1: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,showpacs,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,groupedaddress,nofootinbib,showpacs]{revtex4}
4: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,superscriptaddress,amssymb,floats,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
5: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,floats]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
7: %\documentstyle[twocolumn,aps,prl,floats,psfig]{revtex}
8:
9: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5cm}
10: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
11: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
12: %\usepackage{bm}% bold math
13: %\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
14: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: % A useful Journal macro
18: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
19: % Some useful journal names
20: \def\NCA{\rm Nuovo Cimento}
21: \def\NIM{\rm Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
22: \def\NIMA{{\rm Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
23: \def\NPB{{\rm Nucl. Phys.} B}
24: \def\PLB{{\rm Phys. Lett.} B}
25: \def\PRL{\rm Phys. Rev. Lett.}
26: \def\PRD{{\rm Phys. Rev.} D}
27: \def\PRC{{\rm Phys. Rev.} C}
28: \def\ZPC{{\rm Z. Phys.} C}
29: \def\JPG{{\rm J. Phys.} G}
30: % Some other macros used in the sample text
31: \def\st{\scriptstyle}
32: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}
33: \def\mco{\multicolumn}
34: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
35: \def\vep{\varepsilon}
36: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
37: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}
38: \def\vp{{\bf p}}
39: \def\ko{K^0}
40: \def\kb{\bar{K^0}}
41: \def\al{\alpha}
42: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}
43: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
44: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
45: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
46: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
47: \def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}%temp replacement due to no font
48: %
49: \title{\large \bf The Generalized Counting Rule and Oscillatory Scaling}
50: \author{D.~Dutta, H.~Gao \\
51: {\it Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory and \\
52: Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA}}
53: \begin{abstract}
54: We have studied the energy dependence of the $pp$ elastic scattering
55: data and the pion-photoproduction data at 90$^\circ$ c.m. angle in
56: light of the new generalized counting rule derived for exclusive processes.
57: We show that by including the helicity-nonconserving amplitudes and their
58: interference with the Landshoff amplitude, we are able to reproduce the
59: energy dependence of all the $pp$ elastic cross-section and spin-correlation (A$_{NN}$) data available above the resonance region. The pion-photoproduction
60: data can also be described by this approach, however, data with much finer energy spacing is needed to confirm the oscillations about the scaling
61: behavior. This study strongly suggests an important role for helicity-nonconserving amplitudes related to quark orbital angular momentum and for the interference of these amplitudes with the Landshoff amplitude at GeV energies.
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64: \pacs{13.75.Cs, 24.85.+p, 25.10.+s, 25.20.-x}
65:
66: %%%--- Introduction
67: \maketitle
68: The transition between perturbative and non-perturbative regimes
69: of Quantum Chromo Dynamics (QCD) is of long-standing interest in nuclear and particle physics. Exclusive
70: processes play a central role in studies trying to map out this transition.
71: The differential cross sections for many exclusive reactions \cite{white}
72: at high energies and large momentum transfers appear to obey dimensional
73: scaling laws~\cite{brodsky} (also called quark counting rules). In recent
74: years, the onset of this scaling behavior has been observed at a hadron transverse momentum of $\sim$ 1.2 (GeV/c) in deuteron
75: photo-disintegration \cite{schulte,rossi} and in pion photoproduction from nucleon~\cite{zhu}.
76: On the other hand, these models also predict hadron helicity conservation in
77: exclusive processes~\cite{hhc}, and experimental data in similar energy and momentum
78: regions tend not to agree with these helicity conservation selection
79: rules~\cite{krishni}. Although contributions from non-zero parton
80: orbital angular momenta are power suppressed, as shown by Lepage and
81: Brodsky~\cite{lepage}, they could break hadron helicity conservation
82: rule~\cite{gousset}. Interestingly recent re-analysis of quark orbital angular
83: momenta seems to contradict the notion of power suppression~\cite{rj_hh}.
