius  determining the scale parameter, gives 2.679$`fm`$, while the zero-range-approximation model for the deuteron of ref.  yields 1.708$`fm`$.

If one calculates the deuteron charge and magnetic form factors using the impulse approximation and the AV18 potential model, together with a dipole nucleon form factor adjusted to give a proton Zemach moment of 1.086 $`fm`$, one finds a deuteron Zemach moment of 2.656 $`fm`$, which is about 2% too high. This illustrates an important point: the deuteron’s Zemach moment depends on a wide range of physics contributing to the charge and magnetic form factors, from the potential model used to calculate the wave functions, to possible meson-exchange currents (ignored in the impulse approximation) and relativistic corrections, and to the nucleon form factors themselves. Although the details of these ingredients are expected to produce only a small overall effect (a few percent, at most), the precision of our result for the deuteron pins down the size of the defect.

These values show that the Zemach moments are quite sensitive to the $`q`$-dependence of the form factors employed; they do not only depend on the $`rms`$-radii. The values given also show that the Zemach moments do depend appreciably on the difference between the charge and the magnetic form factors.

We note that the uncertainties on the Zemach moments are in part smaller than what could be expected from the uncertainties of the corresponding $`rms`$-radii . We attribute this to two distinct reasons: (i) the anti-correlation of $`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$ mentioned above. (ii) Sensitivity studies of the Zemach integral show that $`r_{(2)}`$ depends on the form factors $`G(q)`$ up to $`q3fm^1`$, and not only on the low-$`q`$ properties (radii); at these larger $`q`$’s the finite-size effect in the form factors is bigger, with a correspondingly reduced importance of the systematic uncertainties of the data that dominate the uncertainty in the radii.

Hyperfine splitting.  The hyperfine splitting of the 1S level of hydrogen was calculated using the fundamental constants from the 1998 CODATA evaluation and the QED and recoil corrections listed in Ref. (see also ). We note that only the leading-order recoil correction calculated in Ref. is significant, because the sum of calculated recoil and structure terms of sub-leading order  cancel almost perfectly, leaving a negligible residue. Our result for the Fermi splitting is 1 418 840.1 kHz, while adding in the QED and Breit corrections leads to 1 420 452.0 kHz, both results the same as that of Table XVIII of Ref.. Subtracting the experimental result from this theoretical result leads to a residue of 32.6 ppm of the Fermi splitting, which must accommodate all recoil and strong-interaction effects. The leading-order recoil contribution is 5.22 ppm, leaving 37.8 ppm for the sum of Zemach plus polarization corrections. Our Zemach moment correction of –41.0(5) ppm leaves the experimental result 3.2(5) ppm larger than theory without polarization. A recent calculation of the polarization correction found 1.4(6) ppm, which has the appropriate sign to complement our result, but leaves the experimental result larger than theory by 1.8(8) ppm, which is about two standard deviations from zero. This difference accounts for the smaller value of $`r_{(2)}`$deduced by Ref. , which assumed that the polarization corrections of Ref. are numerically accurate. Theoretical error estimates are highly subjective and the polarization corrections (or the recoil corrections) may be somewhat more uncertain than believed. Our residue of 3.2(5) ppm without polarization is within the upper limit for polarization corrections. Given the precision of our result for the Zemach moment, more attention to the polarization correction would be welcome.

The deuterium HFS involves significantly larger nuclear corrections. The QED contribution is 337 339.1 kHz, leaving a 138 ppm residue for nuclear plus recoil corrections. Our deuteron Zemach moment in Table 1 generates a –98.0(6) ppm contribution, so that polarization and recoil must contribute about 236 ppm. The reader is directed to Refs. and  for a discussion of this polarization contribution which is very difficult to calculate.

Conclusion.  In this paper we have determined directly from the electron scattering data the Zemach moments for the proton and the deuteron. In particular for the proton, this allows a much more precise comparison between the theoretical and experimental HFS; the present status is agreement within 1.8(8)ppm, the main source of uncertainty being the proton polarizability.


format: text

text:
# Excited Baryon Decay Widths in Large 𝑁_𝑐 QCD

## I Introduction

Large $`N_c`$ QCD TH  has proved useful in predicting hadronic properties. This paper explores the important issue of excited hadron lifetimes. The behaviors of mesons and baryons appear to differ radically at large $`N_c`$. For example, Witten’s well-known large $`N_c`$ power counting rules specify that the decay widths of mesons scale like $`N_c^1`$, but the decay widths of baryons above the ground-state band scale like $`N_c^0`$ EW . Mesons are clearly narrow at large $`N_c`$; this helps explain why they are visible in the spectrum. However, generic baryons are not narrow at large $`N_c`$. Why can one still resolve excited baryons? Perhaps the answer is simply that the baryons actually dominating the low-lying spectrum are exceptional states whose decay widths are narrow in the large $`N_c`$ sense: They vanish in the large $`N_c`$ limit. In fact, it has been suggested that those baryons transforming under the mixed-symmetric (MS) representation of the spin-flavor group SU(2$`N_f`$) are narrow PY . If this is true, it is an exciting result; the observed narrow baryons are generally assigned to such a representation in simple quark models. The purpose of the present paper is to investigate whether the narrowness of such states is, in fact, a consequence of large $`N_c`$ scaling in QCD.

