1: \section{Partial wave expansion}
2: \label{pw}
3:
4: In this appendix we give the explicit relations between the partial wave
5: amplitudes for reactions of the type $NN\to NNx$ and the spherical tensors
6: defined in Eq. \eqref{deft}, where $x$ is a scalar
7: particle. The relations between the spherical tensors and the various
8: observables is given in tables \ref{tensobs} and \ref{tensobs2}.
9:
10: In terms of the
11: partial wave amplitudes, we can write for two
12: spin--$\frac{1}{2}$ particles in the initial state
13:
14: \begin{eqnarray}
15: \nonumber
16: T_{k_1q_1,k_2q_2}^{k_3q_3,k_4q_4} &=& \frac{1}{16\pi}\sum
17: \langle S'M_S',\vec p \, ',\vec q \, '|M|SM_S, \vec p \rangle \
18: \langle \bar S \bar M_S,\vec p |
19: M^\dagger|\bar S'\bar M_S',\vec p \, ',\vec q \, ' \rangle \ \\
20: \nonumber
21: & &\phantom{.........}
22: \times \
23: \langle S M_S|\tau_{k_1q_1}^{(b)}\tau_{k_2q_2}^{(t)}|\bar S \bar M_S \rangle
24: \langle \bar S' \bar M_S'|\tau_{k_3q_3}^{(f_1)\,
25: \dagger}\tau_{k_4q_4}^{(f_2)\, \dagger }|S' M_S' \rangle
26: \\
27: \nonumber
28: &=& \frac{1}{4}\sum \sqrt{\frac{(2\bar L+1)(2L+1)}{(2\bar J+1)(2J+1)}} \\
29: \nonumber & & \phantom{\frac{1}{16P}\sum} \ \times \
30: \langle S'M_S',L'M_L'|j'M_j'\rangle \langle j'M_j',l'm_l'|JM_J \rangle
31: \langle S M_S,L0|JM_J \rangle \\
32: \nonumber & & \phantom{\frac{1}{16P}\sum} \ \times \
33: \langle S'M_S',\bar L'\bar M_L'|\bar j'\bar M_j'\rangle
34: \langle \bar j'\bar M_j',\bar l'\bar m_l'|\bar J\bar M_J \rangle
35: \langle \bar S \bar M_S,\bar L0|\bar J \bar M_J \rangle \\
36: \nonumber & & \phantom{\frac{1}{16P}\sum} \ \times \
37: \langle S M_S|\tau_{k_1q_1}^{(b)}\tau_{k_2q_2}^{(t)}|\bar S \bar M_S \rangle
38: \langle \bar S' \bar M_S'|\tau_{k_3q_3}^{(f_1)\,
39: \dagger}\tau_{k_4q_4}^{(f_2)\, \dagger }|S' M_S' \rangle \\
40: \nonumber & & \phantom{\frac{1}{16P}\sum} \ \times \
41: Y_{l'm_l'}(\hat q \, ')Y_{L'M_L'}(\hat p \, ')
42: Y_{\bar l'\bar m_l'}(\hat q \, ')^*Y_{\bar L'\bar M_L'}(\hat p \, ')^* \\
43: & & \phantom{\frac{1}{16P}\sum} \ \times \
44: M^\alpha(s,\epsilon) M^{\bar \alpha}(s,\epsilon)^\dagger \ .
45: \label{startingpoint}
46: \end{eqnarray}
47:
48: In order to proceed the following identities are useful \cite{edmonds}:
49:
50: \begin{eqnarray}
51: \nonumber
52: Y_{l_1m_1}(\hat p)Y_{l_2m_2}(\hat p) &=& \sum_{lm} \sqrt{\frac{(2l_1+1)(2l_2+1)}{(2l+1)4\pi}}
53: \\ & & \qquad \times \
54: \langle l_1m_1,l_2m_2|lm \rangle\langle l_1 0,l_2 0|l 0 \rangle
55: Y_{lm}(\hat p) \\
56: \langle \sigma | \tau_{kq}| \sigma '\rangle
57: &=& (-)^q \sqrt{2k+1} \langle
58: \frac{1}{2} \sigma , k \ (-q)|\frac{1}{2} \sigma ' \rangle \ .
