1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %% ws-procs9x6.tex : 20-9-2004
3: %% Text file for Proceedings Trim Size [9in x 6in] written in Latex2E.
4: %% The content, structure, format and layout of this style file is the
5: %% property of World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
6: %% Copyright 1995, 2002 by World Scientific Publishing Co.
7: %% All rights are reserved.
8: %%
9: %% Proceedings Trim Size: 9in x 6in
10: %% Text Area: 7.35in (include runningheads) x 4.5in
11: %% Main Text is 10/13pt
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13:
14: %% Use \tbl{...} command for table caption i.e. to fit table width.
15: %% Use \caption{...} command for figure caption.
16: %\documentclass[draft]{ws-procs9x6}
17: \documentclass{ws-procs9x6}
18:
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: \title{Energy Dependence of Helicity--Flip Amplitudes in the Small--Angle
22: Elastic pp--Scattering}
23:
24: \author{S.~M. TROSHIN and N.~E. TYURIN}
25:
26: \address{Institute
27: for High Energy Physics,\\
28: Protvino, Moscow Region, 142281 Russia}
29:
30:
31: \maketitle
32:
33: \abstracts{We discuss a role of the double helicity-flip amplitudes and
34: derive new unitary bounds for these
35: amplitudes in
36: elastic $pp$-scattering at small
37: values of $t$. We show that the usual assumption on the smallness of such amplidudes
38: can be justified only in the shrinking with energy region of small $t$ values.
39: }
40: Discussion of a role and magnitude of helicity-flip amplitudes in small-angle
41: elastic scattering
42: has a long history and is an important issue in
43: the studies of the spin properties of diffraction. Recently
44: an interest in accounting the contributions
45: of helicity-flip amplitudes becomes associated with
46: CNI polarimetry related problems\cite{brav} as well.
47: Not only non-flip and single helicity-flip amplitudes can give
48: contributions and affect the estimates and bounds for the analyzing
49: power $A_N$. Double helicity-flip amplitudes can also contribute
50: into $A_N$ and their behavior at high energies is also
51: important for the spin correlation
52: parameters and total cross-section differences in experiments with two
53: polarized beams available at RHIC nowadays.
54:
55: The double helicity-flip amplitudes are usually
56: neglected since they are supposed to be small
57: in the whole region of momentum transfers. But this assumption is based
58: merely on the technical simplification of the problem and is not
59: valid at large momentum transfers in elastic $pp$-scattering
60: where double-flip amplitudes can play an important role and fill up
61: multiple-dip structure in differential cross-section providing
62: correct description of the experimental data\cite{uf24}.
63: It is natural then to asses the role of double helicity-flip amplitudes
64: at small and moderate values of $t$ also.
65:
66:
67:
68:
69: The method we use is based on the
70: unitarity equation for helicity amplitudes of elastic
71: $pp$-scattering, i.e. we adhere to a
72: rational form of unitarization which
73: corresponds to an approximate wave function which changes both
74: the phase and amplitude of the wave in potential scattering.
75: For the helicity amplitudes
76: of $pp$--scattering (i.e. for the two--fermion
77: scattering)
78: the corresponding solution of the unitarity equations :
79: \begin{eqnarray}
80: F_{\lambda_3,\lambda_4,\lambda_1,\lambda_2}({\bf p},{\bf q}) & =
81: & U_{\lambda_3,\lambda_4,\lambda_1,\lambda_2}({\bf p},{\bf q})+ \label{heq}\\
82: & & i\frac{\pi}{8}
83: \sum_{\lambda ',\lambda ''}\int d\Omega_{{ \bf \hat k}}
84: U_{\lambda_3,\lambda_4,\lambda ',\lambda ''}({\bf p},{\bf k})
85: F_{\lambda ',\lambda '',\lambda_1,\lambda_2}({\bf k},{\bf q}),\nonumber
86: \end{eqnarray}
87: in the impact parameter representation
88: can be found an
89: explicit solution in the following
90: form:
91: \begin{eqnarray}
92: f_1 & = & \frac{(u_1 + u_1^2 - u_2^2)(1 + u_3 + u_4) - 2(1 + 2u_1 - 2u_2)u_5^2}
93: {(1 + u_1 - u_2)[(1 + u_1 + u_2)(1 + u_3 + u_4)- 4u_5^2]},\nonumber\\
94: f_2 & = & \frac{u_2(1 + u_3 + u_4) - 2u_5^2}
95: {(1 + u_1 - u_2)[(1 + u_1 + u_2)(1 + u_3 + u_4)- 4u_5^2]},\nonumber\\
96: f_3 & = & \frac{(u_3 + u_3^2 - u_4^2)(1 + u_1 + u_2) - 2(1 + 2u_3 - 2u_4)u_5^2}
97: {(1 + u_3 - u_4)[(1 + u_1 + u_2)(1 + u_3 + u_4)- 4u_5^2]},\nonumber\\
98: f_4 & = & \frac{u_4(1 + u_1 + u_2) - 2u_5^2}
99: {(1 + u_3 - u_4)[(1 + u_1 + u_2)(1 + u_3 + u_4)- 4u_5^2]},\nonumber\\
100: f_5 & = & \frac{u_5}
101: {(1 + u_1 + u_2)(1 + u_3 + u_4)- 4u_5^2},\label{fi}
102: \end{eqnarray}
103: where for simplicity we omitted in the functions $f_i(s,b)$
104: and $u_i(s,b)$ their arguments. Unitarity requires that
105: $\mbox{Re}u_{1,3}(s,b)\geq 0$, but the absolute values of the
106: functions $u_i(s,b)$ should not be limited by unity.
107: For the functions $u_{2,4}(s,b)$ we adhere to a simple general
108: (using arguments
109: based on the analytical properties in the complex $t$--plane\cite{f4n}):
110: \begin{equation}
111: u_{2}\sim u_4 \sim s^{\Delta} e^{-\mu b}.\label{usbn}
112: \end{equation}
113: To get an upper bound for the amplitudes $F_{2,4}(s,t)$
114: we consider the case when $u_{2,4}(s,b)$ are dominating ones.
115: Then we have for the amplitudes $F_{2,4}(s,t)$ the following
116: representation
117: \begin{equation}
118: F_{2}(s,t)=\frac{is}{\pi^2}\int_0^\infty bdb \frac{u_{2}(s,b)}
119: {1-u_{2}^2(s,b)}J_0(b\sqrt{-t})\label{f2s}
120: \end{equation}
121: and
122: \begin{equation}
123: F_{4}(s,t)=\frac{is}{\pi^2}\int_0^\infty bdb \frac{u_{4}(s,b)}
124: {1-u_{4}^2(s,b)}J_2(b\sqrt{-t})\label{f4s}
125: \end{equation}
126: Using for $u_{2,4}(s,b)$ the functional dependence in the form of Eq.
127: (\ref{usbn}) it can be shown that the amplitude $F_2(s,t=0)$
128: cannot rise faster than $s\ln s$ at $s\to\infty$ and the function
129: \[
130: \hat F_4(s,t=0)\equiv [\frac{m^2}{-t}F_4(s,t)]|_{t=0}
131: \]
132: cannot rise faster than $s\ln^3 s$ at $s\to\infty$.
133:
134: Thus, we can state that the explicit account of unitarity in the
135: form of $U$ - matrix approach
136: leads to the following upper bound for the cross-section difference
137: \[
138: \Delta\sigma_T \leq c\ln s,
139: \]
140: where
141: \[
142: \Delta\sigma_T\equiv\sigma_{tot}(\uparrow\downarrow )-\sigma_{tot}(\uparrow\uparrow )
143: \sim-\frac{1}{s}\mbox{Im}F_2(s,t=0).
144: \]
145: It should be noted that the asymptotic behaviour of the amplitudes
146: $F_1$ and $F_3$ are determined by the functions $u_2$ and $u_4$, respectively, in the
147: situation when these functions dominate; the
148: Froissart--Martin asymptotical bound for these amplitudes remains under these
149: circumstances, i.e. they are
150: limited by $cs\ln^2s$ at $t=0$.
151:
152: Another related important consequence is the conclusion on the possibility to neglect
153: helicity-flip amplitudes $F_2$, $F_4$ and $F_5$ under calculations of differential
154: cross-section
155: \[
156: \frac{d\sigma}{dt}=\frac{2\pi^5}{s^2}(|F_1(s,t)|^2+|F_2(s,t)|^2+|F_3(s,t)|^2+
157: |F_4(s,t)|^2+4|F_5(s,t)|^2)
158: \]
159: and double helicity-flip amplitudes $F_2$ and $F_4$ under calculation
160: of analyzing power $A_N$
161: \[
162: A_N(s,t)\frac{d\sigma}{dt}=\frac{2\pi^5}{s^2}\mbox{Im}[(F_1(s,t)+F_2(s,t)+F_3(s,t)
163: -F_4(s,t))^*F_5(s,t)]
164: \]
165: in the region of small values of $t$ in high energy limit. This conclusion is based
166: on the above bounds for the helicity amplitudes and their small $t$ dependence due to
167: angular momentum conservation, i.e.
168: at $-t\to 0$: $F_i \sim \mbox{const}$, $(i=1,2,3)$, $F_5\sim\sqrt{-t}$ and
169: $F_4\sim -t$. However, the dominance of the helicity-non-flip amplitudes ceases
170: to be valid at fixed values of momentum transfers, where , e.g. amplitude $F_4$ can
171: become a dominant one, since its energy growth is limited by the function $s\ln^3 s$, while
172: other helicity amplitudes cannot increase faster than $s\ln^2 s$.
173:
174: One should recall that unitarity for the helicity amplitudes leads to a peripheral
175: dependence of the amplitudes $f_i(s,b)$ $(i=2,4,5)$
176: on the impact parameter $b$ at high energy, i.e.
177: \[
178: |f_i(s,b=0)|\rightarrow 0
179: \]
180: at $s\rightarrow\infty$. This is a consequence of the explicit
181: unitarity
182: representation for the helicity amplitudes through the $U$-matrix and it is this
183: fact allows
184: one to get better bounds for the helicity-flip amplitudes.
185:
186: Thus, we have shown here and in\cite{uf5}, that
187: the following asymptotic results should be valid:
188: \begin{itemize}
189: \item
190: the ratio
191: $r_5(s,0)\equiv2\hat{F}_5(s,0)/[F_1(s,0)+F_3(s,0)]$
192: cannot increase with energy,
193: \item
194: the amplitude $F_2(s,t=0)$
195: cannot increase faster than $s\ln s$,
196: \item
197: the function
198: $\hat F_4(s,t=0)$
199: should not rise faster than $s\ln^3 s$ at high energies.
200: \end{itemize}
201: Nowadays
202: RHIC spin program includes experiments with two polarized proton beams at the
203: highest available energies and the above bounds could be useful
204: and provide grounds for the estimations of the spin observables
205: in the forward region in these experiments.
206: The above bounds provide justification of
207: the smallness of the double helicity-flip amplitudes in the low-$t$ region, but
208: simultaneously they imply an importance of the double helicity-flip
209: amplitudes at the moderate values of momentum transfers. This result is in accordance
210: with early analysis of experimental data performed in\cite{uf24}.
211: It is also evident that the region of the momentum transfers where helicity--flip
212: amplitudes can be neglected is shrinking with energy, e.g. for the amplitude
213: $F_4$ this shrinkage is proportional to $1/\ln s$.
214: Magnitude of the helicity amplitude $F_2$ at $t=0$ can be measured directly
215: at RHIC through the measurements of $\Delta\sigma_T$\cite{brav}
216: and it is definitely an
217: important study of the spin properties of diffraction.
218: The experimental data for
219: $\Delta\sigma _T(s)$
220: could also be a useful source of information
221: on the low-$x$ behaviour of the spin structure function $h_1(x)$.
222: \section*{Acknowledgments}
223: We are grateful to the Local Organizing Committee of SPIN2004 for the warm hospitality
224: in Trieste during the Symposium.
225:
226: \small \begin{thebibliography}{99}
227: \bibitem{brav}
228: A. Bravar, invited talk at SPIN2004; these Proceedings.
229: \bibitem{uf24}
230: V. F. Edneral, S. M. Troshin and N. E. Tyurin,
231: JETP Lett. {\bf 30}, 330 (1979).
232: \bibitem{uf5}
233: S. M. Troshin and N.E. Tyurin,
234: Phys. Lett. {\bf B459}, 641 (1999).
235: \bibitem{f4n}
236: S. M. Troshin and N.E. Tyurin,
237: Phys. Lett. {\bf B580}, 54 (2004).
238:
239:
240:
241:
242:
243:
244:
245:
246:
247: \end{thebibliography}
248:
249: \end{document}
250: