1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}

2: %\pagestyle{headings}

3: \textheight220mm

4: \textwidth160mm

5: \voffset-1cm

6: \hoffset-1cm

7: 

8: %\input{macro2}

9: %\input{optionkeys}

10: \def\subfigureA#1{

11: \leavevmode

12: \hbox{#1}

13: }

14: %%

15: \newcommand{\m}{\medbreak}

16: \newcommand{\bb}{\bigbreak}

17: \newcommand{\no}{\noindent}

18: \newcommand{\EQ}{\begin{equation}}

19: \newcommand{\eq}{\end{equation}}

20: \newcommand{\EQA}{\begin{eqnarray}}

21: \newcommand{\eqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

22: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}

23: %

24: \newcommand{\AR}{\renewcommand {\arraystretch}{1.5}

25: \begin{array}{l}}

26: \newcommand{\bAR}{\renewcommand {\arraystretch}{2}

27: \begin{array}{l}}

28: \newcommand{\ARc}{\renewcommand {\arraystretch}{1.5}

29: \begin{array}{c}}

30: \newcommand{\bARc}{\renewcommand {\arraystretch}{2}

31: \begin{array}{c}}

32: \newcommand{\ar}{\end{array} \renewcommand {\arraystretch}{1}}

33: \newcommand{\hh}{\hskip 2truecm}

34: %

35: \newcommand{\ST}{\renewcommand {\arraystretch}{2}}

36: \newcommand{\st}{\renewcommand {\arraystretch}{1}}

37: %

38: \newcommand{\ee}{\mbox{$e^+e^-\ $}} 

39: \newcommand{\mumu}{\mbox{$\mu^+\mu^-\ $}}

40: \newcommand{\PT}{\mbox{$p_T\ $}}

41: \newcommand{\ET}{\mbox{$E_T\ $}}

42: %

43: \newcommand{\ALL}{\mbox{$A_{LL}\ $}}

44: \newcommand{\ALLPV}{\mbox{$A_{LL}^{PV}\ $}}

45: \newcommand{\ALLPVBAR}{\mbox{$\bar A_{LL}^{PV}\ $}}

46: \newcommand{\all}{\mbox{$\hat a_{LL}\ $}}

47: \newcommand{\AL}{\mbox{$A_{L}\ $}}

48: \newcommand{\ALR}{\mbox{$A_{LR}\ $}}

49: \newcommand{\al}{\mbox{$\hat a_{L}\ $}}

50: \newcommand{\r}{\rightarrow}

51: \newcommand{\Dta}{$\Delta$}

52: \newcommand{\dta}{$\delta$}

53: \newcommand{\ddp}{\partial}

54: \newcommand{\pp}{\mbox{$pp$\ }}

55: \newcommand{\Z}{$Z^{\circ}\ $}

56: \newcommand{\ZP}{$Z'\ $}

57: \newcommand{\WP}{$W'\ $}

58: \newcommand{\PC}{\mbox{\bf PC }}

59: \newcommand{\PV}{\mbox{\bf PV }}

60: \newcommand{\pho}{\tilde \gamma }

61: \newcommand{\go}{\tilde g }

62: \begin{document}

63: %%%%%

64: %\today

65: %%%%%

66: \begin{titlepage}

67: \vspace{0.2in}

68: %\begin{flushright}

69: %CPT-98/P.3667\\

70: %\end{flushright}

71: \vspace*{1.5cm}

72: \begin{center}

73: {\large \bf Discovery potential for New Physics \\in view of the

74: RHIC-Spin upgrade

75: \\} 

76: \vspace*{0.8cm}

77: {\bf P. Taxil} and {\bf J.-M. Virey}  \\ \vspace*{1cm}

78: Centre de Physique Th\'eorique$^{\ast}$, C.N.R.S. - Luminy,

79: Case 907\\

80: F-13288 Marseille Cedex 9, France\\ \vspace*{0.2cm}

81: and \\ \vspace*{0.2cm}

82: Universit\'e de Provence, Marseille, France\\

83: \vspace*{1.8cm}

84: {\bf Abstract} \\

85: \end{center}

86: In view of a possible upgrade of the RHIC-Spin program

87: at BNL, concerning both the machine and the detectors,

88: we give some predictions concerning the potentialities

89: of New Physics detection with polarized proton beams.

90: We focus on parity-violating asymmetries in one-jet

91: production due to contact terms or to a new leptophobic

92: neutral gauge boson. We comment on the main 

93: uncertainties and we compare with unpolarized searches

94: at Tevatron.

95:  \\

96: 

97: 

98: 

99: 

100: 

101: 

102: 

103: 

104: \vfill

105: \begin{flushleft}

106: PACS Numbers : 12.60.Cn; 13.87.-a; 13.88.+e; 14.70.Pw\\

107: Key-Words : New Gauge bosons, Jets, Polarization.

108: \m\no

109: Number of figures : 1\\

110: 

111: \m\no

112: September 2001\\

113: CPT-01/P.4224\\

114: \m\no

115: anonymous ftp or gopher : cpt.univ-mrs.fr

116: 

117: ------------------------------------\\

118: $^{\ast}$Unit\'e Propre de Recherche 7061

119:  \\

120: E-mail : taxil@cpt.univ-mrs.fr ; virey@cpt.univ-mrs.fr

121: \end{flushleft}

122: \end{titlepage}

123: 

124: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

125:                    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

126:                               %%%%%%%%

127: \section{Introduction}

128: \indent

129: \m

130: There is a growing interest on the physics program which will be 

131: achieved at RHIC-Spin, that is at the 

132: Brookhaven National Laboratory Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), 

133: running in the  polarized $\vec p \vec p$ mode.

134: 

135: 

136: Actually, during the year 2001 the RHIC-Spin Collaboration (RSC) will 

137: perform the first polarized

138: run at a c.m. energy of $\sqrt s = 200 $ GeV and

139: a luminosity of a few $10^{30} cm^{-2}s^{-1}$.

140: 

141: %${\cal L}\ =\, 2. 10^{32} cm^{-2}s^{-1}$.

142: 

143: The nominal energy of $\sqrt s = 500 $ GeV and luminosity

144: ${\cal L}\ =\, 2. 10^{32} cm^{-2}s^{-1}$ should be reached

145: in the early months of 2003, allowing an exposure

146: of 800 $pb^{-1}$ in four months of running.

147: 

148: Physics at RHIC-Spin has been extensively covered in a recent review

149: paper \cite{Bunce}, where many references can also be found

150: (see also \cite{Spin2000} ).

151: The first part of the program will include precise measurements

152: of the polarization of the gluons, quarks and sea-antiquarks

153: in a polarized proton. This will be done thanks to well-known

154: Standard Model processes : direct photon, $W$ and $Z$ production, 

155: Drell-Yan pair production, heavy-flavor production

156: and the production of jets.

157: The helicity structure of perturbative QCD will be thoroughly

158: tested at the same time with the help of Parity Conserving

159: (PC) double spin asymmetries.

160: 

161: It has been first noticed more than ten years ago \cite{Tannenbaum} that

162: the production of high $E_T$ jets from polarized protons

163: could allow to pin down

164: a possible new interaction, provided that parity is 

165: violated in the subprocess. 

166: 

167: Since QCD is parity conserving and dominates the process,

168: according to the Standard Model (SM),

169: the expected Parity Violating (PV) spin asymmetry 

170: in jet production should come from tiny electroweak effects.

171: Hence, a net deviation from the small expected Standard Model

172: asymmetry could be a clear signature of the presence of

173: New Physics.

174:  

175: Due to the energy reach of the machine

176: the New Physics scale should not be too high 

177: to yield a contribution : fortunately 

178: some scenarios are still allowed by present data, in particular

179: the existence of a new weak force belonging uniquely to

180: the quark sector.

181: 

182: In previous papers, we have explored

183: the very phenomenological case of a PV contact

184: interaction between quarks \cite{TVCT}, various situations

185: with a new \ZP with nearly zero couplings

186: to leptons (the so-called leptophobic $Z'$) \cite{TVZprime}

187: and also a scenario with a right-handed \WP 

188: decaying into quarks in the case of a very massive right-handed

189: neutrino \cite{TVWprime}. 

190: 

191: 

192: 

193: 

194: In this letter we will explore the potentialities of RHIC-Spin in view

195: of the two kinds of possible upgrades \cite{Saito}. The improved

196: machine could reach

197: $\sqrt s = 650 $ GeV with an integrated luminosity

198: $L = 20 fb^{-1}$ in a few months running and the STAR detector could

199: greatly improve the angular coverage with new end-caps. 

200: We compare also with the limits which could

201: be obtained with the (unpolarized) Tevatron in Run-II.

202: Concerning theoretical uncertainties, we comment the situation

203: on higher-order calculations when they are available.

204: 

205: 

206: 

207: 

208: 

209: \m

210: 

211: 

212: 

213: 

214: 

215: 

216: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

217: \section{Sources of PV effects in jet production}

218: 

219: The production of high $E_T$ jets is dominated by QCD, in particular

220: by quark-quark scattering. The existence of $W$ and \Z adds a small standard

221: contribution to the cross section \cite{AbudBaurGloverMartin}.

222:  On the other hand

223: the interference of weak amplitudes with QCD amplitudes will

224: be the main Standard source of PV helicity asymmetries in this process.

225: A peak in the asymmetries at $E_T \approx M_{W,Z}/2$ is also the main signature

226: for a pure electroweak contribution.

227: 

228: All the tree-level polarized cross sections for these standard

229: subprocesses can be found in

230: Ref. \cite{BouGuiSof}. Predictions using updated polarized partonic distributions

231: can be found in \cite{TVZprime} or \cite{Bunce}.

232: \\

233: The effects of some possible Non Standard PV interactions have been studied in 

234: recent years :

235: 

236: - First \cite{TVCT} one can think to a simple phenomenological contact interaction

237: which could represent the consequences of quark compositeness. Such 

238: (color singlet and isoscalar) terms are

239: usually parametrized following Eichten et al. \cite{EichtenEHLQ} :

240: 

241: \EQ\label{Lcontact}

242: {\cal L}_{qqqq} = \epsilon \, {g^2\over {8 \Lambda^2}} 

243: \, \bar \Psi \gamma_\mu (1 - \eta \gamma_5) \Psi . \bar \Psi

244: \gamma^\mu (1 - \eta \gamma_5) \Psi

245: \eq

246: \noindent

247: where $\Psi$ is a quark doublet, $\epsilon$ is a sign and $\eta$ 

248: can take the values $\pm 1$ or 0. $g$ is a new strong coupling

249: constant usually normalized to $g^2 = 4\pi\,$ and $\Lambda$ is

250: the compositeness scale.

251: 

252: In the following we will consider the $LL^-$ case with Left-handed

253: chiralities ($\eta = 1$) and constructive interference with

254: QCD amplitudes which corresponds to $\epsilon = -1$.

255: 

256: - Second, we can consider some new neutral gauge bosons

257: with general Left and Right-handed couplings 

258: to each given quark flavor $q$:

259: \EQ

260: \label{lag}

261: {\cal L}_{Z'} = \kappa {g\over 2 \cos \theta_W} Z'^{\mu}{\bar q} \gamma_\mu[ C^q_{L}

262: (1 - \gamma_5) \; +\; C^q_{R} (1 + \gamma_5) ] q

263: \eq \no

264: the parameter $\kappa = g_{Z'}/g_Z$ being

265: of order one. 

266: For a recent review on \ZP phenomenology (in the context of \ee collisions), one can consult 

267: \cite{Leike}. 

268: A particular class

269: of models, called leptophobic \ZP, is poorly constrained

270: by present data since they evade the LEP constraints. 

271: Such models appear in several string-inspired scenarios

272: \cite{LopezNanopoulos,LykkenBabu}. Non supersymmetric models can also

273: be constructed \cite{NoSusy}. Other references can be found in  \cite{TVZprime}.

274: In addition, it was advocated in \cite{Cvetic} that such

275: a boson could appear with a mass close to the electroweak scale 

276: and a mixing angle to the

277: standard \Z close to zero.

278: 

279: 

280: In this letter we will focus for illustration on the

281:  flipped-SU(5) model of Lopez and Nanopoulos 

282: \cite{LopezNanopoulos}  (model A of \cite{TVZprime}) in which parity is maximally

283: violated in the up-quark sector. 

284: Therefore the couplings in eq.(2) take the following values :

285: $C_L^u = C_L^d = - C_R^d = 1/(2{\sqrt 3})$ and $C_R^u = 0$, the

286: ratio $\kappa$ being a free parameter.

287: In this scenario,  

288: 95\% of the new PV effect will come from

289: the interference between the \ZP exchange and the one-gluon exchange amplitudes

290: in the scattering of $u$ quarks in the $t$-channel.\\

291: 

292: 

293: \m

294: \section{Results}

295: \indent

296: \m

297: For Spin experiments, the most important quantities in practice are not

298: the polarized cross sections themselves, but the spin asymmetries.

299: 

300: At RHIC, running in the $\vec p \vec p$ mode, it will be possible to measure 

301: with a

302: great precision  the single PV asymmetry \AL :

303: \EQ

304: A_L \; =\; {d\sigma_{(-)}-d\sigma_{(+)}\over 

305: d\sigma_{(-)}+d\sigma_{(+)}}

306: \eq

307: \no where only one of the proton is polarized, 

308: or

309: the double helicity PV asymmetry :

310: \EQ

311: \label{ALLPVdef}

312: A_{LL}^{PV} ={d\sigma_{(-)(-)}-d\sigma_{(+)(+)}\over 

313: d\sigma_{(-)(-)}+d\sigma_{(+)(+)}}

314: \eq

315: \noindent where both polarizations are available.

316: In the above quantities the signs  $\pm$ refer to the helicities of the colliding

317: protons. The cross section $d\sigma_{(\lambda_1)(\lambda_2)}$ means the one-jet

318: production cross section in a given helicity configuration, 

319: $p_1^{(\lambda_1)}p_2^{(\lambda_2)} \r jet + X$, estimated at  

320: some $\sqrt{s}$

321: for a given jet transverse energy \ET, integrated over a pseudorapidity interval 

322: $\Delta \eta \,$ centered at $\eta\,=\,0$.  

323: In fact, both quantities will exactly yield the same amount of information.

324: From now we will discuss only the single PV asymmetry.

325: \m

326: All the

327: present calculations use polarized parton distribution functions

328: $\Delta f_i(x,Q^2)$'s

329: which have been parametrized from deep-inelastic data

330: e.g. GRSV distributions \cite{GRSV}. The polarized quark distributions

331: $\Delta q(x,Q^2)$

332: which play a dominant role in our calculation at high $E_T$

333: are the most reliable : in any case they will be much better

334: measured soon 

335: thanks to the first part of the RHIC-Spin program itself.

336: \m

337: We give in Table 1 the 95 \% C.L. limits on $\Lambda \equiv \Lambda_{LL^-}$

338: (eq.1) one gets, at lowest order, from a comparison between the 

339: SM asymmetry $A_L$ and the Non-Standard one.

340:  We have taken into account the

341: statistical error, which for small asymmetries is given by :

342: \EQ

343: \Delta A_L = {1 \over P}\,{1 \over {\sqrt N}}

344: \eq

345: \no

346: where $P$ is the degree of polarization of the beams, expected to be $P = 0.7$.