We begin with a brief discussion of the relevant background. A seminal development in the study of large $`N_c`$ ground-state baryons was the derivation of consistency conditions that constrained their coupling to pions. These consistency conditions were found by examining pion-baryon scattering DJM ; GS ; DM ; J ; DJM2 ; JL ; Luty ; CGO . A contracted SU($`2N_f`$) spin-flavor symmetry emerges from this analysis, in which the ground-state band of baryons fills a completely symmetric (S) representation ; it links various quantities such as baryon axial-vector couplings, magnetic moments, and masses DJM ; GS ; DM ; J ; DJM2 ; JL ; Luty ; CGO . Recent interest has focused on its application to the study of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the $`N`$-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition BHL ; BL1 ; BL2 ; JJM ; Cohen ; PY0 .

The success of the consistency condition method for describing ground-state baryons naturally led to the question of whether excited baryons could be understood in an analogous fashion. Pirjol and Yan (PY) developed just such an approach PY . However, there is an important distinction CL  between the treatments of ground-state baryons and their excited cousins. The scattering of pions off ground-state baryons is physically realizable at large $`N_c`$ Dwidth . On the other hand, the excited baryons are resonances, so it is not immediately obvious how one can formulate a pion-excited baryon scattering problem: The excited states decay and cannot be used as targets in scattering experiments. Thus, the consistency condition approach is only applicable if there exist excited baryons in the large $`N_c`$ world that are indeed narrow. PY tacitly assumed that such baryons exist. As such, their general model-independent predictions are not strictly valid. However, if there turns out to be a class of narrow excited baryons, then the model-independent arguments can be applied to these in a legitimate way. Thus, the existence of a class of narrow baryon states at large $`N_c`$ is also of importance in providing a theoretical justification for the elegant model-independent analysis of Ref. PY , as applied to at least some states.

Interestingly, Ref. PY  itself provided an argument that there exists a class of narrow excited baryons at large $`N_c`$. It finds that the baryons in the MS representation of the spin-flavor group have widths of $`O(N_c^1)`$, which thus vanish at large $`N_c`$. This is in contrast to the generic large $`N_c`$ counting rule prediction, in which the widths are $`O(N_c^0)`$ CL . Unfortunately, the prediction of narrow decay widths for the MS states in Ref. PY  was not based directly on large $`N_c`$ consistency rules. Rather, it arose from calculations done in the context of a simple, nonrelativistic quark model. The particular model employed was the quark-shell model to be described in Section II. Of course, quark models have a long and distinguished history of successful phenomenology. In the large $`N_c`$ context, quark models have been used to describe the lowest-lying excited baryon states Leb ; Leb2 ; CGKM ; G ; SGS ; CC ; CC2 , and have revealed interesting mass degeneracy patterns PY ; CL ; PS . Recently, it was shown that the quark-shell model is compatible with the more realistic picture of excited baryons as resonances in meson-baryon scattering, in the sense that both describe the same mass and width degeneracy patterns CL .

The question of interest in this paper is whether the prediction in Ref. PY , that there exist narrow excited baryon states, is a direct consequence of large $`N_c`$ QCD. It is useful to note that a large number of the model-independent relations found DJM ; GS ; DM ; J ; DJM2 ; JL ; Luty ; CGO  were originally seen in the context of soliton models AdkNap , and indeed all of these hold for quark models. Thus, the issue is whether the existence of narrow excited baryon states found in the quark-shell model of Ref. PY  similarly indicates a general large $`N_c`$ result. If so, this is an important general result in understanding excited baryons. In contrast, if the prediction is merely an artifact of the particular choice of model, then it is of far less import. In this context, it is important to note that the model used in Ref. PY  is not completely general. It is limited in that it does not include admixtures of different single-particle descriptions (i.e., it neglects configuration mixing).

The issue of whether the MS excited baryons described in the simple quark-shell model correspond to physical states in large $`N_c`$ QCD is not addressed in Ref. PY . If the states are physical, then a previously unrecognized symmetry in large $`N_c`$ QCD is manifesting itself and prevents the states from decaying rapidly. In particular, the narrowness depends upon a symmetry beyond the contracted SU($`2N_f`$) spin-flavor symmetry deduced in Refs. DJM ; GS ; DM ; J ; DJM2 ; JL ; Luty ; CGO . In those works the “spin” in “spin-flavor” corresponds to the total angular momentum of the baryon state in its rest frame. As shown below, the narrow states predicted in Ref. PY  depend on two distinct spin-flavor symmetries: one as before, in which the spin corresponds to the total angular momentum of the baryon state in its rest frame, and a second one in which the spin is purely associated with the spin of the quarks. While these two symmetries are identical for a quark-shell model with all of the quarks in the orbital ground level (s-wave), they differ for more general models. The prediction of a new symmetry emerging in the large $`N_c`$ limit for excited states is certainly exciting; the issue, however, is whether it is real.

In this paper, we show that the seemingly narrow excited baryons are in fact not a feature of large $`N_c`$ QCD; they are merely artifacts of the simple quark model used. Our paper is organized as follows: We review the construction of baryon states in the quark-shell model and the significance of key matrix elements in Ref. PY . Next, we use a quark-shell model Hamiltonian to show that the states used in Ref. PY  are not physical in large $`N_c`$ QCD. In fact, the physical states are superpositions of both S and MS representations of spin-flavor.

## II Consistency conditions and the quark-shell model

Pirjol and Yan’s analysis PY  of excited baryons proceeds in a manner that is formally similar to that of Dashen, Jenkins, and Manohar DJM . Pions are scattered off excited baryons, and the large $`N_c`$ counting rules are enforced for the total scattering amplitude. Any analysis of a conceivable scattering event presupposes that the target is stable; in Ref. PY , the target was a p-wave baryon, and it was taken to be narrow at large $`N_c`$. This is a tenuous assumption unless the quark mass is taken to be large, in which case the baryon has no possible decay channels due to phase space limitations. For the sake of argument, we implicitly work in such a world in the following and assume that results obtained in a such a world can be safely extrapolated back to the physical world of light quarks. As noted in Section I, it is by no means clear that such a procedure is legitimate, since the consistency conditions cannot really be formulated for states that are unstable at large $`N_c`$. However, for the present purpose this procedure is adequate. States may be narrow for one of two reasons: Either the phase space for decay is small (or zero), or the meson-baryon coupling is small. The claim of Ref. PY  is that MS states have a meson-baryon coupling that goes as $`N_c^{1/2}`$, and thus even when the phase space is of $`O(N_c^0)`$, it still produces narrow resonances. If the coupling turned out to be truly $`O(N_c^{1/2})`$ as a result of general large $`N_c`$ physics arguments, this counting would be expected to hold regardless of whether the quark mass were taken to be light or heavy enough to suppress the phase space for decay. Conversely, if one can show even in this world of heavy quarks that the coupling to would-be decay channels (which are now phase space suppressed) is generally $`O(N_c^0)`$ and not $`O(N_c^{1/2})`$ for all low-lying states in the spectrum, then it is clear that large $`N_c`$ arguments by themselves do not predict a class of weakly-coupled states.

The analysis of PY is of two parts: i) A set of consistency conditions for couplings of excited baryons to mesons (analogous to the consistency conditions for ground-state baryons) is derived. Functional forms of relations that solve these conditions are proposed and then verified. ii) A simple nonrelativistic quark-shell model is used to motivate the functional forms proposed for the model-independent analysis. As a result of this quark model analysis, it is seen that the strength of the coupling between an excited baryon and a meson plus a ground-state baryon depends on the symmetry class of the excited baryon.

In the model-independent section, the aforementioned consistency conditions were determined by imposing Witten’s counting rules EW  on the following scattering processes at large $`N_c`$:

$`\pi ^a+B(\text{s-wave})\pi ^b+B^{}(\text{s-wave}),`$ (1)
$`\pi ^a+B(\text{p-wave})\pi ^b+B^{}(\text{p-wave}),`$ (2)
$`\pi ^a+B(\text{p-wave})\pi ^b+B^{}(\text{s-wave}),`$ (3)
where s-wave refers to the ground-state band of baryons modeled as having all quarks in a spatial s-wave; p-wave refers to excited levels that have quantum numbers consistent with a single quark excited into a p-wave orbital. The $`a`$ and $`b`$ are isospin indices.

At each pion-baryon vertex, the baryon axial-vector current is derivatively coupled to the pion field:

$$B^{}|\overline{q}\gamma ^i\gamma _5\tau ^aq|B^i\pi ^a/f_\pi =N_cB^{}|X^{ia}|B^i\pi ^a/f_\pi ,$$
(4)
where the current matrix element is parameterized in terms of an irreducible tensor operator $`X^{ia}`$ and an explicit power of $`N_c`$. An $`O(N_c^0)`$ coupling $`g(X)`$ usually included on the right-hand side of this equation is absorbed into the definition of $`X`$ for convenience. The scattering amplitude for the two leading-order tree-level diagrams for Eq. (1) is $`𝒜(N_c/f_\pi )^2[X^{jb},X^{ia}]`$ and thus is naively $`O(N_c)`$ since $`f_\pi O(N_c^{1/2})`$. Such scaling contradicts the Witten $`N_c`$ power-counting prediction (as well as unitarity at large $`N_c`$), which require it to be $`O(N_c^0)`$; one is led to the conclusion that $`[X^{jb},X^{ia}]=0`$ in the large $`N_c`$ limit. The vanishing of the commutator is the leading-order consistency condition for ground-state baryons and is the key to the contracted SU(4) algebra GS ; DJM .

This procedure can be extended to the process in Eq. (2) if the current matrix element is parameterized in terms of a new operator $`Z^{ia}`$: $`B^{}|\overline{q}\gamma ^i\gamma _5\tau ^aq|B=N_cB^{}|Z^{ia}|B`$. As in the above case, the scattering amplitude apparently diverges at large $`N_c`$ in the absence of cancellations, and thus consistency requires that

$$[Z^{jb},Z^{ia}]=0$$
(5)
in the large $`N_c`$ limit. This condition is analogous to that for $`X^{ia}`$, meaning that solutions for $`Z^{ia}`$ also fill irreducible representations of a contracted SU(4) algebra. These representations can be labeled by the magnitude of a spin vector $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ such that $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\stackrel{}{I}+\stackrel{}{J}`$ (but only in the sense that allowed eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ are determined by the vector addition rule; indeed, Ref. PY  uses a relative minus sign in this definition). Note that this operator (denoted $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ in Ref. CL ) has a very simple interpretation in terms of chiral soliton models, in which case $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\stackrel{}{I}+\stackrel{}{J}`$ in a true vector operator sense, as one has from studies of a canonical hedgehog configuration, where the combined operator is called the “grand spin.”

To extend this procedure to the process in Eq. (3), one must introduce two new operators, $`Y^a`$ and $`Q^{ij,a}`$, in order to parameterize the current matrix elements between an s-wave and p-wave baryon:

$`B^{}|\overline{q}\gamma ^0\gamma _5\tau ^aq|B`$ $`=`$ $`N_c^{1/2}B^{}|Y^a|B,`$ (6)
$`B^{}|\overline{q}\gamma ^i\gamma _5\tau ^aq|B`$ $`=`$ $`N_c^{1/2}q^jB^{}|Q^{ij,a}|B,`$ (7)
where $`q^\mu `$ is the momentum of the current and $`|B^{}`$ indicates the ground-state baryon. These expressions differ from those in Ref. PY  by the absorption of possible additional $`N_c`$ powers and coefficients $`g(Y,Q)`$ into the right-hand sides, which can be accommodated by explicit rescaling of $`Y`$ and $`Q`$. The scattering amplitude for Eq. (3) still violates the Witten power-counting prediction if the $`Y`$ and $`Q`$ matrix elements scale as $`N_c^{1/2}`$ or larger (note that generic Witten counting rules suggest that $`Y`$ and $`Q`$ scale as $`N_c^0`$), and in these cases consistency requires that

$`X^{ia}Y^bY^bZ^{ia}=0`$ and $`X^{ib}Y^aY^aZ^{ib}=0,`$ (8)
$`X^{ia}Q^{jk,b}Q^{jk,b}Z^{ia}=0`$ and $`X^{kb}Q^{ij,a}Q^{ij,a}Z^{kb}=0.`$ (9)
The set of consistency conditions in Eqs. (5), (8), (9) form the basis of Pirjol and Yan’s model-independent analysis. Matrix elements of the operators $`Z`$, $`Y`$, and $`Q`$ between baryon states $`|J,J_3,I,I_3,\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be found by solving this set. We repeat for emphasis that the minimum set of quantum numbers needed to construct solutions to the consistency conditions is $`\{J,J_3,I,I_3,\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$. The $`Y^a`$ matrix element is, for example,

$$J^{}=I^{},J_3^{},I_3^{}|Y^a|J,J_3,I,I_3,\mathrm{\Delta }=g_Y(1)^{1+2J}\sqrt{\frac{2I+1}{3(2J+1)}}I^{}I_3^{}|I,1;I_3,a\delta _{JJ^{}}\delta _{J_3J_3^{}}\delta _{\mathrm{\Delta }1},$$
(10)
where the fact that $`|B^{}`$ is a ground-state baryon imposes the condition $`I^{}=J^{}`$. The constant $`g_Y`$ encodes the overall strength, including any overall nontrivial $`N_c`$ scaling. If the system scales according to the generic Witten rule, then $`g_YN_c^0`$. If for some special class of states the coupling is characteristically smaller, then $`g_Y`$ is smaller than $`O(N_c^0)`$. Reference PY  calculates the matrix elements in the quark-shell model and finds the same spin-flavor structure as given by Eq. (10), regardless of the symmetry of the state $`|B`$. However, the $`N_c`$ dependence of the coefficient $`g_Y`$ in the quark-shell model is found to depend upon the symmetry of the excited states, with $`g_YN_c^0`$ for spin-flavor S states and $`g_YN_c^{1/2}`$ for MS states. It is this scaling for the MS states that leads to the prediction of narrow baryon resonances.

In the simple quark-shell model of Ref. PY , each excited baryon is treated as a single orbitally excited quark with angular momentum $`\mathrm{}`$ acting on top of a spin-flavor symmetric core of $`N_c1`$ quarks. The Pauli principle requires that the complete wave function describing the baryon is antisymmetric under the exchange of any two quarks. The singlet color wave function is fully antisymmetric; accordingly, the space and spin-flavor wave functions together must be symmetric. Only symmetric or mixed-symmetric spatial wave functions can be constructed when a single quark is excited. Therefore, the spin-flavor wave functions of the quark-shell model states are either symmetric or mixed-symmetric under exchange. It is worth noting that in the present context “spin-flavor” refers to the spin and flavor of the quarks and not of the baryons.

We focus on the nonstrange states of SU(4), in which the distinction between the MS and the S representations is clean: Spin and isospin are related by $`S=I`$ for the S case and $`|SI|1`$ for the MS case. This distinction may be neatly encoded by introducing the the concept of $`P`$-spin PY : with $`P=0`$ for the S case and $`P=1`$ for the MS case. Thus, treating $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ as though it were a true angular momentum, one sees that the single triangle rule $`\delta (SIP)`$ characterizes both permutational symmetries.

The matrix elements of $`Z`$, $`Y`$, and $`Q`$ in the quark model are obtained by defining the currents and constructing the baryon states in quark model language. Up to overall multiplicative constants of order unity, the currents in the quark model are:

$`N_cZ^{ia}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^i\tau ^a,`$ (11)
$`N_c^{1/2}Y^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{+1}{}}}()^{1j}\sigma ^jr^j\tau ^a,`$ (12)
$`N_c^{1/2}Q^{ka}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{+1}{}}}2,k|1,1;j,i\sigma ^jr^i\tau ^a.`$ (13)
The $`\sigma `$, $`\tau `$, and $`r`$ operators act on the quark’s spin, isospin, and orbital degrees of freedom, respectively.

Reference PY  constructs quark model states of good (quark) spin ($`S`$, $`m_S`$), isospin ($`I`$, $`I_3`$), and orbital angular momentum ($`\mathrm{}`$, $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$) in such a manner that each is either symmetric or mixed-symmetric under spin-flavor. It is not clear at the outset how such states should be interpreted. Either these states may be taken to be eigenstates of some unspecified Hamiltonian $``$ that is assumed to model QCD, or they may be taken to be merely a convenient basis that allows one to enumerate the possible physical states. If they are eigenstates of $``$, then the quantum numbers specifying the states must be associated with operators that commute with $``$. If this is the case, then the eigenstates of $``$ include the narrow excited states predicted in Ref. PY  and incorporate a new large $`N_c`$ symmetry that makes these states stable. This ostensible symmetry arises because $``$ commutes separately with the (quark) spin and with the total angular momentum.

Note that if the states are merely used to form a basis, then one is faced with the issue of determining the scaling of mixing between the basis states. If each physical state is predominantly a single basis state (with admixtures of other states characteristically suppressed in the large $`N_c`$ limit), the system then acts much as it would for the case where the states are treated as eigenstates of a Hamiltonian that mocks up QCD: The physical eigenstates that are predominantly mixed-symmetric are then narrow. In contrast, if the mixing is $`O(N_c^0)`$, then the concept of a state that is predominantly mixed-symmetric is ill-defined, and all states allowed by phase space have widths that go as $`N_c^0`$.

It should also be observed that the quantum numbers $`\{P,S,m_S,I,I_3,\mathrm{},m_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ denoting these states are different from those used in the (model-independent) consistency condition method, $`\{J,J_3,I,I_3,\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$. In particular, it should be noted that the there is no analog for the $`P`$ quantum number (which specifies the nature of the spin-flavor symmetry of the quark model state) in the model-independent analysis. This raises the obvious question of whether or not the concept of the $`P`$-spin has a well-defined meaning at large $`N_c`$ outside the context of the simple quark model.

The matrix elements of the above currents can be calculated with the quark model states described above. A lengthy calculation in Ref. PY  revealed the $`N_c`$ scaling of the matrix elements of $`Y`$ (and $`Q`$) as well as the detailed spin-flavor structure; it was found that

$$P^{}=0,\mathrm{}^{}=0\left|Y,Q\right|P=0,\mathrm{}0N_c^0,$$
(14)
while

$$P^{}=0,\mathrm{}^{}=0\left|Y,Q\right|P=1,\mathrm{}0N_c^{1/2},$$
(15)
where the states are labeled by their $`P`$-spin and orbital angular momentum.

The excited baryon decay widths are determined by squaring the matrix elements of the physical states and dividing by the pion decay constant $`f_\pi ^2`$ and including the appropriate phase space factor. Using that $`f_\pi ^2O(N_c)`$ and the phase space is $`O(N_c^0)`$, it is straightforward to determine the scaling of the decay widths. If one assumes that quark model assignments of states correspond to physical states (with only small admixtures of states of different quark model symmetries), then the decay width of an MS baryon ($`P=1`$) is $`O(N_c^1)`$, while the decay width of an S baryon ($`P=0`$) is of order $`N_c^0`$. In the large $`N_c`$ limit, the former vanishes. This result is of import; it implies that MS excited baryon states are narrow. This would neatly explain the phenomenological fact that certain baryons, like mesons, are narrow enough to discern and would render the consistency argument of Ref. PY  valid. However, these desirable results depend on the physical baryon states corresponding to the quark model states in terms of their quantum numbers. Thus, one must face the question of whether they do.

## III Spin-flavor symmetry breaking and baryon widths

In this section we focus on the issue of whether the physical states truly correspond to the simple quark model states of Ref. PY , which in effect is the question of whether narrow excited baryons are realized in large $`N_c`$ QCD. If this result is generic to large $`N_c`$ QCD, one would expect it to be seen in all models that correctly encode large $`N_c`$ physics. Thus, to disprove it we need only find some model that encodes the correct large $`N_c`$ scaling rules for which it is untrue. Here we consider a fairly general quark-shell model Hamiltonian that shares some essential properties with the QCD Hamiltonian. In particular, we consider the most general quark model for which the number of quarks in a given orbital is well defined. In practice, this restriction means one excludes operators that remove quarks from one orbital and place them in different orbitals. We impose this restriction to keep the model tractable. Note, however, that even with this restriction, this Hamiltonian is considerably more general then the Hamiltonian implicitly used to construct the states in the previous section.

Large $`N_c`$ scaling rules greatly restrict the number of possible operators that contribute at $`O(N_c^0)`$ or larger (and hence that can contribute in the large $`N_c`$ limit Leb ; Leb2 ). For example, as shown in Ref. Leb ; Leb2 , the only operators that contribute at $`O(N_c^0)`$ for states with a single excited quark are given by:

$$=c_1𝟙+𝕔_\mathrm{𝟚}\mathrm{}𝕤+𝕔_\mathrm{𝟛}\mathrm{}^{(\mathrm{𝟚})}𝕘𝔾_𝕔/_𝕔,$$
(16)
where the $`\mathrm{}`$, $`s`$, $`\mathrm{}^{(2)}`$, and $`g`$ are the orbital, spin, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}=2`$ tensor, and combined spin-flavor (Gamow-Teller) operators, respectively, acting only on the excited quark, while $`G_c`$ is the combined spin-flavor operator acting only on the core of unexcited quarks. The coefficients have the following scaling rules:

$$c_1N_c^1,c_2N_c^0,c_3N_c^0.$$
(17)
The scaling of $`c_1`$ is a bit subtle. Most of the contribution to $`c_1`$ comes from the unexcited quarks in the core. Thus $`c_1=M_N+\delta c_1`$ with $`\delta c_1N_c^0`$. In general, each coefficient contains corrections at all subleading powers of $`N_c`$.

Consider, as an example, the operator associated with $`c_2`$. If this operator induces significant \[$`O(N_c^0)`$\] mixing between the S and MS states of the basis described above, then this model—which correctly encodes the large $`N_c`$ scaling rules—does not automatically give excited baryons that are weakly coupled at large $`N_c`$. To begin, note that the $`\mathrm{}s`$ term does not commute with the spin operator S; i.e., $`m_S`$ is not generally a good quantum number for the Hamiltonian eigenstates. Thus, the operator does induce mixing between the states enumerated above. The central question becomes the scale of this mixing.

Suppose one considers only states for which the excited quark is in an orbital with $`\mathrm{}0`$ (The case of $`\mathrm{}=0`$ is special and is discussed below). This implies that the $`\mathrm{}s`$ operator mixes states of different spin-flavor symmetry. Consider a state labeled by total angular momentum ($`J`$,$`J_3`$), total isospin ($`I`$, $`I_3`$), total (quark) spin ($`S`$), and $`P`$-spin: $`|JJ_3;II_3(\mathrm{},S=I+\rho )[P]`$. The $`\rho `$ (introduced in Refs. Leb ; Leb2 ) plays a role similar to the $`P`$-spin of Sec. II. It is a number that equals either $`\pm 1`$ or 0 for the mixed-symmetric case ($`P=1`$), or 0 for the symmetric case ($`P=0`$). The states so labeled are identical to the ones enumerated in Sec. II. The matrix element of $`\mathrm{}s`$ that connects two states in this basis of equal $`JJ_3`$, $`II_3`$, and $`\mathrm{}`$ but different $`P`$-spin (i.e., symmetry) is written as $`\mathrm{}s_\rho JJ_3;II_3(\mathrm{},S^{}=I+\rho ^{})[1]\left|\mathrm{}s\right|JJ_3;II_3(\mathrm{},S=I)[0]`$. We follow the methods of Ref. Leb , but note a more concise expression than their Eq. (A7):

$$\mathrm{}s=(1)^{JI+\mathrm{}}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)(2\mathrm{}+1)(2S+1)(2S^{}+1)}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1\\ S& S^{}& J\end{array}\right\}\underset{\eta =\pm 1}{}c_{\rho \eta }c_{\rho ^{}\eta }(1)^{(1\eta )/2}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}1& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\\ I+\frac{\eta }{2}& S^{}& S\end{array}\right\}.$$
(18)
From here, we set $`\rho =0`$ (meaning that $`S=I`$ for the S state in the ket) and calculate this matrix element for each value of $`\rho ^{}`$ in the mixed-symmetric bra. For $`\rho ^{}=0`$, we have:

$$\mathrm{}s_0=(1)^{JI+\mathrm{}+1}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)(2\mathrm{}+1)}(2S+1)c_0^{\text{MS}}c_{0+}^{\text{MS}}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1\\ S& S& J\end{array}\right\}\left[\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}1& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\\ I+\frac{1}{2}& S& S\end{array}\right\}+\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}1& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\\ I\frac{1}{2}& S& S\end{array}\right\}\right].$$
(19)
The coefficients $`c_0^{\text{MS}}`$ and $`c_{0+}^{\text{MS}}`$ are given by

$`c_0^{\text{MS}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(S+1)(N_c2S)}{N_c(2S+1)}}},`$
$`c_{0+}^{\text{MS}}`$ $`=`$ $`+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{S[N_c+2(S+1)]}{N_c(2S+1)}}}.`$ (20)
For $`\rho ^{}=\pm 1`$, we have:

$$\mathrm{}s_{\pm 1}=(1)^{JI+\mathrm{}+1}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)(2\mathrm{}+1)(2S+1)(2S+1\pm 2)}c_0^{\text{MS}}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1\\ S& S\pm 1& J\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}1& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\\ I\pm \frac{1}{2}& S\pm 1& S\end{array}\right\}.$$
(21)
In general, evaluation of these formulas for appropriate values of $`S`$, $`I`$, $`J`$, and $`\mathrm{}`$ yields nonzero values. The nonvanishing of MS $``$ MS matrix elements is confirmed in Refs. Leb ; Leb2 . Moreover, in all of these cases the matrix element of $`\mathrm{}s`$ is $`O(N_c^0)`$. Combining this with the scaling of Eq. (17) for the strength of the operator, implies that the $`\mathrm{}s`$ term in the Hamiltonian connects states of different spin-flavor symmetry with strength of $`O(N_c^0)`$. Due to this mixing, an energy eigenstate of the quark-shell model cannot be described as having a well-defined spin-flavor symmetry. Thus, for this class of models there is no special set of weakly-coupled excited baryons at large $`N_c`$ (at least for $`\mathrm{}0`$). Since these models encode generic large $`N_c`$ scaling, one concludes that generic large $`N_c`$ scaling rules by themselves do not imply that a set of weakly coupled states exists. Returning now to a world where the quarks are light enough that the decays are permitted by phase space \[which is $`O(N_c^0)`$\], one concludes that there is no generic argument why such states should be narrow.

Note that an analogous argument could be made using the $`\mathrm{}^{(2)}gG_c/N_c`$ term in the Hamiltonian, which also leads to mixing of $`O(N_c^0)`$. One might wonder whether there is some way to evade this conclusion by having some type of cancellation between the $`\mathrm{}^{(2)}gG_c/N_c`$ and $`\mathrm{}s`$ terms. However, the two terms generically have nothing to do with each other; their ratio is not fixed by large $`N_c`$ arguments. Moreover, although the operators commute at leading order, they are distinct—their matrix elements are not proportional to each other, even at leading order CL ; Leb ; Leb2 ; PS . Hence, the only way for them to cancel generally is if they are both zero.

The conclusion that S and MS configurations are mixed in models of this type is valid for all cases except where the excited quark is in an $`\mathrm{}=0`$ orbital. However, it is clear that all of the matrix elements of $`\mathrm{}s`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}=1`$) and $`\mathrm{}^{(2)}gG_c/N_c`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}=2`$) between states with $`\mathrm{}=0`$ are zero. Thus, the argument presented above does not exclude the possibility of weakly coupled, and hence narrow, $`\mathrm{}=0`$ MS excited states. We note, however, that the quark model considered in this paper, though more general than that implicitly used to construct the basis states, is by no means the most general one that one can consider. In particular, one can consider models with configuration mixing—that is, in which the physical states are admixtures of different single-particle descriptions Ripka . Such operators can induce admixtures between the S and MS states at $`O(N_c^0)`$. It is easy to see how this can come about. An allowable operator can mix a state with a quark in an excited $`\mathrm{}=0`$ orbital and a state with a quark in an $`\mathrm{}=1`$ orbital that has total angular momentum (spin plus orbital) equal to 1/2. Such mixing violates no symmetries of the system and is allowable at $`O(N_c^0)`$. Once such a state admixes with the $`\mathrm{}=1`$ orbitals, the previously considered operators induce mixing between the S and MS spin-flavor components.

The case of $`\mathrm{}=1`$ presents its own subtlety, the well-known problem in many-body physics of spurious modes associated with broken symmetries Ripka . In fact, the existence of spurious modes does not alter the conclusions drawn above for the $`\mathrm{}=1`$ case, as discussed in Appendix A.

## IV Conclusion

In this paper we have explored the issue of whether excited baryons with mixed-symmetric spin-flavor wave functions have decay widths that vanish in the large $`N_c`$ limit. As noted earlier, if previous claims that a set of states are automatically narrow at large $`N_c`$ were in fact generic, it would be of real significance both theoretically and phenomenologically. On the other hand, the assertion that such states are narrow is based on calculations with a very simple quark model. In this work we showed that the purported narrowness of these states is an artifact of the simple quark model used in the calculations and not a generic feature of large $`N_c`$ QCD. This was shown in the context of a slightly more general class of quark models that encode generic large $`N_c`$ scaling rules by a demonstration that excited baryons cannot be assigned a well-defined, fixed spin-flavor symmetry; the symmetry configurations are admixed at $`O(N_c^0)`$. This implies that the relative narrowness of baryon states observed in nature cannot be simply attributed to large $`N_c`$ scaling behavior. It also implies that the general model-independent analysis of Ref. PY  is not strictly correct: Without a scattering target of narrow states, the large $`N_c`$ consistency condition analysis is not applicable. Fortunately, many of the conclusions of this analysis remain correct despite this, such as the predicted pattern of degeneracies CL .

## Acknowledgments

T.D.C. and R.F.L. wish to thank Paolo Bedaque and the “Effective Summer at Berkeley” program for their hospitality; the research atmosphere at this program greatly facilitated the collaboration that resulted in this paper. The work of T.D.C., D.C.D., and A.N. was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-93ER-40762. The work of R.F.L. was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-0140362.

## Appendix A The role of spurious modes

The quark-shell model possesses degrees of freedom associated with the motion of all of the particles. The total motion may always be separated into center-of-mass (c.m.) motion and internal motion. Moreover, since the underlying dynamics is translationally invariant, the c.m. motion may always be quantized in states of good total momentum. Thus, in principle for a quark model with $`N_c`$ quarks, the internal dynamics is only associated with the $`N_c1`$ displacements from c.m. Since the model for the excitation spectrum as written includes the positions of all $`N_c`$ quarks as explicit degrees of freedom, there is in principle redundant information. This raises the obvious question of how one can separate the motion of the c.m., which is spurious from the point of view of internal dynamics, from the internal dynamics of interest. Since the spurious c.m. motion is vectorial in nature—it is associated with the total momentum $`\stackrel{}{P}`$—one expects that it manifests itself only in channels that transform vectorially, which means the $`\mathrm{}=1`$ channels.

The issue of how the spurious motion is dealt with depends in part on how the model under consideration is derived. One may view the quark-shell model used in this paper as being obtained from some underlying translationally-invariant quark model with $`N_c`$ quarks undergoing mutual interactions. Traditionally, one approximates this model with some type of self-consistent single-particle potential model state such as the Hartree-Fock state Ripka . The idea is to choose a single-particle description that is optimal in the sense of capturing the maximum amount of the underlying physics. One then attempts to include systematically the physics excluded by the single-particle description. Note that this single-particle description necessarily breaks translational invariance, since one cannot have a single-particle description with nontrivial internal dynamics that simultaneously is an eigenstate of the c.m. momentum (since the remaining degrees of freedom in this approach remain inert). From the perspective of such a model state, the spurious c.m. motion is now associated with the fact that the approximation scheme breaks translational symmetry.

It is obvious that if one treats the internal dynamics exactly, then any “excitation” of the spurious c.m. motion on top of some internal state does not alter the internal dynamics and necessarily leads to a state whose internal energy is degenerate with the original state. There are certain approximation schemes that automatically give zero-energy excitations for motion associated with the spurious c.m. motion Ripka . Such approximations are referred to as “conserving approximations” if they provide such an order-by-order decoupling in the approximation scheme. An example of such an approximation is an RPA treatment above a Hartree-Fock trial state Ripka .

Unfortunately, the quark-shell model does not correspond to a truncation of a conserving approximation of an underlying translationally invariant model at some consistent order. Rather, it is the form one obtains via the truncation of a Tamm-Dancoff type expansion; such expansions are not conserving in an order-by-order sense. A true separation of the spurious motion from the internal motion occurs if one includes all possible spatial orbitals (including the continuum) and all possible N-body forces (and if the coefficients of all of these are obtained in a consistent way from the underlying translationally-invariant system). This is not done for practical reasons; the system so obtained is not computationally tractable. The effect of the ad hoc truncation is the contamination of the physically interesting physics with unphysical spurious motion. To the extent that the truncation is not too severe, such contamination is modest in that the physically interesting mode only has small admixtures of the spurious motion, and the predicted physical motion is accurate to good approximation.

There is one obvious drawback to such a scheme, apart from the necessary numerical inaccuracy induced by truncation. The Hilbert space contains both physical and spurious motion, and the final answers contain mixtures of both. One hopes that one set of modes is mostly physical (and can be identified with the physical result), while the other set is mostly spurious and can be discarded. One therefore needs some method to discern which set is which. The obvious approach is to perform the calculation and a posteriori identify the modes that are largely spurious. One natural way to identify them is to pick out anomalously low-lying modes, recalling that true spurious modes correspond to zero-energy excitations.

The problem of spurious modes as discussed here is generic in quark-shell models, and in principle is totally divorced from the issue of relevance to this paper, that of whether the S and MS states mix strongly in forming the physical states. One should follow the strategy given above: Using the model, calculate all of the $`\mathrm{}=1`$ modes and discard the ones that are mostly spurious. The general arguments given in Sec. III show that the states so generated have strong mixing, and this is sufficient for our purpose. One expects the physical $`\mathrm{}=1`$ state to exhibit strong mixing between states of different spin-flavor symmetries, and hence one expects the states to have widths of $`O(N_c^0)`$.

However, there is one exceptional situation in which these two issues appear to be related. Consider a simple single-particle quark model with orbitals given by harmonic oscillator states. Since this model has no spin-dependent interactions, the quark spin is a good quantum number, and states may be labeled according to spin-flavor. It is a straightforward exercise to show that the spin-flavor S state associated with a single quark in the lowest p-wave orbital is entirely associated with spurious c.m. motion Close . The underlying mathematical reason is simply that the lowest harmonic oscillator p-wave state is proportional to $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ times the ground state. Based on this experience, one might be under the impression that the spurious mode is generally the lowest p-wave S state. This is not the case. In fact, even for the simple case with harmonic oscillator orbitals it is clear that separation into spurious and physical modes is not dynamically correct. The spurious $`\mathrm{}=1`$ modes in such a model are degenerate with the physical $`\mathrm{}=1`$ modes rather than, as one might expect, with the ground state. Indeed, the spurious modes in this model correspond to the c.m. oscillating harmonically with the excitation frequency. Physically, of course, the c.m. moves with a constant velocity.

Thus, we conclude that our previous arguments are valid even for $`\mathrm{}=1`$ states. We note, however, that the entire issue is moot. In the end, the problem of spurious states is a disease of quark-shell models. They appear as translationally-invariant quark models with ad hoc truncations, and the disease is associated with the truncations. Of course, we introduced these models following the treatment of Ref. PY  and then generalized the models to show that even quark-shell models have $`O(N_c^0)`$ mixing between different spin-flavor symmetry classes. Such models are computationally tractable. Of course, in principle one may use any model consistent with large $`N_c`$ scaling to establish this point. Ideally, one should consider models that do not suffer from the spurious mode problem, in order to avoid the issue entirely. One might consider, for example, a translationally invariant model of $`N_c`$ quarks interacting among themselves. Such a model obviously suffers the drawback that it is computationally extremely hard to solve. However, for our purposes the only issue of relevance is whether quark spin is a good quantum number. If the model has tensor interactions between quarks at leading order \[which is $`1/N_c`$, leading to $`O(N_c^0)`$ matrix elements when quark combinatorics are included\], then quark spin is not a good quantum number, and even in the absence of explicit computation one expects generic mixing of $`O(N_c^0)`$ between states of different spin-flavor symmetry.