84: Furthermore, Ref~\cite{isgur} argues that
85: non-perturbative processes could still be important in some kinematic
86: regions even at high energies. Thus the transition between the
87: perturbative and non-perturbative regimes remains obscure and makes it
88: essential to understand the exact mechanism governing the early onset of
89: scaling behavior.
90:
91: Towards this goal, it is important to look closely at claims of agreement
92: between the differential cross section data and the quark counting rule prediction.
93: Deviations from the quark counting rules have been found in exclusive
94: reactions such as elastic proton-proton ($pp$) scattering~\cite{ppdata,hendry}. In fact, the re-scaled 90$^\circ$ center-of-mass $pp$ elastic scattering
95: data, $s^{10}{\frac{d\sigma}{dt}}$ show substantial oscillations about the
96: power law behavior. Oscillations are not restricted to the $pp$ elastic scattering channel; they are seen in elastic $\pi p$ fixed angle
97: scattering~\cite{pidata} and hints of oscillation about the $s^{-7}$ scaling have also been reported in the recent data~\cite{zhu} from Jefferson Lab (JLab) on photo-pion production above the resonance region. In addition to
98: violations of the scaling laws, spin correlations in polarized $pp$ elastic
99: scattering also show significant deviations from perturbative QCD (pQCD)
100: expectations~\cite{crabb,correlations}. Several sets of
101: arguments have been put forward to account for these deviations from
102: scaling laws and the unexpected spin correlations.
103: Brodsky and de Teramond \cite{brodsky_de} explain the $pp$ scattering data in terms of the opening up of the
104: charm channel and excitation of $c\bar{c}uuduud$ resonant states.
105: Alternatively the deviations are said to be an outcome of the interference
106: between the
107: pQCD (short distance) and the long distance Landshoff
108: amplitude (arising from multiple independent scattering between quark
109: pairs in different hadrons)~\cite{ralston}. Gluonic radiative corrections
110: to the Landshoff amplitude give rise to an energy dependent phase~\cite{sen}
111: and thus the energy dependent oscillation. Carlson, Chachkhunashvili, and Myhrer \cite{carlson} have also applied a similar interference concept to explain
112: the $pp$ polarization data. The QCD re-scattering
113: calculation of the deuteron photo-disintegration process by
114: Frankfurt, Miller, Sargsian and Strikman \cite{sargsian} predicts that the
115: additional energy dependence of the differential cross-section, beyond the
116: $\frac{d\sigma}{dt} \propto s^{-11}$ scaling, arises primarily from the
117: $n-p$ scattering in the final state. In this scenario the oscillations may
118: arise due to QCD final state interaction. If these predictions are correct,
119: such oscillatory behavior may be a general feature of high energy exclusive
120: photo-reactions.
121:
122: Recently, a number of new developments have generated renewed interest in this
123: topic. Zhao and Close~\cite{close}
124: have argued that a breakdown in the locality of quark-hadron
125: duality (dubbed as ``restricted locality'' of quark-hadron duality) results in
126: oscillations around the scaling curves predicted by the counting rule. They
127: explain that the smooth behavior of the scaling laws arise due to destructive
128: interference between various intermediate resonance states in
129: exclusive processes at high energies. However, at lower energies this
130: cancellation due to destructive interference breaks down locally and gives
131: rise to oscillations about the smooth behavior. On the other hand, Ji {\it et al.}~\cite{ji-scaling} have derived a generalized counting rule based on a pQCD inspired model, by systematically enumerating the Fock components of a hadronic
132: light-cone wave function. Their generalized counting rule for hard exclusive
133: processes include parton orbital angular momentum and hadron helicity flip,
134: thus they provide the scaling behavior of the helicity flipping amplitudes. The interference between the different helicity flip and non-flip amplitudes offers a new mechanism to explain the oscillations in the scaling cross-sections and spin correlations. The counting rule for hard exclusive
135: processes has also been shown to arise from the correspondence between the
136: anti-de Sitter space and the conformal field theory~\cite{cft} which connects superstring theory to conformal gauge theory. Brodsky {\it et al.}~\cite{brodsky_new} have used this anti-de Sitter/Conformal Field Theory correspondence or string/gauge duality to compute the hadronic light front wave functions. This yields an equivalent generalized counting rule without the use of perturbative theory.
137: Moreover, pQCD calculations of the nucleon formfactors including quark orbital
138: angular momentum~\cite{Ji_ff,rj_ff} and those computed from light-front hadron
139: dynamics~\cite{brodsky_new} both seem to explain the
140: $\frac{1}{Q^2}$ fall-off of the proton form-factor ratio,
141: $G_{E}^{p}(Q^2)/G_{M}^{p}(Q^2)$, measured recently at JLab in polarization
142: transfer experiments~\cite{poltar}.
143:
144: In this letter we examine the role of the helicity flipping amplitudes in the
145: oscillatory scaling behavior of $pp$ scattering and charged photo-pion
146: production from nucleons and the oscillations in the spin correlations
147: observed in polarized $pp$ scattering. We have used the generalized counting
148: rule of Ji {\it et al.}~\cite{ji-scaling} to obtain the scaling behavior of
149: the helicity flipping amplitudes.
150:
151:
152: %%%--- pp data
153: It is well known that $pp$ scattering can be described by five independent
154: helicity amplitudes~\cite{hel_amp_ref}. According to the dimensional as well as the generalized counting rules the three helicity-conserving amplitudes, $M(+,+ ; +,+), M(+,- ; +,-)$ and $M(-,+ ; +,-)$, have an energy dependence of $\sim 1/s^4$. On the other hand the simple constituent quark interchange
155: models~\cite{hel_amp_ref} assume the two helicity flipping (nonconserving)
156: amplitudes, $M(+,+ ; +,-)$($NC1$) and $M(-,- ; +,+)$ ($NC2$) to be zero. Later
157: analysis by Lepage and Brodsky~\cite{lepage} have shown these amplitudes to be
158: non-zero but power suppressed. The new generalized counting rule predicts their energy dependence to be $\sim 1/s^{4.5}$ and $\sim 1/s^{5}$ respectively~\cite{ji-scaling}. Thus the generalized counting, rule which includes the helicity
159: flipping amplitudes and the interference between them, gives rise to
160: additional energy dependence beyond the $s^{-10}$ scaling predicted by
161: dimensional scaling.
162:
163: In addition to these short distance amplitudes, Landshoff~\cite{landshoff}
164: has shown that there can be contributions from three successive
165: on-shell quark-quark scattering. Although each scattering process is
166: itself a short distance process, different independent scatterings can be
167: far apart, limited only by the hadron size. The Landshoff amplitude also
168: carries an energy dependent phase arising from gluonic radiative corrections
169: which are calculable in pQCD~\cite{sen} and has a known energy dependence,
170: similar to the renormalization-group evolution: $\phi(s) = \frac{\pi}{0.06}lnln(s/\Lambda_{QCD}^2)$. This effect is believed to be
171: analogous to the coulomb-nuclear interference that is observed in low-energy
172: charged-particle scattering. It has been shown that this energy
173: dependence of the phase occurs at medium energies~\cite{botts} and
174: becomes independent of energy at asymptotically high energies~\cite{botts},~\cite{mueller}.
175: In Ref.~\cite{ralston}; Ralston and Pire have used the helicity-conserving amplitudes, the Landshoff amplitude with an energy dependent phase and the interference between them to reproduce the oscillations in the $pp$ scattering data at 90$^\circ$ c.m. angle (a similar method was used by Carlson {\it et. al}~\cite{carlson} to describe oscillation in the cross-section as well as the spin-correlation). They write the two amplitudes as $M = M_{S} + e^{i\phi(s) +i\delta}M_{L}$, where $M_{S}\sim 1/s^4$ represents the three helicity-conserving short distance amplitudes, $M_{L}\sim 1/s^{3.5}$ is the Landshoff amplitude and $\phi(s)$ is the energy dependent phase, $\delta$ is an arbitrary energy independent phase. By fitting to the existing $pp$ scattering data at 90$^\circ$ c.m. angle, they find that the ratio of $M_{L}$ to $M_{S}$ is 1:0.04 for an energy dependent phase given by $\phi(s) = \frac{\pi}{0.06}lnln(s/\Lambda_{QCD}^2)$, where $\Lambda_{QCD}$ = 100 MeV. It has been argued
176: that the asymptotic leading limit used to calculate this energy dependence
177: phase of the Landshoff amplitude is not entirely valid~\cite{kundu} and thus the Landshoff term is better parametrized as,
178: \begin{eqnarray}
179: \label{kundu_eq}
180: M_{L} & = & b_j s^{-3.5}\frac{e^{ic_j[lnln(s/\Lambda_{QCD})]+i\delta_j}}{[\log(s)]^{d_j}},
181: \end{eqnarray}
182: where $b_j$, $c_j$, $d_j$ and the energy independent phase $\delta_j$ are now
183: parameters which are not exactly calculable. Fig.~\ref{ralston_fit}a shows
184: the fit of Ref.~\cite{ralston} compared to the world data, and
185: Fig.~\ref{ralston_fit}b is a fit using the more general parametrization of
186: the Landshoff described above. Both these fits deviate drastically from the data at $s<$ 10 GeV$^2$ and are not sensitive to the different parameterizations of the Landshoff amplitude. Since the Landshoff amplitude is expected to be significant only at high energies, it is not unreasonable that the above formalism does not describe the data at low energies.
187:
188: \begin{figure}[htbp]
189: {\includegraphics*[width=9.0cm,height=9.0cm]{gsrfig1.eps}}
190: \caption[]{(a) The fit to $pp$ scattering data at $\theta_{cm}= 90^\circ$ of Ralston and Pire~\cite{ralston}, this fit had two parameters; the overall normalization $A_{1}$ and the arbitrary phase $\delta$. (b) The same data fitted with the new more general parametrization of the Landshoff amplitude, this fit includes the 3 additional parameters $b_1, c_1$ and $d_1$ mentioned in Eq.~\ref{kundu_eq}. The data are from Ref.~\cite{ppdata}}
191: \label{ralston_fit}
192: \end{figure}
193:
194: As the interference between the Landshoff and the short distance amplitudes fail to describe the data at low energies, it is possible that the helicity flip amplitudes and their interference may play an important role at these energies.
195: The helicity flip amplitudes arising from the parton orbital angular momentum
196: are non-negligible when the parton transverse momentum can not be neglected
197: compared with the typical momentum scale in the exclusive processes at
198: relatively low energies. Thus one would expect the helicity flip amplitudes to be a significant contribution to the cross-section at low energies. Moreover,
199: the generalized counting rule of Ji~{\it et al.}~\cite{ji-scaling} predicts a much faster
200: fall-off with energy for the helicity flip amplitudes as expected.
201: We have refitted the world data by including the two helicity-nonconserving
202: amplitudes according to the generalized counting rule of Ji~{\it et al.}~\cite{ji-scaling}. The
203: two different forms for the energy dependence of the phase in the Landshoff amplitude, described above, were employed in the fits to examine their sensitivity
204: to them. The three helicity-conserving amplitudes combined as one amplitude and the two helicity flipping amplitudes, along with the Landshoff contributions, can be written as;
205: \begin{eqnarray}
206: \label{new_eq}
207: M_{HC} &=& s^{-4}(a_{1} + b_{1}s^{0.5}e^{i\phi_{1}(s)}) \nonumber\\
208: M_{NC1} &=& s^{-4}(a_{2}s^{-0.5} + b_{2}s^{0.5}e^{i\phi_{2}(s)}) \nonumber \\
209: M_{NC2} &=& s^{-4}(a_{3}s^{-1} + b_{3}s^{0.5}e^{i\phi_{3}(s)}),
210: \end{eqnarray}
211: where $\phi_{j}(s)$ is the energy dependent phase. Two different forms for the phase $\phi_{j}(s)$ were used in our fits; $\phi_{j}(s)=\frac{\pi}{0.06}lnln(s/\Lambda_{QCD}^2) + \delta_j$ and $\phi_{j}(s)=c_j\frac{lnln(s/\Lambda_{QCD}^2)+\delta_j}{(\log(s))^{d_j}}$. We have neglected the helicity flipping Landshoff contributions. The scaled cross-section is then given by,
212: \begin{equation}
213: \label{new_eq2}
214: R = s^{10}\frac{d\sigma}{dt} \propto |M_{HC}|^2 + 4|M_{NC1}|^2 + M_{NC2}|^2,
215: \end{equation}
216: The factor of four associated with the $NC1$ helicity flipping amplitude
217: arises because of the two possible configurations of this single spin flip amplitude~\cite{hel_amp_ref}.
218:
219:
220: Fig~\ref{newfit} shows the results of our fit and also shows the explicit
221: contributions from the $s^{-11}$ and $s^{-12}$ term for this approach. The value of $\Lambda_{QCD}$ was fixed at 100~MeV for all fits. This new fit is
222: in much better agreement
223: with the data. The helicity flip amplitudes (mostly the term $\sim s^{-4.5}$) are significant at low energies and seem to help in describing the data at low energies. It is interesting to note that among the helicity flip amplitudes the one with the lower angular momentum dominates. These are very promising results
224: and should be examined for other reactions.
225:
226: \begin{figure}[htbp]
227: {\includegraphics*[width=9.0cm,height=9.0cm]{gsrfig2.eps}}
228: \caption[]{(a) The fit to $pp$ scattering data at $\theta_{cm}= 90^\circ$ when helicity flip amplitudes are included as described in Eq.~\ref{new_eq}.
229: The parameters for the energy dependent phase was kept same as the earlier fit of Ralston and Pire~\cite{ralston}. The solid line is the fit result, the dotted line is contribution from the helicity flip term $\sim s^{-11}$, the dot-dashed line is contribution from the helicity flip term $\sim s^{-12}$. The $\sim s^{-12}$ contribution has been multiplied by 100 for display purposes.(b)The same data fitted to the form described in Eq.~\ref{new_eq} but with the new more general parametrization of the Landshoff amplitude which includes the 3 additional parameters per term, $b_j, c_j$ and $d_j$ ($j$=1,2,3) as mentioned in Eq.~\ref{kundu_eq}.}
230: \label{newfit}
231:
232: \end{figure}
233:
234: %%%%%%% A_NN data
235:
236: As mentioned earlier the $A_{NN}$ spin-correlation in polarized $pp$ elastic
237: scattering also shows large deviations~\cite{correlations} from the expectations of pQCD (assuming hadron helicity is conserved). In terms of the helicity amplitudes $A_{NN}$ is given by~\cite{hel_amp_ref};
238: \begin{eqnarray}
239: \label{ann_eqn}
240: R A_{NN} &=& 2{\mbox{Re}}[M^*(++;++)M(--;++)] \nonumber \\
241: &+& 2{\mbox{Re}}[M^*(+-;+-)M(-+;+-)] \nonumber \\
242: &+& 4|M(++;+-)|^2,
243: \end{eqnarray}
244: where $R$ has been defined in Eq.~\ref{new_eq2}.
245: At $\theta_{cm}= 90^\circ$ the ratio of the three helicity non-flip
246: amplitudes is $2:1:1$~\cite{hel_amp_ref}. Taking this into account we have fit the $A_{NN}$ data by including the helicity flipping
247: amplitudes. Fig.~\ref{ann_fig}a shows the results for the case where the helicity flip amplitude is neglected and only the interference between short
248: distance amplitude and the Landshoff amplitude is used (in this case the expression for $A_{NN}$ simplifies to $R A_{NN} = 2{\mbox{Re}}[M^*(+-;+-)M(-+;+-)]$). These results are similar to those obtained by Carlson {\it et. al}~\cite{carlson} and they described the $A_{NN}$ data at high energies but fail to
249: describe the low energy data using this idea of interference between
250: short distance and Landshoff terms. Fig.~\ref{ann_fig}b shows the results of our fit when the helicity flipping amplitudes are included. It is clear that
251: this method is a better fit to a larger fraction of the data which includes some low energy data. This suggests that even in case of the spin correlation
252: $A_{NN}$ in polarized $pp$ elastic scattering the helicity flip amplitudes play an important role at low energies ($s < $ 10 GeV$^2$).
253: \begin{figure}[htbp]
254: {\includegraphics*[width=9.0cm,height=7.0cm]{gsrfig3.eps}}
255: \caption[]{(a) The fit to $A_{NN}$ from polarized $pp$ scattering data
256: at $\theta_{cm}= 90^\circ$ with the helicity non-flip and Landshoff
257: amplitudes only. (b) Fit to the same data when the helicity flip amplitudes are included. The data are from Ref.~\cite{crabb, correlations}. The solid line is the fit and the dashed line is the expectation assuming hadron helicity conservation.}
258: \label{ann_fig}
259: \end{figure}
260:
261: %%%% gamma N data
262: Recently some precision data on pion-photoproduction from nucleons above the resonance region has become available from JLab~\cite{zhu}. These data show hints of oscillation about the $s^{-7}$ scaling predicted by the quark counting rule. In pion-photoproduction from nucleons the helicity non-flip amplitudes
263: has an energy dependence of $s^{-2.5}$, and there is just one helicity flip
264: amplitude which according to the generalized counting rule has an energy
265: dependence of $s^{-3}$~\cite{ji-scaling}. There are no leading order Landshoff terms in
266: pion-photoproduction since the initial state has a single hadron. However, the
267: Landshoff process can contribute at sub-leading order~\cite{farrar2} (i.e. $\sim s^{-3}$ instead of $\sim s^{-2}$). In principle, the fluctuation of a photon into a $q\bar q$ in the initial
268: state can contribute an independent scattering amplitude at sub-leading
269: order. But,
270: experimentally it has been shown that vector-meson dominance diffractive
271: mechanism is suppressed in vector meson photoproduction at large values of
272: $t$ \cite{hallb}. On the other hand such independent scattering amplitude
273: can contribute in the final state if more than one hadron exist in the final
274: state, as is the case in nucleon photo-pion production reactions. Thus an unambiguous confirmation of such an oscillatory behavior in exclusive
275: photoreactions with hadrons in the final state at large $t$ may provide a
276: signature of QCD final state interaction.
277:
278: We have fit the pion-photoproduction data at $\theta_{cm}= 90^\circ$ including the helicity flip amplitude and the Landshoff amplitude at sub leading order with an energy dependent phase. The Landshoff amplitude was parametrized according to the ansatz given in Ref.~\cite{kundu}. The amplitudes for $\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^{+} n$ and $\gamma n \rightarrow \pi^{-} p$ and the respective
279: Landshoff contribution to each amplitude can be written as;
280: \begin{eqnarray}
281: \label{new_eq3}
282: M_{HC} &=& s^{-2.5}(a_{1} + b_{1}s^{-0.5}\frac{e^{ic_1\phi(s)+i\delta_1}}{(\log(s))^{d_1}}) \nonumber\\
283: M_{NC1} &=& s^{-2.5}(a_{2}s^{-0.5} + b_{2}s^{-0.5}\frac{e^{ic_2\phi(s)+i\delta_2}}{(\log(s))^{d_2}}),
284: \end{eqnarray}
285: and the scaled cross-section is given by;\\
286: $s^7\frac{d\sigma}{dt} \propto |M_{HC}|^2 + |M_{NC1}|^2$, where $\phi(s) = lnln(s/\Lambda^2)$. As seen in Fig~\ref{pipfit} the existing
287: data can be fit quite well with this form. However, the data are rather
288: coarsely distributed in energy and so these results are not a conclusive evidence for oscillations in pion-photoproduction. This underscores the point that a fine scan of
289: energies above the resonance region is urgently needed. This is exactly the issue that will be addressed in the JLab experiment E02010~\cite{e02010} in the near future.
290:
291: \begin{figure}[htbp]
292: {\includegraphics*[width=9.0cm,height=8.0cm]{gsrfig4.eps}}
293: \caption[]{(a) The fit to $\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^+ n$ scattering data
294: at $\theta_{cm}= 90^\circ$ when helicity flip and sub-leading order Landshoff amplitudes are included (b) Fit to $\gamma n \rightarrow \pi^- p$ scattering
295: data at $\theta_{cm}= 90^\circ$. The data are from Ref.~\cite{pidata, zhu}.}
296: \label{pipfit}
297: \end{figure}
298:
299:
300: %%%%% Conclusions
301: We have shown that the generalized counting rule of Ji~{\it et al.}~\cite{ji-scaling} along with the Landshoff terms and associated interferences does a
302: better job of describing the oscillations about the quark counting rule, in
303: the $pp$ elastic scattering data at $\theta_{cm}= 90^\circ$. This is specially true in the low energy region ($s<$ 10 GeV$^2$). The contributions from helicity flipping amplitudes which are related to quark orbital angular momentum, seem to play an important role at these low energies, which is reasonable given that the quark orbital angular momentum is non-negligible compared to the
304: momentum scale of the scattering process. Similarly the
305: spin-correlation $A_{NN}$ in polarized $pp$ elastic scattering data can be better described by including the helicity flipping amplitude along with the
306: Landshoff amplitude and their interference. The photo-pion production data
307: from nucleons at large angles can also be described similarly; however,
308: because of the coarse energy spacing of the data, the results are not as
309: illustrative. This points to the urgent need for more data on
310: pion-photoproduction above the resonance region with finer energy spacing.
311: We expect that our experiment at JLab which is approved for running will help address this need in the near future.
312:
313: %%%%% Acknowledgement
314: We acknowledge fruitful discussions with X.~Ji and S.~J.~Brodsky.
315: This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-FG02-03ER41231.
316:
317: %%%--- References
318: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
319: \bibitem{white}C. White {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D49}, 58 (1994).
320: \bibitem{brodsky}S.~J. Brodsky and G.R. Farrar, Phys. Rev. Lett.{\bf 31}, 1153 (1973); Phys. Rev. D {\bf 11}, 1309 (1975); V. Matveev {\it et al.}, Nuovo Cimento Lett. {\bf 7}, 719 (1973);
321: \bibitem{schulte}C. Bochna {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PRL}{81}{4576}{1998};
322: E.C. Schulte, {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PRL}{87}{102302}{2001};
323: \bibitem{rossi}P. Rossi {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett {\bf94}, 012301 (2005); M. Mirazita {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 70}, 014005 (2004).
324: \bibitem{zhu}L.~Y.~Zhu {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 022003 (2003); L.~Y.~Zhu {\it et al.}, nucl-ex/0409018.
325: \bibitem{hhc}S.~J.~Brodsky and G.~P.~Lepage, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 24}, 2848 (1981).
326: \bibitem{krishni}K. Wijesooriya, {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PRL}{86}, 2975 (2001).
327: \bibitem{lepage}G.~P. Lepage, and S.~J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 22}, 2157 (1980).
328: \bibitem{gousset}T. Gousset, B. Pire and J.~P.~Ralston, \Journal{\PRD}{53}{1202}{1996}.
329: \bibitem{rj_hh}J. P. Ralston and P. Jain, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 053008 (2004).
330: \bibitem{isgur}N. Isgur and C.~H.~Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 52}, 1080 (1984).
331: \bibitem{ppdata}C.~W.~Akerlof, {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. 159, 1138 (1967); R.~C.~Kammerud, {\it et al.}, Phys Rev. D {\bf 4}, 1309 (1971); K.~A.~Jenkins, {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett, {\bf 40}, 425 (1978).
332: \bibitem{hendry}A.W. Hendry, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 10}, 2300 (1974).
333: \bibitem{pidata}D.~P.~Owen {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf 181}, 1794 (1969);
334: K.~A.~Jenkins {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 21}, 2445 (1980);
335: C.~Haglin {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 216}, 1 (1983).
336: \bibitem{crabb}D.G. Crabb {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 41}, 1257 (1978).
337: \bibitem{correlations}G.R. Court {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 57}, 507 (1986);T.S. Bhatia {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 49}, 1135 (1982); E.A. Crosbie {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 23}, 600 (1981).
338: \bibitem{brodsky_de}S.~J.~Brodsky, and G.~F.~deTeramond; Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 60}, 1924 (1988).
339: \bibitem{ralston}J.~P.~ Ralston and B.~Pire, Phys Rev. Lett. {\bf 49}, 1605 (1982); B.~Pire and J.~P.~Ralston, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 117}, 233 (1982)
340: \bibitem{sen}A.~Sen, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 28}, 860 (1983).
341: \bibitem{carlson}C.E. Carlson, M. Chachkhunashvili, and F. Myhrer, Phys. Rev.
342: D {\bf 46}, 2891 (1992).
343: \bibitem{sargsian} L.L. Frankfurt, G.A. Miller, M.M. Sargsian, and M.I. Strikman, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 3045 (2000).
344: \bibitem{close}Q.~Zhao and F.~E.~Close, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 022004 (2003).
345: \bibitem{ji-scaling}X.~Ji, J.-P.~Ma and F.~Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 241601 (2003).
346: \bibitem{cft}J. Polchinski and M.J. Strassler, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 031601 (2002); R.C. Brower and C.I. Tan, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 662}, 393 (2003); O. Andreev, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 046001 (2003).
347: \bibitem{brodsky_new}S.~J.~Brodsky and G.~F.~de Teramond, Phys. Lett. {\bf B582}, 211 (2004); S.~J.~Brodsky,J.~R.~Hiller, D.~S.~Hwang and V.~A.~Karmanov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 076001 (2004).
348: \bibitem{rj_ff}R. Buniy, J.~P.~Ralston and P. Jain in {\it VII International
349: Conference on the Intersections of Particle and Nuclear Physics}, Quebec City, 2000, edited by Z.~Parsa and W.~Marciano (AIP, New York, 2000), hep/ph/0206074
350: \bibitem{Ji_ff}A.~V.~Belitsky, X.~Ji and F.~Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 092003 (2003).
351: \bibitem{poltar}M.~K.~Jones {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 1398 (2000); O.~Gayou {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 092301 (2002).
352: \bibitem{hel_amp_ref}S.~J.~Brodsky, C.~E.~Carlson and H.~Lipkin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 20}, 2278, (1979);G.~R.~Farrar, S.~Gottlieb, D.~Sivers and G.~H.~Thomas, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 20}, 202 (1979).
353: \bibitem{landshoff}P. V. Landshoff, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 10}, 1024 (1974).
354: \bibitem{botts}J.~Botts and G.~Sterman, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B325}, 62 (1989).
355: \bibitem{mueller}A.~H.~Mueller, Phys. Rep. {\bf 73}, 237 (1981).
356: \bibitem{kundu}P.~Jain, B.~Kundu and J.~P.~Ralston, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 094027 (2002).
357: \bibitem{farrar2}G.R. Farrar, G. Sterman, and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 2229 (1989).
358: \bibitem{hallb}E. Anciant {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 4682 (2000).
359: \bibitem{e02010} JLab experiment E02-010, Spokespersons D.~Dutta, H.~Gao and R. Holt (2002).
360:
361: \end{thebibliography}
362:
363:
364: \end{document}
365:
366: