1: \section{Observables}
2: \label{pol}
3:
4:
5: In this section the various observables experimentally accessible
6: are discussed. After some general remarks about the three body kinematics
7: in the final state, in the next subsection we will discuss unpolarized
8: observables. In the following subsection we will then focus on polarized
9: observables.
10:
11:
12: Even if $x$ denotes just a single meson, the reaction $NN\to
13: B_1B_2x$ is subject to a five dimensional phase: three particles in the final
14: state introduce $3\times 3=9$ degrees of freedom, but the four--momentum conservation
15: reduces this number to 5. As we will restrict ourselves to the
16: near--threshold regime, the final state can be treated non--relativistically. The
17: natural coordinate system is therefore given by the
18: Jacobi--coordinates in the overall center of mass system (c.f. Ref.
19: \cite{joachin}), where first the relative momentum of one pair of particles is
20: constructed and then the momentum of the third particle is calculated as the
21: relative momentum of the third particle with respect to the two body system.
22: Obviously there are three equivalent sets of variables possible.
23: In the center of mass this choice reads
24: \be
25: \nonumber
26: \vec{p}_{ij}\,' &=& \frac{M_i\vec p_j - M_j \vec p_i}{M_i + M_j} \ , \\
27: \vec{q}_k\,' &=& \frac{(M_i+M_j)\vec p_k - M_k( \vec p_i+\vec p_j)}{M_i + M_j+M_k} = \vec p_k
28: \ ,
29: \label{coors}
30: \ee
31: where we labeled the three final state particles as $ijk$; $q_k\,
32: '=p_k$ holds in the over all center of mass system only.
33: For simplicity in the following we will drop the subscripts when confusion is excluded.
34: For reactions
35: of the type $NN\to B_1B_2x$ it is common to work with the relative momentum of the
36: two--nucleon system and to treat the particle $x$ separately.
37: From the theoretical point of
38: view this choice is most convenient, for one is working already with the
39: relative momentum of the dominant final state interaction and the assignment
40: of partial waves as used in sec. \ref{sr} is straightforward.
41: Note that for any given relative energy of the outgoing two nucleon system
42: $\epsilon = p' \, ^2/M_N$ the modulus of the meson momentum $|\vec q \, '|$ is
43: fixed by energy conservation; we thus may characterize the phase space by the
44: 5 tuple
45: \begin{equation}
46: \xi = \{\epsilon,\Omega_{p'},\Omega_{q'}\} \ ,
47: \label{xidef}
48: \end{equation}
49: where $\Omega_k=(\cos(\theta_k),\phi_k)$ denotes the angular part of vector
50: $\vec k$.
51: The coordinate system
52: is illustrated in Fig. \ref{coorsys}.
53: The center of mass nucleon momentum in the initial state will be
54: denoted by $\vec p$.
55: \begin{figure}
56: \begin{center}
57: \vskip 6cm
58: \special{psfile=vardef.eps
59: hoffset=16 voffset=0 hscale=70 vscale=70}
60: \caption{\it Illustration of the choice of variables in the over all center--of--mass
61: system.
62: }
63: \label{coorsys}
64: \end{center}
65: \end{figure}
66: Throughout this report we choose the beam axis along the $z$ axis.
67: Explicit expressions for the vectors appearing are given in Appendix
68: \ref{vecdef}.
69: %Then we can define the following set of angles:
70: %\begin{equation}
71: %pq'\cos (\theta_\{q'})=\vec p\cdot \vec q\, ' \ , \qquad
72: %pk'\cos (\theta_\{k'})=\vec p\cdot \vec k\, ' \ ,
73: %pq'\cos (\theta_\{q'})=\vec p\cdot \vec q\, ' \ ,
74: %\end{equation}
75:
76: Due to the high dimensionality of the phase space it is not possible
77: to present the full complexity of the data in a single plot. At the end of
78: sec. \ref{polobs} we will discuss a possible way of presenting the data through
79: integrations
80: subject to particular constraints. A different choice would be simply to
81: present highly differential observables as is done for
82: bremsstrahlung\footnote{It should be noted that in the
83: early bremsstrahlung experiments the method of integration was not possible,
84: because the detectors used had very limited angular acceptance.}, or
85: at least to use the two dimensional representation of the Dalitz plot to show
86: some correlations.
87:
88:
89: \subsection{Unpolarized observables}
90: \label{unpolobs}
91:
92: \begin{figure}[t]
93: \begin{center}
94: \epsfig{file=dalitz.eps, height=10cm}
95: \caption{\it Sketch of a Dalitz plot for a reaction with a three--body final
96: state (particles are labeled as $1,2$ and $3$). Regions of possibly strong
97: final state interactions in the $(ij)$ system are labeled by $F_{(ij)}$; a
98: resonance
99: in the $(12)$--system would show up like the band labeled as $R$.
100: The region of a possible interference of the two is labeled as $I$.}
101: \label{dalitz}
102: \end{center}
103: \end{figure}
104:
105: As long as the initial state is unpolarized, the system has azimuthal
106: rotation symmetry, reducing the number of degrees of freedom from 5 to 4.
107:
108: In the case of a three--particle decay (a $1\to 3$ reaction) the physics does not depend on the initial
109: direction. The same is true for reactions where the initial state
110: does not define a direction, like in the experiment series for $\bar p p$
111: annihilation at rest carried out by the Crystal Barrel collaboration at LEAR
112: (see Ref. \cite{klempt} and references therein). Therefore the number of
113: degrees of freedom is further reduced from four to two\footnote{This is quite
114: obvious, since one can look at a three particle decay as the crossed channel
115: reaction of two body scattering which is well known to be characterized by
116: two variables in the unpolarized case.}. Those are best displayed in the
117: so--called Dalitz plot (see \cite{kinbook} and references therein) that
118: shows a two dimensional representation in the plane of the various
119: invariant masses $m_{ik}^2=(p_i+p_k)^2$. In reactions with two particles in
120: the initial state and three particles in the final state ($2\to 3$ reactions),
121: however, the initial momentum defines an axis and therefore a single fully
122: differential plot is no longer possible. Especially in the example given below
123: it will become clear how the appearance of the additional momentum changes
124: drastically the situation.
125:
126: To account for the higher complexity of the $2\to 3$ reactions, if enough
127: statistics were collected in a particular experiment, one can present
128: differential Dalitz plots---a new plot for each different orientation of the
129: reaction plane \cite{kilian}. However, in what follows we will call Dalitz
130: plot the representation of a full data set/calculation in the plane of
131: invariant masses, ignoring the initial direction. Obviously this means throwing
132: out some correlations, for in general any integration reduces the amount of
133: information in an observable.
134: We will briefly review
135: the properties of a Dalitz plot, closely following Ref. \cite{kinbook}. In Fig. \ref{dalitz} a
136: schematic picture of it is shown. In this plot also different
137: regimes are specified: those of potentially strong final state interaction for
138: the subsystem $(ij)$ are labeled $F_{(ij)}$. They should occur when particle
139: $i$ and $j$ move along very closely. On the other hand, resonances will show
140: up as bands in the Dalitz plot. Labeled as $R$ in the figure, the effect of
141: a resonance in the $(12)$ system is shown. The total area of the Dalitz plot
142: scales with the phase space volume. Therefore, as the excess energy decreases,
143: resonance and final state interaction signals or the regions of different
144: final state interactions might start to overlap, leading to interference
145: phenomena (c.f. the hatched area $I$ in Fig. \ref{dalitz}). It was
146: demonstrated recently \cite{saschaeyrich} that those can rather strongly
147: distort resonance and final state interaction signals. At least for
148: known final state properties, these patterns might help to better pin down
149: resonance parameters \cite{saschaeyrich}. On the other hand, as the excess
150: energy increases the different structures move away from each other and
151: one should then be able to study them individually. This observation is of great
152: relevance if one wants to extract parameters of a particular final state
153: interaction from a production reaction (c.f. discussion in section
154: \ref{fsisec}).
155:
156:
157: In case of particle decays of spinless or unpolarized particles, the Dalitz
158: plot not only contains the information about the occurrence of a resonance, but
159: also its quantum numbers can be extracted by projecting the
160: events in the resonance band (labeled as $R$ in Fig. \ref{dalitz}) on the
161: appropriate axis (for the example of the figure this is the 23 axis).
162: In the case of $2\to 3$ reactions, however, this projection is not necessarily
163: conclusive. To explain this statement we have to have a closer look at the
164: angles of the system. First of all there is a set of angles, the so called
165: helicity angles, that can be constructed from the final momenta only. One
166: example is
167: \be \cos (\theta_{p'q'}) = \frac{\vec p \, '\cdot \vec q \,
168: '}{|\vec p \, '||\vec q \, '|} \ , \ee
169: were $p'$ and $q'$ where defined in
170: Eq. \eqref{coors}. These angles that can be extracted from the Dalitz
171: plot directly. In addition there are those angles that are related to
172: the initial momentum---the Jackson angles. One example is
173: \be \cos (\theta_{p'p}) = \frac{\vec p \, '\cdot \vec p}{|\vec p \, '||\vec p|} \ . \ee
174: It should be stressed that it is not in the distribution of the helicity
175: angles but that of the Jackson
176: angles that the subsystems reflect their quantum numbers
177: \cite{kinbook}\footnote{As is stressed in Ref. \cite{kinbook}, only under
178: special conditions, namely for peripheral production as it occurs in high
179: energy experiments, the information in the helicity
180: angles and the Jackson angles agrees. Close to threshold, however, meson
181: production is not at all peripheral. }. Therefore a pure Dalitz plot analysis
182: is insufficient for production reactions and the distributions for the
183: Jackson angles have to be studied as well. This will be illustrated in an
184: example in the following subsection.
185:
186: Note that in the presence of spin there are even additional axes in the
187: problem. This will be discussed in detail in sec. \ref{polobs}.
188:
189: \subsubsection{Example: analysis of $pp\to d\bar K^0 K^+$ close to threshold}
190: \label{a0dat}
191:
192: \begin{figure}[t]
193: \begin{center}
194: \epsfig{file=angularsp.eps, height=6cm}
195: \caption{\it Angular distributions for the reaction
196: $pp\to d\bar K^0 K^+$ measured at $Q=46$ MeV \protect\cite{a0exp}. The
197: solid line shows the result of the overall fit including both $\bar K K$
198: $s$--waves as well as $p$--waves. To obtain the dashed (dotted) line, the
199: parameters for the $p$--wave ($s$--wave) were set to zero (see text). The
200: small error shows the statistical uncertainty only, whereas the large
201: ones contain both the systematic as well as the statistical uncertainty
202: added linearly. }
203: \label{a0angsp}
204: \end{center}
205: \end{figure}
206:
207: Recently, a first measurement of the reaction $pp\to d\bar K^0 K^+$ close to
208: the production threshold was reported \cite{a0exp} at an excess energy $Q=46$ MeV.
209: The data, as well as the corresponding theoretical analysis, based on
210: the assumption that only the lowest partial waves contribute, will now be used
211: to illustrate the statements of the previous section. It will
212: become clear, especially, that the information encoded in the distributions of the Jackson
213: angles and the helicity angles is rather different.
214:
215: As can be seen in table \ref{tab_secr2}, a final state that contains
216: $s$--waves only is not allowed in this reaction. For later
217: convenience\footnote{In sec. \ref{a0f0} it will be argued, that the reaction
218: $pp\to d\bar K^0 K^+$ can be used to study scalar resonance $a_0^+(980)$.
219: Thus we are especially interested in the partial waves of the kaon system,
220: that should show a strong final state interaction.} we work with the
221: relative momentum of the kaon system ($\vec p_{\bar K K}\, '\equiv \vec p \,
222: '$; c.f. Eqs. \eqref{coors}) and the deuteron momentum with respect to this
223: system ($\vec q_d \, '\equiv \vec q\, ' $). Given our assumptions, that only
224: the lowest partial waves contribute, the amplitudes that contribute to the
225: production reaction are either linear in $q'$ or linear in $p'$. In Ref.
226: \cite{unsera0f0} the full amplitude was constructed (c.f. also discussion in
227: sec. \ref{a0f0}), however it should be clear that the spin averaged square of
228: the matrix element can be written as \be \nonumber \bar{|{\cal M}|^2} &=&
229: C_0^{q'}{q'}^2+C_0^{p'}{p'}^2
230: +C_1^{q'}(\vec {q'}\cdot \hat p)^2+C_1^{p'}(\vec {p'}\cdot \hat p)^2 \\
231: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad +C_2(\vec {p'}\cdot \vec {q'})+C_3(\vec
232: {p'}\cdot \hat p)(\vec {q'}\cdot \hat p) \ ,
233: \label{mform}
234: \ee
235: since all terms in the amplitude are either linear in $\vec {p'}$
236: or linear in $\vec {q'}$.
237: Here $\hat p = \vec p /|\vec p |$ denotes the beam direction.
238: Since the two protons in the initial state are identical, any observable has
239: to be symmetric under the transformation $\vec p = -\vec p$. This is why
240: $\hat p$ appears in even powers only.
241:
242: \begin{table}[!t]
243: \begin{center}
244: \caption{\it Results for the $C$ parameters from a fit to the experimental data.
245: The parameters are given in units of $C_0^{q'}$.}
246: \begin{tabular}{ccccc} % .4\textwidth
247: %\hline
248: % \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$C_0^q$} &
249: % \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$C_0^k$} &
250: % \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$C_1$} &
251: % \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$C_2$} &
252: % \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$C_3+\frac{1}{3}C_4$} \\
253: \hline
254: {$C_0^{p'}$} &
255: {$C_0^{q'}$} &
256: {$C_1^{p'}$} &
257: {$C_1^{q'}$} &
258: {$C_2+\frac{1}{3}C_3$}\\
259: \hline
260: $0\pm 0.1$ &$1 \pm 0.03$ &$1.26 \pm 0.08$&$-0.6\pm 0.1$ &$-0.36\pm 0.17$\\
261: \hline
262: \end{tabular}
263: \label{cpara}
264: \end{center}
265: \end{table}
266:
267: Figs. \ref{a0angsp} and \ref{a0masssp} show the data as well as a fit
268: based on Eq. \eqref{mform}. The parameters extracted are given in table
269: \ref{cpara}. The first two panels of Fig. \ref{a0angsp} contain the
270: distributions of the angles $(\vec {p'}\cdot \hat p)/p'$ and $(\vec {q'}\cdot
271: \hat p)/q'$. The last panel contains the distribution of the helicity angle
272: $(\vec {p'}\cdot \vec {q'})/(q'p')$. The solid line corresponds to a complete
273: fit to the data including both $p$--waves in the $\bar K^0 K^+$ system as well as
274: those in the $d(\bar K^0 K^+)$ system. For the long dashed line the $\bar K^0 K^+$
275: $p$-waves were set to zero, whereas for the dotted line the $d(\bar K^0 K^+)$
276: $p$--waves (corresponding to $\bar KK$ $s$--waves)
277: were set to zero. Thus, the first two panels truly reflect
278: the partial wave content of the particular subsystems individually, whereas
279: the helicity angle (which can also be extracted from the Dalitz plot) shows a
280: flat distribution only if $both$ subsystems are in a $p$--wave
281: simultaneously. Therefore, the helicity angle can well be isotropic although
282: one of the subsystems is in a high partial wave. Note that this
283: statement is true even if all particles were spinless. The only thing that
284: would change is that $C_0^{q'}$ and $C_0^{p'}$ would vanish (c.f. subsec.
285: \ref{a0amp}). In Fig. \ref{a0masssp} two Dalitz plot projections (invariant
286: mass spectra) are shown. The first one ($d\sigma/dm_{\bar K K}$) is needed to
287: disentangle $C_0^{q'}$ and $C_0^{p'}$. The second one does not give any
288: additional information.
289:
290:
291: \begin{figure}[t]
292: \begin{center}
293: \epsfig{file=massdist.eps, height=8cm}
294: \caption{\it Various mass distributions for the reaction $pp\to d\bar K^0 K^+$
295: (Line code as in Fig. \protect\ref{a0angsp}). The small error bars
296: show the statistical uncertainty only, whereas the large ones contain both
297: the systematic as well as the statistical uncertainty (c.f. Ref.
298: \protect\cite{a0exp}). }
299: \label{a0masssp}
300: \end{center}
301: \end{figure}
302:
303: What is now the information contained in the two--dimensional Dalitz plot? Since it does not
304: contain any information about the initial state, the parts of the squared amplitude
305: that can be extracted from the Dalitz plot are easily derived from
306: Eq. \eqref{mform} by integrating over the beam direction \cite{kinbook}, giving
307: \be
308: \nonumber
309: \int d\Omega_p \bar{|{\cal M}|^2} &=& \left(C_0^{q'}+\frac{1}{3}C_1^{q'}\right){q'}^2+\left(C_0^{p'}
310: +\frac{1}{3}C_1^{p'}\right){p'}^2 \\
311: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad +\left(C_3+\frac{1}{3}C_4\right)(\vec {p'}\cdot \vec
312: {q'}) \ .
313: \label{intmform}
314: \ee Therefore from the Dalitz plot one can extract the total $\bar K K$
315: $s$--wave strength $(C_0^{q'}+(1/3)C_1^{q'})$, the total $\bar K K$ $p$--wave
316: strength $(C_0^{p'}+(1/3)C_1^{p'})$, as well as the strength of the
317: interference of the two $(C_3+(1/3)C_4)$. Note that in this
318: particular example, all the coefficients given in Eq.
319: \eqref{intmform} (and even the $C_0$ and $C_1$ individually) can as well be
320: extracted from the angular distributions given in Fig. \ref{a0angsp}
321: and the $\bar K K$ invariant mass distribution (left panel of
322: Fig. \ref{a0masssp}) directly; the Dalitz plot here does not provide any
323: additional information.
324:
325:
326: Obviously, as we move further away from the threshold, the complexity of the
327: amplitude increases and the Dalitz plot contains information not revealed in the
328: projections. To summarize, in order to allow for a complete analysis of
329: the production data, in addition to the Dalitz plot the angular distributions
330: of the final momenta on the beam momentum need to be
331: analyzed as well. The latter distributions are the ones that give most direct
332: access to the partial wave content of the subsystems.
333:
334:
335:
336:
337:
338: %We define
339: %\begin{equation}
340: %\label{sigdef}
341: %\sigma_0 = \frac{1}{v_i}
342: %\sum_\beta {dk_C}^3{dk_D}^3{dk_x}^3
343: %(2\pi )^4 \delta^{(4)} (P_f-P_i)
344: %|T_{ba}|^2 \ .
345: %\end{equation}
346: %where the summation contains a summation over the initial and final spins.
347: %The differential cross section is just $1/(2s_A+1)/(2s_B+1)$ of $\sigma_0$, for it has to
348: %be normalized by the spin multiplicity of the initial state.
349: %We used the normalization
350: %$
351: %<\vec k|\vec k'> = \delta^{(3)}(\vec k - \vec k')
352: %$
353: %benutzt. Daher setzt sich der Faktor $(2\pi )^4$ aus einem Faktor $(2\pi )^3$ vom einlaufenden
354: %Flu\ss \ und einem weiteren $(2\pi )$ von der Energieerhaltenden $\delta$--Funktion zusammen.
355: %
356: \subsection{Spin dependent observables}
357: \label{polobs}
358:
359: Polarization observables for $2\to 2$ reactions are discussed in great detail
360: in Ref. \cite{ohlsen}. In our case, however, we have one more particle in the
361: final state and therefore there are more degrees of freedom
362: available. Here we will not only derive the expressions for the
363: observables in terms of spherical tensors but also relate these to the partial
364: wave amplitudes of the production matrix elements. In this section we closely
365: follow Refs. \cite{meyerpol,lynn1}.
366:
367: In terms of the so called Cartesian polarization observables,
368: the spin--dependent cross section can be written as
369: \begin{eqnarray}
370: \nonumber
371: \sigma (\xi, \vec P_b, \vec P_t, \vec P_f)
372: &=& \sigma_0(\xi)\left[1+\sum_i ((P_b)_iA_{i0}(\xi)+(P_f)_iD_{0i}(\xi))\right. \\
373: \nonumber
374: & &\phantom{\sigma_0(\xi)[1} \ +\sum_{ij}((P_b)_i(P_t)_jA_{ij}(\xi)+(P_b)_i(P_f)_jD_{ij}(\xi)) \\
375: & &\phantom{\sigma_0(\xi)[1} \
376: +\left.\sum_{ijk}(P_b)_i(P_t)_j(P_f)_kA_{ij,k0}(\xi) ... \right] \ .
377: \label{obsdef}
378: \end{eqnarray}
379: where $\sigma_0(\xi)$ is the unpolarized differential cross section, the
380: labels $i,j$ and $k$ can be either $x,y$ or $z$, and
381: $P_b$, $P_t$ and $P_f$ denote the polarization vector of beam, target and
382: the first one
383: of the final state particles, respectively. All kinematic variables are
384: collected in $\xi$, defined in Eq. \eqref{xidef}.
385: The observables shown explicitly in Eq. \eqref{obsdef} include the beam
386: analysing powers $A_{i0}$, the corresponding quantities for the final state
387: polarization $D_{0i}$, the spin correlation coefficients $A_{ij}$, and the spin
388: transfer coefficients $D_{ij}$.
389: In this context it is important to note that baryons that decay
390: weakly, as the hyperons do, have a self analyzing decay. In other
391: words, the angular pattern of the decay particles depends on the
392: polarization of the hyperon,
393: therefore, the hyperon polarization in the final state
394: can be measured without an additional polarimeter (see e.g. Ref. \cite{kilianslamantilam}).
395: All those observables that can be defined by just
396: exchanging $\vec P_b$ and $\vec P_t$, such as the target analyzing power $A_{0i}$,
397: are not shown explicitly.
398: %
399: From Eq. (\ref{obsdef}) it follows that for example
400: \begin{equation}
401: \sigma_0A_{ij,k0}=\frac{1}{(2s_b+1)(2s_t+1)}
402: {\mbox Tr}( \sigma_k^{(f)}{\cal M} \sigma_i^{(b)}\sigma_j^{(t)}{\cal M}^\dagger) \ ,
403: \label{obscalc}
404: \end{equation}
405: where the $\sigma_i^{(b)}$ ($\sigma_j^{(t)}$) are the
406: Pauli matrices acting in the spin space of beam and target, respectively.
407: The production matrix element is denoted by $\cal M$. In addition, $s_b$
408: ($s_t$) denote the total spin of the beam (target) particles.
409:
410:
411: \begin{table}
412: \begin{center}
413: \begin{tabular}{|c c c c |}
414: \hline
415: Cartesian Observable & ${\cal T}_{k_1q_1k_2q_2}$ & $Q_i=q_1+q_2$ & \\
416: \hline
417: Differential cross section & & & \\
418: $\sigma_0$ & $ {\cal T}_{0000}(s,\epsilon )$ & 0 & * \\
419: Beam analyzing powers & & & \\
420: $\sigma_0A_{x0}$ & $-\sqrt{2}\mbox{Re}( {\cal T}_{1100}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 1 & *\\
421: $\sigma_0A_{y0}$ & $-\sqrt{2}\mbox{Im}( {\cal T}_{1100}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 1 & \\
422: $\sigma_0A_{z0}$ & $ {\cal T}_{1000}(s,\epsilon )$ & 0 & * \\
423: Target analyzing powers & & & \\
424: $\sigma_0A_{0x}$ & $-\sqrt{2}\mbox{Re}( {\cal T}_{0011}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 1 & (*)\\
425: $\sigma_0A_{0y}$ & $-\sqrt{2}\mbox{Im}( {\cal T}_{0011}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 1 & \\
426: $\sigma_0A_{0z}$ & $ {\cal T}_{0010}(s,\epsilon )$ & 0 & (*) \\
427: Spin correlation parameters & & & \\
428: $\sigma_0A_{zz}$ & $ {\cal T}_{1010}(s,\epsilon )$ & 0 & * \\
429: $\sigma_0A_\Sigma$ & $-2\mbox{Re}( {\cal T}_{111-1}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 0 & * \\
430: $\sigma_0A_\Delta$ & $2\mbox{Re}( {\cal T}_{1111}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 2 & * \\
431: $\sigma_0A_{xz}$ & $-\sqrt{2}\mbox{Re}( {\cal T}_{1110}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 1 & (*) \\
432: $\sigma_0A_{zx}$ & $-\sqrt{2}\mbox{Re}( {\cal T}_{1011}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 1 & * \\
433: $\sigma_0A_{yz}$ & $-\sqrt{2}\mbox{Im}( {\cal T}_{1110}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 1 & \\
434: $\sigma_0A_{zy}$ & $-\sqrt{2}\mbox{Re}( {\cal T}_{1011}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 1 & \\
435: $\sigma_0[A_{xy}+A_{yx}]$ & $2\mbox{Im}( {\cal T}_{1111}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 2 & \\
436: $\sigma_0A_\Xi$ & $2\mbox{Im}( {\cal T}_{111-1}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 0 & *\\
437: \hline
438: \end{tabular}
439: \end{center}
440: \caption{\it Relations between spherical tensors and some
441: observables that do not contain the final state polarization following
442: Ref. \protect{\cite{lynn1}}.
443: To simplify notation, the indices specifying the final state polarization are dropped.
444: The symbol * indicates a
445: possible set of independent observables.
446: Note: For $pp$ induced reactions more
447: observables become equivalent, as described in the text. Those are marked by
448: {\rm (*)}.
449: The linear combinations of spin correlation observables
450: appearing in the table are defined in Eqs. (\protect\ref{lincomdef}).}
451: \label{tensobs}
452: \end{table}
453:
454:
455:
456: \begin{table}
457: \begin{center}
458: \begin{tabular}{|c c c c |}
459: \hline
460: Cartesian Observable & ${\cal T}_{k_1q_1k_2q_2}^{k_3q_3k_4q_4}$ & $Q=q_1+q_2-q_3-q_4$ & \\
461: \hline
462: Induced polarization & & & \\
463: $\sigma_0D_{0x}$ & $\sqrt{2}\mbox{Re}( {\cal T}^{1-100}_{0000}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 1 & *\\
464: $\sigma_0D_{0y}$ & $\sqrt{2}\mbox{Im}( {\cal T}^{1-100}_{0000}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 1 & \\
465: $\sigma_0D_{0z}$ & $ {\cal T}^{1000}_{0000}(s,\epsilon )$ & 0 & * \\
466: Spin transfer coefficients & & & \\
467: $\sigma_0D_{zz}$ & $ {\cal T}^{1000}_{1000}(s,\epsilon )$ & 0 & * \\
468: $\sigma_0D_\Sigma$ & $2\mbox{Re}( {\cal T}^{1100}_{1100}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 0 & * \\
469: $\sigma_0D_\Delta$ & $-2\mbox{Re}( {\cal T}^{1-100}_{1100}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 2 & * \\
470: $\sigma_0D_{xz}$ & $-\sqrt{2}\mbox{Re}( {\cal T}^{1000}_{1100}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 1 & * \\
471: $\sigma_0D_{zx}$ & $\sqrt{2}\mbox{Re}( {\cal T}^{1-100}_{1000}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 1 & * \\
472: $\sigma_0D_{yz}$ & $-\sqrt{2}\mbox{Im}( {\cal T}^{1000}_{1100}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 1 & \\
473: $\sigma_0D_{zy}$ & $\sqrt{2}\mbox{Re}( {\cal T}^{1-100}_{1000}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 1 & \\
474: $\sigma_0[D_{xy}+D_{yx}]$ & $-2\mbox{Im}( {\cal T}^{1-100}_{1100}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 2 & \\
475: $\sigma_0D_\Xi$ & $2\mbox{Im}( {\cal T}^{1100}_{1100}(s,\epsilon ))$ & 0 & *\\
476: \hline
477: \end{tabular}
478: \end{center}
479: \caption{\it Relations between spherical tensors and some
480: observables that do contain the final state polarization.
481: The symbol * indicates a
482: possible set of independent observables.
483: The linear combinations of spin correlation observables
484: appearing in the table are defined in Eqs. (\protect\ref{lincomdef2}).}
485: \label{tensobs2}
486: \end{table}
487:
488: It is straightforward to relate the polarization observables to
489: the partial wave amplitudes that can be easily extracted from
490: any model. For this purpose it is convenient to use spherical tensors
491: defined through
492: \begin{equation}
493: {\cal T}_{k_1q_1,k_2q_2}^{k_3q_3,k_4q_4}=\frac{1}{(2s_b+1)(2s_t+1)}
494: Tr\left[\tau_{k_3q_3}^{(f_1)\, \dagger}\tau_{k_4q_4}^{(f_2)\, \dagger}
495: {\cal M} \tau_{k_1q_1}^{(b)}\tau_{k_2q_2}^{(t)}{\cal M}^\dagger \right] \ ,
496: \label{deft}
497: \end{equation}
498: where the $\tau_{kq}$ denote the spherical representation of the spin
499: matrices
500: \be
501: \tau_{10}=\sigma_z \, , \ \tau_{1 \pm 1}=
502: \mp\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\sigma_x\pm i\sigma_y) \, , \ \tau_{00}=1 .
503: \label{taudef}
504: \ee
505: To relate the observables to the spherical tensors, the easiest method is
506: to use the definitions of Eqs. \eqref{taudef} inside the various Eqs. \eqref{deft}.
507: For the observables for which the final polarization remains
508: undetected, the relations between the various ${\cal T}$ and the corresponding observables
509: are shown in Table \ref{tensobs}.
510: In Table \ref{tensobs2} a few of the observables that contain the final state
511: polarization are listed. Triple polarization observables are not listed
512: explicitly, but it is straightforward to derive also the relevant expressions
513: for these, such as
514: $$
515: A_{xx,x}+A_{yy,x}-(A_{xy,y}-A_{yx,y}) =
516: \sqrt{2}^3\mbox{Re}({\cal T}_{111-1}^{1100}) \ .
517: $$
518: After some algebra given explicitly in
519: Appendix \ref{pw}, one finds
520: \begin{equation}
521: {\cal T}_\rho (\hat p, \hat q) = \frac{1}{4}\sum_{\tilde L \tilde l \lambda}
522: B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\hat q, \hat p) {\cal A}
523: ^\rho
524: _{\tilde L \tilde l,\lambda} \ ,
525: \label{tdecomp}
526: \end{equation}
527: where $\rho = \{k_1q_1,k_2q_2,k_3q_3,k_4q_4\}$ and $Q=q_1+q_2-q_3-q_4$. All the angular dependence
528: is contained in
529: \begin{equation}
530: B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\hat q, \hat p)
531: =\sum _{\mu_L,\mu_l}
532: \frac{1}{4\pi}\langle \tilde L \mu_L, \tilde l \mu_l|
533: \lambda Q\rangle
534: Y_{\tilde L \mu_L}(\hat p)Y_{\tilde l \mu_l}(\hat q) \
535: \label{bdef}
536: \end{equation}
537: and
538: \begin{equation}
539: {\cal A}^\rho
540: _{\tilde L \tilde l,\lambda} = \sum_{\alpha,\bar \alpha}
541: C^{\alpha,\bar \alpha,\rho}_{\tilde L \tilde l,\lambda}M^\alpha
542: (M^{\bar \alpha})\, ^\dagger \ .
543: \end{equation}
544: Here $\alpha$ and $\bar \alpha$ are multi--indices for
545: all the quantum numbers necessary to characterize a
546: particular partial wave matrix element and $C$
547: denotes a coupling coefficient that can be expressed
548: in terms of Clebsch--Gordan coefficients. Its explicit form
549: is given in Eq. (\ref{cdef}).
550: From Eq. (\ref{tdecomp}) one can derive the angular dependences
551: of all observables.
552:
553: In what follows it is convenient to define the following quantities:
554: \begin{eqnarray}
555: A_\Sigma = A_{xx}+A_{yy} \ ,
556: A_\Delta = A_{xx}-A_{yy} \ , \ \mbox{and} \
557: A_\Xi = A_{xy}-A_{yx} \
558: \label{lincomdef}
559: \end{eqnarray}
560: and, analogously,
561: \begin{eqnarray}
562: D_\Sigma = D_{xx}+D_{yy} \ ,
563: D_\Delta = D_{xx}-D_{yy} \ , \ \mbox{and} \
564: D_\Xi = D_{xy}-D_{yx} \ .
565: \label{lincomdef2}
566: \end{eqnarray}
567:
568: Using the conservation of parity and the explicit expression for the $C$
569: coefficient given in Eq. \eqref{cdef}
570: \begin{equation}
571: C^{\alpha,\bar \alpha, \rho}_{\tilde L \tilde l,\lambda} =
572: (-)^{(k_1+k_2+k_3+k_4)}
573: C^{\bar \alpha, \alpha, \rho}_{\tilde L \tilde l,\lambda} .
574: \label{csym}
575: \end{equation}
576: Since the parameter $C$ is real,
577: the analyzing powers
578: are proportional to the imaginary part of
579: $M_\alpha M_{\bar \alpha}^*$, whereas the differential cross section
580: as well as the spin correlation parameters depend on the real part
581: of ${\cal M}_\alpha {\cal M}_{\bar \alpha}^*$. Thus, it is either the
582: real part or the imaginary part of $B$ that contributes to the
583: angular structure.
584: As we will see in the following subsection, this
585: observation allows for a straight--forward identification
586: of the possible azimuthal dependences of each observable.
587: Another obvious consequence of Eq. \eqref{csym} is, that those
588: observables
589: for which $\sum k_i$ is odd have to be small when only a single partial wave
590: dominates. Thus, at the threshold, analyzing powers will vanish.
591:
592: The structure of Eq. (\ref{tdecomp}) is general---no assumption regarding the
593: number of contributing partial waves was necessary. However, if we want to
594: make statements about the expected angular dependence of observables, the
595: number of partial waves needs to be restricted. For example, if we allow for
596: at most $p$--waves for the $NN$ system as well as the particle $x$ with
597: respect to the $NN$ system, then the largest value of $\tilde L$ and $\tilde
598: l$ that can occur is 2, which strongly limits the possible
599: $\theta$--dependences that can occur in the angular function $B$ defined in
600: Eq. (\ref{bdef}).
601:
602:
603: If the spin of the particles is not detected there is no interference between
604: different spin states in the final state. This leads to a severe selection
605: rule in case of the reaction $pp \to ppX$: since the final state is
606: necessarily in a $T=1$ state the Pauli principle demands that different spin
607: be accompanied by different angular momentum. Therefore, for the a reaction
608: with a $pp$ final state the partial waves can be grouped into two sets,
609: namely $\{Ss,Sd,Ds,Dp\}$ and $\{Pp,Ps\}$, where only the members of the individual
610: sets interfere with each other.
611: % If we neglect terms where angular momentum
612: %two states interfere with each other and the $^1D_2 \to ^1D_2p$ transition,
613: %that turns out to be numerically insignificant in the whole energy range,
614: %the maximum value that both $\tilde L$ and $\tilde l$ can take is 2.
615: %
616: % Since the
617: %$Sp$ final state is dominant for $\eta \simeq 1$
618: % a term with $\tilde l=2$ should be expected significant.
619:
620: \subsubsection{Equivalent observables}
621:
622: All the angular dependence of the observables
623: is contained in the function $B$ defined in Eq. (\ref{bdef}).
624: In this subsection we will discuss some
625: properties of $B$ and relate these to properties of particular observables.
626:
627:
628: %To see this, we need to have a closer look at the angular
629: %dependence of the observables given by $B$. From the
630: %definition given in Eq. (\ref{bdef}) one immediately sees
631: %\begin{equation}
632: %B^Q(\theta_{p'},\phi_{p'}+\beta,\theta_{q'},\phi_{q'}+\beta) =
633: %e^{iQ\beta}B^Q(\theta_{p'},\phi_{p'},\theta_{q'},\phi_{q'}) \ .
634: %\end{equation}
635: %Consequently, we read off Eq. (\ref{tdecomp})
636: %\begin{equation}
637: %{\cal T}_\rho(\theta_{p'},\phi_{p'}+\beta,\theta_{q'},\phi_{q'}+\beta) =
638: %e^{iQ\beta}{\cal T}_\rho(\theta_{p'},\phi_{p'},\theta_{q'},\phi_{q'}) \ .
639: %\end{equation}
640: %Therefore, if we choose for the observables with $Q\ne 0$ $\beta = \pi /(2Q)$,
641: %we find
642: %\begin{equation}
643: %\nonumber
644: %{\cal T}_\rho(\theta_{p'},\phi_{p'}+\pi/(2Q),\theta_{q'},\phi_{q'}+\pi/(2Q)) =
645: %i{\cal T}_\rho(\theta_{p'},\phi_{p'},\theta_{q'},\phi_{q'}) \ ,
646: %\end{equation}
647: %
648: %%and
649: %%\begin{eqnarray}
650: %%\nonumber
651: %%\int d\Omega_p B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\hat q, \hat p) &=&
652: %%\frac{1}{\sqrt {4\pi}}\delta_{\tilde L 0}\delta_{\tilde l \lambda}
653: %%Y_{\tilde l Q}(\hat q) \\
654: %%&=&
655: %%(-)^Q\sqrt{\frac{(2\tilde l +1)(\tilde l -Q)!}{(\tilde l+Q)!}}\frac{1}{4\pi}
656: %%\delta_{\tilde L 0}\delta_{\tilde l \lambda}
657: %%P_{\tilde l}^Q(\cos (\theta ))e^{-iQ\phi}
658: %%\end{eqnarray}
659:
660: The functional form of $B$ enables one immediately to read off the allowed
661: azimuthal dependences for each observable as well as to identify
662: equivalent observables. To see this we rewrite Eq. (\ref{bdef}) as
663: \begin{equation}
664: B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\hat q, \hat p)
665: =\sum _{n}f_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda, Q,n}(\theta_{p'},\theta_{q'})
666: \exp\left\{i[(Q-n)\phi_{p'}+n\phi_{q'}]\right\} \ ,
667: \label{bsym}
668: \end{equation}
669: which directly translates into the following $\phi$--dependences for
670: the spherical tensors (c.f. Eq. (\ref{tdecomp})):
671: \begin{equation}
672: {\cal T}_\rho (\hat p, \hat q) = \sum_{n=-N}^{N}g_{\rho,n}(\theta_{p'},\theta_{q'})
673: \exp\left\{i[(Q-n)\phi_{p'}+n\phi_{q'}]\right\} \ .
674: \label{tdecompphi}
675: \end{equation}
676: Note that $N$ is given by the highest
677: partial waves that contribute to the reaction considered:
678: \begin{equation}
679: -\tilde L_{max} \le (Q-N) \le \tilde L_{max} \
680: \mbox{and} \ N \le \tilde l_{max} \ ,
681: \label{mrange}
682: \end{equation}
683: where $\tilde L_{max}$ ($\tilde l_{max}$) is given by twice the maximum baryon--baryon
684: (meson) angular momentum. These limits are inferred by the Clebsch--Gordan
685: coefficient appearing in the definition of $B$ in Eq. \eqref{bdef}.
686:
687: Eq. (\ref{tdecompphi}) directly relates the real and the imaginary parts of
688: the spherical tensors:
689: \begin{equation}
690: \mbox{Im}({\cal T}_\rho(\theta_{p'},\phi_{p'}
691: +\pi/(2Q),\theta_{q'},\phi_{q'}+\pi/(2Q))) =
692: \mbox{Re}({\cal T}_\rho(\theta_{p'},\phi_{p'},\theta_{q'},\phi_{q'})) \ .
693: \label{tsym}
694: \end{equation}
695: Thus, two observables are equivalent if they are given
696: by the real and imaginary parts of the same spherical tensor
697: with $Q \ne 0$ \ .
698: In table \ref{tensobs} the relations of the various observables to the
699: spherical tensors are given. Thus, using Eq. (\ref{tsym}) we can identify
700: the following set of pairwise equivalent observables:
701: \begin{equation}
702: A_{y0}\equiv A_{x0} \, , \ A_{0y}\equiv A_{0x} \, , \
703: A_{xx}-A_{yy}\equiv A_{xy}+A_{yx} \ ,
704: \end{equation}
705: and analogously for observables for which the final state polarization is measured
706: as well.
707: Notice that there is no connection between $ A_{xx}+A_{yy}$
708: and $A_{xy}-A_{yx}$, for these have $Q=0$ and therefore there
709: is no transformation, such as the one given in Eq. (\ref{tsym}),
710: that relates real and imaginary parts of the spherical tensors.
711:
712: For identical particles in the initial state,
713: as in $pp$ induced reactions,
714: all observables should be equivalent under the exchange
715: of beam and target. This further reduces the number
716: of independent observables, for now the beam analyzing
717: powers are equivalent to the target analyzing powers and
718: $A_{xz}$ is equivalent to $A_{zx}$.
719: In tables \ref{tensobs} and \ref{tensobs2}
720: a possible set of independent observables is marked by a $*$.
721: Those of these that are not independent for identical particles in the initial state
722: are labeled as $(*)$.
723:
724:
725:
726:
727: From the discussion in the previous section it follows (c.f. Eq.
728: (\ref{csym})), that all those observables with an even (odd) value of
729: $k_1+k_2+k_3+k_4$ lead to a real (imaginary) value for $g_{\rho,n}$, defined
730: in Eq. (\ref{tdecompphi}).
731: As a consequence, for all coefficients appearing in the expansion of the
732: observables, the $\phi$--dependence is fixed (c.f. table (\ref{tensobs})); for
733: example, the terms that
734: contribute to $\sigma_0$, $\sigma_0A_{zz}$, and $\sigma_0A_{\Sigma}$ behave as
735: $\cos (n(\phi_{q'}-\phi_{p'}))$.
736:
737:
738: %At this point it is also straightforward to see, why $A_\Sigma$
739: %and $A_{xy}-A_{yx}$ are not equivalent, as claimed above.
740: %From Eq. (\ref{tdecompphi}) we find
741: %\begin{eqnarray}
742: %A_\Sigma (\hat p, \hat q) &=& \sum_{n}g_{\rho,n}(\theta_{p'},\theta_{q'})
743: %\cos (n(\phi_{q'}-\phi_{q'})) \ , \\
744: %A_\Xi (\hat p, \hat q) &=& \sum_{n}g_{\rho,n}(\theta_{p'},\theta_{q'})
745: %\sin (n(\phi_{q'}-\phi_{q'})) \ .
746: %\end{eqnarray}
747: %Thus, although the $g$ functions appearing in both equations are equal,
748: %there is no change of variables possible that transforms one expression
749: %into the other.
750:
751:
752: \begin{figure}
753: \begin{center}
754: \vskip 10.5cm
755: \special{psfile=ang_dist_thpi.eps
756: hoffset=-40 voffset=-20 hscale=62 vscale=65}
757: \caption{\it Some polarization observables reported
758: in Ref. \protect{ \cite{meyerpol}} for the reaction $\vec p\vec p\to pp\pi^0$
759: at $\eta=0.83$
760: as a function of
761: the pion angle compared to
762: predictions of the model of Ref. \protect\cite{unserpol}. The solid lines
763: show the results for the full model whereas
764: contributions from the Delta where omitted for
765: the dashed lines.}
766: \label{thpipol}
767: \end{center}
768: \end{figure}
769:
770:
771: \begin{figure}
772: \begin{center}
773: \vskip 10.5cm
774: \special{psfile=ang_dist_thNN.eps
775: hoffset=-40 voffset=-20 hscale=62 vscale=65}
776: \caption{\it Some polarization observables reported
777: in Ref. \protect{ \cite{meyerpol}} for the reaction $\vec p\vec p\to pp\pi^0$
778: at $\eta=0.83$
779: as a function of
780: $\cos (\theta_p)$ compared to
781: predictions of the model of Ref. \protect\cite{unserpol}. The solid lines
782: show the results for the full model whereas
783: contributions from the Delta were omitted for
784: the dashed lines.}
785: \label{thNNpol}
786: \end{center}
787: \end{figure}
788:
789:
790:
791: As was stressed above, the phase space for the production
792: reactions is of high dimension. To allow for a proper
793: presentation of the data as well as of calculations,
794: one either needs high dimensional plots (see discussion in the previous section)
795: or the dimensionality needs to be reduced to one dimensional
796: quantities\footnote{For the experimental side this is the far more demanding
797: procedure, for the angular dependence of efficiency as well as acceptance
798: needs to be known very well over the full angular range for those variables
799: that are integrated in order not to introduce false interferences.}, while, however,
800: still preserving the full complexity of the data. As can
801: be seen in Eq. (\ref{tdecompphi}), each polarization observable
802: is described by $2N+1$ functions $g_{\rho,n}(\theta_{p'},\theta_{q'})$,
803: where the number of relevant terms is given by the number of partial waves.
804: In order to allow disentanglement of these functions,
805: in Ref. \cite{meyerpol} it was proposed to integrate
806: each observable over both azimuthal angles under a particular
807: constraint,
808: \begin{equation}
809: \Phi=m\phi_p+n\phi_q=c \ .
810: \label{constraint}
811: \end{equation}
812: This integration projects on those terms that depend on $\Phi$ or do not show
813: any azimuthal dependence at all \cite{meyerpol}.
814: To further reduce the dimensionality of the data, either
815: the relative proton angle or the meson angle can be integrated
816: to leave one
817: with a large number of observables that depend
818: on one parameter only. Those are then labeled as $A_{ij}^\Phi(\theta_k)$,
819: where $k$ is either $p$ or $q$. In Figs. \ref{thpipol} and \ref{thNNpol}
820: some observables reported in Ref. \cite{meyerpol}
821: are shown for the energy with highest statistics, namely $\eta = 0.83$.
822: In the figures the data
823: is compared to the model predictions of Ref. \cite{unserpol}. The
824: solid lines are the results of the full model whereas for the dashed lines
825: the contribution from the Delta isobar was switched off. In section
826: \ref{pionprod}
827: this model will be discussed in more detail.
828:
829: In the case of Ref. \cite{meyerpol} the complete set of polarization observables
830: for the reaction $\vec p \vec p \to pp\pi^0$ is given. Since the particles in
831: the initial state are identical there are 7 independent observables, all
832: functions of 5 independent parameters (c.f. table \ref{tensobs}). In the
833: analysis of the data presented in the same reference it was assumed that only
834: partial waves up to $p$--waves in both the $NN$ as well as the $(NN)\pi$ system
835: were relevant. Thus the various integrations described in the previous
836: paragraph lead to 32 independent integrated observables that depend only on a
837: single parameter. On the other hand, if the
838: assumption about the maximum angular momenta holds, only 12 partial waves have to
839: be considered in the partial wave analysis. Since the amplitudes are complex
840: and two phases are not observable (c.f. discussion at the end of section
841: \ref{polobs}), a total of 22 degrees of freedom needs to be fixed from the
842: data. Thus a complete partial wave decomposition for the reaction $\vec p \vec
843: p \to pp\pi^0$ seems feasible.
844:
845:
846: \subsection{General structure of the amplitudes}
847: \label{generalstructure}
848:
849: In this section we give the recipe for constructing the
850: most general transition amplitude for reactions
851: of the type $NN\to B_1B_2x$, where we focus on spin 1/2 baryons in the final
852: state. A
853: generalization to other reactions is straightforward.
854: For further applications we refer to a recent review \cite{tr}.
855:
856: For simplicity let us restrict ourselves to those reactions in which
857: there is only one meson produced. The system is then characterized
858: by three vectors,
859: $$
860: \vec p \ , \ \ \vec q \, ' \ , \ \ \mbox{and} \ \vec p \, ' \ ,
861: $$
862: denoting the relative momentum of the two nucleons in the initial state,
863: the meson momentum, and the relative momentum of the two nucleons in the final
864: state, respectively---in the over all center of mass system. In addition, as
865: long as $x$ denotes a scalar or pseudoscalar meson, we find 6 axial vectors,
866: namely those that can be constructed from the above:
867: $$
868: i(\vec p \times \vec p \, ' ) \ , \ \
869: i(\vec p \times \vec q \, ' ) \ , \ \ \mbox{and} \
870: i(\vec p \, ' \times \vec q \, ' ) \ ;
871: $$
872: and those that contain the final or initial spin of the two nucleon
873: system
874: $$
875: \vec S \ , \ \ \vec S \, ' \ , \ \ \mbox{and} \ i(\vec S \times \vec S \, ')
876: \ ,
877: $$
878: where $\vec S = \chi^T_1\sigma_y\vec \sigma\chi_2$ and $\vec S \, ' =
879: \chi^\dagger_3\vec \sigma \sigma_y (\chi^\dagger_4)^T$. Here
880: $\chi_i$ denotes the Pauli spinors for the incoming (1,2)
881: and outgoing (3,4) nucleons and $\vec \sigma$ denotes the
882: usual Pauli spin matrices.
883: If $x$ is a vector particle, an additional axial vector,
884: namely the polarization vector of the vector meson $\vec \epsilon \, ^*$
885: occurs. In addition, if instead of a two nucleon state in the
886: continuum a deuteron occurs in the final state, its polarization
887: direction will be characterized by the same $\vec \epsilon \, ^*$.
888: Since the energy available for the final state is
889: small (we focus on the close to threshold regime),
890: we restrict ourselves to a non relativistic treatment of the
891: outgoing particles. This largely simplifies the formalism since
892: a common quantization axis can be used for the whole system.
893:
894: In order to construct the most general transition amplitude that
895: satisfies parity conservation,
896: we have to
897: combine the vectors and axial vectors given above so that
898: the final expression form a scalar or pseudoscalar for reactions
899: where the produced meson has positive or negative intrinsic parity,
900: respectively.
901: The most general form of the transition matrix element may be written
902: as
903: %\begin{equation}
904: %{\cal M}=H({\cal I}\, {\cal I \, '})+ \vec Q \cdot
905: %(\vec S \, {\cal I '})+\vec A \cdot (\vec S \, '\, {\cal I})
906: % +i(S_i \, S_j \, ')
907: %B_{ij} \ ,
908: %\label{ampdef}
909: %\end{equation}
910: \begin{equation}
911: {\cal M}=H({\cal I}\, {\cal I \, '})+ i\vec Q \cdot
912: (\vec S \, {\cal I '})+i\vec A \cdot (\vec S \, '\, {\cal I})
913: +(S_i \, S_j \, ')
914: B_{ij} \ ,
915: \label{ampdef}
916: \end{equation}
917: where
918: ${\cal I}=\left(\chi_2^T\sigma_y \chi_1\right)$ and
919: ${\cal I \, '}=\left(\chi_4^\dagger \sigma_y (\chi_3^T)^\dagger\right)$.
920: In addition, the amplitudes have to satisfy the Pauli Principle
921: as well as invariance under time reversal. This imposes constraints
922: on the terms that are allowed to appear in the various coefficients.
923:
924: The 9
925: amplitudes
926: that contribute to $B$ may be further decomposed according to the total spin to
927: which $\vec S$ and $\vec S\, '$ may be coupled
928: $$
929: B_{ij} = b^s\delta_{ij}+b^v_k\epsilon_{ijk}+b^t_{ij} \ ,
930: $$
931: where the superscripts indicate if the combined spin of the initial and the
932: final state are coupled to 0 ($s$), 1 ($v$) or 2 ($t$), where $b^t_{ij}$ is to
933: be a symmetric, trace free tensor.
934:
935:
936:
937: Once the amplitudes are identified the evaluation of the
938: various observables is straightforward. In this
939: case the polarization comes in through
940: $$
941: \chi_i \chi_i^\dagger = \frac{1}{2}(1+\vec P_i \cdot \vec \sigma) \ ,
942: $$
943: where $\vec P_i$ denotes the polarization direction of particle $i$.
944: Using the formulas given in Appendix \ref{sptr} one easily derives
945: (summation over equal indices is implied):
946: \begin{eqnarray}
947: 4\sigma_0 &=& |H|^2+|\vec Q|^2+|\vec A|^2+|B_{mn}|^2 \, , \label{si0def}
948: \\
949: 4A_{0i}\sigma_0 &=&
950: +i\epsilon_{ijk}\left( Q_j^*Q_k+ B_{jl}^*B_{kl}\right)+2\mbox{Im}
951: \left(B_{il}^*A_l-Q_i^*H\right) \, , \label{a0idef} \\
952: 4D_{0i}\sigma_0 &=&
953: -i\epsilon_{ijk}\left( A_j^*A_k+ B_{lj}^*B_{lk}\right)-2\mbox{Im}
954: \left(B_{li}^*Q_l-A_i^*H\right) \, , \label{d0idef} \\
955: \nonumber
956: 4A_{ij}\sigma_0 &=& \delta_{ij}\left(
957: -|H|^2+|Q|^2-|A|^2+|B_{mn}|^2\right) \\
958: & &
959: \phantom{2\mbox{Re}} \ \ \ \ \
960: +2\mbox{Re}\left(\epsilon_{lij}(Q_l^*H-A_m^*B_{lm})-Q_i^*Q_j-B_{im}^*B_{jm}
961: \right)
962: \, ,
963: \\
964: \nonumber
965: 4D_{ij}\sigma_0 &=& 2\mbox{Re}\left(
966: Q^*_iA_j+\epsilon_{ilm}Q^*_lB_{mj}\phantom{\frac{1}{2}} \right. \\
967: & &
968: \phantom{2\mbox{Re}} \ \ \ \ \ \left.+ \epsilon_{jml}B_{il}A^*_m
969: +\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ilm}\epsilon_{jnk}B^*_{ln}B_{mk}+B_{ij}^*H\right) \ ,
970: \\
971: \nonumber
972: 4A_{ij,k0}\sigma_0 &=& \mbox{Im}\left(\delta_{ij}(2H^*A_k
973: -2Q^*_lB_{lk}-\epsilon_{\alpha \beta k}(A_\alpha^*A_\beta
974: -B_{l\alpha}^*B_{l\beta}))\right.\\
975: \nonumber
976: & &
977: \phantom{2\mbox{Re}} \ \ \ \ \ +2\epsilon_{lij}(
978: Q^*_lA_k-\epsilon_{nmk}A_n^*B_{lm}+HB^*_{lk})\\
979: & &
980: \phantom{2\mbox{Re}} \ \ \ \ \ \left.+2(Q_i^*B_{jk}+Q_{j}^*B_{ik})
981: -\epsilon_{mnk}(B_{im}^*B_{jn}+B_{jm}^*B_{in})\right) \ .
982: \label{aiidef}
983: \end{eqnarray}
984:
985: For illustration we also give here the
986: explicit expressions for $A_\Sigma$ and $A_\Delta$ defined in
987: the previous section:
988: \begin{eqnarray}
989: \nonumber \sigma_0A_{\Sigma}&=& \frac12\left(
990: -|H|^2+|Q_z|^2-|\vec A|^2+|B_{zn}|^2\right)\\
991: \nonumber
992: \sigma_0A_{\Delta}&=&-\frac12\left(Q_x^*Q_x-Q_y^*Q_y+B_{xm}^*B_{xm}
993: -B_{ym}^*B_{ym} \right) \ .
994: \end{eqnarray}
995:
996: As was stressed in the previous section, the method of spherical tensors
997: is very well suited to identifying equivalent observables.
998: This is significantly more difficult in the amplitude approach.
999: %
1000: %Trying to do the same within the amplitude approach, one has to face the
1001: %problem,
1002: % that each observable has to be studied individually
1003: %and general arguments as following from Eq. (\ref{bsym}) are not possible.
1004: %For illustration we discuss in detail one particular example, namely we
1005: %will demonstrate, that $A_{xy}+A_{yx}$ is equivalent
1006: %to $A_\Delta$.
1007: %%, whereas $A_{xy}-A_{yx}$ is independent. The latter statement
1008: %%can be immediately read of Eq. (\ref{aiidef}), for the terms proportial
1009: %%to the $\epsilon$--tensors appear in only in this particular antisymmetric combination.
1010: %%Thus it needs to be independent. To see the equivalence of $A_{xy}+A_{yx}$ and
1011: %%$A_\Delta$, however,
1012: %For this a closer look at the independent vectors as given
1013: %in Appendix \ref{vecdef} is required. In these formulas we see that
1014: %both the $x$ and $y$ components of each vector is either linear in $\cos (\phi)$
1015: %or in $\sin(\phi)$. Thus we may write (for the relative signs in the
1016: %two expressions c.f. Eq. (\ref{crossproducts})\footnote{Here we look
1017: %at $\vec Q$ only, since exactly the same arguments hold for the
1018: %other amplitudes as well.}
1019: %\begin{eqnarray}
1020: %\nonumber
1021: %Q_x &=& \alpha \cos(\phi_{p'})+
1022: %i\beta \sin(\phi_{p'})+\gamma \cos(\phi_{q'})+i\delta \sin(\phi_{q'}) \, , \\
1023: %\nonumber
1024: %Q_y &=& \alpha \sin(\phi_{p'})-
1025: %i\beta \cos(\phi_{p'})+\gamma \sin(\phi_{q'})-i\delta \cos(\phi_{q'}) \, .
1026: %\end{eqnarray}
1027: %A typical terms appearing in $A_\Delta$ thus read
1028: %\begin{eqnarray}
1029: %\nonumber
1030: %\mbox{Re}(\alpha^*\gamma)(\cos(\phi_{p'})\cos(\phi_{q'})-\sin(\phi_{p'})\sin(\phi_{q'}))
1031: %&=&\mbox{Re}(\alpha^*\gamma)\cos(\phi_{p'}+\phi_{q'}) \ , \\
1032: %\nonumber
1033: %\mbox{Im}(\alpha^*\delta)(\cos(\phi_{q'})\sin(\phi_{p'})+\sin(\phi_{q'})\cos(\phi_{p'}))
1034: %&=&\mbox{Im}(\alpha^*\delta)\sin(\phi_{p'}+\phi_{q'}) \ .
1035: %\end{eqnarray}
1036: %The analogous expressions in $A_{xy}+A_{yx}$ read
1037: %\begin{eqnarray}
1038: %\nonumber
1039: %\mbox{Re}(\alpha^*\gamma)(\cos(\phi_{p'})\sin(\phi_{q'})+\sin(\phi_{p'})\cos(\phi_{q'}))
1040: %&=&\mbox{Re}(\alpha^*\gamma)\sin(\phi_{p'}+\phi_{q'}) \ , \\
1041: %\nonumber
1042: %\mbox{Im}(\alpha^*\delta)(\cos(\phi_{q'})\cos(\phi_{p'})-\sin(\phi_{q'})\sin(\phi_{p'}))
1043: %&=&\mbox{Im}(\alpha^*\delta)\cos(\phi_{p'}+\phi_{q'}) \ .
1044: %\end{eqnarray}
1045: %In the coefficients $\alpha$--$\delta$ scalars constructed from the
1046: %available vectors can appear. Those introduce an additional $\phi_{p'}-\phi_{q'}$
1047: %dependence in both observables.
1048: %Thus the transformation $\phi_{p'}\to \phi_{p'}+\pi/4$ and $\phi_{q'}\to \phi_{q'}+\pi/4$
1049: %transform $A_{xx}-A_{yy}$ into $A_{xy}+A_{yx}$ and they are equivalent.
1050: %The above formulas give the impression that there are terms that scale
1051: %as $\sin(\phi_{p'}+\phi_{q'})$ in $A_\Delta$, in contrast to what was derived
1052: %in the previous section. However, the part discussed only touched the
1053: %$\phi$ dependence that stemmed from the vector character of $\vec Q$. There
1054: %are additional $\phi$ dependences hidden in the coefficets $\alpha$ through
1055: %$\delta$
1056: %and, as we know from the previous section, those will combine in the final
1057: %answer such that indeed $A_\Delta$ is constructed from terms proportional
1058: %to $\cos ((1-n)\phi_{p'}-(n+1)\phi_{q'})$ only.
1059: %(*** Is this part clear? Should it stay here or being moved to the appendix? ***)
1060: %
1061: %
1062: However the amplitude method becomes extremely powerful
1063: if---due to physical arguments or appropriate kinematical cuts---one of the
1064: subsystems can be assumed in an $s$--wave, for then the number of available
1065: vectors is reduced significantly and rather general arguments become
1066: possible (c.f. sec. \ref{hnpol}).
1067:
1068: Since any amplitude can be made successively more complex by multiplying
1069: it by an arbitrary scalar, in most of the cases an ordering
1070: scheme is demanded in order to make the approach useful.
1071: In the near--threshold regime this
1072: is given by
1073: the power of final momenta occurring---in analogy with the
1074: partial wave expansion. Actually, the amplitude approach presented here
1075: and the partial wave expansion presented in
1076: the previous subsection are completely equivalent. However,
1077: in the near--threshold regime the amplitude method is more transparent.
1078: As one goes away from the threshold the number of partial waves contributing
1079: as well as the number of the corresponding terms in the amplitude expansion
1080: increases rapidly. As a consequence the construction
1081: of the most general transition amplitude is rather involved.
1082: The partial wave expansion, on the other hand,
1083: can be easily extended to an arbitrary
1084: number of partial waves.
1085:
1086:
1087: \begin{figure}
1088: \begin{center}
1089: \vskip 7cm
1090: \special{psfile=pppimi_signdep.eps
1091: hoffset=-30 voffset=0 hscale=80 vscale=80}
1092: \caption{\it Sensitivity of the analyzing power
1093: as well as the differential cross section for the
1094: reaction $pn\to pp\pi^-$ to the sign of the
1095: $^3P_0\to ^1S_0s$ amplitude $a_1$. The lines corresponds
1096: to the model of Ref. \protect{\cite{unserD}}: the solid
1097: line is the model prediction whereas for the dashed line
1098: the sign of $a_1$ was reversed. The experimental
1099: data are from Ref. \protect{\cite{triumf1}} and \protect{\cite{triumf2}}
1100: at T$_{Lab}$ = 353 MeV ($\eta = 0.65$).
1101: }
1102: \label{pimisigndep}
1103: \end{center}
1104: \end{figure}
1105:
1106: \begin{table}[t]
1107: \begin{center}
1108: \caption{\it List of a possible set of the independent amplitude structures
1109: that contribute to the reaction $pp\to pp+$(pseudoscalar). In the last
1110: column shows the lowest partial waves for the final state that contribute to the
1111: given amplitude (using the notation of section \ref{sr}).
1112: To keep the expressions simple we omitted to give the symmetric, trace free expressions
1113: for the terms listed in the last two lines. } \vskip 0.2cm
1114: \begin{tabular}{|l|l c r|l|}
1115: \hline
1116: Amplitudes & Structures & & & Lowest pw \\
1117: \hline \hline
1118: $H$ & \multicolumn{2}{l}{$(\vec p\times \vec p\, ')\vec q\, ' (\vec p\cdot
1119: \vec p\, ')$} &
1120: & Ds \\
1121: \hline
1122: $\vec Q$ & $\vec p$ & $\vec p\, '(\vec p\cdot \vec p\, ')$ &
1123: $\vec q\, '(\vec p\cdot \vec q\, ')$ & Ss, Ds, Sd \\
1124: \hline
1125: $\vec A$ & $\vec p\, '$ & $\vec p(\vec p\cdot \vec p\, ')$ &
1126: $\vec q\, '(\vec p\, '\cdot \vec q\, ')$ & Ps, Pd \\
1127: \hline
1128: $B_{ij}$ & $\epsilon_{ijk}p_k (\vec p\, '\cdot \vec q\, ')$
1129: & $\epsilon_{ijk}p_k' (\vec p \cdot \vec q\, ')$ &
1130: $\epsilon_{ijk}q_k' (\vec p\, '\cdot \vec p)$ & Pp \\
1131: & $\delta_{ij}(\vec p\times \vec p\, ')\vec q\, '$ & $(\vec p\times
1132: \vec p\, ')_iq'_j$ & $(\vec p\times \vec q\, ')_ip'_j$ & \\
1133: & $p_ip_j(\vec p\times \vec p\, ')\vec q\, '$ &
1134: $(\vec p\times \vec p\, ')_ip_j(\vec p\cdot \vec q\, ')$ &
1135: $(\vec p\times \vec q\, ')_ip_j(\vec p\cdot \vec p\, ')$ & \\
1136: \hline
1137: \end{tabular}
1138: \label{pppi0ampslist}
1139: \end{center}
1140: \end{table}
1141:
1142:
1143:
1144: As follows directly from Eq. (\ref{ampdef}), in the general case the matrix
1145: element ${\cal M}$ is described by 16 complex valued scalar functions. One
1146: can show, e.g. by explicit construction, that for general kinematics of the
1147: reaction $NN\to NNx$ all 16 amplitudes are independent. A possible choice is
1148: given explicitly in Table \ref{pppi0ampslist} for the reaction $pp\to
1149: pp+$(pseudoscalar). However, for particular reaction channels or an
1150: appropriate kinematical situation their number sometimes reduces drastically.
1151: For example in collinear kinematics (where $ \vec p \ , \ \vec q \, ' \ , \
1152: \mbox{and} \ \vec p \, ' $ are all parallel) the number of amplitudes that
1153: fully describes the reactions $pp\to pp+$(pseudoscalar) is equal to 3 (this
1154: special case is discussed in Ref. \cite{pakrekalo}). This can be directly read
1155: off Table \ref{pppi0ampslist}, for under collinear
1156: conditions
1157: all cross products vanish and all structures of one group that are given by
1158: the different
1159: vectors
1160: of the system collapse to one structure ($\vec Q \to \alpha \vec p \ , \ \
1161: \vec A \to \beta p\ , \ \ B_{ij}\to \gamma \epsilon_{ijk}p_k$).
1162:
1163: Another interesting
1164: example is that of elastic $pp$ scattering. The Pauli Principle demands (c.f.
1165: section \ref{sr}) that odd (even) parity states are in a spin triplet
1166: (singlet). Time reversal invariance requires the amplitude to be invariant
1167: under the interchange of the final and the initial state. When parity
1168: conservation is considered in addition, one also finds that the total spin is
1169: conserved. Thus, only $H$ and $B_{ij}$ will contribute to elastic $pp$
1170: scattering. In addition, from the two vectors available in the system ($\vec
1171: p$ and $\vec p\, '$) one can construct only 4 structures that contribute to
1172: the latter, namely $\delta_{ij}(\vec p\cdot \vec p\, ')b_1$,
1173: $\epsilon_{ijk}(\vec p\times \vec p \, ')_kb_2$,
1174: $(p_ip'_j+p_jp'_i-(2/3)\delta_{ij})(\vec p\cdot \vec p\, ')b_3$, and
1175: $(p_ip_j+p'_jp'_i-(2/3)\vec p\, ^2\delta_{ij})(\vec p\cdot \vec p\,
1176: ')b_4$.\footnote{Note, this choice of structures in not unique; we could also
1177: have used $(\vec p\times \vec p\, ')_i(\vec p\times \vec p\, ')_j$ as a
1178: replacement of any other structure in $b^t_{ij}$.} Thus, $pp$ scattering is
1179: completely characterized by 5 scalar functions.
1180:
1181: As a further example and
1182: to illustrate how the formalism simplifies in the vicinity of the production threshold,
1183: we will now discuss in detail the production of pions in $NN$ collisions.
1184: Throughout this report, however, the formalism will be applied to various
1185: reactions. In our example there are three reaction channels experimentally
1186: accessible, namely $pp\to pp\pi^0$, $pp\to pn\pi^+$, and $pn\to pp\pi^-$, that
1187: can be expressed in terms of the three independent transition amplitudes
1188: ${\cal A}_{T_iT_f}$ (as long as we assume isospin to be conserved),
1189: where $T_i$($T_f$) denote the total isospin of the initial (final) $NN$ system
1190: \cite{rosenfeld} (c.f. section \ref{isospinrole}). As in section \ref{sr}, we
1191: will restrict ourselves to those final states that contain at most one
1192: $p$--wave. We may then write for the amplitudes of ${\cal A}_{11}$,
1193: \begin{eqnarray}
1194: \nonumber
1195: H^{11}&=&0 \, , \\
1196: \nonumber
1197: \vec Q^{11}&=&a_1\hat p \, , \\
1198: \nonumber
1199: \vec A^{11}&=&a_2\vec p \, '
1200: +a_3\left[(\hat p \cdot \vec p \, ') \hat p
1201: -\frac{1}{3}\vec p \, '\right] \, , \\
1202: B_{ij}^{11}&=& 0 \, ;
1203: \label{a11amps}
1204: \end{eqnarray}
1205: for the amplitudes of ${\cal A}_{10}$,
1206: \begin{eqnarray}
1207: \nonumber
1208: H^{10}&=&0 \, , \\
1209: \nonumber
1210: \vec Q^{10}&=&0 \, , \\
1211: \nonumber
1212: \vec A^{10}&=&b_2\vec q \, '
1213: +b_3\left[(\vec q\, '\cdot \hat p)\hat p-\frac{1}{3}
1214: \vec q \, '\right] \, , \\
1215: \vec B_{ij}^{10}&=&\epsilon_{ijk}b_1\hat p_k \, ;
1216: \end{eqnarray}
1217: for the amplitudes of ${\cal A}_{01}$,
1218: \begin{eqnarray}
1219: \nonumber
1220: H^{01}&=&0 \, , \\
1221: \nonumber
1222: \vec Q^{01}&=&c_1\vec q \, '+
1223: c_2\left[\hat p(\hat p\cdot \vec q\, ')
1224: -\frac{1}{3}\vec q \, '\right] \, , \\
1225: \nonumber
1226: \vec A^{01}&=&0 \, , \\
1227: \nonumber
1228: B_{ij}^{01}&=&\epsilon_{nmk}\vec p_k \, '\left(c_3\delta_{in}\delta_{jm}+
1229: c_4\delta_{jm}\left(\hat p_i\hat
1230: p_n-\frac{1}{3}\delta_{in}\right)\right.\\
1231: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
1232: +\left.c_5\delta_{in}\left( \hat p_j \hat p_m
1233: -\frac{1}{3}\delta_{jm}\right)\right) \ ,
1234: \end{eqnarray}
1235: where $\hat p$ denotes the initial $NN$ momentum, normalized to $1$,
1236: and $\vec p\, '$ and $\vec q\, '$ denote the final nucleon and pion
1237: relative momentum, respectively.
1238: The coefficients given are directly proportional to the corresponding
1239: partial wave amplitudes as listed in Table \ref{tab_secr}; e.g., $a_3$ is proportional to
1240: the transition amplitude $^1D_2\to ^3P_2s$.
1241: When constructing amplitude structures for higher partial waves care
1242: has to be taken not to list dependent structures.
1243: In order to remove dependent structures the reduction formula Eq. \eqref{reduc} proved useful.
1244: In addition, one should take care that the number of coefficients appearing
1245: exactly matches the number of partial waves allowed.
1246: For example, the partial waves that contribute to $B_{ij}^{01}$ are
1247: $^3S_1\to ^3P_1s$, $^3D_1\to ^3P_1s$ and $^3D_2\to ^3P_2s$.
1248:
1249: The large number of zeros appearing in the above list of amplitude
1250: structures reflects the strong selection rules discussed in section \ref{sr}.
1251:
1252:
1253: As an example we will calculate the beam analyzing power and the differential
1254: cross section for the reaction $\vec p n\to pp\pi^-$. These observables were
1255: measured at TRIUMF \cite{triumf1,triumf2} and later at PSI
1256: \cite{daum1,daum2}---here, however, with a polarized neutron beam).
1257: In accordance with the TRIUMF
1258: experiment, where the relative $NN$ energy in the final
1259: state was restricted to at most 7 MeV, we assume that the outgoing $NN$
1260: system is in a relative $S$--wave. This largely simplifies the expressions. We then find
1261: \begin{eqnarray}
1262: \nonumber
1263: \sigma_0
1264: %= {\mbox{Tr}(A^\dagger A)}\phantom{\sigma_y}
1265: &=& \frac14|a_1|^2+\frac12q'\mbox{Re}
1266: \left(a_1^*\left(c_1+\frac{2}{3}c_2\right)\right)\cos (\theta ) \ , \\
1267: \nonumber
1268: \sigma_0 A_y
1269: &=&
1270: \left(\frac14q'{}^2\mbox{Im}(c_1^*c_2)\sin (2\theta )\right.
1271: \\
1272: & & \qquad \qquad
1273: \left.-\frac12q'\mbox{Im}\left(a_1^*\left(c_1-\frac{1}{3}c_2\right)\right)\sin
1274: (\theta )\right)\cos (\phi)
1275: \ ,
1276: \label{interference}
1277: \end{eqnarray}
1278: where we used the definitions $(\vec q\, ' \times \hat p)_y =
1279: -q'\sin(\theta)\cos (\phi )$ and $(\vec q\, ' \cdot \hat p)=q'\cos
1280: (\theta)$ (c.f. Appendix \ref{vecdef}). Thus, the forward--backward asymmetry in $\sigma_0$ as well
1281: as the shift of the zero in $A_y$ directly measure the relative phase
1282: of the $^3P_0\to ^1S_0s$ transition in $A_{11}$ ($a_1$) in the pion
1283: $p$--wave transitions of $A_{01}$ ($c_1$ and $c_2$)), as was first
1284: pointed out in Ref. \cite{maeda}. This issue will be discussed below
1285: (c.f. sec. \ref{pionprod}).
1286: Note: As before we neglected here pion $d$--waves, since
1287: they are kinematically suppressed close to the threshold (c.f.
1288: Eq. (\ref{edep})).
1289:
1290: \subsubsection{Example I: Polarization observables for a baryon pair in the
1291: $^1S_0$
1292: final state}
1293: \label{hnpol}
1294:
1295: As an example of the efficiency of the amplitude method, in this subsection
1296: we will present an analysis of the angular pattern of some polarization
1297: observables for the reaction $pp \to B_1B_2x$ under the constraint that the
1298: outgoing two baryon state ($ B_1B_2$) is in the $^1S_0$ partial wave and $x$
1299: is a pseudoscalar, as is relevant for the reaction $pp \to pK\Lambda$.
1300: The dependence of the
1301: observables on the meson emission angle is largely constrained under these
1302: circumstances, as was stressed in Ref. \cite{vigdor}.
1303: In contrast to the discussion in sec. \ref{sr}, here we will not
1304: assume $B_1$ and $B_2$ to be identical particles.
1305: The results of this subsection will show how to disentangle in a model
1306: independent way the two spin components of the hyperon--nucleon interaction
1307: \cite{ynfsi}.
1308:
1309: The analysis starts with identifying the tensors that are to be considered in
1310: the matrix element of Eq. \eqref{ampdef}\footnote{Note, here we could as well
1311: refer to table \ref{pppi0ampslist} to come to the same conclusion as in this
1312: section, for the $^1S_0$ state is allowed for the $pp$ system. However,
1313: the argument given is quite general and instructive.}. For this we go
1314: through a chain of arguments similar to those in sec. \ref{sr}. Given that we
1315: restrict ourselves to a spin--zero final state, only $H$ and $\vec Q$ can be
1316: non--zero. In addition, the quantum numbers of the final state are fixed by
1317: $l_x$, the angular momentum of the pseudoscalar with respect to the two baryon
1318: system, since \be J = l_x \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
1319: \pi_{tot}=(-)^{\left(l_x+1\right)} \ee for the total angular momentum and the
1320: parity, respectively. Conservation of parity and angular momentum therefore
1321: gives \be (-)^L=(-)^{l_x+1}=(-)^{J+1} \qquad \longrightarrow \qquad S=1 \ ,
1322: \ee and consequently we get $H=0$. In addition, for odd values of $l_x$ we
1323: see from the former equation that $L$ must be even. In $pp$ systems, however,
1324: even values of $L$ correspond to $S=0$ states, not allowed in our case.
1325: Therefore $l_x$ must be even. We may thus make the following ansatz: \be \vec
1326: Q = \alpha \vec p + \beta \vec q\, '(\vec q \, '\cdot \vec p) \ , \ee where
1327: $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are even functions of $p$, $p'$ and $(\vec p\cdot \vec
1328: p\, ')$. All other coefficients appearing in Eq. \eqref{ampdef} vanish. This
1329: has serious consequences for the angular dependences of the various
1330: observables. For example, the expression for the analyzing power collapses to
1331: \be A_{0i}\sigma_0 = \frac i4\epsilon_{ijk}\left( Q_j^*Q_k\right) =
1332: \frac12\mbox{Im}(\beta^*\alpha)(\vec q \, '\cdot \vec p)(\vec q \, '\times
1333: \vec p)_i \ . \ee Therefore, independently of the partial wave of the
1334: pseudoscalar emitted, for a two--baryon pair in the $^1S_0$ state the
1335: analyzing power $A_{0y}$ vanishes if the pseudoscalar is emitted either in the
1336: $xy$--plane or in the $zx$--plane. In Ref. \cite{ynfsi} this observation was
1337: used to disentangle the different spin states of the $\Lambda N$ interaction.
1338:
1339:
1340: \subsubsection{Example II: Amplitude analysis for $pp\to d\bar K^0 K^+$ close to threshold}
1341: \label{a0amp}
1342:
1343: In sec. \ref{a0dat} we discussed in some detail the data of Ref. \cite{a0exp}
1344: for the reaction $pp\to d\bar K^0 K^+$ based on rather general arguments on
1345: the cross section level. In this subsection we will present the
1346: corresponding production amplitude based on the amplitude method presented
1347: above. This study will allow us at the same time to extract information on the
1348: relative importance of the $a_0^+$ and the $\Lambda (1405)$ in the reaction
1349: dynamics.
1350:
1351: As in sec. \ref{a0dat}, we assume that either the $\bar KK$ system or
1352: the deuteron with respect to the $\bar KK$ system is in a $p$--wave, whereas
1353: the other system is in an $s$--wave, calling for an amplitude linear in $p \,
1354: '$ or $q \, '$, respectively. We use the same notation as in sec. \ref{a0dat}.
1355: Therefore the final state has odd parity and thus also the amplitude needs to
1356: be odd in the initial momentum $\vec p$. An odd parity isovector $NN$ state
1357: has to be $S=1$ and thus has to be linear in $\vec S$, defined in section
1358: \ref{generalstructure}. In addition, the deuteron in the
1359: final state demands that each term is linear in the deuteron polarization
1360: vector $\epsilon$.
1361: We therefore get for the full transition amplitude, in slight variation to
1362: Eq. \eqref{ampdef} due to the presence of the deuteron in the final state,
1363: \be
1364: {\cal M} = B_{ij}\vec S_i\vec \epsilon_j \, ^* \ ,
1365: \ee
1366: where $\vec \epsilon$ appears
1367: as complex conjugate, since the deuteron is in the final state, and
1368: \be
1369: \nonumber
1370: B_{ij} &=&
1371: \phantom{ \ + \ }
1372: a_{Sp}\, \hat p_i\vec q_j\, '
1373: \ + \ b_{Sp}\, (\hat p\cdot\vec q\, ')\, \delta_{ij}
1374: \ + \ c_{Sp} \vec q_i\, '\hat p_j
1375: \ + \ d_{Sp} \hat p_i\, \hat p_j(\vec q\,
1376: '\cdot\hat p)\, \\
1377: & & \ + \ a_{Ps}\, \hat p_i\vec p_j\, '
1378: \ + \ b_{Ps}\, (\hat p\cdot\vec p\, ')\delta_{ij}
1379: \ + \ c_{Ps}\, \vec p_i\, ' \hat p_j
1380: \ + \ d_{Ps}\, \hat p_i\hat p_j(\vec q\, '\cdot\hat p)\, ,
1381: %\phantom{xx}
1382: \label{8}\ee
1383: where capital letters in the amplitude label indicate the partial wave of the
1384: $\bar KK$ system and small letters that of the deuteron with respect to the
1385: $\bar KK$ system.
1386:
1387: Once the individual terms in the amplitude are identified, it is
1388: straightforward to express the $C_i$ defined in
1389: sec. \ref{a0dat} in terms of them. We find, for example,
1390: \be
1391: \nonumber
1392: C_0^{q'}&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(| a_{Sp}|^2+| c_{Sp}|^2 \right) \ , \\
1393: \nonumber
1394: C_1^{q'}&=&| b_{Sp}|^2+\frac{1}{2}| b_{Sp}+d_{Sp}|^2
1395: +\mbox{Re}\left[a_{Sp}^*c_{Sp}+(a_{Sp}+c_{Sp})^*(b_{Sp}+d_{Sp})\right] \ , \\
1396: \nonumber
1397: C_2&=&a_{Sp}^*a_{Ps}+c_{Sp}^*c_{Ps} \ .
1398: \ee
1399: A fit to the experimental data revealed that, within the experimental
1400: uncertainty, $C_0^{p'}$ is compatible with zero. Thus, given the previous
1401: formulas, both $a_{Ps}$ and $ c_{Ps}$ have to vanish individually.
1402:
1403:
1404: \begin{figure}[t]
1405: \begin{center}
1406: \epsfig{file=koorsys.eps, height=7cm}
1407: \caption{\it Illustration of the coordinate system used in the analysis
1408: for the reaction $pp\to d\bar K^0 K^+$. }
1409: \label{koor}
1410: \end{center}
1411: \end{figure}
1412:
1413: Based on the strongly populated $\bar KK$ $s$--waves in Ref. \cite{a0exp} it
1414: was argued that the reaction $pp\to d\bar K^0 K^+$ is governed by the
1415: production of the $a_0^+$. In Ref. \cite{oseta0lam}, however, it was argued
1416: that the strong $\bar K d$ interaction caused by the proximity of the $\Lambda
1417: (1405)$ resonance should play an important role as well. This FSI
1418: should enhance the $\bar K d$ $s$--wave. We now want to calculate the
1419: contribution of this partial wave relative to the $\bar K d$ $p$--wave
1420: based on the amplitudes given in table \ref{cpara}. This will illustrate a
1421: further strength of the amplitude method, for within this scheme changing the
1422: coordinate system is trivial. The coordinate system suited to study resonances
1423: in the $\bar KK$ system and in the $\bar K d$ system are illustrated in the
1424: left and right panels of Fig. \ref{koor}. All we need to do now is express
1425: the vectors that appear in Eq. \eqref{mform} in terms of $\vec Q\, '$ and $\vec
1426: P\, '$.
1427: We find
1428: $$
1429: \vec q\, ' = \vec P\, ' - \alpha \vec Q\, ' \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \vec p\, '
1430: =\frac{1}{2}((2-\alpha)\vec Q\, ' + \vec P\, ') \ ,
1431: $$
1432: where $\alpha = m_d/(m_d+m_{\bar K})$. Obviously, the squared amplitude
1433: expressed in the new coordinates reveals the same structure as
1434: Eq. \eqref{mform}:
1435: \be \nonumber
1436: \bar{|{\cal M}|^2} &=& B_0^{Q'}{Q'}^2+B_0^{P'}{P'}^2
1437: +B_1^{Q'}(\vec {Q'}\cdot \hat p)^2+B_1^{p'}(\vec {P'}\cdot \hat p)^2 \\
1438: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad +B_2(\vec {P'}\cdot \vec
1439: {Q'})+B_3(\vec {P'}\cdot \hat p)(\vec {Q'}\cdot \hat p) \ ,
1440: \label{mformnew}
1441: \ee
1442: where the coefficients appearing can be expressed in terms of the $C$
1443: coefficients of Eq. \eqref{mform} so that, for example,
1444: \be
1445: \nonumber
1446: B_0^{Q'}&=&\frac{(2-\alpha)^2}{4}C_0^{q'}+\alpha^2C_0^{k'}-\frac{\alpha(2-\alpha)}{2}\frac{1}{2}C_2
1447: \ ,\\
1448: \nonumber
1449: B_1^{Q'}&=&\frac{(2-\alpha)^2}{4}C_1^{q'}+\alpha^2C_1^{k'}-\frac{\alpha(2-\alpha)}{2}\frac{1}{2}C_3
1450: \ . \\
1451: \ee
1452: With these expressions at hand it is easy to verify, that
1453: $K\bar K$ $s$--waves contribute to 83 \% to the total cross section,
1454: whereas
1455: $\bar K d$ $s$--waves contribute to 54 \% only \cite{utica}.
1456: Here we used the total $s$--wave strength for $\bar K K$,
1457: $(C_0^{q'}+(1/3)C_1^{q'})$, and the total $s$--wave strength for $\bar K d$,
1458: $(B_0^{Q'}+(1/3)B_1^{Q'})$, as a measure of the strength of the partial waves.
1459:
1460: As we do not see a significant population of the $\bar K d$ $s$--wave, it
1461: appears that the $\Lambda (1405)$ does not play an essential role in the
1462: reaction dynamics of $pp\to d\bar K^0 K^+$ close to threshold in contrast to
1463: the $a_0^+$.
1464:
1465:
1466: \subsection{Spin Cross Sections}
1467:
1468: As early as 1963, Bilenky and Ryndin showed \cite{br}, that from the spin correlation coefficients
1469: that can be extracted from measurements with polarized beam and target,
1470: the cross section can be separated into pieces that stem from
1471: different initial spin states. Their results were
1472: recently re-derived \cite{pia} and the formalism was
1473: generalized to the differential level in Ref. \cite{deepak}.
1474: With these so--called spin cross sections it can easily be
1475: demonstrated how the use of spin observables enable one to filter out particular
1476: aspects of a reaction. We begin this subsection with
1477: a derivation of the spin cross sections using the amplitude method
1478: of the previous subsection and then use the
1479: reaction $\vec p\vec p \to pn\pi^+$ as an illustrative example.
1480:
1481: Since we have the amplitude decomposition of the individual
1482: observables given in Eqs. (\ref{si0def})--(\ref{aiidef}),
1483: one easily finds
1484: \begin{eqnarray}
1485: \sigma_0(1-A_{xx}-A_{yy}-A_{zz})=|H|^2+|A|^2&=:&^1\sigma_0 \, , \\
1486: \sigma_0(1+A_{xx}+A_{yy}-A_{zz})=|Q_z|^2+|B_{zn}|^2&=:&^3\sigma_0
1487: \, ,\\
1488: \sigma_0(1+A_{zz})=\frac12\left(|Q_x|^2+|Q_y|^2
1489: +|B_{xn}|^2+|B_{yn}|^2\right)&=:&^3\sigma_1 \, ,
1490: \label{spinwqs}
1491: \end{eqnarray}
1492: where the assignment of the various spin cross sections
1493: $^{(2S+1)}\sigma_{M_S}$, with $S$ ($M_S$) the total spin (projection of the
1494: total spin on the beam axis) of the initial state can be easily
1495: confirmed from the definition of the amplitudes in Eq. (\ref{ampdef}).
1496:
1497: \begin{table}[t]
1498: \begin{center}
1499: \caption{\it List of the lowest partial waves in the final state that contribute
1500: to the individual spin cross sections. Capital letters denote the
1501: baryon--baryon
1502: partial waves whereas small letters that of the meson with respect to the
1503: baryon-baryon system.}
1504: \vskip 0.2cm
1505: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
1506: \hline
1507: $^{2S+1}\sigma_m$ & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{possible final states
1508: for $pp\to bb'x$} \\
1509: & $Sl_x$ & $Pl_x$ \\
1510: \hline
1511: $^1\sigma_0$ & $^3S_1p$ & $^3P_js, \ ^1P_1s$ \\
1512: $^3\sigma_0$ & $^1S_0s, \ ^1S_0d , \ ^3S_1d$ & $ ^3P_jp, \ ^1P_1p$ \\
1513: $^3\sigma_1$ & $^3S_1s, \ ^1S_0d , \ ^3S_1d$ & $^3P_jp, \ ^1P_1p$ \\
1514: \hline
1515: \end{tabular}
1516: \label{pws}
1517: \end{center}
1518: \end{table}
1519:
1520: As was shown in section \ref{sr}, in case of two nucleon initial or final
1521: states restrictive selection rules apply. For example, for $pp$ final states
1522: the isospin of the final $NN$ system is 1 and therefore states with even (odd)
1523: angular momentum have total spin 0 (1). From Table \ref{pws} it thus follows,
1524: that the $pp$ $S$--wave in connection with a meson $s$--wave contributes only
1525: to $^3\sigma_0$. This example of how spin observables can be used to
1526: filter out particular final states was used previously in sec. \ref{fsisec}
1527: (c.f. discussion to Fig. \ref{partxs}).
1528:
1529: \begin{figure}[t]
1530: \begin{center}
1531: \epsfig{file=spinwqs.eps, height=11cm}
1532: \caption{\it Demonstration of the selectivity of
1533: the spin cross sections. Shown are the
1534: spectra of the reaction $\vec p\vec p\to pn\pi^+$ as
1535: a function of $\epsilon$ for an excess
1536: energy of 25 MeV. In each panel the solid line shows
1537: the full result for the corresponding cross section,
1538: the dot--dashed, long--dashed, dashed, and dotted
1539: lines show the $Sp$, $Ss$, $Sd$, and $Pp$ contribution
1540: respectively. The curves are from the model of Ref. \protect{\cite{unserpol}}.
1541: }
1542: \label{spwqs}
1543: \end{center}
1544: \end{figure}
1545:
1546:
1547: For illustrative purposes we show in Fig. \ref{spwqs}
1548: the spectra for the various cross sections
1549: for the reaction $\vec p\vec p \to pn\pi^+$, as a function
1550: of the relative energy of the nucleon pair in the final state.
1551: The curves correspond to the model of Ref. \cite{unserpol} that
1552: very well describes the available data in the $\pi^+$ production
1553: channel. The model is described in detail in sec. \ref{pionprod}.
1554: In the upper left
1555: panel the unpolarized cross section is shown. It is dominated by
1556: the $Sp$ final state (the dominant transition is $^1D_2\to ^3S_1p$),
1557: and from this spectrum alone it would be
1558: a hard task to extract information on final states other than
1559: the $^3S_1$ $NN$ state. This can be clearly seen by the similarity
1560: of the shapes of the dot--dashed line and the solid line.
1561: The spin cross sections, however, allow separation of the spin
1562: singlet from the spin triplet initial states. Naturally
1563: $^1\sigma_0$ (lower left panel of Fig. \ref{spwqs}) is now saturated by the $Sp$ final state, but in
1564: $^3\sigma_0$ and $^3\sigma_1$ other structures appear: the former
1565: is now dominated by the transition $^3P_0\to ^1S_0s$ and the
1566: latter by $^3P_1\to ^3S_1s$.
1567:
1568:
1569:
1570:
1571: \begin{table}[t]
1572: \begin{center}
1573: \caption{\it List of observables measured
1574: for various $NN\to NNx$ channels for excess
1575: energies up to $Q=40$ MeV.}
1576: %\vskip 0.2cm
1577: %\begin{tabular}{|c|p{2cm}|p{1.9cm}|p{1.7cm}|p{1.7cm}|p{1.7cm}|}
1578: \begin{tabular}{|c|l|l|l|l|l|}
1579: \hline
1580: %channel & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{Observables} \\
1581: channel & $\sigma_{tot}$ & ${d\sigma}/{d\Omega}$ & ${d\sigma}/{dm}$
1582: & $A_{oi}$ & $A_{ij}$ \\
1583: \hline
1584: $pp\to pp\pi^0$ & \cite{meyer1,meyer2,ups,ups_pi0,tof_pi0,pppi02} &
1585: \cite{pppi0sat,tof_pi0,ups_pi0} & \cite{ups_pi0,tof_pi0,pppi02}
1586: & \cite{pppi02,meyerpol}& \cite{meyerpol} \\
1587: $pp\to pn\pi^+$ & \cite{daelett,pnpipl,kaipipl} & \cite{pnpipl} &
1588: & \cite{pnpipl}& \cite{polpnpipl} \\
1589: $pn\to pp\pi^-$ & \cite{daum1} & \cite{daum1,triumf1} & \cite{daum1}
1590: & \cite{daum2,triumf2}& \\
1591: $pp\to d\pi^+$ &
1592: \cite{dpi1,dpi2,dpi3,dpi4,dpi5,dpi6,dpi7,dpi8,dpi9,dpi10}
1593: & \cite{dpi1,dpi9,dpi10} & ---
1594: & \cite{dpipl_ay,dpi11,dpi12}& \cite{poldpipl} \\
1595: \hline
1596: $pp\to pp\eta$ & \cite{calen1,calen4,smyrski,paweleta,eduard_eta,calen6,etatot1,etatot2,etatot3} &
1597: \cite{eduard_eta,paweleta,calen5} & \cite{eduard_eta,paweleta}
1598: & \cite{etapol}& \\
1599: $pn\to pn\eta$ & \cite{calen2} & &
1600: & & \\
1601: $pn\to d\eta$ & \cite{calen3,calen6} & & ---
1602: & & \\
1603: \hline
1604: $pp\to pp\eta'$ & \cite{etatot3,pawel_etap,pawel_etap2} & &
1605: & & \\
1606: \hline
1607: $pp\to pK^+\Lambda$ & \cite{jan,jan2,jan3} & & \cite{jan3}
1608: & & \\
1609: $pp\to pK^+\Sigma^0$ & \cite{sig0} & &
1610: & & \\
1611: \hline
1612: $pp\to pp\omega$ & \cite{ppomega} & &
1613: & & \\
1614: $pn\to d\omega$ & \cite{inti} & & ---
1615: & & \\
1616: \hline
1617: $pp\to pp\phi$ & \cite{ppphi} & \cite{ppphi} &
1618: & & \\
1619: \hline
1620: $pp\to ppf_0/a_0$ & \cite{pawelf0a0} & &
1621: & & \\
1622: \hline
1623: $pp\to pp\pi^+\pi^-$ & \cite{piplpim1,piplpim2,twopion} & \cite{piplpim1,piplpim2,twopion}
1624: & \cite{piplpim1,piplpim2,twopion} & & \\
1625: $pp\to pn\pi^+\pi^0$ & \cite{twopion} & \cite{twopion} & \cite{twopion}
1626: & & \\
1627: $pp\to pp\pi^0\pi^0$ & \cite{twopion} & \cite{twopion} & \cite{twopion}
1628: & & \\
1629: \hline
1630: $pp\to ppK^+K^-$ & \cite{ppkpkm} & &
1631: & & \\
1632: $pp\to dK^+\bar K^0$ & \cite{vera} & \cite{vera} & \cite{vera}
1633: & & \\
1634: \hline
1635: \end{tabular}
1636: \label{measurements}
1637: \end{center}
1638: \end{table}
1639:
1640:
1641:
1642: %
1643: \subsection{Status of Experiment}
1644: %
1645: In this presentation we will be rather brief on details
1646: about current as well as planned experiments, as this
1647: subject was already covered in recent reviews \cite{machnerrep,oelertrep}.
1648: Here we only wish to give a brief list of observables and reactions
1649: that are measured already or are planned to be measured
1650: in nucleon--nucleon and nucleon--nucleus induced reactions.
1651:
1652:
1653: \begin{figure}[t!!]
1654: \begin{center}
1655: \epsfig{file=exp.eps, height=7cm}
1656: \caption{\it The lowest meson production thresholds for
1657: single meson production in proton--proton collisions
1658: together with the corresponding energy ranges of
1659: the modern cooler synchrotrons.}
1660: \label{expfig}
1661: \end{center}
1662: \end{figure}
1663:
1664: In the case of pion production, measurements with vector--
1665: and tensor--polarized deuteron and vector--polarized proton targets
1666: and polarized proton beams
1667: have been carried out at IUCF \cite{stori99}.
1668:
1669: Because of good $4\pi$ detection of
1670: photons and charged particles, CELSIUS, at least in the near future,
1671: is well equipped for studies involving $\eta$ mesons. For the
1672: production of heavier mesons, COSY, due to its higher beam energies
1673: and intensities, but due most importantly to the possibility to use
1674: polarization, is in a
1675: position to dominate the field during the years to come.
1676: The energy range of the different cooler synchrotrons is
1677: illustrated in Fig. \ref{expfig}.
1678:
1679: In table \ref{measurements} a list is given for the various $NN$ induced
1680: production reactions measured in recent years at SACLAY, TRIUMF, PSI, COSY,
1681: IUCF, and CELSIUS in the near--threshold regime ($Q < 40$ MeV). The
1682: corresponding references are listed as well. In the subsections to come we
1683: will discuss some examples of the kind of physics that can be studied with the
1684: various observables in the many reaction channels.
1685:
1686:
1687: %%% Local Variables:
1688: %%% mode: latex
1689: %%% TeX-master: t
1690: %%% TeX-master: t
1691: %%% TeX-master: t
1692: %%% TeX-master: t
1693: %%% TeX-master: t
1694: %%% TeX-master: t
1695: %%% End:
1696: