collinder 419 is an open cluster in the constellation cygnus .
it was first designated as barnard  794 ( barnard 1927 ) , but the accepted name comes from the work of collinder ( 1931 ) who classified the cluster as a @xmath3  normae cluster .
this is an intermediate type of grouping between multiple star systems and open clusters .
the prototype cluster ngc  6169 contains the bright star @xmath3  normae = hd  149038 and a host of surrounding fainter stars . in the case of collinder 419 , the bright central star is hd  193322 = hr  7767 = hip  100069 = wds  20181 + 4044 .
hd  193322 is a multiple star system with a close visual companion stf 2666 ab ( separation of @xmath4 and probably orbitally bound ) and two more distant companions , stf 2666 ac ( @xmath5 ) and tar 5 ad ( @xmath6 ) , which , if bound have very long orbital periods .
mcalister et al .
( 1987 ) discovered that the a component is a speckle binary , chr 96 aa , ab . an approximately 31 year orbital period for this pair was computed by hartkopf et al .
in addition , one of the components of the speckle binary is a spectroscopic binary with a 311.03@xmath70.25 day period ( fullerton 1990 ; mckibben et al .
fullerton ( 1990 ) also obtained a spectrum of the b component that suggests that it may also be a spectroscopic binary .
thus , the central ab pair may contain as many as five individual stars .
the primary of the system , aa1 , has a spectral type of o9  v:((n ) ) ( walborn 1972 ) , with the suffix indicating slightly broadened lines .
mckibben et al .  ( 1998 ) tentatively identify the close spectroscopic companion aa2 and the b component all as b - type stars .
the magnitude difference of the speckle pair aa , ab is @xmath8 ( mason et al .
2009 ) which suggests that ab is also an early b - type star .
both the aa2 and ab companions offer us the means to determine mass for the o star component aa1 through measurement of the orbital motion . by themselves , neither an orbit of the aa , ab pair nor the spectroscopic aa1,aa2 pair will yield a mass , but , in conjunction with a distance determination , a mass can be determined .
the _ hipparcos _ catalogue ( perryman et al .
1997 ) has become the standard source for parallaxes , but it may be unreliable for some double stars ( shatskii & tokovinin 1998 ) and also for distant o stars ( schrder et al .
2004 ) . until a new space - based parallax engine is available sometime in the next decade
we are left with classical techniques as the best way to determine o - star distances .
we are currently pursuing efforts to determine the orbits of the central triple through speckle and optical long baseline interferometry ( turner et al .
2008 ) . here
we present a new assessment of the distance to the cluster that we will use in the forthcoming orbit and mass determination . in
2 we present spectral classifications for the brighter members , and we show fits of their spectral energy distributions that provide estimates of reddening and angular size . we then describe in  3 an astrometric and photometric study of cluster membership based upon data in the ucac3 catalog ( zacharias et al .
2010 ) and the 2mass catalog ( cutri et al .
we also present new @xmath0 photometry of the fainter cluster members in  4 .
our results are summarized in  5 .
we obtained spectra for five of the brighter stars in the cluster in order to determine spectral classifications and to estimate the intrinsic colors of the stars .
one of us ( mvm ) obtained spectra of the four blue stars of the central multiple system using the kitt peak national observatory ( kpno ) 2.1  m telescope and cassegrain focus , goldcam ccd spectrograph .
these spectra were made during 2005 october and november with the no .  47 grating ( 831 grooves mm@xmath9 ) in second order to obtain a resolving power @xmath10 .
the observed wavelength range was 4050  4950  , a region that includes numerous h balmer , , and lines in o- and b - type spectra .
the data were reduced using standard routines in iraf .
the flux rectified spectra were compared directly to spectra from the atlas of valdes et al .
( 2004 ) in order to estimate the spectral classification based upon the strengths of the h balmer , , , and lines .
our results are given in table  1 for the b , c , and d components of hd  193322 .
see figures [ fig_hd193322b ]  [ fig_hd193322d ] for the comparision between the target stars and the template spectra .
our spectra for the combined flux of aa1 , aa2 , and ab agree with the o9  v:((n ) ) classification from walborn ( 1972 ) , which is listed in table  1 .
these classifications all agree within a subtype with earlier results ( burnichon 1975 ; hoffleit 1982 ; abt & cardona 1983 ) .
the very red star iras  20161 + 4035 is the brightest object in the @xmath11-band in this vicinity , and we were curious to determine if indeed it is related to the cluster .
one of us ( edg ) obtained three spectra of the object with the kpno 0.9  m coude feed telescope in 2004 october .
these spectra cover the range from 6460 to 7140   with a resolving power @xmath12 .
the average spectrum is compared to several other cool star spectra from valdes et al .
( 2004 ) ( also made with the kpno coude feed telescope ) in figure [ red_spectra ] .
we made a digital comparison with all the m2
m5 spectra in the valdes et al .
spectral atlas , and the best fit ( based mainly on the appearance of the strong tio bands in this spectral region ) was the spectrum of the m3  ii star hd  40239 ( although there were a number of other m3  iii spectra which made an almost equally good fit ) .
figure [ red_spectra ] shows the good overall match made with the m2  ii and m3  iii giants compared to the dwarf and supergiant spectra .
we also measured the h@xmath13 equivalent width in these and similar stars to help establish the luminosity class ( eaton 1995 ) .
we found that among stars of similar spectral type that the mean equivalent width of h@xmath13 ranged from @xmath14   for 2 main sequence stars , to @xmath15   for 4 giant stars , and up to @xmath16   for 3 supergiant stars .
the measured h@xmath13 equivalent width of iras  20161 + 4035 , 1.38  , clearly places the star among those in the giant luminosity class , and we adopted this assignment in table  1 .
note that the spectrum of iras  20161 + 4035 shows the strongest @xmath17 feature among the spectra illustrated in figure [ red_spectra ] .
we can use these spectral classifications to estimate the intrinsic colors of the targets , compare these with observed multi - color observations , and find the reddening @xmath18 in each case .
however , the available near - ir 2mass photometry for hd  193322 corresponds to the total flux for the entire aa1 , aa2 , ab , and b complex .
thus , we need to make some assumptions about the relative flux contributions of each component in each filter band to derive magnitudes and fluxes for the individual stars
. the magnitude differences of the ab pair were determined in the johnson @xmath19 bands through adaptive optics imaging by ten brummelaar et al .
unfortunately , much less is known about the a sub - components .
mason et al .
( 2009 ) found a magnitude difference of @xmath8 mag for the aa , ab speckle pair , and mckibben et al .
( 1998 ) used a statistical method to estimate the mass ratio and magnitude difference @xmath20 mag for the aa1,aa2 pair in the spectroscopic binary .
these magnitude differences ( plus @xmath21 for the ab pair from ten brummelaar et al .
2000 ) lead to @xmath22-band flux ratios relative to star aa1 that are given in table  2 . to derive the flux ratios in other bands
, we estimated their colors according to their spectral classification and the color calibration from wegner ( 1994 ) .
we assumed that the aa2 and ab stars are main sequence objects and then estimated their spectral types ( b1.5  v and b1  v , respectively ) based on their magnitude differences relative to aa1 ( using the absolute magnitude versus spectral type relation for main sequence stars from lesh 1979 ) .
table  2 lists the adopted flux ratio estimates for the sub - components ( which agree with those from ten brummelaar et al .  for the johnson @xmath23 bands , but not for their @xmath24-band result for which component b is unusually faint in @xmath24 relative to the other bands ) .
we used these flux ratios to determine the magnitudes of aa1 and b , the stars with reliable spectral classifications , in the following analysis .
note that the current flux ratio uncertainties probably introduce an error of @xmath25 mag into the error budget for the magnitudes of these two stars .
we estimated the reddening and angular sizes of the five bright stars listed in table  1 by comparing their observed fluxes with reddened model spectral energy distributions .
the optical magnitudes were taken from the work of ten brummelaar et al .
( 2000 ; for components aa1 and b ) , burnichon & garnier ( 1976 ; for components c and d ) and droege et al .
( 2006 ; plus @xmath0 magnitudes given in  4 for iras 20161 + 4035 ) , and these were combined with 2mass magnitudes for the near - ir ( cutri et al .  2003 ) .
the magnitudes were transformed to fluxes using calibrations from colina et al .
( 1996 ; johnson @xmath26 ) , bessell et al .  ( 1998 ; cousins @xmath27 ) , and cohen et al .
( 2003 ; 2mass @xmath28 ) .
we used kurucz model atmospheres ( assuming @xmath29 , solar abundances , and a microturbulent velocity of 2 km  s@xmath9 ) for temperatures from the spectral calibration of bhm - vitense ( 1981 ; see table  1 ) to create low resolution versions of the unreddened spectral energy distributions ( seds ) .
however , for the case of iras 20161 + 4035 ( m3  iii ) , we adopted a flux distribution from the marcs code ( gustafsson et al .
2008 ) for a model with @xmath30  k , @xmath31 , solar abundances , and a microturbulent velocity of 5 km  s@xmath9 .
we then fit the observed fluxes with model seds reddened according to the formulation from fitzpatrick ( 1999 ) .
because the stars have low reddening and limited short - wavelength coverage , it is difficult to obtain an independent estimate of the ratio of total - to - selective extinction @xmath32 , so we adopted the default value @xmath33 throughout .
the derived reddening @xmath18 and limb - darkened angular diameter @xmath34 are given in table  1 .
the blue stars yield a consistent reddening of @xmath35 mag , which is significantly less than that found for iras 20161 + 4035 , @xmath36 mag .
the sed for this red star is shown in figure [ fig_sed ] , and we see that there appears to be an ir flux - excess of @xmath37 near @xmath38 m , based upon data from the msx ( egan & price 1996 ) and iras missions .
we argue below (  5 ) that the higher reddening and ir - excess may be related to the youth of this star .
with the recent release of the third u.  s.  naval observatory ccd astrograph catalog ( ucac3 ; zacharias et al .  2010 )
, we now have access to a large collection of astrometric and photometric data that can be used to search for additional cluster members . we began by selecting all the stars in ucac3 with complete sets of proper motion and photometric data that are found within a @xmath39 radius of hd  193322 , the nominal center of cr  419 .
we show in figure [ fig_stellar_density ] the average surface density of star counts within annuli centered on the position of hd  193322 . the larger surface density associated with
the cluster extends outwards to at least @xmath40 , and we set the outer boundary on cluster membership at @xmath41 to avoid including too many field stars at large distance .
figure [ dss_image ] shows a @xmath39 field centered on hd 193322 and shows the low stellar density of the cluster .
the image is from the near - ir plates of second palomar observatory sky survey ( poss2-ir ) @xcite .
figure [ fig_proper_motion ] shows the distribution of proper motions of stars found within this radius .
the circle in the diagram is centered on @xmath42 mas y@xmath9 and @xmath43 mas y@xmath9 , the average values for the bright cluster stars ( hd  193322a , c , d , and hd  228810 ) .
there appears to be a bimodal distribution in proper motion in this direction , so we selected only those stars within the circle , i.e. , those with a combined proper motion difference from the cluster mean of less than 11 mas y@xmath9 ( the rms of the ucac3 proper motion errors and the expected range within the cluster itself ) . the constraints of position and proper motion reduced the potential sample to a group of 96 stars .
the histogram in figure  [ fig_stellar_density ] also demonstrates that there will be a significant number of field stars in this sample . to estimate this number
, we applied the same proper motion constraint to the ucac3 sample within a separation range of @xmath41 to @xmath44 , and this indicates that the surface density of field stars in this direction with similar proper motions to the bright cluster stars is @xmath45 stars per @xmath46 .
thus , we might expect to find some @xmath47 field stars in the @xmath41 radius circle centered on hd  193322 .
this exercise suggests that the actual number of cluster stars is small ( perhaps @xmath48 total - @xmath49 field @xmath50 cluster stars ) and that the sample will be dominated by other field stars .
we next considered the photometric data in ucac3 , which consists of 2mass photometry and the ucac3 red - band photometry that we will refer to as @xmath51 ( to distinguish it from the johnson and cousins counterparts ) .
this filter has a bandpass from 579 to 642  nm that falls between the johnson @xmath22 and cousins @xmath52 bands .
the ucac3 catalog reports magnitudes from centroid fit models and aperture photometry , and we used the latter in our analysis .
the ucac3 listing for hd  193322 corresponds to the total flux from components aa1 , aa2 , ab , and b , and we used the flux ratios given in table  2 to determine the corresponding magnitudes for stars aa1 and b only .
our goal is to compare the magnitudes of the candidate member stars with model predictions for given assumptions about the reddening @xmath18 and distance modulus dm , in order to find values of these parameters that lead to the best fit of the photometry .
we adopted model isochrones for the cluster from the evolutionary models of bertelli et al .
( 1994 ) and marigo et al .
we selected an isochrone for solar metallicity and a cluster age of 7  myr , the value proposed by kharchenko et al .
( 2005 ) and one that is consistent for a time of flight from cr  419 of the runaway star 68  cyg ( schilbach & rser 2008 ) . the isochrones were produced for a number of photometric bands including johnson @xmath22 , cousins @xmath52 , and 2mass @xmath28 .
we need to transform the model optical magnitudes into the @xmath51 system in order to compare them with the ucac3 values .
we used a sample of 402 photometric standard stars from landolt ( 1992 ) that appear in ucac3 to arrive at a transformation equation from johnson @xmath22 and cousins @xmath52 to ucac3 @xmath51 , @xmath53 which successfully fits the observed ucac3 @xmath51 magnitudes over the range @xmath54 with a standard deviation of 0.116 mag .
the color term in the equation shows how the @xmath51 magnitude changes with stellar color because of the difference in the effective wavelengths of the @xmath51 and @xmath52 bands . the final term on the right hand side reflects a small systematic difference between the landolt and ucac3 systems that is approximately equal to the scatter in the relation at the bright and faint ends of the sample .
we can apply a few other constraints to limit the number of field stars that may exist within the astrometric group of cluster candidates .
figure [ fig_ir_colors ] shows the near - ir color - color diagram for the sample together with unreddened ( _ solid line _ ) and reddened ( _ dashed line _ ) versions of the cluster isochrone .
the numbers beside the unreddened version indicate the stellar mass corresponding to the color pair , and massive stars have colors in the lower part of the diagram .
the reddening vector direction is indicated by the dotted line .
comern et al .
( 2002 ) and others have argued that the reddening - free parameter @xmath55 ( fitzpatrick 1999 ; indebetouw et al .
2005 ) provides an excellent means to identify massive , reddened stars that typically have @xmath56 .
we decided to apply this criterion by restricting the sample to those massive stars with @xmath57 , the model value for a star of mass @xmath58 .
imposing this limit will mean that we lose fainter , red cluster members , but , on the other hand , we will also remove cool background giants and cooler , low mass , foreground stars that do not belong to the cluster ( for example , those stars found near the unreddened isochrone between 0.8 and @xmath59 ) .
we also applied a faint limit constraint , @xmath60 , to avoid stars with large magnitude errors .
since our initial sample was drawn from ucac3 stars with complete photometric coverage , the result is that this sample tends towards stars with equal magnitude in all filters at the faint end .
this group probably includes foreground a - type stars , so applying the faint limit will help us remove such stars from consideration .
we show two versions of the color  magnitude diagram in figures [ fig_ucac3_color_mag ] & [ fig_2mass_color_mag ] . both of these show evidence of a main sequence group at the blue end , but both also show a large population of redder stars that lie above the expected main sequence . in order to remove such targets , we restricted the sample to those with @xmath61 .
this constraint , together with the @xmath62 limit described above , will result in a sample without any low mass , main sequence members .
our final constraint is based on how closely the magnitudes match the model isochrone values . for any given choice of @xmath18 and
dm , we formed an average @xmath63 statistic between all the observed and model magnitudes ( reddened according to the relations given by fitzpatrick 1999 ) for each mass point along the model isochrone . the best fit ( lowest @xmath63 ) model point was taken as an appropriate mass for the specific star .
those stars with magnitudes and colors very different from the main sequence values will have a large minimum @xmath63 , and we restricted our final sample of main sequence cluster members to those with @xmath64 , a value high enough to include those cases where the observational photometric errors are underestimated .
the final sample consists of 16 stars that are listed in table  3 and are indicated in figures [ fig_ir_colors ]  [ fig_2mass_color_mag ] by plus signs .
note that we make the tacit assumption that the same reddening can be applied to all cluster members , and this can only be true in some average sense .
there may be a reddening gradient across this field ( schlegel et al .
1998 ) and some of the youngest objects may suffer from circumstellar dust reddening .
nevertheless , until spectroscopy is available for many stars and their intrinsic colors found , we must accept this working hypothesis .
we performed a grid search over a range of @xmath18 and dm to find those values that minimized the average @xmath63 value for the selected cluster stars .
the best fit was made with @xmath1 mag and dm @xmath65 mag , yielding an average photometric statistic of @xmath66 .
the isochrones for these parameters are plotted in figures [ fig_ir_colors ]  [ fig_2mass_color_mag ] , and the corresponding main sequence masses from the isochrone are listed in the final column of table 3 .
our derived reddening estimate is mainly consistent with earlier estimates for the cluster and star ( @xmath67 , kharchenko et al .
2005 ; @xmath68 , burnichon 1975 ; @xmath69 , schrder et al .
2004 ; @xmath70 , cardelli et al .
the reddening is slightly larger than that found by sed fitting for the blue stars ( table  1 ) , but we suspect that the differences arise in the variable reddening across the cluster .
we also repeated the analysis using an isochrone for a younger cluster ( age 3 myr ) , but the results were unchanged because the predicted colors and magnitudes were only significantly different for the most massive star hd  193322aa1 ( the predicted colors are marginally closer to the observed ones for the 7 myr isochrone ) .
there are many stars that are plotted above the main sequence in figures  [ fig_ucac3_color_mag ] & [ fig_2mass_color_mag ]
. some of these stars may belong to a massive and more distant population .
for example , in the infrared color - color diagram ( fig .
[ fig_ir_colors ] ) , there appears to be a reddened group of ob stars near @xmath71 and @xmath72 .
an independent analysis of the 2mass magnitudes of stars in the vicinity of cr  419 by david turner ( priv .
communication ) suggests that these correspond to objects with @xmath73 at a distance of 1.6  kpc that may be associated with the nearby cluster berkeley  87 @xcite .
we show how the 7  myr isochrone would appear for such reddened and distant stars as a dotted line in figures  [ fig_ucac3_color_mag ] and [ fig_2mass_color_mag ] , and many of the stars appearing above the cr  419 main sequence are close to the predicted colors and magnitudes of a distant population .
cr  419 is probably young enough that it may host pre - main sequence stars that would also appear above the main sequence .
dashed lines in figure  [ fig_ucac3_color_mag ] and [ fig_2mass_color_mag ] indicate the pre - main sequence isochrone for an age of 7  myr from the work of @xcite transformed to the distance and reddening of cr  419 , and indeed we find many examples of stars close to the predicted track .
we suspect that redder stars appearing in these color - magnitude diagrams probably include some cluster pre - main sequence stars and large numbers of distant massive stars and other line - of - sight field stars .
we also obtained new @xmath0 photometry of the central region of the cluster to explore the optical colors of the fainter stars .
one of us ( jrp ) collected ccd images of collinder 419 in 2006 october with the emory university observatory , dfm 0.6  m cassegrain telescope .
the detector was an apogee ap47 @xmath74 pixel ccd camera . in order to concentrate the signal for fainter sources ,
the camera was set to a @xmath75 binning mode with a net pixel scale of @xmath76 pixel@xmath9 and a @xmath77 field of view .
the images of the brightest stars were saturated in individual frames in order to obtain a stronger signal on the faintest sources .
thirty frames were collected through each johnson @xmath0 filter .
in addition , standard stars from charts 140 , 141 , and 148 of landolt ( 1992 ) were observed over a large range in air mass to transform the instrumental magnitudes to the standard system .
all the frames were debiased , dark subtracted , and flat fielded using standard routines in iraf .
the images were combined using imcentroid and imcombine to build a master image in each filter .
photometric measurements of the standard stars were made with aperture photometry routines in iraf .
the transformation coefficients were computed using the idl procedure transf1.pro , written by marc w.  buie .
this procedure uses the general formula @xmath78 where @xmath79 is the standard magnitude , @xmath80 is the instrumental magnitude , @xmath81 is the first order extinction coefficient , @xmath82 is the airmass , @xmath83 is the second order extinction coefficient , @xmath84 is a color index , @xmath85 is a color coefficient , and @xmath86 is the magnitude zero point .
the instrumental magnitudes of the stars in the collinder 419 frames were measured using psf fitting routines in iraf , and the relation between the psf and aperture measurements was determined for ten well isolated stars in the field .
the transformation equations were then used to determine johnson magnitudes for the cluster stars .
the errors in the transformation coefficients were added in quadrature with the instrumental magnitude errors to obtain the net observational errors ( approximately 0.04 , 0.03 , and 0.02 mag in @xmath0 , respectively ) .
the results are listed in table 4 .
we show in figure [ fig_optical_color_mag ] the color  magnitude diagram @xmath87 for 43 of the 79 stars measured that meet the proper motion limits for cluster membership described above (  3 ) .
most of the proposed cluster members (  3 ; table  3 ) were too bright and/or outside of the field of view for our @xmath0 photometric measurements , and we have @xmath0 photometry for only 5 of the 16 proposed members ( indicated by plus signs in fig .
8 and by `` yes '' in the final column of table  4 ) .
figure [ fig_optical_color_mag ] also shows the main sequence relation from the models of bertelli et al .
( 1994 ) and marigo et al .
( 2008 ) for our derived estimates of @xmath88 mag and dm = 9.35 mag , and this relation appears to be consistent with our optical photometry .
there are a number of stars that have magnitudes indicative of lower mass , main sequence stars , but there are many objects with a position above the main sequence with a distribution similar to that seen in the red and near - infrared color  magnitude diagrams ( figs .
[ fig_ucac3_color_mag ] and [ fig_2mass_color_mag ] ) .
figure [ fig_color_color ] shows the optical color - color diagram @xmath89 for the subset with complete @xmath0 measurements and within the proper motion limits for membership .
we also show both unreddened and reddened versions of the model colors .
again , there is evidence for some lower main sequence members ( towards the middle and lower sections of the dashed line ) , but there is also a group of stars with colors near @xmath90 that are characteristic of b - stars with a reddening @xmath91 mag .
most of these stars also have positions in the near - ir color  color diagram associated with reddened , intermediate mass stars ( fig . [ fig_ir_colors ] ; @xmath92 ) .
the distance we obtained from the photometric analysis of @xmath93 pc ( formal error ) does not account for possible systematic errors in the model isochrone magnitudes . by comparing the @xmath94 color - magnitude diagrams for a 7 myr cluster from marigo et al .
( 2008 ) with that from lejeune & schaerer ( 2001 ) , we estimate that the model uncertainties amount to @xmath95 mag over the main sequence range of interest , so we add this error in quadrature with the fitting errors to obtain @xmath96 pc . we can check this with distances derived from the angular sizes given in table  1 .
this distance estimate depends on the ratio of the physical diameter to the angular diameter , and for this comparison , we estimated the stellar radii for hd  193322b , c , and d from the model isochrone values for main sequence stars with our adopted effective temperatures ( table  2 ) .
we could not use this relation for hd  193322aa1 because the model isochrone did not extend to stars quite this hot , so we instead adopted a radius of @xmath97 from the spectral calibration for main sequence stars from martins et al .
we estimated a radius of @xmath98 for the m3  iii star iras 20161 + 4035 from the calibration for giants by van belle et al .
the resulting distances are listed in the final column of table  1 , and the average , @xmath99 pc , agrees with the photometric result .
our results confirm the only previous distance estimate for the cluster from kharchenko et al .
( 2005 ) of 740 pc ( no error quoted ) .
the cluster distance also agrees within errors with the _ hipparcos _ distance for hd  193322 of @xmath100 pc ( van leeuwen 2007 ) .
we suspect that some of the red stars that meet the spatial and proper motion constraints of cluster membership but lie above the main sequence are very young objects . a similar population of bright , red objects has been reported for other young star clusters containing o stars ( kumar et al .
2004 ; comern & pasquali 2005 ; carlson et al .  2007 ;
negueuela et al .
2007 ; comern et al .
these stars may include ir - excess objects with remnant disks like the herbig ae / be stars . although it is possible that the red object , iras 20161 + 4035 , is an old star that is coincidentally passing through the vicinity of cr  419 , we suspect that it may also be a very young member of the cluster , despite its evolved appearance .
the star s large reddening and ir - excess both suggest that it is immersed in natal dust , and its strong @xmath17 and high luminosity may be indicative of youth .
kumar et al .
( 2004 ) identified three other cases of luminous , late - type giants that are found in young clusters .
these cool giants may represent another kind of spectroscopic manifestation of young stellar objects .
we thank todd henry , adric riedel , and russel white for helpful comments about m - star spectra , and we also thank bill binkert of the kpno staff for his assistance at the kpno coude feed telescope .
we are grateful to david turner for discussions about field contamination by distant massive stars . this publication made use of data products from the two micron all sky survey , which is a joint project of the university of massachusetts and the infrared processing and analysis center / california institute of technology , funded by the national aeronautics and space administration and the national science foundation .
it also used images from the second palomar observatory sky survey ( poss - ii ) , which was made by the california institute of technology with funds from the national science foundation , the national geographic society , the sloan foundation , the samuel oschin foundation , and the eastman kodak corporation .
we also made use of the washington double star catalog , maintained at the u.  s.  naval observatory , and the simbad database , operated by the cds in strasbourg , france .
this material is based upon work supported by the national science foundation under grant no .
institutional support has been provided from the gsu college of arts and sciences and from the research program enhancement fund of the board of regents of the university system of georgia , administered through the gsu office of the vice president for research .
a portion of the research was carried out at the jet propulsion laboratory , california institute of technology , under a contract with the national aeronautics and space administration .
abt , h. a. , & cardona , o. 1983 , , 272 , 182 barnard , e. e. 1927 , a photographic atlas of selected regions of the milky way , ed . e. b. frost & m. r. calvert ( carnegie inst .
washington publ .
247 ) ( washington dc : carnegie inst . )
bertelli , g. , bressan , a. , chiosi , c. , fagotto , f. , & nasi , e. 1994 , , 106 , 275 bessell , m. s. , castelli , f. , & plez , b. 1998 , , 333 , 231 bhm - vitense , e. 1981 , , 19 , 295 burnichon , m. l. 1975 , , 45 , 383 burnichon , m. l. , & garnier , r. 1976 , , 24 , 89 cardelli , j. a. , clayton , g. c. , & mathis , j. s. 1989 , , 345 , 245 carlson , l. r. , et al .
2007 , , 665 , l109 cohen , m. , wheaton , w. a. , & megeath , s. t. 2003 , , 126 , 1090 colina , l. , bohlin , r. , & castelli , f. 1996 , hst instrument science report
cal / scs-008 ( baltimore : stsci ) collinder , p. 1931 , ann . obs .
lund , 2 , 1 comern , f. , & pasquali , a. 2005 , , 430 , 541 comern , f. , pasquali , a. , figueras , f. , & torra , j. 2008 , , 486 , 453 comern , f. , et al .
2002 , , 389 , 874 cutri , r. , et al .
2003 , 2mass all - sky catalog of point sources ( pasadena : ipac / caltech ) droege , t. f. , richmond , m. w. , & sallman , m. 2006 , , 118 , 1666 eaton , j. a. 1995 , , 109 , 1797 egan , m. p. , & price , s. d. 1996 , , 112 , 2862 fitzpatrick , e. l. 1999 , , 111 , 63 fullerton , a. w. 1990 , ph.d .
dissertation , univ . of toronto gustafsson , b. , edvardsson , b. ,
eriksson , k. , jrgensen , u. g. , nordlund , a. , & plez , b. 2008 , , 486 , 951 hartkopf , w. i. , gies , d. r. , mason , b. d. , bagnuolo , w. g. , jr . , & mcalister , h. a. 1993 , baas , 25 , 872 hoffleit , d. 1982 , the bright star catalogue , 4th ed .
( new haven : yale univ .
indebetouw , r. , et al .
2005 , , 619 , 931 kharchenko , n. v. , piskunov , a. e. , rser , s. , schilbach , e. , & scholz , r .- d .
2005 , , 438 , 1163 kumar , b. , sagar , r. , sanwal , b. b. , & bessell , m. s. 2004 , , 353 , 991 landolt , a. u. 1992 , , 104 , 340 lejeune , t. , & schaerer , d. 2001 , , 366 , 538 lesh , j. r. 1979 , in spectral classification of the future ( iau coll .
47 ) , ricerche astronomiche , 9 , ed .
m. f. mccarthy , a. d. g. philip , & g. v. coyne ( citta del vaticano : specola vaticana ) , 81 marigo , p. , girardi , l. , bressan , a. , groenewegen , m. a. t. , silva , l. , & granato , g. l. 2008 , , 482 , 883 martins , f. , schaerer , d. , & hillier , d. j. 2005 , , 436 , 1049 mason , b. d. , hartkopf , w. i. , gies , d. r. , henry , t. j. , & helsel , j. w. 2009 , aj , 137 , 3358 massey , p. , degioia - eastwood , k. , & waterhouse , e. 2001 , , 121 , 1050 mcalister , h. a. , hartkopf , w. i. , hutter , d. j. , shara , m. m. , & franz , o. g. 1987 , , 92 , 183 mckibben , w. p. , et al .
1998 , , 110 , 900 negueruela , i. , marco , a. , israel , g. l. , & bernabeu , g. 2007 , , 471 , 485 perryman , m. a. c. , et al .
1997 , , 323 , l49 reid , i.n . ,
1991 , , 103 , 661 schilbach , e. , & rser , s. 2008 , , 489 , 105 schlegel , d. j. , finkbeiner , d. p. , & davis , m. 1998 , , 500 , 525 schrder , s. e. , kaper , l. , lamers , h. j. g. l. m. , & brown , a. g. a. 2004 , , 428 , 149 siess , l. , dufour , e. , & forestini , m. 2000 , , 358 , 593 shatskii , n. i. , & tokovinin , a. a. 1998 , astronomy letters , 24 , 673 ten brummelaar , t. , mason , b. d. , mcalister , h. a. , roberts , l. c. , jr . , turner , n. h. , hartkopf , w. i. , & bagnuolo , w. g. , jr .
2000 , , 119 , 2403 turner , d. g. , & forbes , d. 1982 , , 94 , 789 turner , n. h. , ten brummelaar , t. a. , & mason , b. d. 2008 , baas , 40 , 208 valdes , f. , gupta , r. , rose , j. a. , singh , h. p. , & bell , d. j. 2004 , , 152 , 251 van belle , g. t. , et al .
1999 , , 117 , 521 van leeuwen , f. 2007 , , 474 , 653 walborn , n. r. 1972 , , 77 , 312 walborn , n.r . , & fitzpatrick , e.l . 1990 , , 102 , 379 wegner , w. 1994 , , 270 , 229 zacharias , n. , et al . 2010 , aj , 139 , 2184                  ) and declination ( @xmath101 ) for stars within @xmath41 of the cluster center . the position of the circle marks the cluster average proper motion and its circumference represents the boundary for possible cluster membership .
[ fig_proper_motion],title="fig:",height=453 ]     signs are used for the rest of the sample .
the solid and dashed lines represent the values for the cluster isochrone for no reddening and @xmath88 , respectively .
the numbers beside the unreddened isochrone indicate the stellar masses at the terminal points and at the origin of the reddening trajectory ( _ dotted line _ ) .
stars below the dotted line are candidate massive stars ( @xmath102 ) .
[ fig_ir_colors],title="fig:",height=453 ]     and 2mass @xmath103 magnitudes . plus
signs mark probable , main sequence members , while @xmath104 symbols are used for the remainder of the sample that meets the positional and proper motion criteria for cluster membership .
the solid line shows the best fit isochrone .
the dashed line indicates the pre - main sequence isochrone for an age of 7  myr .
the dotted line is the isochrone for distant ob stars that may be related to the nearby cluster berkeley  87 .
[ fig_ucac3_color_mag],title="fig:",height=453 ]          lcccc hd 193322aa1 & o9 v:((n ) ) & @xmath105 & @xmath106 & 0.83 + hd 193322b & b1.5 v & @xmath107 & @xmath108 & 0.73 + hd 193322c & b8 v & @xmath109 & @xmath110 & 0.79 + hd 193322d & b9 v & @xmath111 & @xmath112 & 0.70 + iras 20161 + 4035 & m3 iii & @xmath113 & @xmath114 & 0.78 +    lcccccccc
hd 193322aa1 & 33.2 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 + hd 193322aa2 & 23.0 & 0.29 & 0.30 & 0.31 & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.35 & 0.35 + hd 193322ab & 25.0 & 0.41 & 0.43 & 0.44 & 0.46 & 0.47 & 0.48 & 0.48 + hd 193322b & 23.0 & 0.21 & 0.21 & 0.21 & 0.21 & 0.23 & 0.24 & 0.25 +    cccccccc 262@xmath115202014 & & 12.29 & 1.06 & 0.14 & 0.08 & 11.02 & 2.2 + 262@xmath115202033 & & 12.90 & 1.20 & 0.23 & 0.12 & 11.35 & 1.7 + 262@xmath115202070 & hd 228810 & 10.01 & 0.55 & 0.10 & 0.05 & 9.31 & 5.0 + 262@xmath115202090 & & 12.44 & 0.94 & 0.08 & 0.09 & 11.34 & 1.9 + 262@xmath115202099 & & 13.66 & 1.33 & 0.26 & 0.09 & 11.98 & 1.4 + 262@xmath115202103 & & 12.91 & 1.14 & 0.21 & 0.12 & 11.44 & 1.7 + 262@xmath115202123 & hd 193322c & 11.14 & 0.51 & 0.02 & @xmath1150.02 & 10.63 & 2.8 + 262@xmath115202132 & hd 193322d & 11.26 & 0.58 & 0.03 & 0.08 & 10.57 & 2.8 + 262@xmath115202133 & hd 193322aa1 & 6.59 & 0.07 & @xmath1150.07 & @xmath1150.04 & 6.64 & 14.9 + 262@xmath115202133 & hd 193322b & 8.29 & 0.17 & @xmath1150.03 & 0.01 & 8.14 & 9.0 + 262@xmath115202155 & & 12.27 & 0.71 & 0.07 & 0.02 & 11.46 & 1.8 + 262@xmath115202269 & & 12.25 & 0.72 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 11.40 & 1.8 + 262@xmath115202314 & & 12.83 & 1.09 & 0.23 & 0.06 & 11.45 & 1.7 + 262@xmath115202350 & & 12.37 & 0.88 & 0.06 & 0.10 & 11.34 & 1.9 + 262@xmath115202365 & & 11.63 & 0.74 & 0.07 & 0.05 & 10.77 & 2.5 + 262@xmath115202402 & & 11.67 & 0.78 & 0.11 & 0.02 & 10.76 & 2.5 +    ccccc 262 - 201944 & 12.51@xmath70.04 & 12.68@xmath70.02 & 11.58@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 201945 & 14.26@xmath70.04 & 14.42@xmath70.02 & 13.59@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 201948 & & 15.92@xmath70.03 & 13.91@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 201953 & & 16.52@xmath70.04 & 15.21@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 201963 & 16.25@xmath70.05 & 16.09@xmath70.03 & 14.91@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 201973 & 16.22@xmath70.06 & 16.13@xmath70.04 & 15.01@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 201978 & 16.60@xmath70.06 & 16.11@xmath70.04 & 15.02@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 201981 & 15.30@xmath70.04 & 15.27@xmath70.02 & 14.43@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 201993 & 16.04@xmath70.05 & 15.76@xmath70.02 & 14.83@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 201997 & & 16.66@xmath70.03 & 15.53@xmath70.03 & + 262 - 202009 & & 17.15@xmath70.05 & 15.86@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202014 & 12.90@xmath70.04 & 12.83@xmath70.01 & 12.41@xmath70.03 & yes + 262 - 202017 & 15.74@xmath70.04 & 15.23@xmath70.02 & 14.18@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202018 & & 14.99@xmath70.04 & 14.67@xmath70.03 & + 262 - 202025 & & 16.47@xmath70.03 & 14.62@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202026 & & 16.31@xmath70.03 & 15.22@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202027 & & 16.49@xmath70.03 & 15.61@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202032 & 14.72@xmath70.04 & 14.64@xmath70.01 & 13.74@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202033 & 13.65@xmath70.04 & 13.59@xmath70.01 & 13.08@xmath70.02 & yes + 262 - 202034 & & 16.12@xmath70.02 & 14.04@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202039 & 15.17@xmath70.04 & 14.92@xmath70.01 & 14.08@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202042 & & 15.95@xmath70.02 & 15.32@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202045 & 14.40@xmath70.04 & 14.20@xmath70.03 & 13.55@xmath70.03 & + 262 - 202046 & & 16.88@xmath70.04 & 15.73@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202047 & & 17.26@xmath70.05 & 15.96@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202050 & & 16.52@xmath70.03 & 15.22@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202052 & 15.33@xmath70.04 & 14.99@xmath70.02 & 14.20@xmath70.03 & + 262 - 202054 & 16.21@xmath70.05 & 15.74@xmath70.02 & 14.76@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202059 & 14.90@xmath70.04 & 13.90@xmath70.01 & 11.51@xmath70.04 & + 262 - 202061 & & 17.47@xmath70.05 & 16.64@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202066 & 14.98@xmath70.04 & 14.73@xmath70.02 & 13.88@xmath70.03 & + 262 - 202067 & 14.64@xmath70.04 & 14.46@xmath70.01 & 13.75@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202070 & 10.19@xmath70.04 & 10.57@xmath70.01 & 10.33@xmath70.01 & yes + 262 - 202088 & 13.09@xmath70.04 & 13.03@xmath70.01 & 12.48@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202089 & 16.76@xmath70.07 & 16.24@xmath70.03 & 15.13@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202097 & & 16.21@xmath70.03 & 14.60@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202098 & 15.69@xmath70.05 & 15.35@xmath70.02 & 14.53@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202100 & & 17.24@xmath70.05 & 15.92@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202107 & 16.02@xmath70.05 & 15.67@xmath70.02 & 14.95@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202109 & & 16.33@xmath70.03 & 15.31@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202117 & 13.98@xmath70.04 & 13.95@xmath70.01 & 13.00@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202118 & & 16.08@xmath70.05 & 15.53@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202120 & & 15.26@xmath70.02 & 14.11@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202128 & 13.56@xmath70.04 & 13.56@xmath70.01 & 12.62@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202135 & 16.41@xmath70.05 & 16.15@xmath70.02 & 15.12@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202141 & 16.66@xmath70.09 & 15.72@xmath70.03 & 14.48@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202146 & & 16.35@xmath70.03 & 15.13@xmath70.04 & + 262 - 202155 & 12.62@xmath70.04 & 12.67@xmath70.01 & 12.39@xmath70.03 & yes + 262 - 202156 & & 16.79@xmath70.03 & 15.72@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202159 & 16.45@xmath70.05 & 16.09@xmath70.02 & 15.08@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202161 & & 17.00@xmath70.03 & 16.07@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202166 & 14.60@xmath70.04 & 14.44@xmath70.02 & 13.88@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202170 & 11.59@xmath70.04 & 11.63@xmath70.01 & 10.68@xmath70.03 & + 262 - 202175 & & 17.59@xmath70.08 & 16.33@xmath70.05 & + 262 - 202176 & 12.57@xmath70.04 & 12.61@xmath70.01 & 11.64@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202177 & 15.22@xmath70.04 & 14.70@xmath70.02 & 13.65@xmath70.04 & + 262 - 202178 & & 16.73@xmath70.04 & 15.81@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202185 & & 17.45@xmath70.06 & 16.09@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202187 & & 17.41@xmath70.06 & 16.30@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202190 & 14.87@xmath70.04 & 14.81@xmath70.01 & 13.80@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202194 & 15.97@xmath70.05 & 15.68@xmath70.02 & 14.71@xmath70.03 & + 262 - 202197 & & 16.89@xmath70.04 & 15.79@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202199 & 14.34@xmath70.04 & 14.18@xmath70.01 & 13.13@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202207 & 14.56@xmath70.04 & 14.39@xmath70.01 & 13.68@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202212 & 15.56@xmath70.04 & 15.41@xmath70.02 & 14.32@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202218 & 13.14@xmath70.04 & 13.21@xmath70.01 & 12.33@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202225 & & 16.96@xmath70.04 & 15.83@xmath70.02 & + 262 - 202224 & & 16.75@xmath70.03 & 15.66@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202227 & 16.31@xmath70.05 & 15.84@xmath70.02 & 14.89@xmath70.06 & + 262 - 202236 & 16.47@xmath70.05 & 16.18@xmath70.03 & 15.41@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202239 & & 17.00@xmath70.04 & 15.81@xmath70.04 & + 262 - 202243 & 16.16@xmath70.05 & 15.65@xmath70.02 & 14.80@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202247 & 13.70@xmath70.04 & 13.72@xmath70.01 & 12.85@xmath70.03 & + 262 - 202248 & 13.57@xmath70.04 & 13.34@xmath70.02 & 12.62@xmath70.07 & + 262 - 202255 & & 16.40@xmath70.03 & 15.56@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202256 & & 17.86@xmath70.10 & 16.15@xmath70.03 & + 262 - 202260 & & 16.10@xmath70.03 & 14.84@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202265 & 14.56@xmath70.04 & 14.08@xmath70.02 & 13.27@xmath70.01 & + 262 - 202269 & 12.59@xmath70.04 & 12.67@xmath70.02 & 12.38@xmath70.02 & yes +


in recent years , density functional theory ( dft ) has emerged as a powerful tool for describing the structure of nuclei . based on the seminal works of kohn , hohenberg , and sham @xcite ,
dft was originally developed for use in condensed matter physics ; interestingly , it was discovered that it also provides a systematic framework for modeling the low - energy sector of the strong interaction @xcite .
central to dft is the notion that , if the energy functional is considered a functional of the density , then by minimizing the energy one can acquire the exact ground - state density @xcite .
furthermore , if the quantum many - body equations are replaced by single - particle equations with local , classical fields , one can exactly reproduce the total energy , scalar and vector densities , and chemical potential @xcite .
thus the many - body problem is reduced to finding the proper form of the energy functional .
as it turns out , the lagrangian of quantum hadrodynamics determines just such a functional .
quantum hadrodynamics ( qhd ) is a low - energy effective theory of the strong interaction that uses the observed degrees of freedom at this energy scale ( hadrons ) .
it has evolved from the early model of walecka @xcite into more modern incarnations that are based on chiral effective field theory ( eft ) and dft @xcite .
the qhd energy functional is constructed as an expansion in powers of the mean meson fields , which are in fact kohn  sham potentials , over a heavy mass , such as the chiral symmetry breaking scale , and includes all possible terms consistent with the underlying symmetries of qcd .
field redefinitions are used to move the complexity of the problem ( e.g. , many - body forces and nucleon substructure ) into the meson field self - interactions .
as this is an effective theory , the terms are characterized by unknown coefficients .
once all the dimensional and combinatorial factors have been removed , however , the remaining dimensionless coefficients are assumed to be _ natural _ , or of order unity @xcite .
the long - range dynamics are included explicitly , and short - range physics is contained in the parametrization ; therefore , this theory incorporates the natural separation of length scales .
while qhd in principle contains all possible terms consistent with the underlying symmetries of the system , in practice it is a perturbative expansion for the energy functional that can be truncated at a manageable level ( since the ratio of the mean fields to the heavy mass is small ) .
the now finite number of coefficients are fixed by experimental data , and this theory can then be used for predictive purposes @xcite .
qhd is a strong - coupling theory . unlike qed
, there is no obvious asymptotic expansion to use to obtain results and refine them systematically .
it is thus unknown whether qhd permits any expansion for systematic computation and refinement of theoretical results .
one possibility is the loop expansion , which was partially explored in @xcite .    why a loop expansion ?
the loop expansion is a simple and well - developed expansion scheme in powers of @xmath3 that is derived from the path integral @xcite .
the mean meson fields are included non - perturbatively , and the correlations are included perturbatively . therefore , one can analyze the many - body effects order by order .
previous work in qhd has shown that the mean - field terms dominate the nuclear energy , and exchange and correlation effects do not significantly modify the energy or nucleon self - energies , at least for states in the fermi sea @xcite .
we stress that we are not certain that the loop expansion is practical ; the answer to this question is left for future consideration . however , the loop expansion has the advantage that it is fairly easy to separate the short - range and long - range dynamics and to analyze their structures .
the loop expansion was investigated in the simplest case at the two - loop level @xcite ( only the most rudimentary couplings were retained ) .
this was a severe truncation of the eft lagrangian and implies that we were interested only in the lowest level of accuracy .
here we are also concerned with the loop expansion only up to two - loop order ( consideration of higher - loop effects is left for the future ) , but now nonlinear meson self - couplings and tensor terms are retained .
note that the nonlinear terms incorporate short - range many - body nuclear forces , vacuum dynamics , and the effects of nucleon substructure .
the extension of the level of truncation to include these terms allows us to describe nuclear matter ( and presumably nuclei ) with greater accuracy .
the result of the loop expansion up to the two - loop level is the mean field energy density @xcite plus a series of integrals .
we can categorize these integrals in two groups : baryon loops and purely mesonic loops .
the baryon loops are integrals at the two - loop level that contain two factors of the baryon propagator and one factor of a meson propagator .
each nucleon propagator can be separated into a feynman and a density part @xcite .
this is accomplished by incorporating the proper pole structure of the propagator .
the feynman part describes the propagation of a baryon or an antibaryon ; the density part involves only on - shell propagation in the fermi sea and accounts for the exclusion principle .    as before @xcite
, the two - loop baryon integrals can each be separated into three distinct parts : the exchange , lamb - shift , and vacuum - fluctuation contributions .
the exchange term has two factors of the density portion of the nucleon propagator .
the lamb - shift term contains both feynman and density parts of the nucleon propagator .
the vacuum - fluctuation term contains two factors of the feynman propagator .
the lamb - shift and vacuum - fluctuation parts are short - range physics , and it was shown in the simple case of @xcite that they can be expressed as a sum of terms that are already present in the eft lagrangian .
this is an effective theory , so the coefficients of these terms are not yet determined ; thus , the two - loop terms are just absorbed into terms already present in the lagrangian and are not to be calculated explicitly @xcite . as a result
, only the exchange portion of the two - loop integrals must be calculated explicitly .
in addition , a number of purely mesonic loops arise when nonlinear meson field self - interactions are included .
these terms , however , can be expressed as a power series in the meson fields with undetermined coefficients .
as before , these terms are just absorbed into the lagrangian parameters and should not be calculated explicitly .
it is interesting to note that the natural separation of the length scales in qhd and the parametrization of the short - distance dynamics is similar to infrared regularization @xcite . in infrared regularization
, loop integrals are separated into infrared regular and singular contributions ( corresponding to short- and long - range physics ) .
the regular portion is expanded as a power series in the momentum and is absorbed into the unknown coefficients of the underlying lagrangian ; the singular part must be calculated explicitly .
this is directly analogous to what was done for the loop expansion in qhd @xcite .
one question that remains unanswered is how the addition of these many - body correlations to the energy density affects the naturalness assumption , which states that once all the dimensional and combinatorial factors in a given term are accounted for , what remains is a dimensionless coefficient of order unity @xcite .
once one decides on a level of truncation in the underlying lagrangian , the now finite number of unknown constants can be parametrized by the data .
thus , one purpose of this work is to prove that sets of parameters exist at different levels of truncation in the two - loop energy density in which the parameters are all natural and thereby show that the naturalness assumption holds . for the purposes of this work
, we will consider only uniform , symmetric nuclear matter , as in @xcite . here , however , we also include nonlinear meson self - interactions and tensor terms .
these additional terms not only increase the number of two - loop integrals , but also complicate the meson propagators , due to the short - range and many - body physics mentioned earlier .
the loop expansion is carried out to the two - loop level , and the resulting two - loop integrals are separated into long - range and short - range physics .
the short - range contributions are expressed in forms that already appear in the lagrangian .
since the coefficients of these terms have yet to be determined , they are just redefined , thus incorporating these new contributions into the mean field energy ( as in @xcite ) . as a result
, they are already present in the one - loop qhd calculation . the long - range physics must be calculated explicitly . in this work
, we fit the two - loop energy to empirical properties of nuclear matter .
then we compare parameter sets constructed at the two - loop level with those of previous works obtained at the mean field level and consider the naturalness of the parameters .
in this section , we investigate the effects of nonlinear meson self - interactions ( including isoscalar meson mixing ) on the loop expansion . here
we will keep terms up to order @xmath4 in the isoscalar meson sector of the qhd lagrangian @xcite ( i.e. ,  @xmath5 , @xmath6 , @xmath7 , @xmath8 , and @xmath9 ) , and let @xmath10 . since we will calibrate the parameters using nuclear matter properties only ( and not finite nuclei ) , we want to keep the number of parameters at a manageable level
. therefore , the baryon and pion parts of the lagrangian are unchanged from @xcite ( except for the addition of the two - pion
nucleon vertex ) : @xmath11 + \left(m - g_{s}\phi\right)\right]\psi \nonumber \\ & & % - \frac{1}{2}\left(\partial_{\mu}\phi\right)^{2 } - \frac{1}{2}m_{s}^{2}\phi^{2 } % - \frac{1}{4}v_{\mu\nu}v_{\mu\nu } - \frac{1}{2}m_{v}^{2}v_{\mu}v_{\mu } - \frac{1}{2}\left(\partial_{\mu}\pi_{a}\right)^{2 } - \frac{1}{2}m_{\pi}^{2}\pi_{a}^{2 } % \nonumber   \ , \label{eqn : lagrangian}\end{aligned}\ ] ] which follows from the _ chirally invariant _ lagrangian in @xcite by retaining only the relevant ( lowest - order ) terms in the pion fields .
, we discuss the role of the tensor coupling to the neutral vector meson at the two - loop level . ] the neutral scalar and vector meson lagrangian is now @xmath12 where @xmath13 and @xmath14 . here
@xmath15 are the fermion fields and @xmath16 , @xmath17 , and @xmath18 are the meson fields ( isoscalar - scalar , isoscalar - vector , and isovector - pseudoscalar , respectively ) .
the heavy meson fields are also chiral scalars .
note that in this work , the conventions of @xcite are used . as in @xcite
, we are not making a chiral expansion in powers of the pion mass and include it for kinematical purposes only .
the generating functional is defined in the usual way by @xmath19 & \equiv & \exp\left\{iw[j , j_{\mu}]/\hbar\right\ } \nonumber \\ & = & { \cal n}^{-1}\int d({\psibar})d(\psi)d(\phi)d(v_{\mu})d(\pi_{a } ) \nonumber \\ & & \times \exp\left\{\frac{i}{\hbar } \int d^{4}x\left[{\cal l}(x ) + j(x)\phi(x ) + j_{\mu}(x)v_{\mu}(x)\right]\right\}\ , \label{eqn:3}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath20 is the normalization factor ( in effect , the vacuum subtraction , which is also an expansion in loops ) , @xmath21 and @xmath22 are the external sources corresponding to the meson fields @xmath16 and @xmath17 , respectively , and the connected generating functional is @xmath23 $ ] .
the path integrals of interest here are those over the _
isoscalar quantum fluctuation fields _ @xmath24 and @xmath25 ( the others are discussed in @xcite ) . with @xmath7 , @xmath26 ,
the integral is bilinear in form , or @xmath27 & & \left.\left . { } - m_{v}^{2}\left(\frac{\eta_{1}g_{s}}{m}v_{\mu}^{0 } + \frac{\eta_{2}g_{s}^{2}}{m^{2}}\phi_{0}v_{\mu}^{0}\right)\sigma\tilde{\eta}_{\mu } + u\sigma + u_{\mu}\tilde{\eta}_{\mu } \right]\vphantom{\int } \right\ } \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ]    where the meson propagators in momentum space are @xmath28 { \cal d}_{\mu\nu}^{-1}(k ) & = & \left[k^{2 } + m_{v}^{2}\left(1 + \eta_{1}\frac{g_{s}\phi_0}{m } + \frac{\eta_{2}}{2}\frac{g_{s}^{2}\phi^{2}_{0}}{m^{2}}\right ) - \frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v_{\lambda}^{0}v_{\lambda}^{0}\right]\delta_{\mu\nu } - k_{\mu}k_{\nu } - \frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v_{\mu}^{0}v_{\nu}^{0 } \ . \nonumber
\\\end{aligned}\ ] ]    to simplify the equations , we introduce a five - component notation for the meson fields and their corresponding auxiliary sources @xcite : @xmath29    where @xmath30 and @xmath31 have @xmath32 .
we can then rewrite the path integral as @xmath33\right\ } } & & \nonumber \\[5pt ] & = & \exp\left\{-\frac{1}{2}\tr\ ; \ln\left[a^{-1}\right]\right\ } \exp\left\{-\frac{i}{2}\ , t_{\alpha}a_{\alpha\beta}t_{\beta}\right\ } \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ]    where the matrix @xmath34 is @xmath35 \eta v_{\mu}^{0 } & { \cal d}_{\mu\nu}^{-1}(k ) \end{array}\right ) \ , \ ] ]    and @xmath36 if @xmath37 , then @xmath34 is diagonal , there is no mixing , and the system reduces to the non - mixing case , a simple example of which was discussed in @xcite .
now we want to solve for the components of @xmath38 using @xmath39 : @xmath40   a_{\nu ' 0 } & a_{\nu'\mu } \end{array}\right ) \left(\begin{array}{cc } \delta_{s}^{-1}(k ) & \eta v_{\nu}^{0 } \\[5pt ] \eta v_{\mu}^{0 } & { \cal d}_{\mu\nu}^{-1}(k ) \end{array}\right ) \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    this leads to the following four equations : @xmath41 + a_{0\mu}\eta v_{\mu}^{0 } & = & 1 \label{eqn : ab } \
, \\[5pt ] a_{00}\eta v_{\nu}^{0 } + a_{0\mu}\left[{\cal d}_{\mu\nu}^{-1}(k)\right ] & = & 0 \label{eqn : aa } \ , \\[5pt ] a_{\nu ' 0}\left[\delta_{s}^{-1}(k)\right ] + a_{\nu'\mu}\eta v_{\mu}^{0 } & = & 0 \label{eqn : ae } \ , \\[5pt ] a_{\nu ' 0}\eta v_{\nu}^{0 } + a_{\nu'\mu}\left[{\cal d}_{\mu\nu}^{-1}(k)\right ] & = & \delta_{\nu\nu ' } \ .
\label{eqn : af}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    solving these , we get ( @xmath42 ) @xmath43 & & \times \left .
\left.\left(m_{v}^{2}-\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v^{2}\right ) -\frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}\left(k \cdot v\right)^{2}\right ] \right/ c \ , \label{eqn : ak}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath44 \right/ c \ , \label{eqn : al}\ ] ]    @xmath45 / c \ , \ ] ]    @xmath46\delta_{\mu\nu'}\right.\right . \nonumber
\\[5pt ] & & + \left(k^{2}+m_{v}^{2}-\frac{\zeta_{0}}{2}g_{v}^{2}v^{2}\right)k_{\mu}k_{\nu ' } + \frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}\left(m_{v}^{2 } -\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v^{2}\right)v_{\mu}^{0}v_{\nu'}^{0 } \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left.{}+\frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}\left(k \cdot v\right ) \left(k_{\mu}v_{\nu'}^{0}+k_{\nu'}v_{\mu}^{0}\right)\right\ } \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & -\eta^{2}\left\{\left[\left(m_{v}^{2}-\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v^{2}\right)v^{2 } + \left(k \cdot v\right)^{2}\right]\delta_{\mu\nu'}+v^{2}k_{\mu}k_{\nu ' } \right .
\nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left.\left . { } -\left(m_{v}^{2}-\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v^{2}\right)v_{\mu}^{0}v_{\nu'}^{0 } -\left(k \cdot
v\right)\left(k_{\mu}v_{\nu'}^{0}+k_{\nu'}v_{\mu}^{0}\right)\right\}\right ) / c \ , \label{eqn : ah}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath47 & & \times \left\{\left(k^{2}+m_{s}^{2}\right ) \left[\left(k^{2}+m_{v}^{2}-\frac{\zeta_{0}}{2}g_{v}^{2}v^{2}\right ) \left(m_{v}^{2}-\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v^{2}\right ) -\frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}\left(k \cdot v\right)^{2}\right]\right
. \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left .
{ } - \eta^{2}\left[\left(m_{v}^{2}-\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v^{2}\right)v^{2 }   + \left(k \cdot v\right)^{2}\right]\right\ } \
, \label{eqn : ad}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    and @xmath48 m_{v}^{2 } & \equiv & m_{v}^{2}\left(1 + \eta_{1}\frac{g_{s}\phi_{0}}{m } + \frac{\eta_{2}}{2}\frac{g_{s}^{2}\phi_{0}^{2}}{m^{2}}\right ) \ .
\label{eqn : aj}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the corresponding path integral in the vacuum subtraction has a similar structure , except with vanishing classical meson fields ; therefore , @xmath49 is replaced by @xmath50 , or @xmath51    where @xmath52 and @xmath53 are the free propagators for the scalar and neutral vector mesons , respectively : @xmath54    the pion self - couplings do not contribute to the energy density if there is no pion condensate .
therefore , we simply ignore the pure pion terms in the following calculation .
the remaining generating functional is @xmath55 = { \cal n}^{-1 } \exp\left\{\frac{i}{\hbar}\int
d^{4}x\left[{\cal l}_{0}(x ) + j(x)\phi_{0}(x ) + j_{\mu}(x)v_{\mu}^{0}(x)\right]\right\ } } & & \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & { } \times \exp\left\{\int d^{4}x\int\frac{d^{4}k}{(2\pi)^{4 } } \left(\tr \ ; \ln \left[g_{f}^{0}(k)g_{h}^{-1}(k)\right ] - \frac{1}{2}\,\tr \ ; \ln \left[a_{0}(k)a^{-1}(k)\right]\right)\right\ } \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \times \left[\!\!\left [ \exp\left\{i\hbar^{1/2}\int d^{4}x \left[\frac{i\delta}{\delta \xi(x)}\right ] \left(g_{s}\left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta u(x)}\right ] + ig_{v}\gamma_{\mu}\left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta u_{\mu}(x)}\right ] \right.\right.\right.\right .
\nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left . \quad { } + i\frac{g_{a}}{2f_{\pi}}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\partial_{\mu}\left [ \frac{-i\delta}{\delta \zeta_{a}(x)}\right ] \cdot\tau_{a}\right)\left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta \bar{\xi}(x)}\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & { } -i\hbar^{1/2}\int d^{4}x\left(m_{s}^{2 } \left(\frac{\kappa_{3}g_{s}}{6m}+\frac{\kappa_{4}g_{s}^{2}}{6m^{2}}\phi_{0}\right ) \left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta u(x)}\right]^{3 } \right .
\nonumber \\ & & \left . { } + m_{v}^{2}\left(\frac{\eta_{1}g_{s}}{2m}+\frac{\eta_{2}g_{s}^{2}}{2m^{2}}\phi_{0}\right ) \left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta
u(x)}\right]\left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta u_{\mu}(x)}\right]\left [ \frac{-i\delta}{\delta u_{\mu}(x)}\right]\right .
\nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left . \quad { } -\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v_{\mu}^{0}\left [ \frac{-i\delta}{\delta u_{\mu}(x)}\right ] \left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta u_{\nu}(x)}\right]\left [ \frac{-i\delta}{\delta u_{\nu}(x)}\right ] + m_{v}^{2}\frac{\eta_{2}g_{s}^{2}}{2m^{2}}v_{\mu}^{0}\left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta u(x)}\right]^{2 } \left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta u_{\mu}(x)}\right]\right ) \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & { } + \hbar\int d^{4}x\left ( \frac{1}{24}\ , \zeta_{0}g_{v}^{2 } \left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta u_{\mu}(x)}\right]\left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta u_{\mu}(x)}\right ] \left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta u_{\nu}(x)}\right]\left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta u_{\nu}(x)}\right ] -m_{s}^{2}\frac{\kappa_{4}g_{s}^{2}}{24m^{2}}\left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta u(x)}\right]^{4 } \right .
\nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left.\left . { } - m_{v}^{2}\frac{\eta_{2}g_{s}^{2}}{4m^{2}}\left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta u(x)}\right]^{2 } \left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta u_{\mu}(x)}\right]\left[\frac{-i\delta}{\delta u_{\mu}(x)}\right ] \right)\right\ } \nonumber \\ & & { } \times \exp\left\{i\int d^{4}x\int d^{4}y \left[\frac{1}{2}\ , t_{\alpha}a_{\alpha\beta}(x - y)t_{\beta } \right . \right . \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left.\left.\left.\left . \quad { } + \frac{1}{2}\ , \zeta_{a}(x)\delta_{\pi}^{ab}(x - y)\zeta_{b}(y ) - \bar{\xi}(x)g_{h}(x - y)\xi(y)\right]\right\ } \right]\!\!\right]_{\mathrm{sources}\ = \ 0 } \
.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    here @xmath56 is the pion source and @xmath57 is the nucleon source .
we define the contribution at the mean field level as @xmath58 & & { } + \frac{1}{4!}\ , \zeta_{0}g_{v}^{2}\left(v_{\mu}^{0}v_{\mu}^{0}\right)^{2 } \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] and the pion and fermion propagators are given by @xmath59 g_{f}^{0}(k ) & = & \frac{-1}{i{\not\ !
k}+m - i\epsilon } \ , \\[3pt ] g_{h}(k ) & = & \frac{-1}{i{\not\ ! k}-ig_{v}\gamma_{\mu}v_{\mu}^{0}+ \left(m - g_{s}\phi_{0}\right)}\ .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    it is straightforward to acquire the connected generating functional at the one - loop order @xmath60 - \frac{1}{2}\ , \tr \ ; \ln \left[a_{0}(k)a^{-1}(k)\right]\right\}\ , \ ] ]    and therefore @xmath61 & = & \int d^{4}x\left\{{\cal l}_{0 } + i\hbar\int\frac{d^{4}k}{(2\pi)^{4 } } \left(\vphantom{\int } \tr \ ; \ln \left[g_{f}^{0}(k)g_{h}^{-1}(k)\right ] \right.\right .
\nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left . \left . { } - \frac{1}{2}\ , \tr \ ; \ln \left[a_{0}(k)a^{-1}(k)\right]\right)\right\ } \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the baryon term is identical to the simple case in @xcite . to treat the isoscalar terms
, we first consider the identity @xmath62
\equiv \ln \det\left[a_{0}(k)a^{-1}(k)\right ] \ , \ ] ]    since it is easy to acquire the determinants : @xmath63 & = & \left[m_{v}^{2}\left(k^{2 } + m_{s}^{2}\right)\left(k^{2 } + m_{v}^{2}\right)^{3}\right]^{-1 } \ , \\[5pt ] \det\left[a^{-1}(k)\right ] & = & \left(k^2+m_{v}^{2}-\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v_{e}^{2}\right)^{2 } \left\{\left(k^{2}+m_{s}^{2}\right)\left[\left(k^{2 } + m_{v}^{2}-\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v_{e}^{2}\right)\right.\right
. \nonumber \\[5pt ] & &   \left .
\times \left(m_{v}^{2}-\frac{\zeta_{0}}{2}g_{v}^{2}v_{e}^{2}\right ) + \frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}\left[k^{2}v_{e}^{2}-\left(k \cdot v_{e}\right)^{2}\right]\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left .
\quad { } - \eta^{2}\left[\left(m_{v}^{2}-\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v_{e}^{2}\right)v_{e}^{2 } + \left(k \cdot v_{e}\right)^{2}\right]\right\ } \ , \end{aligned}\
] ]    where @xmath64 and @xmath65 are defined by eqs .
( [ eqn : ai ] ) and ( [ eqn : aj ] ) , and @xmath66 .
apparently , @xmath67 $ ] is an analytic function of @xmath68 and @xmath69 , and @xmath70\left(\phi_{e}=0,v_{e}=0\right ) = \det\left[a_{0}^{-1}(k)\right ] \ .\ ] ]    therefore , the meson contribution to the effective action can be categorized by the general form @xmath71    where the prime indicates that @xmath72 .
however , terms of this type already appear in the general qhd lagrangian ; since the coefficients of these terms have yet to be determined , these meson contributions can be absorbed into the preexisting terms . as a result
, they do nt need to be separately considered .
now we want to determine the connected generating functional at the two - loop level , @xmath73 . for this
, we have to make a legendre transformation to get the effective action .
the classical meson fields are approximated as @xcite @xmath74 v_{\mu}^{0}(x ) \end{array}\right ) = \left(\begin{array}{c } \phi_{e}(x ) \\[5pt ] v^{e}_{\mu}(x )
\end{array}\right ) + \int d^{4}y a(x - y)\left(\begin{array}{c } \left.\displaystyle{\frac{\delta w_{1}}{\delta\phi_{0}(y)}}\right|_{e } \\[12pt ] \left.\displaystyle{\frac{\delta w_{1}}{\delta v_{\mu}^{0}(y)}}\right|_{e } \end{array}\right ) + o(\hbar^{2 } ) \ .\ ] ]    one can verify that the tadpole diagrams in @xmath73 eventually cancel , and so we are left with only the one - particle irreducible diagrams : @xmath75 = \int d^{4}x\,{\cal l}_{0}\left[\phi_{e}(x),v_{\mu}^{e}(x)\right ] } & &   \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & { } - i\hbar \int d^{4}x\int\frac{d^{4}k}{(2\pi)^{4 } } \left\{\tr \ ; \ln \left[g_{f}^{0}(k)g_{h}^{-1}(k)\right ] - \frac{1}{2}\ , \tr \ ;
\ln \left[a_{0}(k)a^{-1}(k)\right]\right\ } \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & { } + \hbar^{2}\int d^{4}x \int\frac{d^{4}k}{(2\pi)^{4}}\int\frac{d^{4}q}{(2\pi)^{4 } } \left\{\frac{g_{s}^{2}}{2}a_{00}(k - q ) \tr\left[g_{h}(k)g_{h}(q)\right ] \right .
\nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \quad { } -\frac{g_{v}^{2}}{2}a_{\mu\nu}(k - q ) \tr\left[g_{h}(k)\gamma_{\mu}g_{h}(q)\gamma_{\nu}\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \quad { } -\frac{g_{a}^{2}}{2f_{\pi}^{2}}\ , \delta^{ab}_{\pi}(k - q ) \tr\left[g_{h}(k)(\not\ ! k - \not\ !
q)\gamma_{5}\frac{\tau_a}{2 } g_{h}(q)(\not\ !
k - \not\ !
q)\gamma_{5}\frac{\tau_b}{2}\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] % & & \quad { } -\frac{g_{a}^{2}}{4f_{\pi}^{2}}\left(\frac{5\gamma-8}{8}\right)i\delta^{ab}_{\pi}(k - q ) % \tr\left[g_{h}(k)\gamma_{\mu}(k - q)_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\frac{\tau_a}{2 } % g_{h}(q)\gamma_{\nu}(k - q)_{\nu}\gamma_{5}\frac{\tau_b}{2}\right ] % \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \quad { } + ig_{s}g_{v}a_{0\mu}(k - q ) \tr\left[\gamma_{\mu}g_{h}(k)g_{h}(q)\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \quad { } + 3\left(\kappa_{3}\frac{g_{s}m_{s}^{2}}{6 m } + \kappa_{4}\frac{g^2_{s}m_{s}^{2}\phi_0}{6m^2}\right)^{2 } a_{00}(k)a_{00}(q)a_{00}(k - q ) \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \quad { } -\kappa_{4}\frac{g^{2}_{s}m_{s}^{2}}{8m^2}a_{00}(k)a_{00}(q ) \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \quad { } + \frac{1}{4}\ , \eta^{2}\left[a_{00}(k - q)a_{\mu\nu}(k)a_{\mu\nu}(q ) + 2a_{0\mu}(k)a_{0\nu}(q)a_{\mu\nu}(k - q)\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \quad { } + \frac{1}{2}\ , \eta\left(\kappa_{3}\frac{g_{s}m_{s}^{2}}{m } + \kappa_{4}\frac{g^2_{s}m_{s}^{2}\phi_0}{m^2}\right)a_{00}(k - q)a_{0\mu}(k)a_{0\mu}(q ) \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \quad { } -\eta_{2}\frac{g_{s}^{2}m_{v}^{2}}{4m^{2 } } \left[a_{00}(k)a_{\mu\mu}(q)+2a_{0\mu}(k)a_{0\mu}(q)\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \quad { } + \frac{1}{24}\ , \zeta_{0}g_{v}^{2}\left[a_{\nu\nu}(k)a_{\mu\mu}(q ) + 2a_{\mu\nu}(k)a_{\mu\nu}(q)\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \quad { } + \frac{\eta_{2}^{2}g_{s}^{4}}{2m^{4}}\ , m_{v}^{4 } \left[a_{00}(k)a_{00}(q)v_{\mu}^{e}a_{\mu\nu}(k - q)v_{\nu}^{e } + 2a_{00}(k)v_{\mu}^{e}a_{\mu 0}(q)a_{0\nu}(k - q)v_{\nu}^{e}\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \quad { } -m_{v}^{2}\frac{\eta_{2}\zeta_{0}g_{s}^{2}g_{v}^{2}}{6m^{2 } } \left[a_{0\lambda}(k)a_{\lambda\mu}(q)v_{\mu}^{e}v_{\nu}^{e}a_{\nu 0}(k - q ) + 2a_{0\lambda}(k)a_{\lambda 0}(q)v_{\mu}^{e}a_{\mu\nu}(k - q)v_{\nu}^{e}\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \quad { } + \frac{1}{36}\ , \zeta_{0}^{2}g_{v}^{4}\left[a_{\mu\nu}(k)a_{\mu\nu}(q ) v_{\lambda}^{e}a_{\lambda\lambda'}(k - q)v_{\lambda'}^{e } \right .
\nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left.\left . \qquad\qquad\qquad { } + 2v_{\mu}^{e}a_{\mu\nu}(k)a_{\nu\lambda}(k - q ) a_{\lambda\lambda'}(q)v_{\lambda'}^{e}\right ] - \mathrm{vev } \vphantom{\int } \right\ } \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ]    where vev is the vacuum subtraction .
notice that there are now four distinct fermion loops at the two - loop level .
these reduce to the familiar three loops from the non - mixing case when @xmath37 .    with dimensional regularization
, we can shift momentum variables to remove the dependence on the vector field from the fermion propagators and thereby replace @xmath76 by @xmath77 , where @xmath78 & = & \left(i{\not\ ! k}-m^{*}\right)\left[\frac{1}{k^{2}+{m^{*}}^{2}-i\epsilon } - \frac{i\pi}{e^{*}(k)}\delta[k_{4 } - e^{*}(k)]\theta(k_{f}-|\vec{k}|)\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & \equiv & g_{f}^{*}(k ) + g_{d}^{*}(k ) \ .
\label{eqn : bb3}\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath79 .
we can then separate each of the fermion loops [ using @xmath80 into three contributions : an exchange term , a lamb - shift term , and a vacuum - fluctuation term .
the exchange terms will be evaluated explicitly later . for now , let us consider the lamb - shift term for the fermion loop involving scalar  vector mixing : @xmath81 } & & \nonumber \\[5pt ] & \propto & \int\frac{d^{4}k}{(2\pi)^{4 } } \int\frac{d^{4}q}{(2\pi)^{4}}\ , \delta\left(q_{4 } - e^{*}(q)\right ) \theta\left(k_{f } - |\mathbf{q}|\right)\frac{i\pi}{e^{*}(q ) } \left[\frac{m^{*}(k+q)_{\mu}}{k^{2}+{m^{*}}^{2}}\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & { } \times \left[\left(k - q\right)^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\right ] \left(\left[\left(k - q\right)\cdot v\right](k - q)_{\mu } + { m_{v}^{*}}^{2}v_{\mu}\right ) \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \times \left\ { \vphantom{\int}\!\left[\left(k - q\right)^{2}+m_{s}^{2}\right ] \left[\left(k - q\right)^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\right]\right .
\nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \times \left(\left[\left(k - q\right)^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2 } + \frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v^{2}\right]{m_{v}^{*}}^{2 } -\frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}\left[\left(k - q\right)\cdot v\right]^{2}\right ) \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left . { } - \eta^{2}\left(\left[\left(k - q\right)^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\right]{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}v^{2 } + \left[\left(k - q\right)^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}+\frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v^{2}\right ] \left[\left(k - q\right)\cdot v\right]^{2}\right)\right\}^{-1 } \nonumber \\[5pt ] & \propto & \int\frac{d^{4}q}{(2\pi)^{4 } } \int\frac{d^{4}p}{(2\pi)^{4 } } \frac{\theta\left(k_{f } - |\mathbf{q}|\right)}{e^{*}(q ) } \frac{\delta\left(q_{4 } - e^{*}(q)\right ) } { \left[p^{2}+2\left(p\cdot q\right)+q^{2}+{m^{*}}^{2}\right ] } \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & { } \times \left[p^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\right ] \left[\left(p\cdot v\right)\left(p^{2}+2p\cdot q+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\right ) + 2{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\left(q\cdot v\right)\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \times \left\{\left(p^{2}+m_{s}^{2}\right)\left(p^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\right ) \left[\left(p^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}+\frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v^{2}\right){m_{v}^{*}}^{2 } -\frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}\left(p\cdot v\right)^{2}\right]\right . \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left . { } - \eta^{2}\left[\left(p^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\right){m_{v}^{*}}^{2}v^{2 } + \left(p^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}+\frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v^{2}\right ) \left(p\cdot v\right)^{2}\right]\right\}^{-1 } \nonumber \\[5pt ] & \propto & \int\frac{d^{4}q}{(2\pi)^{4 } } \int\frac{d^{4}p}{(2\pi)^{4}}\frac{\theta\left(k_{f } - |\mathbf{q}|\right)}{e^{*}(q ) } \,\delta\left(q_{4 } - e^{*}(q)\right)\sum_{i\ , = \ , 0}^{\infty}\sum_{j\ , = \
, 0}^{\infty } f_{ij}\left(p^{2},q^{2},v^{2},m^{*}\right ) \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \times \left(p\cdot q\right)^{i}\left(p\cdot v\right)^{j } \left\{\left(p\cdot v\right)\left[p^{2}+2\left(p\cdot q\right ) + { m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\right]+2{m_{v}^{*}}^{2 } \left(q\cdot v\right)\right\ } \nonumber \\[5pt ] & \propto & \int\frac{d^{4}q}{(2\pi)^{4 } } \frac{\theta\left(k_{f } - |\mathbf{q}|\right)}{e^{*}(q ) } \,\delta\left(q_{4 } - e^{*}(q)\right ) \widetilde{f}\left(m^{*},v^{2},q\cdot v\right ) \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath82    @xmath83 is the fermi momentum , and @xmath84 .
we have made the substitution @xmath85 , which is allowed if we keep @xmath86 fixed in the @xmath87 integral .
the function @xmath88 comes from the fractional integrand and is an analytic function of the variables @xmath89 , @xmath90 , @xmath91 , and @xmath92 .
the function @xmath93 comes from the integral over @xmath94 and is analytic in the variables @xmath92 , @xmath91 , and @xmath95 , since @xmath96 is always spacelike .
the on - shell condition @xmath97 is used to eliminate the dependence on @xmath90 in the last line .
remember that @xmath98 .
thus , after integrating over @xmath99 , the remaining expression is an analytic function of @xmath100 .
the final result will be complicated , but should be explicitly dependent on some types of baryon densities .
these terms can be directly related to terms in the effective lagrangian that are some combination of the nucleon fields ( with some derivatives ) multiplied by some lorentz - invariant polynomials in the mean meson fields ; as a result , they can be parametrized by local terms in the effective lagrangian .
a simple case was illustrated in @xcite .
the term with the pion propagator is the same as in the non - mixing case .
the fermion loops with @xmath101 and @xmath102 will , in the case of @xmath37 , reduce to the equivalent loops with the pure neutral scalar and vector mesons from the non - mixing case .
we expect that they will behave similarly in both the mixing and non - mixing cases , with the former simply leading to more general local combinations of the fields .
_ thus the lamb - shift terms can be parametrized by terms already present in the lagrangian ( before truncation ) .
_    the vacuum - fluctuation terms and all the pure meson loops have no explicit density dependence , so all the conclusions of the previous analysis @xcite are still applicable here .
the short - range physics which is contained in the lamb - shift and vacuum - fluctuation terms is absorbed in preexisting terms in the qhd lagrangian .
the long - range physics arising from the exchange term must be explicitly calculated ; these integrals are considered in the following section .
we first consider the integral with the propagator from eq .
( [ eqn : ak ] ) .
therefore , one can write @xmath103 \nonumber \\[5pt ] & = & \frac{\gamma g_{s}^{2}}{32\pi^{4}}\int_{0}^{k_{f } } \frac{|\mathbf{k}|^{2}d|\mathbf{k}|}{e^{*}(k ) } \int_{0}^{k_{f}}\frac{|\mathbf{q}|^{2}d|\mathbf{q}|}{e^{*}(q ) } \int_{-1}^{1}d(\cos\theta ) \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \times \left[e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}|\cos\theta+{m^{*}}^{2}\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \times \left[2e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-2|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}|\cos\theta -2{m^{*}}^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \times \left\{\left[2e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-2|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}|\cos\theta -2{m^{*}}^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2 } { } + \frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\right]{m_{v}^{*}}^{2 } \right . \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left.\left .
-\frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\left[e^{*}(k)-e^{*}(q)\right]^{2 } \right\ } \right/ b \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath104 \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \times \left[2e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-2|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}| \cos\theta-2{m^{*}}^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \times \left(\left[2e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-2|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}| \cos\theta-2{m^{*}}^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2 } + \frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\right]{m_{v}^{*}}^{2 } \right .
\nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left.\qquad { } -\frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2 } \left[e^{*}(k)-e^{*}(q)\right]^{2 } \right ) \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & { } + \eta^{2}v_{0}^{2}\left(\left[2e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-2|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}| \cos\theta-2{m^{*}}^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\right ] { m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\right . \nonumber
\\[5pt ] & & { } -\left[2e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-2|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}|\cos\theta-2{m^{*}}^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2 } + \frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \quad \left . { } \times \left[e^{*}(k)-e^{*}(q)\right]^{2}\right ) \ .
\label{eqn : den}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    now we consider the integral with the propagator from eq .
( [ eqn : ah ] ) ; as a result , we get @xmath105 \nonumber \\[5pt ] & = & \frac{\gamma g_{v}^{2}}{32\pi^{4}}\int_{0}^{k_{f } } \frac{|\mathbf{k}|^{2}d|\mathbf{k}|}{e^{*}(k ) } \int_{0}^{k_{f}}\frac{|\mathbf{q}|^{2}d|\mathbf{q}|}{e^{*}(q ) } \int_{-1}^{1}d(\cos\theta ) \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \times \left[\left[2e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-2|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}| \cos\theta-2{m^{*}}^{2}+m_{s}^{2}\right ] \right . \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \times \left\{2\left(\left[2e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-2|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}| \cos\theta-2{m^{*}}^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2 } + \frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\right]{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\right.\right .
\nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left .
-\frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2 } \left[e^{*}(k)-e^{*}(q)\right]^{2}\right ) \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \times \left[e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}|\cos\theta-2{m^{*}}^{2}\right ] \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left . { } + \frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}{m_{v}^{*}}^{2 } \left[e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)+|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}|\cos\theta+{m^{*}}^{2}\right]\right\ } \nonumber \\   & & -\eta^{2}v_{0}^{2}\left(2\left\{\left[e^{*}(k)-e^{*}(q)\right]^{2}-{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\right\ } \left[e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}|\cos\theta-2{m^{*}}^{2}\right ] \right . \nonumber \\[5pt ] & & \left.\left.\left .
-{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\left[e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)+|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}|\cos\theta+{m^{*}}^{2}\right]\right)\right ] \right/ b \ . \end{aligned}\ ] ]
lastly , we consider the integral with the mixed propagator from eq .
( [ eqn : al ] ) , which becomes @xmath106 \nonumber \\[5pt ] & = & -\frac{\gamma g_{s}g_{v}\eta m^{*}v_{0}}{16\pi^{4}}{m_{v}^{*}}^{2 } \int_{0}^{k_{f}}\frac{|\mathbf{k}|^{2}d|\mathbf{k}|}{e^{*}(k ) } \int_{0}^{k_{f}}\frac{|\mathbf{q}|^{2}d|\mathbf{q}|}{e^{*}(q ) } \int_{-1}^{1}d(\cos\theta ) \nonumber \\[7pt ] & & \times \left[e^{*}(k)+e^{*}(q)\right ] % \nonumber \\ % & & \times \left.\left[2e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-2|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}| \cos\theta-2{m^{*}}^{2}+{m_{v}^{*}}^{2}\right ] \right/ b \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the formula for the pion contribution to the two - loop energy density is the same as in @xcite .
in the previous section , we showed that the short- and long - range dynamics of the two - loop contributions can be separated even in the presence of various nonlinearities in the isoscalar meson fields .
the short - range physics can be expressed as a series of terms that are already present in the underlying lagrangian ; thus , they are implicitly contained in the undetermined coefficients .
the long - range exchange contributions must be calculated explicitly .
the question remains what effect these new contributions have on the naturalness assumption .
naturalness @xcite states that once all the dimensional and combinatorial factors in a given term of the lagrangian are removed , what is left is a dimensionless constant of order unity . to show that naturalness is not violated by the inclusion of the two - loop exchange integrals
, we will show that sets of natural parameters exist that adequately reproduce the empirical properties of symmetric nuclear matter at equilibrium @xcite .
.parameter sets used in this work compared with one - loop parameter sets at the same level of truncation . [ cols="^,^,^,^,^,^,^",options="header " , ]     in _ conclusion _ , we have shown that the results of @xcite are still valid when various nonlinearities in the isoscalar meson fields are included in the lagrangian .
the short- and long - range physics at the two - loop level in the loop expansion can be separated .
the short - range ( local ) dynamics is parametrized by the undetermined coefficients of the lagrangian , like those in the nonlinear meson self - interactions , and is either removed by field redefinitions or fitted to empirical data .
the long - range ( nonlocal ) physics must be calculated explicitly .
the assumption of naturalness is shown to hold in the presence of the two - loop exchange integrals .
the size of the two - loop contributions is roughly equal to third order in the mean field power counting .
the inclusion of tensor contributions was also considered and found to be small .
we thank our colleague j. d. walecka for valuable comments on the manuscript . this work was supported in part by the department of energy under contract no .
de  fg0287er40365 .
in this section , we present the corrections to the theory arising from the tensor coupling to the neutral vector meson at the two - loop level , where @xmath107    after working out the variational derivatives , we acquire the energy density .
now we can replace the hartree propagator by @xmath108 , as before .
the lamb - shift and vacuum fluctuation terms are absorbed by the same process as before .
( the only difference here is more gamma matrices and they do nt influence the result . )
now we are left with only the exchange terms @xmath109 \nonumber \\ & = & -\frac{f_{v}^{2}g_{v}^{2}}{64\pi^{4}m^{2 } } \int_{0}^{k_{f}}\frac{|\mathbf{k}|^{2}d|\mathbf{k}|}{e^{*}(k ) } \int_{0}^{k_{f}}\frac{|\mathbf{q}|^{2}d|\mathbf{q}|}{e^{*}(q ) } \int_{-1}^{1}d(\cos\theta ) \nonumber \\[7pt ] & & \times \left(\left[2e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-2|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}| \cos\theta-2{m^{*}}^{2}+m_{s}^{2}\right]\right .
\nonumber \\ & & \times \left\{2\left(\left[2e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-2|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}| \cos\theta-2{m^{*}}^{2}+m_{v}^{2}+\frac{\zeta_{0}}{2}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\right]\right.\right .
\nonumber \\ & & \times \left .
\left[m_{v}^{2}+\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\right ] -\frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\left[e^{*}(k)-e^{*}(q)\right]^{2}\right ) \nonumber \\ & & \times \left[e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}| \cos\theta-{m^{*}}^{2}\right]^{2 } \nonumber \\ & & + \frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\left[m_{v}^{2}+\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\right ] \nonumber \\ & & \times \left(\left[e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}|\cos\theta-{m^{*}}^{2}\right ] \left[2e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-2{m^{*}}^{2}\right ] \right .
\nonumber \\ & & \left.\left . -{m^{*}}^{2}\left[e^{*}(k)-e^{*}(q)\right]^{2}\right)\right\ } \nonumber \\ & & -\eta^{2}v_{0}^{2}\left[2\left\{\left[e^{*}(k)-e^{*}(q)\right]^{2 } -\left(m_{v}^{2}+\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\right)\right\}\right . \nonumber \\ & & \times \left[e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}|\cos\theta-{m^{*}}^{2}\right]^{2 } \nonumber \\ & & + \left(m_{v}^{2}+\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\right ) \left\{2\left[e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}|\cos\theta-{m^{*}}^{2}\right]\right .
\nonumber \\ & & \left.\left.\left .
\times \left[e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-{m^{*}}^{2}\right]-{m^{*}}^{2}\left[e^{*}(k)-e^{*}(q)\right]^{2}\right\}\right]\right ) / b \ , \nonumber \\ { \cal e}^{(2)}_{xt - ex } & = & \frac{f_{v}g_{v}^{2}}{2m}\int\frac{d^{4}k}{(2\pi)^{4 } } \int\frac{d^{4}q}{(2\pi)^{4 } } a_{\mu\nu}(k - q ) \nonumber \\ & & { } \times \tr\left[\gamma_{\mu}g_{d}^{*}(k)\sigma_{\nu\rho}\left(k - q\right)_{\rho}g_{d}^{*}(q)\right ] \nonumber \\ & = & -\frac{f_{v}g_{v}^{2}m^{*}}{32\pi^{4}m } \int_{0}^{k_{f}}\frac{|\mathbf{k}|^{2}d|\mathbf{k}|}{e^{*}(k ) } \int_{0}^{k_{f}}\frac{|\mathbf{q}|^{2}d|\mathbf{q}|}{e^{*}(q ) } \int_{-1}^{1}d(\cos\theta ) \nonumber \\[7pt ] & & \times \left(\left[2e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-2|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}| \cos\theta-2{m^{*}}^{2}+m_{s}^{2}\right]\right .
\nonumber \\ & & \times \left\{8\left(\left[2e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-2|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}| \cos\theta-2{m^{*}}^{2}+m_{v}^{2}+\frac{\zeta_{0}}{2}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\right]\right.\right .
\nonumber \\ & & \times \left .
\left[m_{v}^{2}+\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\right ] -\frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\left[e^{*}(k)-e^{*}(q)\right]^{2}\right ) \nonumber \\ & & \times \left[e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}| \cos\theta-{m^{*}}^{2}\right ] \nonumber \\ & & + \frac{\zeta_{0}}{3}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\left[m_{v}^{2}+\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\right ] \nonumber \\ & & \left .
\times \left(\left[2e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-2|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}|\cos\theta-2{m^{*}}^{2}\right ] + \left[e^{*}(k)-e^{*}(q)\right]^{2}\right)\right\ } \nonumber \\ & & -\eta^{2}v_{0}^{2}\left[8\left\{\left[e^{*}(k)-e^{*}(q)\right]^{2 } -\left(m_{v}^{2}+\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\right)\right\}\right .
\nonumber \\ & & \times \left[e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}|\cos\theta-{m^{*}}^{2}\right ] \nonumber \\ & & + \left(m_{v}^{2}+\frac{\zeta_{0}}{6}g_{v}^{2}v_{0}^{2}\right ) \left\{2\left[e^{*}(k)e^{*}(q)-|\mathbf{k}||\mathbf{q}|\cos\theta-{m^{*}}^{2}\right]\right .
\nonumber \\ & & \left.\left.\left .
+ \left[e^{*}(k)-e^{*}(q)\right]^{2}\right\}\right]\right ) / b \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ]        p. hohenberg and w. kohn , phys .
* 136b * ( 1964 ) 864 . w. kohn and l. j. sham , phys .
* a140 * ( 1965 ) 1133 .
w. kohn , rev .
* 71 * ( 1999 ) 1253 .
r. m. dreizler and e. k. u. gross , density functional theory , springer , berlin ( 1990 ) . c. speicher , r. m. dreizler , and e. engel , ann .
* 213 * ( 1992 ) 312 .
r. n. schmid , e. engel , and r. m. dreizler , phys .
c * 52 * ( 1995 ) 164 .
r. j. furnstahl , b. d. serot , and h .- b .
tang , nucl .
* a615 * ( 1997 ) 441 .
r. j. furnstahl , b. d. serot , and h .- b .
tang , nucl .
* a640 * ( 1998 ) 505 ( e ) . b. d. serot and j. d. walecka , int .
j.  mod .
e * 6 * ( 1997 ) 515 .
j. d. walecka , theoretical nuclear and subnuclear physics , second ed . ,
world scientific , singapore ( 2004 ) . c. o. almbladh and u. von barth , phys
.  rev .
b * 31 * ( 1985 ) 3231 .
j. d. walecka , ann .
* 83 * ( 1974 ) 491 .
r. j. furnstahl and b. d. serot , nucl .
phys .  * a671 * ( 2000 ) 447 .
r. j. furnstahl , int .
j.  mod .
b * 17 * ( 2003 ) 5111 .
b. d. serot , in : lecture notes phys .
* 641 * , g. a. lalazissis , p. ring , and d. vretenar , eds . ,
springer , berlin , heidelberg ( 2004 ) , p.  31 .
r. j. furnstahl , in : lecture notes phys .
* 641 * , g. a. lalazissis , p. ring , and d. vretenar , eds . ,
springer , berlin , heidelberg ( 2004 ) , p.  1 .
a. manohar and h. georgi , nucl .
phys .  * b234 * ( 1984 ) 189 .
h. georgi , phys .
* b298 * ( 1993 ) 187 .
j. l. friar , d. g. madland , and b. w. lynn , phys .
c * 53 * ( 1996 ) 3085 .
j. l. friar , few body syst .
* 22 * ( 1997 ) 161 .
j. mcintire , phys .  rev .
c * 66 * ( 2002 ) 064319 .
j. mcintire , acta phys .  pol .
b * 35 * ( 2004 ) 2261 .
j. mcintire , ` arxiv : nuc - th/0507006 ` .
m. a. huertas , phys .
c * 66 * ( 2002 ) 024318 .
m. a. huertas , phys .
c * 67 * ( 2003 ) 019901 ( e ) .
m. a. huertas , acta phys .
b * 34 * ( 2003 ) 4269 .
m. a. huertas , acta phys .  pol .
b * 35 * ( 2004 ) 837 .
r. j. furntahl , r. j. perry , and b. d. serot , phys .
c * 40 * ( 1989 ) 321 .
k. wehrberger , r. wittman , and b. d. serot , phys .
c * 42 * ( 1990 ) 2680 .
b. d. serot and h .- b .
tang , phys .
c * 51 * ( 1995 ) 969 . y. hu , j. mcintire , and b. d. serot , ` arxiv:0706.1547 [ nucl - th ] ` .
p. a. m. dirac , phys .
z.  sowjetunion * 3 * ( 1933 ) 64 .
c. itzykson and j .- b .
zuber , quantum field theory , mcgraw  hill , new york ( 1980 ) .
b. d. serot and j. d. walecka , adv .
* 16 * ( 1986 ) 1 .
s. coleman and e. weinberg , phys .
d * 7 * ( 1973 ) 1888 .
j. iliopoulos , c. itzykson , and a. martin , rev .
* 47 * ( 1975 ) 165 .
s. coleman , new phenomena in subnuclear physics , plenum , new york ( 1977 ) .
tang , ` arxiv : hep - ph/9607436 ` .
p. j. ellis and h .- b .
tang , phys .
c * 57 * ( 1998 ) 3356 .
t. becher and h. leutwyler , eur .
j.  c * 9 * ( 1999 ) 643 .
t. becher , ` arxiv : hep - ph/0011079 ` .
s. scherer , adv .
* 27 * ( 2003 ) 277 .
t. fuchs , m. r. schindler , j. gegelia , and s. scherer , phys .
* b575 * ( 2003 ) 11 .
m. r. schindler , j. gegelia , and s. scherer , phys .
* b586 * ( 2004 ) 258 .
m. r. schindler , j. gegelia , and s. scherer , nucl .
* b682 * ( 2004 ) 367 . s. scherer , int .  j.  mod
.  phys .
* a21 * ( 2006 ) 881 .
d. djukanovic , j. gegelia , and s. scherer , eur .
j.  * a29 * ( 2006 ) 337 .
s. a. chin , ann .
* 108 * ( 1977 ) 301 .
r. j. furnstahl , nucl .
* a706 * ( 2002 ) 85 .
j. mcintire , ` arxiv:0708.2860 ` .