1: %

2: %  25/10/2008 

3: %

4: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,prc,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}

5:  \documentclass[aps,prc,showpacs,floatfix,4paper]{revtex4}

6: \usepackage{amsmath}

7: \usepackage{amssymb}

8: \usepackage{epsfig}

9: 

10: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}

11: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}

12: \newcommand{\dis}{\displaystyle}

13: \def\bra#1{\textstyle{\left\langle \, #1 \, \right\vert \>}}

14: \def\ket#1{\textstyle{\> \left\vert \>\! #1 \>\! \right\rangle}}

15: %  old newcommand

16: \newcommand{\bmath}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath ${#1}$}}

17: \newcommand{\dd}{\mbox{\rm d}}

18: \def\bfg #1{{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}}

19: \newcommand{\degr}{$^{\circ}$}

20: \newcommand{\fmn}[2]{\mbox{${\textstyle \frac{#1}{#2}}$}}

21: %\def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

22: 

23: 

24: \begin{document}

25: \title{Forward $\bar p d$ elastic scattering and total spin-dependent

26: $\bar p d$ cross sections at intermediate energies} 

27: 

28: %

29: \author{Yu.N.~Uzikov$^1$, J.~Haidenbauer$^2$}

30: 

31: \affiliation{

32: $^1$Laboratory of Nuclear Problems, Joint Institute for Nuclear

33: Research, 141980 Dubna, Russia\\

34: $^2$Institut f\"ur Kernphysik and J\"ulich Center for Hadron Physics,

35: Forschungszentrum J\"ulich, D-52425 J\"ulich, Germany

36: }

37: 

38: \begin{abstract}

39: Spin-dependent total ${\bar p}d$ cross sections 

40: are considered using the optical theorem. For this aim 

41: the full spin dependence of the forward 

42: ${\bar p}d$ elastic scattering amplitude is considered in a model 

43: independent way. The single-scattering approximation is used

44: to relate this amplitude to the elementary 

45: amplitudes of $\bar p p$ and $\bar p n$ scattering 

46: and the deuteron formfactor.

47: %

48: A formalism allowing to take into account Coulomb-nuclear

49: interference effects in polarized $\bar p d$

50: cross sections is developed.

51: % 

52: Numerical calculations for the polarized total 

53: ${\bar p}d$ cross sections are performed at beam energies 

54: 20-300 MeV using the $\bar N N$ interaction models developed by

55: the J\"ulich group.

56: Double-scattering effects are estimated within the Glauber approach

57: and found to be in the order of 10 - 20 \%.

58: Existing experimental data on differential $\bar p d$ cross sections 

59: are in good agreement with the performed Glauber calculations.

60: %

61: It is found that for the used ${\bar N}N$ models  

62: the total longitudinal and transversal ${\bar p }d$

63: cross sections are comparable in absolute value to those for

64: ${\bar p}p$ scattering. 

65: \end{abstract}

66: %

67: \pacs{13.75Cs; 24.70.+s; 25.43.+t; 29.27.Hj}

68: 

69: \maketitle

70: 

71: \section{Introduction}

72: Recently the PAX collaboration was formed \cite{PAX} with the aim

73: to measure the proton transversity in the interaction of polarized 

74: antiprotons with protons at the future FAIR facility in Darmstadt. 

75: In order to produce an intense beam of polarized antiprotons, the collaboration 

76: is going to use antiproton elastic scattering off a polarized hydrogen 

77: target ($^1$H) in a storage ring \cite{Rathmann}.

78: %

79: The basic idea

80: is connected to the result of the FILTEX experiment \cite{FILTEX},

81: where a sizeable effect of polarization buildup was achieved in a 

82: storage ring by scattering of 

83: unpolarized protons off a polarized hydrogen atoms at low

84: beam energies of 23 MeV. 

85:  

86: According to recent theoretical analyses \cite{MS,NNNP,NNNP1,NNNP2}

87: the polarization effect observed in Ref. \cite{FILTEX} has to be interpreted

88: in such a way that solely the spin dependence of the hadronic (proton-proton) 

89: interaction provides the spin-filtering mechanism, i.e. is responsible for

90: different rates of removal of protons from the ring for different initial 

91: polarization states.

92: % 

93: In other words \cite{MS,NNNP},

94: proton scattering on the polarized electrons of hydrogen

95: atoms cannot provide a sizeable effect of polarization buildup, as it was

96: assumed before \cite {HOM}. Indeed, the maximal scattering angle in

97: this process, $\theta_{max}=m_e/m_p=0.5$ mrad, is less than the beam

98: acceptance angle $\theta_{acc}$, which is defined so that for scattering at 

99: smaller angle $\theta < \theta_{acc}$ the

100: projectile remains in the beam.

101: %

102:  For this case, the beam-into-beam scattering

103: kinematics of this process in a storage ring allows the proton polarization 

104: buildup only due to spin-flip transitions between the initial and final 

105: spin states of the beam proton \cite{MS}.

106: Furthermore, since

107: the Coulomb interaction between the protons and electrons

108: is spin-independent it cannot provide spin-flip transitions and,

109:  consequently, does not contribute to the polarization buildup.

110: The same argument, obviously, is valid in case of

111: antiproton scattering off a hydrogen target. Therefore, the 

112: authors of Ref.~\cite{MS} concluded that only the hadronic interaction 

113: can be used to produce polarized antiprotons on the basis of the

114: spin-filtering mechanism.

115: 

116: In contrast to the $NN$ case, the spin-dependent part of the $\bar pN$ 

117: interaction is poorly known experimentally at present. 

118: Therefore, to investigate the 

119: polarization buildup mechanism in $\bar p~^1$H scattering 

120: a new experiment is planned 

121: at CERN \cite{AD}. The stored antiprotons will be scattered off

122: a polarized $^1$H target in that experiment \cite{AD} and the polarization

123: of the antiproton beam will be measured at intermediate energies.

124: Some theoretical estimations \cite{DmitrievMS}

125: of the expected polarization effects were already performed

126: employing a specific model of the $\bar{p}p$ interaction.

127: 

128: In this context, it is interesting and useful to explore other hadronic

129: reactions as possible source for the antiproton polarization buildup too.   

130: Therefore, in the present work we study polarization effects in 

131: antiproton-deuteron (${\bar p} d$) scattering for beam energies up to

132: 300 MeV. Besides the issue of polarization buildup for 

133: antiprotons, $\bar{p}$ scattering on a polarized deuteron,

134: if it will be studied experimentally, can be also used

135: as a test for our present knowledge of the ${\bar p}n$ and ${\bar p}p$ 

136: interactions.  

137: %

138: Our investigation is based on the Glauber-Sitenko theory for 

139: ${\bar p}d$ scattering and it utilizes the ${\bar N}N$ interaction models 

140: developed by the J\"ulich group \cite{Hippchen,Hippchen1,Mull} 

141: as input for the elementary amplitudes. Since there are data on 

142: (unpolarized) total and differential $\bar p d$ cross sections in

143: the considered energy range we can examine the reliability of the 

144: Glauber approach via a direct comparison of our results to 

145: experimental information. 

146: %

147: In addition we also present results for polarization effects for the

148: $\bar NN$ system itself. With the $\bar NN$ potentials developed by 

149: the J\"ulich group we have conceptually rather different models 

150: at our disposal than the one used in Ref.~\cite{DmitrievMS} and

151: it will be instructive to see and compare the corresponding predictions.

152: Moreover, we consider here the ${\bar p}p$ as well as the ${\bar p}n$

153: case. 

154: 

155: Let us mention here for completeness that very recently new QED

156: calculations for polarization transfer in proton-electron 

157: (and antiproton-positron) elastic scattering

158: were performed \cite{Arenhoevel}. These calculations

159: predict very large polarization transfer from polarized 

160: electrons (positrons) to unpolarized protons (antiprotons) in elastic

161: proton-electron (antiproton-positron) scattering

162: at low beam energies, less than 20 keV \cite{Arenhoevel}.

163: On this basis new sources for polarized antiprotons are under discussion

164: \cite{Walcher}. On the other hand, 

165: according to a calculation presented in Ref.~\cite{MSS}, the effect of

166: polarization buildup is negligible in this reaction, even at small

167: relative velocites. A recent measurement performed at COSY \cite{Frankpc} 

168: intends to explore this method.

169: Finally, another method for buildup of  

170: polarized antiprotons at high energies, based on production of

171: ${\bar \Lambda}(1115)$ % ($ \Lambda(1115)$)

172: and its subsequentional decay  ${\bar \Lambda}\to \pi^+ +\bar p$,

173: %($ \Lambda\to \pi^-+ p$), 

174: has been proposed in Ref.~\cite{Nurushev}. 

175: 

176: The paper is structured in the following way. 

177: In the next section we consider the spin structure of the total ${\bar p}d$

178: cross section using the optical theorem. 

179: %

180: In Sect. III expressions for the forward 

181: ${\bar p}d$ elastic scattering amplitude are derived

182: in the impulse approximation and the formalism for the polarized total

183: $\bar p d$ cross sections is developed. 

184: The formalism for calculating the Coulomb-nuclear interference cross 

185: sections is presented in Sect. IV. The technical details 

186: for evaluating the Coulomb-hadronic interference cross sections for 

187: $\bar p d$ elastic scattering are summarized in Appendix A.

188: %

189: The $\bar p N$ interaction model of the J\"ulich group is briefly reviewed

190: in Sect. V. The amplitudes of this model are used as input for

191: our ${\bar p}d$ calculations. We also provide and discuss results for 

192: spin-dependent cross sections in the $\bar p p$ as well as $\bar p n$ channels. 

193: %

194: Numerical results for the ${\bar p}d$ reaction are presented and discussed

195: in section VI.

196: %

197: A short summary is provided in the last section.

198:         

199: \section {Phenomenology of the spin dependence of

200:  the total $\bar p d$ cross section}

201: 

202: Let us first consider only the purely hadronic part of the reaction 

203: amplitude. The modifications due to the presence of the Coulomb interaction

204: will be discussed in Sect. IV.

205: %

206: We use the optical theorem to derive the formalism for the total spin dependent 

207: $\bar p d$ cross sections. 

208: According to \cite{phillips} one has

209: \begin{equation}

210: \label{optth}

211: Im \frac {Tr(\hat \rho_i \hat F(0))}{Tr \hat\rho_i}=

212: \frac{k_{\bar p d}}{4\pi} \sigma_i , 

213:  \end{equation}

214:  where $\hat F(0)$ is the transition operator for $\bar p d$ elastic

215:  scattering at the angle $\theta=0$, $\rho_i$ is the initial

216:  spin-density matrix, $\sigma_i$ is the total cross section depending on

217:  the density matrix $\rho_i$, and $k_{\bar p d}$ is the momentum in the 

218: center-of-mass system (cms).

219: 

220:  The spin dependence  of the amplitude of the $\bar p d$ elastic scattering

221:  is the same as for the $pd$ elastic scattering. For collinear kinematics

222:  it contains four independent terms

223:  \cite{rekalo} and can be written as \cite{uzepan98} 

224: \begin{equation}

225: \label{fab}

226: \hat F_{\alpha\beta}(0)=g_1\delta_{\alpha\beta}+

227: (g_2-g_1)m_\alpha m_\beta+ig_3{\hat \sigma}_i

228: \epsilon_{\alpha\beta  i}+ i(g_4-g_3){\hat \sigma}_i m_i m_j

229: \epsilon_{\alpha\beta  j},

230: \end{equation}

231: where $\hat \sigma_i$ ($i=x,y,z$) are the Pauli spin matrices,

232: $\epsilon_{\alpha \beta \gamma}$ is the fully antisymmetric tensor,

233: $m_\alpha$ are the Cartesian components of a unit vector ${\bf m}$

234: pointing along the beam momentum, and $g_i$ $(i=1,\dots,4)$ are complex numbers

235: determined by the dynamics of the reaction. Let us put the $z$ axis along 

236: the vector ${\bf m}$, so that ${\bf m}=(m_x,m_y,m_z)=(0,0,1)$.

237: The $\bar p d$ elastic scattering amplitude is obtained by sandwiching 

238: the operator $\hat F_{\alpha\beta}$ between antiproton and deuteron spin states, 

239: \begin{eqnarray}

240: \label{tfi}

241: F_{\mu \lambda}^{\mu^\prime \lambda^\prime}\equiv <\mu^\prime\lambda^\prime|{\hat F}|\mu\lambda>=

242: \phi^+_{\mu^\prime}e_{\beta}^{(\lambda^\prime)^*}{\hat F}_{\alpha \beta}

243: e_\alpha^{(\lambda)}\phi_\mu,

244: \end{eqnarray}

245:  where $\phi_\mu$ ($\phi_{\mu^\prime }$) is the Pauli spinor for the initial (final)

246:  antiproton with the spin projection $\mu$ ($\mu\prime$) and

247:  $e_\alpha^{(\lambda)}$ ($e_\beta^{(\lambda^\prime)}$) is the polarization vector of

248:  the initial (final) deuteron with the spin projection $\lambda$ ($\lambda^\prime)$.

249:  

250:  When choosing different initial polarization states in Eq.~(\ref{optth}),

251:  described by the product of the spin density matrices of

252:  the antiproton $\rho^{\bar p}$ and

253:  the deuteron ${\hat \rho^d}$, $\rho=\rho^{\bar p}\rho^d$,

254:  one can derive from Eqs.~(\ref{optth}) and (\ref{fab}) different total

255:  spin-dependent

256:  cross sections in terms of the forward amplitudes $g_i$.

257:  For example, for unpolarized antiprotons and unpolarized deuterons one has 

258: $\rho=\frac{1}{2}\times\frac{1}{3}$, and one finds from Eq.~(\ref{optth}) 

259:  the unpolarized total cross section to be 

260: %

261:  \begin{equation}

262: \label{sigma0}

263:  \sigma_0=\frac{2 \pi}{k_{\bar p d}}Im(g_1+g_2) \ .

264: \end{equation}

265:  In general the spin density matrices are

266: \begin{equation}

267: \label{rhop}

268: \rho^{\bar p}=\frac{1}{2}(1+{\bf  P}^{\bar p}{\hat {\bfg \sigma}})

269: \end{equation}

270:  for the antiproton and

271: \begin{equation}

272: \label{rhod}

273: \rho^{d}=\frac{1}{3}+ \frac{1}{2}S_jP_j^d+\frac{1}{9} S_{jk}P_{jk}^d

274: \end{equation}

275:  for the deuteron. Here $S_j$ is the spin-1 operator, 

276:  ${ P}_j^d$ and $P_{jk}^d$ $(j,k=x,y,z)$ are the vector

277:  and tensor polarizations of the deuteron, and

278:  $S_{jk}=(S_jS_k+S_kS_j-\frac{4}{3}\delta_{jk})$ is the spin-tensor operator.

279: 

280: Using Eqs.~(\ref{fab}),

281:  (\ref{rhop}) and (\ref{rhod}) one can find from Eq.~(\ref{optth}),

282: \begin{eqnarray}

283: \label{trace}

284: Tr \{\rho^{\bar p}\times\rho^d {\hat F}(0)\}=

285:  \frac{1}{2}(g_1+g_2)+P_x^{\bar p}P_x^dg_3+ P_y^{\bar p}P_y^dg_3+

286: P_z^{\bar p}P_z^dg_4+\nonumber \\

287: +\frac{1}{9}P_{xx}^d(g_1-g_2) +\frac{1}{9}P_{yy}^d(g_1-g_2) +

288: \frac{5}{18}P_{zz}^d(g_1-g_2).

289: \end{eqnarray}

290: 

291:  As seen from this formula, 

292:  if the initial antiproton is polarized with the polarization vector

293:  ${\bf  P}^{\bar p}$ and the deuteron has the 

294:  polarization vector ${\bf P}^d$, then non-zero terms $\sigma_i$ arise in the

295:  right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{optth}) for parallel (or antiparallel) orientation

296:  of the vectors ${\bf P}^{\bar p}$ and ${\bf P}^d$.

297:   For the  tensor

298:  polarization of the deuteron only the diagonal components of the

299:  polarization tensor $P_{xx}^d$, $P_{yy}^d$ and $P_{zz}^d$ are connected with

300:  non-zero total cross section.

301:  The cross sections associated with  $P_{xx}^d$ and $P_{yy}^d$

302:  are the same and determined  by $\frac{1}{9}(g_1-g_2)$,

303:  whereas the cross section connected with the $P_{zz}^d$

304:  component is given by $\frac{5}{18}(g_1-g_2)$.

305:  Taking into account the relation $P_{xx}^d+P_{yy}^d+P_{zz}^d=0$,

306:  one can find from Eq.~(\ref{trace}) that

307:  the total tensor cross section can be connected only with the $P_{zz}^d$

308:  component.

309: 

310:   All other combinations of polarizations of the antiproton

311:  and/or deuteron, namely, polarized antiproton,

312:  vector-polarized deuteron, and polarized antiproton -- tensor-polarized 

313:  deuteron, give zero contribution to the total 

314:  cross section due to parity conservation.   

315: 

316:  Summarizing the above results, the total polarized ${\bar p} d$ section

317:  can be written as

318: \begin{equation}

319: \label{totalspin}

320: \sigma=\sigma_0+\sigma_1{\bf P}^{\bar p}\cdot {\bf P}^d+

321:  \sigma_2 ({\bf P}^{\bar p}\cdot {\bf m}) ({\bf P}^d\cdot {\bf m})+

322: \sigma_3 P_{zz}^d, 

323: \end{equation}

324: where $\sigma_0$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{sigma0}), and the other coefficients

325: are:

326: \begin{eqnarray}

327: \nonumber          

328: \sigma_1&=&\frac{4\pi}{k_{\bar p d}}Im g_3,\\

329: \nonumber 

330: \sigma_2&=&\frac{4\pi}{k_{\bar p d}}Im (g_4-g_3),\\

331: \label{sigma3}

332: \sigma_3&=&\frac{4\pi}{k_{\bar p d}}Im \frac{(g_1-g_2)}{6}.

333: \end{eqnarray}

334:  One can find from Eq.~(\ref{totalspin}) that only the cross sections 

335: $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$

336:  are connected with the spin-filtering mechanism and,

337:  therefore, determine the rate of the

338:  polarization buildup in the scattering of unpolarized antiprotons off polarized

339:  deuterons. 

340: % former footnote:

341: (More precisely,

342:  the rate of polarization buildup is determined by the ratio 

343:  $\sigma_1/\sigma_0$

344:  for transversal polarization and by $(\sigma_2-\sigma_1)/\sigma_0$ for

345:  longitudinal polarization of target and beam in the storage ring.)

346: %

347:  The tensor cross section $\sigma_3$ is not connected with the

348:  polarization of the beam and, therefore, is not relevant 

349:  for the spin-filtering. However, this cross section, as well as the 

350:  unpolarized cross section $\sigma_0$,

351:  determines the lifetime of the beam. When changing the sign of the tensor

352:  polarization $P_{zz}^d$, one may change the beam lifetime. 

353: 

354: \section{$\bar p d$ elastic scattering at forward angles}

355: 

356: \subsection {Glauber theory}

357: Within the Glauber theory the amplitudes

358: for the elastic ($\bar p d\to \bar p d$) and breakup 

359: ($\bar p d\to \bar p np $)

360: reactions are given by the following matrix element  

361: \begin{equation}

362: \label{glafi}

363: F_{if}({\bf q})= <f|F({\bf q}, {\bf s})|i>,

364: \end{equation}

365: calculated between definite initial $|i>$ and final $|f>$ states of

366: the two-nucleon system. Here the transition operator is

367: \begin{equation}

368: \label{Ffi}

369: F({\bf q}, {\bf s})=\exp{(\frac{1}{2}i{\bf q}\cdot{\bf s})}f_{\bar p p}({\bf q})+

370: \exp{(-\frac{1}{2}i{\bf q}\cdot{\bf s})}f_{\bar p n}({\bf q})+

371: \frac{i}{2\pi k_{\bar p d}}\int \exp{(i{\bf q}'\cdot{\bf s})}

372: f_{\bar p n}({\bf q'}+\frac{1}{2}{\bf q})

373: f_{\bar p p}(-{\bf q'}+\frac{1}{2}{\bf q})d^2{\bf q}'.

374: \end{equation}

375: In Eqs.~(\ref{glafi}) and (\ref{Ffi}) ${\bf q}$ is the transferred momentum,

376: ${\bf s}$ is the impact parameter, and $f_{\bar p N}({\bf q})$ ($N=p, n$) is the 

377: $\bar p N$ scattering amplitude.

378: The amplitude of elastic $\bar p d$ scattering can be expressed via 

379: the elastic form

380: factor of the deuteron, $S({\bf q})$, and the elementary amplitudes of

381: $\bar pN$ scattering. The differential scattering cross section for

382: elastic ($\bar p d \to \bar p d$) plus inelastic ($\bar p d \to \bar p pn$) 

383: scattering is calculated

384: within the closure approximation \cite{FrancoGlauber}. That allows one

385: to express the scattering cross section

386: %$d \sigma^{sc}/{d\Omega}$

387:  via $f_{\bar p N}({\bf q})$, 

388: $S({\bf q})$ and the deuteron wave function. 

389: Since the D-wave component

390: of the deuteron wave function becomes important only in the region of the 

391: first diffraction minimum of the differential $\bar p d$ cross section

392: \cite{mahalabi}, we neglect its contribution in the present calculations 

393: and take into account only the S-wave component.

394:   

395:  As seen from Eq.~(\ref{Ffi}), in the Glauber theory

396:  of multiple scattering of hadrons off the deuteron only

397:  single-scattering (first two terms on the right-hand side) and double-scattering 

398:  (third term on the right-hand side) mechanisms contribute to the transition

399:  amplitude. 

400:  In forward direction the single-scattering mechanism dominates.

401:  The corrections related to double-scattering effects produce the so-called 

402:  shadowing effect. As a result, the total unpolarized antiproton-deuteron 

403:  cross section $\sigma^{\bar p d}$ is not equal to the sum of the total 

404:  $\bar p p$ and $\bar p n$ cross sections, $\sigma^{\bar p p}$ and $\sigma^{\bar p n}$, 

405:  but is given by 

406:  \begin{equation}

407: \label{shadowing}

408: \sigma^{\bar p d}=\sigma^{\bar p p}+\sigma^{\bar p n}-\delta\sigma^d ,

409: \end{equation}

410: where $\delta\sigma^d$ stands for the corrections due to 

411: double-scattering effects.

412: 

413: \subsection{Impulse approximation}

414:     

415: In the impulse approximation (IA) (or single-scattering approximation) 

416: one can present the forward $\bar p d$ elastic scattering amplitude in the 

417: following form

418: \begin{equation}

419: \label{pdamp0}

420: F_{\mu \lambda}^{\mu' \lambda'}=

421: \frac{m_d}{m_N}\sqrt{\frac{s_{\bar p N}}{s_{\bar p d}}}

422: \sum_{\sigma \,\sigma'\, \sigma_N}

423: <\sigma'\mu'|f_{\bar p N}|\sigma\mu>

424: S_{\lambda\, \lambda'}^{\sigma \sigma'\sigma_N}({\bf Q}=0),

425: \end{equation}

426:  where $<\sigma'\mu'|f_{\bar p N}|\sigma\mu>$ is the $\bar p N$ scattering 

427: amplitude at zero degree, defined as in Ref.~\cite{bystricky}, 

428:  $S_{\lambda\, \lambda'}^{\sigma \sigma'\sigma_N}({\bf Q}=0)$ is the elastic

429:  form factor of the deuteron at zero transferred momentum ${\bf Q}$, 

430:  $s_{\bar p N}$ ($s_{\bar p d}$) is the invariant mass of the $\bar p N$

431:  ($\bar p d$) system, and 

432: $m_d$ ($m_N$) is the mass of the deuteron (nucleon).

433:  The sum in Eq.~(\ref{pdamp0}) runs over the 

434:  $z$ projections of the spin of the nucleon spectator $(\sigma_N)$, 

435: and of the initial ($\sigma$) and recoil ($\sigma'$) nucleons inside the deuteron.

436: The transition operator for the $\bar p N$ forward scattering

437: amplitude has the form \cite{bystricky}

438: \begin{equation}

439: \label{pNamp}

440: f_{\bar p N}=A_N+B_N ({\bfg \sigma}_1\cdot {\bfg \sigma}_2) +D_N

441: ({\bfg \sigma}_1\cdot {\bf m})({\bfg \sigma}_2\cdot {\bf m}),

442: \end{equation}

443: where the matrix ${\bfg \sigma}_1$  (${\bfg \sigma}_2$)

444: acts on the spin state of the antiproton (nucleon) and $A_N$, $B_N$ and $D_N$ ($N=p,n$) 

445: are complex amplitudes \cite{bystricky}.

446: %

447: 

448: The deuteron elastic form factor at ${\bf Q}=0$ can be written as

449: \begin{equation}

450:  \label{dff}

451:  S_{\lambda\, \lambda'}^{\sigma \sigma'\sigma_N}({\bf Q}=0)=

452: \sum_{l\, m\, M_S\,M_S'}(\frac{1}{2}\sigma \frac{1}{2}\sigma_N|1M_S)

453:  (1M_S\,l\,m|1\lambda)

454: (\frac{1}{2}\sigma \frac{1}{2} \sigma_N|1M_S)

455:  (1M_S\,l\,m|1\lambda)(1M_S'\,l\,m|1\lambda') \, P_l,

456: \end{equation}

457: where $P_l$ is the relative weight of the S-wave ($l=0$) and D-wave $(l=2)$ 

458: components of the deuteron wave function with the normalization $P_0+P_2=1$.

459: 

460: Using Eq.~(\ref{fab}) one can find the invariant amplitudes $g_1,\dots,g_4$

461:  from the following transition  matrix elements  

462: \hbox{$<\mu'\lambda'|{\hat F}|\mu \lambda>$} of $\bar p d$ forward

463:  scattering \cite{rekalo}:

464: \begin{eqnarray}

465: \label{amprelations1}

466: <+\frac{1}{2}, \phantom{+}0|\hat F|+\frac{1}{2}, \phantom{+}0>&=& g_2 \nonumber \\

467: %=AW,\\

468: <+\frac{1}{2}, +1|\hat F|+\frac{1}{2}, +1>&=& g_1-g_4, \nonumber \\

469: %=(A+B+D)W,\\

470:  <+\frac{1}{2}, -1|\hat F|+\frac{1}{2}, -1>&=& g_1+g_4, \nonumber \\

471: %=(A-B-D)W,\\

472: <+\frac{1}{2}, -1|\hat F|-\frac{1}{2}, \phantom{+}0>&=& -\sqrt{2}g_3.

