1: % Dr. Spencer Klein
2: % SRKLEIN@LBL.GOV
3: % 70-319 LBNL
4: % 1 Cyclotron Rd.
5: % Berkeley, CA, 94720
6: % (510) 486-5470
7:
8: \documentstyle[preprint,prl,aps,epsfig]{revtex}
9: %\documentstyle[prl,aps,epsfig]{revtex}
10: \tightenlines
11: %\documentstyle[12pt,epsf]{article}
12: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{7.2pt}
13: \setlength{\topmargin}{0in}
14: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.2in}
15: \setlength{\textheight}{9in}
16: \setlength{\parskip}{0.2in}
17: \headheight0in
18: \headsep0in
19: \begin{document}
20: %\preprint{LBNL-45743}
21:
22: \title{Heavy Quark Photoproduction in Ultra-peripheral Heavy Ion Collisions}
23:
24: \author{Spencer R. Klein$^1$, Joakim Nystrand$^2$, and Ramona Vogt$^{1,3}$}
25: \address{$^1$Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720 \break
26: $^2$Department of Physics, Lund University, Lund SE-22100, Sweden \break
27: $^3$Physics Department, University of California, Davis, CA 95616}
28:
29: \break
30: \maketitle
31: \vskip -.2 in
32: \begin{abstract}
33: \vskip -.2 in
34:
35: Heavy quarks are copiously produced in ultra-peripheral heavy ion
36: collisions. In the strong electromagnetic fields, $c\overline c$ and
37: $b\overline b$ are produced by photonuclear and two-photon
38: interactions. Hadroproduction can also occur in grazing interactions. We
39: calculate the total cross sections and the quark transverse momentum and
40: rapidity distributions, as well as the $Q\overline Q$ invariant mass
41: spectra from the three production channels. We consider $AA$ and $pA$
42: collisions at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and the Large Hadron
43: Collider. We discuss techniques for separating the three processes
44: and describe how the $AA$ to $pA$ production ratios might be measured
45: accurately enough to study nuclear shadowing.
46:
47: \end{abstract}
48: %\pacs{14.65.Ha, 25.20.Lj, 13.60.-r}
49: %\narrowtext
50:
51: \section{Introduction}
52: \label{introsec}
53:
54: In ultra-peripheral heavy ion collisions, heavy quarks can be produced
55: in electromagnetic or hadronic interactions. Electromagnetic
56: production occurs through strong electromagnetic fields which can
57: interact with a target nucleus in the opposing beam (photoproduction)
58: or with the electromagnetic field of the opposing beam (two-photon
59: reactions) and produce hadronic final states, including heavy quark
60: pairs. Hadroproduction of heavy quark pairs is also possible in
61: grazing interactions. Since photon emission is coherent over the
62: entire nucleus and because the photon is colorless, the three channels
63: can be distinguished by the presence of zero, one or two rapidity gaps
64: in the events and by whether or not the nuclei dissociate.
65:
66: Many types of ultra-peripheral collisions have been
67: considered\cite{baurrev}. Photonuclear interaction studies have
68: included Coulomb dissociation\cite{ZDCanalysis} and coherent vector
69: meson production\cite{usPRC,parkcity}. Final states studied in
70: two-photon interactions have included production of lepton
71: pairs\cite{INPC}, single mesons and meson pairs\cite{FELIX} as well as
72: production of the Higgs boson and other exotica \cite{kp}. Although
73: the list of experimentally observed channels is currently short, as
74: RHIC gears up new results should come quickly and measurements of
75: heavy quark production in ultra-peripheral collisions may not be too
76: far off.
77:
78: We build on previous calculations of heavy quark
79: photoproduction\cite{bbar,bbar2,knv1} and two-photon
80: production\cite{vidovictwophoton} in heavy ion collisions. For the
81: first time, we consider resolved photon processes. We use modern
82: parton distribution functions along with up-to-date accelerator
83: species and luminosities. We also consider hadroproduction in grazing
84: collisions and compare the three channels. Finally, since useful
85: measurements of shadowing will require high accuracy, we consider the
86: uncertainties inherent in these calculations and methods to control
87: them.
88:
89: We will compare the total cross sections, heavy quark transverse momentum,
90: $p_T$, and rapidity, $y$, distributions, and the $Q
91: \overline Q$ pair invariant mass, $M$, distributions
92: in all three channels.
93: We also discuss $pA$ collisions to see how a comparison of
94: photoproduction in $AA$ ($\gamma A$) and $pA$ (effectively $\gamma
95: p$) can be used to study nuclear effects on the parton distribution
96: functions (shadowing).
97:
98: For consistency, we will use parallel approaches to all three
99: calculations with the same quark mass, parton distribution
100: and QCD scale. For the charm quark mass, $m_c$, this is somewhat
101: problematic because studies of different production channels seem to
102: prefer different values. Hadroproduction calculations have typically
103: best fit the data with a relatively light $m_c$, $\sim 1.2-1.4$ GeV
104: \cite{hpc}, while photoproduction studies have generally favored
105: higher values, $1.5-1.8$ GeV\cite{frixione,berezhnoy}. The limited
106: two-photon data favors an intermediate value, around 1.6
107: GeV\cite{Drees,l3}. For the bottom quark, the typical mass range
108: considered is $4.5-5.0$ GeV. Hadroproduction calculations with
109: $m_b=4.75$ GeV underpredict the $b\overline b$ cross section observed
110: in 1.8 TeV $p\overline p$ collisions\cite{CDF}, suggesting that a
111: smaller mass might be preferred \cite{CDF}. Some exotic $b$
112: production mechanisms have been suggested to explain the excess
113: \cite{harris,other}. Lattice studies suggest lower $c$ and $b$ quark
114: masses, $1.1-1.4$ GeV for charm and $4.1-4.4$ GeV for bottom (the pole
115: masses are somewhat higher) \cite{PDG}. We use $m_c=1.2$ GeV and
116: $m_b=4.75$ GeV throughout this paper but we will also discuss the
117: effect of varying the mass and scale. The QCD scale entering the
118: running coupling constant, $\alpha_s(Q^2)$, and the parton distribution
119: functions are proportional to the transverse masses, $Q^2 = 4m_T^2$ for
120: charm and $m_T^2$ for bottom \cite{hpc}.
121:
122: Table~\ref{lum} gives recent estimates of nucleon-nucleon center of
123: mass energies, $\sqrt{S}$, and luminosities for $AA$ and $pA$
124: collisions at RHIC\cite{RHIClum} and the
125: LHC\cite{brandt,brandt2}. The LHC luminosities assume that two
126: experiments take data and that there is a 125 ns bunch spacing.
127: At RHIC, the $pA$
128: energies are the same as the $AA$ energies while the luminosities are
129: taken to be the geometric mean of the $AA$ and $pp$ luminosities
130: (${\cal L}_{pp} = 1.4 \times 10^{31}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$). There is
131: also the possibility of $pA$ collisions at the LHC. However, at the
132: LHC, the proton and the ion must have the same magnetic rigidity.
133: Because protons and ions have different charge to mass
134: ratios, they have different per nucleon energies and the
135: center of mass is no longer at rest in the lab. These $pA$ collisions
136: are then at somewhat higher per nucleon energies than the corresponding
137: $AA$ collisions. At the LHC, the $pA$ collision rates can exceed 200
138: kHz although some experiments may need to run at a lower luminosity. Because
139: RHIC is a dedicated heavy ion accelerator, it is likely to run a wider
140: variety of beams than the LHC. At RHIC, $dA$ collisions may be an
141: alternative or supplement to $pA$. Except for the different initial
142: isospin, most of the $pA$ discussion should also hold for $dA$ because
143: shadowing is small in deuterium.
144:
145: Section \ref{photosec} discusses photoproduction of heavy quarks in
146: $AA$ and $pA$ collisions. Section \ref{hadrosec} covers
147: hadroproduction in peripheral $AA$ and minimum bias $pA$ collisions.
148: Section \ref{gamgamsec} considers $\gamma \gamma \rightarrow Q
149: \overline Q$ production. Section \ref{thsec} compares our results for
150: the three channels while section \ref{exsec} is dedicated to a
151: discussion of how to disentangle the production channels
152: experimentally. In section \ref{sumsec}, we draw our conclusions.
153:
154: \section{Photoproduction}
155: \label{photosec}
156:
157: Photoproduction of heavy quarks occurs when a photon emitted from one
158: nucleus fuses with a gluon from the other nucleus, forming a
159: $Q\overline Q$ pair\cite{bbar,bbar2,bertulani} (``direct''
160: production), as in Fig.~\ref{Feynphot}(a).
161: The photon can also fluctuate into a state with multiple $q\overline
162: q$ pairs and gluons, {\it i.e.}\ $|n(q \overline q)m(g)\rangle$. One
163: of these photon components can interact with a quark or gluon from the
164: target nucleus (``resolved'' production), as in
165: Figs.~\ref{Feynphot}(b)-(d)\cite{witten}. The photon components are
166: described by parton densities similar to those used for protons except
167: that no useful momentum sum rule applies to the photon \cite{jpgconf}.
168:
169: At leading order (LO), the partonic cross section of the direct
170: contribution is proportional to $\alpha \alpha_s(Q^2) e_Q^2$, where
171: $\alpha_s(Q^2)$ is the strong coupling constant, $\alpha=e^2/\hbar c$ is the
172: electromagnetic coupling constant, and $e_Q$ is the quark charge, $e_c = 2/3$
173: and $e_b = -1/3$. The
174: resolved partonic cross section is proportional to $\alpha_s^2(Q^2)$. Even
175: though the resolved partonic cross sections are
176: larger than the direct partonic cross section, the smaller flux of quarks and
177: gluons from the photon suggests that the resolved contribution
178: should be smaller than the direct component.
179:
180: The cross sections are calculated using the Weizs\"acker-Williams
181: virtual photon flux, modern parameterizations of the target gluon and
182: quark distributions and the LO partonic cross sections. Newer parton
183: distributions are considerably softer than the flat, scaling
184: parameterizations used earlier\cite{bbar,bbar2}. We require that the
185: photoproduction not be accompanied by hadronic
186: interactions\cite{bbar,bbar2}. This could be done by restricting the
187: impact parameter, $b$, to greater than twice the nuclear radius,
188: $R_A$. Here we weight the $b$-dependent photoproduction probability
189: by the $b$-dependent hadronic non-interaction probability.
190:
191: Direct $Q\overline Q$ pairs are produced in the reaction $\gamma(k) +
192: N(P_2) \rightarrow Q(p_1) + \overline Q(p_2) + X$ where $k$ is the
193: four momentum of the photon emitted from the virtual photon field of
194: the projectile nucleus, $P_2$ is the four momentum of the interacting
195: nucleon $N$ in ion $A$, and $p_1$ and $p_2$ are the four momenta of
196: the produced $Q$ and $ \overline Q$. The photons are almost
197: real. Their slight virtuality, $|q^2| < (\hbar c/R_A)^2$,
198: is neglected.
199:
200: On the parton level, the photon-gluon fusion reaction is $\gamma(k) +
201: g(x_2 P_2) \rightarrow Q(p_1) + \overline Q(p_2)$ where $x_2$ is the
202: fraction of the target momentum carried by the gluon. The LO $Q
203: \overline Q$ photoproduction cross section for quarks with mass $m_Q$
204: is \cite{joneswyld}
205: \begin{equation}
206: s^2 \frac{d^2 \sigma_{\gamma g}}{dt_1 du_1} = \pi \alpha_s(Q^2) \alpha e_Q^2
207: B_{\rm QED} (s,t_1,u_1) \delta(s + t_1 + u_1)
208: \label{gamApart}
209: \end{equation}
210: where
211: \begin{equation}
212: B_{\rm QED} (s,t_1,u_1) =
213: \frac{t_1}{u_1} + \frac{u_1}{t_1} + \frac{4m_Q^2 s}{t_1 u_1} \left[ 1 -
214: \frac{m_Q^2 s}{t_1 u_1} \right] \, \, .
215: \label{bqeddef}
216: \end{equation}
217: Here $\alpha_s(Q^2)$ is evaluated to one loop at scale $Q^2$. The
218: partonic invariants, $s$, $t_1$, and $u_1$, are defined as $s = (k +
219: x_2 P_2)^2$, $t_1 = (k - p_1)^2 - m_Q^2 = (x_2 P_2 - p_2)^2 - m_Q^2$,
220: and $u_1 = (x_2 P_2 - p_1)^2 - m_Q^2 = (k - p_2)^2 - m_Q^2$. In this
221: case, $s = 4k \gamma_L x_2m_p$ where $\gamma_L$ is the Lorentz boost
222: of a single beam and $m_p$ is the proton mass. Since $k$ ranges over
223: a continuum of energies up to $E_{\rm beam} = \gamma_L m_p$, we define
224: $x_1 = k/P_1$ analogous to the parton momentum fraction where $P_1$ is
225: the nucleon four momentum. For a detected quark in a nucleon-nucleon
226: collision, the hadronic invariants are then $S = (P_1 + P_2)^2$, $T_1
227: = (P_2 - p_1)^2 - m_Q^2$, and $U_1 = (P_1 - p_1)^2 - m_Q^2$.
228:
229: We label the quark rapidity as $y_1$ and the antiquark rapidity as $y_2$.
230: The quark rapidity is related to the invariant $T_1$ by $T_1 = -
231: \sqrt{S} m_T e^{-y_1}$ where $m_T = \sqrt{p_T^2 + m_Q^2}$. The
232: invariant mass of the pair can be determined if both the $Q$ and
233: $\overline Q$ are detected. The square of the invariant mass, $M^2 =
234: s = 2m_T^2 (1 + \cosh(y_1 - y_2))$, is the partonic center of mass
235: energy squared. The minimum photon momentum necessary to produce a $Q
236: \overline Q$ pair is $k_{\rm min} = M^2/4\gamma_L m_p$. At LO, $x_2
237: = (m_T/\sqrt{S})(e^{y_1} + e^{y_2})$ and $x_1 =
238: (m_T/\sqrt{S})(e^{-y_1} + e^{-y_2})$. We calculate $x_1$ and $x_2$ as
239: in an $NN$ collision and then determine the flux in the lab frame for
240: $k = x_1 \gamma_L m_p$, equivalent to the center of mass frame in a
241: collider. The photon flux is exponentially suppressed for $k>\gamma_L
242: \hbar c/R_A$, corresponding to a momentum fraction $x_1 > \hbar
243: c/m_pR_A$. The maximum $\gamma N$ center of mass energy,
244: $\sqrt{S_{\gamma N}}$, is much lower than the hadronic $\sqrt{S}$. Note that
245: $\sqrt{S_{\gamma N}} = W_{\gamma N}$, the typical notation for HERA. For
246: consistency, we use $\sqrt{S}$ notation for all three processes.
247:
248: The cross section for direct photon-nucleon heavy quark
249: photoproduction is obtained by convoluting Eq.~(\ref{gamApart}) with the
250: photon flux and the gluon distribution in the nucleus and integrating over
251: $k$ and $x_2$,
252: \begin{equation}
253: S^2\frac{d^2\sigma^{\rm dir}_{\gamma A
254: \rightarrow Q \overline Q X}}{dT_1 dU_1 d^2b} =
255: 2 \int dz \int_{k_{\rm min}}^\infty dk {d^3N_\gamma \over
256: dkd^2b} \int_{x_{2_{\rm min}}}^1
257: \frac{dx_2}{x_2} F_g^A(x_2,Q^2,\vec b,z) s^2
258: \frac{d^2 \sigma_{\gamma g}}{dt_1 du_1} \, \, ,
259: \label{main}
260: \end{equation}
261: where $d^3N_\gamma/dkd^2b$ is the differential photon flux from one
262: nucleus (our final results will be integrated over $b>2R_A$) and $z$ is the
263: longitudinal distance. The factor of
264: two in Eq.~(\ref{main}) arises because both nuclei emit photons and
265: thus serve as targets. The incoherence of heavy quark production
266: eliminates interference between the two production
267: sources\cite{usinterf}. Four-momentum conservation gives $x_{2_{\rm
268: min}} = -U_1/(S + T_1)$ in terms of the nucleon-nucleon invariants.
269: The equivalent hadronic invariants can be defined for photon four
270: momentum $k$ as $S_{\gamma N} = (k + P_2)^2$, $T_{1,\gamma N} = (P_2 -
271: p_1)^2 - m_Q^2$, and $U_{1, \gamma N} = (k - p_1)^2 - m_Q^2$
272: \cite{SvN}. The partonic and equivalent hadronic invariants for fixed
273: $k$ are related by $s = x_2S_{\gamma N}$, $t_1 = U_{1, \gamma N}$, and
274: $u_1 = x_2 T_{1, \gamma N}$.
275:
276: We now turn to the resolved (hadronic) contribution to the
277: photoproduction cross section. The hadronic reaction, $\gamma N
278: \rightarrow Q \overline Q X$, is unchanged, but now, prior to the
279: interaction with the nucleon, the photon splits into a color singlet
280: state with some number of $q \overline q$ pairs and gluons. There are
281: a few photon parton distributions
282: available~\cite{GRVgam,DG1,LAC1,WHIT,SaS}. None of them can be
283: definitively ruled out by the existing data on the photon structure
284: function \cite{PDFLIB,JADE}. As expected, $F_q^\gamma(x,Q^2) = F_{\overline
285: q}^\gamma (x,Q^2)$ flavor by flavor because there are no ``valence'' quarks in
286: the photon. The gluon distribution in the photon is less well known.
287: We use the GRV LO set \cite{GRVgam}. Its gluon distribution is
288: similar to most of the other available sets \cite{DG1,WHIT,SaS}. Only
289: the LAC1 set \cite{LAC1} has a higher low-$x$
290: gluon density, up to an order of magnitude larger than the others.
291:
292: On the parton level, the resolved LO reactions are $g(xk) +
293: g(x_2 P_2) \rightarrow Q(p_1) + \overline Q(p_2)$ and $q (xk) +
294: \overline q(x_2 P_2) \rightarrow Q(p_1) + \overline Q(p_2)$ where $x$ is the
295: fraction of the photon momentum carried by the parton. The LO diagrams for
296: resolved photoproduction, shown in Fig.~\ref{Feynphot}(b)-(d), are the same as
297: for hadroproduction except that one parton source is a photon
298: rather than a nucleon.
299: The LO partonic cross sections are
300: \cite{CTEQRMP}
301: \begin{eqnarray}
302: \hat{s}^2 \frac{d^2 \sigma_{q \overline q}}{d\hat{t}_1 d\hat{u}_1} & =
303: & \pi \alpha_s^2(Q^2)
304: \frac{4}{9} \left( \frac{\hat{t}_1^2 + \hat{u}_1^2}{\hat{s}^2}
305: + \frac{2m_Q^2}{\hat{s}} \right)
306: \delta(\hat{s} + \hat{t}_1 + \hat{u}_1) \, \, , \label{qqpartres} \\
307: \hat{s}^2 \frac{d^2 \sigma_{gg}}{d\hat{t}_1 d\hat{u}_1} & = & \frac{\pi
308: \alpha_s^2(Q^2)}{16}
309: B_{\rm QED} (\hat{s},\hat{t}_1,\hat{u}_1) \left[ 3 \left( 1 -
310: \frac{2\hat{t}_1 \hat{u}_1}{\hat{s}^2} \right)
311: - \frac{1}{3} \right] \delta(\hat{s} + \hat{t}_1 + \hat{u}_1)\, \, ,
312: \label{ggpartres}
313: \end{eqnarray}
314: where $\hat{s} = (xk + x_2P_2)^2$, $\hat{t}_1 = (xk - p_1)^2 - m_Q^2$,
315: and $\hat{u}_1 = (x_2P_2 - p_1)^2 - m_Q^2$. The $gg$ partonic cross
316: section, Eq.~(\ref{ggpartres}), is proportional to the photon-gluon
317: fusion cross section, Eq.~(\ref{gamApart}), with an additional factor
318: for the non-Abelian
319: three-gluon vertex. The $q \overline q$ annihilation cross section
320: has a different structure because it is an $s$-channel process with
321: gluon exchange between the $q \overline q$ and $Q \overline Q$
322: vertices. The $gg$ reactions are shown in
323: Figs.~\ref{Feynphot}(b)-(c); Fig.~\ref{Feynphot}(c) is the non-Abelian
324: contribution. The $q \overline q$ diagram is shown in
325: Fig.~\ref{Feynphot}(d). Modulo the additional factor in the $gg$ cross
326: section, the resolved partonic photoproduction cross sections are a
327: factor $\alpha_s(Q^2)/\alpha e_Q^2$ larger than the direct, $\gamma
328: g$, partonic photoproduction cross sections. Despite this, the resolved
329: component is still smaller than the direct component.
330:
331: The cross section for resolved photoproduction is
332: \begin{eqnarray}
333: \lefteqn{S^2\frac{d^2\sigma^{\rm res}_{\gamma A \rightarrow Q \overline Q
334: X}}{dT_1 dU_1 d^2b} = 2 \int dz \int_{k_{\rm min}}^\infty
335: \frac{dk}{k} {d^3N_\gamma\over dkdb^2} \int_{k_{\rm min}/k}^1 \frac{dx}{x}
336: \int_{x_{2_{\rm min}}}^1 \frac{dx_2}{x_2}} \nonumber \\
337: & & \mbox{} \times \left[ F_g^\gamma (x,Q^2)
338: F_g^A(x_2,Q^2,\vec b,z) \hat{s}^2
339: \frac{d^2 \sigma_{gg}}{d\hat{t}_1 d\hat{u}_1} \right. \nonumber \\
340: & & \mbox{} + \left. \sum_{q=u,d,s} F_q^\gamma (x,Q^2)
341: \left\{
342: F_q^A(x_2,Q^2,\vec b,z) + F_{\overline q}^A(x_2,Q^2,\vec b,z) \right\}
343: \hat{s}^2 \frac{d^2 \sigma_{q \overline q}}{d\hat{t}_1
344: d\hat{u}_1} \right] \, \, ,
345: \label{mainres}
346: \end{eqnarray}
347: where $k_{\rm min}$ is defined as before. Since $k$ is typically
348: larger in resolved than direct photoproduction, the average photon
349: flux is lower in the resolved contribution.
350:
351: The nuclear parton densities $F_i^A(x,Q^2,\vec{b},z)$ in Eqs.~(\ref{main}) and
352: (\ref{mainres}) can be
353: factorized into $x$ and $Q^2$ independent nuclear density
354: distributions, position and nuclear-number independent nucleon parton
355: densities, and a shadowing function $S^i(A,x,Q^2,\vec{b},z)$ that
356: describes the modification of the nuclear parton distributions in
357: position and momentum space.
358: Then \cite{spenprc,spenprl,spenpsi,ekkv4,RVwz}
359: \begin{eqnarray}
360: F_i^A(x,Q^2,\vec{b},z) & = & \rho_A(\vec{b},z) S^i(A,x,Q^2,\vec{b},z)
361: f_i^N(x,Q^2) \label{nucglu} \, \,
362: \end{eqnarray}
363: where $f^N_i(x,Q^2)$ is the parton density in the nucleon. We evaluate
364: the MRST LO parton distributions \cite{pdf} at $Q^2= a^2 m^2_T$
365: where $a = 2$ for charm and 1 for bottom. In the absence of nuclear
366: modifications, $S^i(A,x,Q^2,\vec{b},z)\equiv1$. The nuclear density
367: distribution, $\rho_A(\vec{b},z)$, is a Woods-Saxon shape
368: with parameters determined from electron
369: scattering data \cite{Vvv}. Although most models of shadowing predict
370: a dependence on the parton position in the nucleus, in this
371: photoproduction calculation we neglect any impact parameter
372: dependence. Then the position dependence drops out of $S^i$.
373: We employ the
374: EKS98 shadowing parameterization \cite{eskola}, available in PDFLIB
375: \cite{PDFLIB} for $S^i \neq 1$.
376:
377: The full photoproduction cross section is the sum of the direct and resolved
378: contributions \cite{frixione},
379: \begin{eqnarray}
380: S^2\frac{d^2\sigma_{\gamma A \rightarrow Q \overline Q
381: X}}{dT_1
382: dU_1 d^2b} = S^2\frac{d^2\sigma^{\rm dir}_{\gamma A \rightarrow Q
383: \overline Q X}}{dT_1 dU_1 d^2b} + S^2\frac{d^2\sigma^{\rm res}_{\gamma A
384: \rightarrow Q \overline Q X}}{dT_1 dU_1 d^2b} \, \, .
385: \label{phottot}
386: \end{eqnarray}
387: The total cross section is the integral over impact parameter and the hadronic
388: invariants $T_1$ and $U_1$,
389: \begin{eqnarray}
390: \sigma_{\gamma A \rightarrow Q \overline Q X} = \int dT_1 \, dU_1
391: \, d^2b \, \frac{d^2\sigma_{\gamma A \rightarrow Q \overline Q
392: X}}{dT_1 dU_1 d^2b} \, \, .
393: \label{photinttot}
394: \end{eqnarray}
395: When $S^i=1$, the impact-parameter integrated cross section in
396: Eq.~(\ref{photinttot}) scales with $A$. Including shadowing makes the
397: dependence on $A$ nonlinear.
398:
399: The photon flux is given by the Weizs\"acker-Williams method. The
400: flux from a charge $Z$ nucleus a distance $r$ away is
401: \begin{equation}
402: {d^3N_\gamma \over dkd^2r} =
403: {Z^2\alpha w^2\over \pi^2kr^2} \left[ K_1^2(w) + {1\over
404: \gamma_L^2} K_0^2(w) \right] \, \,
405: \label{wwr}
406: \end{equation}
407: where $w=kr/\gamma_L$ and $K_0(w)$ and $K_1(w)$ are modified Bessel
408: functions. The photon flux decreases exponentially above a cutoff
409: energy determined by the size of the nucleus. In the lab frame, the
410: cutoff is $k_{\rm max} \approx \gamma_L \hbar c/R_A$. In the rest frame of the
411: target nucleus, the cutoff is boosted to
412: $E_{\rm max}=(2\gamma_L^2-1)\hbar c/R_A$. Table~\ref{gamfacs} shows the
413: beam energies, $E_{\rm beam}$, Lorentz factors, $\gamma_L$, $k_{\rm
414: max}$, and $E_{\rm max}$, as well as the corresponding maximum center
415: of mass energy, $\sqrt{S_{\rm max}} = \sqrt{2E_{\rm max}m_p}$, for single
416: photon interactions with protons, $\gamma p \rightarrow Q \overline Q$
417: \cite{frstr}. At the LHC, the energies are high enough for $t
418: \overline t$ photoproduction\cite{knv1}.
419:
420: The total photon flux striking the target nucleus is the integral of
421: Eq.~(\ref{wwr}) over the transverse area of the target for all impact
422: parameters subject to the constraint that the two nuclei do not
423: interact hadronically\cite{usPRC}. This must be calculated
424: numerically. However, a reasonable analytic approximation for $AA$
425: collisions is given by the photon flux integrated over radii $r>2R_A$.
426: The analytic photon flux is
427: \begin{equation}
428: {dN_\gamma\over dk} =
429: {2Z^2 \alpha \over\pi k} \left[ w_R^{AA}K_0(w_R^{AA})
430: K_1(w_R^{AA})- {(w_R^{AA})^2\over 2} \big(K_1^2(w_R^{AA})-K_0^2(w_R^{AA})
431: \big) \right] \, \,
432: \label{analflux}
433: \end{equation}
434: where $w_R^{AA}=2kR_A/\gamma_L$. We use the more accurate numerical
435: calculations here. The difference between the numerical and analytic
436: expressions is typically less than 15\%, except for photon energies
437: near the cutoff. The analytical and numerical photon fluxes differ most
438: for $b\overline b$ production at RHIC.
439:
440: The photoproduction distributions are shown in
441: Figs.~\ref{gamArc}-\ref{gamAlb} for the largest
442: nuclei at each energy, gold for RHIC and lead for LHC. Since
443: $\sqrt{S_{\rm max}}$ is close to the $b \overline b$ production
444: threshold for iodine and gold beams at RHIC, the $p_T$ and mass
445: distributions for these nuclei are narrower than those with oxygen and
446: silicon beams. The direct photoproduction
447: results are reduced by a factor of two on the figures to separate them
448: from the total. There are two curves for each contribution, one
449: without shadowing, $S^i = 1$, and one with homogeneous nuclear
450: shadowing, $S^i =$ EKS98. When the effects of shadowing are small,
451: the curves are indistinguishable.
452:
453: Shadowing has the largest effect on the rapidity distributions in
454: Figs.~\ref{gamArc}(b)-\ref{gamAlb}(b). In these calculations, the
455: photon is emitted from the nucleus coming from positive rapidity. Then
456: $y_1<0$ corresponds to $k<\gamma_L x_2m_p$ in the center of mass (lab)
457: frame. If the photon emitter and target nucleus are interchanged, the
458: resulting unshadowed rapidity distribution, $S^i=1$, is the mirror
459: image of these distributions around $y_1=0$. The
460: $Q$ and $\overline Q$ distributions are asymmetric around $y_1=0$.
461: The resolved contribution is largest at rapidities where the photon
462: momentum is small. The resolved rapidity distributions are narrower
463: and shifted to larger negative rapidity than the direct contribution.
464: The average mass and transverse momentum for the resolved component
465: are smaller than for the direct ones. The total heavy quark rapidity
466: distributions are the sum of the displayed results with their mirror
467: images when both nuclei emit photons. This factor of two is included
468: in the transverse momentum and invariant mass distributions.
469:
470: The impact-parameter integrated total direct and resolved
471: photoproduction cross sections are given in Table~\ref{gamAcc} for
472: charm and Table~\ref{gamAbb} for bottom. The difference between the
473: $S^i = 1$ and $S^i$ = EKS98 calculations is due to
474: shadowing. The change is about 10\% for $c\overline c$ with gold at RHIC,
475: rising to 20\% for $c\overline c$ with lead at the LHC. For
476: $b\overline b$, the shadowing effect is smaller, about 5\%. By selecting charm
477: production in a limited rapidity and $p_T$ range, it would be possible
478: to enhance the effect of shadowing slightly but the 10\% and 20\% effects at
479: RHIC and the LHC are useful benchmarks of the accuracy needed for
480: a meaningful measurement.
481:
482: The cross sections vary by orders of magnitude between the lightest
483: and heaviest targets, primarily due to the changing $Z^2$.
484: At RHIC, $(Z_{\rm Au}/Z_{\rm O})^2$ is almost exactly the ratio of the
485: $b \overline b$ production cross sections. For $b\overline b$ production
486: at the LHC, the lead to oxygen cross section ratio is $\sim 60$, less
487: than $(Z_{\rm Pb}/Z_{\rm O})^2$.
488:
489: After adjustment for different parton distributions, quark masses, beam
490: energies and species as well as the resolved contributions, the
491: photoproduction results are comparable with previous studies. The
492: direct $c \overline c$ cross sections in Table~\ref{gamAcc} are
493: almost identical to those found by Baron and Baur\cite{bbar}, despite
494: significant differences in gluon structure function and quark masses
495: ({\it e.g.}\ $m_c=1.74$ GeV in Ref.~\cite{bbar} rather than $m_c=1.2$
496: GeV). The quark mass difference can be compensated by the newer parton
497: distributions since the low-$x$ MRST gluon density is much higher than
498: that of the older Duke-Owens parton distributions used by Baron and Baur.
499: Our $b \overline b$ cross section is about three times higher than
500: Greiner {\it et al.} \cite{bbar2,hofmann} at the same invariant mass
501: although they use a smaller $b$ quark mass, 4.5 GeV,
502: due to the larger low-$x$ MRST gluon distribution.
503:
504: On the other hand, nonperturbative QCD calculations of
505: direct photoproduction can yield
506: very different rates. A colored glass model predicts $Q\overline Q$
507: production cross sections in Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC of 800 mb for
508: $c \overline c$ and 100 mb for $b \overline b$ \cite{glass}, about half the
509: perturbative $c \overline c$ cross section but 140 times the $b \overline b$
510: cross section. The ratio of charm to bottom cross sections in this
511: formulation is extraordinarily small compared to the perturbative
512: results in Tables~\ref{gamAcc} and \ref{gamAbb}.
513:
514: We now discuss the resolved rates. At RHIC the $c \overline c$ and $b
515: \overline b$ resolved contributions are $\sim 2$ and 6\% of the total.
516: The contribution is small because the available $\gamma p$ energy is
517: relatively close to threshold: the resolved center of
518: mass energy is smaller than $\sqrt{S_{\rm max}}$.
519: At the LHC, the resolved contributions are
520: $\sim 15$ and 20\% of the total charm and bottom photoproduction cross
521: sections respectively, comparable to the shadowing effect.
522: Interestingly, the resolved $q \overline q$ component is
523: considerably greater than $q \overline q$ annihilation in hadroproduction
524: because, like the valence
525: quark distributions of the proton, the photon quark and antiquark
526: distributions peak at large $x$. However, the peak of the photon quark
527: distribution is at higher $x$ than in the proton. These large photon
528: momentum fractions increase the $q \overline q$ contribution near threshold.
529: The total $c \overline c$ resolved cross
530: section at RHIC is $(35-50)$\% $q \overline q$ while the $b \overline
531: b$ resolved contribution is $(80-90)$\% $q \overline q$. The relative
532: resolved contribution remains larger than $q \overline q$ annihilation
533: in hadroproduction at the LHC where the $q \overline q$ contribution
534: to the hadroproduction cross section is 4\% for charm and 10\% for
535: bottom.
536: The LAC1 gluon distribution\cite{LAC1} predicts a considerably
537: larger resolved contribution with a smaller relative
538: $q\overline q$ contribution.
539:
540: At fixed target energies, near threshold, the resolved component of
541: charm photoproduction is relatively unimportant\cite{E691}. However,
542: at higher $\gamma p$ energies such as those at HERA, the resolved
543: component becomes important. RHIC is an intermediate case, with an
544: average $\gamma p$ energy less than 1/5 of that at HERA. We find
545: that, at RHIC, the resolved component is a $(2-6)$\% effect. At
546: the LHC, where the energies are generally higher than at HERA, it is
547: $(15-20)$\% of the total cross section, concentrated at
548: large rapidities. As was previously mentioned, much early
549: photoproduction data favors heavier quark masses, $1.5-1.8$ GeV,
550: although newer HERA results are ambiguous\cite{frix2}. Because we use
551: a lower $m_c$, our cross sections are higher than a direct comparison
552: to HERA would indicate. Changing $m_c$ affects the overall cross
553: section and the quark $p_T$ spectrum for $p_T < 5$ GeV\cite{frixione}.
554:
555: As is typically done, we include all $Q \overline Q$ pairs in the
556: total cross sections and rates even though some of these pairs have
557: masses below the $H \overline H$ threshold where $H \overline H \equiv
558: D \overline D$, $B \overline B$. Photoproduction is an inclusive
559: process; accompanying particles can combine with the $Q$ and
560: $\overline Q$, allowing the pairs with $M<2m_H$ to hadronize. We
561: assume the hadronization process does not affect the rate. Including
562: all pairs in the total cross section is presumably an even safer
563: assumption for hadroproduction because there are more accompanying
564: particles. On the other hand, $\gamma \gamma$ interactions should
565: have no additional particles since the interaction is purely
566: electromagnetic and occurs away from the nuclei in free space.
567: Section \ref{gamgamsec} will discuss this in more detail.
568:
569: One way to avoid some uncertainties due to higher order corrections is
570: to measure shadowing by comparing the $pA$ and $AA$ photoproduction
571: cross sections at equal photon energies since the parameter dependence
572: cancels in the ratio $\sigma(AA)/\sigma(pA)$. In the equal speed
573: system, equal photon energies correspond to the same final-state
574: rapidities. In $pA$ collisions, the photon almost always comes from
575: the nucleus due to its stronger field. Thus the $pA$ rates
576: depend on the free proton gluon
577: distribution. The photon fluxes are different for $pA$ and $AA$
578: because the minimum radii used to determine $\omega_R$ are different:
579: $2R_A$ in $AA$ compared to $R_A+r_p$ in $pA$ where $r_p$ is the proton
580: radius. There are a number of ways to define the proton radius. We use
581: the hadronic radius, $r_p\approx 0.6$ fm, determined from
582: photoproduction data\cite{herarho}. As we will show, our results are
583: not very sensitive to $r_p$.
584:
585: In a detailed calculation, the hadronic interaction
586: probability near the minimum radius depends on the matter distribution
587: in the nucleus. Our calculations use Woods-Saxon distributions with
588: parameters fit to electron scattering data. This data is quite
589: accurate. However, electron scattering is only sensitive to the
590: charge distribution in the nucleus. Recent measurements indicate that
591: the neutron and proton distributions differ in nuclei \cite{pbars}.
592: This uncertainty in the matter distribution is likely to limit the
593: photon flux determination.
594:
595: The uncertainty in the photon flux can be reduced by
596: calibrating it with other measurements. Further studies of the matter
597: distributions in nuclei \cite{pbars} and the total ion-ion cross
598: sections, as well as comparisons with known photoproduction and
599: two-photon processes, can help pin down the photon flux. For example,
600: the cross section for $\gamma p\rightarrow\rho p$ is known to 10\%
601: from measurements at HERA\cite{herarho}. The $\gamma A\rightarrow VA$
602: data are limited to energies lower than but still
603: comparable to those available at RHIC. A combination of lower energy
604: RHIC data and a judicious extrapolation could fix the calibration.
605: Studies of well known two-photon processes, like lepton production,
606: can also help refine the determination of the photon flux. With these
607: checks, it should be possible to understand the photon flux in $pA$
608: relative to $AA$ to better than 10\%, good enough for a useful shadowing
609: measurement.
610:
611: Our $pA$ results are calculated in the equal-speed frame. This is
612: appropriate for RHIC where $\sqrt{S}$ is the same in $pA$ and $AA$
613: interactions. At the LHC, the proton and nuclear beams must have the
614: same magnetic rigidity and, hence, different velocities and
615: per-nucleon energies. At the LHC, the equal-speed frame is moving in the
616: laboratory frame so that the maximum $pA$ energy is larger than the $AA$
617: energy. The $\gamma_L$ and $\sqrt{S}$ given for $pA$ at the LHC in
618: Tables~\ref{lum} and \ref{gamfacs} are those of the equal-speed
619: system. The $pA$ total cross sections for $Q \overline Q$ production
620: are given in Table~\ref{gampccbb}.
621:
622: It is easy to compare $pA$ and $AA$ results at RHIC. For $S^i=1$, the
623: only difference is in the impact parameter range: $b>2R_A$ in $AA$ compared to
624: $b>R_A+r_p$ in $pA$. We compare the numerical $AA$ results presented in
625: Tables~\ref{gamAcc} and \ref{gamAbb} with those using the analytical
626: photon flux for $pA$ in Table~\ref{gampccbb}. To normalize the photon
627: cross sections, we divide the $AA$ cross section by $2A$ because there
628: is only a single photon source in $pA$ and the proton target is a single
629: nucleon. Due to the reduced minimum impact parameters, $\sigma(AA)/2A$ is
630: $(22-37)$\% lower for $c \overline c$ and $(37-65)$\% lower for $b \overline
631: b$ with $r_p = 0.6$ fm. The results differ least for small $A$
632: where $R_A - r_p$ is reduced. Increasing $r_p$ by 50\% would
633: decrease the $c \overline c$ cross sections $(6-3.5)$\% and the $b \overline
634: b$ cross sections by $(11-7)$\%. Changing $r_p$ has the largest effect for
635: small $A$ since $R_A/r_p$ is smaller. The $b
636: \overline b$ differences are largest because the energy is close to
637: production threshold and high $k$ corresponds to small impact parameter.
638:
639: At the LHC, the maximum $pA$ and $AA$ energies differ, adding another
640: variable to the comparison. Here, we compare $\sigma(AA)/2A$ directly
641: with $\sigma(pA)$, using the analytic flux for both to maximize the
642: parallelism. For equal $pA$ and $AA$ energies, the different $b$ range
643: is less significant at the LHC. The decrease in $AA$
644: relative to $pA$ is $(18-23)$\% for $c \overline c$ and $(24-30)$\%
645: for $b \overline b$. As at RHIC, the effects are larger for heavier
646: nuclei. Increasing $r_p$ by 50\% is only a $(2-5)$\% effect with the
647: bigger change for $b \overline b$.
648:
649: The effect of the higher $pA$ energy is significant. At the
650: lower $AA$ beam energy,
651: the $pA$ cross section is reduced $(23-32)$\% for $c\overline c$ and
652: $(30-40)$\% for $b\overline b$ relative to the maximum $pA$
653: energy. The major difference between the $c \overline c$ and $b
654: \overline b$ results is likely due to the smaller $x$ values probed in
655: $c \overline c$ production. The increased energy has a larger effect
656: on the cross section than the change in the minimum impact
657: parameter. The energy dependence illustrates the desirability of
658: obtaining energy excitation functions in both $pA$ and $AA$ interactions.
659:
660: Tables~\ref{NgamAccbb} and~\ref{Ngampccbb} give the total monthly $AA$
661: and $pA$ $Q \overline Q$ production rates assuming a $10^6$ s/month run.
662: The $c \overline c$ rates
663: are quite high. Of course, hadronization, branching ratios and
664: detector acceptances will all reduce the observed rates. The $b
665: \overline b$ rates are only significant at LHC. However, RHIC is a
666: dedicated heavy ion facility, originally
667: planned for more than 30 weeks of operation per
668: year compared to 4 weeks of heavy ion running at the LHC and should
669: thus accumulate more data than the tables indicate.
670:
671: \section{Hadroproduction}
672: \label{hadrosec}
673:
674: Hadroproduction of heavy quarks in heavy ion collisions has been
675: considered by many authors, see {\it e.g.}\,
676: \cite{spenprc,spenprl,vjmr,gmrv} and references therein. Here, we
677: consider the special characteristics of heavy quark production in
678: peripheral heavy ion collisions. Two aspects meriting our attention
679: are the form of the parton densities at the nuclear surface and the
680: overall appearance of the collision --- could hadroproduction
681: mimic a photon-nucleus or two-photon interaction? This
682: section addresses the first issue while section \ref{exsec}
683: considers the second.
684:
685: At leading order, heavy quarks are produced via the reaction $N(P_1) +
686: N(P_2) \rightarrow Q(p_1) + \overline Q(p_2) + X$. The LO parton
687: reactions are $g(x_1 P_1) + g(x_2 P_2) \rightarrow Q(p_1) + \overline
688: Q(p_2)$ and $q (x_1 P_1) + \overline q(x_2 P_2) \rightarrow Q(p_1) +
689: \overline Q(p_2)$. The LO partonic cross sections are those of
690: Eqs.~(\ref{qqpartres}) and (\ref{ggpartres}) with $\hat{s}$,
691: $\hat{t}_1$, and $\hat{u}_1$ replaced by $s$, $t_1$ and $u_1$. Thus the
692: partonic couplings are a factor $\alpha_s(Q^2)/\alpha e_Q^2$ larger than
693: direct photoproduction but have the same coupling strength as resolved
694: photoproduction, as discussed in the previous section. The partonic
695: invariants, $s$, $t_1$, and $u_1$, are now $s = (x_1P_1 + x_2 P_2)^2$, $t_1 =
696: (x_1P_1 - p_1)^2 - m_Q^2 = (x_2 P_2 - p_2)^2 - m_Q^2$, and $u_1 = (x_2
697: P_2 - p_1)^2 - m_Q^2 = (x_1P_1 - p_2)^2 - m_Q^2$.
698:
699: The hadronic heavy quark production cross
700: section is the convolution of two nuclear parton distributions with the
701: partonic cross sections,
702: \begin{eqnarray}
703: S^2\frac{d^2\sigma_{A A \rightarrow Q \overline Q X}}{dT_1 dU_1 d^2b d^2r}
704: & = & \int dz \, dz' \frac{dx_1}{x_1} \frac{dx_2}{x_2} \left(
705: F_g^A(x_1,Q^2,\vec r,z) F_g^B(x_2,Q^2,|\vec b - \vec r|,z') s^2 \frac{d^2
706: \sigma_{gg}}{dt_1 du_1} \right. \nonumber \\
707: & & \left. \mbox{} + \sum_{q=u,d,s}
708: \left\{ F_q^A(x_1,Q^2,\vec r, z) F_{\overline
709: q}^B(x_2,Q^2,|\vec b - \vec r|,z') \right. \right. \nonumber \\
710: & & \left. \left. \mbox{} + F_{\overline q}^A(x_1,Q^2,\vec r, z)
711: F_q^B(x_2,Q^2,|\vec b - \vec r|,z')
712: \right\} s^2 \frac{d^2 \sigma_{q \overline q}}{dt_1 du_1} \right) \, \, .
713: \label{pphad}
714: \end{eqnarray}
715: If the quark is detected, the hadronic invariants are again $S = (P_1
716: + P_2)^2$, $T_1 = (P_2 - p_1)^2 - m_Q^2$, and $U_1 = (P_1 - p_1)^2 -
717: m_Q^2$ \cite{CTEQRMP}. The partonic and hadronic invariants are now
718: related by $s = x_1x_2S$, $t_1 = x_1U_1$, and $u_1 = x_2 T_1$.
719: Four-momentum conservation at leading order gives $x_{2_{\rm min}} =
720: -x_1U_1/(x_1S + T_1)$. We again perform a fully leading order
721: calculation using the MRST LO parton distributions and a one-loop
722: evaluation of $\alpha_s(Q^2)$.
723:
724: Since both the projectile and target partons come from nuclei, we
725: consider the spatial dependence of the nuclear parton distributions, as
726: suggested by shadowing measurements \cite{e745}, in
727: more detail. Shadowing in peripheral collisions could then be significantly
728: different than in central collisions. We consider three
729: scenarios: no shadowing, $S^i = 1$; homogeneous shadowing with the
730: EKS98 parameterization, $S^i$ = EKS98; and inhomogeneous shadowing,
731: $S^i$ = EKS98$b$, with spatial dependence included, as
732: described in Refs.~\cite{spenprc,spenprl,spenpsi,ekkv4,RVwz}.
733:
734: To obtain the $AA$ cross sections, we integrate Eq.~(\ref{pphad}) over
735: $d^2r$ and $d^2b$. When $S^i = 1$ or EKS98, the only $b$ dependence
736: is in the nuclear density distributions and
737: \begin{eqnarray}
738: \sigma_{AA} \propto \sigma_{NN} \int d^2b \, d^2r \, T_A(r) \, T_A(|\vec b
739: - \vec r|) \, \, \label{tab}
740: \end{eqnarray}
741: where $T_A(r) = \int dz \rho_A(\vec r, z)$ is the nuclear profile function
742: and $\sigma_{NN}$ is the $Q \overline Q$ production cross section in an
743: $NN$ collision. When Eq.~(\ref{pphad}) is integrated over all $b$,
744: $\sigma_{AA} \propto \sigma_{NN} A^2$ for
745: $S^i=1$. Homogeneous shadowing makes the $A$ dependence nonlinear
746: so that the integrated cross section is
747: effectively $\sigma_{AA} \propto \sigma_{NN} A^{2\alpha}$ where $\alpha$
748: can be determined from the $A$ dependence of the EKS98 parameterization.
749: Of course when $S^i$ = EKS98$b$, the full integral over $b$ and $r$
750: is needed in Eq.~(\ref{pphad}). In this section the
751: impact parameter integral is restricted to $b > 2R_A$ to be consistent
752: with the photoproduction results.
753:
754: This calculation treats the nuclei as a continuous fluid, neglecting
755: the lumpiness due to the individual nucleons. When $b>2R_A$, only a
756: handful of nucleon-nucleon collisions can occur, resulting in
757: significant statistical fluctuations. These fluctuations, although
758: unimportant for heavy quark production, may
759: affect some of the observables used for impact parameter determination
760: such as transverse energy or charged particle multiplicity.
761:
762: The hadroproduction distributions for the heaviest ions are shown in
763: Figs.~\ref{qqAArc}-\ref{qqAAlb}. There are
764: three curves for each colliding system. When the small $x$ region is
765: probed, the $S^i=1$ result is the highest, EKS98 is the lowest, and
766: EKS98$b$, with $b>2R_A$,
767: is between the other two. If we consider minimum impact parameters much
768: larger than $2R_A$, the EKS98$b$ curves would move even closer to
769: the $S^i = 1$ results. The order is reversed for $b \overline b$ production at
770: RHIC because $x \sim M/\sqrt{S} \sim 0.05-0.1$ for $2m_b < M < 20$ GeV, in
771: the gluon antishadowing region of the EKS98 parameterization. Thus
772: the shadowed results lie above those with $S^i=1$. The quark $p_T$
773: and $Q \overline Q$ pair mass distributions are harder than the
774: photoproduction results in Figs.~\ref{gamArc}-\ref{gamAlb} since now
775: $\sqrt{S}$ is the full nucleon-nucleon center of mass energy. In
776: hadroproduction, the quark rapidity distribution is symmetric around
777: $y_1=0$.
778:
779: The $c \overline c$ $AA$ cross sections and rates are given in
780: Tables~\ref{AAccbar} and \ref{NAAccbar}. The $b \overline b$
781: cross sections and rates are in Tables~\ref{AAbbbar} and
782: \ref{NAAbbbar} respectively. Shadowing has less effect on the total
783: cross sections than in our previous calculations
784: \cite{spenprc,spenprl} which used earlier shadowing parameterizations
785: \cite{hpcshad,eskolanpb} with stronger gluon shadowing at low $x$ and
786: weaker gluon antishadowing.
787:
788: Shadowing effects depend on the final state rapidity and pair mass. The region
789: away from $y_1=0$ tends to be most sensitive to the shadowing
790: parameterization\cite{ekkv4,RVwz}. At RHIC, the effect
791: grows with rapidity because at $y_1 \sim 0$ $x$ is not small and
792: shadowing is weak (charm) or $x$ is in the antishadowing region (bottom).
793: Higher positive rapidities correspond to lower $x_2$ for the target (stronger
794: low $x$ shadowing) and larger $x_1$ for the projectile (the EMC
795: region), increasing the effect.
796:
797: For $b\overline b$ production, the $x$ region moves from antishadowing
798: at $y_1=0$ to shadowing as $y_1$ increases. In Au+Au collisions at
799: RHIC, $\sigma(S^i={\rm EKS98})/\sigma(S^i=1) = 1.22$ at $y_1=0$ and 0.917
800: at $y_1=2.5$. At the LHC, the cross section varies less with rapidity
801: because both the target and projectile momentum fractions are in the
802: shadowing region. In fact shadowing tends to decrease slightly with
803: rapidity because $S^i$ increases more with $x_1$ than it decreases
804: with $x_2$.
805:
806: Nuclear shadowing is more important at the LHC than at RHIC because
807: the higher energy collisions probe smaller $x$ values. Shadowing is
808: also larger for $c \overline c$ than $b \overline b$ because the
809: lighter charm quark is produced by lower $x$ partons than $b$ quarks.
810: Homogeneous shadowing reduces the $c \overline c$ total cross section
811: by $(3-5)$\% at RHIC while at the LHC the reduction is $(18-34)$\%.
812: As expected, the reduction is largest for the heaviest nuclei. With
813: the inhomogeneous shadowing parameterization, EKS98$b$, the $c
814: \overline c$ cross section is reduced by $(1-2)$\% at RHIC and $\sim
815: 10$\% at LHC. The $b \overline b$ cross section is antishadowed at
816: RHIC by $(6-20)$\% using EKS98, reduced to $(3-8)$\% with EKS98$b$.
817: At the LHC, the $b \overline b$ cross section is reduced by
818: $(10-19)$\% with EKS98 and $\sim 6$\% with EKS98$b$.
819: At large $b$, any inhomogeneity reduces the effect of shadowing. The
820: larger the impact parameter cut,
821: the closer the peripheral $AA$ events mimic
822: hadroproduction in free proton collisions.
823:
824: A direct comparison with the photoproduction cross sections in
825: Tables~\ref{gamAcc} and \ref{gamAbb} shows that the only rate
826: comparable to hadroproduction at RHIC is $c \overline c$
827: photoproduction in Au+Au collisions when the same impact parameter
828: range is considered. The photoproduction cross section is $\sim 25$
829: mb, comparable to the 33 mb hadroproduction cross section. With lead beams
830: at the LHC, the $c \overline c$ photoproduction cross section is
831: actually larger than the hadroproduction cross section. The $b
832: \overline b$ photoproduction cross section is always much lower
833: than that of hadroproduction.
834:
835: The hadroproduction cross sections tend to be larger than
836: photoproduction cross sections for several reasons.
837: In hadroproduction, the full
838: $\sqrt{S}$ is available for heavy quark production while coherent
839: photon emission requires $\sqrt{S_{\gamma N}} \ll \sqrt{S}$. The
840: lower energy reduces the cross section and restricts the $x$
841: range of the gluons taking part in the interactions. Thus
842: hadroproduction probes smaller $x$ values than photoproduction. At
843: low $x$ the gluon densities are larger than the photon flux.
844:
845: The minimum bias $pA$ results with $S^i = 1$ and $S^i$ = EKS98 are
846: presented in Tables~\ref{pAccbb} and \ref{NpAccbb} for charm and
847: bottom respectively. We report the minimum bias $pA$ cross sections
848: only since it is difficult to select peripheral $pA$ events.
849: Shadowing is less important than in $AA$ collisions since the $pA$
850: cross section is linear in $S^i$ while the $AA$ cross section is
851: quadratic in $S^i$. The minimum bias cross section is proportional to
852: $A$ for $S^i = 1$. A comparison of the RHIC minimum bias $pA$ and the
853: peripheral $AA$ cross sections shows that the $pA$ cross section without
854: shadowing is equal to the $AA$ cross section divided by $(1/A)\int d^2b \,
855: T_{AA}(b > 2R_A)$, as expected. There is no
856: corresponding factor of $A$ for photoproduction so the hadroproduction
857: $pA$ cross sections are always bigger than the photoproduction cross
858: sections in $pA$. Recent studies have shown that a comparison of
859: hadroproduction in $pA$ and $pp$ collisions at the same energies can
860: provide detailed information on nuclear shadowing effects \cite{ekv}.
861: In this case, there is no difference in flux between $pA$ and
862: $AA$ collisions as there is in photoproduction. Such studies could provide
863: important input to the $AA$ collisions discussed here.
864:
865: The variations in the cross section due to quark mass and QCD scale
866: are similar in both
867: hadroproduction and photoproduction. However, the additional NLO
868: corrections are larger in hadroproduction. Even at NLO the
869: calculations do not always agree with data. The measured
870: $B^+$ production rate in $p\overline p$ collisions at
871: $\sqrt{S}=1800$ GeV is $2.9\pm0.2\pm0.4$ times the NLO calculation
872: \cite{CDF2}. The reason for this discrepancy is unknown but
873: some non-standard suggestions have been made \cite{harris,other}.
874: The discrepancy may also be due to an incomplete understanding of the
875: hadronization process \cite{matteo}.
876:
877: The major uncertainty for hadroproduction in peripheral
878: collisions is the minimum
879: impact parameter. There is no known method for effectively selecting
880: very large-impact parameter hadronic events or, alternatively,
881: collisions with a small but well defined number of participants. Zero
882: degree calorimeters (ZDCs) can be used to select events with a small
883: number of spectator neutrons but these come from a poorly defined
884: range of impact parameters. For this reason, peripheral $AA$
885: collisions may best be studied by comparing different processes in a
886: ZDC-selected data set. These different processes, such as heavy quark
887: and gauge boson production \cite{RVwz}, could be used to compare
888: nuclear parton densities for several species at a variety $x$ and
889: $Q^2$ values.
890:
891: \section{Two-Photon Production}
892: \label{gamgamsec}
893:
894: Heavy quark pairs can also be produced in purely electromagnetic
895: photon-photon collisions. This process has been studied at $e^+e^-$
896: colliders. However, in ion colliders the cross sections are enhanced
897: since the $\gamma \gamma$ luminosity increases as $Z^4$.
898:
899: The $\gamma \gamma$ luminosity has been calculated by many authors
900: \cite{refs}. Naively, it is given by the convolution of the photon
901: fluxes from two ultrarelativistic nuclei. The photon flux from one
902: nucleus is the integral of $d^3N_\gamma/dk d^2r$ in Eq.~(\ref{wwr})
903: over $r$ excluding the nuclear interior. Not all the flux is usable
904: because, when the nuclei actually collide, the two-photon interaction
905: products will be lost amongst the much denser hadronic debris. The
906: usable flux is limited by the requirement that the nuclei do not
907: interact hadronically. This is typically done by requiring that
908: $b>2R_A$. However, when the photon energy is close to the kinematic
909: limit, $k_{\rm max} \approx \gamma_L \hbar c/R_A$, the flux is
910: sensitive to the exact choice of $R_A$. To reduce the sensitivity to
911: $R_A$, we calculate the probability, $P(b)$, of a hadronic interaction
912: as a function of impact parameter,
913: \begin{equation}
914: P(b) = 1 - \exp\bigg[ -\sigma_{NN}^{\rm tot}(s)
915: \int d^2r T_A(r)T_B(|\vec{b}-\vec{r}|)
916: \bigg] \, \, ,
917: \end{equation}
918: and use it to calculate the effective photon flux.
919: Woods-Saxon density distributions \cite{Vvv} are used to calculate the nuclear
920: overlap integral. The nucleon-nucleon total cross section,
921: $\sigma_{NN}^{\rm tot}$, is 52 mb at 200 GeV and 93 mb at 5.5 TeV
922: \cite{PDG}. We use the total cross section to exclude any
923: interaction which could cause the nuclei to break up. This soft
924: cutoff on the flux reduces the effective two-photon luminosity by a
925: few percent for $k \ll \gamma_L \hbar c/R_A$, rising to about
926: 15\% at the kinematic limit compared to a hard cutoff with
927: $R_A=1.16(1-1.16A^{-2/3})A^{1/3}$ fm.
928: We also exclude the flux when the heavy quarks are produced inside
929: one of the nuclei. Although these heavy quarks would probably
930: survive, the resulting interactions are likely to disrupt the nucleus,
931: making the collision appear hadronic. With these exclusions, the
932: differential $\gamma \gamma$ luminosity is
933: \begin{equation}
934: {d{\cal L}_{\gamma\gamma} \over dk_1dk_2} = {\cal L}_{AA}
935: \int_{b>R_A}\int_{r>R_A} d^2b d^2r
936: \frac{d^3N_\gamma}{dk_1 d^2b}\frac{d^3N_\gamma}{dk_2 d^2r}
937: P(|\vec b -\vec r|) \, \, .
938: \end{equation}
939:
940: The two-photon center of mass energy, $\sqrt{S_{\gamma \gamma}}$, is
941: given by the photon energies, $S_{\gamma \gamma}=4k_1k_2$. This
942: $S_{\gamma \gamma}$ is equivalent to $W^2$, commonly used in other
943: two-photon calculations. The maximum $\sqrt{S_{\gamma\gamma}}$ is
944: $2k_{\rm max} = 2\gamma_L\hbar/R_A$, given in Table~\ref{gamfacs}.
945: This limit is a factor of $(\hbar c/m_pR_A)^2$ smaller than
946: $\sqrt{S}$, a factor of $10^{-3}$ for gold or lead. Indeed, $2k_{\rm
947: max} < 2m_b$ for I+I and Au+Au collisions at RHIC. Thus heavy quark
948: production in this channel should be much smaller than for photo- and
949: hadroproduction.
950:
951: As in photoproduction, there are also direct and resolved
952: contributions. Either one or both of the photons \cite{Drees} can
953: resolve itself into partons. At the parton level, the single-resolved
954: photon case is equivalent to photoproduction while the double-resolved
955: photon situation is equivalent to hadroproduction. Both of these
956: contributions are included here. The diagrams for all of these
957: processes are shown in Fig.~\ref{Feyn2phot}.
958:
959: The LO cross section for heavy quark production in direct
960: two-photon interactions is also proportional to $B_{\rm QED}$, as in
961: Eq.~(\ref{gamApart}) for direct photoproduction, but with different couplings,
962: \begin{equation}
963: s^2 \frac{d^2 \sigma_{\gamma \gamma}}{dt_1 du_1}
964: = 6 \pi \alpha^2 e_Q^4 B_{\rm
965: QED}(s,t_1,u_1) \delta(s + t_1 + u_1) \,\, ,
966: \label{gamgampart}
967: \end{equation}
968: where $s = (k_1 + k_2)^2 = S_{\gamma \gamma}$, $t_1 =
969: (k_1 - p_1)^2 - m_Q^2$, and $u_1 = (k_2 - p_1)^2 - m_Q^2$.
970: Here $t_1 = U_1$ and $u_1 =
971: T_1$ for a detected quark. The $\gamma \gamma \rightarrow Q \overline
972: Q$ cross section is a factor of $6 e_Q^2 \alpha/\alpha_s(Q^2)$ smaller than
973: the partonic $\gamma g \rightarrow Q \overline Q$ cross section,
974: Eq.~(\ref{gamApart}). A
975: factor of 3 comes from the three quark colors while another factor of 2 is
976: from the spin averages. The ratio
977: $\alpha/\alpha_s(Q^2)$ reduces the cross section for two-photon
978: production relative to photoproduction. The same two Compton diagrams
979: apply to both two-photon production and photoproduction except that
980: a second photon replaces the gluon in $\gamma \gamma$ interactions.
981:
982: The direct cross section is the convolution of the partonic two-photon
983: cross section with
984: the two-photon luminosity for photon energies $k_1$ and $k_2$,
985: \begin{equation}
986: S_{\gamma \gamma}^2 \frac{d^2 \sigma^{\rm dir}_{\gamma \gamma
987: \rightarrow Q \overline Q}}{dT_1 dU_1}
988: = \int dk_1 dk_2 \frac{d
989: {\cal L}_{\gamma
990: \gamma}}{d k_1 d k_2} s^2 \frac{d^2 \sigma_{\gamma \gamma}}{dt_1
991: du_1} \, \, .
992: \label{gamgamhad}
993: \end{equation}
994: The photon fluxes are exponentially suppressed for $k \geq \gamma_L
995: \hbar/R_A$.
996:
997: The resolved processes follow from the discussion in Section~\ref{photosec}.
998: The cross section for singly resolved production of heavy quarks is
999: \begin{eqnarray}
1000: S_{\gamma \gamma}^2 \frac{d^2 \sigma^{\rm 1-res}_{\gamma \gamma
1001: \rightarrow Q \overline Q}}{dT_1 dU_1}
1002: = 2 \int dk_1 dk_2' \int \frac{dx_2}{x_2} \frac{d
1003: {\cal L}_{\gamma
1004: \gamma}}{d k_1 d k_2'} f_g^\gamma(x_2,Q^2) \hat{s}^2
1005: \frac{d^2 \sigma_{\gamma g}}{d \hat{t}_1 d \hat{u}_1} \, \, ,
1006: \label{gam1reshad}
1007: \end{eqnarray}
1008: where the partonic invariants, $\hat{s} = (k_1 + x_2 k_2)^2 = x_2
1009: S_{\gamma \gamma}$,
1010: $\hat{t}_1 = (k_1 - p_1)^2 - m_Q^2$, and $\hat{u}_1 = (x_2 k - p_1)^2
1011: - m_Q^2$, are related to the total invariants by $\hat{t}_1 = U_1$ and
1012: $\hat{u}_1 = x_2T_1$ and $k_2' = x_2 k_2$. The partonic cross section,
1013: $\sigma_{\gamma g}$, is
1014: the photoproduction cross section in Eq.~(\ref{gamApart}). The
1015: cross section for double-resolved heavy quark production is
1016: \begin{eqnarray}
1017: S_{\gamma \gamma}^2 \frac{d^2 \sigma^{\rm 2-res}_{\gamma \gamma
1018: \rightarrow Q \overline Q}}{dT_1 dU_1}
1019: & = & \int dk_1' dk_2' \int \frac{dx_2}{x_2}
1020: \int \frac{dx_1}{x_1} \frac{d
1021: {\cal L}_{\gamma
1022: \gamma}}{d k_1' d k_2'} \bigg[ f_g^\gamma(x_1,Q^2)
1023: f_g^\gamma(x_2,Q^2) \hat{ \hspace{-0.14em}\hat s}^2
1024: \frac{d^2 \sigma_{g g}}{d \hat{ \hspace{-0.14em} \hat t}_1
1025: d \hat{ \hat u}_1 } \nonumber \\
1026: & & \mbox{} + \sum_{i=u,d,s} ( f_q^\gamma (x_1,Q^2) f_{\overline
1027: q}^\gamma (x_2,Q^2) + f_{\overline q}^\gamma (x_1,Q^2) f_q^\gamma(x_2,Q^2))
1028: \hat{ \hspace{-0.14em}\hat s}^2
1029: \frac{d^2 \sigma_{q \overline q}}{d \hat{ \hspace{-0.14em} \hat t}_1
1030: d \hat{ \hat u}_1} \bigg] \, \, ,
1031: \label{gam2reshad}
1032: \end{eqnarray}
1033: where $k_2' = x_2 k_2$, $k_1' = x_1 k_1$ and the partonic invariants, $ \hat{
1034: \hspace{-0.14em}\hat s} = (x_1 k_1 + x_2 k_2)^2 = x_1 x_2
1035: S_{\gamma \gamma}$, $ \hat{ \hspace{-0.14em} \hat t}_1 = (x_1 k_1
1036: - p_1)^2 - m_Q^2$, and $ \hat{ \hat u}_1 = (x_2 k_2 - p_1)^2 -
1037: m_Q^2$, are related to the total invariants
1038: by $ \hat{ \hspace{-0.14em} \hat t}_1 = x_1 U_1$ and $\hat{ \hat u}_1
1039: = x_2 T_1$. The partonic cross sections, $\sigma_{q \overline q}$ and
1040: $\sigma_{gg}$, are given in Eqs.~(\ref{qqpartres}) and
1041: (\ref{ggpartres}).
1042:
1043: The full two-photon heavy quark cross section is the sum of all three
1044: contributions,
1045: \begin{eqnarray}
1046: S_{\gamma \gamma}^2 \frac{d^2 \sigma_{\gamma \gamma
1047: \rightarrow Q \overline Q}}{dT_1 dU_1} =
1048: S_{\gamma \gamma}^2 \frac{d^2 \sigma^{\rm dir}_{\gamma \gamma
1049: \rightarrow Q \overline Q}}{dT_1 dU_1} +
1050: S_{\gamma \gamma}^2 \frac{d^2 \sigma^{\rm 1-res}_{\gamma \gamma
1051: \rightarrow Q \overline Q}}{dT_1 dU_1} +
1052: S_{\gamma \gamma}^2 \frac{d^2 \sigma^{\rm 2-res}_{\gamma \gamma
1053: \rightarrow Q \overline Q}}{dT_1 dU_1} \, \, .
1054: \label{gamgamtot}
1055: \end{eqnarray}
1056: In Eqs.~(\ref{gam1reshad}) and (\ref{gam2reshad}) the scale entering
1057: into the photon parton densities and $\alpha_s(Q^2)$ has been set equal to
1058: $4m_Q^2$ due to the structure of the $\gamma \gamma$ luminosity.
1059: Changing the scale from $4m_T^2$ to $4m_Q^2$
1060: increases the single-resolved cross section by
1061: about 10\%, while the double-resolved cross section changes by at most 2\%.
1062:
1063: Figures~\ref{ggrc}-\ref{gglb} show the corresponding $c \overline c$
1064: and $b \overline b$ production distributions. The RHIC results are
1065: shown for Si+Si collisions since that is the largest $A$ for which
1066: $2k_{\rm max} > 2m_b$. The Pb+Pb results are shown for
1067: LHC. The integrated cross sections for all the other nuclei are given in
1068: Tables~\ref{gamgamcc} and \ref{gamgambb}. The quark $p_T$ and
1069: rapidity and the $Q \overline Q$ pair invariant mass distributions are
1070: narrower for the heavier nuclei due to the lower associated
1071: $\sqrt{S_{\gamma \gamma}}$. The production is mostly direct. The single and
1072: double resolved $p_T$ and mass distributions are narrower than the
1073: direct results at all energies.
1074:
1075: The rapidity distributions are symmetric around $y_1=0$ except for the
1076: singly resolved processes. Since either photon may be resolved, we give
1077: the single-resolved rapidity distributions in both cases. The total
1078: single-resolved rapidity distribution is the sum. We present
1079: both to be consistent with the direct and double-resolved
1080: calculations. The factor of two in the cross section,
1081: Eq.~(\ref{gam1reshad}), is included in the single-resolved
1082: transverse momentum and invariant mass distributions.
1083:
1084: Direct $\gamma \gamma$ production dominates two-photon production of
1085: heavy quarks. For $c \overline c$ pairs, at RHIC the single-resolved
1086: cross section is $(0.6-1.6)$\% of the direct production. Double-resolved
1087: production is $(2.5-3.3)$\% of the single resolved.
1088: The single-resolved to direct ratio increases with
1089: $A$ or, equivalently, decreasing $\sqrt{S_{\gamma
1090: \gamma}}$. Interestingly, the single- to double-resolved cross section
1091: ratios decrease with increasing $A$,
1092: presumably due to the larger $q \overline q$ component at lower
1093: energies, closer to production threshold where the quark distribution
1094: in the photon is dominant. At LHC, the single-resolved cross section
1095: is 4.5\% of the direct production. The single-resolved component is higher
1096: at LHC because of the higher energy. However, double-resolved production is
1097: only 2.1\% of the single resolved because the higher beam energy
1098: reduces $x$, increasing the photon gluon distribution but the $gg$
1099: contribution is too small to make up the difference. The situation
1100: changes for $b \overline b$ production. At RHIC, single-resolved
1101: production is $(0.3-0.7)$\% of the direct component but double-resolved
1102: production is 20\% of the single resolved. The lower energy strongly
1103: reduces the single-resolved cross section relative to the
1104: direct $\gamma \gamma$ but has less effect on double-resolved
1105: production because of the strong $q \overline q$ component. At the
1106: LHC the single-resolved result is 10\% of the direct while the
1107: double-resolved is reduced relative the single-resolved by the same
1108: factor. The LEP results suggest relatively low quark masses and a
1109: large resolved cross section \cite{photon01}. Our resolved contributions are
1110: smaller, possibly because the $\gamma \gamma$ luminosity at LEP drops
1111: more slowly with $\sqrt{S_{\gamma \gamma}}$ than do the $\gamma
1112: \gamma$ luminosities for ions.
1113:
1114: These results are for all $Q \overline Q$ pairs, as are the results
1115: shown for the other channels. However, a significant fraction of the
1116: pairs have masses below the $H \overline H$ threshold, especially at
1117: RHIC. Pairs with mass $M<2m_H$ are also produced in photo- and
1118: hadroproduction. A few of these pairs will become quarkonium states
1119: \cite{hpcpsi}. Most of them will hadronize into heavy-flavor hadrons,
1120: thanks to the presence of accompanying particles. A soft gluon can
1121: provide the energy to bring the quarks on shell. However, two-photon
1122: interactions occur in a vacuum with no available energy source.
1123: Pairs with $M<2m_H$ may annihilate if they do not form quarkonium.
1124: Tables~\ref{gamgamcc} and \ref{gamgambb} compare the total cross
1125: sections for all $Q \overline Q$ pairs to those pairs with $M>2m_H$.
1126: In both cases, the two-photon cross sections are several orders of
1127: magnitude below those for hadroproduction and photoproduction. The $c
1128: \overline c$ cross sections are ${\cal O}$(nb) rather than mb and the
1129: $b \overline b$ cross sections are ${\cal O}$(pb) rather than $\mu$b.
1130:
1131: The requirement $M>2m_H$ dramatically reduces charm production. At
1132: RHIC the $c \overline c$ cross section is reduced a factor of $3-6$ for
1133: direct $\gamma \gamma$, $4-16$ for single resolved, and $5-22$ for the
1134: double-resolved. The higher LHC energy lessens the threshold effect
1135: considerably; the reduction is only a factor of $\sim 1.9$ for
1136: direct and single-resolved production and $\sim 2.5$ for
1137: double-resolved production. These reductions depend strongly on the
1138: heavy quark mass. Our $m_c$, 1.2 GeV, is about $0.64 \, m_D$ but the
1139: reduction is much smaller for larger charm masses. This
1140: threshold effect reduces the overall sensitivity of the calculation to
1141: the charm quark mass. Charm production calculations with a threshold
1142: cut match recent LEP data\cite{Andreev01}, indicating that the
1143: reduced cross sections are more appropriate experimentally.
1144:
1145: The threshold reduction is smaller for bottom quarks since $m_b = 4.75 \,
1146: {\rm GeV} \,
1147: \approx 0.9 m_B$. At RHIC, the cross section is a factor of $\sim
1148: 1.5$ smaller for direct photoproduction and $1.5-2.5$ for single- and
1149: double-resolved production. At the LHC, all the cross sections are
1150: reduced by $(10-20)$\%. The threshold effect is more important
1151: for larger $A$ because $\sqrt{S_{\gamma \gamma}}$ falls with
1152: increasing $R_A$.
1153:
1154: Figures~\ref{ggrcsub} and~\ref{gglbsub} show the ratios for $Q
1155: \overline Q$ production with and without the threshold cut as a
1156: function of $p_T$ and rapidity for $c \overline c$ production at RHIC
1157: and $b\overline b$ production at the LHC. An invariant mass cut simply
1158: selects pairs with $M > 2m_H$. The threshold cut only affects low
1159: $p_T$ quarks. The minimum $p_T$ for a quark to pass the $2m_H$
1160: threshold is $p_T \geq \sqrt{m_H^2 - m_Q^2}$, 1.4 GeV for $m_c = 1.2$
1161: GeV and 2.3 GeV for $m_b = 4.75$ GeV. Naturally, with a larger quark
1162: mass, the minimum $p_T$ would decrease. The larger threshold effect
1163: for charm production appears because the peak of the $p_T$
1164: distributions in Figs.~\ref{ggrc} and \ref{gglc} is below this minimum
1165: $p_T$. The average $p_T$ for bottom production is larger so that more
1166: of the cross section survives the threshold cut. On the other hand,
1167: the cross section is reduced most near $y_1=0$ where low $p_T$
1168: dominates the rapidity distribution. At large rapidities, the pair
1169: $Q\overline Q$ mass is always above threshold. The threshold has the
1170: smallest effect on direct production and the strongest on the
1171: double-resolved cross sections, as can be expected due to the
1172: decreasing effective energy available for each process.
1173:
1174: Energy conservation requires that a heavy quark pair produced with
1175: mass $M$ retain that energy. To compensate for the `mass deficit',
1176: $M-2m_H$, the final state mesons must have less kinetic energy than
1177: the initial state quarks. Near threshold, the quark
1178: $p_T$ and rapidity distributions presented in Figs.~\ref{ggrc}-\ref{gglb}
1179: will differ from the
1180: final state meson distributions.
1181:
1182: We do not present any two-photon results for $pA$ since the cross
1183: sections are very small and
1184: the proton substructure could play a role \cite{ohnemus}. On the
1185: other hand, the small proton radius allows $pA$ collisions to reach
1186: higher $\gamma\gamma$ energies than the corresponding $AA$ collisions so that
1187: $b\overline b$ production would be energetically accessible in $p$I and $p$Au
1188: collisions at RHIC.
1189:
1190: The major uncertainties in the $\gamma\gamma$ calculations are the
1191: quark masses and the $\gamma\gamma$ luminosity. In contrast to
1192: hadroproduction and photoproduction, the higher order corrections seem
1193: fairly well known. If the $\gamma\gamma$ luminosity can be
1194: sufficiently well determined, heavy quark production could then be used to fix
1195: the quark masses. The uncertainties in the $\gamma\gamma$
1196: luminosity are comparable to those for $\gamma A$ and also depend on
1197: the minimum impact parameter. However, final states with known
1198: $\gamma\gamma$ couplings can be used for calibrations. Lepton pair
1199: production covers the full range of $S_{\gamma\gamma}$ and may be
1200: accurately calculated using only electrodynamics. Production of
1201: well known mesons may also help check the luminosity. With these
1202: calibrations, $\sigma(\gamma\gamma\rightarrow Q\overline Q)$ could
1203: clearly be measured to the 10\% level. At that point, other theoretical
1204: uncertainties will dominate and the measurements can be used to
1205: determine the heavy quark masses. These masses can then be used in
1206: calculations of other processes.
1207:
1208: \section{Theoretical Comparisons}
1209: \label{thsec}
1210:
1211: In this section, we compare and contrast some of the calculational
1212: uncertainties in our results. We have performed fully LO
1213: calculations, including LO parton densities and a one-loop evaluation
1214: of $\alpha_s(Q^2)$. We first compare our LO results with NLO calculations.
1215: We also describe the dependence of our results on the chosen quark
1216: mass and scale.
1217:
1218: At any order, the partonic cross sections for all three processes
1219: studied may be expressed in terms of dimensionless scaling functions
1220: $f^{(k,l)}_{ij}$ that depend only on the variable $\eta = \hat s/4 m^2
1221: - 1$ \cite{KLMV},
1222: \begin{eqnarray}
1223: \label{scalingfunctions}
1224: \hat \sigma_{ij}(\hat s,m_Q^2,Q^2) = \frac{(\alpha e_Q^2)^q
1225: \alpha^p_s(Q^2)}{m_Q^2}
1226: \sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty} \,\, \left( 4 \pi \alpha_s(Q^2) \right)^k
1227: \sum\limits_{l=0}^k \,\, f^{(k,l)}_{ij}(\eta) \,\,
1228: \ln^l\left(\frac{Q^2}{m_Q^2}\right) \, ,
1229: \end{eqnarray}
1230: where $\hat s$ is the square of the partonic center of mass energy,
1231: $m_Q$ is the heavy quark mass, and $Q^2$ is the scale. The cross sections
1232: are expanded in powers of $\alpha_s(Q^2)$ and $\alpha$. The exponents $q$
1233: and $p$ depend on the initial process: $q = 1$, $p=1$ direct
1234: photoproduction; $q = 0$, $p=2$ hadroproduction; and $q=2$, $p=0$
1235: direct two-photon production. The summation over $k$ includes all
1236: corrections beyond LO which only involve powers of $\alpha_s(Q^2)$ with
1237: $k=0$ corresponding to the Born and $k=1$ to the NLO cross sections.
1238: It is only at NLO that the logarithms $\ln^l(Q^2/m_Q^2)$ appear. Two
1239: scales, for renormalization and factorization, appear in the
1240: calculation but they are generally assumed to be the same since this
1241: choice is used in fits of the parton densities. The total cross
1242: sections are obtained by convoluting the partonic cross sections with
1243: the parton distribution functions or photon fluxes. The scale $Q^2$
1244: enters the total cross section in the evaluation of $\alpha_s(Q^2)$ and in
1245: the parton densities of the proton or photon (for resolved processes).
1246:
1247: For a fully consistent calculation of the partonic cross sections,
1248: $\alpha_s(Q^2)$ should be evaluated to one loop when $k=0$, two loops when
1249: $k=1 \cdots$. The strong coupling constant has been evaluated up to
1250: three loops, corresponding to $k=2$. However, a consistent evaluation
1251: of the cross section, order-by-order in partonic cross section, parton
1252: distribution, and $\alpha_s(Q^2)$, is usually not done. One is
1253: usually interested only in the effect of the next-higher-order
1254: corrections to the total cross section and it is only possible to
1255: measure the change by leaving other inputs, such as the parton
1256: densities, the same at all orders. Thus, theoretical ratios of the
1257: total NLO to LO cross sections, the $K$ factors, are typically
1258: independent of the observable \cite{RVzphys,RVinprog}.
1259:
1260: The hadroproduction $K$ factor is larger for `light' heavy quarks, low $p_T$,
1261: and low $M$. As the heavy quark mass increases, $K$ drops from
1262: $2.5-3$ for $c \overline c$ to $1.8-2.3$ for $b \overline b$ in this
1263: energy range. For direct photoproduction, the $K$
1264: factors are smaller. The calculated $K$ factors for direct
1265: photoproduction of bottom are $1.4-1.7$ for $\sqrt{S_{\gamma p}} =
1266: 314$ and 1265 GeV respectively \cite{SvN}. The LO resolved
1267: photoproduction results, ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ with $p=2$, $q=0$ in
1268: Eq.~(\ref{scalingfunctions}) as at LO in hadroproduction, are
1269: typically used without NLO corrections in photoproduction so that the
1270: same order in $\alpha_s(Q^2)$ is used for both direct and resolved
1271: photoproduction. Thus the $K$ factor would only be constant with
1272: rapidity and transverse momentum for direct photoproduction, not for
1273: the sum in Eq.~(\ref{phottot}). However, the resolved contribution is
1274: always rather small and should not significantly change the $K$
1275: factor. The NLO $\gamma\gamma$ corrections are smaller still, $K =
1276: 1.33$ for $c \overline c$ and 1.24 for $b \overline b$ in direct
1277: $\gamma \gamma$, dropping to $K \sim 1.15$ for $c \overline c$ and 1.21 for
1278: $b \overline b$ single-resolved production \cite{Drees}. The small
1279: $K$ factor for direct $\gamma \gamma$ should perhaps not be a surprise
1280: since, in a sense, $\gamma \gamma$ is the cleanest determination of
1281: the $K$ factor because there is no parton density, $\alpha_s(Q^2)$ or scale
1282: dependence at LO.
1283:
1284: This $K$ factor, calculated with both the LO and NLO scaling functions
1285: convoluted with NLO parton densities and two-loop evaluations of
1286: $\alpha_s(Q^2)$, does not mesh with a full LO calculation using LO parton
1287: densities. The incompatibilities include the difference in $\alpha_s(Q^2)$
1288: evaluated at one and two loops. In the MRST LO densities, $\Lambda_3 = 0.204$
1289: GeV so that $\alpha_s^{\rm 1-loop} = 0.287$ and
1290: $\alpha_s^{\rm 2-loops} = 0.220$. The hadronic LO cross sections
1291: calculated with the MRST HO distributions\cite{pdf} are $\sigma_{\rm LO}
1292: = 196$ $\mu$b at 200 GeV, rising to 6.03 mb at 5.5
1293: TeV, compared with $\sigma_{\rm NLO} = 382$ $\mu$b at 200 GeV and 5.83 mb
1294: at 5.5 TeV. The NLO evaluation is two times larger at RHIC, but at
1295: the LHC, the results agree within 3\%. The difference is mostly due
1296: to the higher one-loop $\alpha_s(Q^2)$. Because of these variations, we do
1297: not apply any $K$ factors to our LO calculations.
1298:
1299: Our calculations for all three processes use the same values of $m_Q$
1300: and $Q^2$. The values are chosen to agree with hadroproduction data
1301: at fixed target energies. Photoproduction and two-photon data imply
1302: larger charm quark masses than used here. The typical charm mass used
1303: for those processes, $1.6-1.7$ GeV, predict lower cross sections than
1304: those employing
1305: the quark masses obtained from hadroproduction. One can speculate as
1306: to why this is true. It may be that the incident quarks and gluons in
1307: hadroproduction interact with the virtual heavy quark at its current
1308: quark mass while the almost real photons interact with the constituent
1309: $c$ and $b$ quarks. The constituent quark mass is larger than the
1310: current quark mass and is thus more compatible with the photoproduction
1311: data. On the other hand, since $K>2$ for hadroproduction,
1312: unincorporated higher order corrections may
1313: explain the apparent need for different quark masses. Near threshold,
1314: the $b \overline b$ cross section has been evaluated to
1315: next-to-next-to-leading order and next-to-next-to-leading logarithm
1316: (NNLO-NNLL). Recent results from HERA-B \cite{HERA-Bbb} agree very
1317: well with the predicted $30 \pm 8 \pm 10$ nb NNLO-NNLL cross section
1318: \cite{KLMV} calculated with $m_b = 4.75$ GeV. The NLO evaluation at
1319: the same energy is a factor of two smaller, suggesting that
1320: NLO calculations require smaller bottom quark masses.
1321: However, the NNLO-NNLL expansion is invalid far away from threshold so
1322: that the importance of further higher order corrections is difficult
1323: to quantify.
1324:
1325: Figure~\ref{massdep} shows the quark mass dependence of the total
1326: cross sections for all three processes.
1327: We plot $\sigma(m_Q)/\sigma(m_0)$ where $m_0 =
1328: 1.2$ GeV for charm and 4.75 GeV for bottom. The scale used is $Q^2
1329: \propto 4m_c^2$ and $m_b^2$ for charm and bottom, respectively. Results
1330: are shown for $\sqrt{S} = 250$ GeV Si+Si collisions at RHIC and 5.5 TeV
1331: Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC. The mass sensitivity
1332: is smaller at higher
1333: energies, as expected. For a given energy, hadroproduction is the
1334: least mass dependent. The direct photoproduction and two-photon
1335: production processes have nearly the same mass dependence. Resolved
1336: production has a stronger mass dependence, especially at RHIC. The
1337: mass dependence is stronger for charm than bottom, mainly because the
1338: charm mass is varied by 50\%, from 1.2 to 1.8 GeV while the bottom mass is
1339: only varied 18\%, from 4.25 to 5.00 GeV.
1340:
1341: The photoproduction and two-photon cross sections are more mass
1342: dependent than hadroproduction at the same energies. The maximum
1343: $\gamma p$ collision energies, $\sqrt{S_{\rm max}}$, are a factor of
1344: $4-6$ less than $\sqrt{S}$ in $AA$ collisions at both colliders. The
1345: maximum photon energy fraction, $\hbar c/m_pR_A$, is $\sim 0.03$ for
1346: gold or lead, rising to 0.1 for silicon, much smaller than the maximum
1347: parton energy fraction, $x=1$. This energy deficit is difficult to
1348: overcome and is only compensated for by the photon flux factor of
1349: $Z^2$ in charm production with the heaviest ions. The energy
1350: difference is more important for bottom production, especially at RHIC
1351: since $\sqrt{S_{\rm max}}$ is close to the $b \overline b$ threshold.
1352: As Table~\ref{lum} shows, lighter ions may be advantageous for
1353: photoproduction studies since the higher photon energies and
1354: accelerator luminosities can compensate for the smaller cross
1355: sections. The energy deficit in $\gamma \gamma$ production is even
1356: larger, $9.8-31.25$ between the maximum $\sqrt{S_{\gamma \gamma}}$ and
1357: $\sqrt{S}$. For the heaviest ions at RHIC, the maximum
1358: $\sqrt{S_{\gamma \gamma}}$ is below the $b \overline b$ threshold. In
1359: these collisions, even charm is not far from threshold. The factor of
1360: $Z^4$ cannot compensate for such an energy deficit. The 1 mb $c
1361: \overline c$ cross section for $M>2m_c$ at LHC is still a factor of
1362: 1000 lower than those of the other processes. Thus good experimental
1363: separation is essential for observing clean $\gamma \gamma$
1364: interactions.
1365:
1366: The photo- and hadroproduction scale dependence is small. The cross
1367: sections only change a few percent between $Q^2 = m_Q^2$ and $4m_Q^2$
1368: because increasing the scale decreases $\alpha_s(Q^2)$ but increases the
1369: gluon density $F_g^p(x,Q^2)$ and vice versa. The two effects largely
1370: cancel. At NLO, the scale dependence is usually larger for charm and
1371: bottom quarks than at LO \cite{hpc} because $\alpha_s(Q^2)$ multiplies the
1372: logarithm $\ln(Q^2/m_Q^2)$. The scale dependence only enters through the
1373: resolved contributions in $\gamma \gamma$ production where the effect
1374: is a factor of $1.5-2$ on single-resolved production and $1.05-1.4$ on
1375: double-resolved production. However, the total cross section is essentially
1376: unaffected because the direct contribution is independent of scale.
1377:
1378: \section{Experimental Separation}
1379: \label{exsec}
1380:
1381: To study ultra-peripheral heavy quark production, it is necessary to
1382: be able to disentangle the three channels. Photoproduction,
1383: hadroproduction, and two-photon interactions may be separated on the
1384: basis of overall event characteristics. The signatures that can be
1385: used to distinguish between production processes are whether there are
1386: rapidity gaps in the event and whether the nuclei break up. Nuclear
1387: breakup can be measured with downstream ZDCs.
1388:
1389: Other variables may be helpful in separating event classes. The
1390: event multiplicity is lower for photoproduction and two-photon
1391: interactions because less energy is available. The
1392: multiplicity also depends on the details of the interaction. For
1393: two-photon interactions, the total event $p_T$ should be less than
1394: $2\hbar c/R_A$. Unfortunately, it is necessary to reconstruct the
1395: entire event to measure the total $p_T$. This is
1396: difficult in $Q\overline Q$ events. Because of these difficulties,
1397: multiplicity and $p_T$ will not be further considered here as a
1398: separation factor.
1399:
1400: This section will focus on isolating clean photoproduction and
1401: two-photon final states. The large hadroproduction cross sections are
1402: a background to these events. The cuts discussed here are geared
1403: toward reducing the hadroproduction background and thereby
1404: differentiating between the three production processes. RHIC
1405: data\cite{ZDCanalysis} show that almost all hadronic interactions
1406: break up both nuclei. In contrast, photoproduction should only
1407: dissociate the target nucleus while two-photon interactions should
1408: leave both nuclei intact. However, the photoproduction and two-photon
1409: interactions occur at moderate impact parameters, less than 50 (500)
1410: fm at RHIC (LHC), where one or more additional photons may be
1411: exchanged.
1412:
1413: For heavy nuclei like lead or gold, the additional photons can excite
1414: one or both nuclei, leading to nuclear breakup. Except for the common
1415: impact parameter, these additional photons are independent of the
1416: two-photon or photonuclear events\cite{bkn}. The probabilities for
1417: excitation are significant. The probability of a single given nucleus
1418: being excited in a collision at $b=2R_A$ is about 30\% with gold at
1419: RHIC, rising to 35\% for lead at the LHC\cite{baurrev}. As $b$ rises,
1420: the excitation probability drops as $1/b^2$. The breakup probability
1421: scales as $A^{10/3}$ so that for even slightly lighter nuclei like
1422: argon or silicon the breakup probability is considerably reduced.
1423: Since the nuclear breakup probabilities are independent of each other,
1424: the probability for both nuclei to dissociate is simply the square of
1425: the single dissociation probability.
1426:
1427: One way to select photoproduction events is to eliminate events where
1428: both nuclei break up. This should
1429: eliminate almost all of the hadroproduction events while retaining
1430: most of the photoproduction and two-photon interactions.
1431: Unfortunately, there are no calculations of the hadronic interaction
1432: cross sections without accompanying nuclear breakup. Indeed, such a
1433: calculation is problematic because too little is known about the
1434: recoil energy transfer in the nucleus. However, using a Glauber
1435: calculation, we find that the cross section for a single
1436: nucleon-single nucleon interaction in an Au+Au collision is about 700
1437: mb, 10\% of the total hadronic cross section. At RHIC and LHC
1438: energies even soft nuclear interactions involve significant energy
1439: transfer. Thus phase space considerations dictate that the
1440: interacting nucleons are likely to be ejected from the nucleus. There
1441: could then be considerable momentum transferred to the nuclear
1442: fragments. Here we assume that each nucleus has a 10\% chance of remaining
1443: intact. With these assumptions, the heavy quark hadroproduction cross
1444: sections with one nucleus remaining intact are not too different from
1445: those presented in Section \ref{hadrosec}. The 10\% chance of
1446: remaining intact may be high, but, to be conservative, we will use the
1447: rates in Section \ref{hadrosec} to calculate the hadronic backgrounds
1448: to photoproduction.
1449:
1450: The rejection factor $R$ is the probability of finding a rapidity gap
1451: with width $y$ in a hadronic collision, $R \sim \exp(-y dN/dy)$, where
1452: $dN/dy$ is the average multiplicity per unit rapidity. Here, we will
1453: only consider charged particles but with a calorimeter to detect
1454: neutrals, the rejection would be enhanced. The UA1 collaboration
1455: parameterized the charged particle multiplicity as $dN_{\rm
1456: ch}/dy\approx -0.32+\ln{\sqrt{S/{\rm GeV}}}$\cite{ua1}. Neglecting
1457: the small difference between $p\overline p$ and $pp$ collisions, at
1458: midrapidity at RHIC, $dN_{\rm ch}/dy\approx 2.6$ \cite{stara}, rising
1459: to $dN_{\rm ch}/dy \approx 4.4$ at the LHC. Most modern experiments
1460: use forward detectors like beam-beam counters to measure particle
1461: production over a wide rapidity range. These counters can be used to
1462: find rapidity gaps. Here we will consider two charged particle
1463: detectors each covering 2 units of rapidity on each side of a central
1464: detector, representative of modern experiments. We scale the
1465: midrapidity multiplicities by 0.6 because $dN_{\rm ch}/dy$
1466: decreases away from midrapidity.
1467:
1468: For photoproduction, requiring a single rapidity gap will reject all
1469: but $R = \exp{(-2 \times 0.6 \times 2.6)} = 0.04$ of the hadronic
1470: interactions at RHIC while at LHC the rejection for a similar
1471: detector is $R=\exp{(-2 \times 0.6 \times 4.4)} = 0.005$. These
1472: factors, calculated for $pp$ collisions, should be conservative for
1473: $pA$ and $AA$ collisions where there is typically more than a single
1474: nucleon-single nucleon collision. These factors would also apply to
1475: the rejection of photoproduction backgrounds when considering
1476: two-photon reactions. Since there are two rapidity gaps in two-photon
1477: interactions, these
1478: rejection factors are squared.
1479:
1480: The CDF collaboration has experimentally observed comparable rejection
1481: factors in a study of diffractive bottom production\cite{CDF}. They
1482: isolated a diffractively produced bottom sample from $p\overline p$
1483: collisions\cite{CDF} with a signal to noise ratio of 3:1 despite the
1484: fact that diffractive production was 1/160 of the total hadronic $b$
1485: cross section. This corresponded to $R=0.002$, smaller than the $R$ values
1486: calculated above. This is probably because the CDF forward counters
1487: cover 2.7 units of rapidity and are supplemented with forward
1488: calorimeters that detect neutrals. Thus the rejection factors
1489: are not unrealistic and could even be improved on with more solid angle
1490: coverage. Of course, for nuclear beams the higher multiplicities per
1491: participant pair should increase the rejection factors, even for
1492: single nucleon-single nucleon interactions, due to possible secondary
1493: interactions.
1494:
1495: The rapidity gap requirements should reject relatively few signal
1496: events since photoproduction always leads to a rapidity gap. The
1497: exceptions are the events that are accompanied by additional
1498: electromagnetic interactions. A small fraction of these breakups will
1499: involve high energy photons which produce final state particles that
1500: fill in the rapidity gap, causing the signal event to be lost. Even
1501: at the LHC, the breakup probability due to high energy photons is
1502: quite small and events with additional particles should not
1503: appreciably affect the signal. If it is necessary to also require
1504: that one nucleus remains intact, then signal loss will need to be
1505: considered but such loss will not affect the viability of the
1506: measurement.
1507:
1508: Other backgrounds are neglected here. Examples include single
1509: diffractive (hadronic) charm production and double-Pomeron
1510: interactions. Single diffractive production will have one rapidity
1511: gap and could potentially mimic charm photoproduction. However, the
1512: diffractive final state would be produced quite near the beam
1513: rapidity, forward of the predominantly photoproduced charm.
1514: Double-Pomeron charm production will be in the central region with
1515: two rapidity gaps. Because the Pomeron has such a short range, both
1516: single and double diffractive interactions can only occur over a very
1517: narrow range of impact parameters so that their $AA$ cross sections
1518: should be small \cite{pompom}. The other major background, beam-gas
1519: interactions, is detector and vacuum system specific and will not be
1520: discussed here.
1521:
1522: Conservatively, both the rapidity gaps and nuclear breakup criteria
1523: should reject more than $99\%$ of the hadronic events. Although these
1524: criteria are not completely independent, comparing the numbers in
1525: Sections \ref{photosec} -
1526: \ref{gamgamsec} shows that application of either criteria should lead
1527: to a good signal to noise ratio for selecting either photoproduction
1528: or two-photon interactions. If 99\% of the hadronic events with
1529: $b>2R_A$ can be rejected, then hadroproduction is only a small
1530: background to photoproduction of heavy quarks, one that can
1531: be controlled to the degree necessary to measure shadowing by
1532: comparing $pA$ and $AA$.
1533:
1534: One could also select events with two rapidity gaps and no nuclear
1535: breakup to search for two-photon interactions. However, in almost all
1536: cases, the two-photon cross sections are a factor of at least 1,000
1537: smaller than the photoproduction cross sections. This factor is
1538: smaller than the single-gap $R$ calculated above as well as larger than
1539: rejection obtained by CDF and unlikely to be achieved in a real
1540: experiment. Selecting two-photon events may require completely
1541: reconstructing the events and using the low total $p_T$ of the event
1542: as a final selection criteria. This reconstruction will necessarily
1543: have a very low overall efficiency, thus requiring very large data sets.
1544:
1545: In conclusion, both rapidity gaps and the absence of nuclear breakup
1546: are effective criteria to separate photoproduction interactions.
1547: Charged-particle multiplicity and other event characteristics may also
1548: be useful in refining the event selection. Once a sample of
1549: photoproduction events have been isolated, charm and bottom production
1550: may be studied with conventional selection techniques such as prompt leptons,
1551: separated vertices, and $D$ or $B$ meson reconstruction.
1552:
1553: \section{Conclusions}
1554: \label{sumsec}
1555:
1556: We have calculated the total cross sections, quark $p_T$ and $y$
1557: distributions, and pair mass spectra for hadronic, photonuclear and
1558: two-photon production of heavy quark pairs using a consistent set of
1559: quark masses and scales. The hadronic processes have the largest
1560: cross sections, followed by photoproduction and two-photon
1561: interactions. However, using the characteristics of rapidity gaps
1562: and nuclear breakup, photoproduction and two-photon processes
1563: should be cleanly separable.
1564:
1565: Photoproduction and two-photon measurements can be used to test the
1566: QCD calculations. Shadowing has a 10\% effect on $c\overline c$
1567: production with heavy nuclei at RHIC, rising to 20\% at the LHC. By
1568: comparing the production cross sections in $pA$ and $AA$ collisions,
1569: most theoretical uncertainties cancel so that shadowing can be
1570: accurately measured if the photon flux is well known. By using
1571: appropriate calibration signals, it appears that the photon flux
1572: uncertainties can be understood and useful gluon shadowing
1573: measurements made.
1574:
1575: R.V. thanks the Gesellschaft f\" ur Schwerionenforschung, the Niels
1576: Bohr Institute, and the Grand Acc\' el\' erateur National d'Ions
1577: Lourds for hospitality while this work was in progress. This work was
1578: supported in part by the Division of Nuclear Physics of the Office of
1579: High Energy and Nuclear Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under
1580: Contract No. DE-AC-03-76SF00098 and by the Swedish Research Council
1581: (VR).
1582:
1583: \begin{references}
1584: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}
1585:
1586: \bibitem{baurrev}G. Baur, K. Hencken and D. Trautmann, J. Phys. G {\bf 24},
1587: 1457 (1998); G. Baur, K. Hencken, D. Trautmann, S. Sadovsky and Y. Kharlov,
1588: Phys. Rep. {\bf 364}, 359 (2002).
1589:
1590: \bibitem{ZDCanalysis}M. Chiu {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89},
1591: 012302 (2002).
1592:
1593: \bibitem{usPRC}S.R. Klein and J. Nystrand, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 60}, 014903
1594: (1999).
1595:
1596: \bibitem{parkcity}C. Adler {\it et al.} (STAR Collaboration),
1597: nucl-ex/0206004, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett; S. Klein (STAR
1598: Collab.), in proceedings of the {\it 17$^{\rm th}$ Winter Workshop on
1599: Nuclear Dynamics}, Park City, UT, USA, 2001, nucl-ex/0104016.
1600:
1601: \bibitem{INPC}S. Klein (STAR Collab.), in proceedings of {\it INPC 2001},
1602: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2001, nucl-ex/0100018.
1603:
1604: \bibitem{FELIX}E. Lippmaa \etal, {\it FELIX: A full acceptance
1605: detector at the LHC}, CERN/LHCC 97-45, August, 1997.
1606:
1607: \bibitem{kp} K. Piotrzkowski, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 071502 (2001).
1608:
1609: \bibitem{bbar}N. Baron and G. Baur, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 48}, 1999
1610: (1993).
1611:
1612: \bibitem{bbar2}M. Greiner, M. Vidovi\'c, C. Hofmann, A. Sch\"afer
1613: and G. Soff, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 51}, 911 (1995).
1614:
1615: \bibitem{knv1} S.R. Klein, J. Nystrand and R. Vogt, Eur. Phys.
1616: J. C {\bf 21}, 563 (2001).
1617:
1618: \bibitem{vidovictwophoton}M. Vidovi\'c, M. Greiner and G. Soff,
1619: J. Phys. G {\bf 21}, 545 (1995).
1620:
1621: \bibitem{hpc} P.L. McGaughey {\it et al.}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 10},
1622: 2999 (1995).
1623:
1624: \bibitem{frixione}S. Frixione, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi, Nucl. Phys.
1625: B {\bf 454}, 3 (1995).
1626:
1627: \bibitem{berezhnoy}A.V. Berezhnoy, V.V. Kiselev and A.K. Likhoded,
1628: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 074013 (2000).
1629:
1630: \bibitem{Drees} M. Drees, M. Kramer, J. Zunft and P.M. Zerwas,
1631: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 306}, 371 (1993).
1632:
1633: \bibitem{l3}M. Acciarri {\it et al.} (L3 Collab.),
1634: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 453}, 83 (1999).
1635:
1636: \bibitem{CDF}T. Affolder {\it et al.} (CDF Collab.), Phys. Rev. Lett.
1637: {\bf 84}, 232 (2000).
1638:
1639: \bibitem{harris} E.L. Berger, B.W. Harris, D.E. Kaplan, Z. Sullivan, T.M.P.
1640: Tait and C.E.M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 4231 (2001).
1641:
1642: \bibitem{other} A.P. Lipatov, V.A. Saleev and N.P. Zotov, hep-ph/0112114.
1643:
1644: \bibitem{PDG} D.E. Groom {\it et al.} (Particle Data Group), Eur. Phys. J. C
1645: {\bf 15}, 1 (2000).
1646:
1647: \bibitem{RHIClum} RHIC Conceptual Design Report (BNL-52195) 1989.
1648:
1649: \bibitem{brandt}D. Brandt, LHC Project Report 450, December, 2000.
1650:
1651: \bibitem{brandt2} D. Brandt, in Proc. of the $6^{\rm th}$ CMS Heavy Ion
1652: Workshop, MIT, February 2002.
1653:
1654: \bibitem{bertulani}V.P. Goncalves and C.A. Bertulani,
1655: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 65}, 054905 (2002).
1656:
1657: \bibitem{witten} E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 120}, 189 (1977).
1658:
1659: \bibitem{jpgconf} T. Sj\"ostrand, J.K. Storrow, and A. Vogt, J. Phys. G {\bf
1660: 22}, 893 (1996).
1661:
1662: \bibitem{joneswyld} L.M. Jones and H.W. Wyld, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17}, 759
1663: (1978).
1664:
1665: \bibitem{usinterf}S.R. Klein and J. Nystrand, Phys. Rev. Lett.
1666: {\bf 84}, 2330 (2000).
1667:
1668: \bibitem{SvN} J. Smith and W.L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 374},
1669: 36 (1992).
1670:
1671: \bibitem{GRVgam} M. Gl\"{u}ck, E. Reya, and A. Vogt, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 46},
1672: 1973 (1992); Phys. Rev. D {\bf 45}, 3986 (1992).
1673:
1674: \bibitem{DG1} M. Drees and K. Grassie, Z. Phys. C {\bf 28}, 451 (1985).
1675:
1676: \bibitem{LAC1} H. Abramowicz, K. Charchula, and A. Levy, Phys. Lett. B {\bf
1677: 269}, 458 (1991).
1678:
1679: \bibitem{WHIT} K. Hagiwara, M. Tanaka, I. Watanabe, and T. Izubuchi, Phys. Rev.
1680: D {\bf 51}, 3197 (1995).
1681:
1682: \bibitem{SaS} G.A. Schuler and T. Sj\"ostrand, Z. Phys. C {\bf 68}, 607 (1995);
1683: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 276}, 193 (1996).
1684:
1685: \bibitem{PDFLIB} H. Plothow-Besch, `PDFLIB: Proton, Pion
1686: and Photon Parton Density Functions, Parton Density Functions of the Nucleus,
1687: and $\alpha_s$ Calculations',
1688: User's Manual - Version 8.04, W5051 PDFLIB, 2000.04.17, CERN-ETT/TT.
1689:
1690: \bibitem{JADE} W. Bartel {\em et al.} (JADE Collab.), Z. Phys. C {\bf 24}, 231
1691: (1984).
1692:
1693: \bibitem{CTEQRMP} G. Sterman {\em et al.} (CTEQ Collab.),
1694: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 67}, 157 (1995).
1695:
1696: \bibitem{spenprc} V. Emel'yanov, A. Khodinov, S.R. Klein and R. Vogt,
1697: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 56}, 2726 (1997).
1698:
1699: \bibitem{spenprl} V. Emel'yanov, A. Khodinov,
1700: S.R. Klein and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. Lett {\bf 81}, 1801 (1998).
1701:
1702: \bibitem{spenpsi} V. Emel'yanov, A. Khodinov, S.R. Klein, and
1703: R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 59}, 1860 (1999).
1704:
1705: \bibitem{ekkv4} V. Emel'yanov, A. Khodinov, S.R. Klein and R. Vogt,
1706: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 61}, 044904 (2000).
1707:
1708: \bibitem{RVwz} R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 64}, 044901 (2001).
1709:
1710: \bibitem{pdf}A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling and R.S.
1711: Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 4}, 463 (1998); Phys. Lett. B {\bf 443} 301
1712: (1998).
1713:
1714: \bibitem{Vvv}
1715: C.W. deJager, H. deVries and C. deVries, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data
1716: Tables {\bf 14}, 485 (1974).
1717:
1718: \bibitem{eskola} K.J. Eskola, V.J. Kolhinen and P.V. Ruuskanen,
1719: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 535}, 351 (1998); K.J. Eskola, V.J. Kolhinen and
1720: P.V. Ruuskanen, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 9}, 61 (1999).
1721:
1722: \bibitem{frstr} H. Fritzsch and K.H. Streng, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 72}, 385
1723: (1978).
1724:
1725: \bibitem{hofmann}Ch. Hofmann, G. Soff, A. Sch\"afer and W. Greiner,
1726: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 262}, 210 (1991).
1727:
1728: \bibitem{glass}F. Gelis and A. Peshier, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 697}, 879 (2002).
1729:
1730: \bibitem{vjmr} R. Vogt, B.V. Jacak, P.L. McGaughey, and P.V. Ruuskanen,
1731: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 49}, 3345 (1994).
1732:
1733: \bibitem{gmrv} S. Gavin, P.L. McGaughey, P.V. Ruuskanen, and R. Vogt,
1734: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 54}, 2606 (1996).
1735:
1736: \bibitem{E691} J.C. Anjos {\it et al.} (E691 Collab.), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
1737: 65}, 2503 (1990).
1738:
1739: \bibitem{frix2}S. Frixione, in Proc. of {\it EPS01},
1740: Budapest, Hungary, 2001, hep-ph/0111368.
1741:
1742: \bibitem{herarho}J. Breitweg {\it et al.} (ZEUS Collab.),
1743: Eur. Phys. J C {\bf 2}, 247 (1998).
1744:
1745: \bibitem{pbars}A. Trzcinska {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 082501
1746: (2001).
1747:
1748: \bibitem{e745} T. Kitagaki {\it et al.} (Fermilab E745 Collab.),
1749: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 214}, 281 (1988).
1750:
1751: \bibitem{hpcshad} K.J. Eskola, J. Qiu and J. Czyzewski, private
1752: communication.
1753:
1754: \bibitem{eskolanpb} K.J. Eskola, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 400}, 240 (1993).
1755:
1756: \bibitem{ekv} K.J. Eskola, V.J. Kolhinen, and R. Vogt, Nucl.
1757: Phys. A {\bf 696}, 729 (2001).
1758:
1759: \bibitem{CDF2}D. Acosta {\it et al.} (CDF Collab.), Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65},
1760: 052005 (2002).
1761:
1762: \bibitem{matteo} M. Cacciari and P. Nason, hep-ph/0204025.
1763:
1764: \bibitem{refs} R.N. Cahn and J.D. Jackson, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 42}, 3690 (1990);
1765: G. Baur and L.G. Ferreira Filho, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 518}, 786 (1990); M.
1766: Vidovi\'c, M. Greiner, C. Best, and G. Soff, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 47}, 2308
1767: (1993); K. Hencken, D. Trautmann and G. Baur, Z. Phys. C {\bf 68}, 473 (1995).
1768:
1769: \bibitem{photon01} A. B\"{o}hrer and M. Krawczyk, in Proc. of the
1770: International Conference on the Structure and Interactions of the
1771: Photon, {\it PHOTON 2001}, Ascona, Switzerland, September 2001, to be
1772: published in World Scientific, hep-ph/0203231.
1773:
1774: \bibitem{hpcpsi} R.V. Gavai {\it et al.}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 10} 3043
1775: (1995); G.A. Schuler and R. Vogt,
1776: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 387}, 181 (1996).
1777:
1778: \bibitem{Andreev01} V.P. Andreev, in Proc. of the International
1779: Conference on the Structure and Interactions of the Photon, {\it
1780: PHOTON 2001}, Ascona, Switzerland, September 2001, to be published in
1781: World Scientific.
1782:
1783: \bibitem{ohnemus}J. Ohnemus, T.F. Walsh and P.M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett.
1784: B {\bf 328}, 369 (1994).
1785:
1786: \bibitem{KLMV} N. Kidonakis, E. Laenen, S. Moch and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
1787: 64}, 114001 (2001).
1788:
1789: \bibitem{RVzphys} R. Vogt, Z. Phys. C {\bf 71}, 475 (1996).
1790:
1791: \bibitem{RVinprog} R. Vogt, hep-ph/0207359.
1792:
1793: \bibitem{HERA-Bbb} M. Villa (HERA-B Collab.), private communication.
1794:
1795: \bibitem{bkn}A.J. Baltz, S.R. Klein and J. Nystrand,
1796: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 012301 (2002).
1797:
1798: \bibitem{ua1}C. Albajar {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 335}, 261
1799: (1990).
1800:
1801: \bibitem{stara}C. Adler {\it et al.} (STAR Collab.),
1802: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 112303 (2001).
1803:
1804: \bibitem{pompom}C.G. Roldao and A.A. Natale, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 61}, 064907
1805: (2000).
1806:
1807: \end{references}
1808:
1809: \begin{table}
1810: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
1811: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$AA$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$pA$} \\
1812: $A$ & $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ (GeV) & ${\cal L}_{AA}$ (cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$) &
1813: $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ (GeV) & ${\cal L}_{pA}$ (cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$) \\ \hline
1814: \multicolumn{5}{c}{RHIC} \\
1815: O & 250 & $9.8\times10^{28}$ & 250 & $1.2\times10^{30}$ \\
1816: Si & 250 & $4.4\times10^{28}$ & 250 & $8\times10^{29}$ \\
1817: I & 208 & $2.7\times10^{27}$ & 208 & $2\times10^{29}$ \\
1818: Au & 200 & $2\times10^{26}$ & 200 & $6\times10^{28}$ \\
1819: \multicolumn{5}{c}{LHC} \\
1820: O & 7000 & $1.6\times10^{29}$ & 9900 & $1.0\times10^{31}$ \\
1821: Ar & 6300 & $4.3\times10^{28}$ & 9390 & $5.8\times10^{30}$ \\
1822: Pb & 5500 & $4.2\times10^{26}$ & 8800 & $7.4\times10^{29}$ \\
1823: \end{tabular}
1824: \caption[]{Luminosities and beam energies for $AA$ and $pA$ collisions
1825: at RHIC and LHC.}
1826: \label{lum}
1827: \end{table}
1828:
1829: \begin{table}
1830: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
1831: \multicolumn{6}{c}{$AA$} \\
1832: $A$ & $E_{\rm beam}$ (GeV) & $\gamma_L$ & $k_{\rm max}$ (GeV) &
1833: $E_{\rm max}$ (TeV) & $\sqrt{S_{\rm max}}$ (GeV) \\ \hline
1834: \multicolumn{6}{c}{RHIC} \\
1835: O & 125 & 133 & 12.7 & 2.31 & 66 \\
1836: Si & 125 & 133 & 8.5 & 1.92 & 60 \\
1837: I & 104 & 111 & 3.9 & 0.81 & 39 \\
1838: Au & 100 & 106 & 3.2 & 0.66 & 35 \\
1839: \multicolumn{6}{c}{LHC} \\
1840: O & 3500 & 3730 & 357 & 1820 & 1850 \\
1841: Ar & 3150 & 3360 & 185 & 1080 & 1430 \\
1842: Pb & 2750 & 2930 & 87.0 & 480 & 950 \\ \hline
1843: \multicolumn{6}{c}{$pA$ LHC} \\
1844: O & 4950 & 5270 & 435 & 3630 & 2610 \\
1845: Ar & 4700 & 5000 & 276 & 2410 & 2130 \\
1846: Pb & 4400 & 4690 & 139 & 1220 & 1500 \\
1847: \end{tabular}
1848: \caption[]{Beam energies, $E_{\rm beam}$, Lorentz factors, $\gamma_L$,
1849: photon cutoff energy in the center of mass frame, $k_{\rm max}$, and
1850: in the nuclear rest frame, $E_{\rm max}$, and equivalent
1851: nucleon-nucleon center of mass energy, $\sqrt{S_{\rm max}}$, for $AA$
1852: collisions at RHIC and the LHC. Since the ion and proton beam
1853: energies are expected to be the same in $pA$ and $AA$ collisions at
1854: RHIC, we only distinguish the $pA$ energies at LHC.}
1855: \label{gamfacs}
1856: \end{table}
1857:
1858: \begin{table}
1859: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
1860: $AA$ & $\sigma^{\rm dir}(S^i=1)$ (mb) & $\sigma^{\rm dir}({\rm EKS98})$ (mb)
1861: & $\sigma^{\rm res}(S^i=1)$ (mb)
1862: & $\sigma^{\rm res}({\rm EKS98})$ (mb) \\ \hline
1863: \multicolumn{5}{c}{RHIC} \\
1864: O+O & 0.067 & 0.068 & 0.0019 & 0.0019 \\
1865: Si+Si & 0.30 & 0.31 & 0.0080 & 0.0083 \\
1866: I+I & 8.96 & 9.74 & 0.199 & 0.206 \\
1867: Au+Au & 24.8 & 27.4 & 0.530 & 0.550 \\
1868: \multicolumn{5}{c}{LHC} \\
1869: O+O & 2.35 & 2.13 & 0.351 & 0.346 \\
1870: Ar+Ar & 23.3 & 20.4 & 3.00 & 2.93 \\
1871: Pb+Pb & 1790 & 1500 & 190.0 & 186.7 \\
1872: \end{tabular}
1873: \caption[]{Direct and resolved $c\overline c$ photoproduction
1874: cross sections integrated over $b>2R_A$ in peripheral $AA$ collisions
1875: at RHIC and LHC. }
1876: \label{gamAcc}
1877: \end{table}
1878:
1879: \begin{table}
1880: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
1881: $AA$ & $\sigma^{\rm dir}(S^i=1)$ ($\mu$b) & $\sigma^{\rm dir}({\rm EKS98})$
1882: ($\mu$b) & $\sigma^{\rm res}(S^i=1)$ ($\mu$b)
1883: & $\sigma^{\rm res}({\rm EKS98})$ ($\mu$b) \\ \hline
1884: \multicolumn{5}{c}{RHIC} \\
1885: O+O & 0.047 & 0.049 & 0.0031 & 0.0031 \\
1886: Si+Si & 0.178 & 0.188 & 0.0116 & 0.0115 \\
1887: I+I & 2.33 & 2.46 & 0.154 & 0.148 \\
1888: Au+Au & 4.94 & 5.22 & 0.332 & 0.315 \\
1889: \multicolumn{5}{c}{LHC} \\
1890: O+O & 11.9 & 11.4 & 2.93 & 2.93 \\
1891: Ar+Ar & 107 & 102 & 22.2 & 22.6 \\
1892: Pb+Pb & 718 & 686 & 121 & 126 \\
1893: \end{tabular}
1894: \caption[]{Direct and resolved $b \overline b$ photoproduction
1895: cross sections integrated over $b > 2R_A$ in peripheral $AA$ collisions
1896: at RHIC and LHC.}
1897: \label{gamAbb}
1898: \end{table}
1899:
1900: \begin{table}
1901: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
1902: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$c \overline c$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$b \overline b$} \\
1903: $pA$ & $\sigma^{\rm dir}(S^i=1)$ ($\mu$b) & $\sigma^{\rm res}(S^i=1)$ ($\mu$b)
1904: & $\sigma^{\rm dir}(S^i=1)$ (nb) & $\sigma^{\rm res}(S^i=1)$ (nb) \\ \hline
1905: \multicolumn{5}{c}{RHIC} \\
1906: $p$O & 2.68 & 0.081 & 2.34 & 0.154 \\
1907: $p$Si & 7.29 & 0.213 & 5.79 & 0.378 \\
1908: $p$I & 54.2 & 1.32 & 23.5 & 1.52 \\
1909: $p$Au & 100 & 2.34 & 35.5 & 2.31 \\
1910: \multicolumn{5}{c}{LHC} \\
1911: $p$O & 110 & 20.7 & 630 & 202 \\
1912: $p$Ar & 485 & 83.9 & 2670 & 774 \\
1913: $p$Pb & 7940 & 1190 & 40100 & 9910 \\
1914: \end{tabular}
1915: \caption[]{Direct and resolved $c\overline c$ and $b \overline b$
1916: photoproduction cross sections integrated over $b > r_p + R_A$
1917: in $pA$ collisions at RHIC and LHC. }
1918: \label{gampccbb}
1919: \end{table}
1920:
1921: \begin{table}
1922: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
1923: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$c \overline c$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$b \overline b$} \\
1924: $AA$ & $N(S^i=1)$ & $N({\rm EKS98})$ & $N(S^i=1)$ & $N({\rm EKS98})$ \\ \hline
1925: \multicolumn{5}{c}{RHIC} \\
1926: O+O & $6.75\times 10^6$ & $6.94\times 10^6$ & $4.88\times 10^3$
1927: & $5.10\times 10^3$ \\
1928: Si+Si & $1.36\times 10^7$ & $1.41\times 10^7$ & $8.35\times 10^3$
1929: & $8.73\times 10^3$ \\
1930: I+I & $2.47\times 10^7$ & $2.69\times 10^7$ & $6.70\times 10^3$
1931: & $7.06\times 10^3$ \\
1932: Au+Au & $5.07\times 10^6$ & $5.60\times 10^6$ & $1.06\times 10^3$
1933: & $1.10\times 10^3$ \\
1934: \multicolumn{5}{c}{LHC} \\
1935: O+O & $4.15\times 10^8$ & $3.80\times 10^8$ & $2.29\times 10^6$
1936: & $2.20\times 10^6$ \\
1937: Ar+Ar & $1.13\times 10^9$ & $9.98\times 10^8$ & $5.58\times 10^6$
1938: & $5.37\times 10^6$ \\
1939: Pb+Pb & $8.29\times 10^8$ & $7.05\times 10^8$ & $3.58\times 10^5$
1940: & $3.46\times 10^5$ \\
1941: \end{tabular}
1942: \caption[]{Total $c\overline c$ and $b \overline b$ photoproduction
1943: rates in peripheral $AA$ collisions over a $10^6$ s run at RHIC and LHC.
1944: The rates are based on Tables~{\protect \ref{gamAcc}} and
1945: {\protect \ref{gamAbb}}.}
1946: \label{NgamAccbb}
1947: \end{table}
1948:
1949: \begin{table}
1950: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
1951: & $c \overline c$ & $b \overline b$ \\
1952: $pA$ & $N(S^i=1)$ & $N(S^i=1)$ \\ \hline
1953: \multicolumn{3}{c}{RHIC} \\
1954: $p$O & $3.30\times 10^6$ & $2.99\times 10^3$ \\
1955: $p$Si & $6.00\times 10^6$ & $4.93\times 10^3$ \\
1956: $p$I & $1.11\times 10^5$ & $5.00\times 10^3$ \\
1957: $p$Au & $6.08\times 10^5$ & $2.27\times 10^3$ \\
1958: \multicolumn{3}{c}{LHC} \\
1959: $p$O & $1.32\times 10^9$ & $8.32\times 10^6$ \\
1960: $p$Ar & $3.11\times 10^9$ & $1.88\times 10^7$ \\
1961: $p$Pb & $6.70\times 10^9$ & $3.69\times 10^7$ \\
1962: \end{tabular}
1963: \caption[]{Total $c\overline c$ and $b \overline b$ photoproduction
1964: rates in $pA$ collisions over a $10^6$ s run at RHIC and LHC. The rates
1965: are based on Table~{\protect \ref{gampccbb}}.}
1966: \label{Ngampccbb}
1967: \end{table}
1968:
1969: \begin{table}
1970: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
1971: $AA$ & $\sigma(S^i=1)$ (mb) & $\sigma({\rm EKS98})$
1972: (mb) & $\sigma({\rm EKS98}b)$ (mb) \\ \hline
1973: \multicolumn{4}{c}{RHIC} \\
1974: O+O & 4.04 & 3.93 & 4.00 \\
1975: Si+Si & 8.54 & 8.22 & 8.42 \\
1976: I+I & 22.6 & 21.6 & 22.3 \\
1977: Au+Au & 33.1 & 31.6 & 32.6 \\
1978: \multicolumn{4}{c}{LHC} \\
1979: O+O & 113 & 93.2 & 104 \\
1980: Ar+Ar & 426 & 323 & 379 \\
1981: Pb+Pb & 1090 & 714 & 948 \\
1982: \end{tabular}
1983: \caption[]{Total $c\overline c$ hadroproduction cross sections integrated over
1984: $b > 2R_A$ in
1985: peripheral $AA$ collisions at RHIC and LHC. }
1986: \label{AAccbar}
1987: \end{table}
1988:
1989: \begin{table}
1990: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
1991: $AA$ & $N(S^i=1)$ & $N({\rm EKS98})$ & $N({\rm EKS98}b)$ \\ \hline
1992: \multicolumn{4}{c}{RHIC} \\
1993: O+O & $3.96\times 10^8$ & $3.85\times 10^8$ & $3.92\times 10^8$ \\
1994: Si+Si & $3.76\times 10^8$ & $3.62\times 10^8$ & $3.70\times 10^8$ \\
1995: I+I & $6.10\times 10^7$ & $5.84\times 10^7$ & $6.02\times 10^7$ \\
1996: Au+Au & $6.62\times 10^6$ & $6.33\times 10^6$ & $6.52\times 10^6$ \\
1997: \multicolumn{4}{c}{LHC} \\
1998: O+O & $1.74\times 10^{10}$ & $1.44\times 10^{10}$ & $1.61\times 10^{10}$ \\
1999: Ar+Ar & $1.83\times 10^{10}$ & $1.39\times 10^{10}$ & $1.63\times 10^{10}$ \\
2000: Pb+Pb & $4.57\times 10^8$ & $3.00\times 10^8$ & $3.98\times 10^8$ \\
2001: \end{tabular}
2002: \caption[]{Total $c\overline c$ hadroproduction rates in peripheral
2003: $AA$ collisions at RHIC and LHC with a $10^6$ s run. The rates are based on
2004: Table~{\protect \ref{AAccbar}}.}
2005: \label{NAAccbar}
2006: \end{table}
2007:
2008: \begin{table}
2009: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
2010: $AA$ & $\sigma(S^i=1)$ ($\mu$b) & $\sigma({\rm EKS98})$ ($\mu$b) &
2011: $\sigma({\rm EKS98}b)$ ($\mu$b) \\ \hline
2012: \multicolumn{4}{c}{RHIC} \\
2013: O+O & 22.7 & 24.1 & 23.3 \\
2014: Si+Si & 47.9 & 51.7 & 49.5 \\
2015: I+I & 111 & 127 & 117 \\
2016: Au+Au & 154 & 183 & 167 \\
2017: \multicolumn{4}{c}{LHC} \\
2018: O+O & 2490 & 2260 & 2390 \\
2019: Ar+Ar & 9110 & 7930 & 8600 \\
2020: Pb+Pb & 21700 & 17500 & 20200 \\
2021: \end{tabular}
2022: \caption[]{Total $b\overline b$ hadroproduction cross sections integrated over
2023: $b > 2R_A$ in
2024: peripheral $AA$ collisions. }
2025: \label{AAbbbar}
2026: \end{table}
2027:
2028: \begin{table}
2029: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
2030: $AA$ & $N(S^i=1)$ & $N({\rm EKS98})$ & $N({\rm EKS98}b)$ \\ \hline
2031: \multicolumn{4}{c}{RHIC} \\
2032: O+O & $2.22\times 10^6$ & $2.36\times 10^6$ & $2.27\times 10^6$ \\
2033: Si+Si & $2.11\times 10^6$ & $2.27\times 10^6$ & $2.18\times 10^6$ \\
2034: I+I & $3.01\times 10^5$ & $3.43\times 10^5$ & $3.16\times 10^5$ \\
2035: Au+Au & $3.17\times 10^4$ & $3.67\times 10^4$ & $3.34\times 10^4$ \\
2036: \multicolumn{4}{c}{LHC} \\
2037: O+O & $3.84\times 10^8$ & $3.48\times 10^8$ & $3.68\times 10^8$ \\
2038: Ar+Ar & $3.92\times 10^8$ & $3.41\times 10^8$ & $3.70\times 10^8$ \\
2039: Pb+Pb & $9.11\times 10^6$ & $7.35\times 10^6$ & $8.48\times 10^6$ \\
2040: \end{tabular}
2041: \caption[]{Total $b\overline b$ hadroproduction
2042: rates in peripheral $AA$ collisions with a $10^6$ s run
2043: at RHIC and LHC. The rates are based on Table~{\protect \ref{AAbbbar}}.}
2044: \label{NAAbbbar}
2045: \end{table}
2046:
2047: \begin{table}
2048: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
2049: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$c \overline c$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$b \overline b$} \\
2050: $pA$ & $\sigma(S^i=1)$ (mb) & $\sigma({\rm EKS98})$ (mb) & $\sigma(S^i=1)$ ($\mu$b)
2051: & $\sigma({\rm EKS98})$ ($\mu$b) \\ \hline
2052: \multicolumn{5}{c}{RHIC} \\
2053: $p$O & 4.19 & 4.14 & 23.7 & 24.4 \\
2054: $p$Si & 7.33 & 7.21 & 41.5 & 43.1 \\
2055: $p$I & 26.2 & 25.8 & 131 & 139 \\
2056: $p$Au & 38.6 & 38.1 & 187 & 201 \\
2057: \multicolumn{5}{c}{LHC} \\
2058: $p$O & 153 & 138 & 3740 & 3540 \\
2059: $p$Ar & 368 & 318 & 8850 & 8180 \\
2060: $p$Pb & 1820 & 1460 & 43000 & 38200 \\
2061: \end{tabular}
2062: \caption[]{Total $c\overline c$ and $b \overline b$ hadroproduction
2063: cross sections in minimum bias (all $b$) $pA$ collisions
2064: at RHIC and LHC. }
2065: \label{pAccbb}
2066: \end{table}
2067:
2068: \begin{table}
2069: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
2070: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$c \overline c$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$b \overline b$} \\
2071: $pA$ & $N(S^i=1)$ & $N({\rm EKS98})$ & $N(S^i=1)$ & $N({\rm EKS98})$ \\ \hline
2072: \multicolumn{5}{c}{RHIC} \\
2073: $p$O & $5.02\times 10^9$ & $4.96\times 10^9$ & $2.85\times 10^7$
2074: & $2.92\times 10^7$ \\
2075: $p$Si & $5.86\times 10^9$ & $5.77\times 10^9$ & $3.32\times 10^7$
2076: & $3.45\times 10^7$ \\
2077: $p$I & $5.25\times 10^9$ & $5.17\times 10^9$ & $2.62\times 10^7$
2078: & $2.79\times 10^7$ \\
2079: $p$Au & $2.32\times 10^9$ & $2.28\times 10^9$ & $1.12\times 10^7$
2080: & $1.20\times 10^7$ \\
2081: \multicolumn{5}{c}{LHC} \\
2082: $p$O & $1.53\times 10^{12}$ & $1.39\times 10^{12}$ & $3.75\times 10^{10}$
2083: & $3.57\times 10{10}$ \\
2084: $p$Ar & $2.01\times 10^{12}$ & $1.75\times 10^{12}$ & $4.87\times 10^{10}$
2085: & $4.50\times 10^{10}$ \\
2086: $p$Pb & $1.35\times 10^{12}$ & $1.07\times 10^{12}$ & $3.18\times 10^{10}$
2087: & $2.82\times 10^{10}$ \\
2088: \end{tabular}
2089: \caption[]{Total $c\overline c$ and $b \overline b$ hadroproduction
2090: rates in minimum bias $pA$ collisions over a $10^6$ s run at RHIC and LHC.
2091: The rates are based on Table~{\protect \ref{pAccbb}}.}
2092: \label{NpAccbb}
2093: \end{table}
2094:
2095: \begin{table}
2096: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
2097: & \multicolumn{3}{c}{all $c \overline c$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$M > 2m_D$} \\
2098: $AA$ & $\sigma^{\rm dir}$ (nb) & $\sigma^{\rm 1-res}$ (nb)
2099: & $\sigma^{\rm 2-res}$ (nb) &
2100: $\sigma^{\rm dir}$ (nb) & $\sigma^{\rm 1-res}$ (nb)
2101: & $\sigma^{\rm 2-res}$ (nb)\\ \hline
2102: \multicolumn{7}{c}{RHIC} \\
2103: O+O & 4.64 & 0.08 & 0.0020 & 1.65 & 0.022 & 0.00039 \\
2104: Si+Si & 32.0 & 0.49 & 0.013 & 10.8 & 0.125 & 0.0023 \\
2105: I+I & 1320 & 10.7 & 0.345 & 288 & 1.18 & 0.027 \\
2106: Au+Au & 3650 & 22.2 & 0.786 & 601 & 1.37 & 0.035 \\
2107: \multicolumn{7}{c}{LHC} \\
2108: O+O & 236 & 11.7 & 0.24 & 128 & 6.01 & 0.10 \\
2109: Ar+Ar & 4530 & 210.0 & 4.36 & 2410 & 105 & 1.76 \\
2110: Pb+Pb & 1110000 & 45000 & 951 & 565000& 21400 & 352 \\
2111: \end{tabular}
2112: \caption[]{Two photon $c\overline c$ cross sections in peripheral $AA$
2113: collisions at RHIC and LHC, integrated over $b>2R_A$.}
2114: \label{gamgamcc}
2115: \end{table}
2116:
2117: \begin{table}
2118: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
2119: & \multicolumn{3}{c}{all $b \overline b$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$M > 2m_B$} \\
2120: $AA$ & $\sigma^{\rm dir}$ (pb) & $\sigma^{\rm 1-res}$ (pb)
2121: & $\sigma^{\rm 2-res}$ (pb) &
2122: $\sigma^{\rm dir}$ (pb) & $\sigma^{\rm 1-res}$ (pb)
2123: & $\sigma^{\rm 2-res}$ (pb)\\ \hline
2124: \multicolumn{7}{c}{RHIC} \\
2125: O+O & 0.268 & 0.0018 & 0.00038 & 0.194 & 0.0010 & 0.00029 \\
2126: Si+Si & 0.923 & 0.0031 & 0.00083 & 0.582 & 0.0013 & 0.00046 \\
2127: \multicolumn{7}{c}{LHC} \\
2128: O+O & 285 & 31.7 & 3.08 & 262.6 & 28.9 & 2.62 \\
2129: Ar+Ar & 4890 & 491.0 & 49.3 & 4480 & 444 & 41.7 \\
2130: Pb+Pb & 943000 & 75000 & 8260 & 855000 & 66800 & 6820 \\
2131: \end{tabular}
2132: \caption[]{Two photon $b\overline b$ cross sections in peripheral $AA$
2133: collisions at RHIC and LHC, integrated over $b>2R_A$.}
2134: \label{gamgambb}
2135: \end{table}
2136:
2137: \begin{table}
2138: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
2139: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{all $Q \overline Q$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M > 2m_H$} \\
2140: $AA$ & $N(c \overline c)$ & $N(b \overline b)$ & $N(c
2141: \overline c)$ & $N(b \overline b)$ \\ \hline
2142: \multicolumn{5}{c}{RHIC} \\
2143: O+O & $4.62\times 10^2$ & $2.65\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.64\times 10^2$
2144: & $1.91\times 10^{-2}$ \\
2145: Si+Si & $1.43\times 10^3$ & $4.08\times 10^{-2}$ & $4.81\times 10^2$
2146: & $2.57\times 10^{-2}$ \\
2147: I+I & $3.61\times 10^3$ & - & $7.81\times 10^2$ & - \\
2148: Au+Au & $7.36\times 10^2$ & - & $1.21\times 10^2$ & - \\
2149: \multicolumn{5}{c}{LHC} \\
2150: O+O & $3.97\times 10^4$ & $5.11\times 10^1$ & $2.15\times 10^4$
2151: & $4.71\times 10^1$\\
2152: Ar+Ar & $2.04\times 10^5$ & $2.33\times 10^2$ & $1.08\times 10^5$
2153: & $2.13\times 10^2$ \\
2154: Pb+Pb & $4.84\times 10^5$ & $4.41\times 10^2$ & $2.47\times 10^5$
2155: & $3.90\times 10^2$ \\
2156: \end{tabular}
2157: \caption[]{Total $c\overline c$ and $b \overline b$ two-photon rates
2158: in peripheral $AA$ collisions over a $10^6$ s run at RHIC and LHC.
2159: The rates are based on Tables~{\protect \ref{gamgamcc}} and
2160: {\protect \ref{gamgambb}}.}
2161: \label{Ngamgamccbb}
2162: \end{table}
2163:
2164: \begin{figure}
2165: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2166: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.5\textheight}
2167: \centerline{\epsffile{photoprod.ps}}
2168: \caption[]{Feynman diagrams for heavy quark photoproduction for (a) direct
2169: and (b)-(d) resolved photons. The crossed diagrams for (a) and (b) are
2170: not shown.}
2171: \label{Feynphot}
2172: \end{figure}
2173:
2174: \begin{figure}
2175: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2176: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.5\textheight}
2177: \centerline{\epsffile{gam_AuAu_c.eps}}
2178: \caption[]{Charm photoproduction in peripheral Au+Au collisions at
2179: RHIC for $b> 2R_A$. The single $c$ quark
2180: $p_T$ (a) and rapidity (b) distributions are shown along with the $c
2181: \overline c$ pair invariant mass (c). The direct (dashed), resolved
2182: (dot-dashed), and the sum of the two (solid) are shown. The direct
2183: contribution is divided by two to distinguish it from the total while
2184: the resolved contribution is multiplied by ten. There are two curves
2185: for each contribution: $S^i =1$ and EKS98. At this energy, the curves
2186: are almost indistinguishable but the curves with shadowing are somewhat
2187: higher, especially at negative rapidities. In the rapidity distributions, the
2188: photon is coming from the left.}
2189: \label{gamArc}
2190: \end{figure}
2191:
2192: \begin{figure}
2193: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2194: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.5\textheight}
2195: \centerline{\epsffile{gam_AuAu_b.eps}}
2196: \caption[]{Bottom photoproduction in peripheral Au+Au collisions at
2197: RHIC for
2198: $b>2R_A$. The single $b$ quark $p_T$ (a) and rapidity (b)
2199: distributions are shown along with the $b \overline b$ pair invariant
2200: mass (c). The direct (dashed), resolved (dot-dashed), and the sum of
2201: the two (solid) are shown. The direct contribution is divided by two
2202: to distinguish it from the total. There are two curves for each
2203: contribution: $S^i =1$ and EKS98. At this energy, the curves are
2204: almost indistinguishable. In the rapidity distributions, the photon
2205: is coming from the left.}
2206: \label{gamArb}
2207: \end{figure}
2208:
2209: \begin{figure}
2210: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2211: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.5\textheight}
2212: \centerline{\epsffile{gam_PbPb_c.eps}}
2213: \caption[]{Charm photoproduction in peripheral Pb+Pb collisions at LHC
2214: for $b> 2R_A$. The single $c$ quark
2215: $p_T$ (a) and rapidity (b) distributions are shown along with the $c
2216: \overline c$ pair invariant mass (c). The direct (dashed), resolved
2217: (dot-dashed), and the sum of the two (solid) are shown. The direct
2218: contribution is divided by two to distinguish it from the total.
2219: There are two curves for each contribution: $S^i =1$ and EKS98. The
2220: unshadowed curves are higher than the shadowed, particularly at large
2221: rapidities. In the rapidity
2222: distributions, the photon is coming from the left.}
2223: \label{gamAlc}
2224: \end{figure}
2225:
2226: \begin{figure}
2227: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2228: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.5\textheight}
2229: \centerline{\epsffile{gam_PbPb_b.eps}}
2230: \caption[]{Bottom photoproduction in peripheral Pb+Pb collisions at
2231: LHC for $b> 2R_A$. The single $b$ quark
2232: $p_T$ (a) and rapidity (b) distributions are shown along with the $b
2233: \overline b$ pair invariant mass (c). The direct (dashed), resolved
2234: (dot-dashed), and the sum of the two (solid) are shown. The direct
2235: contribution is divided by two to distinguish it from the total.
2236: There are two curves for each contribution: $S^i =1$ and EKS98. The
2237: unshadowed curves are higher than the shadowed. In the rapidity
2238: distributions, the photon is coming from the left.}
2239: \label{gamAlb}
2240: \end{figure}
2241:
2242: \begin{figure}
2243: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2244: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.5\textheight}
2245: \centerline{\epsffile{qq_AuAu_c.eps}}
2246: \caption[]{Charm hadroproduction in peripheral Au+Au collisions at RHIC
2247: for $b> 2R_A$. The single $c$ quark $p_T$ (a)
2248: and rapidity (b) distributions are shown along with the $c \overline c$ pair
2249: invariant mass (c). The curves are $S^i = 1$ (solid), EKS98 (dashed),
2250: and EKS98$b$ (dot-dashed). At this energy, the three curves are almost
2251: indistinguishable.}
2252: \label{qqAArc}
2253: \end{figure}
2254:
2255: \begin{figure}
2256: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2257: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.5\textheight}
2258: \centerline{\epsffile{qq_AuAu_b.eps}}
2259: \caption[]{Bottom hadroproduction in peripheral Au+Au collisions at RHIC
2260: for $b>2R_A$. The single $b$ quark $p_T$ (a)
2261: and rapidity (b) distributions are shown along with the $b \overline b$ pair
2262: invariant mass (c). The curves are $S^i = 1$ (solid), EKS98 (dashed),
2263: and EKS98$b$ (dot-dashed).}
2264: \label{qqAArb}
2265: \end{figure}
2266:
2267: \begin{figure}
2268: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2269: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.5\textheight}
2270: \centerline{\epsffile{qq_PbPb_c.eps}}
2271: \caption[]{Charm hadroproduction in peripheral Pb+Pb collisions at LHC
2272: for $b>2R_A$. The single $c$ quark $p_T$ (a)
2273: and rapidity (b) distributions are shown along with the $c \overline c$ pair
2274: invariant mass (c). The curves are $S^i = 1$ (solid), EKS98 (dashed),
2275: and EKS98$b$ (dot-dashed).}
2276: \label{qqAAlc}
2277: \end{figure}
2278:
2279: \begin{figure}
2280: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2281: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.5\textheight}
2282: \centerline{\epsffile{qq_PbPb_b.eps}}
2283: \caption[]{Bottom hadroproduction in peripheral Pb+Pb collisions at LHC
2284: for $b>2R_A$. The single $b$ quark $p_T$ (a)
2285: and rapidity (b) distributions are shown along with the $b \overline b$ pair
2286: invariant mass (c). The curves are $S^i = 1$ (solid), EKS98 (dashed),
2287: and EKS98$b$ (dot-dashed).}
2288: \label{qqAAlb}
2289: \end{figure}
2290:
2291: \begin{figure}
2292: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2293: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.5\textheight}
2294: \centerline{\epsffile{twophot.ps}}
2295: \caption[]{Feynman diagrams for two-photon production of heavy quarks
2296: in (a) direct, (b) single-resolved, and (c)-(e) double-resolved
2297: photons. The crossed diagrams for (a) through (c) are not shown.}
2298: \label{Feyn2phot}
2299: \end{figure}
2300:
2301: \begin{figure}
2302: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2303: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.5\textheight}
2304: \centerline{\epsffile{gg_SiSi_c.eps}}
2305: \caption[]{Charm production by two-photon processes in peripheral
2306: Si+Si collisions at RHIC. The results are shown for all pairs with no
2307: mass cut. The single $c$ quark $p_T$ (a) and rapidity (b)
2308: distributions are shown along with the $c \overline c$ pair invariant
2309: mass (c). The solid curve is the sum of all contributions: $\sigma^{\rm dir}$
2310: (dashed), $\sigma^{\rm 1-res}$ (dot-dashed), and $\sigma^{\rm 2-res}$
2311: (dotted). The direct contribution is divided by two to facilitate comparison.
2312: Since either photon can be resolved, the single-resolved rapidity
2313: distribution is reflected around $y_1=0$ to account for both sources.}
2314: \label{ggrc}
2315: \end{figure}
2316:
2317: \begin{figure}
2318: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2319: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.5\textheight}
2320: \centerline{\epsffile{gg_SiSi_b.eps}}
2321: \caption[]{Bottom production by two-photon processes in peripheral
2322: Si+Si collisions at RHIC. The results are shown for all pairs with no
2323: mass cut. The single $b$ quark $p_T$ (a) and rapidity (b)
2324: distributions are shown along with the $b \overline b$ pair invariant
2325: mass (c). The solid curve is the sum of all contributions: $\sigma^{\rm dir}$
2326: (dashed), $\sigma^{\rm 1-res}$ (dot-dashed), and $\sigma^{\rm 2-res}$
2327: (dotted). The direct contribution is divided by two to facilitate comparison.
2328: Since either photon can be resolved, the single-resolved rapidity
2329: distribution is reflected around $y_1=0$ to account for both sources.}
2330: \label{ggrb}
2331: \end{figure}
2332:
2333: \begin{figure}
2334: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2335: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.5\textheight}
2336: \centerline{\epsffile{gg_PbPb_c.eps}}
2337: \caption[]{Charm production by two-photon processes in peripheral
2338: Pb+Pb collisions at LHC. The results are shown for all pairs with no
2339: mass cut. The single $c$ quark $p_T$ (a) and rapidity (b)
2340: distributions are shown along with the $c \overline c$ pair invariant
2341: mass (c). The solid curve is the sum of all contributions: $\sigma^{\rm dir}$
2342: (dashed), $\sigma^{\rm 1-res}$ (dot-dashed), and $\sigma^{\rm 2-res}$
2343: (dotted). The direct contribution is divided by two to facilitate comparison.
2344: Since either photon can be resolved, the single-resolved rapidity
2345: distribution is reflected around $y_1=0$ to account for both sources.}
2346: \label{gglc}
2347: \end{figure}
2348:
2349: \begin{figure}[p]
2350: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2351: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.5\textheight}
2352: \centerline{\epsffile{gg_PbPb_b.eps}}
2353: \caption[]{Bottom production by two-photon processes in peripheral
2354: Pb+Pb collisions at LHC. The results are shown for all pairs with no
2355: mass cut. The single $b$ quark $p_T$ (a) and rapidity (b)
2356: distributions are shown along with the $b \overline b$ pair invariant
2357: mass (c). The solid curve is the sum of all contributions: $\sigma^{\rm dir}$
2358: (dashed), $\sigma^{\rm 1-res}$ (dot-dashed), and $\sigma^{\rm 2-res}$
2359: (dotted). The direct contribution is divided by two to facilitate comparison.
2360: Since either photon can be resolved, the single-resolved rapidity
2361: distribution is reflected around $y_1=0$ to account for both sources.}
2362: \label{gglb}
2363: \end{figure}
2364:
2365: \newpage
2366: \begin{figure}[p]
2367: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2368: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.25\textheight}
2369: \centerline{\epsffile{gg_SiSi_c_sub.eps}}
2370: \caption[]{Reduction in charm production due to the requirement that
2371: $M>2m_D$ in two-photon production in
2372: peripheral Si+Si collisions at RHIC. The ratio of the cross section
2373: above threshold relative to the total cross section is shown as a
2374: function of $p_T$ (a) and $y_1$ (b) for $\sigma^{\rm dir}$ (solid),
2375: $\sigma^{\rm 1-res}$ (dashed) and $\sigma^{\rm 2-res}$ (dot-dashed). Since
2376: either photon can be resolved, the single-resolved rapidity ratio is
2377: reflected around
2378: $y_1=0$ to account for both sources.}
2379: \label{ggrcsub}
2380: \end{figure}
2381:
2382: \newpage
2383:
2384: \begin{figure}[p]
2385: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2386: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.25\textheight}
2387: \centerline{\epsffile{gg_PbPb_b_sub.eps}}
2388: \caption[]{Reduction in bottom production due to the requirement that
2389: $M>2m_B$ in two-photon production in
2390: peripheral Pb+Pb collisions at LHC. The ratio of the cross section
2391: above threshold relative to the total cross section is shown as a
2392: function of $p_T$ (a) and $y_1$ (b) for $\sigma^{\rm dir}$ (solid),
2393: $\sigma^{\rm 1-res}$ (dashed) and $\sigma^{\rm 2-res}$ (dot-dashed). Since
2394: either photon can be resolved, the single-resolved rapidity ratio is
2395: reflected around
2396: $y_1=0$ to account for both sources.}
2397: \label{gglbsub}
2398: \end{figure}
2399:
2400: \newpage
2401:
2402: \begin{figure}
2403: \setlength{\epsfxsize=0.95\textwidth}
2404: \setlength{\epsfysize=0.6\textheight}
2405: \centerline{\epsffile{mdep.eps}}
2406: \caption[]{The quark-mass dependence of our calculated cross sections.
2407: The left side is for charm, normalized to the cross sections with
2408: $m_c=1.2$ GeV while the right side is for bottom, normalized to cross
2409: sections with $m_b=4.75$ GeV. The RHIC results are for Si+Si
2410: interactions while the LHC results are for Pb+Pb interactions. The
2411: photoproduction ratios in (a) and (b) are for direct (solid--RHIC;
2412: dot-dashed--LHC) and resolved (dashed--RHIC; dotted--LHC) production.
2413: The hadroproduction results at RHIC and LHC are given by the solid and
2414: dashed curves respectively in (c) and (d). The two-photon ratios in
2415: (e) and (f) are for $\sigma^{\rm dir}$ (solid--RHIC; dotted--LHC),
2416: $\sigma^{\rm 1-res}$ (dashed--RHIC; dot-dot-dot-dashed--LHC) and
2417: $\sigma^{\rm 2-res}$ (dot-dashed--RHIC; dot-dash-dash-dashed--LHC).}
2418: \label{massdep}
2419: \end{figure}
2420:
2421: \end{document}
2422: