What has been learnt from the analysis of the low-energy pion-nucleon data during the past three decades?
Abstract
Over twenty-five years ago, two analyses of the pion-nucleon () data at low energy (i.e., for pion laboratory kinetic energy MeV) reported on the departure of the extracted scattering amplitudes, corresponding to the two elastic-scattering reactions and to the charge-exchange reaction , from the triangle identity, which these amplitudes fulfil if the isospin invariance holds in the hadronic part of the interaction. This discrepancy indicates that \emph{at least one} of the following assumptions is not valid: first, that the absolute normalisation of the bulk of the low-energy datasets is correct; second, that any residual contributions to the corrections, which aim at the removal of the effects of electromagnetic (EM) origin from the measurements, are not significant; and third, that the isospin invariance holds in the hadronic part of the interaction. In view of the incompatibility of the results of the various schemes of removal of the so-called trivial EM effects at the threshold ( MeV), the likelihood of residual effects of EM origin in the extracted scattering amplitudes (from the data in the scattering region, i.e., above the threshold) must be reassessed. This work emphasises the importance of the development of a unified scheme for the determination of reliable EM corrections, \emph{applicable at the threshold and in the scattering region}, in providing a resolution to the established discrepancy at low energy.
Keywords
Cite
@article{arxiv.2205.02899,
title = {What has been learnt from the analysis of the low-energy pion-nucleon data during the past three decades?},
author = {Evangelos Matsinos},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.02899},
year = {2022}
}
Comments
60 pages, 11 figures, 3 tables. Changes to the first version: minor occasional modifications to improve readability; correction of one mistake on p. 44 (of the first version), two lines before Eq. (17); addition of three references: [34], [63], and [65] (updated version). No numerical values have been changed: the tables and the figures are identical to those of the first version