1: \documentclass[a4paper]{article}

2: \newcommand{\be} {\begin{equation}}

3: \newcommand{\ee} {\end{equation}}

4: \newcommand{\bdm} {\begin{displaymath}}

5: \newcommand{\edm} {\end{displaymath}}

6: \newcommand{\bc} {\begin{center}}

7: \newcommand{\ec} {\end{center}}

8: \newcommand{\beqa} {\begin{eqnarray}}

9: \newcommand{\eeqa} {\end{eqnarray}}

10: \newcommand{\nn} {\nonumber}

11: \newcommand{\ra} {\rightarrow}

12: \newcommand{\lb} {\label}

13: \newcommand{\bfig} {\begin{figure}}

14: \newcommand{\efig} {\end{figure}}

15: \newcommand{\btab} {\begin{tabular}}

16: \newcommand{\etab} {\end{tabular}}

17: \newcommand{\hl} {\hline}

18: \textwidth=15cm

19: \oddsidemargin=5mm

20: \parindent=0pt

21: \parskip=3pt

22: \usepackage{epsfig}

23: \begin{document}

24: \bc

25: {\bf\Large Evidence for Quark Spin-flip in Pomeron Exchange}

26: \ec

27: \bigskip

28: \bc

29: {\large A Donnachie}\\

30: {\large Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester}\\

31: {\large Manchester M13 9PL, England}

32: \ec

33: \medskip

34: 

35: \begin{abstract}

36: \noindent Spin-parity analyses of the $\omega\pi$ system in the reaction 

37: $\gamma p \to (\omega\pi) p$ for photon laboratory energies from 20 to 70 

38: GeV have shown that production of the $J^P=1^+$ $b_1(1235)$ meson dominates, 

39: with a $J^P=1^-$ background at the level of $20\%$. Using vector-meson 

40: dominance arguments, this background is shown to be consistent with the 

41: data on $e^+e^- \to \omega\pi$. The energy dependence of the data imply 

42: that the mechanism is a combination of Reggeon and Pomeron exchange. 

43: Assuming that the latter is relevant only for the $J^P = 1^-$ component 

44: and extrapolating to $W=200$ GeV, it is argued that this accounts for most 

45: of the preliminary $\omega\pi$ signal observed by the H1 Collaboration in 

46: the same reaction. A residual peak can be ascribed to the $b_1(1235)$, 

47: which requires a quark spin-flip from Pomeron exchange. Precisely the 

48: same mechanism occurs in the reaction $\pi p \to a_1(1260) p$.

49: \end{abstract}  

50: 

51: \bigskip

52: 

53: {\large

54: Preliminary data from the H1 Collaboration \cite{H102} on the reaction 

55: $\gamma p \to (\omega\pi^0) X$ at $\langle W \rangle = 200$ GeV and 

56: $\langle W \rangle = 210$ GeV was provisionally interpreted as diffractive 

57: $b_1(1235)$ production. After subtraction of the non-resonant background 

58: predicted by Pythia, the cross section for $\gamma p \to b_1(1235) X$ is

59: \be

60: \sigma(\gamma p \to b_1(1235) X) = 790 \pm 200({\rm stat})\pm 

61: 200({\rm syst})~~{\rm nb}

62: \ee

63: At first sight it is unlikely that the $b_1(1235)$ can be produced by 

64: Pomeron exchange, which this interpretation requires. The transition 

65: $\gamma \to b_1(1235)$ does not satisfy the Gribov-Morrison rule 

66: \cite{Gri67,Mor68} which relates the change in spin $\Delta J$ to the 

67: change in parity between the incident particle and the outgoing resonance 

68: by $P_{\rm out}=(-1)^{\Delta_J}P_{\rm in}$. Further it is well-known 

69: experimentally that pomeron exchange conserves helicity to a good 

70: approximation, so that helicity-flip amplitudes are small. This is 

71: in agreement with the phenomenological $\gamma_\mu$ coupling of the 

72: pomeron to quarks \cite{LP71}. The $q\bar{q}$ pair from a photon are in 

73: a spin-triplet state, as exemplified by vector-meson dominance, but the 

74: quarks in the $b_1(1235)$ meson are in a spin-singlet state so quark 

75: helicity flip is required for the $\gamma \to b_1(1235)$ transition. 

76: There is also experimental evidence, at lower energy, that the reaction 

77: $\gamma p \to (\omega\pi^0) p$ is not dominated by pomeron exchange. 