347: Systematics are assumed to be low \cite{Bunce} (see comments below), and we

348: have taken the conservative value

349: $\delta_{syst} \equiv (\Delta A)_{syst}/A = 10\%$.

350: 

351: 

352: One can compare the bounds at $\sqrt s = 500$ GeV and $L = 0.8 fb^{-1}$ with

353: the ones after the energy and/or luminosity upgrade. $4 fb^{-1}$ 

354: ($100 fb^{-1}$) represents

355: 5$\times\,$4 months running with the presently designed (future) nominal luminosity.

356: On the other hand, the cross section being essentially flat 

357: in rapidity in the interval which is accessible to experiment, an increase

358: in rapidity from $\Delta\eta =1$ to 2.6 is equivalent to a substantial

359: increase in luminosity.\\

360: 

361:  Since the statistical error goes like (1/$P$)$(1/\sqrt N)$, reducing the

362: degree of polarization $P$ by a factor $\epsilon$ is equivalent

363: to a factor $\epsilon^2$ in luminosity. In practice, varying the designed value

364: $P=0.7$ by 10\% will change the limits by roughly 6\%.

365: 

366: \begin{center}

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

368: %\label{table1}

369: \hline

370: $\sqrt{s}$ ($GeV$)& L ($fb^{-1}$) & $\Lambda (\Delta \eta = 1)$

371: & $\Lambda  (\Delta \eta = 2.6 )$\\

372: \hline

373: \hline

374: \hline

375: 500 & 0.8 & 3.2 & 4.0\\

376: \hline

377: \hline

378: 500 & 4 & 4.55 & 5.5\\

379: \hline

380: 500 & 20 & 6.15 & 7.0\\

381: \hline

382: 500 & 100 & 7.55 & 8.30\\

383: \hline

384: 650 & 4 & 5.2 & 6.3 \\

385: \hline

386: 650 & 20 & 7.05 & 8.10 \\

387: \hline 

388: 650 & 100 & 8.75 & 9.5 \\

389: \hline

390: \end{tabular} 

391: \end{center}

392: \begin{center}

393: Table 1 : Limits on $\Lambda_{LL^-}$, in TeV,

394: at 95\% CL with $\delta_{syst} = 10\% $, $P=0.7$.

395: \end{center}

396: 

397: This table can be compared with the last published analysis

398:   of the D0 experiments at Tevatron \cite{D0lambda}: 

399: $\Lambda > 2.2$ TeV (95\% C.L.) from the dijet mass cross section.

400: From these figures we have extrapolated

401: a limit at Tevatron of 3.2 TeV (3.7 TeV) with a 1 $fb^{-1}$ (10 $fb^{-1}$) exposure.

402: \m

403: Turning now to the case of a leptophobic \ZP, we present in

404: Fig.1 the constraints on the parameter space ($\kappa, M_{Z'}$) obtained

405: from $A_L$ in the flipped SU(5) model. 

406: The dotted curves correspond to ${\sqrt s} = 500$ GeV and the

407: dashed curves to ${\sqrt s} = 650$ GeV. From bottom to top

408: they correspond to an integrated luminosity

409: $L = 1,10,100 fb^{-1}$. It appears that the increase in luminosity

410: is more efficient than the increase in energy. 

411: Therefore the high

412: luminosity scenario has to be supported even if the RHIC $pp$

413: c.m. energy remains at its "low" value.

414: 

415: 

416: 

417: 

418: We display also in Fig.1 the inferred constraints coming 

419: from the published results of UA2 \cite{UA2}, CDF \cite{CDFjets2}

420: and D0 \cite{D0jets} experiments. The form of the forbidden areas

421: result from a combination of statistical and systematic errors.

422: For high $M_{Z'}$ one looks for some unexpected high-$E_T$

423: jet events and the main uncertainty is statistical in nature.

424: For instance, the upper part of the "CDF area" is well below

425: the one of D0 because of the well-known excess observed by CDF at 

426: high-$E_T$. In the future (run II) the increase in statistics

427: will improve the bounds in the  ($\kappa, M_{Z'}$) plane by 

428: enlarging the upper part of the CDF and D0 areas (or will lead to 

429: a discovery). For relatively low $M_{Z'}$ values, the main problem

430: comes from the large systematic errors for "low" $E_T$ jets.

431: Due to these systematics, at Tevatron, even with a high statistics

432: it will be difficult

433: to probe the low $\kappa$ region for $M_{Z'} \leq 400$ GeV

434: or to close the windows around $M_{Z'} \simeq 300$ and 100 GeV. 

435: In this respect, as can be seen

436: from Fig.1, the RHIC-Spin measurements at high luminosity should

437: allow to cover this region and to get definite conclusions, if 

438: the new interaction violates parity.

439: 

440: 

441: \begin{figure}[t]

442: \centerline{\psfig{file={fkmsu.ps},width=10truecm,height=16truecm}}

443: %\vspace{-3.3cm}

444: \caption{Bounds on the parameter space for leptophobic 

445: flipped SU(5) $Z'$ models (see text).}

446:     \label{fig1} 

447: \end{figure}

448: 

449: %\newpage

450: 

451: 

452: 

453: \section{Comments}

454: \indent

455: 

456: Concerning experimental uncertainties, with a good knowledge of 

457: the beam polarization ($\pm 5\%$) and a very good relative luminosity 

458: measurement ($10^{-4}$), the systematic scale of uncertainty for

459: a single spin measurement should be of the order of 5\% \cite{Bunce}. 

460: Hence we have been

461: conservative in taking $\delta_{syst} = 10\%$.

462: For instance, one should get  higher limits 

463: with the former figure : $\Lambda = 9.0 (10.35)$ TeV

464: with 100 $fb^{-1}$ at 500 (650) GeV, with $\Delta \eta = 1$. The consequences

465: of a smaller systematical error are more sizeable at high luminosity where the

466: statistical error becomes very small.

467: 

468: 

469: 

470: \m

471: 

472: On the theoretical side, the current prejudice is that 

473: spin asymmetries are much 

474: less affected than simple cross sections by higher order corrections.

475: Indeed, recent calculations confirm this simple behaviour.

476: 

477: Concerning SM PV effects, their precise knowledge is mandatory

478: to extract any signal of New Physics. It has been stressed

479: in Ref.\cite{BNL2000} that corrections to the QCD-Electroweak interfence

480: terms, at the order $\alpha_s^2\alpha_W$, might be important in 

481: the quark-quark channel and also that there were some new contributions

482: from this order in quark-gluon scattering.

483: \\

484: Recently, the authors of Ref.\cite{EMR} have carried out

485: the calculation of the one-loop weak corrections

486: to polarized $q-g$ scattering and the corresponding crossed channels.

487: It appears that the PV effects involving gluons are relatively small, 

488: i.e. at most 10\% of the tree-level contribution. Moreover, any effect

489: at the partonic level will not be enhanced by a possibly large

490: polarization of the gluons, $\Delta G$, because in the large $x$

491: region which is of interest here the gluon distributions are small.

492: We have implemented the NLO amplitudes of Ref.\cite{EMR} in our code, 

493: and we have verified that the corrections on $A_L$ are of the order of 

494: 5\% (7\%) on the whole $E_T$ spectrum at a c.m. energy

495: of 500 GeV (650 GeV).

496: It was also straightforward to add the effect of the presence of a 

497: new \ZP in the one-loop amplitude : it turns out that the contribution

498: is negligeable.

499: 

500: Concerning $q-q$ scattering, the NLO calculations are not available

501: but we hope to have them in a not too distant future

502: \cite{Ross}. However, as shown recently by Vogelsang \cite{BNL2001},

503: a relatively good estimate of the size of these corrections can be obtained

504: by performing some gluon resummations. Results of a calculation on $A_L$

505: at RHIC, after resummation at the Leading-Log level, indicate

506: a relatively small correction, of the order of 10\% at high $E_T$.

507: However more precise calculations at the Next-to-Leading-Log level

508: are necessary to get a definite conclusion.

509: 

510: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

511: 

512: 

513: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

514: \section{Conclusions}

515: Qualitatively new measurements will be allowed by the RHIC-Spin

516: experiment.

517: Parity violation searches for physics beyond the 

518: Standard Model will be competitive with unpolarized searches 

519: at the Fermilab Tevatron, in particular in the upgraded version

520: of the machine and of the detector(s). It is worth stressing that

521: an increase in luminosity of the RHIC $\vec p \vec p$ machine and/or an 

522: improvement of the angular

523: coverage of the detectors seem more efficient than an increase in 

524: energy above $\sqrt s = 600$ GeV.

525: 

526: From now the precise amount of systematic uncertainties is not

527: accurately known. However experts at RHIC are confident in 

528: the capacities of polarimetry and luminosity calibrations.

529: On the other hand, some recent theoretical results indicate that the

530: tree-level prediction for the SM parity-violating asymmetry

531: is quite stable. Hence definite results could be obtained from

532: the measurement of $A_L$ : in particular it has to be emphasized

533: that the existence of a new weak force between quarks only is not

534: in contradiction with present data. It might also explain

535: the small 

536: discrepancies which still exists between leptonic and hadronic

537: observables in LEP and SLC results.

538: 

539: 

540: Concerning an other possible step for the program, the possibility of 

541: colliding polarized protons against polarized (or unpolarized) $^3He$ nuclei

542: has been discussed. This could allow to measure some spin asymmetries

543: in $\vec p$-$n$ and/or $\vec p$-$\vec n$ collisions and also possibly

544: in $\vec n$-$\vec n$ collisions via polarized $^3He$-$^3He$ collisions. 

545: In this case a new charged vector boson (e.g. a massive right-handed $W_R$) could also mediate some visible effects (see  Ref.\cite{TVWprime}). 

546: 

547: 

548: 

549: 

550: 

551: 

552: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

553: \m

554: %\vspace*{2cm}

555: %\newpage

556: \no {\bf Acknowledgments}\\ 

557: J.M.V. acknowledges the warm hospitality at the RIKEN-BNL Research center where

558: part of this work has been performed. Thanks are due to 

559: G. Bunce, G. Eppley, S. Moretti, D.A. Ross, N. Saito, J. Soffer and W. Vogelsang 

560: for fruitful discussions. 

561: 

562: 

563: %%%%%%%%%%%

564: 

565: 

566: 

567: %%%%%%

568: %\newpage

569: %\bibliographystyle{unsrt}

570: 

571: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

572: 

573: \bibitem{Bunce}

574: G. Bunce, N. Saito, J. Soffer and W. Vogelsang, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.

575: {\bf 50} (2000) 525.

576: 

577: \bibitem{Spin2000}

578: Proceedings of the 14th International Spin Physics Symposium, 

579: Osaka, 2000, K. Hatanaka et al. eds., AIP Conf. Proceedings {\bf570},

580: AIP, New York, 2001.

581: 

582: \bibitem{Tannenbaum}

583: M. Tannenbaum, in {\it Polarized Collider Workshop}, J. Collins, S.F.

584:   Heppelmann and R.W. Robinett eds, AIP Conf. Proceedings {\bf223}, AIP, New

585:   York, 1990, p. 201.

586: 

587: \bibitem{TVCT}

588: P. Taxil and J.-M. Virey, Phys. Lett. {\bf B364} (1995) 181.

589: 

590: \bibitem{TVZprime}

591: P. Taxil and J.-M. Virey, Phys. Lett. {\bf B441} (1998) 376.

592: 

593: \bibitem{TVWprime}

594: P. Taxil and J.-M. Virey, Phys. Lett. {\bf B404} (1997) 302.

595: 

596: \bibitem{Saito} N. Saito in Ref.[2] and references therein.

597: 

598: \bibitem{AbudBaurGloverMartin}

599: M. Abud, R. Gatto and C.A. Savoy, Ann. Phys. (NY) {\bf 122} (1979) 219 ; U.

600:   Baur, E.W.N. Glover and A.D. Martin, Phys. Lett. {\bf B232} (1989) 519.

601:   

602: \bibitem{BouGuiSof}

603: C. Bourrely, J. Ph. Guillet and J. Soffer, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B361} (1991) 72.

604: 

605: \bibitem{EichtenEHLQ}

606: E. Eichten, K.Lane and M. Peskin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 50}, 811

607: (1983), E. Eichten, et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 56} (1984) 579.

608: 

609: \bibitem{Leike} A. Leike, Phys. Rept. {\bf 317} (1999) 143.

610: 

611: \bibitem{LopezNanopoulos}

612: J.L. Lopez and D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Rev. {\bf D55} (1997) 397.

613: 

614: \bibitem{LykkenBabu}

615: J.D. Lykken in Snowmass 1996, ed. D.G. Cassel, L. Trindle Gennari,

616: R.H. Siemann, p.891;

617: K.S. Babu, C. Kolda and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. {\bf D54} (1996) 4635 ;

618:   {\bf D57} (1998) 6788.

619: 

620: \bibitem{NoSusy} 

621: K. Agashe, M. Graesser, I. Hinchliffe and M. Suzuki, Phys. Lett. {\bf B385}

622:   (1996) 218;

623: H. Georgi and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Lett. {\bf B387}, 341 (1996).

624: 

625: \bibitem{Cvetic}

626: M. Cveti{\v c} et al, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56} (1997) 2861.

627: 

628: \bibitem{GRSV}

629: M. Gl\"uck, E. Reya, M. Stratman and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. {\bf D53} (1996)

630:   4775.

631: 

632: \bibitem{D0lambda}

633: B. Abbott et al.(D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. {\bf D64} (2001) 032003.

634: 

635: \bibitem{UA2}

636: J. Alitti et al., Zeit. f. Phys. {\bf C49} (1991), 17 ; Nucl. Phys. {\bf B400}

637:   (1993), 3.

638: 

639: \bibitem{CDFjets2}

640: F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D55} (1997) R5263.

641: 

642: \bibitem{D0jets}

643: B. Abbott et al., FERMILAB-Conf-97/356-E.

644: 

645: \bibitem{BNL2000} J.-M. Virey in {\it Predictions and uncertainties

646: for RHIC Spin Physics and event generators for RHIC Spin Physics III},

647: Proceedings of the RIKEN-BNL Workshop, March 2000, Brookhaven, p. 111.

648: 

649: \bibitem{EMR}

650: J. Ellis, S. Moretti and D.A. Ross, JHEP {\bf 06} (2001) 043.

651: 

652: \bibitem{Ross} D.A. Ross, private communication.

653: 

654: \bibitem{BNL2001} W. Vogelsang in {\it Spin Physics at RHIC in year-1 and beyond}, 

655: Proceedings of the RIKEN-BNL Workshop, May 2001, Brookhaven; and in

656: {\it The Spin Structure of the Proton and Polarized Collider Physics}, 

657: Proceedings of the ECT* workshop, July 2001, Trento, Italy, to appear.

658: 

659: \bibitem{SofferVirey}

660: J. Soffer and J.-M. Virey, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B509} (1998) 297.

661: 

662: 

663: 

664: \end{thebibliography}

665: 

666: %%%%%%

667: %\newpage

668: %\vspace*{4cm}

669: %{\bf Figure captions}

670: %\bigbreak

671: %\no

672: %{\bf Fig. 1} 

673: 

674: %\bigbreak \no

675: 

676: 

677: 

678: %\bigbreak

679: %\no

680: 

681: 

682: \end{document}

683: %%%%%%%%%%%

684: 

685: 

686: 

687: 

688: