# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Whether or not quark degrees of freedom play a significant role in nuclei is one of the central questions in nuclear physics. Recently, tremendous efforts have been devoted to the study of medium modifications of hadron properties in a nucleus (which are in some sense precursors of the QCD phase transition) . At present lattice simulations have mainly been performed for finite temperature ($`T`$), with zero chemical potential. Therefore, many authors have investigated hadron properties at finite nuclear densities ($`\rho _B`$) using effective theories \[1–6\].

In this paper, we will introduce one of these effective theories, namely the quark-meson coupling (QMC) model , and then report the medium modification of the electromagnetic form factors of the bound proton in finite nuclei.

## 2 The quark-meson coupling model

### 2.1 Effect of nucleon structure

Let us suppose that a free nucleon (at the origin) consists of three light (u and d) quarks under a (Lorentz scalar) confinement potential, $`V_c`$. Then, the Dirac equation for the quark field $`\psi _q`$ is given by

$$[i\gamma m_qV_c(r)]\psi _q(r)=0,$$
(1)   
where $`m_q`$ is the bare quark mass.

Next we consider how Eq.(1) is modified when the nucleon is bound in static, uniformly distributed (iso-symmetric) nuclear matter. In the QMC model  it is assumed that each quark feels scalar $`V_s^q`$ and vector $`V_v^q`$ potentials, which are generated by the surrounding nucleons, as well as the confinement potential. Since the typical distance between two nucleons around normal nuclear matter density ($`\rho _0=0.15`$ fm<sup>-3</sup>) is surely larger than the typical size of the nucleon (the radius $`R_N`$ is $``$ 0.8 fm), the interaction (except for the short-range part) between the nucleons should be colour singlet, namely a meson-exchange potential. Therefore, this assumption seems appropriate when the baryon density $`\rho _B`$ is not high. If we use the mean-field approximation (MFA) for the meson fields, Eq.(1) may be rewritten as

$$[i\gamma (m_qV_s^q)V_c(r)\gamma _0V_v^q]\psi _q(r)=0.$$
(2)   
The potentials generated by the medium are constants because the matter distributes uniformly. As the nucleon is static, the time-derivative operator in the Dirac equation can be replaced by the quark energy $`iϵ_q`$. By analogy with the procedure applied to the nucleon in QHD , if we introduce the effective quark mass by $`m_q^{}=m_qV_s^q`$, the Dirac equation (2) can be rewritten in the same form as that in free space with the mass $`m_q^{}`$ and the energy $`ϵ_qV_v^q`$, instead of $`m_q`$ and $`ϵ_q`$. In other words, the vector interaction has no effect on the nucleon structure except for an overall phase in the quark wave function, which gives a shift in the nucleon energy. This fact does not depend on how to choose the confinement potential $`V_c`$. Then, the nucleon energy at rest in the medium is given by $`E_N=M_N^{}(V_s^q)+3V_v^q`$, where the effective nucleon mass $`M_N^{}`$ depends on only the scalar potential.

Now we extend this idea to finite nuclei. The solution of the general problem of a composite, quantum particle moving in background scalar and vector fields that vary with position is extremely difficult. One has, however, a chance to solve the particular problem of interest to us, namely light quarks confined in a nucleon which is itself bound in a finite nucleus, only because the nucleon motion is relatively slow and the quarks highly relativistic. Thus the Born-Oppenheimer approximation is naturally suited to the problem. Our approach in Ref. was to start with a classical nucleon and to allow its internal structure to adjust to minimise the energy of three quarks in the ground-state of a system under constant scalar and vector fields, with values equal to those at the centre of the nucleon. Having solved the problem using the meson fields at the centre of the nucleon, one can use perturbation theory to correct for the variation of the scalar and vector fields across the nucleon bag. In first order perturbation theory only the spatial components of the vector potential give a non-vanishing contribution. This extra term is a correction to the spin-orbit force .

As shown in Refs., the basic result in the QMC model is that, in the scalar and vector meson fields, the nucleon behaves essentially as a point-like particle with an effective mass $`M_N^{}`$, which depends on the position through only the scalar field, moving in a vector potential.