473: %=\sqrt{2}BW. \\

474: \end{eqnarray}

475: On the other hand, using Eqs.~(\ref{pdamp0}), (\ref{pNamp}) and (\ref{dff}),

476: one can express the transition matrix elements in terms of the $\bar pN$

477: scattering amplitudes as

478: % 

479: \begin{eqnarray}

480: \nonumber

481: <+\frac{1}{2}, \phantom{+}0|\hat F|+\frac{1}{2}, \phantom{+}0>&=&A\,w,\\

482: \nonumber

483: <+\frac{1}{2}, +1|\hat F|+\frac{1}{2}, +1>&=&(A+B+D)\,w,\\

484: \nonumber

485: <+\frac{1}{2}, -1|\hat F|+\frac{1}{2}, -1>&=& (A-B-D)\,w,\\

486: \label{amprelations2}

487: <+\frac{1}{2}, -1|\hat F|-\frac{1}{2}, \phantom{+}0>&=&\sqrt{2}B\,w,

488: \end{eqnarray}

489: where $A=A_p+A_n$, $B=B_p+B_n$, $D=D_p+D_n$ and 

490: \begin{eqnarray}

491: \label{pspd}

492: w=\frac{m_d}{m_N}

493: \sqrt{\frac{s_{\bar pN}}{s_{\bar p d}}}(P_0-\frac{1}{2}P_2). 

494: \end{eqnarray}

495: From a comparison of Eqs.~(\ref{amprelations1}) with 

496: Eqs.~(\ref{amprelations2}) one can find that in the single-scattering 

497: approximation the invariant amplitudes can be written as

498: \begin{eqnarray}

499: \label{g4toab}

500: g_1=g_2= Aw&=&\phantom{-}\frac{1}{2}\left [M_1(0)+M_3(0)\right ]w,\nonumber \\

501: g_3=-Bw&=&-\frac{1}{2} M_2(0)w, \nonumber\\

502: g_4=-(B+D)w&=&\phantom{-}\frac{1}{2}\left [M_1(0)-M_3(0)\right ]w . 

503: \end{eqnarray}

504: 

505: Here we used the standard relations between the amplitudes 

506: $A_N$, $B_N$, and $D_N$ and the helicity amplitudes $M_i^N$ 

507: of $\bar p N$ scattering \cite{bystricky} together with the notation $M_i=M_i^p+M_i^n$.

508: %

509: Utilizing Eqs.~(\ref{sigma0}), (\ref{sigma3}) and (\ref{g4toab})  

510: the total cross sections are thus

511: \begin{eqnarray}

512: \nonumber 

513: \sigma_0^{IA}&=&\frac{2\pi}{k_{\bar p d}}Im\left [M_1^p(0)+M_3^p(0)+

514: M_1^n(0)+M_3^n(0)\right ] w = 

515: (\sigma_0^{\bar p p}+\sigma_0^{\bar p n}){\widetilde w},\\

516: \nonumber 

517: \sigma_1^{IA}&=&-\frac{2\pi}{k_{\bar p d}}Im \left [M_2^p(0)+M_2^n(0)\right ]w =

518: -(\sigma_1^{\bar p p}+\sigma_1^{\bar p n}){\widetilde w},\\

519: \nonumber 

520: \sigma_2^{IA}&=&\frac{2\pi}{k_{\bar p d}}Im\left [M_1^p(0)+M_2^p(0)-M_3^p(0)

521: +M_1^n(0)+M_2^n(0)-M_3^n(0) \right ] w =

522: -(\sigma_2^{\bar p p}+\sigma_2^{\bar p n}){\widetilde w},\\

523: \label{sigma3IA}

524: \sigma_3^{IA}&=&0,

525: \end{eqnarray}

526: where we used the relations \cite{bystricky}

527: \begin{eqnarray}

528: \nonumber

529: \sigma_0^{\bar p N}&=&\frac{2\pi}{k_{\bar p N}}Im\left [M_1^N(0)+M_3^N(0)\right ], \\

530: \nonumber 

531: \sigma_1^{\bar p N}&=&\frac{2\pi}{k_{\bar p N}}Im\left [M_2^N(0)\right ], \\

532:  \label{s2IA}

533: \sigma_2^{\bar p N}&=&-\frac{2\pi}{k_{\bar p N}}Im\left [M_1^N(0)+M_2^N(0)-M_3^N(0)\right ],

534: \end{eqnarray}

535: %

536: and the fact that the cms momentum in the $\bar pN$ system,

537: $k_{\bar p N}$,

538: is related to the ${\bar p d}$ cms momentum, $k_{\bar p d}$, by

539: %

540: \begin{equation}

541: \frac{k_{\bar pd}}{k_{\bar p N}}=\frac{m_d}{m_N}

542: \sqrt{\frac{s_{\bar pN}}{s_{\bar p d}}} \ ,

543: \end{equation}

544: for equal ($\bar p$) beam energies $T_{lab}$ in the reactions $\bar p N$ 

545: and $\bar p d$. The quantity $\widetilde w$ in Eqs.~(\ref{sigma3IA}) is defined by 

546: $\widetilde w=P_0-\frac{1}{2}P_2$.

547: 

548: One can see from Eqs.~(\ref{sigma3IA}) that in the impulse 

549: approximation all total cross sections are additive, i.e. given by the sum of the

550: corresponding cross sections on the proton and neutron.

551: While this result is obvious for the total unpolarized ${\bar p d}$

552: cross section $\sigma_0$, it was not expected for the

553: spin-dependent cross sections, especially, in view of the

554: opposite sign of the $\bar p d$ cross sections $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$

555: with regard to $\sigma_1^{\bar p N}$ and $\sigma_2^{\bar p N}$, respectively.

556:  

557: \subsection{Shadowing effects}

558: 

559: As already mentioned above, the double-scattering mechanism dominates at large 

560: scattering angles, while its relative contribution decreases when approaching 

561: the scattering angle $\theta = 0$. 

562: The numerical calculations of the forward amplitude of $\bar p d$ elastic 

563: scattering, which will be presented below, demonstrate that the inclusion of 

564: the double-scattering mechanism reduces the total unpolarized cross section 

565: by around 15~\% at energies 50-300 MeV as compared to the result obtained 

566: within the single-scattering approximation 

567: If one adopts the approximaton given in Ref.~\cite{Alberi} then 

568: the effects of double-scattering for polarized $\bar p d$ cross sections 

569: should be likewise around 15-20 \% in the energy region in question. 

570: Thus, we expect them to be significantly smaller than the variations in

571: the predictions due to the uncertainties in the spin-dependence of the 

572: elementary $\bar p N$ interaction. Therefore, we do not consider the 

573: double-scattering effects on the spin-dependent cross sections in the 

574: present investigation, which anyway has an exploratory character. 

575: % 

576: Note that 

577: an accurate evaluation of the contribution of double-scattering effects to

578: polarized cross sections requires to consider the D-wave component of the 

579: deuteron as well as the angular dependence of all (ten) $\bar pN$ helicity 

580: amplitudes \cite{Alberi1} and is therefore rather tedious. 

581: 

582: \section{Coulomb-nuclear interference}

583: 

584: The total polarized cross sections including the Coulomb

585: interaction can be written as the sum of the purely hadronic 

586: contributions $\sigma_i^h$, 

587: the Coulomb-nuclear interference terms $\sigma^{int}_i$ and the 

588: pure Coulomb contribution $\sigma^C_i$: 

589: \begin{eqnarray}

590: \label{sigma0tot}

591:  \sigma_0&=&\sigma_0^h+\sigma_0^{int}+\sigma_0^C,\nonumber \\

592: \label{sigma1tot}

593: \sigma_1&=&\sigma_1^h+\sigma_1^{int}+\sigma_1^C,\nonumber \\

594: \label{sigma2tot}

595: \sigma_2&=&\sigma_2^h+\sigma_2^{int}+\sigma_2^C,\nonumber \\

596:  \label{sigma3tot}

597: \sigma_3&=&\sigma_3^h+\sigma_3^{int}+\sigma_3^C,

598:  \end{eqnarray}

599: where $\sigma_3$ is only present in case of the $\bar p d$ reaction.

600: The hadronic contributions are those discussed in detail in the 

601: two preceeding sections. Note, however, that from now onwards we label 

602: the corresponding quantities with the superscript ``h'' for the sake 

603: of clarity.  

604: 

605: As was found in Refs.~\cite{MS,HOM}, the interference between

606: the Coulomb amplitude and the hadronic amplitudes in the total 

607: spin-dependent cross section of $pp$ scattering plays an important role 

608: in the spin-filtering mechanism. When taken

609: into account together with the purely hadronic total cross section

610: this interference improves significantly the agreement between

611: the theory of spin-filtering and the data of the FILTEX experiment 

612: \cite{MS,NNNP,HOM}.  

613: 

614: Due to the singularity at $\theta\to 0$, Coulomb effects in the total 

615: cross section cannot be taken into account by means of the optical 

616: theorem. Therefore, in order to obtain the Coulomb-nuclear

617:  interference cross section for elastic scattering

618:  one has to perform an integration over the scattering

619:  angle for terms like $Re f^C(\theta){f^h}^*(\theta)$

620:  or $Im f^C(\theta){f^h}^*(\theta)$, where $f^C$ is the

621: Coulomb scattering amplitude, and $f^h$ is the amplitude

622: of the purely hadronic interaction 

623:  modified by the Coulomb interaction \cite{Landau}.

624:  As was shown in \cite{MS} and \cite{NNNP}, in such an

625:  integration the lower limit for the scattering angle $\theta$

626:  has to be taken as $\theta_{acc}$ (with $\theta_{acc}<<1$),

627:  because scattering events at lower angles, where the

628:  projectiles stay in the beam, do not lead to a beam polarization.

629:  

630: In the Glauber theory Coulomb effects can be taken into account by the method

631: of Ref.~\cite{Lesniak} in which the elementary eikonal $pp$ phase

632: is taken as sum of the purely strong and purely Coulomb phases. 

633: It is rather obvious that Coulomb effects appear in the

634: total $\bar p d$ cross section only due to the presence of the pure Coulomb 

635: term in the $\bar p p$ elastic scattering amplitude (see Eq.~(\ref{purekul})).

636: However, there is also an interference effect between the Coulomb amplitude 

637: and the $\bar pn$ scattering amplitude, as can be seen immediately from the 

638: expressions for the single-scattering approximation given below.  

639: 

640: \subsection{ $\bar p p$ scattering}

641: 

642: When calculating the Coulomb total cross section

643: and the Coulomb-nuclear interference cross sections for the $\bar p p$

644: system we follow Ref.~\cite{MS}, where these effects were

645: considered for $pp$ scattering. Here we take into account the 

646: difference in the electric charge between antiproton and proton, and we drop 

647: the exchange term $f^C(\pi-\theta)$, specific for $pp$ scattering.

648: The Coulomb scattering amplitude for $\bar p p$ is

649: \begin{equation}

650:  \label{purekul}

651: f^C(\theta)=\frac{\alpha}{4vk_{\bar p p}\sin^2{\theta/2}}\exp{\left\{ i\frac{\alpha}{v}

652: \ln{\sin{\frac{\theta}{2}}+2i\chi_0} \right \}},

653: \end{equation}

654: where $\alpha$ is the fine

655: structure constant and $v$ ($k_{\bar p p}$) the velocity (momentum) of the antiproton in 

656: the $\bar p p$ cms. The Coulomb phase $\chi_0$ is

657: \begin{equation}

658: \label{chi0}

659: \chi_0=\arg \Gamma{\bigl (1-\frac{i\alpha}{2v}\bigr )}.

660: \end{equation}

661: %

662:  The cross sections were considered in Ref.~\cite{MS} under the assumption

663:  that the beam acceptance satisfies the following condition:

664:  $\theta_{acc}\ll \alpha/(vk_{\bar p p}{\overline{f_h}})$, where ${\overline{f_h}}$

665:  is the typical magnitude of the hadronic amplitude. Within this assumption

666:  the total Coulomb cross section was estimated in \cite{MS} to be 

667: \begin{equation}

668: \label{sigma0c}

669:  \sigma_0^C\approx \pi\alpha^2/(vk_{\bar p p}\theta_{acc})^2.

670: \end{equation}

671: In contrast to $pp$ scattering, for the $\bar p p$ interaction the spin-dependent 

672: Coulomb cross sections $\sigma_1^C$ and 

673: $\sigma_2^C$ are zero, because there is no 

674: antisymmetrization term in the elastic $\bar pp$ scattering amplitude.

675:  The interference terms $\sigma_1^{int}$ and $\sigma_2^{int}$ 

676:  obtained in \cite{MS} in the logarithmic approximation (see Eq.~(18) therein), 

677:  have a fairly smooth dependence on $\theta_{acc}$,

678:  namely of the form $\ln{\sin{\theta_{acc}}/2}$. 

679:  Adapting the formalism of \cite{MS} for the $\bar p p$ case we obtain

680:  the following expressions for the contribution of the Coulomb-nuclear 

681:  interference terms to the spin-dependent cross sections: 

682: \begin{eqnarray}

683: \nonumber

684: \sigma_0^{int} =-\frac{2\pi}{k_{\bar pp}}

685: \Bigl \{

686:  \cos{2\chi_0}\bigl [-\sin{\Psi} Re [ M_3^p(0)+M_1^p(0)]

687:  +(1-\cos{\Psi})Im [M_3^p(0)+M_1^p(0)]\bigr ] - \\

688: \nonumber 

689: -\sin{2\chi_0}\bigl [\sin{\Psi} Im [M_3^p(0)+M_1^p(0)]

690:  +(1-\cos{\Psi})Re [M_3^p(0)+M_1^p(0)]\bigr ] \Bigr \},\\

691: \nonumber

692: \sigma_1^{int} = -\frac{2\pi}{k_{\bar pp}}

693: \Bigl \{

694: \cos{2\chi_0} \bigl [ -\sin{\Psi} Re M_2^p(0)

695:  +(1-\cos{\Psi})Im M_2^p(0) \bigr ] - \\ 

696: \nonumber 

697: -\sin{2\chi_0}\bigl [ \sin{\Psi} Im M_2^p(0)

698:  +(1-\cos{\Psi})ReM_2^p(0)\bigr ]

699: \Bigr \}, \\

700: \label{CNpp2}

701: \sigma_2^{int}=-\frac{2\pi}{k_{\bar pp}}

702: \Bigl \{

703: \cos{2\chi_0}\bigl [-\sin{\Psi} Re [ M_3^p(0)-M_1^p(0)-M_2^p(0)]+

704: \nonumber \\

705:  +(1-\cos{\Psi})Im [M_3^p(0)-M_1^p(0)-M_2^p(0)] \bigr ] + \nonumber \\ 

706: +\sin{2\chi_0}\bigl [\sin{\Psi} Im [M_3^p(0)-M_1^p(0)-M_2^p(0)]

707:  -(1-\cos{\Psi})Re [M_3^p(0)-M_1^p(0)-M_2^p(0)]\bigr ]

708: \Bigr 

709: \}, 

710: \end{eqnarray}

711: %

712: where $\Psi=-\frac{\alpha}{v}\ln{\sin{{\theta_{acc}}/{2}}}$ and

713: $M_i^p(0)$ are the  

714: hadronic $\bar p p$ helicity amplitudes, modified by the Coulomb interaction.

715: One can see that in the limit $\chi_0\to 0$

716:  Eqs.~(\ref{CNpp2}) coincide

717:  with Eq.~(18) of Ref.~\cite{MS}. We should note that our definition for

718:  the cross section $\sigma_2$ differs from that in Ref.~\cite{MS}: our $\sigma_2$ 

719:  is equal to $\sigma_2-\sigma_1$ as definined in Eq.~(2) of Ref.~\cite{MS}.

720: %

721: It is worth to note that at sufficiently high beam energies (above $\approx$ 50

722: MeV) one has $\cos {2\chi_0}\approx 1$ and $\sin {2\chi_0}\approx 0$.

723:     As one can see from Eqs.~(\ref{CNpp2}), in this case the total $\bar pp$ 

724:     interference cross sections $\sigma_i^{int}$ are determined by $Re [M_1^p(0)+M_3^p(0)]$, 

725:     $Re M_2^p(0)$ and $Re [M_1^p(0)+M_2^p(0)- M_3^p(0)]$ for $i=0$, 1 and 2,

726:     respectively, whereas the purely hadronic total $\bar p p$ cross sections 

727:     $\sigma_i^h$ are given by the corresponding imaginary parts of those

728:     amplitude combinations, see Eqs.~(\ref{s2IA}). 

729: 

730: \subsection{$\bar p d$ elastic scattering }

731: \label{pditerf}

732:  

733: Also for $\bar p d$ the total Coulomb cross section contributes only for $i=0$. 

734:  In order to calculate the Coulomb-hadronic interference cross sections for

735:  $\bar p d$ one needs the elastic scattering amplitudes beyond the

736:  collinear kinematics, because it is necessary to perform an integration 

737:  over the scattering angle.

738:  Therefore, the full spin structure of the $\bar p d$ scattering amplitude which

739:  consists of twelve independent terms, has to be considered. Details of

740:  the formalism for the general case are summarized in Appendix A.

741: The final formulae for the polarized interference cross sections are

742: Eqs.~(\ref{intsecpd}).

743: 

744: In order to obtain $\sigma_i^{int}$ within the impulse approximation one has 

745: to insert Eqs.~(\ref{g4toab}) into Eqs.~(\ref{collinearF}) and after that

746:  use it in Eqs.~(\ref{intsecpd}). 

747: The Coulomb amplitude for $\bar p d$

748: scattering in the impulse approximation at $\theta \ll 1$ is

749: $ \left (F^C\right)_{\mu \lambda}^{\mu'\lambda'}\approx\delta_{\mu \mu'}\delta_{\lambda \lambda'}

750: \frac{k_{\bar p d}}{k_{\bar p p}}f^C(\theta){\widetilde w}$, where

751: $f^C(\theta)$ is defined in Eq.~(\ref{purekul}).

752: %

753: Thus, the Coulomb-nuclear interference contribution to the total

754: $\bar p d$ cross sections, $\sigma_i^{int}$,

755: ($i=0,\dots, 2$) follows from Eqs.~(\ref{CNpp2}) with

756: the replacement $M_i^p(0)\to M_i^p(0)+M_i^n(0)$.

757: Furthermore, Eqs.~(\ref{CNpp2}) should 

758: be multiplied by the factor $(k_{\bar p d}/k_{\bar p p}){\widetilde w}$

759: and $\sigma_1^{int}$ and $\sigma_2^{int}$ will change their signs.

760: Note that the cross sections $\sigma_3^h$ and $\sigma_3^{int}$ are

761: equal to zero in the single-scattering approximation, because the hadronic 

762: amplitude $g_1-g_2$ vanishes in this approximation. 

763: 

764: \section{Results for the $\bar NN$ system}

765: 

766: In the present investigation we use two $\bar N N$ models

767: developed by the J\"ulich group. 

768: Specifically, we use the models A(BOX) introduced in Ref.~\cite{Hippchen}

769: and D described in Ref.~\cite{Mull}.

770: Starting point for both models is the full Bonn $NN$ potential~\cite{MHE};

771: it includes not only traditional one-boson-exchange diagrams but also

772: explicit $2\pi$- and $\pi\rho$-exchange processes as well as virtual

773: $\Delta$-excitations. The G-parity transform of this meson-exchange

774: $NN$ model provides the elastic part of the considered $N\bar N$ interaction 

775: models. 

776: %

777: In case of model A(BOX) \cite{Hippchen} (in the following 

778: referred to as model A) 

779: a phenomenological \hbox{spin-}, isospin- and energy-independent 

780: complex potential of Gaussian form is added to account for the 

781: $\bar N N$ annihilation. It contains only three free parameters (the range

782: and the strengths of the real and imaginary parts of the annihilation

783: potential), fixed in a fit to the available total and integrated

784: $\bar N N$ cross sections. 

785: %

786: In case of model D \cite{Mull}, the most complete $N\bar N$ model of the 

787: J\"ulich group, the $N\bar N$ annihilation into 2-meson decay 

788: channels is described microscopically, including all possible

789: combinations of $\pi$, $\rho$, $\omega$, $a_0$, $f_0$, $a_1$, $f_1$, 

790: $a_2$, $f_2$, $K$, $K^+$ -- see Ref. \cite{Mull} for details --

791: and only the decay into multi-meson channels is simulated by 

792: a phenomenological optical potential. 

793: 

794: \begin{figure}[t]

795: %\mbox{\epsfig{figure=st_np.ps,height=0.4\textheight,angle=-90, clip=}}

796: %\mbox{\epsfig{figure=sa_np.ps,height=0.4\textheight,angle=-90, clip=}}

797: %

798: \special{psfile=st_np.ps

799: hoffset= 020  voffset= 010  hscale=26 vscale=26 angle=-90}

800: \special{psfile=sa_np.ps

801: hoffset= 240  voffset= 010  hscale=26 vscale=26 angle=-90}

802: %

803: \vskip 5.5cm

804: \caption{Total (a) and integrated annihilation (b) $\bar n p$ 

805:  cross sections versus beam momentum. The lines show predictions by the 

806:  J\"ulich $\bar NN$ models A (dashed line) and D (solid line).     

807:  Data are taken from Refs.~\cite{Arm87} (circles) and \cite{Iaz00}

808:  (squares).

809: }

810: \label{totpn}

811: \end{figure}

812:  

813: Results for the total and integrated elastic ($\bar p p$) and 

814: charge-exchange ($\bar p p \to \bar nn$) cross sections and also 

815: for angular dependent observables for both models can be found in 

816: Refs.~\cite{Hippchen,Mull}. Evidently, with model A as well as with

817: D a very good overall reproduction of the low- and intermediate 

818: energy $\bar N N$ data was achieved. 

819: %

820: Moreover, exclusive data on several $p\bar p$ 2-meson and even

821: 3-meson decay channels are described with fair quality

822: \cite{Hippchen1,Mull,Betz}. 

823: Recently, it has been shown that the 

824: $N\bar N$ models of the J\"ulich group can also explain successfully

825: the near-threshold enhancement seen in the $\bar pp$ mass 

826: spectrum of the reactions $J/\Psi \to \gamma \bar pp$ \cite{Sibi1}, 

827: $J/\Psi \to \omega\bar pp$ \cite{Sibi3} and $B^+ \to K^+ \bar pp$ 

828: \cite{Sibi2} and in the $e^+e^-\to \bar pp$ 

829: cross section \cite{Sibi4}. 

830: 

831: As already mentioned in the Introduction, the spin dependence of the

832: $\bar NN$ interaction is not well known. There is a fair amount of

833: data on analyzing powers,

834: for $\bar pp$ elastic as well as for 

835: $\bar pp \to \bar nn$ charge-exchange scattering, cf. 

836: Ref.~\cite{Klempt} for a recent review. 

837: %

838: However, with regard to other spin-dependent observables

839: there is only scant information on the depolarization $D_{nn}$

840: and also on $K_{nn}$. Moreover, those data are of rather limited 

841: accuracy so that they do not really 

842: provide serious constraints on the $\bar NN$ interaction. 

843: %

844: The predictions

845: of the J\"ulich models A and D are in reasonable agreement with

846: the experimental polarizations up to beam momenta of 

847: $p_{lab}\approx 550$ MeV/c as can be seen in Ref.~\cite{Mull}.

848: In fact, model A gives a somewhat better account of the data and 

849: reproduces the measured $\bar pp$ polarizations even 

850: quantitatively up to $p_{lab}\approx 800$ MeV/c

851: ($T_{lab} \approx 300$ MeV). 

852: %

853: We consider both models here because it allows us to 

854: illustrate the influence of uncertainties in the spin-dependence 

855: of the $\bar NN$ interaction on the spin-dependent cross

856: sections for the $\bar NN$ as well as the $\bar p d$ systems. 

857: %

858: In this context let us mention that a partial-wave analysis 

859: of $\bar pp$ scattering has been performed by the Nijmegen

860: Group \cite{Timmermans} which, in principle, would allow to pin 

861: down the spin-dependence of the $\bar NN$ interaction. However, 

862: the uniqueness of the achieved solution was disputed in Ref.~\cite{Richard}. 

863: Moreover, the actual amplitudes of the Nijmegen analysis

864: are not readily available and, therefore, cannot be 

865: utilized for the present investigation. 

866: 

867: For the computation of $\bar p d$ scattering we also need

868: the $\bar p n$ amplitude. For this system, a purely isospin $I=1$ 

869: state, there is no experimental information. 

870: But there are data for the $\bar n p$ channel \cite{Arm87,Iaz00}, 

871: which is identical to the former under the assumption of isospin symmetry.

872: %

873: A comparison of our model results with those data is

874: presented in Fig.~\ref{totpn}. Obviously the predictions of 

875: the J\"ulich models are in nice agreement with the experimental 

876: information on the $\bar n p$ interaction too, despite the fact 

877: that those total and annihilation cross sections have not been 

878: included in the fitting procedure. 

879: 

880: %%%%%%%%%%%%% COULOMB NUCLEAR INTERFERENCE 

881: 

882: \begin{figure}

883: %\mbox{\epsfig{figure=sppdam.ps,height=0.4\textheight, clip=}}

884: \special{psfile=st0pp.ps

885: hoffset= 020  voffset= 010  hscale=26 vscale=26 angle=-90}

886: \special{psfile=st1pp.ps

887: hoffset= 240  voffset= 010  hscale=26 vscale=26 angle=-90}

888: \special{psfile=st2pp.ps

889: hoffset= 130  voffset=-150  hscale=26 vscale=26 angle=-90}

890: %

891: \vskip 10.5cm

892: \caption{Total $\bar p p$ cross sections $\sigma_{0}$ (a), 

893: $\sigma_{1}$ (b), and $\sigma_{2}$ (c) 

894: versus the antiproton laboratory energy $T_{lab}$. 

895: Results based on the purely hadronic amplitude,  

896: $\sigma^h_i$, (model D: solid line, model A: dashed line) 

897: and for the Coulomb-nuclear interference term, 

898: $\sigma^{int}_i$, (D: dash-dotted line, A: dotted line) 

899: are shown.

900: }

901: \label{totppDA}

902: \end{figure}

903: 

904: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

905: Let us now come to the spin-dependent $\bar pp$ and 

906: $\bar p n$ cross sections predicted by the J\"ulich $\bar NN$ interactions.

907: Corresponding results are presented in Figs.~\ref{totppDA} and 

908: \ref{fpnJA}. We display the cross sections based on the purely hadronic

909: amplitude ($\sigma_i^{h}$) and the Coulomb-nuclear interference term

910: ($\sigma_i^{int}$) separately so that one can see the magnitude of the

911: latter. The total cross sections are then the sum of those two contributions. 

912: In the concrete calculations the acceptance angle was chosen to be

913: $\theta_{acc} = 8.8$ mrad \cite{FILTEX}.

914: 

915: At low energies, i.e. around $T_{lab} = 5\sim 10$ MeV, the 

916: interference terms are comparable to the corresponding purely hadronic 

917: cross sections and their magnitude increases further

918: with decreasing energy due to the $1/ k_{\bar p p}$ factor, cf.

919: Eqs.~(\ref{CNpp2}).

920: With increasing energy the relevance of the Coulomb-nuclear interference 

921: terms diminishes more and more in case of the cross sections $\sigma_0$ 

922: and $\sigma_2$. 

923: But for $\sigma_1$ the term is still significant, as one can see from 

924: Fig.~\ref{totppDA}b.

925: %

926: The large magnitude of $\sigma_1^{int}$ as compared to $\sigma_1^{h}$

927: is due to the fact that $Re M_2^p(0) \gg Im M_2^p(0)$ for 100 - 300 MeV,

928: for both $\bar NN$ models.

929: As already pointed out in the context of Eqs.~(\ref{CNpp2}),

930: $\sigma_1^{int}$ is determined by the former quantity but $\sigma_1^{h}$

931: by the latter.

932: %

933: Note, that the three cross sections $\sigma_i^{int}$ ($i=0,\dots,2$) 

934: themselves are all roughly of comparable magnitude for energies from 

935: around 50 MeV onwards.

936: 

937: While the predictions of the two models for $\sigma_0$ are rather similar

938: (cf. Figs.~\ref{totppDA}a and \ref{fpnJA}a), even for the Coulomb-nuclear 

939: interference cross section, this is not the case for the spin-dependent

940: cross sections $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$. For energies below $T_{lab}

941: \approx 150$ MeV there are drastic differences between the results based

942: on the two models. Indeed, for $\sigma_2$ at low energies even the 

943: sign differs in case of the $\bar pp$ channel. Obviously, here the variations 

944: in the hadronic amplitude are also reflected in large differences in 

945: the Coulomb-nuclear interference term. 

946: 

947: For the total $\sigma_1$ (including the hadronic and the Coulomb-nuclear

948: interference terms) model A predicts a maximum of 12 mb at the beam 

949: energy $T_{lab}\approx 20$ MeV whereas model D yields a maximum of 

950: practically the same magnitude at $T_{lab}\approx 10$ MeV. 

951: In both cases $\sigma_1$ becomes large and

952: negative at very low energies due to the dominance of the 

953: Coulomb-nuclear interference term in this region. 

954: %

955: For comparison, in Ref.~\cite{DmitrievMS}, where a version of the Paris 

956: $\bar NN$ model was employed, the largest value for $\sigma_1$

957: was found to be -15 mb at $T_{lab}=45$ MeV.

958: %

959: In case of $\bar pn$ scattering both models exhibit a minimum in

960: $\sigma_1$ at $T_{lab}\approx 25$ MeV and reach values

961: of around 20 mb (A) and 50 mb (D) close to threshold. 

962:   

963: With regard to $\sigma_2$ model A and D predict values around 10 mb  

964: for $\bar pp$ scattering at higher energies. Close to threshold

965: large negative values are predicted 

966: for $\sigma_2^h+\sigma_2^{int}$ due to the Coulomb-nuclear

967: interference term. One should note, however, that for beam energies below 

968: 5 MeV, say, the total Coulomb cross section becomes very

969: large. In this case the beam lifetime turns out to be too short and 

970: the spin-filtering method cannot be used for polarization buildup in 

971: storage ring.

972: The results for $\sigma_2$ for $\bar pn$ scattering are comparable

973: for both models, reaching a maximum of roughly 30 mb around 

974: $T_{lab}=25$ MeV.

975: 

976: Finally, one should note that for both models A and D 

977: the polarized cross sections $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ exhibit

978: a very different energy dependence in the $\bar pp$ and $\bar pn$

979: channels. Thus, the expected polarization buildup 

980: for $\bar p d$ scattering is likewise different from that of 

981: the $\bar p p$ reaction, as will be shown 

982: in the next section.

983:  

984: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

985: %

986: \begin{figure}

987: %\mbox{\epsfig{figure=stpbarn.ps,height=0.4\textheight, clip=}}

988: \special{psfile=st0pn.ps

989:  hoffset= 020  voffset= 010  hscale=26 vscale=26 angle=-90}

990: \special{psfile=st1pn.ps

991:  hoffset= 240  voffset= 010  hscale=26 vscale=26 angle=-90}

992: \special{psfile=st2pn.ps

993:  hoffset= 130  voffset=-150  hscale=26 vscale=26 angle=-90}

994: \vskip 10.5cm

995: \caption{Total $\bar p n$ cross sections $\sigma_{0}$ (a), 

996: $\sigma_{1}$ (b), and $\sigma_{2}$ (c)

997: versus the antiproton laboratory energy $T_{lab}$. 

998: Results for model D (solid line) and model A (dashed line) 

999: are shown.

1000: }

1001: \label{fpnJA}

1002: \end{figure}

1003:  

1004:  \section{Results and discussion of $\bar p d$ scattering}

1005: 

1006: In this section we present numerical results for $\bar p d$ scattering

1007: employing the J\"ulich models A and D \cite{Hippchen,Mull} for the elementary 

1008: $\bar p N$ interactions. 

1009: %

1010: In order to estimate the role of the double-scattering mechanism, which  

1011: will be not taken into account in our calculation

1012: of the polarized total cross sections, we first calculate the (unpolarized)

1013: total $\bar p d$ cross section and also differential cross sections for 

1014: elastic as well as for elastic plus inelastic scattering 

1015: events within the Glauber theory.

1016: This allows us also to compare our results directly with available

1017: $\bar p d$ experiments so that we can check the reliability of the

1018: approach. 

1019: %

1020: As was shown in detail in 

1021: Refs.~\cite{Kondratyuksb,Dalkarov,mahalabi,Bendis1,Ma,Bendis2,Robson},

1022: in forward elastic scattering of antiprotons off

1023: nuclei the Glauber theory, though in principle a high-energy approach, 

1024: works rather well even at fairly low antiproton beam energies

1025: like 50 MeV. 

1026: This has to be compared with proton-nucleus scattering

1027: where the Glauber theory is known to give reliable results only for

1028: energies in the order of 1 GeV or above. 

1029: %

1030:  The Glauber theory is applicable at such low energies, because of the 

1031:  presence of annihilation channels in the $\bar p N $ interaction. 

1032:  Due to strong annihilation effects, specifically in the $S$-waves, higher partial

1033:  waves start to play an important role already fairly close to threshold.

1034:  As a consequence, the $\bar p N$ elastic differential cross section 

1035:  is peaked in forward direction already at rather low energies 

1036: \cite{Mull,Klempt} and, therefore, suitable for application of the

1037: eikonal approximation, which is the basis of the Glauber theory.

1038: %

1039: In other words it can be seen from the optical theorem that the higher 

1040: the annihilation cross section is, the larger is the modulus of the 

1041: forward elastic scattering amplitude. Indeed, the elastic spin-averaged

1042: $\bar p N$ scattering amplitude can be very well parameterized by 

1043: \begin{equation}

1044: \label{fpn}

1045:   f_{\bar pN}(q)=\frac{k_{\bar pN}\sigma^{\bar p N}_{tot}(i+\alpha_{\bar p N})}

1046: {4\pi} \exp{(-\beta^2_{\bar p N}q^2/2)},

1047:  \end{equation}

1048:  where $\sigma^{\bar p N}_{tot}$ is the total unpolarized $\bar p N$

1049:  cross section, $\alpha_{\bar p N}$ is the ratio of the real to 

1050:  imaginary part of the forward scattering amplitude $f_{\bar pN}(0)$,

1051:  $\beta_{\bar p N}^2$ is the slope of the diffraction cone, $q$ is the

1052:  transferred 3-momentum, and $k_{\bar p N}$ is the $\bar p N$ cms momentum.

1053:  

1054: \begin{table}[t]

1055: \caption{

1056: Parameters of the $\bar p p$ and $\bar p n$ amplitudes according to 

1057: Eq.~(\ref{fpn}) representing the results of the $\bar NN$ models 

1058: A and D of the J\"ulich group \cite{Mull} at different beam energies.

1059: %

1060: Note that the values for $\sigma_{tot}^{\bar p N}$ and $\alpha_{\bar p N}$

1061: follow directly from the corresponding models, while $\beta_{\bar p N}^2$

1062: is determined in a fit to the corresponding amplitudes.

1063: }

1064: \vskip 0.3cm 

1065: \label{tab1}

1066: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1067: \hline

1068: $T_{lab}$ & $\bar p N$ model & $\sigma_{tot}^{\bar pp}$ & $\beta_{\bar p p}^2$

1069: &$\alpha_{\bar p p}$ &  $\sigma_{tot}^{\bar p n}$ & $\beta_{\bar p n}^2$

1070: &$\alpha_{\bar pn}$ \\ 

1071: MeV & & mb & (GeV/c)$^{-2}$ & & mb & (GeV/c)$^{-2}$ & \\

1072: \hline

1073: 10 & A & 409 & 46.24& -0.351 & 372 & 41.1 & -0.372\\

1074:    & D & 441 & 59.1 & -0.20 & 354. & 51.4 & -0.164\\

1075: \hline

1076: 25.5 & A & 305 & 46.24 & -0.176 & 267.2 & 36.0 & -0.146 \\

1077:      & D & 312 & 52.4  & -0.130 & 260   &  48.8&  -0.076\\

1078: \hline

1079: 50 & A & 233.5&  33   & -0.095 &  209.6 & 26 & -0.034\\

1080:    & D & 240  & 33.47 & -0.121 &  219 & 33.47 & -0.058\\

1081: \hline

1082: 78 & A & 209.5  & 29.9  & -0.03 & 192.6 & 26&  0.0417 \\

1083:    & D & 203    &   29.9& -0.03 & 192   & 29.2 & 0.0145 \\

1084: \hline

1085: 109 & A & 186 & 25.2 & 0.033 & 171.3 & 24 & 0.108\\

1086:    & D & 175.8 & 25.9 & -0.029 & 165 & 25 & 0.0245\\

1087: \hline

1088: 124 & A & 174.4 & 24.45 & 0.057 & 163.   &  24.3 & 0.133\\

1089:     & D & 168.4 & 24.45 & -0.030 & 159.5 & 24.3 & 0.0245 \\

1090: \hline

1091: 138 & A &  174.0 &  23.24 & -0.030 & 159.5 & 22.9 & -0.03 \\

1092:     & D &  162.5 & 23.24 & -0.030 & 155 & 22.9  &  -0.03 \\

1093:  \hline

1094: 149 & A & 164 &  22.58 &  0.009 & 156.2 & 22.58 & 0.166 \\

1095:     & D & 159.26   & 22.58  & 0.002 & 149 & 22.58&  0.056 \\

1096: \hline

1097: 179 & A & 156.3 & 23.4 & 0.110 & 148 & 20.7 & 0.187 \\

1098:     & D & 150. & 23.4 & -0.0256 & 143 & 20.7 & -0.0816 \\

1099: \hline

1100: \end{tabular}

1101: %

1102: \end{table}

1103: 

1104: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1105: \begin{figure}[b]

1106: \begin{minipage}[c]{80mm}

1107: \includegraphics[width=62mm]{pp10179a.ps}

1108: \end{minipage}

1109: \hspace{\fill}

1110: \begin{minipage}[c]{80mm}

1111: \includegraphics[width=62mm]{pn10179a.ps}

1112: \end{minipage}

1113: \vspace*{0.5cm}

1114: \caption{Differential cross section of $\bar p p$ (left panel)

1115: and $\bar p n$ (right panel) elastic scattering

1116: predicted by model A

1117: versus the c.m.s. scattering angle $\Theta$ at different beam energies:

1118: 50 MeV (dashed-dotted line), 25 MeV (dotted), 10 MeV (solid). 

1119: }

1120: \label{pp179}

1121: \end{figure}

1122: 

1123: For the present investigation we utilize Eq.~(\ref{fpn}) to represent

1124: the scattering amplitudes of the J\"ulich models in analytical form. 

1125: This allows us then to evaluate the $\bar p d$ scattering amplitude

1126: as given in Eq.~(\ref{Ffi}) in a straight-forward way, including

1127: also the double-scattering correction. 

1128: %

1129: The values for the parameters $\sigma^{\bar p N}_{tot}$ and 

1130: $\alpha_{\bar p N}$ can be taken directly from the $\bar p N$ scattering 

1131: amplitudes $M_i^N(0)$ that result from the considered J\"ulich models.

1132: The parameters $\beta^2_{\bar p N}$ are determined in a fit  

1133: of $|f_{\bar pN}(q)|^2$ to the unpolarized differential cross section

1134: $d\sigma/d\Omega(\theta)$ resulting from the employed $\bar NN$ models.

1135: We found that even at beam energies as low as 10-25 MeV 

1136: the parameter $\beta^2_{\bar p N}$ is large, i.e. $40 - 50$ (GeV/c)$^2$, 

1137: reflecting the fact that the elastic amplitude in Eq.~(\ref{fpn}) is 

1138: indeed peaked in forward direction. 

1139: %

1140: For illustration purposes we present $\bar p p$ and $\bar p n$ differential 

1141: cross sections at three selected energies in Fig.~\ref{pp179} for model A.

1142: The concrete parameters for the $\bar pp$ 

1143: and $\bar pn$ amplitudes at the various energies are summarized in 

1144: Table \ref{tab1}. 

1145: 

1146: \begin{table}

1147: \caption{

1148: Total unpolarized $\bar p d$ cross sections calculated within the 

1149: Glauber theory in the impulse approximation ($\sigma^{IA}_{tot}$)

1150: and with $\bar pN$ double scattering included ($\sigma_{tot}$).

1151: The $\bar N N$ model D of the J\"ulich group \cite{Mull} is used.

1152: Experimental values ($\sigma^{exp}_{tot}$) at the various beam

1153: energies $T_{lab}$ are taken from 

1154: Refs.~\cite{Kalogeropoulos} (a), \cite{Burrows} (b)

1155: and \cite{BizzarriNC74} (c). 

1156: }

1157: \vskip 0.3cm 

1158: \label{tab2}

1159: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}

1160: \hline

1161: $T_{lab}$  & $\sigma^{exp}_{tot}$  & $\sigma_{tot}$ & $\sigma^{IA}_{tot}$ &

1162:  $R=\sigma^{IA}_{tot}/\sigma_{tot}$ \\

1163:  MeV & mb  & mb &  mb & \\

1164: \hline

1165: 57.0 & 415$\pm  16^{a)}$ & 401 & 471& 1.17 \\

1166: 58.0 & 390$\pm  15^{b)}$ & 401 & 471& 1.17 \\

1167: 57.4$\pm 13.2$ & 366.2$\pm 11.5^{c)}$ & & &\\

1168: \hline

1169: 79.8$\pm 10.0$ & 346.4$\pm 8.4^{c)}$ &339 &395 & 1.16 \\

1170: %79.8$\pm 10.0$ & 346.4$\pm 8.4$ &401 &471 &1.17 (fNN 47.)\\

1171: % &   &313  & 361 & 1.15 (fNN  109.3)\\

1172: \hline

1173: 109.3 & 322 $\pm 16^{a)}$ & 296  & 341& 1.15  \\

1174: 109.3$\pm 8.8$ & 310.7$\pm 7.3^{c)}$ & & &\\

1175: \hline

1176: 124.1$\pm 8.1$ & 287.5$\pm 6.1^{c)}$ & 286 &328 &1.15\\

1177: 126.8 & 295$\pm 7^{b)}$  &    &  &  \\

1178: \hline

1179: 137.7 $\pm 7.5$ & 283.4$\pm 5.4^{c)}$ & 277& 317 & 1.15  \\

1180: %137.7 $\pm 7.5$ & 283.4$\pm 5.4$ & 281& 322 &1.15 (JH -124) \\

1181: %137.7 $\pm 7.5$ & 283.4$\pm 5.4$ & 273& 301 &1.14 (JH -149) \\

1182: \hline

1183: 147 & 271$\pm 6^{b)}$ & 270  & 308 & 1.14 \\

1184: 146.6$\pm 7.1$ & 282.6$\pm 5.4^{c)}$ & & &\\

1185: \hline

1186: 179.3 & 269$\pm  7^{b)}$ & 258  &  293 & 1.14 \\

1187: %170.5$\pm 8.8$ & 271.8$\pm 4.2$ & 264 &301 &1.14 (JH -179.3)\\

1188: 170.5$\pm 8.8$ & 271.8$\pm 4.2^{c)}$ & 264 &301 & 1.14 \\

1189: \hline

1190: \end{tabular}

1191: %

1192: \end{table}

1193: 

1194: \begin{figure}[b]

1195: \mbox{\epsfig{figure=dst.ps,height=0.4\textheight,angle=-90, clip=}}

1196: \caption{Total $\bar p d$ cross section versus the beam momentum 

1197: $p_{lab}$. The solid and dashed lines are results based on the 

1198: $\bar NN$ models D and A, respectively. The dotted line is the 

1199: results for model D obtained within the single-scattering 

1200: approximation. Data are taken from Refs. 

1201: \cite{BizzarriNC74,Kalogeropoulos,Burrows,Carroll,Hamilton}.

1202: }

1203: \label{totpd}

1204: \end{figure}

1205: 

1206: \begin{figure}

1207: \vspace{12.0cm}

1208: \vglue 0.1cm    

1209: \special{psfile=pd170jhdrobs.ps

1210:  hoffset= 010  voffset= 080  hscale=42 vscale=42}

1211: \special{psfile=pd57jhf.ps

1212:  hoffset= 270  voffset= 080  hscale=42 vscale=42}

1213: \special{psfile=pdmd78.ps

1214:  hoffset= 010  voffset=-180  hscale=42 vscale=42}

1215: \special{psfile=pdmd138.ps

1216:  hoffset= 270  voffset=-180  hscale=42 vscale=42}

1217: \vspace{6cm}

1218: \caption{Elastic (lower lines) and elastic plus inelastic (upper lines)

1219:  $\bar p d$ differential cross sections versus the transferred 

1220:  momentum for different $\bar p$ beam energies. 

1221: %

1222:  The lines are results of a calculation based on the Glauber theory

1223:  for model A (dotted and dashed-dotted) and D (solid and dashed)

1224:  utilizing the parameterizations of the $\bar pN$ amplitudes given in 

1225:  Table \ref{tab1}.

1226:  The ABB form factor \cite{ABB} is used for the deuteron.  

1227:  Data for elastic scattering (179.3 MeV) are taken from 

1228:  \protect\cite{bruge88} (squares) and for elastic plus inelastic

1229:  scattering events (57.4 - 170.5 MeV) from 

1230:  \cite{BizzarriNC74} (circles).

1231: }

1232: \label{pbard179}

1233: \end{figure}

1234: 

1235:  Results for the total unpolarized $\bar p d$ cross 

1236:  section are displayed in Fig.~\ref{totpd} together with experimental 

1237:  information \cite{BizzarriNC74,Kalogeropoulos,Burrows,Carroll,Hamilton}. 

1238:  A comparision of theory with data at selected energies is presented 

1239:  in Table \ref{tab2} for model D.

1240: %

1241:  One can see that the single-scattering approximation (shown here only 

1242:  for model D) overestimates the total unpolarized cross section by 

1243:  roughly 15\%, cf. the dotted line in Fig.~\ref{totpd}.

1244:  But the shadowing effect generated by the $\bar p N$ double-scattering 

1245:  mechanism reduces the cross section by about that amount so that

1246:  the final result (solid line) is in good agreement with the experiment. 

1247:  The results for model A are very similar. Thus, as expected the 

1248:  double-scattering corrections to the total unpolarized cross section 

1249:  turn out to be not very large. Actually, even at energies as low as

1250:  10 - 20 MeV they are at most 20-25\%. 

1251:  Therefore, the Glauber theory seems to work rather well for the 

1252:  $\bar p d$ reaction, even at these fairly low energies. 

1253: 

1254: Predictions for differential cross sections are presented in

1255: Fig.~\ref{pbard179}. 

1256: In the corresponding calculations of the forward $\bar p d$ 

1257: elastic amplitude the single-scattering mechanism as well as the

1258: double-scattering terms were included. 

1259: The ABB form factor \cite{ABB} is used for the deuteron.  

1260: %

1261:  At $T_{lab}$ = 179.3 MeV data for the elastic differential 

1262:  cross section are available \cite{bruge88}. These data 

1263:  (squares in Fig.~\ref{pbard179}) are nicely reproduced by

1264:  our model calculation for forward angles. Also the 

1265:  differential cross sections for elastic (${\bar p}d\to {\bar p} d$) 

1266: plus inelastic (${\bar p}d\to {\bar p} pn$) scattering events,

1267:  measured at the neighboring energy $T_{lab}$ = 170 MeV 

1268: \cite{BizzarriNC74} (circles), are well described.

1269:  At lower energies no data on the elastic differential cross

1270:  section are available. But there are 

1271: further angular distributions published in Ref.~\cite{BizzarriNC74}. 

1272:  In Fig.~\ref{pbard179} we show results for selected 

1273:  energies, namely 57.4 MeV, 78 MeV, and 138 MeV. 

1274:  Obviously, our model results are in line with those

1275:  data down to the lowest energy. 

1276: 

1277: \begin{figure}

1278: % WITH pbar-d inteference in IA (fpp+fpn+f_c)stotpdad.ps

1279: %\mbox{\epsfig{figure=stotpdad.ps,height=0.4\textheight, clip=}}

1280: %

1281: \special{psfile=st0pd.ps

1282:  hoffset= 020  voffset= 010  hscale=26 vscale=26 angle=-90}

1283: \special{psfile=st1pd.ps

1284:  hoffset= 240  voffset= 010  hscale=26 vscale=26 angle=-90}

1285: \special{psfile=st2pd.ps

1286:  hoffset= 130  voffset=-150  hscale=26 vscale=26 angle=-90}

1287: \vskip 10.5cm

1288: \caption{Total $\bar p d$ cross sections $\sigma_{0}$ (a), 

1289: $\sigma_{1}$ (b), and $\sigma_{2}$ (c) 

1290: versus the antiproton laboratory energy $T_{lab}$. 

1291: Results based on the purely hadronic amplitude,  

1292: $\sigma^h_i$, (model D: solid line, model A: dashed line) 

1293: and for the Coulomb-nuclear interference term, 

1294: $\sigma^{int}_i$, (D: dash-dotted line, A: dotted line) 

1295: are shown.

1296: }

1297: \label{totpdx}

1298: \end{figure}

1299: 

1300: % 

1301: Results for spin-dependent cross sections are presented in 

1302: Fig.~\ref{totpdx}. Note that here the corresponding calculations

1303: are all done in the single-scattering approximation only. 

1304: In principle, the double-scattering corrections to the 

1305: spin-dependent cross sections could be worked out

1306: by adopting the formalism described in Refs.~\cite{Alberi,Alberi1,Sorensen}. 

1307: But we expect that the double-scattering effects on those quantities 

1308: are roughly of the same magnitude (i.e. less than 20 \% for energies above 

1309: 20 MeV) as for the spin-independent cross sections. At least this is what 

1310: we find numerically

1311: within the approximation outlined in Ref.~\cite{Alberi}. 

1312: Therefore, we believe that the single-scattering approximation 

1313: provides a reasonable estimation for the magnitude of the 

1314: polarization buildup effect in $\bar p d$ scattering and we refrain from a

1315: thorough evaluation of the involved double-scattering effects in 

1316: the present analysis.

1317: %

1318: After all one has to keep in mind that the differences between the $\bar NN$

1319: models A and D introduce significantly larger variations in the cross 

1320: sections $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$, cf. Fig.~\ref{totpdx}b and c.

1321:   

1322: \begin{figure}

1323: \mbox{\epsfig{figure=ri20.ps,height=0.8\textheight, clip=}}

1324: \caption{Ratio of the total polarized cross sections 

1325: to the total unpolarized cross section,  

1326: $\sigma_1/\sigma_0$ (a) and $\sigma_2/\sigma_0$ (b),

1327: versus beam energy. Results for $\bar p d$ scattering 

1328: [model A (dashed line), D (solid line)] as well as 

1329: for $\bar p p$ scattering 

1330: [model A (dashed-dotted), D (dotted)] are displayed.

1331: %

1332: The Coulomb-nuclear interference cross sections $\sigma_i^{int}$ $(i=0,1,2)$

1333: for $\theta_{acc}=8$ mrad are included. 

1334: }

1335: \label{ratio2}

1336: \end{figure}

1337: 

1338: The $\bar NN$ model D predicts large spin-dependent cross section 

1339: $\sigma_1$ with a maximum around 40 MeV. The cross section $\sigma_2$ 

1340: is large as well and practically constant from around 75 MeV onwards. 

1341: In case of model A the maximum for $\sigma_1$ occurs at 

1342: considerably higher energies. Large negative values of $\sigma_1$

1343:  are predicted for energies below 50 MeV with a maximum at 150 MeV.

1344: The predictions for $\sigma_2$ 

1345: are comparable to those of model D for energies above 25 MeV, say. 

1346: % 

1347: As one can see from Fig.~\ref{totpdx}, the largest values for the polarized 

1348: $\bar p d$ cross sections are expected at very low energies,

1349: i.e. for $T_{lab}$ less than 10 MeV, since the $\bar p N$ cross

1350: sections increase with decreasing beam energy.  

1351: %

1352: However, as was already noted above, at these energies the pure Coulomb cross section

1353: becomes too large, so that the method of spin-filtering for the polarization buildup 

1354: cannot be applied due to the decrease of the beam lifetime.

1355: %

1356: In any case, while our results at higher energies are expected to be correct within

1357: 10\% to 20 \%, there are larger uncertainties below 20 MeV and here our

1358: results should be considered only as a qualitative estimate.

1359: %

1360: Finally, one can see from Fig.~\ref{totpdx}, that the Coulomb-nuclear interference 

1361: effects become only important for energies below

1362: 50 MeV. In contrast to the $\bar pp$ case, for $\bar p d$

1363: $\sigma_1^{int}$ is much smaller than $\sigma_1^h$ at $T_{lab} \ge 100$ MeV.

1364: This different behavior for $\bar p p$ and $\bar p d$ is due to 

1365: the additional terms $M_i^n(0)$ entering the expression for 

1366: $\sigma_i^{int}$ of the latter reaction, as explained in Sect.~\ref{pditerf}. 

1367: 

1368: The polarization buildup is determined mainly by the ratio of the polarized

1369: total cross section $\sigma_i$ (i=1,2) to the unpolarized one ($\sigma_0$).

1370: Those ratios $\sigma_i/\sigma_0$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{ratio2} for 

1371: beam energies 10-300 MeV for the $\bar p p$ and $\bar p d$ reactions.

1372: The Coulomb-nuclear interference effects are taken into account. 

1373: % 

1374: Once again those results exhibit a significant model dependence. 

1375: However, for all considered cases large values for the ratio 

1376: $\sigma_2/\sigma_0$ of around 10\% are predicted at the higher

1377: energies, which would be sufficient for the requirements of the 

1378: PAX experiment \cite{Frankpc}.

1379: % 

1380: Also, when comparing the $\bar p p$ and $\bar p d$ results 

1381: we see that (the moduli of) the predicted values for the ratio 

1382: $\sigma_2/\sigma_0$ are larger for $\bar p d$ than for $\bar p p$,

1383: for energies of $T_{lab}\approx $ 100 MeV or higher, in case of 

1384: model A as well as for model D. 

1385: Thus, our results suggest that there could be indeed a 

1386: slightly higher efficiency 

1387: for the polarization buildup when using $\bar p d$ instead of $\bar p p$.

1388: 

1389: \section{Summary}

1390: 

1391: In the present paper we employed

1392:  two $\bar NN$ potential models developed by the J\"ulich group

1393:  for a calculation of unpolarized $\bar p d$ scattering within the 

1394:  Glauber-Sitenko theory and found that this approach allows one to 

1395:  describe the experimental information on differential and total 

1396:  $\bar p d$ cross sections, available at $T_{lab} = 50-180$ MeV, quantitatively.

1397:  For those spin-independent observables the difference in the 

1398:  predictions based on those two models turned out to be rather small.

1399: %

1400: The double-scattering corrections to the unpolarized cross section

1401: were found to be in the order of 15\% in the energy range where the

1402: data are available. But we found that even at such low energies

1403: as 10-25 MeV they are not larger than 20-25\%.

1404: This means that, most likely, the Glauber approximation does work 

1405: reasonably well for $\bar p d$ scattering down to fairly small 

1406: energies.  

1407: 

1408: We also presented results for polarized $\bar p d$ cross sections 

1409: obtained within the single-scattering approximation.

1410: In comparison to $\bar p p$ scattering, for $\bar p d$

1411: scattering there are four total polarized cross sections instead 

1412: of the three in the $\bar p p$ case.

1413: %

1414: The additional cross section, connected with the tensor polarization 

1415: $P_{zz}^d$ of the deuteron, has no direct influence on the polarization 

1416: buildup, but, in principle, can be used to increase the beam lifetime

1417: by a proper choice of the sign of $P_{zz}^d$.

1418:  

1419:  In the single-scattering approximation the spin dependent $\bar p d$ 

1420:  cross sections are given by the sum of the corresponding $\bar p p$ and 

1421:  $\bar p n$ cross sections. As a consequence, 

1422:  at some energies there is an increase of the polarized cross

1423:  sections as compared to the $\bar p p$ and/or $\bar p n$ case. 

1424:  The Coulomb-nuclear interference effects in the polarized

1425:  cross sections, which  play an important role for the $pp$ and $\bar p p$

1426:  systems, are modified in $\bar p d$ scattering due to the additional

1427:  interference with the purely hadronic $\bar p n$ amplitude. 

1428:  

1429:  The predictions for the spin-dependent cross sections for $\bar p d$ scattering,

1430:  presented in this work, exhibit a fairly strong model dependence, which is due 

1431:  to uncertainties in the spin dependence of the elementary 

1432:  $\bar p p$ and $\bar p n$ interactions. 

1433:  Still, our results suggest that $\bar p d$ elastic scattering can be used 

1434:  for the polarization buildup of antiprotons at beam energies of 10-300 MeV 

1435:  with similar and possibly even higher efficiency than $\bar p p$ scattering.

1436: 

1437: \subsection*{Acknowledgements} 

1438: We acknowledge stimulating discussions with N.N.~Nikolaev

1439: and F.~Rathmann. Furthermore, we are thankful to A.I.~Milstein,

1440: V.M.~Strakhovenko and H. Str\"oher for reading the manuscript and 

1441: useful remarks. This work was 

1442: supported in part by the Heisenberg-Landau program.

1443: 

1444: \section*{Appendix: Coulomb-nuclear interference cross

1445:  sections for $\bar p d$ elastic scattering}

1446: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1447: \renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}

1448:  

1449:  In the coordinate system with the axes $OX|| {\bf l}$, $OY|| {\bf n}$, 

1450: $OZ|| {\bf m}$, where

1451: \begin{eqnarray}

1452: \label{ISO}

1453: {\bf l}=({\bf k}+{\bf k}')/|{\bf k}+{\bf k}'|, \ 

1454: {\bf m}=({\bf k}-{\bf k}')/|{\bf k}-{\bf k}'|, \

1455: {\bf n}= [{\bf k}\times {\bf k}']/|[{\bf k}\times {\bf k}']|,

1456: \end{eqnarray}

1457: one can find for the

1458: operators ${\hat F}_{\alpha\beta}$ defined by Eq.~(\ref{tfi})

1459: the following structure \cite{KLEVSH}

1460: \begin{eqnarray}

1461: \label{f12}

1462: {\hat F}_{xx}&=&\phantom{-}F_1+F_2{\hat \sigma_y},\ \

1463: {\hat F}_{xy}=\phantom{-} F_7{\hat \sigma_z}+ F_8{\hat \sigma_x},\ \

1464: {\hat F}_{xz}=\phantom{-} F_9+F_{10}{\hat \sigma_y},\nonumber \\

1465: % 

1466: {\hat F}_{yx}&=&-F_7{\hat \sigma_z} + F_8{\hat \sigma_y},\ \

1467: {\hat F}_{yy}= F_3+ F_4{\hat \sigma_y},\ \

1468: {\hat F}_{yz}= F_{11}{\hat \sigma_x} +F_{12}{\hat \sigma_z},\nonumber \\

1469: %

1470: {\hat F}_{zx}&=& -F_9-F_{10}{\hat \sigma_y}, \ \ 

1471: {\hat F}_{zy}= -F_{11}{\hat \sigma_x} +F_{12}{\hat \sigma_z}, \ \

1472: {\hat F}_{zz}= F_5+ F_6{\hat \sigma_y},

1473: \end{eqnarray}

1474:  where the $F_i$'s are complex numbers and $\hat \sigma_j$ $(j=x,y,z)$ are the Pauli

1475:  matrices. 

1476:  Using Eqs. (\ref{f12}) the spin correlation parameters

1477: can be written in the following form:

1478: \begin{eqnarray}

1479: \label{cij}

1480: C_{x,x}&=&\frac{2}{B}\Bigl \{Im(F_9F_8^*+F_{11}F_3^*+F_{11}F_5^*)

1481: + Re (F_7F_{10}^*-F_4F_{12}^*+F_{12}F_6^*)\Bigr \}, \nonumber \\

1482: C_{y,y}&=&\frac{2}{B}\Bigl \{Im(F_1F_{10}^*+F_{2}F_9^*+F_{6}F_9^*+

1483: F_{5}F_{10}^*)-

1484:  Re (F_{11}F_{7}^*+F_{12}F_8^*)\Bigr \}, \nonumber \\

1485: %

1486: C_{z,z}&=&\frac{2}{B}\Bigl \{Im(F_7F_{1}^*+F_{7}F_3^*+F_{9}F_{12}^*)

1487: + Re (F_{2}F_{8}^*-F_{8}F_4^* +F_{10}F_{11}^* )\Bigr \}, \nonumber\\

1488: %

1489: C_{x,z}&=&\frac{2}{B}\Bigl \{Im(F_1F_{8}^*+F_{8}F_3^*+F_{9}F_{11}^*)

1490: + Re (F_{2}F_{7}^*+F_{7}F_4^* -F_{10}F_{12}^* )\Bigr \},\nonumber \\

1491: %

1492: C_{z,x}&=&\frac{2}{B}\Bigl \{Im(F_7F_{9}^*+F_{3}F_{12}^*+F_{12}F_{5}^*)

1493: + Re (F_{8}F_{10}^*-F_{4}F_{11}^* -F_{11}F_{6}^* )\Bigr \} ,  

1494: \end{eqnarray}

1495: %

1496: where $B$ is given by

1497: \begin{eqnarray}

1498: \label{B}

1499: B = \sum_{i=1}^6|F_i|^2+2\sum_{i=7}^{12}|F_i|^2 .

1500: \nonumber 

1501: \end{eqnarray}

1502: %

1503: The tensor analyzing powers $A_{ij}$ can be expressed in the

1504: following form (see, for example, \cite{KLEVSH}):

1505: \begin{eqnarray}

1506: \label{aij}

1507: A_{xx}&=&\frac{1}{B}\Bigl\{|F_3|^2+|F_4|^2+|F_5|^2+|F_6|^2 

1508: -(|F_7|^2+|F_8|^2 \nonumber \\ 

1509: &&+|F_9|^2+|F_{10}|^2) -2(|F_1|^2+|F_2|^2-|F_{11}|^2-|F_{12}|^2)

1510: \Bigr \},\nonumber \\

1511: A_{yy}&=&\frac{1}{B}\Bigl\{|F_1|^2+|F_2|^2+|F_5|^2+|F_6|^2 

1512: -(|F_7|^2+|F_8|^2 \nonumber \\ 

1513: &&+|F_{11}|^2+|F_{12}|^2)

1514: -2(|F_3|^2+|F_4|^2-|F_9|^2-|F_{10}|^2\Bigr \},\nonumber \\

1515: A_{zz}&=&-A_{xx}-A_{yy}, \nonumber \\

1516: A_{xz}&=&-\frac{3}{B}Re\Bigl [F_7F_{12}^*+F_9F_5^*+F_{10}F_6^*-

1517: F_2F_{10}^*-F_1F_9^*-F_8F_{11}^* \Bigr ].

1518: \end{eqnarray}

1519: %

1520: The polarized elastic differential $\bar p d$ cross section is

1521: \begin{eqnarray}

1522: \label{diffsec}

1523: \Bigl (\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\Bigr )_{pol}=

1524:  \Bigl (\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\Bigr )_{0}

1525: \Bigl [1+\frac{3}{2}p_j^{\bar p}p_i^dC_{j,i}+

1526: \frac{1}{3} P_{ij}^d A_{ij}+\dots\Bigr ].

1527: \end{eqnarray}

1528:  Here $\Bigl (\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\Bigr )_0$ is 

1529: the unpolarized differential cross section, which is given as

1530: \begin{eqnarray}

1531: \label{diffsecunp}

1532: \Bigr (\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\Bigr )_0=

1533: %\frac{1}{3}R \equiv

1534:  \frac{1}{3}\Bigl [

1535: \sum_{i=1}^6|F_i|^2+2\sum_{i=7}^{12}|F_i|^2 \Bigr ] = \frac{1}{3}B.

1536: \end{eqnarray}

1537: In Eq. (\ref{diffsec})

1538: we spell out explicitly only those terms which give a non-zero 

1539:  contribution to the total

1540:  elastic polarized cross section, while other occuring terms are denoted by 

1541:  dots.

1542:  The total elastic polarized cross section can be found by integration of

1543:  Eq. (\ref{diffsec}) over the scattering angle:

1544: \begin{eqnarray}

1545: \label{totelpol}

1546: \sigma_{pol}^{el}=2\pi \int_{\theta_{acc}}^\pi

1547: \Bigl (\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\Bigr )_{pol}\sin{\theta}d\theta.

1548: \end{eqnarray}

1549: 

1550:  The Coulomb amplitudes are contained only in the following terms:

1551:  $F_1= F_1^h+F_1^C$, $F_3= F_3^h+F_3^C$,

1552:  and $F_5= F_5^h+F_5^C$, where $F_i^h$ is the purely hadronic part of the

1553:  amplitudes in question. 

1554:  Due to the singularity $\sim \sin^{-2}({\theta/2})$

1555:  of the Coulomb amplitudes

1556:  $F_1^C=F_3^C=F_5^C\equiv F^C$ 

1557: %\frac{k_{\bar p d}}{k_{\bar p N}}f_c(\theta)w$,

1558:  the main contribution

1559:  to the Coulomb-nuclear interference terms in the cross section Eq. (\ref{diffsec}) 

1560:  comes from forward angles and, therefore, is non-vanishing only for those 

1561:  hadronic amplitudes $F_i$ which are non-zero in forward direction.

1562: In the limit of collinear kinematics when $OZ|| {\bf k}||{\bf k}' $

1563: ($\theta = 0^o$),

1564: one can find from Eqs. (\ref{fab}) and (\ref{f12}) \cite{uzepan98}

1565: \begin{eqnarray}

1566: \label{collinearF}

1567: F_1^h=F_3^h=g_1, \ \ F_5^h=g_2,\ \ F_7^h= ig_4, \ \ F_{10}^h=-F_{11}^h=-ig_3,\nonumber \\

1568: F_2^h=F_4^h=F_6^h=F_8^h=F_9^h=F_{12}^h=0 .

1569: \end{eqnarray}

1570:  Based on these relations one obtains via Eqs.~(\ref{cij}), (\ref{aij}):

1571:  \begin{eqnarray}

1572: \label{obscollin}

1573:  C_{z,z}(0)=\frac{2}{B}\bigl \{Im F_7(F_1^*+F_3^*)+Re F_{10}F_{11}^*\bigl \},

1574:  \nonumber  \\

1575:  C_{x,x}(0)=C_{y,y}(0)= \frac{2}{B}Im (F_1+F_5)F_{10}^*,

1576:  \nonumber \\

1577:   A_{xx}(0)=A_{yy}(0)=-\frac{1}{2}A_{zz}(0)=

1578: \frac{1}{B}\bigl \{-|F_1|^2+|F_5|^2+

1579: |F_{11}|^2 -|F_7|^2\bigl \}, \nonumber \\ 

1580: C_{z,x}(0)=C_{x,z}(0)=A_{xz}(0)=0.

1581: \end{eqnarray}

1582: Taking into account axial symmetry, which follows from

1583: Eqs.~(\ref{obscollin}), 

1584: the polarized Coulomb-nuclear interference cross section

1585: can be written as 

1586:  \begin{eqnarray}

1587: \label{totpolcoll}

1588: \sigma_{pol}^{int}=2\pi \int_{\theta_{acc}}^{\pi}\Bigl (\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\Bigr

1589: )_{pol} \Bigl \{1+\frac{3}{2}C_{x,x}{\bf P}^{\bar p} {\bf P}^d+

1590: \frac{3}{2}(C_{z,z}-C_{x,x})P_z^{\bar

1591:     p}{P_z}^d+ \frac{1}{3}(A_{xx} -A_{zz})P_{zz}^d\Bigr \}\sin{\theta}d\theta.

1592: \end{eqnarray}

1593: 

1594:  Using Eqs.~(\ref{collinearF})-(\ref{obscollin})

1595:  and performing the integration over

1596: the scattering angle in Eq. (\ref{totpolcoll}), one can find finally

1597: \begin{eqnarray}

1598: \label{intsecpd}

1599: \sigma_0^{int}&=&\frac{4\pi}{3}

1600: \int_{\theta_{acc}}^\pi

1601:  Re \Bigl \{ [{F_{1}^h}^*(0)+{F_{3}^h}^*(0)+

1602:  {F_{5}^h}^*(0)]F_1^C  \Bigr \}\sin{\theta} d\theta,\nonumber \\

1603: %

1604: \sigma_1^{int}&=&2\pi\int_{\theta_{acc}}^\pi

1605:  Im \bigl \{ {F_{10}^h}^*(0)(F_3^C+F_5^C) \Bigr \}\sin{\theta}

1606:  d\theta, \nonumber \\

1607: %

1608: \sigma_2^{int}&=&-2\pi\int_{\theta_{acc}}^\pi

1609:  Im \Bigl \{ [{F_{7}^h}^*(0) +{F_{10}^h}^*(0)](F_1^C+F_3^C)

1610:  \Bigr \}\sin{\theta} d\theta, \nonumber \\

1611: %

1612: \sigma_3^{int}&=&\frac{4\pi}{3}

1613: \int_{\theta_{acc}}^\pi

1614:  Re \Bigl \{ [{F_{3}^h}^*(0) -{F_{5}^h}^*(0)]

1615: F_1^C \Bigr \}\sin{\theta} d\theta.

1616: \end{eqnarray}

1617: 

1618: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1619: \bibitem{PAX} V.~Barone {\it et al.}  [PAX Collaboration],

1620:   %``Antiproton proton scattering experiments with polarization,''

1621:   arXiv:hep-ex/0505054.

1622: %

1623: \bibitem{Rathmann}

1624:   F.~Rathmann {\it et al.},

1625:   %``A method to polarize stored antiprotons to a high degree,''

1626:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 94}, 014801 (2005)

1627:   [arXiv:physics/0410067].

1628: %

1629: \bibitem{FILTEX} F.~Rathmann et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 1379 (1993).

1630: %

1631: \bibitem{MS} A.I.~Milstein and V.M.~Strakhovenko, Phys.\ Rev.\ E {\bf 72},

1632:  066503 (2005).

1633: %

1634: \bibitem{NNNP} N.N.~Nikolaev and F.~Pavlov, arXiv:hep-ph/0512051.

1635: \bibitem{NNNP1}

1636:   N.N.~Nikolaev and F.~Pavlov,

1637:   %``Spin filtering of stored (anti)protons: From FILTEX to COSY to AD to

1638:   %FAIR,''

1639:   AIP Conf.\ Proc.\  {\bf 915}, 932 (2007)

1640:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0701175].

1641: \bibitem{NNNP2}

1642:   N.N.~Nikolaev and F.~Pavlov,

1643:   %``Spin filtering of stored (anti)protons: From FILTEX to COSY to AD to

1644:   %FAIR,''

1645:   AIP Conf.\ Proc.\  {\bf 1008}, 34 (2008).

1646: %

1647: \bibitem{HOM} H.O.~Meyer, Phys.\ Rev. E {\bf 50}, 1485 (1994).

1648: %

1649: \bibitem{AD} P.~Lenisa and F.~Rathmann  [PAX Collaboration],

1650:   %``Measurement of the spin-dependence of the anti-p p interaction at the

1651:   %AD-ring,''

1652:   arXiv:nucl-ex/0512021.

1653: %

1654: \bibitem{DmitrievMS} 

1655:   V.~F.~Dmitriev, A.~I.~Milstein and V.~M.~Strakhovenko,

1656:   %``Spin effects in $p\bar p$ interaction and their possible use to polarize

1657:   %antiproton beams,''

1658:   Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ B {\bf 266}, 1122 (2008)

1659:   [arXiv:0707.3006 [hep-ph]].

1660: %

1661: % NNbar Models 

1662: \bibitem{Hippchen}

1663:          T. Hippchen, J. Haidenbauer, K. Holinde and  V. Mull, 

1664:          Phys. Rev. C {\bf 44}, 1323 (1991).

1665: \bibitem{Hippchen1}

1666:         V. Mull, J. Haidenbauer, T. Hippchen and  K. Holinde,

1667:         Phys. Rev. C {\bf 44}, 1337 (1991).

1668: \bibitem{Mull}

1669:         V. Mull and K. Holinde, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 51}, 2360 (1995).

1670: %

1671: \bibitem{Arenhoevel} H.~Arenh\"ovel, arXiv:0706.3576 [nucl-th].

1672: %

1673: \bibitem{Walcher} 

1674:  T.~Walcher, H.~Arenh\"ovel, K.~Aulenbacher, R.~Barday and A.~Jankowiak,

1675:   %``A surprising method for polarising antiprotons,''

1676:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\  A {\bf 34}, 447 (2007)

1677:   [arXiv:0706.3765 [physics.acc-ph]].

1678: % 

1679: \bibitem{MSS} 

1680:   A.~I.~Milstein, S.~G.~Salnikov and V.~M.~Strakhovenko,

1681:   %``Polarization effects in non-relativistic $ep$ scattering,''

1682:   Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ B {\bf 266}, 3453 (2008)

1683:   [arXiv:0802.3766 [hep-ph]].

1684:  

1685: \bibitem{Frankpc} F.~Rathmann, private communication.

1686:  

1687: \bibitem{Nurushev} V.A.~Chetvertkova and S.B.~Nurushev, talk at the XIX Baldin ISHEPP

1688:   Seminar, Dubna, 29 September - 4 October, 2008. 

1689: 

1690: \bibitem{phillips} R.J.N.~Phillips, Nucl. Phys. {\bf 43}, 413 (1963).

1691: %

1692: \bibitem{rekalo}  M.P.~Rekalo, N.M.~Piskunov and I.M.~Sitnik,

1693:  Few-Body Syst. {\bf 23}, 187 (1998).

1694: %

1695: \bibitem{uzepan98} Yu.N.~Uzikov, Phys. Elem. Chast. At. Yadr. {\bf 29},

1696:  1405 (1998) [Phys. Part. Nucl. {\bf 29}, 583 (1998)].

1697: %

1698: 

1699: \bibitem{FrancoGlauber} V.~Franco and R.J.~Glauber, Phys. Rev. {\bf 142},

1700: 1195 (1966).

1701: 

1702: \bibitem{mahalabi} J.~Mahalanabis, Z. Phys. A {\bf 342}, 101 (1992). 

1703: 

1704: \bibitem{bystricky} J.~Bystricky, F.~Lehar and P.~Winternitz, J. Phys. (France)

1705: {\bf 39}, 1 (1978).

1706: %

1707: \bibitem{Alberi} G.~Alberi, M.~Bleszynski, T.~Jaroszewicz and S.~Santos,

1708:   Phys. Rev. D {\bf 20}, 2437 (1979).

1709: %

1710: \bibitem{Alberi1} G.~Alberi, M.~Bleszynski and T.~Jaroszewicz, 

1711:   Ann. Phys. {\bf 142}, 299 (1982).

1712: %

1713: \bibitem{Landau} L.D.~Landau and E.M.~Lifschitz, {\it Quantum Mechanics,

1714: Nonrelativistic Theory} (Pergamon, Oxford, 1965).

1715: %

1716: \bibitem{Lesniak} H.~Lesniak and L.~Lesniak, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 38}, 221 (1972).

1717: %%%%

1718: \bibitem{MHE}

1719:         R. Machleidt, K. Holinde and Ch. Elster, 

1720:         Phys. Rep. {\bf 149}, 1 (1987).

1721: %

1722: %  pbarp FSI effects

1723: %

1724: \bibitem{Betz}

1725:   M.~Betz, E.~A.~Veit and J.~Haidenbauer,

1726:   %``Role of Delta exchange for p anti-p annihilation into two-pion  and

1727:   %three-pion channels,''

1728:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\  A {\bf 14}, 113 (2002)

1729:   [arXiv:nucl-th/0203068].

1730: \bibitem{Sibi1}

1731:   A.~Sibirtsev, J.~Haidenbauer, S.~Krewald, U.~G.~Mei\ss ner and A.~W.~Thomas,

1732:   %``Near threshold enhancement of the p anti-p mass spectrum in J/psi  decay,''

1733:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 71}, 054010 (2005)

1734:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0411386].

1735: \bibitem{Sibi3}

1736:   J.~Haidenbauer, U.~G.~Mei\ss ner and A.~Sibirtsev,

1737:   %``Near threshold ppbar enhancement in the J/psi -> omega ppbar decay,''

1738:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 666}, 352 (2008)

1739:   [arXiv:0804.1469 [hep-ph]].

1740: \bibitem{Sibi2}

1741:   J.~Haidenbauer, U.~G.~Mei\ss ner and A.~Sibirtsev,

1742:   %``Near threshold p anti-p enhancement in B and J/psi decay,''

1743:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 74}, 017501 (2006)

1744:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0605127].

1745: \bibitem{Sibi4}

1746:   J.~Haidenbauer, H.~W.~Hammer, U.~G.~Mei\ss ner and A.~Sibirtsev,

1747:   %``On the strong energy dependence of the e+ e- <--> p anti-p amplitude  near

1748:   %threshold,''

1749:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 643}, 29 (2006)

1750:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0606064].

1751: %

1752: %  ppbar review 

1753: \bibitem{Klempt} 

1754:   E.~Klempt, F.~Bradamante, A.~Martin and J.~M.~Richard,

1755:   %``Antinucleon Nucleon Interaction At Low Energy: Scattering And Protonium,''

1756:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 368}, 119 (2002).

1757: %

1758: % NIJMEGEN

1759: %

1760: \bibitem{Timmermans} R.~Timmermans, T.~A.~Rijken and J.~J.~de Swart,

1761:   %``Anti-proton - proton partial wave analysis below 925-MeV/c,''

1762:   Phys.\ Rev.\  C {\bf 50}, 48 (1994)

1763:   [arXiv:nucl-th/9403011].

1764: %

1765: \bibitem{Richard} J.~M.~Richard,

1766:   %``Comment on 'Anti-proton proton partial wave analysis below 925-MeV/c',''

1767:   Phys.\ Rev.\  C {\bf 52}, 1143 (1995).

1768: %

1769: % pnbar Data 

1770: \bibitem{Arm87}

1771:         T. Armstrong et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 36}, 659 (1987).

1772: \bibitem{Iaz00}

1773:         F. Iazzi et al., Phys. Lett. B {\bf 475}, 378 (2000).

1774: %

1775: \bibitem{Kondratyuksb} L.A.~Kondratyuk, M.Zh.~Shmatikov and R.~Bizzarri,

1776:  Yad. Fiz. {\bf 33}, 795 (1981) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 33}, 413 (1981)].

1777: %

1778: \bibitem{Dalkarov} O.D. Dalkarov and V.A. Karmanov, 

1779:  Phys. Lett. {\bf 147B}, 1 (1984); 

1780:  Nucl.\ Phys.\  A {\bf 445}, 579 (1985).

1781: %

1782: \bibitem{Bendis1}

1783:   G.~Bendiscioli, A.~Rotondi, P.~Salvini and A.~Zenoni,

1784:  Nucl.\ Phys.\  A {\bf 469}, 669 (1987).

1785: 

1786: \bibitem{Ma}

1787:   W.~H.~Ma and D.~Strottman,

1788:   %``Anti-proton induced elastic and inelastic scattering at

1789:   %intermediate-energies,''

1790:   Phys.\ Rev.\  C {\bf 44}, 615 (1991).

1791: 

1792: \bibitem{Bendis2}

1793:   G.~Bendiscioli, A.~Rotondi and A.~Zenoni,

1794:   %``Glauber Theory Analysis Of Anti-Proton He-4 Elastic Scattering At

1795:   %607-Mev/C,''

1796:   Nuovo Cim.\  A {\bf 105}, 1055 (1992).

1797: %

1798: \bibitem{Robson} Y.~S.~Zhang and B.~A.~Robson,

1799:   %``Antiproton Deuteron Scattering At 600-Mev/C,''

1800:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\  A {\bf 22}, 515 (2004).

1801: %

1802: % pbar d data 

1803: %

1804: \bibitem{BizzarriNC74} R.~Bizzarri et al., Nuovo Cim. {\bf 22 A}, 225 (1974).

1805: %

1806: \bibitem{Kalogeropoulos} T.~ Kalogeropoulos and G.S.~Tzankos, Phys. Rev. D

1807: {\bf 22}, 2585 (1980).

1808: %

1809: \bibitem{Burrows} R.D.~Burrows et al., Austr. J. Phys. {\bf 23}, 819 (1970).

1810: %

1811: \bibitem{Carroll} A.S. Carroll et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 32}, 247 (1974).

1812: %

1813: \bibitem{Hamilton} R.P. Hamilton et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44}, 1182 (1980). 

1814: %

1815: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1816: \bibitem{ABB} B.S. Aladashvili et al., J. Phys. G {\bf 3}, 7 (1977). 

1817: %

1818: \bibitem{bruge88} G.~Bruge et al., Phys. Rev. C {\bf 37 }, 1345 (1988). 

1819: %

1820: \bibitem{Sorensen} C.~Sorensen, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 19}, 1444 (1979).

1821: %

1822: \bibitem{KLEVSH} L.A.~Kondratyuk, F.M.~Lev and L.V. Schevchenko, Yad. Fiz. {\bf

1823:   33}, 1208 (1981) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 33 }, 642 (1982)].

1824: %

1825: \end{thebibliography}

1826: 

1827: \end{document}

1828: 

1829: