text:
# Magnetic effect from non-magnetic impurity in superconducting CuO2 plane

## Abstract

We propose a new model for impurity center formed by a cathion substitute for Cu, like Zn, in CuO2 planes. Its main effect on superconducting electrons is due to the non-zero exchange field on O sites, neighbors to the (non-magnetic) impurity. We discuss a strong suppression of $`d`$-wave order parameter, a zero-energy resonance in local density of states, and spin polarization of charge carriers, which can be related to the experimentally observed effects in Zn-doped copper oxides. These results are obtained *without* using the unitary scattering limit.

It is recognized that there are two types of impurities in high-Tc superconductors (HTSC): i) intrinsic or “own”, and ii) extrinsic or “foreign”. The first type are the heterovalent impurities or oxygen vacancies, that is the dopants. They supply charge carriers into insulating antiferromagnetic (AFM) cuprate planes enabling their metallization And1 , but also they act as scattering centers for carriers. Previously, we showed LP1 ; LP2 ; LP3  that formation of superconducting (SC) condensate, either of $`s`$\- and $`d`$\- symmetry, is possible at low enough concentration $`c`$ of such impurities but is prevented by growing fluctuations of SC order parameter at higher $`c`$.

The second type are the homovalent impurities, which only produce scattering of existing charge carriers and so can depress the SC properties of HTSC systems. They are well studied in common SC metals, where it was stated by Anderson And  that non-magnetic impurities have practically no effect on SC characteristics. At the same time, even low concentration of paramagnetic ions can completely destroy SC order, as initially shown in the Born approximation by Abrikosov and Gor’kov AG  and then confirmed by many authors under more general scope Maki ; Shiba ; Z-MH .

But in the case of SC copper oxides, an apparent violation of this so well theoretically based phenomenological principle was detected. Thus, introducing of non-magnetic Zn2+ ions instead of Cu2+ into the cuprate planes has a suppression effect on HTSC not weaker but rather stronger than that by magnetic Ni2+ ions Zhang ; Bonn . This triggered an idea of viewing the non-magnetic impurity ions in HTSC as extremely strong scatterers Chien  so that their perturbation potential $`V_{imp}`$ is the biggest energy parameter, treated in the unitary limit: $`V_{imp}/W1`$ ($`W`$ the bandwidth). This concept was extensively elaborated Lee ; Hirsch ; Fehr , the principal conclusions being the finite density of quasiparticle states (DOS) at the Fermi level $`\epsilon _\mathrm{F}`$: $`\rho (\epsilon \epsilon _\mathrm{F})\rho _u0`$, and the universal value of quasiparticle conductivity $`\sigma (\omega 0)\sigma _u0`$. However, apart from the still existing controversies about those predictions Atk , it should be noted that, unlike the dopants, the foreign impurity centers are formed in the CuO2 plane by a *homovalent* substitution (as Zn2+ or Ni2+ for Cu2+), and it is problematic how they could produce such a strong perturbation potential. Also we notice that the heterovalent non-magnetic scatterers by dopants can not produce such effects LP2 .

This Letter is aimed on an alternative approach to the problem of foreign impurities. It will be shown that irrespectively of the type (magnetic or non-magnetic) of the cathion substitute in CuO2 plane, the resulting center acts on charge carriers as *magnetic*. In accordance with the generally accepted notion, such center should in fact strongly suppress SC order either of $`s`$\- or $`d`$-type, as was first qualitatively stated yet by Mahajan *et al* Mah . We note that similar views on the effect of Zn impurities in HTSC cuprates were expressed in some recent publications McFarl ; Schr ; Park , though still focused on unitary scattering. Below we consider the problem of isolated non-magnetic impurity ion in a CuO2 plane and its local effects on the $`d`$-wave SC order parameter, local density of states (LDOS), and the itinerant spin polarization. Our treatment does not need using the unitary limit, nevertheless the effects can be quite strong.

Fig. 1 shows a cathion impurity substitute for Cu in a CuO2 plane, like real Zn, Fe, or Ni impurities in high-$`T_c`$ compounds. Associating the charge carriers mostly to O- holes, we conclude that the main perturbation by such impurity (both magnetic and non-magnetic) is due to the fact that its neighbor O sites occur in a non-zero exchange field by Cu2+ ions Wal ; Jul , which is equivalent to the effect of magnetic impurity in a common superconductor. On the other hand, there are no reasons to consider any sizeable spin-independent perturbation from such isovalent impurity. The respective model Hamiltonian is $`H=H_{sc}+H_c+H_{int}`$. The unperturbed SC term $`H_{sc}=_𝐤\psi _𝐤^{}(\xi _𝐤\widehat{\tau }_3+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤\widehat{\tau }_1)\psi _𝐤`$ couples the Nambu spinors $`\psi _𝐤^{}=(a_{𝐤,}^{},a_{𝐤,})`$ with Pauli matrices $`\widehat{\tau }_i`$. The normal dispersion $`\xi _𝐤=W(2\mathrm{cos}ak_x\mathrm{cos}ak_y)/4\epsilon _\mathrm{F}`$ leads to the density of states (DOS) $`\rho _0=4/(\pi W)`$. The $`d`$-wave gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤=\mathrm{\Delta }\theta (\epsilon _\mathrm{D}^2\xi _𝐤^2)\gamma _𝐤/\gamma _m`$ includes the BCS-shell factor $`\theta (\epsilon _\mathrm{D}^2\xi _𝐤^2)`$ with the “Debye energy” $`\epsilon _\mathrm{D}`$, the symmetry factor $`\gamma _𝐤=\mathrm{cos}ak_x\mathrm{cos}ak_y`$ with maximum absolute value $`\gamma _m=\pi \epsilon _\mathrm{F}\rho _0`$, and the gap parameter

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=VN^1\underset{𝐤}{}\gamma _𝐤a_{𝐤,}a_{𝐤,}$$
(1)
where $`V`$ is the attraction between two carriers with opposite spins on neighbor O sites. The term $`H_c=hS_z`$ models the (AFM) correlation between the impurity center and its environment, where $`hJ_{dd}`$, the Cu-Cu exchange constant, and $`𝐒`$ is the spin of a fictitious “magnetic impurity”. It can be seen as a cluster of four 1/2 spins of Cu nearest neighbors to real non-magnetic impurity (Fig. 1). In reality, its quantization axis $`z`$ is only defined over time periods no longer than $`\tau _s\mathrm{}\xi _s/(aJ_{dd})10^{13}`$ s for spin correlation length $`\xi _sa/\sqrt{x}`$ Birg  and doping levels $`x0.1`$ (this also agrees with the NMR data McFarl ). However this $`\tau _s`$ is much longer than typical electronic times $`\mathrm{}/\epsilon _\mathrm{F}10^{15}`$ s for HTSC compounds. For $`h>0`$ we have $`S_zs`$ and $`0<s<S`$, which accounts for the short-range AFM order, whereas $`s0`$ in the paramagnetic limit $`\beta h1`$.

We separate the spin-dependent interaction between charge carriers and impurity into three parts:

$$H_{int}=H_{int}^{\mathrm{MF}}+H_{int}^{}+H_{int}^{},$$
(2)
where

$$H_{int}^{\mathrm{MF}}=JsN^1\underset{𝐤,𝐤^{}}{}\underset{\sigma =\pm }{}\alpha _{j,𝐤}\alpha _{j,𝐤^{}}\sigma a_{𝐤^{},\sigma }^{}a_{𝐤,\sigma }$$

is the “mean-field” (MF) polarization of carrier spins by the impurity center, and

$$H_{int}^{}=JN^1\underset{𝐤,𝐤^{}}{}\underset{\sigma =\pm }{}\alpha _{j,𝐤}\alpha _{j,𝐤^{}}\sigma (S_zs)a_{𝐤^{},\sigma }^{}a_{𝐤,\sigma },$$

$$H_{int}^{\mathrm{MF}}=JN^1\underset{𝐤,𝐤^{}}{}\underset{\sigma =\pm }{}\alpha _{j,𝐤}\alpha _{j,𝐤^{}}S_\sigma a_{𝐤^{},\sigma }^{}a_{𝐤,\sigma },$$

are their interactions with longitudinal and transversal fluctuations of $`𝐒`$. In the paramagnetic limit: $`s0`$, Eq. 2 is reduced to the common Kondo interaction Kon ; Nag . For definiteness, the Cu-O $`p`$-$`d`$ exchange parameter $`J`$ is considered positive. The functions

$`\alpha _{1,𝐤}=2\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{ak_x}{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{ak_y}{2}},\alpha _{2,𝐤}=2\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{ak_x}{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{ak_y}{2}},`$
$`\alpha _{3,𝐤}=2\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{ak_x}{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{ak_y}{2}},\alpha _{4,𝐤}=2\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{ak_x}{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{ak_y}{2}},`$
realize 1D irreducible representations of the $`C_{4v}`$ point group (of the plaquette surrounding the impurity), so that $`N^1_𝐤\alpha _{j,𝐤}\alpha _{j^{},𝐤}=\delta _{jj^{}}`$. Distinctive features of the perturbation, Eq. 2, compared to the commonly used impurity models, are: i) its spatial extension expressed by the factors $`\alpha _{j,𝐤}`$, ii) additional degrees of freedom by spin $`𝐒`$, and iii) coupling of $`𝐒`$ to the local AFM correlations.

In principle, this impurity center can produce yet another perturbation, due to a possible role of AFM correlated Cu2+ spins in the SC coupling between charge carriers. Lacking one such spin would locally perturb the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤\widehat{\tau }_1`$ term in $`H_{sc}`$ by some expansions in $`\alpha _{j,𝐤}\alpha _{j,𝐤^{}}`$. This can influence the SC order, alike the simpler case of point-like perturbation of $`s`$-wave SC coupling Pog . However, for simplicity, we leave this kind of perturbation for a separate study.

We calculate the averages, like Eq. 1, by simple spectral formula at $`T=0`$:

$$ab=\pi ^1_0^{\epsilon _\mathrm{F}}\mathrm{}b|a_\epsilon d\epsilon ,$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{}f(\epsilon )=lim_{\delta 0}[f(\epsilon i\delta )f(\epsilon +i\delta )]/2`$ and $`b|a_{\epsilon \pm i\delta }`$ are the retarded and advanced two-time Green functions (GF’s). The relevant GF matrix $`\widehat{G}_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}=\psi _𝐤|\psi _𝐤^{}^{}`$ in absence of impurity perturbation ($`J=0`$) is momentum-diagonal: $`\widehat{G}_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}=\delta _{𝐤,𝐤^{}}\widehat{G}_𝐤`$, with $`\widehat{G}_𝐤=(\epsilon \xi _𝐤\widehat{\tau }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤\widehat{\tau }_1)^1`$. The same expression holds for the momentum-diagonal GF $`\widehat{G}_{𝐤,𝐤}`$ in presence of single impurity, whose effect $`1/N`$ is negligible for this quantity. However it is only this small impurity effect that gives rise to a momentum-non-diagonal GF’s $`\widehat{G}_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}`$. They are found from the equation of motion $`\widehat{G}_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}=JN^1_{𝐤^{\prime \prime },j}\alpha _{j,𝐤}\widehat{G}_𝐤(s\widehat{G}_{𝐤^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{}}+\widehat{G}_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}^{(z)}+\widehat{G}_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}^{()})\alpha _{j,𝐤^{\prime \prime }}`$ including three scattered GF’s: the MF one $`\widehat{G}_{𝐤^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{}}`$, the longitudinal $`\widehat{G}_{𝐤^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{}}^{(z)}=\psi _{𝐤^{\prime \prime }}(S_zs)|\psi _𝐤^{}^{}`$ and the transversal $`\widehat{G}_{𝐤^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{}}^{()}=\overline{\psi }_{𝐤^{\prime \prime }}S_{})|\psi _𝐤^{}^{}`$ with $`\overline{\psi }_𝐤^{}=(a_{𝐤,}^{},a_{𝐤,})`$. The two last terms are analogous to the well known Nagaoka’s $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-term Nag ; Z-MH  and treating them with a similar decoupling procedure gives:

$`\widehat{G}_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}^{(z)}={\displaystyle \frac{J\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤^{\prime \prime },j}{}}\alpha _{j,𝐤}\widehat{G}_𝐤\widehat{G}_{𝐤^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{}}\alpha _{j,𝐤^{\prime \prime }},`$
$`\widehat{G}_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}^{()}={\displaystyle \frac{J}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤^{\prime \prime },j}{}}\alpha _{j,𝐤}\widehat{G}_𝐤(\epsilon +h)\widehat{X}_{𝐤^{\prime \prime }}\widehat{G}_{𝐤^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{}}\alpha _{j,𝐤^{\prime \prime }},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=S_z^2s^2`$, $`\widehat{X}_𝐤=S(S+1)s(s+1)\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+(1+2\xi _𝐤/E_𝐤)\widehat{\tau }_3`$, $`E_𝐤=\sqrt{\xi _𝐤^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}`$, and one energy argument is shifted: $`\epsilon \epsilon +h`$, due to the AFM stiffness. Finally, we obtain the decoupled equation of motion:

$$\widehat{G}_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}=N^1\underset{𝐤^{\prime \prime },j}{}\alpha _{j,𝐤}\widehat{G}_𝐤[Js+J^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\widehat{G}_j+\widehat{X}_j)]\widehat{G}_{𝐤^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{}}\alpha _{j,𝐤^{\prime \prime }}$$

where $`\widehat{G}_j=N^1_𝐤\alpha _{j,𝐤}^2\widehat{G}_𝐤`$, $`\widehat{X}_j=N^1_𝐤\alpha _{j,𝐤}^2\widehat{G}_𝐤(\epsilon +h)\widehat{X}_𝐤`$, and its standard iteration yields in the result:

$$\widehat{G}_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}=N^1\underset{j}{}\alpha _{j,𝐤}\widehat{G}_𝐤\widehat{T}_j\widehat{G}_𝐤^{}\alpha _{j,𝐤^{}},$$
(4)
with the partial T-matrices $`\widehat{T}_j=[Js+J^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\widehat{G}_j+\widehat{X}_j)][1JsJ^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\widehat{G}_j+\widehat{X}_j)]^1`$. By the definition of our model, the parameter $`Js`$ is positive. It is interesting to trace the behavior of $`\widehat{T}_j`$ in the two characteristic limits for AFM correlations between Cu2+spins.

In the paramagnetic limit: $`h0`$, $`s0`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2S(S+1)/3`$ and $`\widehat{X}_j2S(S+1)/3N^1_𝐤\alpha _{j,𝐤}^2(1+2\xi _𝐤/E_𝐤)\widehat{G}_𝐤\widehat{\tau }_3`$. In neglect of the small last term we arrive at:

$$\widehat{T}_jJ^2S(S+1)\widehat{G}_j[1J^2S(S+1)\widehat{G}_j]^1$$

generalizing the known results AG ; Z-MH  for the case of extended impurity center.

Another limit, fully polarized, $`h\mathrm{}`$, $`sS`$, corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^20`$, $`\widehat{X}_j0`$ and results in

$$\widehat{T}_jJS(1JS\widehat{G}_j)^1$$
(5)
which is only due to the effect of MF magnetic scattering. The obvious validity condition for this limit, $`JSk_\mathrm{B}T`$, well applies in the SC phase at $`T<T_c\mathrm{\Delta }/k_\mathrm{B}`$, so we use Eq. 5 for the T-matrices in what follows.

The local SC correlation is characterized by the average $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}=2Va_{\delta _1,}a_{\delta _2,}`$ (see Fig. 1) where a site operator $`a_{𝐧,\sigma }`$ is expressed through band operators: $`a_{𝐧,\sigma }=N^{1/2}_𝐤\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤𝐧}a_{𝐤,\sigma }`$. Since the phase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ is chosen zero, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}`$ is real. For $`J=0`$, this average does not differ from the uniform gap parameter:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}\frac{2V}{N}\underset{𝐤}{}a_{𝐤,}a_{𝐤,}\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤(\delta _2\delta _1)}=\mathrm{\Delta },$$

whereas for $`J0`$ the maximum perturbation of SC order near the impurity is given by the suppression parameter $`\eta _{sup}=1\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Its value is confined between 0 (for pure SC) and 1 (for complete local suppression of SC order), and it only results from non-diagonal GF’s:

$`\eta _{sup}={\displaystyle \frac{2V}{N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐤^{}𝐤}{}}a_{𝐤,}a_{𝐤^{},}\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐤\delta _2𝐤^{}\delta _1)}=`$ (6)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{V}{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(1)^j{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑\epsilon \mathrm{Im}\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{G}_j\widehat{T}_j\widehat{G}_j\widehat{\tau }_1,`$
where the trace is in Nambu indices and Eqs. 3,4 were used. Expansion of $`\widehat{G}_j`$ in Pauli matrices only contains $`\widehat{\tau }_1`$terms at $`j=2,3`$ (by the parity of $`\alpha _{j,𝐤}`$ with respect to the permutation $`k_xk_y`$): $`JS\widehat{G}_{2,3}=A+B\widehat{\tau }_3\pm C\widehat{\tau }_1`$. Hence only $`j=2,3`$ actually contribute in Eq. 6 by

$$\eta _{sup}=\frac{V\epsilon _\mathrm{F}\rho _0^2}{4}_0^{\epsilon _\mathrm{F}}\frac{F(\epsilon )}{\epsilon }𝑑\epsilon ,$$
(7)
where

$$F(\epsilon )=\frac{16\epsilon }{\pi JS\epsilon _\mathrm{F}\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _0^2}\mathrm{Im}[1\frac{1}{(1A)^2B^2C^2}]C,$$

and the complex coefficients $`A,B,C`$ as functions of energy are estimated in the relevant range $`\mathrm{\Delta }<\epsilon <\epsilon _\mathrm{F}`$, setting $`E_𝐤\xi _𝐤Wa(k^2k_\mathrm{F}^2)/8`$:

$`A{\displaystyle \frac{JS\rho _0\epsilon }{8}}(\mathrm{ln}|{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _\mathrm{F}+\epsilon }{\epsilon _\mathrm{F}\epsilon }}|+2i\pi ),`$
$`B{\displaystyle \frac{JS\rho _0}{8}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _\mathrm{F}^2\epsilon ^2}{(W\epsilon _\mathrm{F})^2}},`$
$`C{\displaystyle \frac{\pi JS\rho _0\epsilon _\mathrm{F}\mathrm{\Delta }}{E\epsilon }}[\mathrm{ln}|{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _\mathrm{D}+\epsilon }{\epsilon _\mathrm{D}\epsilon }}|+i\pi \theta (\epsilon _\mathrm{D}\epsilon )].`$
Numeric analysis of these expressions with realistic parameter values: $`W2`$ eV, $`JS\rho _01`$, $`\epsilon _\mathrm{F}0.3`$ eV, $`\epsilon _\mathrm{D}0.15`$ eV, shows that the main contribution into the integral, Eq. 7, comes from the BCS shell $`\mathrm{\Delta }<\epsilon <\epsilon _\mathrm{D}`$, where we have: $`F(\epsilon )1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0}<1F(\epsilon )1`$, while $`0<F(\epsilon )1`$ out of this shell, $`\epsilon _\mathrm{D}<\epsilon <\epsilon _\mathrm{F}`$ (Fig. 2). Taking in mind the relation $`\mathrm{ln}(\epsilon _\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{\Delta })W/(V\gamma _m)=W^2/(4V\epsilon _\mathrm{F})`$ which follows from Eq. 1, we obtain from Eq. 7 *almost complete* suppression: $`\eta _{sup}1`$. A small residual part $`0<1\eta _{sup}1`$ is only due to a small negative deviation of $`F(\epsilon )`$ from unity within the shell and to a small negative out-of-shell contribution. Thus, for the above indicated choice of parameters we have $`\eta _{sup}96\%`$. The value of $`1\eta _{sup}`$ yet diminishes with growing $`JS`$, but it should be stressed that no unitary limit $`JS\rho _01`$ is needed to get such a strong effect.

The decay of this maximum effect with separation $`𝐑`$ from the impurity is given, in similarity with Eq. 6, by

$$\eta _{sup}(𝐑)=\frac{V}{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑\epsilon \mathrm{Im}\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{G}_2(𝐑)\widehat{T}_2\widehat{G}_2(𝐑)\widehat{\tau }_1,$$
(8)
Here the matrix $`\widehat{G}_j(𝐑)=N^1_𝐤\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤𝐑}\alpha _{j,𝐤}\widehat{G}_𝐤`$, and for $`R\xi _\pm =a\sqrt{W/[8(\epsilon _\mathrm{F}\pm \epsilon )]}`$ it is mainly contributed by two saddle points in the complex $`k`$-plane: $`\pm \xi _\pm ^1iR^1`$, hence all its matrix elements decay asymptotically like $`\mathrm{cos}(R/\xi _\pm )/\sqrt{R/\xi _\pm }`$, and the non-diagonal elements contain yet the anisotropic factor $`(\mathrm{\Delta }/\epsilon )\mathrm{cos}2\psi `$ where $`\psi =\mathrm{arctan}R_y/R_x`$. However, for the energies $`\epsilon \epsilon _\mathrm{D}`$ relevant here, such anisotropy is less pronounced than that in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$ considered by Balatsky *et al* Bal . Integration in Eq. 8 results in asymptotic $`\eta _{sup}(𝐑)\eta _{sup}\sqrt{W/(8\epsilon _\mathrm{F})}_{i=\pm }(u_i+f_i\mathrm{cos}2\psi +h_i\mathrm{cos}4\psi )(a/R)`$ where $`h_if_iu_i1`$. This angular dependence resembles that for LDOS around Zn impurity, suggested by Haas and Maki from continuous Bogolyubov-de Gennes equations Haas , while the anomalously slow radial decay should enhance the overall suppression of SC order.

Besides the considered local suppression of the order parameter, related to the non-diagonal (in Nambu indices) elements of GF’s $`\widehat{G}_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}`$, there are also local effects related to their diagonal elements. Thus, the variation of local DOS (LDOS): $`\rho (𝐧)=(\pi N)^1_{𝐤,𝐤^{}𝐤}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐤𝐤^{})𝐧}\widehat{G}_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}\widehat{\tau }_3`$, attains its maximum at $`𝐧=\delta `$, nearest neighbor sites to the impurity, and Eq. 4 mainly contributes there by $`j=1`$: $`\rho (\delta )\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{G}_1(\delta )\widehat{T}_1\widehat{G}_1(\delta )\widehat{\tau }_3`$. The relevant GF’s are $`\widehat{G}_1(\delta )2N^1_𝐤\widehat{G}_𝐤=2(g_0+g_3\widehat{\tau }_3)`$, where $`g_0\rho _0\epsilon [\epsilon _\mathrm{F}^1+i(\pi /\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{arcsin}(\mathrm{\Delta }/\epsilon )]`$ and $`g_3\rho _0\mathrm{ln}(W/\epsilon _\mathrm{F})`$ LP2 . Considered as a function of energy, $`\rho (\delta )`$ displays a very sharp resonance in the denominator of $`\widehat{T}_1`$: $`\mathrm{Re}[12JSg_0(\epsilon )]^2(2JSg_3)^20`$ at $`\epsilon 0`$ (cf. Fig. 3) with the observed peak in the related tunnel conductivity Pan ) if the impurity perturbation parameter $`J`$ is close to $`J_{cr}=1/(2Sg_3)`$. This refers to a *fine tuned* rather than unitary perturbation $`J`$ and agrees with its choice made to estimate $`\eta _{sup}`$. The $`j=1`$ contribution also dominates in the Kondo-like local polarization of itinerant spins: $`m(\delta )_0^{\epsilon _\mathrm{F}}𝑑\epsilon \mathrm{Im}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐤𝐤^{})𝐧}\widehat{G}_1(\delta )\widehat{T}_1\widehat{G}_1(\delta )`$, which should explain the observed enhancement of exchange fields on 63Cu Wal  and 89Y Mah  nuclei close to Zn impurities. A more detailed treatment of these phenomena will be presented elsewhere.

The proposed model can be equally applied to isovalent substitutes for Cu, which are magnetic themselves, as Ni2+ or Fe2+. But, since the net MF on neighbor O sites in this case is due to incomplete AFM compensation of exchange fields by different magnetic ions, the perturbation parameter $`JS`$ may be *weaker* than that for non-magnetic Zn2+ and so the resulting suppression of SC order, as is observed in the experiment Bonn .

In conclusion, we developed a microscopic model of spin dependent perturbation on charge carriers in CuO2 planes, produced by a non-magnetic substitute for Cu. An almost complete suppression of $`d`$-wave order parameter at nearest neighbor sites to the impurity atom is obtained, as a result of parallel alignment of carrier spins in the exchange field $`JS`$ by non-compensated Cu2+ spins, and this strong effect is achieved with moderate $`JS`$ values. It decays with distance from impurity rather slowly, which can explain the fast destroying of SC order in cuprates already at low Zn concentration. The model also provides explanation for other local effects, such as a sharp resonance of LDOS and local polarization of charge carrier spins close to impurity.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge the partial support for this work from Portuguese Fundação de Ciência e Tecnologia through the project 2/2.1/FIS/302/94 and from Swiss Science Foundation under SCOPES-project 7UKPJ062150.00/1.


format: text

text:
# Pions in the Pionless Effective Field Theory

## I Introduction

For many processes involving pions scattering from multi-nucleon systems, the kinematics are such that the pions must be included as dynamical particles, as they can carry energy and momentum that is not small compared to their rest mass, and can be far off-shell. However, in the case of low-energy pion-deuteron ($`\pi d`$) scattering one has a situation where the pions can carry energy and momentum that puts them on or near their mass-shell, both on external legs and internally in some diagrams. Furthermore, given the small binding energy of the deuteron, the two nucleons in the deuteron are off their mass-shell by an amount that is far less than the pion mass. Therefore, we can construct an effective field theory (EFT) where non-relativistic nucleons interact via contact operators, and pions near their mass-shell are included as massless particles that generate a coulomb-like potential. The construction of this low-energy EFT is similar to the development of the heavy-quark effective theory (HQET)  and non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) .

The EFT relevant to momentum transfers much less than the pion mass, in which nucleons interact via contact operators, is known as the pionless EFT, or $`\mathrm{EFT}(\pi /)`$. The power-counting rules in $`\mathrm{EFT}(\pi /)`$ are now an established part of the nuclear physics literature and can be found in several review articles , together with reviews of the substantial array of phenomena that have been studied in $`\mathrm{EFT}(\pi /)`$. A recently developed variant of $`\mathrm{EFT}(\pi /)`$ is particularly suited to high-order, precision calculations . In this EFT, known as dibaryon pionless EFT, or $`\mathrm{dEFT}(\pi /)`$, the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ NN effective range parameter, $`r_3`$, is taken to be of order $`1/Q`$ in the power counting, where $`Q`$ is a small momentum . This naturally leads to the use of dibaryon fields to account for nonperturbative enhancements . In $`\mathrm{dEFT}(\pi /)`$, operators are ordered according to powers of the total center-of-mass energy . Unlike $`\mathrm{EFT}(\pi /)`$, the higher-dimension operators involving external fields are not renormalized by the S-wave strong interactions, and therefore do not scale with inverse powers of the renormalization scale. Thus, naive dimensional analysis of these operators is sufficient to estimate their contribution to a given process. Due to these technical advantages, we will work with $`\mathrm{dEFT}(\pi /)`$ in this paper.

## II Integrating in the Pions

Given that both $`\mathrm{EFT}(\pi /)`$  and $`\mathrm{dEFT}(\pi /)`$  have been studied in detail, the remaining ingredient is the pion. In analogy with HQET and heavy-baryon chiral perturbation theory (HB$`\chi `$PT), for processes involving the pions very near their mass-shell it is convenient to perform field redefinitions to remove the classical trajectory of a pion and use nonrelativistic kinematics. In the limit that the nucleon mass is infinitely larger than the pion mass, and the deuteron binding energy is taken to be much smaller than any other scale in the problem, the pion kinetic energy in the deuteron rest frame, $`T_\pi `$, can be taken to be a constant even in loop diagrams. Furthermore, the theory can be constructed in terms of the annihilation and creation operators for the pions. In loop diagrams the typical pion residual kinetic energy is of order $`\gamma ^2/M_N`$, while its momentum is of order $`\gamma `$, where $`\gamma `$ is the deuteron binding momentum. Thus, as is the case in NRQCD, it is possible and necessary to treat the residual energy operator in perturbation theory. Working in the isospin limit, the leading-order (LO) Lagrange density describing non-interacting “heavy pions”, $`\pi _h`$, is ***We could have chosen a different normalization for $`\pi _h`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_h=\sqrt{2m_\pi }\pi _h`$, in which case the kinetic term would be    $``$ $`=`$ $`\pi _h^+\left(T_\pi +{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{2m_\pi }}\right)\pi ^++\mathrm{},`$  (1)  which is a more familiar form for the non-relativistic Lagrange density. The ellipses denote the kinetic-energy terms for the $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^0`$.

$``$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}\left[M_h^{}\left(2m_\pi T_\pi +^2\right)M_h\right],`$ (2)
where $`T_\pi `$ is the kinetic energy of the pion and where $`m_\pi `$ is the pion mass. The subscript “$`h`$” denotes a heavy field, and we have defined the meson matrices

$`M_h`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\pi _h^0/\sqrt{2}& \pi _h^+\\ \pi _h^{}& \pi _h^0/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),M_h^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\pi _h^0/\sqrt{2}& \pi _h^{}\\ \pi _h^+& \pi _h^0/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).`$ (3)
There is an implied summation over all possible pions with kinetic energy $`T_\pi `$, just as there is a summation over all possible four-velocities in HQET. The operator $`\pi _h`$ annihilates a pion while the operator $`\pi _h^{}`$ creates a pion. The propagator for the pion has the form

$`D_{T_\pi }(q^0,𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2m_\pi T_\pi |𝐪|^2+iϵ}},`$ (4)
which is independent of $`q^0`$, and reduces down to that of a “potential photon” in NRQED or a “potential gluon” in NRQCD, (i.e. $`i/(|𝐪|^2iϵ)`$) in the limit that the pion has vanishing kinetic energy, $`T_\pi 0`$.

We describe deuteron properties using $`\mathrm{dEFT}(\pi /)`$, in which the scattering length and effective range in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$-channel are assumed to be unnaturally large, and to scale like $`1/Q`$ in the power-counting . The Lagrange density describing the dynamics of the nucleons and dibaryon, $`t^j`$, in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ channel is

$`_t`$ $`=`$ $`N^{}[i_0+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{2M_N}}]Nt_j^{}[i_0+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{4M_N}}\mathrm{\Delta }]t^jy[t_j^{}N^TP^jN+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.],`$ (5)
where $`y`$ is the coupling between nucleons in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ channel and the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$-dibaryon. The spin-isospin projector for the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ channel is

$`P^i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}}\sigma _2\sigma ^i\tau _2,\mathrm{Tr}\left[P^iP^j\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta ^{ij}.`$ (6)
It is easy to show that this Lagrange density alone reproduces the NN scattering amplitude in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$-channel, with scattering length $`a_3`$ and effective range $`r_3`$, when

$`y^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{M_N^2r_3}},\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{2}{M_Nr_3}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_3}}\mu ),`$ (7)
where $`\mu `$ is the renormalization scale. This identification is made after dressing the dibaryon propagator, as shown in Fig. 1. Higher order contributions to the scattering amplitude arising from the shape parameter and higher order terms in the effective range expansion are understood to be included perturbatively.

In order to have the incoming and outgoing nucleons near their mass-shell and also to have all the pions in a process near their mass-shell, there must be an equal number of pions entering and leaving each interaction vertex. As illustrated in Fig. 2, processes with a different number of pions entering than leaving  will be represented by local operators (on the scale of $`m_\pi `$) in the EFT. One can assign a charge to the pions –not carried by the nucleons– which must be conserved in all processes in the EFT. Interactions between a heavy pion and a nucleon are described by a Lagrange density of the form

$``$ $`=`$ $`c_0(T_\pi )N^{}N\mathrm{tr}\left[M_h^{}M_h\right]+c_1(T_\pi )N^{}\tau ^aN\mathrm{tr}\left[\tau ^a[M_h^{},M_h]\right].`$ (8)
As there are no loop contributions from the heavy pion fields For the bubble contributions to the $`\pi _hN`$ scattering amplitude, one can close the contour in the upper half of the complex energy plane to avoid enclosing a pole in the energy integration. Thus all bubble contributions vanish. This generalizes to all bubble diagrams involving heavy pions., the coefficients $`c_{0,1}(T_\pi )`$ represent the complete pion-nucleon ($`\pi N`$) scattering amplitude evaluated at the center of mass energy $`T_\pi `$. Hence, these coefficients are related to the parameters in the effective range expansion for $`\pi N`$ scattering via

$`c_0(T_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \left(1+\beta \right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{k\mathrm{cot}\delta _{\pi N}^+i\sqrt{2m_\pi T_\pi }}},`$ (9)
$`c_1(T_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \left(1+\beta \right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{k\mathrm{cot}\delta _{\pi N}^{}i\sqrt{2m_\pi T_\pi }}},`$ (10)
where the effective range expansion for $`k\mathrm{cot}\delta _{\pi N}^\pm `$ has the form

$`k\mathrm{cot}\delta _{\pi N}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^\pm }}+\mathrm{},`$ (11)
where $`a^\pm `$ are the scattering lengths in the s-wave isoscalar, $`(+)`$, and isovector channels,$`()`$, and $`\delta _{\pi N}`$ are the phase shifts for $`\pi N`$ scattering. The ellipses denote the contributions from the effective range terms and higher. We have retained the quantity $`\beta m_\pi /M_N`$ in these expressions as it arises from a trivial kinematic relation between the scattering amplitude and the Lagrange density when $`T_\pi =0`$. However, it is important to keep in mind that the there will be contributions from higher orders in the expansion that have factors of $`\beta `$ associated with them due to the explicit $`1/M_N`$ expansion. At threshold, these coefficients reduce down to

$`c_0(0)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi (1+\beta )a^+,c_1(0)=2\pi (1+\beta )a^{}.`$ (12)
To determine the coupling between the heavy pions and the dibaryon field in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$-channel, we realize that in the limit that the pions only interact once with the nucleons, and using the fact that the deuteron is isoscalar, the only contribution to the $`\pi d`$ amplitude is from the operator with coefficient $`c_0`$. Furthermore, this contribution must be absolutely normalized, as the pions couple to the baryon-number operator $`N^{}N`$. This gives rise to a uniquely determined interaction between the heavy pions and the dibaryon field, described by

$``$ $`=`$ $`2c_0(T_\pi )t_j^{}t^j\mathrm{tr}\left[M_h^{}M_h\right].`$ (13)
As the interactions induced by the heavy pions are subleading in the momentum expansion, it is anticipated that the modifications to eq. (13) occur only at subleading order. Indeed, at NLO in the EFT one expects a contribution from a counterterm whose coefficient is not dictated by baryon-number conservation. We write this contribution as

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (T_\pi ,\mu )}{\mathrm{\Lambda }M_Nr_3}}t_j^{}t^j\mathrm{tr}\left[M_h^{}M_h\right],`$ (14)
which scales like $`Q`$ in the $`\mathrm{dEFT}(\pi /)`$ power-counting. Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }m_\pi `$ and $`\mu `$ is the renormalization scale. In general, the coefficient function $`\eta (T_\pi ,\mu )`$ will have both real and imaginary parts, as bubble diagrams involving the pion vanish. The factors of $`M_N`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`r_3`$ enter as per the power-counting appropriate for dibaryon fields .

## III $`\pi d`$ Scattering

At low-momentum, the LO amplitude for $`\pi d`$ scattering receives contributions from the diagrams shown in Fig. 3. There is the one-loop diagram with a single insertion of the $`\pi N`$ scattering amplitudes in eq. (8), and the local $`\pi d`$ operator given in eq. (13).

At LO, the operator that is inserted in the deuteron is a charge operator, and consequently it is absolutely normalized at zero-momentum transfer, and the form factor is identical to that of the deuteron charge form factor  at LO. Therefore, at LO, the $`\pi d`$ scattering amplitude is

$`𝒜_{\pi d}^{(LO)}(T_\pi ,|𝐤|)`$ $`=`$ $`2c_0(T_\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma r_3}{1\gamma r_3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r_3|𝐤|}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐤|}{4\gamma }}\right)1\right],`$ (15)
where $`\gamma =\sqrt{M_NB}`$ is the deuteron binding momentum, with $`B`$ the deuteron binding energy. The momentum transfer to the deuteron is $`𝐤`$. As expected, this form factor reduces to $`𝒜_{\pi d}^{(LO)}=2c_0(T_\pi )`$, proportional to the isoscalar charge of the deuteron, in the limit $`𝐤0`$.

At next-to-leading-order (NLO) in the EFT expansion, there is a contribution from a two-loop diagram (rescattering) involving a heavy-pion propagating between the nucleons, and from a local $`\pi d`$ operator, as shown in Fig. 4.

The amplitude at NLO is

$`𝒜_{\pi d}^{(NLO)}(T_\pi ,|𝐤|)={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{(1\gamma r_3)}}[\stackrel{~}{\eta }(T_\pi ,\mu )`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}[c_0(T_\pi )^28c_1(T_\pi )^2](\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\left(2\gamma i\sqrt{2m_\pi T_\pi }\right)^2+|𝐤|^2}{4\mu ^2}}\right)`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4\left(2\gamma i\sqrt{2m_\pi T_\pi }\right)}{|𝐤|}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐤|}{2\left(2\gamma i\sqrt{2m_\pi T_\pi }\right)}}\right)2)],`$ (18)
where we have used the integrals given in the Appendix of Ref. . The two-loop diagram is logarithmically divergent and is regulated in the IR by the deuteron binding energy for incident pions with vanishing kinetic energy. The $`\mu `$-dependence of the counterterm, $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }(T_\pi ,\mu )`$, must exactly compensate the $`\mu `$-dependence of the loop diagram. We have used the relation $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }(T_\pi ,\mu )=\eta (T_\pi ,\mu )/(\mathrm{\Lambda }M_N)`$. Given that the scale where $`\mathrm{dEFT}(\pi /)`$ is expected to breakdown is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }m_\pi `$, we choose to renormalize the theory at $`\mu m_\pi `$.

In the $`T_\pi ,|𝐤|0`$ limit this amplitude reduces to

$`𝒜_{\pi d}^{(NLO)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{(1\gamma r_3)}}\left[\stackrel{~}{\eta }(0,\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\left[c_0(0)^28c_1(0)^2\right]\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma }{\mu }}\right)\right],`$ (19)
It is important to notice that there is a contribution that is non-analytic in the deuteron binding momentum, that is logarithmically enhanced, $`\mathrm{log}\left(\gamma /m_\pi \right)`$, arising from the two-loop diagram. This logarithm was found previously in the work of Borasoy and Grießhammer .

The scale dependence of the logarithm determines the naive-dimensional analysis (NDA) estimate for $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }(0,m_\pi )`$:

$`|\stackrel{~}{\eta }(0,m_\pi )|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}|c_0(0)^28c_1(0)^2|.`$ (20)
Note that the logarithmic divergence in the two-loop diagram modifies the NDA analysis for the dibaryon operators of Ref. . It is straightforward to show that other contributions to the amplitude, both momentum-dependent and momentum-independent, are higher order in the power-counting. Therefore the sum of amplitudes given in eq. (15) and eq. (18) constitute the complete amplitude up to NLO.

While we have constructed the EFT appropriate for describing the very-low energy behavior of $`\pi d`$ scattering, there is additional information that we have at our disposal from HB$`\chi `$PT. We know the chiral expansions of the coefficients $`c_0`$ and $`c_1`$; at LO, $`c_1(0)m_\pi `$ while $`c_0(0)m_\pi ^2`$ . Armed with this information we see that, in fact, $`𝒜_{\pi d}^{(LO)}c_0(0)`$ and $`𝒜_{\pi d}^{(NLO)}c_1(0)^2`$ are of the same order. This does not represent a breakdown of the low-energy EFT, but results from the LO amplitude being anomalously small. Thus, given the anomalous behavior of the LO amplitude, the leading contribution to low-energy $`\pi d`$ scattering is

$`𝒜_{\pi d}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_{\pi d}^{(LO)}+𝒜_{\pi d}^{(NLO)}+\mathrm{},`$ (21)
as given in eq. (15) and eq. (18). The ellipses denote terms that are higher order in the momentum expansion, suppressed by additional factors of $`\gamma /m_\pi `$.

To NLO, the $`\pi d`$ scattering length is given by

$`a_{\pi d}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{(1+\beta /2)}}`$ $`[(1+\beta )a^+`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma }{1\gamma r_3}}[(1+\beta )^2[(a^+)^22(a^{})^2]\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma }{m_\pi }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\eta }(0,m_\pi )}{16\pi }}]].`$
It is interesting to compare this formula with that given in Ref. . There, instead of the logarithm, one has the overlap of the coulomb-like pion propagator between deuteron wave functions. Of course, since logarithms are universal, the long-distance tail of any sensible deuteron wave function will generate the infrared logarithm. The choice of different deuteron wave functions corresponds to a different choice for the counterterm, $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }(0,m_\pi )`$. In principle, one may be able to determine $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }(0,m_\pi )`$ uniquely using wave functions  computed in a fully consistent pionful EFT .

We can estimate $`a_{\pi d}`$ by taking $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }(0,m_\pi )=0`$, which corresponds to choosing the scale of the logarithm to be set by $`m_\pi `$. We use the Neuchatel-PSI-ETHZ (NPE) pionic hydrogen measurement  We do not use the determinations of the scattering lengths in Ref.  which include a measurement of $`\mathrm{Re}\left(a_{\pi d}\right)`$ .  of the isovector $`\pi N`$ scattering length, $`a_{exp}^{}=\left(0.0905\pm 0.0042\right)m_\pi ^1`$. The isoscalar $`\pi N`$ scattering length, $`a_{exp}^+=\left(0.0022\pm 0.0043\right)m_\pi ^1`$ is consistent with zero  and therefore we will neglect it in our estimate of $`a_{\pi d}`$. Using $`m_\pi =m_{\pi ^+}=139.57\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`M_N=(M_n+M_p)/2=938.92\mathrm{MeV}`$, we find $`a_{\pi d}=0.019m_\pi ^1`$ as compared to the NPE pionic deuterium measurement  of $`\mathrm{Re}\left(a_{\pi d}^{exp}\right)=\left(0.0261\pm 0.0005\right)m_\pi ^1`$. Therefore, we see that the leading non-analytic piece provides the dominant contribution to $`\pi d`$ scattering. However, as expected, the contribution from the counterterm $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ is an important contribution that cannot be discarded. It is worth pointing out that an imaginary part of $`a_{\pi d}^{exp}`$ will be induced at higher orders in the expansion. This is consistent with the smallness of the measured value of $`\mathrm{Im}\left(a_{\pi d}^{exp}\right)=\left(0.0063\pm 0.0007\right)m_\pi ^1`$ .

The $`\pi d`$ scattering amplitude can be expressed entirely in terms of the $`\pi N`$ and $`\pi d`$ scattering lengths, and the difference $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }(T_\pi ,m_\pi )\stackrel{~}{\eta }(0,m_\pi )`$. At the order to which we are working, this latter difference will be completely imaginary, and will be determined from matching conditions. In particular, the scattering amplitude must be unitary (we are not allowing for energy transfer from the pion) and thus the optical theorem will determine $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }(T_\pi ,m_\pi )\stackrel{~}{\eta }(0,m_\pi )`$, since $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ is independent of the three-momentum transfer. Moreover, this difference will be independent of the renormalization scale at this order. Expanding out the scattering amplitudes in $`\sqrt{2m_\pi T_\pi }/m_\pi `$, we find

$`𝒜_{\pi d}(T_\pi ,|𝐤|)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi (1+\beta /2)a_{\pi d}+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi (1+\beta )}{1\gamma r_3}}a^+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\gamma }{|𝐤|}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐤|}{4\gamma }}\right)1\right]`$ (25)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi (a^+)^2\sqrt{2m_\pi T_\pi }(1+\beta )\gamma r_3}{1\gamma r_3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r_3|𝐤|}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐤|}{4\gamma }}\right)1\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi \gamma (1+\beta )^2\left[(a^+)^22(a^{})^2\right]}{1\gamma r_3}}[\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{16\gamma ^2}{4\left(2\gamma i\sqrt{2m_\pi T_\pi }\right)^2+|𝐤|^2}}\right)`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\left(2\gamma i\sqrt{2m_\pi T_\pi }\right)}{|𝐤|}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐤|}{2\left(2\gamma i\sqrt{2m_\pi T_\pi }\right)}}\right)+2]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{1\gamma r_3}}\left[\stackrel{~}{\eta }(T_\pi ,m_\pi )\stackrel{~}{\eta }(0,m_\pi )\right].`$
This expression provides the formally leading energy and momentum-transfer dependence of the $`\pi d`$ scattering amplitude. The formal EFT expansion parameters are $`\gamma /m_\pi `$ and $`p_\pi /m_\pi `$, where $`p_\pi `$ is the pion momentum. Since $`\gamma /m_\pi 1/3`$, we expect important higher order contributions, arising from the momentum dependence of the $`\pi N`$ scattering amplitude (and its effective range expansion) and also from higher-order $`\pi d`$ local operators involving two or more derivatives, which are suppressed by additional factors of $`\gamma /m_\pi `$.

In order to determine $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }(T_\pi ,m_\pi )\stackrel{~}{\eta }(0,m_\pi )`$ we integrate the square of the LO amplitude to obtain the cross section for $`\pi d`$ scattering, and then enforce unitarity order by order in the $`c_i`$’s. It is convenient to define the function, $`S(x)`$, where

$`S(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\gamma ^2r_3^2}}(4\left(\mathrm{tan}^1x\right)^2(\mathrm{log}xi{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})`$ (32)
$`i4\mathrm{tan}^1x\left(Li_2(e^{i2\mathrm{tan}^1x})Li_2(e^{i2\mathrm{tan}^1x})\right)`$
$`+2(Li_3(e^{i2\mathrm{tan}^1x})Li_3(e^{i2\mathrm{tan}^1x})){\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}\zeta (3))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma r_3}}(x\mathrm{tan}^1x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}[1+x^2])+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2}}],`$
which, by inspection, is real valued, and at $`x=0`$ has the value $`S(0)=\left(\frac{1\gamma r_3}{\gamma r_3}\right)^2`$. The functions $`Li_n(z)`$ are the polylogarithmic functions of order $`n`$. To the order we are working, unitarity implies

$`\stackrel{~}{\eta }(T_\pi ,m_\pi )\stackrel{~}{\eta }(0,m_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`i8\pi [{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma r_3}{\gamma }}(a^+)^2\sqrt{2m_\pi T_\pi }(12\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma r_3}{1\gamma r_3}}\right)^2S\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2m_\pi T_\pi }}{2\gamma }}\right))`$ (34)
$`2[(a^+)^22(a^{})^2]\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2m_\pi T_\pi }}{2\gamma }}\right)].`$
In this expression we have not included contributions of order $`\beta `$ or higher as they are higher order in the expansion. Evaluating eq. (28) numerically and using eqs. (32) and (34) we find that the amplitude at threshold is $`𝒜_{\pi d}(0,0)=0.46\mathrm{fm}`$. While at $`T_\pi =20\mathrm{MeV}`$ we find

$`𝒜_{\pi d}(20,0)`$ $`=`$ $`(0.30i0.00013)\mathrm{fm},𝒜_{\pi d}(20,150)=(0.27i0.038)\mathrm{fm}.`$ (35)
Clearly the imaginary part of the amplitude is subleading in the EFT expansion.

## IV Conclusion

In this work we have shown how to include pions into the pionless effective field theory. There are kinematic regimes in processes involving more than one nucleon with pions in the external states, where there are infrared enhancements resulting from pions being near their mass-shell in intermediate states. We have constructed an effective field theory to describe these processes and have analyzed $`\pi d\pi d`$. The scattering amplitude for this process is dominated by the leading non-analytic contribution of the form $`\mathrm{log}\left(\gamma /m_\pi \right)`$, which we can simply compute in this new effective field theory.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Jerry Miller, Iain Stewart and Bira van Kolck for valuable conversations. This work is supported in part by the U.S. Dept. of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-97ER4014.