1: \documentclass[twocolumn,

2: 11pt,tightenlines,nofootinbib,preprintnumbers,showpacs,floatfix,prd]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{amsmath}

5: \input epsf

6: \newcommand{\upa}{{\uparrow}}

7: \newcommand{\doa}{{\downarrow}}

8: \newcommand{\ria}{{\rightarrow}}

9: \newcommand{\mbf}{\mathbf}

10: \begin{document}

11: %\preprint{CPT-PXX-2007}

12: \title{Impact picture for the analyzing power $A_N$ 

13: in very forward $pp$ elastic scattering}

14: %\title{The analyzing power $A_N$ for p p elastic scattering in the 

15: %very forward direction in the impact-picture model}

16: 

17: \author{Claude Bourrely\footnote{Electronic address: 

18: Claude.Bourrely@cpt.univ-mrs.fr}}

19: \affiliation{Centre de Physique Th\'eorique\footnote{Unit\'e Mixte 

20: de  Recherche 6207 du CNRS et des Universit\'es Aix-Marseille I,

21: Aix-Marseille II et de l'Universit\'e du Sud Toulon-Var -

22: Laboratoire affili\'e \`a la FRUMAM.}, 

23: CNRS Luminy case 907,\\

24: F-13288 Marseille Cedex 09, France}

25: \author{Jacques Soffer\footnote{Electronic address: jsoffer@temple.edu}}

26: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Temple University,

27: Philadelphia, PA 19122-6082, USA}

28: \author{Tai Tsun Wu\footnote{Electronic address: ttwu@seas.harvard.edu}}

29: \affiliation{Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA and\\

30: Theoretical Physics Division, CERN, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}

31: \begin{abstract}

32: In the framework of the impact picture we compute the analyzing power $A_N$

33: for $pp$ elastic scattering at high energy and in the very forward direction. We

34: consider the full set of Coulomb amplitudes and show that

35: the interference between the hadronic non-flip

36: amplitude and the single-flip Coulomb amplitude is sufficient to obtain

37: a good agreement with the present experimental data. This leads us to conclude

38: that the single-flip hadronic amplitude is small in this low momentum

39: transfer region and it strongly suggests that this process can be used as an absolute

40: polarimeter at the BNL-RHIC $pp$ collider.

41: \end{abstract}

42: \pacs{ 13.40.-f, 13.85.Dz, 13.88.+e}

43: \maketitle

44: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

45: \section{Introduction}

46: The measurement of spin observables in hadronic exclusive processes is the only

47: way to obtain the full knowledge on the corresponding set of scattering amplitudes, 

48: and in particular, their relative size and phase difference. Taking the specific

49: case of proton-proton elastic scattering, a reconstruction of the five

50: amplitudes has been worked out in the low-energy domain \cite{leluc}. This situation

51: is very different at high energy; due to the lack of data, in the range $p_{lab} \simeq$ 100-300 GeV,

52: besides the non-flip hadronic amplitude $\phi_1^h$, only the hadronic helicity-flip amplitude 

53: $\phi_5^h$ is known and to a rather poor level of accuracy. 

54: The advent of the

55: BNL-RHIC $pp$ collider, where the two proton beams can be polarized, longitudinally and 

56: transversely, up to an energy

57: $\sqrt{s} = 500~\mbox{GeV}$, offers a unique opportunity to measure

58: single- and double-spin observables, and thus to provide the determination

59: of the spin-dependent amplitudes, which remain unknown so far.

60: 

61: For instance, for an elastic collision of transversely polarized protons,

62: the differential cross section as a function of the momentum

63: transfer $t$ and the azimuthal angle $\phi$, reads

64: \begin{align}

65: 2\pi\frac{d^2\sigma}{dt d\phi} =& \frac{d\sigma}{dt}

66: [1 + (P_B + P_Y) A_N \cos\phi \\

67: \nonumber

68: & +P_BP_Y (A_{NN}\cos^2\phi + A_{SS}\sin^2\phi)]~,

69: \label{anexp}

70: \end{align}

71: where $P_B$ and $P_Y$ are the beam polarizations, $A_N$ the analyzing power

72: and $A_{NN}$, $A_{SS}$

73: are double spin asymmetries (see Ref.~\cite{bou1} for definitions).

74: In this expression, the values of the beam polarizations have to be known 

75: accurately in order to reduce the errors on the spin asymmetries. So new measurements

76: are indeed required to achieve an amplitude analysis of $pp$ elastic scattering at high energy,

77: and the success of the vast BNL-RHIC spin programme \cite{bssv} also relies heavily on

78: the precise determination of the beam polarizations. One possibility for 

79: an absolute polarimeter\footnote{Proton-Helium elastic scattering has been also considered

80: as a possible high-energy polarimeter \cite{bou7}.} is provided by

81: the measurement of the analyzing power $A_N$, in the very forward $|t|$

82: region, where significant Coulomb nuclear interference (CNI) occurs \cite{bou6,bklst,butt01}.

83: 

84: In the calculation of the analyzing power an important question arises: is the

85: interference fully dominated by the hadronic non-flip amplitude with the 

86: one-photon exchange helicity-flip amplitude or must one also take into account

87: the contribution of the hadronic helicity-flip amplitude $\phi_5^h$, mentioned above? 

88: Several arguments concerning the magnitude and phase

89: of $\phi_5^h$ in the small $t$-region, have been discussed in great detail in Ref.~\cite{bklst}

90: and it was concluded that the measurement of $A_N$ in the CNI region was badly needed to

91: get the answer. The purpose of this paper is to study this problem in the framework

92: of the impact picture developed almost three decades ago \cite{bou3}, which has led to

93: a very successful phenomenology, repeatedly verified by high-energy experiments, 

94: including near the forward direction.\footnote{ An accurate measurement for the

95: real part of the $pp$ forward scattering amplitude is a real challenge for the LHC \cite{bkmsw}.} 

96: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

97: \section{\bf The impact-picture approach}

98: \label{des}

99: In the impact picture, the spin-independent hadronic 

100: amplitude $\phi_1^h=\phi_3^h$

101: for $p p$ and $\bar p p$ elastic scattering reads as \cite{bou3}

102: \begin{equation}\label{ampli}

103: \phi_{1,3}^h(s,t) = \frac{is}{2\pi}\int e^{-i\mbf{q}\cdot\mbf{b}} (1 - 

104: e^{-\Omega_0(s,\mbf{b})})  d\mbf{b} \ ,

105: \end{equation}

106: where $\mbf q$ is the momentum transfer ($t={-\bf q}^2$) and 

107: $\Omega_0(s,\mbf{b})$ is the opaqueness at impact parameter 

108: $\mbf b$ and at a given energy $s$. We take 

109: \begin{equation}\label{opac}

110: \Omega_0(s,\mbf{b}) = S_0(s)F(\mbf{b}^2)+ R_0(s,\mbf{b})~.

111: \end{equation}

112: Here the first term is associated with the Pomeron exchange, which generates 

113: the diffractive component of the scattering and the second term is 

114: the Regge background.

115: The Pomeron energy dependence is given by the crossing symmetric expression 

116: \cite{r1,r2} 

117: \begin{equation}\label{energ}

118: S_0(s) = \frac{s^c}{ (\ln s)^{c'}} + \frac{u^c}{ (\ln u)^{c'}} \ ,

119: \end{equation}

120: where $u$ is the third Mandelstam variable.

121: The choice one makes for $F(\mbf{b}^2)$ is crucial and, as explained in Ref.~\cite{bou3},

122: we take the Bessel transform of

123: \begin{equation}\label{formf}

124: \tilde F(t) = f[G(t)]^2~{a^2 + t \over a^2 -t} ~.

125: \end{equation}

126: Here $G(t)$ stands for the proton 

127: electromagnetic form factor, parametrized as 

128: \begin{equation}\label{fgt}

129: G(t) = {1 \over (1 - t/m_1^2)(1 - t/m_2^2)} \ .

130: \end{equation}

131: The slowly varying function occurring in Eq.~(\ref{formf}) reflects the 

132: approximate proportionality between the charge density and the hadronic matter

133: distribution inside a proton \cite{r3}.

134: So the Pomeron part of the amplitude depends on only {\it six} parameters

135: $c, c', m_1, m_2, f,$ and $a$. 

136: The asymptotic energy regime of hadronic interactions are controlled by 

137: $c$ and $c'$, which will be kept, for all elastic reactions, at

138: the values obtained in 1984 \cite{bou9}, namely

139: \begin{equation}\label{cc'}

140: c=0.167 ~~~\mbox{and}~~~c'=0.748~~.

141: \end{equation}

142: The remaining four parameters are related, more specifically to the reaction 

143: $pp$ ($\bar p p$) and they have been fitted in \cite{bou8} by

144: the use of a large set of elastic data.

145: 

146: We now turn to the Regge background. A generic Regge exchange amplitude 

147: has an expression of the form

148: \begin{equation}\label{ampreg}

149: \tilde R_i(s,t)=C_ie^{b_it} \left[ 1 \pm e^{-i\pi\alpha_i(t)}\right]

150: [\frac{s}{s_0}]^{\alpha_i(t)} \ ,

151: \end{equation}

152: where $C_ie^{b_it}$ is the Regge residue, $\pm$ refers to an even- or odd-signature exchange, 

153: $\alpha_i(t) = \alpha_{0i} + \alpha_i^{'} t$, is 

154: a standard linear Regge trajectory and $s_0 =1~$GeV$^2$.

155: If $\tilde R_0(s,t)= \sum_i \tilde R_i(s,t)$ is the sum over all the allowed Regge trajectories, 

156: the Regge background 

157: $R_0(s,\mbf{b})$ in Eq.~(\ref{opac}) is the Bessel transform of 

158: $\tilde R_0(s,t)$. In $pp$ ($\bar p p$) elastic scattering,

159: the allowed Regge exchanges are $A_2$, $\rho$, $\omega$, so the Regge 

160: background involves several additional parameters, which are given in

161: Ref.~\cite{bou8}.

162: 

163: In earlier work, spin-dependent hadronic amplitudes were implemented

164: \cite{bou3,bou4,bou5}, using the notion of rotating matter inside

165: the proton, which allowed us to describe the polarizations and spin correlation 

166: parameters, but for the present purpose hadronic spin-dependent amplitudes

167: will be ignored.

168: In order to describe the very small $t$-region we are interested in,

169: one adds to the hadronic amplitude considered above, the full

170: set of Coulomb amplitudes $\phi_i^C(s,t)$, whose expressions are given 

171: in Ref.~\cite{lap78} and the Coulomb phase in Ref.~\cite{kund05}.

172: 

173: The two observables of interest are the unpolarized cross section

174: $d\sigma/dt$ and the analyzing power $A_N$, whose expressions in terms

175: of the hadronic and Coulomb amplitudes are respectively

176: \begin{equation}

177: \frac{d\sigma(s,t)}{dt}\!\! =\!\! \frac{\pi}{s^2}

178: \sum_{i=1,\cdots, 5}\,|\phi^h_i(s,t) + \phi^C_i(s,t)|^2

179: \label{cross} 

180: \end{equation}  

181: and  

182: \begin{equation} 

183:  A_N(s,t)\!\! = \!\! \frac{4\mbox{Im}((\phi_1^h(s,t))^*\,\phi_5^C(s,t))}

184: {\sum_{i=1,\cdots, 5}\!|\phi^h_i(s,t)\! +\! \phi^C_i(s,t)|^2}~. 

185: \label{anth}

186: \end{equation}

187: The numerator of this last expression is not fully general because

188: we have assumed that $\phi_1^h=\phi_3^h$ and $\phi_{2,4,5}^h=0$.

189: 

190: \begin{figure}[thp]

191:        \vspace*{-38mm}

192: \begin{center}

193:      \begin{minipage}[t]{0.250\textwidth}

194:        \hspace*{-0.5\textwidth}

195:        \includegraphics[width=1.9\textwidth]{dsigcoul-lin.eps}

196:        \vspace*{-65mm}

197:     \end{minipage}\hfill

198: \end{center}

199:       \vspace*{-0.2\textwidth}%

200: \begin{center}

201:     \begin{minipage}[t]{0.250\textwidth}

202:       \hspace*{-0.5\textwidth}

203:       \includegraphics[width=1.9\textwidth]{dsig44.eps}

204:        \vspace*{-65mm}

205:     \end{minipage}\hfill

206: \end{center}

207: \vspace*{-19mm}

208: \caption{\label{fig:1}The differential cross section versus the momentum

209: transfer $t$ for different energies.

210: Data from Refs.~ \cite{bart72,schiz81,burq83,fajardo,gros78,amal79}.}

211: \vspace*{-1.2ex}

212: \end{figure}

213: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

214: \begin{figure}[thp]

215:        \vspace*{-10mm}

216: \begin{center}

217:      \begin{minipage}[t]{0.250\textwidth}

218:        \hspace*{-0.5\textwidth}

219:       \includegraphics[height=2.3\textwidth]{anrhic13.eps}

220:        \vspace*{-60mm}

221:     \end{minipage}\hfill

222: \end{center}

223:       \vspace*{-0.2\textwidth}%

224: \begin{center}

225:     \begin{minipage}[t]{0.250\textwidth}

226:       \hspace*{-0.5\textwidth}

227:       \includegraphics[height=2.3\textwidth]{anfermi19.eps}

228:        \vspace*{-60mm}

229:     \end{minipage}\hfill

230: \end{center}

231:       \vspace*{-0.2\textwidth}%

232: \begin{center}

233:     \begin{minipage}[t]{0.250\textwidth}

234:       \hspace*{-0.5\textwidth}

235:       \includegraphics[height=2.3\textwidth]{anrhic200.eps}

236:        \vspace*{-60mm}

237:     \end{minipage}\hfill

238: \end{center}

239: \vspace*{-16mm}

240: \caption{\label{fig:2}The analyzing power $A_N$ versus the momentum

241: transfer $t$ for different energies. 

242: Data from Refs.~ \cite{okada05,akch93,bult06}.}

243: \vspace*{-1.2ex}

244: \end{figure}

245: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

246: \section{Numerical results}

247: \label{secan}

248: The analyzing power $A_N$ has been measured at high energy for

249: $\sqrt{s} = 13.7,~19.4,~200~ \mbox{GeV}$, but before turning to the calculation of this quantity,

250: it is necessary to look at the predictions for the differential

251: cross section, at the corresponding energies. They are given in the upper plot in 

252: Fig.~\ref{fig:1} and compared with the available experimental results at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13.7 and 19.4~GeV.

253: We underestimate a bit the data for high $t$-values, at $\sqrt{s} = 13.7~\mbox{GeV}$, which might indicate

254: the presence of a small hadronic spin-dependent amplitude. However, this is not the case at

255: $\sqrt{s} = 44~\mbox{GeV}$, where the agreement is excellent, as shown in the lower plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}.

256: Note that the momentum transfer runs over four decades and the cross section over eleven orders

257: of magnitude, which is a good illustration of the validity of the impact picture. Concerning the energy

258: $\sqrt{s} = 200~\mbox{GeV}$, we cannot make a detailed comparison with the data. The pp2pp experiment

259: \cite{bult04} has only determined the slope of the cross section for $0.01<|t|<0.019 ~\mbox{GeV}^2$, which

260: is $b=16.3 \pm 1.6 (stat.) \pm 0.9 (syst.)~ \mbox{GeV}^{-2}$, consistent with the average value

261: obtained in the impact picture, namely $b=16.25 ~\mbox{GeV}^{-2}$.

262: 

263: 

264: 

265: In Fig.~\ref{fig:2}, we compare the predictions with the data, for $A_N$ in the CNI region

266: versus $|t|$, for three different energies and let us make the following 

267: remarks. First, there is almost no energy dependence between $\sqrt{s}$ = 13.7 and 19.4 GeV, but

268: the curve has a slightly different shape at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. Second,

269: although this is not obvious from the plot, $A_N$ does not vanish for $|t|>0.1~\mbox{GeV}^2$ and

270: we would like to stress that for $pp$ elastic scattering at high energy,

271: in the dip region, the hadronic and the Coulomb amplitudes are of the same

272: order of magnitude \cite{bou2}, so the behavior of spin observables

273: is sensitive to this interference. Finally, indeed

274: the predictions agree well with the present experimental

275: data and in view of future data taking in the BNL-RHIC spin

276: programme, we display in Fig.~\ref{fig:3} some predictions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s}$ = 500 GeV.

277: When the energy increases the maximum of $A_N$ decreases and occurs at a lower $t$ value, which clearly reflects

278: the rise of the total cross section \cite{bklst}.

279:  The above discussion shows that the hadronic spin-flip amplitude is not necessary to describe

280: the analyzing power, at least when compared with the data with the present day accuracy. A 

281: similar conclusion was obtained in Ref.~\cite{okada05}, which contains the best data sample so far. Note that

282: their analysis, based on Ref.~\cite{bklst}, was done using a simple model for $\phi^h_1$ and they didn't introduce the full expressions for the Coulomb amplitudes $\phi_i^C$, as we do here for consistency.\\

283: Before going to the conclusion, it is worth mentioning some very recent data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 6.7 GeV \cite{okada07}, 

284: with a statistically limited accuracy, which might indicate the existence of a non-zero $\phi^h_5$. However

285: this energy is too low to allow a simple theoretical interpretation of $\phi^h_5$ in terms of a non-zero

286: Pomeron flip coupling and would require a more elaborated phenomenological analysis,

287: including dominant Regge contributions.

288: \begin{figure}[thp]

289: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{anrhic500.eps}

290: \caption{\label{fig:3}Predictions for the analyzing power $A_N$ versus the momentum

291: transfer $t$ for two energies.}

292: \end{figure}

293: 

294: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

295: \section{Conclusion}

296: We have shown, in the context of the impact picture, that the analyzing 

297: power $A_N$ can be described in the CNI region

298: by the interference between the non-flip hadronic

299: amplitude and the single-flip Coulomb amplitude. Unfortunately the data set 

300: at $\sqrt{s} = 200~\mbox{GeV}$ is too limited to confirm the predicted trend. It

301: should be extended to make sure this method is a reliable high-energy

302: polarimeter. The RHIC machine offers a unique opportunity

303: to measure single- and double-spin observables, with both 

304: longitudinal and transverse spin directions, and we believe it worthwhile to improve

305: such measurements, in particular in the small momentum transfer region, as

306: discussed in Ref.~\cite{bklst}. So far $A_{NN}$ was found consistent

307: with zero within 1.5$\sigma$ \cite{okada07, bult07}. It is a trivial statement to say that at the moment

308: we know almost nothing on the $pp$ spin-flip amplitudes at high energy, due to 

309: the scarcity of previous

310: experiments performed at CERN and Fermilab. They don't allow us

311: to make a reliable amplitude analysis, which requires these new measured observables, in a significant

312: range of momentum transfer. This will be important for our

313: understanding of spin-dependent scattering dynamics. 

314: \newpage

315: \begin{acknowledgments}

316: We are grateful to Margaret Owens for a careful reading of the manuscript.

317: J.S. is glad to thank G. Bunce, H. Okada and N. Saito for useful discussions at Brookhaven National

318: Laboratory.

319: The work of one of us (T.T.W.) was supported in part by the US Department 

320: of Energy under Grant DE-FG02-84ER40158; he is also grateful for 

321: hospitality at the CERN Theoretical Physics Division.

322: \end{acknowledgments}

323: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

324: 

325: \bibitem{leluc} For a review see, C. Lechanoine-LeLuc and F. Lehar,

326: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 65}, 47 (1993).

327: 

328: \bibitem{bou1} For a review see, C. Bourrely, E. Leader and J. Soffer,

329: Phys. Rep. C {\bf 59}, 95 (1980) (Appendix 3).

330: 

331: \bibitem{bssv} G. Bunce, N. Saito, J. Soffer and W. Vogelsang, 

332: Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 50}, 525 (2000).

333: 

334: \bibitem{bou7} C. Bourrely and J. Soffer,

335: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 442}, 479 (1998).

336: 

337: \bibitem{bou6}  C. Bourrely and J. Soffer,

338: 12th International Symposium on High Energy Spin Physics,

339: Amsterdam,  September 1996. C.W. de Jager et al. (Eds) p. 825,

340: (World Scientific 1997).

341: 

342: \bibitem{bklst} N.H. Buttimore, B. Kopeliovich, E. Leader, J. Soffer and T.L. Trueman, Phys. Rev. D

343: {\bf 59}, 114010 (1999).

344: 

345: \bibitem{butt01} N.H. Buttimore, E. Leader and T.L. Trueman, Phys. Rev. D

346: {\bf 64}, 094021 (2001).

347: 

348: \bibitem{bou3} C. Bourrely, J. Soffer and T.T. Wu,

349: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 19}, 3249 (1979).

350: 

351: \bibitem{bkmsw} C. Bourrely, N. N. Khuri, A. Martin, J. Soffer and T. T. Wu, Proceedings of the

352: XIth Int. Conf. on Elastic and Diffractive Scattering, Blois May 2005, The Gioi

353: Publishers, Vietnam, p. 41 (2006).

354: 

355: \bibitem{r1} H. Cheng and T.T. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 24}, 1456 (1970).

356: 

357: \bibitem{r2} H. Cheng and T.T. Wu, ``Expanding Protons: Scattering at

358: High Energies'', M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA (1987).

359: 

360: \bibitem{r3} H. Cheng and T.T. Wu, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 184}, 1868 (1969).

361: 

362: \bibitem{bou9}  C. Bourrely, J. Soffer and T.T. Wu,

363: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 247}, 15 (1984).

364: 

365: \bibitem{bou8}  C. Bourrely, J. Soffer and T.T. Wu,

366: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 28}, 97 (2003).

367: 

368: \bibitem{bou4} C. Bourrely,  H. Neal, H. Ogren, J. Soffer and T.T. Wu,

369: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 26}, 1781 (1982).

370: 

371: \bibitem{bou5} C. Bourrely,  J. de Physique {\bf 46} , C2-221 (1985).

372: 

373: \bibitem{lap78}

374: L.I. Lapidus, Nucl. and Part. Phys. {\bf 9}, 84 (1978);

375: N.H. Buttimore, E. Gostman and E. Leader, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 18}, 694 (1978).

376: 

377: \bibitem{kund05} 

378: G. B. West and D.R. Yennie, Phys. Rev. {\bf 172}, 1413 (1968);

379:  V. Kundr\'at and M. Lokaj{\'i}\u{c}ek, Phys. Lett. B 

380: {\bf 611}, 102 (2005).

381: 

382: %small angle pp 25 200

383: \bibitem{bart72} V. Bartenev {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 29}, 1755

384: (1972).

385: 

386: % pp 200 dsigma

387: \bibitem{schiz81} A. Schiz {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 24}, 26 (1981).

388: 

389: % dsig pp plab=100

390: \bibitem{burq83} J.P.  Burq {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 217}, 285 (1983).

391: 

392: % dsig pp plab=100

393: \bibitem{fajardo}L. A. Fajardo {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 24}, 46 (1981);

394:  L.A. Fajardo-Paz, PhD Thesis, Yale University (1980).

395: 

396: %dsig pp plab=200

397: \bibitem{gros78} D. Gross {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 41}, 217 (1978).

398: 

399: %dsig racs=44

400: \bibitem{amal79} U. Amaldi {\it et al.}, Nuc. Phys. B {\bf 166}, 301 (1979).

401: 

402: \bibitem{bult04} S. B\"ultmann {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 579}, 245

403: (2004).

404: 

405: % AN pp rhic 100

406: \bibitem{okada05} H. Okada {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 638}, 450 (2006).

407: 

408: % AN pp 200 fermi

409: \bibitem{akch93} N. Akchurin {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 48}, 3026

410: (1993).

411: 

412: % An rhic 200

413: \bibitem{bult06} S. B\"ultmann {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 632}, 167

414: (2006).

415: 

416: \bibitem{bou2} C. Bourrely and J. Soffer,

417: Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, {\bf 19} 569 (1977).

418: 

419: \bibitem{okada07} H. Okada {\it et al.}, arXiv:0704:1031 [hep-ex].

420: 

421: 

422: \bibitem{bult07} S. B\"ultmann {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 647}, 98

423: (2007).

424: 

425: \end{thebibliography}

426: 

427: \end{document}

428: