text:
# CMB Comptonization by Energetic Nonthermal Electrons in Clusters of Galaxies

## 1 Introduction

The Sunyaev-Zeldovich (S-Z) effect is a small intensity change that results from Compton scattering of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation by electrons in the hot gas in clusters of galaxies (Zeldovich & Sunyaev 1969, Sunyaev & Zeldovich 1972). The effect constitutes a unique cluster and cosmological probe (for reviews, see Rephaeli 1995a, Birkinshaw 1999), whose great potential is beginning to be realized in recent years following the major observational progress in obtaining sensitive images of the effect by (mostly) interferometric arrays (Jones et al. 1993, Carlstrom et al. 2000, Udomprasert, Mason, & Readhead 2000, and the review by Carlstrom et al. 2001) and the increasingly more precise values of the Hubble constant ($`H_0`$) that have been deduced from S-Z and X-ray measurements. For example, a fit to data from 33 cluster distances yields $`H_0=58`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 (in a flat cosmological model), with direct observational errors of $`\pm 5\%`$ (Carlstrom et al. 2001), but with a much larger level of systematic uncertainties. Among others, the latter include simplified modeling of the properties of the hot intracluster (IC) gas, and cluster morphology. These are the main limitations to the use of the S-Z effect as a precise cosmological probe, and as such give further motivation for in-depth studies of the cluster environment.

Energetic non-thermal (NT) electrons whose pressure is not negligible compared to the thermal gas pressure constitute an aspect of IC phenomena with possibly appreciable ramifications for precision S-Z measurements. The presence of significant energetic electron populations in many clusters has been known from measurements of diffuse IC radio emission, and recently also from NT X-ray emission in a few clusters (Rephaeli, Gruber & Blanco 1999, hereafter RGB, Fusco-Femiano et al. 1999, Kaastra et al. 1999, Gruber & Rephaeli 2002). NT electrons produce an additional degree of Comptonization which amounts to a small intensity change ($`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{nt}`$) that must be accounted for, particularly in the measurement of $`H_0`$ from the thermal component, and peculiar cluster velocities from the kinematic component of the S-Z effect. Relativistic generalizations (Rephaeli 1995b, Challinor & Lasenby 1998, Sazonov & Sunyaev 1998) of the original non-relativistic calculations of Sunyaev & Zeldovich (1972, 1980) have now been performed to a sufficiently high level of accuracy, including also terms of order $`\tau ^2`$ (Nozawa, Itoh, & Kohyama 1998, Itoh et al. 2000, Shimon & Rephaeli 2002), where $`\tau `$ is the Thomson optical depth of the cluster. In calculating the effect of multiple scatterings the finite size of the cluster has to be explicitly accounted for; this has been done in the Monte-Carlo simulations of Molnar & Birkinshaw (1999). The relativistic treatment provides the theoretical basis for calculation also of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{nt}`$.

CMB Comptonization by NT electrons was first assessed for conditions in lobes (McKinnon, Owen, & Eilek 1991) and cocoons (Yamada & Sugiyama 1999) of radio galaxies, with its possible use to measure their electron pressure. The effect of such electrons in clusters was recently considered in some more detail (Blasi & Colafrancesco 1999, Ensslin & Kaiser 2000, Blasi, Olinto, & Stebbins 2000). Clearly, the higher the electron pressure, the higher is the degree of Comptonization induced by the electrons, and because models of NT electrons vary greatly in energy density, estimates of their impact on the CMB range from a negligible level, to a very substantial fraction of the thermal S-Z effect due to the hot gas. It is quite essential to study NT electron populations in order to realistically determine the spectral and spatial profiles of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{nt}`$ in clusters in which extended radio emission has been measured. This may lead to ways by which their impact on S-Z work can be minimized, and eventually the Comptonization induced by NT electrons could perhaps even be used as a diagnostic tool of these electrons.

In this paper we perform an exact calculation of the degree of Comptonization predicted in a range of NT electron models that have been proposed to explain radio, EUV, and hard X-ray emission in clusters. Our estimates of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{nt}`$ in Coma and A2199 are based on recent results on the electron populations in these clusters, and the main features of the resulting spectral change are contrasted with those of the thermal component of the S-Z effect.

## 2 Non-thermal Electron Populations

The main evidence for relativistic electrons and magnetic fields in clusters comes from measurements of extended IC regions of radio emission (in the frequency range $`0.044`$ GHz) with spectral indices and luminosities in the range $`12`$, and $`10^{40.5}`$$`10^{42}`$ erg/s ($`H_0`$ = 50 km s-1 Mpc-1), respectively. Many of the radio emitting regions detected in over 30 clusters (Giovannini, Tordi, & Feretti 1999, Giovannini & Feretti 2000) are central, with sizes in the range $`13`$ Mpc. The energy range of the emitting electrons depends on the value of the mean, volume-averaged magnetic field, a quantity which is not known very well, but is likely to be in the range $`0.11`$ $`\mu `$G (for a recent review, see Rephaeli 2001). The range of electron energies implied from these measurements is roughly $`1100`$ GeV, but electrons with energies both below and above this range are also expected on theoretical grounds.

Relativistic electrons produce X-ray emission in a wide spectral range by Compton scattering off the CMB (Rephaeli 1979) and by NT bremsstrahlung. This emission has quite possibly been measured already in Coma (Rephaeli, Gruber & Blanco 1999, Fusco-Femiano et al. 1999), A2199 (Kaastra et al. 1999), A2256 (Molendi, De Grandi, & Fusco-Femiano 2000), and A2319 (Gruber & Rephaeli 2002) by the RXTE and BeppoSAX satellites. These were spectral measurements; the PCA, HEXTE (both aboard RXTE) and PDS (aboard BeppoSAX) experiments do not have the adequate spatial resolution. Thus, we have no spatial information on NT electrons from X-ray measurements, and only rudimentary knowledge of the morphology of the radio emission (which, however, involves also the unknown spatial distribution of the magnetic field). Therefore, in order to avoid the need for introducing unknown parameters, we characterize electron populations in terms of the spectral distribution of their total number, ignoring their spatial profiles in the central $`1`$ Mpc region where they mostly reside.

Of the various proposed NT IC electron models (see, e.g. , Sarazin 1999) we focus here on those that have been contrasted with actual observational data, with the electron distribution appropriately normalized by the determination of both their total number and the power-law index, $`q`$. Some of the proposed electron models were motivated by the presumption that NT X-ray emission could also originate from NT bremsstrahlung by energetic – though not necessarily highly relativistic – electrons, and by an attempt to account also for observed EUV emission from a few clusters. This emission is said to be NT (e.g. , Sarazin & Lieu 1998, Bowyer et al. 1999), possibly by a population of low energy electrons. The full electron distribution could be described either as a sum of two separate parts (thermal plus NT), or by a ‘super Maxwellian’, consisting of a truncated Maxwellian with a power law tail (Blasi, Olinto, & Stebbins 2000) ‘sawn’ together at a given energy (e.g. , $`3kT_e`$, where $`T_e`$ is the electron \[and gas\] temperature). We consider here four specific models whose parameters in Coma and A2199 have been determined from radio, EUV, and NT X-ray measurements.

The simplest model for the electron momentum distribution is a power-law over a sufficiently wide range so as to explain both the observed radio and possibly Compton-produced X-ray emission. We express the electron spectrum in terms of the (differential) number, $`N(p)`$, per unit dimensionless momentum, $`p=\beta \gamma `$, where $`\gamma `$ and $`\beta `$ are the Lorentz factor and dimensionless velocity, $`\beta =v/c`$, respectively,

$`N(p)`$ $`=`$ $`Ap^q,p_1pp_2`$ (1)
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{12}(q1)}{p_1^{(q1)}p_2^{(q1)}}}.`$ (3)
The limiting momenta $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are the lower and higher values of $`p`$ that correspond to the observed radio frequency range, and $`N_{12}`$ is the total number of electrons with energies in this specific interval, $`[p_1,p_2]`$. Details of such a model were worked out long ago (Rephaeli 1977, 1979) and will not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that the full momentum range is substantially uncertain, especially its low end which is of particular relevance to our discussion here.

A simple way to obtain the lower energy extension of the above distribution is to assume that steady state is attained, whereby electrons are continually accelerated to compensate for radiative energy losses – defined here in terms of $`dp/dt`$ – and a population of lower energy electrons is built up. The latter can be determined by taking into account the dominant rate of energy loss at energies well below $`150`$ MeV, electronic (Coulomb) excitations, given by (Rephaeli 1979)

$`b_{ee}=1.2\times 10^{12}n_e\left[1.0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(\sqrt{1+p^2}/n_e\right)}{75}}\right]\mathrm{s}^1,`$ (4)
where $`n_e`$ is the (thermal) electron number density. At higher energies Compton-synchrotron losses dominate; these occur at a combined rate (e.g. , Rephaeli 1979)

$$b_{cs}=1.37\times 10^{20}[(1+z)^4+9.5\times 10^2(B/1\mu \mathrm{G})^2]\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(5)
where $`z`$ is the cluster redshift, and $`B`$ is the mean, volume-averaged value of the magnetic field. The steady state solution is then (Rephaeli 1979)

$`N_I\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Ab_{cs}}{b\left(p\right)}}\left(1+p^2\right)^{\frac{\left(q2\right)}{2}}\left(p_1pp_2\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Ab_{cs}}{b\left(p\right)}}\left(1+p_1^2\right)^{\frac{\left(q2\right)}{2}}\left(pp_1\right),`$
where $`bdp/dt=b_{ee}+b_{cs}\left(1+p^2\right)`$. Clearly, the observed radio frequency range implies that $`p_11`$. (Note that another possible energy loss mechanism is scattering by Alfven waves, which the electrons themselves can excite if their spatial distribution is somewhat anisotropic. Because of the substantial uncertainty in estimating this loss mechanism \[e.g. , Rephaeli 1979\] it will not be considered here.) Parameters of this model were determined from RXTE measurements of the Coma cluster, assuming the emission is from Compton scattering of relativistic electrons off the CMB (Rephaeli, Gruber, & Blanco 1999), and from BeppoSAX measurements of A2199 (Kaastra et al. 1999). This appropriately extended electron population which has a power-law form at low and high energies, but with indices whose values differ by unity, is our first model. The parameters of all the models considered here are given in Table 1.

Two other forms for $`N(p)`$ are discussed by Sarazin & Kempner (2000). In the first model electrons are accelerated to relativistic energies by shell-type supernova remnants (Baring et al. 1999). When the back reaction of the accelerating electrons on the shock structure is taken into account, then this presumably leads to a modified power-law form at small momenta, resulting in the following distribution,

$`N_{II}\left(p\right)={\displaystyle \frac{N_0p^2}{1+p_c^2}}\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_c}{p}}\right)^2\right].`$ (7)
We assume $`p_c=1`$ in normalizing the model. Explicit account of Coulomb losses yields the third distribution

$`N_{III}\left(p\right)={\displaystyle \frac{2N_0p^2}{1+p^2}}.`$ (8)
$`N_0`$ is derived from comparison of the models with observations and assuming that the hard X-ray emission mechanism is NT bremsstrahlung. The electron distribution in Equation (6) has an upper momentum cutoff at $`p=300`$.

Sarazin & Kempner (2000) also propose a simple power law model which extends to lower energies with no change in the index. This is the fourth (IV) model explored here. The observationally deduced parameters for the above four models are listed in Table 1; in these models, the lower momentum cutoff is $`p_1=\sqrt{(1+3\mathrm{\Theta })^21}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=kT_e/mc^2`$.

## 3 Comptonization

A detailed description of the Comptonized spectrum resulting from scattering of the CMB by a thermal, non-relativistic population of electrons was given by Sunyaev & Zeldovich (1972, 1980). A more accurate treatment of the process requires relativistic generalization due to the rapid motion of electrons in the hot ($`kT_e15`$ keV) IC gas, as has been shown explicitly by Rephaeli (1995a). A fully relativistic treatment (but still in the Thomson limit, and with electron recoil and induced scattering safely ignored) is obviously required in order to calculate the Comptonized spectrum resulting from scattering of the radiation by a NT energetic electron population. We use the approach adopted in the latter paper (see also Rephaeli & Yankovitch 1997).

The probability of scattering of an incoming photon moving originally in the direction specified by $`\mu _0=\mathrm{cos}\theta _0`$, to the direction $`\mu _0^{}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _0^{}`$, is (Chandrasekhar 1950)

$`f(\mu _0,\mu _0^{})={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\left[1+\mu _0^2\mu _0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\mu _0^2\right)\left(1\mu _0^2\right)\right],`$ (9)
where the subscript $`0`$ denotes quantities in the electron rest frame. The logarithmic frequency shift in the scattering is

$`s\mathrm{ln}\left(\nu ^{}/\nu \right)=\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta \mu _0^{}}{1+\beta \mu _0}}\right),`$ (10)
where $`\beta `$ is the dimensionless electron velocity in the CMB frame. The probability for scattering is conveniently written in terms of the variables $`\beta `$ and $`t=e^s`$ (Wright 1979),

$`𝒫(s,\beta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma ^4\beta }}{\displaystyle _{\mu _1}^{\mu _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^sf(\mu _0,\mu _0^{})}{\left(1+\beta \mu _0\right)^2}}𝑑\mu _0,`$ (11)
where $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ are given by

$`\mu _1=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{e^s\left(1\beta \right)1}{\beta }& s0\\ 1& s0\end{array}`$ (12)
$`\mu _2=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& s0\\ \frac{e^s\left(1+\beta \right)1}{\beta }& s0\end{array}.`$ (13)
Integration over $`\mu _0`$ in Equation (9) yields

$`𝒫(t,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3|1t|}{32p^6t}}\left[1+\left(10+8p^2+4p^4\right)t+t^2\right]`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\left(1+t\right)}{8p^5}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3+3p^2+p^4}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{3+2p^2}{2p}}\left(2\mathrm{sinh}^1\left(p\right)|\mathrm{ln}\left(t\right)|\right)\right],`$
where

$`|\mathrm{ln}\left(t\right)|2\mathrm{sinh}^1\left(p\right).`$ (15)
Compton scattering results in a frequency shift, $`xx^{}`$, where $`x`$ is the dimensionless frequency $`x=h\nu /kT`$, and $`T`$ is the CMB temperature. The corresponding change of the photon occupation number through a pathlength along the cluster, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n(x)`$, is obtained by integrations over the scattering probability and electron momentum distributions,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }n\left(x\right)=\tau {\displaystyle _{p_1}^{p_2}}{\displaystyle _{t_{min}}^{t_{max}}}𝑑p𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{N(p)}{N_{tot}}}𝒫(t,p)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{xt}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^x1}}\right),`$ (16)
where $`\tau `$ is the optical depth of the cluster to Compton scattering, and $`N_{tot}`$ is the total number of electrons in the cluster. The measured quantity is the change in intensity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I(x)/i_0=x^3\mathrm{\Delta }n(x)`$, where $`i_0=2(kT)^3/(hc)^2`$. We use the latter equation to calculate the additional intensity change induced by energetic electrons, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{nt}(x)`$, in the electron models described in the previous section, with parameter values sampling the observationally deduced ranges, as specified in Table 1 for all the four electron models.

If Comptonization by NT electrons is not taken into account it could affect the observationally deduced value of the crossover frequency, $`x_0`$, defined as the frequency at which the purely thermal effect vanishes. The exact value of $`x_0`$ has practical significance, since observations near this frequency are optimal for the determination of cluster peculiar velocities (Rephaeli & Lahav 1991) from measurements of the kinematic component of the S-Z effect. We have calculated the modified value of the frequency where now the sum of the thermal and NT intensity changes vanishes. For this we used the analytic expression of Nozawa, Itoh, & Kohyama(1998) for the thermal and kinematic components of the S-Z effect, and computed $`x_0`$ using the measured values of the temperatures in Coma and A2199.

## 4 Results

The impact of each of the above four NT electron models depends very much on the total number of these electrons as determined by radio, NT EUV and X-ray emission. The thermal gas parameters are based on X-ray measurements. For Coma, recent XMM measurements yield $`kT_e=8.2\pm 0.4`$ keV for the gas temperature (Arnaud et al. 2001), and (since quantitative results for the gas density profile from either XMM or Chandra are not yet available) we have taken the ROSAT deduced values (Mohr, Mathiesen, & Evrard 1999), $`n_{e0}(3.12.\pm 0.04)\times 10^3`$ cm-3, $`r_c=0.366`$ Mpc, and $`\beta _n0.705`$, for the central electron density, core radius, and index in the expression for (the commonly used) density profile, $`n_e(r)=n_{e0}(1+r^2/r_c^2)^{3\beta _n/2}`$, respectively. The corresponding values in A2199 are $`kT_e=4.7`$ keV, central electron density $`n_{e0}=7.21\times 10^3\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`r_c=0.196`$ Mpc, and $`\beta _n=0.78`$ (Kaastra et al. 1999). These values are based on $`H_0=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1.

Clearly, most of the intensity change $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{nt}(x)`$ is due to the more numerous low energy electrons. More specifically, a typical CMB photon has dimensionless frequency $`\overline{x}=2.701`$, and the scattered photon frequency is on average

$`\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{x^{}}{x}}}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}p^2.`$ (17)
The observationally relevant range of values of $`x`$ is at most $`x20`$, and since the (the 68% likelihood) interval of rms values of $`x^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}x\sqrt{2p^2/3+46p^4/45}`$, is very wide for $`p>1`$, it follows that electrons with momenta much larger than at most a few tens are largely irrelevant for boosting photons to frequencies such that $`x20`$. (Obviously, all electrons contribute to the value of the Thomson optical depth and the decrement on the Rayleigh-Jeans side.)

We have calculated $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{nt}(x)/i_0`$ and total electron energies in the extended power-law model described by equation (4), using the observationally deduced model parameters in Coma and A2199. We emphasize that the basic model is a power law at high energies ($`1`$ GeV) with the index determined from radio measurements. The distribution is then appropriately extended to lower energies (by taking electronic excitations losses into account) resulting in a change in the value of the index at low energies. The power law indices and overall normalizations were taken from Rephaeli, Gruber & Blanco (1999) for Coma, and Kaastra et al. (1999) for A2199. Based on these parameters, the deduced values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{nt}(x)/i_0`$ are very small in comparison with the magnitude of the thermal S-Z effect in these clusters as predicted from the measured values of the gas temperature and density. In Coma the S-Z effect was actually measured by Herbig et al. (1995) using the OVRO 5.5 m telescope, and more recently by De Petris et al. (2002) using the MITO telescope. In the former paper the temperature change in the center of Coma was reported to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=505\pm 92`$ $`\mu `$K at $`32`$ GHz ($`x0.56`$), a value which is consistent with that predicted based on the X-ray deduced parameters. A somewhat lower value was deduced by De Petris et al. (2002). Our calculated values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{nt}(x)/i_0`$ due to NT electrons are smaller than 0.001% of the predicted thermal effect in Coma and A2199. Clearly, the implied shift in the value of the crossover frequency is also negligible. The very small impact of NT electrons in this model is not surprising given the relatively low energy content of these electrons, $`0.8\%`$ of the thermal electron energy in Coma and A2199.

Next we calculated the degree of Comptonization in the shock accelerated and cooling electrons models (II and III) described in equations (5) and (6). We have normalized these models to match the observed EUV emission, at a luminosity level of roughly $`5\times 10^{43}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ over the band 0.065-0.245 keV in both Coma and A2199. In the shock accelerated electron model the calculated levels of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{nt}(x)`$ are $`<0.5\%`$ and $`3\%`$ of the corresponding intensity change due to thermal electrons, and the shift in the value of the crossover frequency is also quite small. Calculated values of the energy in NT electrons in this model are $``$3% and 13%-16% (for $`p_c=0.31.0`$) of the energy in thermal electrons in Coma and A2199, respectively. In the cooling electron model, the degree of NT Comptonization is negligible, less than $`0.003\%`$ of the magnitude of the thermal S-Z effect in both Coma and A2199. This is mainly due to the small number of NT electrons in this model, $``$ 0.1% of that in the shock accelerated electron model. The NT electron energy constitutes 0.9% and 4.2% of the electron thermal energy in the two clusters. Our calculated quantities are listed in Table 2. The first column is the cluster name (or Abell number), the second is the model number, third is the ratio of (total) energy in NT to energy in thermal electrons. In the fourth column we list the net energy deposition rate (in keV/Gyr) by NT electrons, and in the fifth the value of the crossover frequency; values of the error in the peculiar velocity and the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{nt}(x)/\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ are listed in last two columns.

The much higher NT electron energy content in the single power law (model IV) suggested by Sarazin & Kempner (2000), $`20\%22\%`$ (for $`q=2.923.68`$) in Coma, and $`64\%184\%`$ (for $`q=2.23.33`$) in A2199, result in substantial degrees of additional Comptonization. Using values of the parameters as deduced by Sarazin & Kempner (2000), listed in Table 1, we calculate the change of intensity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{nt}(x)/i_0`$, shown in Figure 1, and listed in Table 2. It is clear from this figure that $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{nt}(x)`$ can reach an appreciable fraction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I(x)`$. For example, near the peak of the Comptonized Planckian, at $`x6.5`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{nt}/\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ is $`13\%`$ and $`35\%`$ for Coma and A2199, respectively. The implied shift in the value of the crossover frequency in this model, $`2`$ GHz in Coma, and $`4`$ GHz in A2199, would also be observationally relevant. Such a systematic shift would introduce an error in the deduced value of the peculiar velocity. The implied error (which does not depend on the velocity, if the very small quadratic dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I(x)`$ on the velocity is ignored) amounts to $`110`$ km/s for Coma ($`q=2.923.68`$), and $`210`$ km/s ($`q=3.33`$) and $`320`$ km/s ($`q=2.2`$) for A2199 (values lower than 100 km/s are not shown in Table 2).

Finally, we have calculated the heating rate of the hot gas by the NT electrons through Coulomb interactions (Rephaeli 1979, Rephaeli & Silk 1995) in the four models considered in this paper. Energy deposition rates into the gas were estimated by taking a mean gas density in the central 1 Mpc region of Coma and A2199. Subtraction of the observed cooling rate due to thermal bremsstrahlung (X-ray) emission then yields the net rate of temperature change. Values of the latter quantity (in keV/Gyr) are listed in Table 2.

## 5 Discussion

We have briefly discussed models for NT energetic electrons and their predicted effect on the CMB based on parameters that were deduced from radio, EUV, and X-ray measurements of Coma and A2199. Our immediate objective has been the exact calculation of the additional degree of Comptonization due to these electrons, and its possibly relevant observational consequences. Only electron models that have direct observational motivation were considered. Since all these models have basically a power-law form, it is clear that their impact on the CMB is largely due to the more abundant lower energy electrons (except for the cooling electrons model). However, the interpretation of the EUV and X-ray emissions as NT bremsstrahlung and Compton scattering are not secure, so there is considerable uncertainty in quantifying electron densities. Moreover, since low energy electrons lose energy mostly by non-radiative coupling to the thermal gas, the uncertainty in the estimation of their density is particularly substantial. Only the presence of relativistic electrons is well established from measurements of extended regions of radio emission in many clusters (including Coma, but not A2199). Clearly, radio measurements yield the electron density only if we have an independent estimate of the mean, volume-averaged value of the magnetic field in the emitting region. Estimates of the mean IC field are few and uncertain (Newman, Newman & Rephaeli 2002).

Due to the lack of detailed information on IC energetic electron populations, relevant theoretical considerations are of particular interest. First, since it is virtually always the case that particle acceleration mechanisms tap only a small fraction of the energy at the source, energy density in NT electrons is likely to be only a small fraction of the gas (which is a significant mass component of clusters) thermal energy density. Realistically, therefore, the thermal energy density in clusters is expected to set an absolute upper limit to the energy density in NT electrons, a limit which is very unlikely to be reached. Second, the energetic electron population is linked to the gas mainly by Coulomb coupling that results in energy transfer from energetic electrons (and protons) to the gas. This coupling and the resulting heating set stringent constraints on the attainment of steady state in general, and the density of low energy NT electron models in particular.

We have calculated the ratio of total energy in NT electrons to that in thermal electrons in the four energetic electron models considered in this paper; for the first three models the calculated values (in Table 2) are low. For the power law model of Sarazin & Kempner (2000), the corresponding values are very high ($`22\%`$ in Coma, and $`64\%`$ in A2199) and quite unrealistic. Such large energy contents would also imply a high rate of energy transfer to the gas, and heating at a rate higher than the rate of cooling by emission of thermal radiation. This without even considering the additional heating by IC energetic protons (whose energy density in the Galaxy is higher than that of relativistic electrons).

In fact, the single power law model of Sarazin & Kempner (2000) is not only unappealing from an energetic point of view, but is also questionable on a more basic physical ground: As we have stated in Section 2 – based on the original work of Rephaeli (1979) – correct extrapolation of the relativistic electron energy spectrum to low ($`<100`$ MeV) energies must account for electronic Coulomb excitations, the dominant energy loss mechanism at such energies for typical gas densities in the central regions of clusters. The very weak energy dependence of this mechanism (in contrast with the quadratic dependence of the Compton-synchrotron energy loss rate) flattens the spectrum at low energies, resulting in a much smaller number of electrons than would have been predicted otherwise. We conclude that this model is non-viable; therefore, the high degree of implied Comptonization and appreciable shift in the value of $`x_0`$ that are predicted in this model are at best very high upper limits to the impact of NT electrons on measurements of the S-Z effect.

Our basic result in this paper is that exact calculation of the impact of realistically normalized models of NT electrons in Coma and A2199 yields levels of the degree of Comptonization by such electrons that are only a negligible fraction of the corresponding S-Z effect due to the hot IC gas. It is clear from our discussion that this result is generally valid since the energy density in NT electrons is not likely to be a significant fraction of the thermal energy density. In clusters with a significant NT electron population the added Comptonization due to these electrons would clearly constitute a source of confusion in the analysis of S-Z measurements. Since there are little or no differences in the spectral CMB signatures of thermal and NT electrons, high spatial resolution X-ray, S-Z and radio measurements of these clusters would be needed in order to minimize this confusion when (as expected) the spatial profiles of the two electron populations are found to be detectably different.

Useful comments made by the referee on an earlier version of the paper are gratefully acknowledged. This research has been supported by the Israeli Science Foundation grant 729$`\backslash `$00-02 at Tel Aviv University.


format: text

text:
# Dynamical Interpretation of the Nucleon-Nucleon Interaction and Exchange Currents in the Large 𝑁_𝐶 Limit

## 1 Introduction

The most promising $`QCD`$based perspective on nuclear structure may very well be that provided by the large color number ($`N_C`$) limit, which allows a systematic series expansion in $`1/N_C`$ for hadronic observables, where the first few terms appear to capture the key phenomenological features of the structure of the baryons . The leading terms of the $`1/N_C`$ series expansion of the components of the nucleon-nucleon have been shown to correspond well with the strongly coupled boson exchange terms in a phenomenological boson exchange model for the interaction . While the large $`N_C`$ limit itself cannot determine the radial behavior of the potential components, this result nevertheless provides a systematic, if approximate connection between nuclear phenomenology and $`QCD`$.

Here it will be shown that in fact all the most commonly employed modern realistic phenomenological interaction models a) allow an interpretation in terms of phenomenological boson exchange and b) that the numerically significant (or well determined) components of these interactions correspond very well to the leading terms in the $`1/N_C`$ expansion of the nucleon-nucleon interaction components. The next-to-leading order terms are are shown to be numerically very small in comparison to the terms of leading order. The ratio of the volume integrals of the leading, next-to-leading and next-to-next leading order terms in these interaction models is roughly 300:5-10:0.1, which corresponds fairly well to the ratios of $`1/N_C^2`$ between the terms that would be suggested by the $`1/N_C`$ expansion if $`N_C=3`$.

Finally the corresponding $`1/N_C`$ scaling factors of the associated two-nucleon exchange (or interaction) currents are derived. The axial exchange charge operator that is associated with long range pion exchange is shown to scale as $`N_C^0`$, as the single nucleon axial charge, whereas those that are associated with the Fermi invariant components of the interaction scale as $`1/N_C`$ or higher powers in $`1/N_C`$. The electromagnetic exchange currents scale with two additional powers of $`1/N_C`$ in comparison with the single nucleon current. The axial exchange current scales as $`1/N_C^3`$, and is thus smaller by $`1/N_C^4`$ than the axial current of the nucleon. These scaling factors correspond well with established nuclear phenomenology.

The key to the dynamical interpretation of a phenomenological interaction model is to express it in terms of the 5 Fermi invariants $`S,V,T,A,P`$. These invariants form a unique set, that is independent of particle momenta, and allow an interpretation of the interaction in terms of linear combinations of scalar, vector, axial vector and pseudoscalar exchange mechanisms, without the need for explicit specification of the radial behavior of the potential functions. Moreover all of these invariants define unique and consistent interaction current operators , for which $`1/N_C`$ expansions follow from those of the corresponding potentials, as will be shown below.

The utility of the large $`N_C`$ limit of $`QCD`$ in nuclear phenomenology has emerged only gradually, the first indication being the a priori surprising phenomenological quality of the description of selected observables of nucleons, hyperons and nuclei in terms of Skyrme’s topological soliton model  and its generalizations. These models represent one realization of the large $`N_C`$ limit, in which the baryons appear as topologically stable solutions of nonlinear chiral meson field theories . In particular it was found that Skyrme’s product ansatz for the baryon number 2 system led to a phenomenologically satisfactory description of the longest range components of the isospin dependent part of the nucleon-nucleon interaction . This result is in fact very natural as these components of the interaction are of leading order in the $`1/N_C`$ expansion for which the Skyrme model should give generically adequate results.

The modern phenomenological nucleon-nucleon interaction models that are considered here are the $`V18`$ , the $`CDBonn`$ , the $`Nijmegen(93)`$  and the $`Paris`$  potentials. All of these contain a long range pion exchange tail, and have mostly or purely phenomenological short and intermediate range terms. Their components in the $`S,V,T,A,P`$ representation are nevertheless remarkably similar in strength, and if parametrized in terms of single meson exchange give rise to “effective” meson-nucleon coupling strengths, which also are very similar.

In the large $`N_C`$ limit the transformation between the phenomenological potential components given in the spin representation and the representation in terms of Fermi invariants reveals a new result in that leading order parts of the isospin dependent scalar and vector potentials have to be equal in magnitude with opposite sign. If interpreted in terms of meson exchange this suggests that $`a_0`$ and $`\rho `$ meson exchange have equal strength in the large $`N_C`$ limit.

In section 2 the expressions for the Fermi invariant decomposition for the large $`N_C`$ limit of the nucleon-nucleon interaction are derived. In section 3 the corresponding components for the 4 interaction models considered are calculated. All of these are then shown to admit a meson exchange interaction with very similar coupling strengths. Their well determined components are then shown to be consistent with the interaction form suggested by the leading terms in the $`1/N_C`$ expansion. In sections 4 and 5 the $`N_C`$ scaling factors of the corresponding electromagnetic and axial interaction current operators are derived. A concluding discussion completes the paper.

## 2 The Nucleon-Nucleon Interaction in terms of Fermi Invariants in the large $`N_C`$ Limit

### 2.1 Phenomenological interactions

The nucleon-nucleon interaction is commonly expressed in terms of the following set of Galilean invariant spin- and isospin operators:

$$V_{NN}=\underset{i}{\overset{5}{}}[\stackrel{~}{v}_j^++\stackrel{~}{v}_j^{}\stackrel{}{\tau }^1\stackrel{}{\tau }^2]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j,$$
(1)
where the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{v}_j^\pm `$ are scalar functions and the spin operators $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j`$ are defined as

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_C=1,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{LS}=\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_T=S_{12},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{SS}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }^2,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{LS2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\stackrel{}{\sigma }^1\stackrel{}{L},\stackrel{}{\sigma }^2\stackrel{}{L}\}_+.`$ (2)
Because the little group of transformations, which leave the square of the 4-velocity of the two-particle system invariant is the same for Galilean and Poincaré transformations, the interaction (1) is invariant under Poincaré transformations.

The power of the leading term in the $`1/N_C`$ expansion for these potential components $`\stackrel{~}{v}_j^\pm `$, and therefore their order in $`1/N_C`$, has been shown to be the following :

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_C^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_C,\stackrel{~}{v}_T^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_T,\stackrel{~}{v}_{SS}^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{SS}𝒪(N_C),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{v}_C^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_C,\stackrel{~}{v}_2^\pm \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{LS},\stackrel{~}{v}_T^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_T,\stackrel{~}{v}_{SS}^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{SS},\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{LS2}𝒪(1/N_C),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{LS2}𝒪(1/N_C^3).`$ (3)
A simple derivation of these scaling relations is given below. The numerically significant, or “large”, potential components should therefore, on the basis of their order in $`1/N_C`$, be the isospin independent central, and isospin dependent spin-spin and tensor components of the potential. This corresponds completely to established nuclear structure phenomenology, as the first of these terms corresponds to the short range repulsive and intermediate range attractive force components, and the latter two correspond to components of the long range pion exchange interaction. These are also the force components that are readily derived in the Skyrme model .

While the 5 linearly independent potential invariants $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j`$ are sufficient to describe the two- nucleon amplitude for nucleons on their mass shell, they are not dynamically transparent. For a dynamical interpretation, which allows a connection to field theory, reexpression of the interaction in terms of the 5 Fermi invariants $`S,V,T,A,P`$ is required. These are defined as

$`S=1,V=\gamma _\mu ^1\gamma _\mu ^2,T={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }^1\sigma _{\mu \nu }^2,`$
$`A=i\gamma _5^1\gamma _\mu ^1i\gamma _5^2\gamma _\mu ^2,P=\gamma _5^1\gamma _5^2.`$ (4)
The nucleon-nucleon interaction, when expressed in terms of the Fermi invariants, takes the form

$$V_{NN}=\overline{u}(p_1^{})\overline{u}(p_2^{})[v_j^++v_j^{}\stackrel{}{\tau }^1\stackrel{}{\tau }^2]F_ju(p_1)u(p_2),$$
(5)
where the $`F_j`$, $`j=1\mathrm{}5`$ represent the Fermi invariants in the order $`S,V,T,A,P`$.

To find the relation between the potential functions $`v_j`$ and the nonrelativistic potential components $`\stackrel{~}{v}_j`$ in (1) the spin representation the Fermi invariants is required:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_C=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_{LS}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }^1+\stackrel{}{\sigma }^2)\stackrel{}{n},`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_T=\stackrel{}{\sigma }^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }^2k^23\stackrel{}{\sigma }^1\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^2\stackrel{}{k},\mathrm{\Omega }_{SS}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{LS2}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }^1\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^2\stackrel{}{n}.`$ (6)
Here the momenta $`\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{P}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ are defined as $`\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{p}`$, $`\stackrel{}{P}=(1/2)(\stackrel{}{p}^{}+\stackrel{}{p})`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}=\stackrel{}{k}\times \stackrel{}{P}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{p}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ are the final and initial relative momenta. The linear relation between the spin operators $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$ and the Fermi invariants $`F_j`$ is given (to order $`1/m_N^2`$) in ref. . Since the nucleon mass $`m_N𝒪(N_C)`$, only the leading terms in $`1/m_N^2`$ are needed for the present large $`N_C`$ limit considerations.

The momentum space representation of the interaction (1) is

$$V_{NN}=\underset{i}{\overset{5}{}}[w_j^++w_j^{}\stackrel{}{\tau }^1\stackrel{}{\tau }^2]\mathrm{\Omega }_j.$$
(7)
Note that $`w_{LS2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{LS2}`$ only represents part of the complete Fourier transform of $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{LS2}`$, which also contains a linear combination of a term with the operators $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{P}^2\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4`$  . These additional terms are of the same order in $`1/N_C`$ as the term $`w_{LS2}^\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_{LS2}`$.

For a local potential one has explicitly

$`w_C^\pm (k)=4\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr^2j_0(kr)\stackrel{~}{v}_C^\pm (r),`$
$`w_{LS}^\pm (k)={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{k}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr^3j_1(kr)\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS}^\pm (r),`$
$`w_T^\pm (k)={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{k^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr^2j_2(kr)\stackrel{~}{v}_T^\pm (r),`$
$`w_{SS}^\pm (k)=4\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr^2j_0(kr)\stackrel{~}{v}_{SS}^\pm (r),`$
$`w_{LS2}^\pm (k)={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{k^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr^4j_2(kr)\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}^\pm (r).`$ (8)
### 2.2 Order in $`N_C`$ of the potential components

The $`N_C`$ dependence of the components of the potential (7) may be inferred directly by quark model considerations. Consider the single quark operators $`1,\sigma _j,\tau _k,\sigma _j\tau _k`$. Matrix elements of the sum over $`N_C`$ such quark operators in nucleon states then depend on $`N_C`$ as follows :

$`N|{\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{N_C}{}}}1^q|NN_C,N|{\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{N_C}{}}}\sigma _j^q|NN_C^0`$
$`N|{\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{N_C}{}}}\tau _k^q|NN_C^0N|{\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{N_C}{}}}\sigma _j^q\tau _k^q|NN_C.`$ (9)
In the large $`N_C`$ limit the baryon-baryon interaction may be interpreted as meson exchange, since the gluon lines may be replaced by $`q\overline{q}`$ lines in all surviving (planar gluon) diagrams. The meson-baryon couplings are proportional to the quark operator matrix elements above and inversely proportional to the meson decay constants $`f_M`$, which scale like $`\sqrt{N_C}`$ . Application of the scaling relations (9) and multiplication by $`1/f_M^2`$ to the two nucleon system directly implies that

$`w_C^+\mathrm{\Omega }_C,w_T^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_T,w_{SS}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{SS}𝒪(N_C),`$
$`w_C^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_C,w_T^+\mathrm{\Omega }_T,w_{SS}^+\mathrm{\Omega }_{SS}𝒪(1/N_C).`$ (10)
The order in $`N_C`$ of the spin-orbit interaction may be found as follows. The non-local momentum operator $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ in the spin-orbit interaction operator $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{LS}`$ always appears in the combination $`\stackrel{}{P}/m_N`$, where $`m_NN_C`$. The isospin independent term $`w_{LS}^+\mathrm{\Omega }_{LS}`$ contains the spin-operator of one nucleon in combination with $`\stackrel{}{P}/m_N`$, and therefore the vertex scales as $`1/N_C`$. If the quark coupling at the other nucleon line is $`1^q`$, it follows that $`w_{LS}^+\mathrm{\Omega }_{LS}𝒪(1/N_C)`$ once the overall factor $`1/f_M^2`$ is taken into account. For the isospin dependent spin-orbit interaction the scaling factor or the vertex with a spin-operator multiplying $`\stackrel{}{P}/m_N`$ and an isospin operator is $`N_C^0`$. In this case the vertex at the other nucleon line also contains an isospin factor, so it also scales as $`N_C^0`$. Thus, it follows after multiplication with $`1/f_M^2`$ that $`w_{LS}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{LS}𝒪(1/N_C)`$.

To find the $`N_C`$ scaling of the isospin independent quadratic spin-orbit interaction one notes that there is a combination of a spin operator with $`\stackrel{}{P}/m_N`$ at both nucleon lines, and thus the scaling factor is $`1/N_C^2`$, which after multiplication with $`1/f_M^2`$ gives rise to the scaling $`w_{LS2}^+\mathrm{\Omega }_{LS2}𝒪(1/N_C^3)`$. The corresponding scaling factor for the isospin independent quadratic spin-orbit interaction is $`w_{LS}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{LS2}𝒪(1/N_C)`$, because the isospin operators at both nucleon lines bring an additional factor $`N_C`$ each. This completes the derivation of the Manohar-Kaplan scaling relations (3) .

The linear relation between the Fermi invariant potential components $`v_j^\pm `$ and the components $`w_j^\pm `$ is given in ref. . In the present application, only the leading terms in $`1/m_N^2`$ (i.e. in $`1/N_C^2`$) have to be retained in the transformation matrix.

To leading order in $`1/N_C`$ the Fermi invariant potential components $`v_j^\pm `$ are then given as:

$`v_S^+={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}w_C^+{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{2}}w_{LS}^+,`$
$`v_S^{}={\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{2}}w_{LS}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4}}w_T^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}w_{SS}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2k^2}{4}}w_{LS2}^{},`$
$`v_V^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}w_C^++{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{2}}w_{LS}^+,`$
$`v_V^{}={\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{2}}w_{LS}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4}}w_T^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}w_{SS}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2k^2}{4}}w_{LS2}^{},`$
$`v_T^+={\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{32m_N^2}}w_C^++{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{16}}w_{LS}^++{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{2}}w_T^++{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}w_{SS}^++{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2k^2}{4}}w_{LS2}^+,`$
$`v_T^{}={\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{2}}w_T^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}w_{SS}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2k^2}{4}}w_{LS2}^{},`$
$`v_A^+={\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{32m_N^2}}w_C^++{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{16}}w_{LS}^++{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{2}}w_T^++{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}w_{SS}^+{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2k^2}{4}}w_{LS2}^+,`$
$`v_A^{}={\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{2}}w_T^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}w_{SS}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2k^2}{4}}w_{LS2}^{},`$
$`v_P^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}w_C^++{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{2}}w_{LS}^++12m_N^2w_T^+,`$
$`v_P^{}=12m_N^2w_T^{}.`$ (11)
From these expressions it follows that both the isospin independent and the isospin dependent scalar and vector potentials $`v_1^\pm S,v_2^\pm V`$ are $`𝒪(N_C)`$. The isospin dependent tensor and axial vector potentials $`v_T^{}T,v_A^{}A`$ are $`𝒪(N_C)`$, whereas the corresponding isospin independent interaction components $`v_T^+T,v_A^+A`$ are $`𝒪(1/N_C)`$. The orders of the pseudoscalar potentials are $`v_P^+PN_C`$ and $`v_P^{}PN_C^3`$. All the coefficients in the expression of the pseudoscalar operator $`P`$ in terms of the spin operators $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$ are $`1/m_N^2`$ . The corresponding potentials in the spin representation are therefore smaller by $`1/N_C^2`$ and as a consequence the highest order in $`N_C`$ of the potentials components in the spin representation is $`𝒪(N_C)`$. This becomes explicit if the pseudoscalar invariant $`P`$ is replaced by the on-shell equivalent pseudovector invariant $`P^{}`$:

$$P^{}=\frac{1}{4m_N^2}\gamma _\mu ^1k_\mu \gamma _5^1\gamma _\nu ^2k_\nu \gamma _5^2,$$
(12)
which has the form required by spontaneous breaking of the approximate chiral symmetry of $`QCD`$. Because the pseudovector invariant builds in the required pair suppression in the pion-nucleon amplitude, and vanishes with the 4-momentum of the exchanged system, it is simpler to apply in relativistic approaches to nuclear reaction phenomenology . These results are summarized in Table 1.

### 2.3 Dynamical interpretation of the potential components

The components of highest order in $`1/N_C`$ of the Fermi invariant potential components in Table 1 admit a direct dynamical interpretation in terms of meson exchange between the nucleons.

The only isospin independent potential components that are of order $`N_C`$ (i.e. “large”) are the scalar and vector components $`v_S^+`$ and $`v_V^+`$ as well as the pseudoscalar component $`v_P^+`$. The first one of these corresponds to the largest component in the two-pion exchange interaction between nucleons , which commonly is modeled in terms of a strong scalar (“$`\sigma `$”) meson exchange mechanism . This potential component gives rise to an attractive interaction at intermediate range and the main agent for nuclear binding. The second corresponds to the short range repulsion between nucleons, and is commonly modeled in terms of an $`\omega `$ meson exchange interaction, with an overstrength effective $`\omega `$ nucleon coupling constant . The last (pseudoscalar) term, which may be interpreted as $`\eta `$ meson exchange is large in the earlier potential models, but very small in the most recently developed models.

Among the isospin dependent Fermi invariant potential components in Table 1 the pseudoscalar component is of order $`N_C^3`$ and are thus the largest of all terms in the $`1/N_C`$ counting scheme. This strong pseudoscalar exchange component $`v_P^{}`$ is immediately interpretable in terms of the long range pion exchange interaction between nucleons, which is expectedly “strong”, more because of its long range than because of the strength of the pion-nucleon coupling.

That the other isospin dependent Fermi invariant potential components are of order $`N_C`$ also corresponds to established nucleon-nucleon phenomenology. To see this, it is worth noting that an isospin 1 vector meson ($`\rho `$) exchange interaction may be expressed in terms of Fermi invariants as follows :

$`(\gamma _\mu ^1{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2m_N}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }^1k_\nu )(\gamma _\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2m_N}}\sigma _{\mu \alpha }^2k_\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{m_N^2}}P_\mu ^1P_\mu ^2S+(1+\kappa )V`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa (1+\kappa )k^2}{4m_N^2}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa (1+\kappa )}{m_N^2}}P_\mu ^1P_\mu ^2P.`$ (13)
Here to leading order in $`1/m_N^2`$ (or $`1/N_C^2`$):

$$P_\mu ^1P_\mu ^2=(m_N^2+\frac{k^2}{4}+2\stackrel{}{P}^2).$$
(14)
Phenomenological boson exchange interaction models typically contain a $`\rho `$ meson exchange interaction, where the “effective” tensor coupling of the $`\rho `$ meson to nuclei is large $`\kappa 7`$  even though the vector coupling is small. Because of the large tensor coupling such an isospin dependent vector meson exchange interaction contributes strongly to all the Fermi invariant potential components, except the axial vector invariant. The order $`N_C`$ of the potential components $`v_S^{},v_V^{},v_T^{}`$ thus may be interpreted in terms of a strong $`\rho `$ meson exchange (or $`\rho `$ exchange-like) interaction. The isospin independent vector meson ($`\omega `$) exchange in contrast only contributes strongly to the vector $`V`$ invariant potential, because of the small $`\omega `$nucleon tensor coupling.

While the isospin dependent pseudoscalar potential $`v_P^{}P`$ is of order $`N_C^3`$ the corresponding isospin independent pseudoscalar exchange potential $`v_P^+P`$ is only of order $`N_C`$. This corresponds to the phenomenological finding in boson exchange models for the nucleon-nucleon interaction that the $`\eta `$ meson exchange term is mostly much weaker than the $`\pi `$ meson exchange interaction component.

## 3 Large $`N_C`$ components of phenomenological interaction models

### 3.1 The scalar potential

For the visualization of the Fermi invariant potential components it is useful to plot the potential components in configuration space. The expression for the isospin independent and isospin dependent scalar potentials in configuration space are obtained from (11) as

$`v_S^+(r)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\stackrel{~}{v}_C^+(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS}^+(r^{}),`$
$`v_S^{}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS}^{}(r^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{\stackrel{~}{v}_T^{}(r)3{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}_T^{}(r^{})}{r^{}}}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{v}_{SS}^{}(r)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{4}}\{r^2\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}^{}(r)3{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}^{}(r^{})\},`$ (15)
Here, and below, only terms of leading order in $`1/N_C`$ have been retained, so that all terms on the r.h.s. are of the same order in $`1/N_C`$. These potential components as obtained from the phenomenological $`V18`$ , the $`CDBonn`$ , the $`Nijmegen(93)`$  and the $`Paris`$  potentials are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.

In the case of the $`V18`$ potential, the operator form of which contains a quadratic spin-orbit interaction of the form $`(\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S})^2`$, we employ the relation

$$(\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S})^2=2\stackrel{}{L}^2+2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{LS2}2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{LS}$$
(16)
to reduce the interaction to standard form (1) in combination with terms of the form $`\stackrel{}{L}^2`$. As the order of the remaining terms $`\stackrel{}{L}^2`$, $`(\stackrel{}{\tau }^1\stackrel{}{\tau }^2)\stackrel{}{L}^2`$, $`(\stackrel{}{\sigma }^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }^2)\stackrel{}{L}^2`$ and $`(\stackrel{}{\tau }^1\stackrel{}{\tau }^2)(\stackrel{}{\sigma }^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }^2)\stackrel{}{L}^2`$ in the $`V18`$ potential may, by the argument in section (2.2), be shown to be at most of order $`1/N_C^1`$, $`1/N_C^3`$, $`1/N_C^3`$ and $`1/N_C^1`$, respectively (once multiplied by $`1/f_M^2`$), we shall not have to retain them in the leading order analysis here. The spin-orbit ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{LS}`$) and quadratic spin-orbit ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{LS2}`$) interaction terms in the $`V18`$ interaction shall however be included with the corresponding terms in the expressions (15).

The $`CDBonn`$ interaction model is a single boson exchange model that is expressed in terms of Fermi invariants and in the case of vector meson exchange in the form, which is reducible to Fermi invariants by eqn. (13). Both the $`Nijmegen(93)`$ and the (parametrized) $`Paris`$ interaction models are expressed in the standard form (1). The central components of the $`Paris`$ potential do in addition contain velocity dependent terms with the operator form $`\stackrel{}{P}^2`$. As these, by the argument in section (2.2) are down by two orders in $`1/N_C`$ in comparison to the local terms, they are not considered here.

In Table 2 are listed the volume integrals of the the leading terms in the $`1/N_C`$ expansion of the Fermi invariant potential components of the phenomenological interaction models. In the case of the isospin independent scalar interaction these volume integrals are all of the order 10 fm<sup>2</sup>, ranging from -6.3 fm<sup>2</sup> for the $`Paris`$ potential to -13.5 for the $`CDBonn`$ potential.

If the isospin independent scalar potential component is interpreted as due to a single scalar meson exchange interaction, the volume integral would equal $`g_S^2/m_S^2`$, where $`g_S`$ is the scalar meson – nucleon coupling constant, and $`m_S`$ the scalar meson mass. The mass of the lowest scalar meson ($`\sigma `$ or $`f_0(4001200)`$) is not well established , but it is typically taken to be of the order 550 - 750 MeV in phenomenological nucleon-nucleon interaction models  . If $`m_S`$ is taken to be 600 MeV, within this range, the value of the effective scalar meson coupling constant for these interactions range between 7.6 ($`Paris`$) and 11.2 ($`CDBonn`$) (Table 3). These “effective” scalar meson coupling constant values should be viewed as lower limits, as any short range form factors multiplying the scalar meson exchange interaction would increase these values. It is striking how closely similar values obtain for the “effective” scalar meson coupling constants with the 4 different interaction models, two of which do not contain any scalar meson like term in their parametrized forms.

The isospin independent scalar interaction components of the 4 interaction models are rather similar for nucleon separations beyond 0.5 fm. The radial shapes differ considerably at short distances, however, ranging from attractive to repulsive. The two boson exchange models ($`Nijmegen(93)`$ and $`CDBonn`$ are repulsive by construction. The more phenomenological $`V18`$ and $`Paris`$ interaction models are repulsive at short distance, a feature which cannot be interpreted in terms of meson exchange, and which otherwise only is known from the Skyrme model .

The isospin dependent scalar interaction components of the 4 phenomenological interaction models are shown in Fig.2. These interaction components are of order $`1/N_C`$ and should therefore be weaker by and order of magnitude than the isospin independent scalar interaction components. This is in fact also revealed by comparison of Figs. 1 and 2. The volume integrals of these interaction components range between –3.2 and –4.4 fm<sup>2</sup>, as shown in Table 2, and are thus about a factor 3-4 smaller than those of the corresponding isospin independent interactions.

In a meson exchange interpretation the isospin dependent scalar interaction arises from exchange of scalar mesons with isospin 1. The lightest of these is the $`a_0(980)`$ In a simple meson exchange model the volume integrals of these interactions should equal $`g_{a_0}^2/m_{a_0}^2`$, where $`g_{a_0}`$ is the $`a_0(980)`$nucleon coupling constant and $`m_{a_0}`$ is the mass of the $`a_0(980)`$. If the value of the “effective” $`a_0(980)`$ nucleon coupling constant is extracted from these volume integrals, the values range from $`g_{a_0}=9.0`$ to $`g_{a_0}=10.4`$ (Table 3). In this case all the interaction models give very similar values for this coupling constant.

### 3.2 The vector potential

The expression for the isospin independent and isospin dependent vector potentials in configuration space are obtained from (11) as

$`v_V^+(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{v}_C^+(r){\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS}^+(r^{}),`$
$`v_V^{}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS}^{}(r^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{\stackrel{~}{v}_T^{}(r)3{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}_T^{}(r^{})}{r^{}}}\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{v}_{SS}^{}(r)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{4}}\{r^2\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}^{}(r)3{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}^{}(r^{})\},`$ (17)
These potential components as obtained from the phenomenological $`V18`$ , the $`CDBonn`$ , the $`Nijmegen(93)`$  and the $`Paris`$  potentials are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Note that in the large $`N_C`$ limit $`v_V^{}(r)=v_S^{}(r)`$. In a boson exchange interpretation this implies equality in strength between the $`a_0(980)`$ and $`\rho (770)`$ exchange interactions.

The isospin independent vector interaction admits an obvious interpretation in terms of a strongly repulsive $`\omega `$ meson exchange interaction. The shape of this interaction component is very similar for all the interactions considered, and the volume integrals are also remarkably similar, ranging from 8.7 ($`Nijmegen(93)`$) to 11.6 fm<sup>2</sup> ($`CDBonn`$). If the “effective” $`\omega `$nucleon coupling constant is extracted from the volume integrals, by setting them equal to $`g_\omega ^2/m_\omega ^2`$ the values range between 11.7 and 13.5. The similarity between these coupling constant values is particularly notable in the case of the $`V18`$ and the parametrized $`Paris`$ interaction models, as neither one of these contains any explicit vector meson exchange term.

The isospin dependent vector interaction, by eqn. (13), admits an interpretation in terms of $`\rho `$ meson exchange. This interaction component is roughly 3 times weaker than the corresponding isospin independent interaction. The volume integrals of the isospin dependent vector interaction range from 2.9 to 4.4 fm<sup>2</sup> for the 4 phenomenological interactions considered here. In a simple $`\rho `$meson exchange model these volume integrals have the form $`(1+\kappa )g_\rho ^2/m_\rho ^2`$, where $`g_\rho `$ and $`\kappa `$ are the vector and tensor $`\rho `$meson-nucleon coupling constants. The canonical value for the $`\rho `$nucleon vector coupling constant is $`g_\rho ^2/4\pi 0.5`$. If this value for $`g_\rho `$ is used in the expression for the volume integral, an “effective” value for $`\kappa _\rho `$ can be determined. The volume integrals in Table 2 for the 4 interaction models considered then give values for $`\kappa _\rho `$ in the range 6.3 – 10.1. These values support the early finding that $`\kappa _\rho 6.6`$ . Both the $`Nijmegen93`$ and the $`CDBonn`$ interaction use the somewhat larger value $`g_\rho ^2/4\pi =0.84`$ for the $`\rho `$-nucleon coupling constant. This larger value would reduce the values for $`\kappa _\rho `$ in Table 3 by about 40 %.

From eqns. (15) and (17) it follows that in the limit of large $`N_C`$ the isospin dependent scalar and vector exchange potentials should be equal in strength and of opposite sign. If imposed on a boson exchange model this condition implies that

$$g_{a_0}^2=(1+\kappa _\rho )g_\rho ^2.$$
(18)
Comparison of the form and strength of these potential components for the $`CDBonn`$ and $`Nijmegen(93)`$ potential models in Figs. 2 and 4 shows that these potential models satisfy this constraint very well.

### 3.3 The tensor potential

The expression for the isospin independent and isospin dependent tensor potentials in configuration space are obtained from (11) as

$`v_T^+(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{32m_N^2}}\{\stackrel{~}{v}_C^{+^{\prime \prime }}(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\stackrel{~}{v}_C^+^{}(r)\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\{3\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS}^+(r)+r\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS}^+^{}(r)\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\stackrel{~}{v}_T^+(r)3{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}_T^+(r^{})}{r^{}}}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{v}_{SS}^+(r){\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{4}}\{r^2\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}^+(r)3{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}^+(r^{})\},`$
$`v_T^{}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\stackrel{~}{v}_T^{}(r)3{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}_T^{}(r^{})}{r^{}}}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{v}_{SS}^{}(r)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{4}}\{r^2\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}^{}(r)3{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}^{}(r^{})\},`$ (19)
These potential components as obtained from the phenomenological $`V18`$ , the $`CDBonn`$ , the $`Nijmegen(93)`$  and the $`Paris`$  potentials are shown in Figs. 5 and 6.

In a meson exchange model the tensor potential arises from vector meson exchange when the vector mesons couple to the nucleon with a Pauli (tensor) coupling. As in the $`CDBonn`$ interaction model the isospin independent $`\omega `$ meson exchange interaction has no Pauli coupling term $`v_T^+`$ vanishes in this interaction model.

By the $`N_C`$ counting rules in Table 1 the isospin independent tensor interaction should be smaller by $`1/N_C^2`$ than the isospin dependent tensor interaction. Comparison of the corresponding set of volume integrals in Table 2 shows that the phenomenological interaction models considered here satisfy this rule well.

The order $`N_C`$ of the isospin dependent tensor interaction alone does not explain why this interaction is one order of magnitude smaller than the corresponding vector interactions for all the phenomenological potential models. For boson exchange models the reason is readily seen in eqn. (13), which shows that the tensor coupled vector meson exchange interaction is suppressed by an overall factor $`1/m_N^2`$, which is only partially counteracted by the large tensor coupling $`\kappa _\rho `$. For the phenomenological interaction models the reason for the weakness of the isospin dependent tensor interaction is to be found in the fact that pion exchange gives rise to the bulk of the isospin dependent spin-spin and vector interactions, and this pion (or pseudoscalar) exchange contribution is exactly cancelled in the combination of $`v_{SS}^{}`$ and $`v_T^{}`$ in eqn. (19). This latter argument may also be extended to the isospin independent tensor interaction, where the pseudoscalar - in this case the $`\eta `$ meson - exchange contribution cancels in the combination of $`v_{SS}^+`$ and $`v_T^+`$ in (19).

### 3.4 The axial vector potential

The expression for the isospin independent and isospin dependent axial vector potentials in configuration space are obtained from (11) as

$`v_A^+(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{32m_N^2}}\{\stackrel{~}{v}_C^{+^{\prime \prime }}(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\stackrel{~}{v}_C^+^{}(r)\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\{3\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS}^+(r)+r\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS}^+^{}(r)\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\stackrel{~}{v}_T^+(r)3{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}_T^+(r^{})}{r^{}}}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{v}_{SS}^+(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{4}}\{r^2\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}^+(r)3{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}^+(r^{})\},`$
$`v_A^{}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\stackrel{~}{v}_T^{}(r)3{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}_T^{}(r^{})}{r^{}}}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{v}_{SS}^{}(r)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{4}}\{r^2\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}^{}(r)3{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS2}^{}(r^{})\},`$ (20)
These potential components as obtained from the phenomenological $`V18`$ , and the $`Paris`$  potentials are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. In a single meson exchange model only axial vector meson exchange gives rise to an axial vector interaction. Since the $`CDBonn`$ and the $`Nijmegen93`$ boson exchange interaction models do not contain any $`a_1`$ meson exchange terms these interaction models do not have any axial vector exchange components. The phenomenological $`V18`$ and $`Paris`$ potential models give rise to small $`A`$ interaction components. These satisfy the $`N_C`$ counting rules in Table 1, by which the isospin dependent axial vector interaction should be larger by $`N_C^2`$ than the isospin independent one as may be seen from the volume integrals in Table 2. The substantial strength of the axial vector exchange interaction components of the $`Paris`$ potential model are likely to be artifacts of the parametrization rather than genuine consequences of the $`NN`$ scattering data.

### 3.5 The pseudoscalar potential

The expression for the isospin independent and isospin dependent pseudoscalar potentials in configuration space are obtained from (11) as

$`v_P^+(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{v}_C^+(r){\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}\stackrel{~}{v}_{LS}^+(r^{})+12m_N^2{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}{\displaystyle _r^{}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}_T^+(r^{\prime \prime })}{r^{\prime \prime }}}`$
$`v_P^{}(r)=12m_N^2{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{}r^{}{\displaystyle _r^{}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}_T^{}(r^{\prime \prime })}{r^{\prime \prime }}}.`$ (21)
These potential components as obtained from the phenomenological $`V18`$ , the $`CDBonn`$ and the $`Nijmegen(93)`$  and the $`Paris`$  potentials are shown in Figs. 9 and 10.

In a single meson exchange interpretation the longest range mechanism, that contributes to the isospin independent pseudoscalar interaction, is $`\eta `$ meson exchange. This interaction component is not well constrained by nucleon-nucleon scattering data. As a consequence the phenomenological interaction models considered here give widely different results for this interaction component, as is evident in Fig. 9.

The $`\eta `$nucleon coupling constant is also not well known. An estimate for this coupling constant may be obtained from the volume integrals of the phenomenological interaction models if these are set to equal $`g_\eta ^2/m_\eta ^2`$. From the volume integral values listed in Table 2 one then obtains values for $`g_\eta `$, which range from 1.8 ($`Nijmegen(93)`$) to 11.7 ($`Paris`$) (Table 3). Analyses of observables, other than nucleon-nucleon scattering, as e.g. $`\eta `$meson photoproduction suggest that the coupling constant value should not exceed 2.2 .

The isospin dependent pseudoscalar exchange interaction is strong and has long range. Its main component is the long range pion exchange interaction, which is built into all the phenomenological interaction models considered here. Because of this all the interaction models converge for nucleon separations larger than 1 fm. This interaction component is also the strongest component by $`N_C`$ counting, as it scales as $`N_C^3`$ (Table 1). The volume integrals of this interaction component are listed in Table 2 for the 4 interaction models considered, and range from 323 fm<sup>2</sup> to 360 fm<sup>2</sup>. The corresponding values for the pseudoscalar pion-nucleon coupling constant $`g_\pi `$ range from 12.7 to 13.4, when extracted by equating the numerically determined volume integrals with $`g_\pi ^2/m_\pi ^2`$ (Table 3).

## 4 Electromagnetic exchange current in the large $`𝐍_𝐂`$ limit

The isoscalar and isovector components of the single nucleon charge operator are of order $`N_C^1`$ and $`N_C^0`$ respectively, as may be inferred from the scaling relations (9). Because of their inverse dependence on the nucleon mass the isoscalar and isovector convection current components of the single nucleon current scale as $`N_C^0`$ and $`N_C^1`$ in comparison. In the case of the spin component of the single nucleon current the isoscalar component scales in contrast as $`N_C^1`$, whereas the $`N_C`$ dependence of the isovector part is $`N_C^0`$.

Associated with the isospin dependent interactions expressed in terms of Fermi invariants are corresponding two-nucleon electromagnetic interaction currents with the isospin dependence $`(\stackrel{}{\tau }^1\times \stackrel{}{\tau }^2)_3`$ . In a meson exchange interpretation, these interaction currents correspond to the currents carried by exchanged charged mesons (Fig. 11b). These current operators are listed in Table 4, along with the corresponding $`N_C`$ scaling power. The $`N_C`$ scaling factors of these current operators may be derived by reduction to the spin representation, and application of the relations (9). In the expressions in Table 4 the potential functions $`v_j^\pm (k)`$ represent the Fermi invariant potential components in momentum space. The $`N_C`$ dependence of these interaction currents should be compared to the $`N_C`$ scaling of the corresponding components of the single nucleon charge and current operators.

The charge components of the interaction currents in Table 4 are suppressed by their dependence on the energy exchanged between the nucleons. This is proportional to the nucleon momenta and inversely proportional to the nucleon mass ($`1/N_C`$). In a frame with no energy transfer they vanish. In the reduction to the spin representation exchange charge operators also arise in the elimination of negative energy intermediate states (“pair terms”). These are listed in Table 5. These operators have an overall factor $`1/m_N^3`$, which arises from the small components of the Dirac spinors and the propagator of the intermediate negative energy propagator (Fig. 11a). The order in $`1/N_C`$ of these operators follow from the general scaling rules (9) and the overall factor $`1/m_N^31/N_C^3`$. In Table 5 and in subsequent tables, the momenta of the two nucleons are denoted by $`\stackrel{}{P}_j=1/2(\stackrel{}{p}_j^{}+\stackrel{}{p}_j)`$ with $`j=1,2`$ respectively.

The largest $`N_C`$ scaling factors of the exchange charge operators that are associated with the 5 Fermi invariant components of the interaction are also listed in Table 5, separately for the isospin independent and isospin dependent interaction components. The order of the exchange charge operators are smaller by $`1/N_C^3`$ in comparison with the corresponding single nucleon charge operators. The terms with the highest $`N_C`$ dependence are those, which are independent of spin and isospin and those, which contain the spin-isospin bilinears $`\sigma _i\tau _j`$ of both nucleons. The remaining terms are smaller by at least one power of $`1/N_C`$.

The interaction currents that are listed in Table 4 arise from the coupling of the electromagnetic field to the charge exchanged between the nucleons (Fig. 11b). Their explicit expressions in the spin representation have been given in ref. . The components of these currents, which are of highest order in $`N_C`$ are listed in Table 6.

The $`N_C`$ dependence of these internal coupling interaction currents that are associated with the different Fermi invariant components of the phenomenological interaction model is smaller by one power of $`1/N_C`$ than that of the isovector part of the single nucleon current, with exception for the currents that are associated with the $`T`$ and $`A`$ invariants, which anomalously scale as $`N_C^1`$. As these interaction components are very weak in all the phenomenological models considered, and are suppressed by $`1/m_N^21/N_C^2`$ in meson exchange models, it is natural to conclude that their $`N_C`$ dependence in practice also is $`N_C^1`$ rather than $`N_C^1`$.

In the reduction to the spin representation the negative energy pole terms give rise to seagull type exchange currents, in which the electromagnetic field couples to either one of the interaction nucleons with a point interaction to the interaction (Fig. 11a). The exchange currents of this type, which have the highest $`N_C`$ scaling factors (in this case $`1/N_C`$) are listed in Table 7. The $`1/N_C`$ dependence of these current operators are similar to the internal charge coupling currents in Table 6.

## 5 Axial exchange current in the large $`𝐍_𝐂`$ limit

The axial current operator of a single nucleon,

$$\stackrel{}{A}_\pm =g_A\stackrel{}{\sigma }\tau _\pm ,$$
(22)
is of order $`N_C^1`$ (cf. (9)). The axial vector interaction currents that are associated with the Fermi invariant components of the nucleon-nucleon interaction have been listed in ref. . These currents only arise in the reduction to the spin representation, which brings in an overall factor $`1/M_N^3`$. The $`1/N_C`$ scaling factors of these axial exchange current operators may be determined from their operator structure by means of the relations (9). It follows from their vector nature that they are $`1/N_C^3`$ smaller than those of the corresponding interaction components.

The subset of axial exchange currents that are associated with the Fermi invariant interaction components, and which are of order $`1/N_C^2`$ are listed in Table 8. In the case of the pseudoscalar invariant the reduction to the spin representation brings an overall factor $`1/M_N^5`$. The axial exchange current that is associated with the pseudoscalar invariant is therefore of the order $`N_C^5`$.

The axial exchange charge operators that are associated with Fermi invariant decomposition of the nucleon-nucleon interaction have been derived in ref. , and are listed in Table 9. For these operators the reduction to the spin representation only brings in an overall factor of $`1/m_N^2`$. The $`1/N_C`$ scaling factors of these operators are accordingly smaller by a factor $`1/N_C^2`$ than those of the corresponding interaction components.

The axial charge operator of a single nucleon

$$A_\pm ^0=g_A\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}}{m_N}\tau _\pm ,$$
(23)
is readily seen to be of order $`N_C^0`$ by means of the relations (9). The main axial exchange charge operators listed in Table 6 are in comparison of order $`N_C^1`$. This may be seen by referring to the operator scaling relations (9).

There is no axial exchange charge operator that would be directly proportional to the pseudoscalar invariant potential component. There is however an axial exchange charge operator, which is of order $`N_C^0`$, and which arises from the long range pion exchange interaction, which gives rise to the bulk of the pseudoscalar interaction component. This axial charge operator was derived in ref. , and has the form

$$A_\pm ^0(\pi )=\frac{g_A}{4\pi }(\frac{m_\pi }{2f_\pi })^2(\stackrel{}{\sigma }^1+\stackrel{}{\sigma }^2)\stackrel{}{r}_{12}(\stackrel{}{\tau }^1\times \stackrel{}{\tau }^2)_\pm (1+\frac{1}{m_\pi r_{12}})\frac{e^{m_\pi r_{12}}}{m_\pi r_{12}}.$$
(24)
Because the pion decay constant $`f_\pi N_C`$ in the large $`N_C`$ limit it is readily seen by the relations (9) that this operator is of order $`N_C^0`$.

The contributions of the two-nucleon exchange current terms to the axial charge operator are conventionally expressed in the from of an effective single nucleon axial charge operator. The exchange current contributions then represent nuclear enhancement factors of the single nucleon axial charge operator (23). Experimentally this enhancement factor is a factor 2 as measured by first forbidden $`\beta `$ transitions of nuclei in the lead region . About one half of this enhancement may be attributed to the pion exchange operator (24), which is natural as its order in the $`1/N_C`$ expansion is the same as that of the single nucleon operator (23). The bulk of the remainder arises from the isospin independent scalar contribution in Table 9 . While the order of this term is $`1/N_C`$, it gives rise to a direct term matrix element, which involves an additional factor of $`N_C`$ in the nucleon density, and therefore its contribution to the “effective” single nucleon matrix element is also of order $`N_C^0`$.

## 6 Discussion

This analysis of 4 commonly employed phenomenological nucleon-nucleon interaction models reveals that the structure of their components is completely consistent with their corresponding dependence on $`N_C`$ (or $`1/N_C`$). For all the interaction models the isospin dependent pseudoscalar components, which contain the long range pion exchange interaction, have volume integrals that are larger than those of any other interaction component by more than an order of magnitude. This interaction component also scales with the largest power of $`N_C`$ ($`N_C^3`$) (Table 2). As this interaction component shows very little variation between 3 of the 4 interaction models considered, it may be viewed as well determined, if not completely settled in form (Fig. 10).

The interaction components that follow the isospin dependent pseudoscalar interaction in strength are the isospin independent scalar and vector interactions, which scale as $`N_C`$. These interaction components are those responsible for nuclear binding ($`v_S^+`$) and short range repulsion between nucleons ($`v_V^{}`$). For distances shorter than 0.4 fm the variation in form of these interaction components between the 4 considered phenomenological interaction models is substantial.

Next in strength are the isospin dependent scalar and vector interactions, which also scale as $`N_C`$. The volume integrals of these interaction components are about half as large as those of the corresponding isospin independent interactions. A new finding is that these two interaction components have to have equal magnitude and opposite sign in the large $`N_C`$ limit.

The tensor and axial vector interaction components are very weak for all the considered phenomenological interaction models. For the isospin independent tensor and axial vector components this is completely consistent with their $`N_C`$ dependence, which is $`1/N_C`$. The smallness of the isospin dependent tensor and axial vector exchange interaction components cannot be explained by their $`N_C`$ dependence alone, as they scale as $`N_C`$. In meson exchange models the smallness of $`v_T^{}`$ is however natural, as it arises from tensor coupled vector mesons, and contains an overall factor $`1/m_N^2`$ (13).

The least well understood interaction component is the isospin independent pseudoscalar interaction (Fig. 9). This component, which scales as $`N_C^1`$, is vanishingly small in two of the considered phenomenological interactions and even stronger than $`v_V^+`$ in the other two. The longest range part of this interaction component arises from $`\eta `$ meson exchange. The large variation between the phenomenological interaction models for this interaction component reflects the continuing uncertainty concerning the strength of the $`\eta `$nucleon coupling. The $`V18`$ and $`Paris`$ interaction models have strong “effective” $`\eta `$ nucleon couplings, which correspond to the old pseudoscalar $`SU(3)`$ coupling model by which $`g_{\eta NN}=g_{\pi NN}/\sqrt{3}`$.

The present results for the $`N_C`$ dependence of the exchange currents follow those of the corresponding interactions. In the case of the electromagnetic interaction current the result that they are smaller by $`1/N_C^2`$ than the corresponding interactions fits with the phenomenological finding that electromagnetic exchange current contributions to nuclear observables typically represent effects of the order 10%, the exceptions being situations where single nucleon current matrix elements are suppressed .

The interaction current contributions to the axial charge operator are known to be significant in comparison with the axial charge operators of the single nucleons . This feature also emerges from the $`1/N_C`$ expansion, as the axial exchange charge operators scale in $`1/N_C`$ as the single nucleon charge operator, or with one more power of $`1/N_C`$.

The overall conclusion is thus that the ordering of nuclear interactions and interaction current operators by their dependence on $`1/N_C`$ corresponds well with their significance ordering based on empirical evidence and phenomenlogical analysis.

Acknowledgments

The hospitality of the W. K. Kellogg Radiation Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology is gratefully acknowledged. I am indebted to C. Helminen for a careful reading of the manuscript. Research supported in part by the Academy of Finland by grant 54038.

Figure captions

Fig. 1 Isospin independent scalar potential coefficients for the $`V18`$ , the $`CDBonn`$ , the $`Nijmegen(93)`$  and the $`Paris`$  interaction models.

Fig. 2 Isospin dependent scalar potential coefficients for the $`V18`$ , the $`CDBonn`$ , the $`Nijmegen(93)`$  and the $`Paris`$  interaction models.

Fig. 3 Isospin independent vector potential coefficients for the $`V18`$ , the $`CDBonn`$ , the $`Nijmegen(93)`$  and the $`Paris`$  interaction models.

Fig. 4 Isospin dependent vector potential coefficients for the $`V18`$ , the $`CDBonn`$ , the $`Nijmegen(93)`$  and the $`Paris`$  interaction models.

Fig. 5 Isospin independent tensor potential coefficients for the $`V18`$ , the $`Nijmegen(93)`$  and the $`Paris`$  interaction models.

Fig. 6 Isospin dependent tensor potential coefficients for the $`V18`$ , the $`CDBonn`$ , the $`Nijmegen(93)`$  and the $`Paris`$  interaction models.

Fig. 7 Isospin independent axial vector potential coefficients for the $`V18`$  and the $`Paris`$  interaction models.

Fig. 8 Isospin dependent axial vector potential coefficients for the $`V18`$ , the $`Nijmegen(93)`$ and the $`Paris`$  interaction models.

Fig. 9 Isospin dependent pseudoscalar potential coefficients for the $`V18`$ , the $`Nijmegen(93)`$  and the $`Paris`$  interaction models.

Fig. 10 Isospin dependent pseudoscalar potential coefficients for the $`V18`$ , the $`CDBonn`$ , the $`Nijmegen(93)`$  and the $`Paris`$  interaction models.

Fig. 11 (a) Point coupling of an extrernal field to one nucleon and a nucleon-nucleon interaction, (b) Coupling to the charge exchanged by a nucleon-nucleon interaction.