Have a look at this related question. In particular look at Lehr's rule. This provides an approximation: $$n = \frac{16}{\Delta^2},$$ where $\Delta$ is the proposed effect size ($d$). This returns the approximate $n$ for each group. This is similar to @user2974951 answer but I believe is more precise.
To get exact results, you need to work with the t-distribution directly, determining the t-value for given p-values and degrees of freedom, etc.
ADDENDUM:
The approximation above is based on the following. Recall that Cohen's $d$ can be calculated from $t$ and the group sample sizes as:
$$ d = t \sqrt{\frac{n_1 + n_2}{n_1 n_2}} ~.$$
If the sample sizes are equal, this can be simplified:
$$ d = t \sqrt{\frac{2}{n}} .$$
We can further manipulate this for the purpose of power analysis:
$$ d^2 = \frac{t^2 2}{n};~~ therefore~~ n = \frac{t^2 2}{d^2} .$$
In power analysis we are interested in the assumed (true) population effect size ($\Delta$) and need a $t$ value associated with that effect size with our desired power-level. We will start by determining $\Delta$ for a given sample-size, alpha-level, and power-level.
$$ \Delta = (t_{1-\alpha/2,df} + t_{power,df})\sqrt{\frac{2}{n}} ~.$$
Where the $t$-values are the critical values for the $t$ at our two-tailed alpha-level and for the $t$ at our power-level, give a specific degrees-of-freedom. If we rearrange this equation to solve for $n$, we get:
$$ n = \frac{(t_{1-\alpha/2,df} + t_{power,df})^2 2}{\Delta^2} ~.$$
However, we have a problem. We need to know $n$ to know the degrees-of-freedom for $t$. That is, we have $n$ on both sides of the equation. The solution is to iterate through the prior equation that solves for $\Delta$ to find the $n$ that returns to desired $\Delta$ for our alpha and power levels.
Using the value 16 in the numerator of the above equation, however, produces a good approximation. This is the numerator associated with a sample size (in each group) of 52.428. If the approximation returns a sample size greater than 52.428, then it is a slight over-estimate, as we see above on your example (the approximation returns 64 compared to the exact solution of 63.77. If the approximation returns a sample size less than 52.428, then it is an under-estimate of the needed sample size. I haven't explored at which point the under estimation becomes severe but suspect based on where $t$-values really start to grow that it is for values less than around $n=20$.