Let us suppose that the scalar and vector potentials in Eq.(2) are mediated by the $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$ mesons, and introduce their mean-field values, which now depend on position $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, by $`V_s^q(\stackrel{}{r})=g_\sigma ^q\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})`$ and $`V_v^q(\stackrel{}{r})=g_\omega ^q\omega (\stackrel{}{r})`$, respectively, where $`g_\sigma ^q`$ ($`g_\omega ^q`$) is the coupling constant of the quark-$`\sigma `$ ($`\omega `$) meson. Furthermore, we shall add the isovector vector meson $`\rho `$ and the Coulomb field $`A(\stackrel{}{r})`$ to describe finite nuclei realistically . Then, the effective Lagrangian density for finite nuclei, involving the quark degrees of freedom in the nucleon and the (structureless) meson fields in MFA, would be given by 

$`_{QMCI}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }[i\gamma M_N^{}g_\omega \omega \gamma _0g_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{\tau _3^N}{2}}b\gamma _0{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}(1+\tau _3^N)A\gamma _0]\psi `$ (3)   
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(\sigma )^2+m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(\omega )^2+m_\omega ^2\omega ^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(b)^2+m_\rho ^2b^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A)^2,`$   
where $`\psi `$ and $`b`$ are respectively the nucleon and the $`\rho `$ fields. $`m_\sigma `$, $`m_\omega `$ and $`m_\rho `$ are respectively the (constant) masses of the $`\sigma `$, $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ mesons. $`g_\omega `$ and $`g_\rho `$ are respectively the $`\omega `$-N and $`\rho `$-N coupling constants, which are given by $`g_\omega =3g_\omega ^q`$ and $`g_\rho =g_\rho ^q`$ (where $`g_\rho ^q`$ is the quark-$`\rho `$ coupling constant). We call this model the QMC-I model . If we define the field-dependent $`\sigma `$-N coupling constant $`g_\sigma (\sigma )`$ by

$$M_N^{}(\sigma (\stackrel{}{r}))M_Ng_\sigma (\sigma (\stackrel{}{r}))\sigma (\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(4)   
where $`M_N`$ is the free nucleon mass, it is easy to compare with QHD . The difference between QMC-I and QHD lies only in the coupling constant $`g_\sigma `$, which depends on the scalar field in QMC-I while it is constant in QHD. However, this difference leads to a lot of favorable results.

Here we consider the nucleon mass in matter further. The nucleon mass is a function of the scalar field. Because the scalar field is small at low density the nucleon mass may be expanded in terms of $`\sigma `$ as

$$M_N^{}=M_N+\left(\frac{M_N^{}}{\sigma }\right)_{\sigma =0}\sigma +\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{^2M_N^{}}{\sigma ^2}\right)_{\sigma =0}\sigma ^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(5)   
Since the interaction Hamiltonian between the nucleon and the $`\sigma `$ field at the quark level is given by $`H_{int}=3g_\sigma ^q𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\overline{\psi }_q\sigma \psi _q`$, the derivative of $`M_N^{}`$ with respect to $`\sigma `$ is $`3g_\sigma ^q𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\overline{\psi }_q\psi _q(3g_\sigma ^qS_N(\sigma ))`$, where we have defined the quark-scalar density in the nucleon $`S_N(\sigma )`$, which is itself a function of the scalar field. Because of a negative value of the derivative, the nucleon mass decreases in matter at low density.

Furthermore, we define the scalar-density ratio $`S_N(\sigma )/S_N(0)`$ to be $`C_N(\sigma )`$ and the $`\sigma `$-N coupling constant in free space to be $`g_\sigma `$ (i.e., $`g_\sigma =g_\sigma (\sigma =0)=g_\sigma =3g_\sigma ^qS_N(0)`$). Using these quantities, we find

$$M_N^{}=M_Ng_\sigma \sigma \frac{1}{2}g_\sigma C_N^{}(0)\sigma ^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(6)   
In general, $`C_N`$ is a decreasing function because the quark in matter is more relativistic than in free space. Thus, $`C_N^{}(0)`$ takes a negative value. If the nucleon were structureless $`C_N`$ would not depend on the scalar field. Therefore, only the first two terms in the RHS of Eq.(6) remain, which is exactly the same as the equation for the effective nucleon mass in QHD .

### 2.2 Effect of meson structure

It is true that not only the nucleon but also the mesons are built of quarks and anti-quarks, and that the mesons may change their properties in a nuclear medium. In Ref., we have studied the structure effects of both the nucleon and the mesons on the properties of finite nuclei. (We call this model QMC-II.) For further detailes on QMC-II, see Ref. and references in the next section.

### 2.3 Infinite nuclear matter in QMC-I

From the Lagrangian density Eq.(3), we can easily find the total energy per nucleon $`E_{tot}/A`$ and the (constant) mean-field values of $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ (which are respectively given by baryon number conservation and the difference in proton and neutron densities). The scalar mean-field is given by a self-consistency condition, namely $`(dE_{tot}/d\sigma )=0`$.

Now we need a model for the structure of the hadrons involved to perform actual calculations. We use the MIT bag model in static, spherical cavity approximation. In the present model, the bag constant $`B`$ and the parameter $`z_N`$ (which accounts for the sum of the c.m. and gluon fluctuation corrections ) for the nucleon are fixed to reproduce the free nucleon mass ($`M_N`$ = 939 MeV) and the free bag radius $`R_N`$ = 0.8 fm. In the following we choose $`m_q`$ = 5 MeV, and set $`m_\sigma `$ = 550 MeV, $`m_\omega `$ = 783 MeV and $`m_\rho `$ = 770 MeV. (Variations of the quark mass and $`R_N`$ only lead to numerically small changes in the calculated results .) We then find that $`B^{1/4}`$ = 170.0 MeV and $`z_N`$ = 3.295.

The coupling constants ($`g_\sigma ^2`$ and $`g_\omega ^2`$) are fixed to fit the average binding energy ($`15.7`$ MeV) at the saturation density ($`\rho _0`$) for symmetric nuclear matter. Furthermore, the $`\rho `$-N coupling constant is used to reproduce the bulk symmetry energy, 35 MeV. We then find : $`g_\sigma ^2/4\pi `$ = 5.40, $`g_\omega ^2/4\pi `$ = 5.31 and $`g_\rho ^2/4\pi `$ = 6.93. Note that the model gives the nuclear incompressibility about 280 MeV, and the variations of the nucleon bag radius $`\delta R_N^{}/R_N=0.02`$, the lowest eigenvalue $`\delta x_N^{}/x_N=0.16`$ and the root-mean-square radius of the quark wave function $`\delta r_q^{}/r_q=+0.02`$ at saturation density .

## 3 Applications

The idea of the QMC model was first proposed by Guichon  in 1988, and later it has been developed by Adelaide group. In particular, Saito and Thomas have applied this model to various phenomena in nuclear physics. We here list up those applications:

* Nuclear structure functions and the EMC effect ,
* Equation of state (EoS) for nuclear and neutron matter ,
* Charge symmetry breaking in nuclear matter – the Nolen-Schiffer anomaly ,
* Variation of hadron masses and matter properties in dense nuclear matter ,
* Super-allowed Fermi beta-decay – the unitarity problem of the CKM matrix element ,
* Properties of finite nuclei ,
* Naturalness in the QMC model ,
* Hyper nuclei ,
* Electromagnetic form factors of the bound nucleon ,
* In-medium Kaon properties ,
* Meson-nucleus bound states .

Furthermore, the original QMC model was improved by Jin and Jennings , in which the bag constant $`B`$ is allowed to decrease in nuclear matter. This version is called the modified QMC (MQMC) model. The MQMC model has also used to calculate the properties of finite nuclei, and the relationship among QMC, MQMC and QHD is clarified .

## 4 Form factors of the bound nucleon

As an example of recent applications, we show the in-medium modifications of the form factors of the nucleon . In QMC, the quark wave function, as well as the nucleon wave function (both are Dirac spinors), are determined once a solution to equations of motion are found self-consistently . The electromagnetic form factors for a proton bound in a specific orbit $`\alpha `$, in local density approximation, are then simply given by

$$G_{E,M}^\alpha (Q^2)=G_{E,M}(Q^2,\rho _B(\stackrel{}{r}))\rho _{p\alpha }(\stackrel{}{r})𝑑\stackrel{}{r},$$
(7)   
where $`G_{E,M}(Q^2,\rho _B(\stackrel{}{r}))`$ is the density-dependent form factor of a “proton” immersed in nuclear matter with a local baryon density, $`\rho _B(\stackrel{}{r})`$ (see Ref.). Using the calculated nucleon shell model wave functions, the local baryon density and the local proton density in the specified orbit $`\alpha `$ are easily evaluated.

The notable medium modifications of the quark wavefunction inside the bound nucleon include a reduction of its frequency and an enhancement of the lower component of the Dirac spinor. As in earlier work , the corrections arising from recoil and center of mass motion for the bag are made using the Peierls-Thouless projection method, combined with Lorentz contraction of the internal quark wave function and with the perturbative pion cloud added afterwards. Additional, possible effects of off-shell form factors and meson exchange currents are ignored in the present, exploratory study. The resulting nucleon electromagnetic form factors agree with experiment quite well in free space , at least for momentum transfer less than 1 GeV<sup>2</sup>.

In order to reduce the theoretical uncertainties, we prefer to show the ratios of the form factors with respect to corresponding free space values. In Fig. 1 we show the ratios of the electric and magnetic form factors for <sup>16</sup>O, which has one $`s`$-state ($`1s_{1/2}`$) and two $`p`$-states ($`1p_{3/2}`$ and $`1p_{1/2}`$). As expected, both the electric and magnetic rms radii become slightly larger and the magnetic moment of the proton is also larger than the free value. The momentum dependence of the form factors for the $`1s`$-orbit nucleon is more supressed than those of the $`1p`$-states. This is because the inner orbit in <sup>16</sup>O experiences a larger average baryon density. The magnetic moment for the $`1s`$-orbit nucleon increases by about 7%, but, in the $`1p`$-orbits, it is reduced by about $`23`$% from the $`1s`$-orbit value. The difference between two $`1p`$-orbits is rather small. For comparison, we also show in Fig. 1 the corresponding ratio of form factors (curves with triangles) using MQMC  where the bag constant is allowed to decrease by 10% . The effect of a possible reduction in $`B`$ is quite large and severely reduces the electromagnetic form factors of the bound nucleon.

From the experimental point of view, the ratio, $`G_E/G_M`$, can be derived directly from the ratio of transverse to longitudinal polarization of the outgoing proton, with minimal systematic errors. We find that $`G_E/G_M`$ runs roughly from 0.41 at $`Q^2=0`$ to 0.28 at $`Q^2=1\text{ GeV}^2`$ for a proton in the $`1s`$-orbit in <sup>16</sup>O. The ratio of $`G_E/G_M`$ with respect to the corresponding free space ratio is presented in Fig. 2. The result for the $`1s`$-orbit in <sup>16</sup>O is close to that in <sup>4</sup>He and about $`23`$% lower than that for the $`1p`$-orbits in <sup>16</sup>O. We also find that the effect of the reduction in $`B`$ has a significant effect on this ratio of ratios, especially for larger $`Q^2`$.

For completeness, we have also calculated the orbital electric and magnetic form factors for heavy nuclei such as <sup>40</sup>Ca and <sup>208</sup>Pb . Because of the larger central baryon density of heavy nuclei, the proton electric and magnetic form factors in the inner orbits suffer much stronger medium modifications than those in light nuclei. That is to say, the $`Q^2`$ dependence is further suppressed, while the magnetic moments appear to be larger. Surprisingly, the nucleons in peripheral orbits ($`1d_{5/2}`$, $`2s_{1/2}`$, and $`1d_{3/2}`$ for <sup>40</sup>Ca and $`2d_{3/2}`$, $`1h_{11/2}`$, and $`3s_{1/2}`$ for <sup>208</sup>Pb) still endure significant medium effects, and comparable to those in <sup>4</sup>He.

## 5 Conclusion

In summary, we have reviewed the quark-meson coupling model, in which the quark degrees of freedom are explicitly involved to describe not only the nuclear matter but also finite nuclei. Then, we have shown the electric and magnetic form factors for the proton bound in specific orbits for several closed-shell nuclei. Generally the electromagnetic rms radii and the magnetic moments of the bound proton are increased by the medium modifications. In view of current experimental developments, including the ability to precisely measure electron-nucleus scattering polarization observables, it should be possible to detect differences between the form factors in different shell model orbits. The current and future experiments at TJNAF and Mainz therefore promise to provide vital information with which to guide and constrain dynamic microscopic models for finite nuclei, and perhaps unambiguously isolate a signature for the role of quarks.

I am pleased to thank Tony Thomas, Kazuo Tsushima, Ding Lu and Tony Williams for valuable discussions and comments. This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.