78: 

79: The Omega Photon Collaboration \cite{CERN1} at CERN performed a spin-parity 

80: analysis of the $\omega\pi^0$ enhancement photoproduced in the energy range 

81: 20 to 70 GeV, with $\langle W \rangle = 8.6$ GeV. They concluded that the 

82: enhancement is consistent with predominant $b_1(1235)$ production, with 

83: $\sim 20\%$ $J^P = 1^-$ background. This conclusion was confirmed by a SLAC 

84: experiment \cite{SLAC} at an energy of 20 GeV, $W = 6.2$ GeV, with a 

85: polarised beam. It should be noted that a spin-parity analysis of the H1 

86: data cannot be performed because of limited acceptance. It was possible to 

87: measure the energy dependence of the reaction in the CERN experiment, with 

88: the result

89: \be

90: \sigma(E_\gamma) = \sigma(39)\Big(\frac{39}{E_\gamma}\Big)^\alpha,~~~~20 

91: \le E_\gamma \le 70~~{\rm GeV}

92: \label{sig1}

93: \ee

94: with

95: \be

96: \sigma(39) = 0.86 \pm 0.27 \mu{\rm b},~~~~\alpha = 0.6 \pm 0.2

97: \label{sig2}

98: \ee

99: Such an energy dependence is not consistent with dominance of pomeron 

100: exchange, which would require an increasing cross section, nor is it 

101: consistent with pure Regge exchange, which would require a somewhat faster 

102: decrease with increasing energy. A natural interpretation is that the 

103: observed energy dependence arises from a combination of pomeron and 

104: reggeon exchange. As a simple first approximation, consider the cross

105: section to be given by non-interfering reggeon and pomeron exchanges, the 

106: former relating primarily to $b_1(1235)$ production and the latter relating 

107: entirely to the production of the $J^P = 1^-$ state. The energy dependence 

108: of the cross section (\ref{sig1}) can be well reproduced by 

109: \be

110: \sigma(s) = As^{2\epsilon}+Bs^{-2\eta}

111: \label{sig3}

112: \ee

113: where $\epsilon$ and $\eta$ have the standard values \cite{DL} 0.08 and 0.4525

114: respectively and

115: \be

116: A = 0.107~\mu{\rm b},~~~~B = 29.15~\mu{\rm b}

117: \label{sig4}

118: \ee

119: At $E_\gamma = 39$ GeV the pomeron contribution to the cross section is 

120: 25$\%$, in good agreement with what is observed for the $J^P = 1^-$ component 

121: in the data. Extrapolating the pomeron part of (\ref{sig3}) to HERA energies 

122: gives a cross section of 584 nb. As the HERA data include diffraction 

123: dissociation of the nucleon, the result extrapolated from the fit to the 

124: CERN data should be increased by a factor of about 1.25 giving 730 nb, 

125: compatible with the cross section observed. The reggeon part of the cross 

126: section is negligible at this energy. 

127: 

128: \bfig[t]

129: \bc

130: \begin{minipage}{65mm}

131: \epsfxsize65mm

132: \epsffile{ee_ompi.eps}

133: \begin{picture}(0,0)

134: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}

135: \put(50,40){\small{(a)}}

136: \put(-5,40){\small{$\sigma$ (nb)}}

137: \put(30,-2){\small{$m$ (GeV)}}

138: \end{picture}

139: \end{minipage}

140: \hfill

141: \begin{minipage}{65mm}

142: \epsfxsize65mm

143: \epsffile{gam_ompi.eps}

144: \begin{picture}(0,0)

145: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}

146: \put(50,40){\small{(b)}}

147: \put(-5,40){\small{$\frac{d\sigma}{dm}$}}

148: \put(-8,35){\small{($\mu$b/GeV)}}

149: \put(30,-2){\small{$m$ (GeV)}}

150: \end{picture}

151: \end{minipage}

152: \caption{(a) The cross section for $e^+e^- \to \omega\pi$. The data are from 

153: Novosibirsk \cite{novo} (horizontal bars), CLEO \cite{cleo} (crosses) and

154: the DM2 Collaboration \cite{dm2} (stars)  (b) The $J^P = 1^-$ component of

155: the $\omega\pi$ mass distribution in the reaction $\gamma p \to \omega\pi p$ 

156: at $\sqrt{s}=8.5$ GeV. The data are from the Omega Photon Collaboration 

157: \cite{CERN1} (crosses) and from the application of vector meson dominance 

158: to the data in (a) (horizontal bars).} 

159: \ec

160: \efig

161: 

162: What is the origin of this $J^P = 1^-$ component? An estimate can be made 

163: using simple vector meson dominance arguments. For a vector final state $V$, 

164: the cross section for $\gamma p \to V p$ is related to that for $e^+e^- \to V$ 

165: by \cite{SS72}

166: \be

167: \frac{d^2\sigma_{\gamma p \to V p}(s,m^2)}{dt~dm^2} = \frac{\sigma_{e+e- \to V}

168: (m^2)}{4\pi^2\alpha}\frac{d\sigma_{V p \to V p}(s,m^2)}{dt}

169: \label{sig5}

170: \ee

171: Using the optical theorem to relate the amplitude at $t=0$ to the total cross 

172: section for $V p$ scattering and integrating over $t$ gives

173: \be

174: \frac{d\sigma_{\gamma p \to V p}(s,m^2)}{dm} = \frac{m\sigma_{e+e- \to V}(m^2)}

175: {32 \pi^3 \alpha b}(\sigma^{Tot}_{V p \to V p}(s))^2

176: \label{sig6}

177: \ee

178: where $b \approx 5$ GeV$^{-2}$ is the slope of the near-forward differential 

179: cross section.

180: 

181: The cross section for $\gamma p \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^- p$ over the same 

182: energy and four-pion mass ranges as the $\omega\pi$ photoproduction data has 

183: been compared with the data on $e^+e^- \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ by the Omega 

184: Photon Collaboration \cite{CERN2}. This gave the result 

185: \be

186: \sigma^{Tot}_{V p \to V p} = 16.7 \pm 3.4~{\rm mb.}

187: \label{sig7}

188: \ee

189: Three models were considered in the spin-parity analysis \cite{CERN1} of the 

190: $\gamma p \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^- p$ data: $\omega\pi$ states with $J^P = 1^+,

191:  1^-, 0^-$, $J^P = 1^+, 1^-$ and $J^P = 1^+, 1^-$ with the $1^-$ constrained 

192: to be $s$-channel helicity conserving. It is the third one that we use here.

193:  

194: The data \cite{novo,cleo,dm2} for $e^+e^- \to \omega\pi$ are shown in Fig.1a 

195: and the comparison with $d\sigma/dm$ in Fig.1b. The errors arising from 

196: (\ref{sig7}) have not been included. The normalisation in this comparison is 

197: absolute and shows that the model produces the same $J^P=1^-$ cross section 

198: as the reggeon plus pomeron fit, within the admittedly large errors.

199: 

200: \bfig[t]

201: \bc

202: \begin{minipage}{70mm}

203: \epsfxsize70mm

204: \epsffile{gam_ompi_200.eps}

205: \begin{picture}(0,0)

206: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}

207: \put(-5,40){\small{$\frac{d\sigma}{dm}$}}

208: \put(-9,35){\small{($\mu$b/GeV)}}

209: \put(30,-2){\small{$m$ (GeV)}}

210: \end{picture}

211: \end{minipage}

212: \caption{The $\omega\pi$ mass distribution in the reaction $\gamma p \to 

213: \omega\pi p$ at $\sqrt{s}=200$ GeV. The data (preliminary) are from the 

214: H1 Collaboration \cite{H102} (crosses) and from the application of vector 

215: meson dominance to the data in Fig.1a (horizontal bars).}

216: \ec

217: \efig

218: 

219: A similar comparison can be made with the HERA data and this is shown in 

220: Fig.2 after converting the preliminary H1 data from events/bin to $d\sigma/dm$ 

221: assuming 790 nb as the integrated cross section. At the upper end of the mass 

222: range the agreement is reasonably good, perhaps surprisingly so given the 

223: overall errors in the procedures we are using. However the overall shapes are 

224: not the same, with an apparent excess of H1 data at the lower mass end. This 

225: could be explained if there were some diffractive production of the 

226: $b_1(1235)$. As we said initially, diffractive production of the $b_1(1235)$ 

227: implies a spin-flip pomeron-exchange contribution. Is this reasonable?

228: 

229: \bfig[t]

230: \bc

231: \begin{minipage}{70mm}

232: \epsfxsize70mm

233: \epsffile{a1sigfit2.eps}

234: \begin{picture}(0,0)

235: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}

236: \put(-5,42){\small{$\sigma$ ($\mu$b)}}

237: \put(30,-2){\small{$p_{\rm Lab}$ (GeV)}}

238: \end{picture}

239: \end{minipage}

240: \caption{The cross section for $\pi^- p \to a_1(1260) p$. The data are from the

241: ACCMOR Collaboration \cite{ACCMOR} and the curve is the fit using the 

242: parametrisation (\ref{a1-2})}

243: \ec

244: \efig

245: 

246: An analogous reaction is $\pi^- p \to a_1(1260) p$. Although this does satisfy 

247: the Gribov-Morrison rule, like the reaction $\gamma p \to b_1(1235)$ it 

248: requires spin-flip at the quark level. The data \cite{ACCMOR} are shown in 

249: Fig.3 and the reaction is clearly not pomeron dominated. Fitting with a single 

250: effective power,

251: \be

252: \frac{d\sigma}{dm} = As^\alpha

253: \label{a1-1}

254: \ee

255: gives $\alpha = 0.52$. This is very close to the value found for $\gamma p \to 

256: b_1(1235) p$ and it is natural to make the same interpretation, namely that the

257: reaction mechanism is a combination of reggeon and pomeron exchange. However in

258: this case, as we have only one final state, we must allow for interference. The

259: curve in Fig.3 is given by

260: \be

261: \sigma = As^{2\epsilon}+Bs^{\epsilon-\eta}+Cs^{-2\eta}

262: \label{a1-2}

263: \ee

264: with $A=7.87$ $\mu$b, $B = 98.6$ $\mu$b, $C = 1231$ $\mu$b. The values of 

265: $\epsilon$ and $\eta$ are the same as before. 

266: 

267: We can estimate the relative strength of the effective spin-flip coupling of 

268: the pomeron to the non-spin-flip coupling by comparing the fit (\ref{a1-2}) 

269: with a corresponding fit to the elastic $\pi p$ cross section. The result of 

270: such a fit for $p_{\rm Lab} \ge 4$ GeV gives $A_{\rm el}=1.025$ mb. Thus the 

271: contribution of pomeron exchange to the $\pi p$ elastic cross section 

272: (non-spin-flip) is a factor of 130 more than the contribution of the

273: pomeron exchange to the cross section for $\pi p \to a1(1260) p$ (spin flip). 

274: Note that the mechanism we are suggesting here is not the one responsible for 

275: the small violation of $s$-channel helicity conservation in $\gamma p \to 

276: \rho p$ \cite{ZEUS00,H100}. This small effect can be explained 

277: \cite{IK98,KNZ98} by a mechanism which conserves helicity at the quark level.

278: 

279: The difference in cross section beween the H1 data and the estimated $J^P=1^-$ 

280: contribution shown in Fig.2 is of the order of 0.1 - 0.2 $\mu$b with a large 

281: error due to the errors on both the photoproduction and $e^+e^-$ annihilation 

282: data and the simplicity of the model used to estimate the $J^P = 1^-$ 

283: contribution. The cross section for $\rho$ photoproduction at $W = 70$ GeV 

284: is given as $14.7 \pm 0.4 \pm 2.4$ $\mu$b by ZEUS \cite{ZEUS95} and as 

285: $13.6 \pm 0.8 \pm 2.4$ by H1 \cite{H195}. Extrapolating these to $W = 200$ 

286: GeV gives $20.5 \pm 3.4$ $\mu$b and $19 \pm 3.5$ $\mu$b respectively, where 

287: the statistical and systematic errors have been combined in quadrature. So 

288: the ratio of spin-flip to non-spin-flip pomeron exchange in $b_1(1235)$ 

289: photoproduction is of the same order of magnitude as in the case of the 

290: $a_1(1260)$. 

291: 

292: There are a few reactions in which this hypothesis can be checked. The ideal 

293: would be a new measurement of the energy dependence and full spin-parity 

294: analysis of $\omega\pi$ photoproduction. The photoproduction of the isoscalar 

295: counterpart of $\gamma p \to b_1(1235) p$, namely $\gamma p \to h_1(1170)$, 

296: $h_1 \to \rho\pi$, would be expected to occur at about $10\%$ of the 

297: $b_1(1235)$ photoproduction cross section, so would be of the order of 50 

298: to 100 nb at HERA energies. The hypothesis also provides a mechanism for 

299: diffractive photoproduction of the unconfirmed hidden-strangeness $h_1(1380)$ 

300: with a cross section at the level of $1\%$ of the $\phi$ photoproduction cross 

301: section, which is $0.96 \pm 0.19 ^{+0.21}_{-0.18}$ $\mu$b at $\langle W 

302: \rangle =70$ GeV \cite{ZEUSphi}. So we would expect about 10 nanobarns at 

303: this energy.

304: 

305: The suggestion that the pomeron may have a spin-flip coupling is not new and 

306: has been discussed extensively in the context of proton-proton scattering and 

307: diffractive hadron leptoproduction in a number of models. Probably the most 

308: relevant for the present context is a purely phenomenological approach 

309: \cite{mp02} to proton-proton scattering which concluded that there is a 

310: spin-flip pomeron amplitude with the same trajectory as the standard 

311: spin-non-flip pomeron. However this does require the inclusion of an 

312: arbitrary phase difference between the non-spin-flip and spin-flip components

313: of the pomeron so it is not a strict Regge-pole parametrisation. Spin-flip in 

314: diffractive reactions has also been discussed at the parton level, for example 

315: in proton-proton scattering at large $|t|$ \cite{gol02} and in vector-meson 

316: and $Q\bar Q$ production in deep inelastic scattering \cite{gol03,gkp03}. 

317: Although these are more applicable in the framework of perturbative QCD, 

318: they reach the same general conclusions.  

319: 

320: 

321: }

322: 

323: {\large

324: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

325: \bibitem{H102}

326: T Golling and K Meier (H1 Collaboration), H1-preliminary-01-117\\

327: T Berndt (H1 Collaboration), in {\it Proceedings International Conference

328: on High Energy Physics}, Amsterdam, 2002\\

329: T Berndt (H1 Collaboration), Acta Phys.Pol. B33 (2002) 3499

330: 

331: \bibitem{Gri67}

332: V N Gribov, Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics 5 (1967) 138

333: 

334: \bibitem{Mor68}

335: D R O Morrison, Phys.Rev. 165 (1968) 1699

336: 

337: \bibitem{LP71}

338: P V Landshoff and J C Polkinghorne, Nucl.Phys. B28 (1971) 225

339: 

340: \bibitem{CERN1}

341: M Atkinson et al (Omega Photon Collaboration), Nucl.Phys. B243 (1984) 1

342: 

343: \bibitem{SLAC}

344: J E Brau et al, Phys.Rev. D37 (1988) 2379  

345: 

346: \bibitem{DL}

347: A Donnachie and P V Landshoff, Phys.Lett. B296 (1992) 227

348: 

349: \bibitem{SS72}

350: J J Sakurai and D Schildknecht, Phys.Lett. 40B (1972) 121

351: 

352: \bibitem{CERN2}

353: D Aston et al (Omega Photon Collaboration), Nucl.Phys. B189 (1981) 15 

354: 

355: \bibitem{novo}

356: M N Achasov et al (SND Collaboration), Phys.Lett. B486 (2000) 29

357: 

358: \bibitem{cleo}

359: K W Edwards et al (CLEO Collaboration), Phys.Rev. D61 (2000) 072003

360: 

361: \bibitem{dm2}

362: D Bisello et al (DM2 Collaboration), Nucl.Phys.(Proc.Supp.) 21 (1991) 111

363: 

364: \bibitem{ACCMOR}

365: C Daum et al (ACCMOR Collaboration), Phys.Lett. 89B (1980) 281

366: 

367: \bibitem{ZEUS00}

368: J Breitweg et al (ZEUS Collaboration), Eur.Phys.J. C12 (2000) 393

369: 

370: \bibitem{H100}

371: C Adloff et al (H1 Collaboration), Eur.Phys.J. C13 (2000) 371

372: 

373: \bibitem{IK98}

374: D Y Ivanov and R Kirschner, Phys.Rev. D58 (1998) 114026

375: 

376: \bibitem{KNZ98}

377: E V Kuraev, N N Nikolaev and B G Zakharov, JETP Letters 68 (1998) 696

378: 

379: \bibitem{ZEUS95}

380: M Derrick et al (ZEUS Collaboration), Z.Phys. C69 (1995) 39

381: 

382: \bibitem{H195}

383: S Aid et al (H1 Collaboration), Nucl.Phys. B463 (1996) 3

384: 

385: \bibitem{ZEUSphi}

386: M Derrick et al (ZEUS Collaboration), Phys.Lett. B377 (1996) 259

387: 

388: \bibitem{mp02}

389: A F Martini and E Predazzi, Phys.Rev. D66 (2002) 034029

390: 

391: \bibitem{gol02}

392: S V Goloskokov, hep-ph/0210006 and references therein

393: 

394: \bibitem{gol03}

395: S V Goloskokov, in Czech.J.Phys 53 (2003) Suppl A and hep-ph/0311340 

396: 

397: \bibitem{gkp03}

398: S V Goloskokov, P Kroll and B Postler, hep-ph/0308140 and references therein

399: 

400: \end{thebibliography}

401: }

402: \end{document}