59: \end{eqnarray}
60:
61: The latter, for instance, allows evaluation of the matrix element of the
62: spin operators:
63:
64: \begin{eqnarray}
65: \nonumber
66: \langle S M_S &|& \tau_{k_1q_1}^{(b)} \tau_{k_2q_2}^{(t)} \ | \ \bar S \bar M_S \rangle \\
67: \nonumber
68: \ & & \!\!\!\!\! = \ \sum
69: \langle S M_S|\tau_{k_1q_1}^{(b)}|m_1 m_2 \rangle
70: \langle m_1 m_2 | \tau_{k_2q_2}^{(t)}|\bar S \bar M_S \rangle
71: \ \\
72: \nonumber
73: & & \!\!\!\!\! = \sum \langle SM_S|\frac{1}{2} (M_S - m_2), \frac{1}{2} m_2 \rangle
74: \langle \bar S \bar M_S|\frac{1}{2} m_1, \frac{1}{2} (\bar M_S-m_1) \rangle \\
75: \nonumber
76: & & \!\!\!\!\! \ \times \langle \frac{1}{2} (M_S-m_2)|\tau_{k_1q_1}^{(b)}|m_1 \rangle
77: \langle m_2 | \tau_{k_2q_2}^{(t)}|\frac{1}{2} (\bar M_S-m_1) \rangle \
78: \\
79: \nonumber
80: \ & & \!\!\!\!\! =
81: \sum (-)^{q_1+q_2}\sqrt{(2k_1+1)(2k_2+1)} \\
82: \nonumber
83: & & \!\!\!\!\! \ \times
84: \langle SM_S|\frac{1}{2} (M_S - m_2), \frac{1}{2} m_2 \rangle
85: \langle \bar S \bar M_S|\frac{1}{2} m_1, \frac{1}{2} (\bar M_S-m_1) \rangle \\
86: & & \!\!\!\!\! \ \times
87: \langle \frac{1}{2} (M_S-m_2), k_1 \ (-q_1) |\frac{1}{2} m_1 \rangle
88: \langle \frac{1}{2} m_2, k_2 \ (-q_2) |\frac{1}{2} (\bar M_S-m_1) \rangle \ .
89: \end{eqnarray}
90:
91: It is convenient to couple the remaining spherical harmonics to a common
92: angular momentum and to define
93:
94: \begin{equation}
95: \frac{1}{4\pi}
96: Y_{\tilde L \tilde M_L}(\hat p)Y_{\tilde l \tilde m_l}(\hat q)
97: =: \sum_\lambda \langle \tilde L \tilde M_L, \tilde l \tilde m_l|
98: \lambda Q\rangle B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\hat q, \hat p)
99: \end{equation}
100:
101: where we used the fact that the sum of the projections turns out to be equal
102: to $q_1+q_2 = Q$;
103: $B$ is then
104:
105: \begin{equation}
106: B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\hat q, \hat p)
107: =\sum _{\mu_L,\mu_l}
108: \frac{1}{4\pi}\langle \tilde L \mu_L, \tilde l \mu_l|
109: \lambda Q\rangle
110: Y_{\tilde L \mu_L}(\hat p)Y_{\tilde l \mu_l}(\hat q) \ .
111: \end{equation}
112: and normalized such that
113: \begin{equation}
114: \int d\Omega_pd\Omega_q
115: B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\hat q, \hat p) = \delta_{\lambda 0}
116: \delta_{\tilde L 0}\delta_{\tilde l 0} \delta_{\tilde Q 0} \ .
117: \label{bint}
118: \end{equation}
119:
120:
121: Some properties of $B$ are derived in the next section.
122:
123: After putting together the individual pieces we arrive at the final result:
124:
125: \begin{equation}
126: \nonumber
127: {\cal T}_\rho (\hat p, \hat q) = \frac{1}{4}\sum_{\tilde L \tilde l \lambda}
128: B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\hat q, \hat p) {\cal A}
129: ^\rho
130: _{\tilde L \tilde l,\lambda} \ ,
131: \end{equation}
132: where $\rho = \{k_1q_1,k_2q_2,k_3q_3,k_4q_4\}$,
133: and
134: \begin{equation}
135: {\cal A}^\rho
136: _{\tilde L \tilde l,\lambda} = \sum_{\alpha,\bar \alpha}
137: C^{\alpha,\bar \alpha,\rho}_{\tilde L \tilde l,\lambda}M^\alpha
138: (M^{\bar \alpha})\, ^\dagger
139: \end{equation}
140: with
141: \begin{eqnarray}
142: \nonumber
143: C^{\alpha,\bar \alpha,\rho}_{\tilde L \tilde l,\lambda} &=&
144: \frac{1}{4\pi}\sum (-)^{M_S+M_S'}\kappa \\
145: \nonumber & & \phantom{.} \ \times \
146: \langle S'M_S',L'M_L'|j'M_j'\rangle \langle j'M_j',l'm_l'|JM_J \rangle
147: \langle S M_S,L0|JM_J \rangle \\
148: \nonumber & & \phantom{.} \ \times \
149: \langle \bar S' \bar M_S',\bar L'\bar M_L'|\bar j'\bar M_j'\rangle
150: \langle \bar j'\bar M_j',\bar l'\bar m_l'|\bar J\bar M_J \rangle
151: \langle \bar S \bar M_S,\bar L0|\bar J \bar M_J \rangle \\
152: \nonumber & & \phantom{.} \ \times \
153: \langle L' M_L',\bar L' -\bar M_L'|\tilde L \tilde M\rangle
154: \langle l' m_l',\bar l' -\bar m_l'|\tilde l \tilde m\rangle
155: \langle \tilde L \tilde M, \tilde l \tilde m|\lambda Q \rangle \\
156: \nonumber & & \phantom{.} \ \times \
157: \langle L' 0,\bar L' 0|\tilde L 0\rangle
158: \langle l' 0,\bar l' 0|\tilde l 0\rangle \\
159: \nonumber & & \phantom{.} \ \times \
160: \langle SM_S|\frac{1}{2} (M_S - m_2), \frac{1}{2} m_2 \rangle
161: \langle \bar S \bar M_S|\frac{1}{2} m_1, \frac{1}{2} (\bar M_S-m_1) \rangle \\
162: \nonumber
163: & & \phantom{.} \ \times \
164: \langle \frac{1}{2} (m_1+q_1), k_1 \ (-q_1) |\frac{1}{2} m_1 \rangle
165: \langle \frac{1}{2} m_2, k_2 \ (-q_2) |\frac{1}{2} (\bar M_S-m_1) \rangle \ \\
166: & & \phantom{.} \ \times \
167: \langle \frac{1}{2} (m_1'-q_3), k_3 \ q_3 |\frac{1}{2} m_1' \rangle
168: \langle \frac{1}{2} m_2', k_4 \ q_4 |\frac{1}{2} ( \bar M_S'-m_1') \rangle \ ,
169: \label{cdef}
170: \end{eqnarray}
171: where the sum runs over $\{M_S,M_S',M_L',\bar M_L',m_1,m_1'\}$ and
172: $$
173: \kappa = \sqrt{\frac{(2l'+1)(2\bar l'+1)
174: (2L+1)(2\bar L+1)(2\bar L'+1)(2L'+1)(2k_1+1)(2k_2+1)}
175: {(2\tilde L+1)(2\tilde l+1)(2J+1)(2\bar J +1)} } \ .
176: $$
177:
178:
179: %\subsection{Angular dependence of the observables and
180: %possible presentation of the data}
181: %\label{posspres}
182: %
183: %As stressed previously a three body final state is characterized
184: %by a 5 dimensional phase space. Thus in order to
185: %present any result in a two dimensional plot
186: % the dimensionality needs to be largely reduced.
187: %One option that we will discuss here in detail and
188: %that was chosen in Ref. \cite{meyerpol},
189: % is to integrate the phi dependencies subject to a
190: %particular constraint
191: %\begin{equation}
192: %m\phi_p+n\phi_q=c \ ,
193: %\end{equation}
194: %where at least one of the integer parameters $n$ or $m$ are
195: %to be non zero,
196: %and in addition to integrate one of the polar angles
197: %as well as relative energy of the outgoing baryon pair.
198: %It is thus convenient to define:
199: %\begin{eqnarray}
200: %^{mn}B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\theta_q, \theta_p|c)
201: %&:=&\int d\phi_p d\phi_q \delta (m\phi_p+n\phi_q-c)
202: %B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\hat q, \hat p) \ .
203: %\end{eqnarray}
204: %
205: %For $n = 0$ and $m \ne 0$ we find
206: %\begin{eqnarray}
207: %\nonumber
208: %^{m0}B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\theta_q, \theta_p|c)
209: %&=&
210: %%\int d\phi_p d\phi_q \delta (m\phi_p+n\phi_q-c)
211: %%B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\hat q, \hat p)\\& &
212: %% \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! =
213: %\frac{1}{2m}\exp{\left(i\frac{Qc}{m}\right)}
214: %\left\langle \tilde L \ \mu_p,\tilde l
215: % \ 0|\lambda Q\right\rangle
216: %Y_{\tilde L \ Q}(\theta_p,0)
217: %Y_{\tilde l \ 0}(\theta_q,0) \ .
218: %\end{eqnarray}
219: %One easily derives the analogous formula for $m = 0$ and $n \ne 0$.
220: %In order to proceed if both $n$ as well as $m$ are non vanishing
221: %we define
222: %$$
223: %\Phi = m\phi_p+n\phi_q \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \varphi=\frac{1}{2}
224: %\left(\frac{1}{n}\phi_p-\frac{1}{m}\phi_q\right) \
225: %$$
226: %to get
227: %\begin{eqnarray}
228: %\nonumber
229: %\int d\phi_p d\phi_q \delta (m\phi_p+n\phi_q-c)\exp{i(\mu_L\phi_p+\mu_l\phi_q)}
230: %&=&\\ \nonumber & & \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
231: %\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
232: %\exp\left\{i\left( \frac{c}{2mn}\mu_\Sigma \right)\right\}
233: %\int_{\varphi_{min}}^{\varphi_{max}} d\varphi \exp(i\varphi \mu_\Delta) \ ,
234: %\end{eqnarray}
235: %where $\mu_\Delta=n\mu_L-m\mu_l$ and $\mu_\Sigma=n\mu_L+m\mu_l$.
236: %The actual values for the integration bounds depend on the signs of $n$ and
237: %$m$ respectively. However, it is possbile to present the final result in a
238: %closed
239: %form valid for all signs:
240: %\begin{eqnarray}
241: %\nonumber
242: %^{mn}B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\theta_q, \theta_p|c)
243: % &=&
244: %\frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{\mu_L, \mu_l}
245: % \frac{\sin
246: % \left(\pi \left(|m|+|n| \right)/(2|mn|)\mu_\Delta\right)}{\mu_\Delta}
247: %\\ \nonumber
248: %& & \ \times \exp\left\{i\left( \frac{c}{2mn}\mu_\Sigma+\frac{\pi}{2mn}(m-n)\mu_\Delta \right)\right\}
249: %\\
250: %& &
251: %\ \times \ \ \left\langle \tilde L \ \mu_L,\tilde l
252: % \ \mu_l|\lambda Q\right\rangle
253: %Y_{\tilde L \ \mu_L}(\theta_p,0)
254: %Y_{\tilde l \ \mu_l}(\theta_q,0) \ .
255: %\label{phiint}
256: %\end{eqnarray}
257: %For some cases Eq. (\ref{phiint}) simplifies considerably,
258: %namely when the argument of the sin--function is $\pi$ times an
259: %integer. E.g. for $n=m=1$ and $Q=2$ the expression collapses
260: %to
261: %\begin{equation}
262: %^{11}B^2_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\theta_q, \theta_p|c)= \frac{1}{2}e^{ic}
263: %\left\langle \tilde L \ 1,\tilde l
264: % \ 1|\lambda Q\right\rangle
265: %Y_{\tilde L \ 1}(\theta_p,0)
266: %Y_{\tilde l \ 1}(\theta_q,0) \ .
267: %\label{example}
268: %\end{equation}
269: %As mentioned above, the strategy to integrate the azimuthal degrees
270: %of freedom under the constraint given in Eq. (\ref{constraint})
271: %was used in Ref. \cite{meyerpol} to present the data for
272: %$\vec p \vec p \to pp\pi^0$ as well as to disentangle the various
273: %angular dependent terms. As describe on page 9 of
274: %this reference, there it is assumed that
275: %$^{mn}B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\theta_q, \theta_p|c)\propto
276: %e^{ic}\delta_{\Delta \mu 0}$. Close inspection of Eq. (\ref{phiint})
277: %reveals, that the full result reproduces this result only in a few
278: %cases, one of those given in Eq. (\ref{example}), namely
279: %those, where $\left(|m|+|n| \right)/(2|mn|)=1$. However,
280: %the small number of partial waves considered in the analysis of
281: %Ref. \cite{meyerpol} strongly limits the range of allowed values for
282: %$\mu_L$ as well as $\mu_l$ (c.f. Eq. (\ref{mrange})). In addition
283: %$Q=\mu_l+\mu_L$ can only take values of $0,1$ or 2.
284: %For this limited range of parameters only for $Q=1$ and ($n=-1,m=2$) as
285: %well as ($n=2,m=-1$) and for ($n=2,m=-2$) the result of Eq. (\ref{phiint}) disagrees
286: %to the result assumed in the analysis of Ref. \cite{meyerpol}.
287: %E.g. in the latter case we find non vanishing contributions to the sum
288: %that appears in Eq. (\ref{phiint}) not only from $(\mu_l=2,\mu_L=-1)$
289: %but also from $(\mu_l=1,\mu_L=0)$, $(\mu_l=0,\mu_L=1)$, and
290: %$(\mu_l=-1,\mu_L=2)$.
291: %It should be stressed, however, that the additional non vanishing
292: %contributions are numerically supressed compared to
293: %the contribution with $(\mu_l=2,\mu_L=-1)$.
294: %Thus
295: % it remains to be seen
296: %to what extend this finding modifies the parameters extracted from
297: %the data of Ref. \cite{meyerpol}.
298: %
299: %
300: %To further reduce the dimensionality of the observables
301: %the remaining angular integration needs to be carried
302: %out explicitly.
303: %Thus now we need to look at
304: %$$
305: %I_{lm} \ = \ \int_\Omega dx Y_{lm}(x,0) \ = \ (-)^m\left[\frac{(2l+1)(l-m)!}{4\pi(l+m)!}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}
306: %\int_\Omega dx P_l^m(x) \
307: %,
308: %$$
309: %where $x=\cos (\theta)$.
310: % In ref. \cite{meyerpol} a kinematically complete measurement of
311: %the reaction $\vec p \vec p \to pp\pi^0$ was carried out. Since the
312: %two protons in the final state are identical, all observables are to
313: %be invariant under the interchange of these. It was argued in
314: %ref. \cite{meyerpol}, that therefore a integration range for $x$
315: %from $0$ to $1$ is sufficient. In order to compare to the results
316: %of Ref. \cite{meyerpol} we adopt this prescription. Note, however, that
317: %if the final nucleons are non identical, an integration over the
318: %full phase--space is mandated. The results for both, the integration
319: %over half the phase--space ($\Omega_\frac{1}{2}$) as well as the full phase space
320: %($\Omega_1$) are tabulated below
321: %(note: $I_{l(-m)}=(-)^mI_{lm}$).
322: %
323: %
324: %\begin{center}
325: %\begin{tabular}{|c c |c|c|}
326: %%\caption{}
327: %\hline
328: %l & m & $\int_{\Omega_\frac{1}{2}}dxP_l^m(x)$ & $\int_{\Omega_1}dxP_l^m(x)$ \\
329: %\hline
330: %0 & 0 & 1 & 2 \\
331: %\hline
332: %1 & 1 & ${\pi}/{4}$ & ${\pi}/{2}$ \\
333: %1 & 0 & ${1}/{2}$ & 0 \\
334: %\hline
335: %2 & 2 & 2 & 4 \\
336: %2 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
337: %2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
338: %\hline
339: %%\label{bigitab}
340: %\end{tabular}
341: %\end{center}
342: %
343: %
344: %%One easily finds
345: %%\begin{equation}
346: %%I_{l0} = \delta_{l0}\sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi}} \ .
347: %%\end{equation}
348: %%From $Y_{lm}(\hat p)=(-)^lY_{lm}(-\hat p)$ and the transformation properties
349: %%of the $\phi$ dependent part it follows immediately that
350: %%$Y_{lm}(x,0)=(-)^{l+m}Y_{lm}(-x,0)$. Therefore
351: %%$$
352: %%I_{lm} = 0 \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ (l+m) \ \ \mbox{odd} \ .
353: %%$$
354: %%
355: %%For the remaining non vanishing contributions one finds by explicit evaluation
356: %%\begin{eqnarray}
357: %%I_{1 \ \pm 1} &=& \mp \frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{3\pi}{2}}\\
358: %%I_{2 \ \pm 2} &=& \sqrt{\frac{5}{6\pi}} \\
359: %%I_{3 \ \pm 1} &=& \mp \frac{1}{64}\sqrt{21\pi} \\
360: %%I_{3 \ \pm 3} &=& \mp \frac{3}{64}\sqrt{35\pi} \ .
361: %%\end{eqnarray}
362: %
363: %%It is thus convenient to define
364: %%\begin{eqnarray}
365: %%\nonumber
366: %%^{mn;c}_{\phantom{mn}q}B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\hat q)&=&
367: %%\int d\Omega_p d\phi_q \delta (m\phi_p+n\phi_q-c)
368: %%B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\hat q, \hat p)
369: %%\\ &=&
370: %%\frac{1}{2(n+m)} \exp\left(i\hat Q c\right)
371: %%% \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
372: %%% \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
373: %%% \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
374: %%\left\langle \tilde L { \ m\hat Q},\tilde l
375: %%{ \ n\hat Q}|\lambda Q\right\rangle
376: %%% \\
377: %%%& & \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
378: %%%\ \ \
379: %%%\ \ \
380: %%%\times
381: %%I_{\tilde L \ m\hat Q}
382: %%Y_{\tilde l \ n\hat Q}(\theta_q,0) \ .
383: %%\label{phiintdef}
384: %%\end{eqnarray}
385: %%and analogously for $^{mn;c}_{\phantom{mn}p}
386: %%B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\hat p)$.
387: %%For $n+m=0$ one finds
388: %%\begin{equation}
389: %%^{(-1)1;c}_{\phantom{(-1)1}q}B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\hat q)=
390: %%\delta_{Q0}\frac{1}{2} \sum_\mu \exp\left(i\mu c\right)
391: %%\left\langle \tilde L \mu,\tilde l
392: %%-\mu |\lambda 0\right\rangle
393: %%I_{\tilde L \ \mu}
394: %%Y_{\tilde l \ -\mu}(\theta_q,0) \ .
395: %%\label{phiintdefmn0}
396: %%\end{equation}
397: %%It is a direct consequence of eq. (\ref{csym}), that the angular
398: %%dependencies of $A_z$ as well as $A_{xy}-A_{yx}$ are described
399: %%by the imaginary part of $B$. One finds
400: %%\begin{eqnarray}
401: %%\nonumber
402: %%Im\left(^{(-n)n;c}_{\phantom{(-n)n}q}B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\hat q)\right)&=&
403: %%\delta_{Q0}\frac{1}{2} \sum_\mu \sin\left(\frac{\mu}{n}c\right)
404: %%\left\langle \tilde L -\mu,\tilde l
405: %%\mu |\lambda 0\right\rangle \\
406: %%& & \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times \left(1-(-)^{\lambda - \hat L - \hat l}\right)
407: %%I_{\tilde L \ -\mu}
408: %%Y_{\tilde l \ \mu}(\theta_q,0) \ .
409: %%\label{imphiintdefmn0}
410: %%\end{eqnarray}
411: %%This formula highlights some interesting features. E.g. there will be no
412: %%contribution to neither $A_z$ nor $A_{xy}-A_{yx}$ if $\Delta \phi=0$ or
413: %%either $\hat L$ or $\hat l$ equal zero. In addition $\mu$ is necessarily unequal
414: %%to zero.
415: %%
416: %%%Looking at the above expressions it is easy to convince oneself that it
417: %%%is sufficient to choose $c=0$ for all cases of $Q$ and in addition to
418: %%%choose $c=\pi /2$ and $c=\pi/4$ for $Q=0$.
419: %%
420: %%The final result, that was used in Ref. \cite{meyerpol} as the basis for presenting
421: %%the data, thus reads
422: %%(*** the following formula needs to be updated ***)
423: %%
424: %%\begin{equation}
425: %%\nonumber
426: %%^{mn;c}_{\phantom{mn}x}
427: %%T_\rho (\theta_x) = \frac{1}{4}\sum_{\tilde L \tilde l \lambda}
428: %%{}^{mn;c}_{\phantom{mn}x}
429: %%B^Q_{\tilde L \tilde l, \lambda}(\theta_x) {\cal A}
430: %%^\rho
431: %%_{\tilde L \tilde l,\lambda} \ .
432: %%\end{equation}
433: %
434:
435: %%% Local Variables:
436: %%% mode: latex
437: %%% TeX-master: t
438: %%% End:
439: