1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \documentclass[preprint,tightenlines,showpacs,nofootinbib,aps,preprintnumbers]{revtex4}
3: %\topmargin=0.5mm
4: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs]{revtex4}
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6: \renewcommand{\Im}{{\rm Im¸\,}}
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \preprint{FZJ-IKP-TH-2006-15, HISKP-TH-06/14}
10:
11: \title{
12: On the strong energy dependence of the
13: {\boldmath $e^+e^- \leftrightarrow p{\bar p}$}
14: amplitude near threshold}
15:
16: \author{J. Haidenbauer$^1$, H.-W. Hammer$^2$,
17: Ulf-G. Mei{\ss}ner$^{1,2}$, A. Sibirtsev$^{2}$}
18:
19: \affiliation{
20: $^1$Institut f\"ur Kernphysik (Theorie), Forschungszentrum J\"ulich,
21: D-52425 J\"ulich, Germany \\
22: $^2$Helmholtz-Institut f\"ur Strahlen- und Kernphysik (Theorie),
23: Universit\"at Bonn, Nu\ss allee 14-16, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
24: }
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: We study the energy dependence of the $e^+e^- \to p{\bar p}$ cross section
28: close to the two-nucleon threshold, recently reported
29: by the BaBar collaboration. Our analysis also includes the
30: ${\bar p}p \to e^+e^-$ data collected by PS170 collaboration
31: and the $e^+e^- \to N{\bar N}$ data from the FENICE collaboration.
32: We show that the near-threshold enhancement in the
33: $e^+e^- \to p{\bar p}$ cross section
34: can be explained by the final-state interaction
35: between proton and antiproton in the $^3S_1$ partial wave,
36: utilizing the J\"ulich nucleon-antinucleon model.
37: As a consequence, the strong dependence of the proton
38: electromagnetic form factors on the momentum transfer
39: close to the two-nucleon threshold is presumably also driven by
40: this final-state interaction effect.
41: This result is in line with our previous studies of the
42: near-threshold enhancement of the $p{\bar p}$
43: invariant mass spectrum seen in the $J/\Psi \to \gamma p{\bar p}$
44: decay by the BES collaboration and in the $B^+ \to p{\bar p} K^+$
45: decay by the BaBar collaboration.
46: %
47: \end{abstract}
48: %
49: \pacs{13.66.Bc, 13.75.Cs, 12.39.Pn,}
50:
51: \maketitle
52: The observation of a steep energy dependence of the proton electromagnetic
53: form factors (EMFF) in the timelike region at momentum transfers
54: $q^2\approx (2 m_p)^2$, where $m_p$ is the proton mass,
55: was first reported by the PS170
56: collaboration~\cite{Bardin}, based on a measurement
57: of the ${\bar p}p \to e^+e^-$ reaction cross section close
58: to the $p{\bar p}$ threshold at LEAR. Later the FENICE collaboration at
59: Frascati
60: measured the cross section for the time-reversed process
61: $e^+e^- \to p{\bar p}$~\cite{Antonelli0,Antonelli}. However, their data were
62: taken at energies not close enough to the threshold in order to confirm
63: this strong energy dependence and, furthermore, had very large uncertainties.
64: The FENICE collaboration also made the first and only measurement of the
65: $e^+e^- \to n{\bar n}$ cross section \cite{Antonelli}
66: which turned out, within the large experimental errors, to be close
67: to the $e^+e^- \to p{\bar p}$ one. Only recently the BaBar
68: collaboration reported very precise data on the
69: $e^+e^- \to p{\bar p}$ cross section down to energies very close to the
70: $p{\bar p}$ threshold~\cite{Aubert0}.
71: The form factor deduced from those data substantiates the finding of the
72: PS170 collaboration.
73:
74: A steep dependence of the proton EMFF on the momentum transfer simply
75: reflects the fact that the underlying (measured) $e^+e^- \to p{\bar p}$ cross
76: section shows a significant enhancement near the $p{\bar p}$ threshold.
77: It is interesting that a near-threshold enhancement was also reported recently
78: in an entirely different reaction involving the $p{\bar p}$ system,
79: namely the radiative decay $J/\Psi \to \gamma p{\bar p}$ \cite{Bai}.
80: For the latter case several explanations have been put forth, including
81: scenarios that invoke $N{\bar N}$ bound states or so far unobserved
82: meson resonances. However, it was also shown that a rather conventional but
83: plausible interpretation of the data can be given in terms of the final-state
84: interaction (FSI) between the produced proton and antiproton
85: \cite{Sibirtsev1,Loiseau,Kerbikov,Bugg1,Zou}.
86: Specifically, in the calculation of our group \cite{Sibirtsev1}
87: utilizing the J\"ulich $N{\bar N}$ model \cite{Hippchen,Mull},
88: the mass dependence of the $p{\bar p}$ spectrum close to the threshold
89: could be nicely reproduced by the $S$-wave $p{\bar p}$ FSI in the
90: isospin $I=1$ state within the Watson-Migdal \cite{WM} approach.
91:
92: The success of those investigations suggests that the same effects, namely
93: the FSI between proton and antiproton, could be also responsible for the
94: near-threshold enhancement in the $e^+e^- \to p{\bar p}$ cross
95: section and, accordingly, for the strong momentum-transfer dependence of the
96: proton EMFF in the timelike region near $q^2\approx (2 m_p)^2$.
97: In the present paper we report results of a corresponding calculation,
98: utilizing again the scattering amplitudes of the J\"ulich $N{\bar N}$ model
99: and applying the Watson-Migdal approach.
100:
101: Fig.~\ref{emf5} shows the $e^+e^- \to p{\bar p}$ and
102: $e^+e^- \to n{\bar n}$ cross sections measured by the
103: FENICE~\cite{Antonelli} and BaBar~\cite{Aubert0} collaborations
104: as a function of the excess energy, $M(p{\bar p}) - 2m_p$, with
105: $M(p{\bar p})=\sqrt{s}$ the invariant energy of the $p{\bar p}$ system.
106: In order to compare the ${\bar p}p{\to}e^+e^-$
107: data (also shown in the figure)
108: with the $e^+e^- \to p{\bar p}$ results, we apply detailed balance
109: assuming time-reversal invariance, i.e.
110: \begin{eqnarray}
111: \sigma (e^+e^-{\to}p{\bar p})\simeq\left[1-\frac{4m_p^2}
112: {M^2(p{\bar p})}\right]\sigma ({\bar p}p{\to}e^+e^-)~,
113: \label{det}
114: \end{eqnarray}
115: where we neglect the electron mass. Although there seems to be a
116: systematical difference between the $e^+e^- \to p{\bar p}$ and ${\bar
117: p}p \to e^+e^-$ cross section data, the latter are by a factor of
118: about 1.3 smaller, their energy dependence
119: is very similar. The dashed line in Fig.~\ref{emf5} shows the energy
120: dependence due to the two-body phase space given by
121: \begin{eqnarray}
122: \sigma (e^+e^-{\to}p{\bar p}) = \frac{|A|^2}{16\pi \, M^2(p{\bar p})}
123: \left[1-\frac{4m_p^2} {M^2(p{\bar p})}\right]^{1/2},
124: \label{phase}
125: \end{eqnarray}
126: where the squared Lorenz invariant amplitude,
127: $|A|^2 =46\,$MeV$^2{\cdot}$fm$^2$,
128: was normalized to the data at the excess energy of $136$~MeV. The experimental
129: results clearly exhibit an energy dependence that differs from the
130: phase space especially at excess energies below 50~MeV. This implies
131: that the transition amplitude $A$ varies substantially for energies
132: close to the $p{\bar p}$ threshold.
133:
134: \begin{figure}[t]
135: \vspace*{-5mm}
136: \centerline{\hspace*{3mm}\psfig{file=emf5.ps,width=9.7cm,height=9.cm}}
137: \vspace*{-5mm}
138: \caption{Cross section of the $e^+e^- \to p{\bar p}$ and
139: $e^+e^- \to n{\bar n}$ reactions as a function of the excess energy.
140: The data are from the FENICE~\cite{Antonelli} (inverse triangles and
141: squares) and BaBar~\cite{Aubert0} (circles) collaborations. Triangles
142: represent results obtained by applying detailed balance to the
143: ${\bar p}p{\to}e^+e^-$ cross section measured by the PS170
144: collaboration~\cite{Bardin}.
145: The dashed line indicates the energy dependence of the two-body phase space.
146: The solid line is the scattering amplitude squared predicted by the
147: J\"ulich $N\bar N$ model A(OBE) \cite{Hippchen} for the $^3S_1$ partial wave,
148: multiplied by appropriate phase-space factors.
149: }
150: \label{emf5}
151: \end{figure}
152:
153: To illustrate this conjecture more transparently we extract the squared
154: invariant amplitude $|A|^2$ from the near-threshold data~\cite{Bardin,Aubert0}
155: by dividing out the phase space factor according to
156: Eq.~(\ref{phase}). The corresponding results are shown in Fig.~\ref{emf6}.
157: They clearly indicate that the squared transition amplitude depends
158: rather strongly on the energy within the range
159: $M(p{\bar p}) - 2m_p \le 50\,$MeV, say.
160:
161:
162: \begin{figure}[t]
163: \vspace*{-5mm}
164: \centerline{\hspace*{3mm}\psfig{file=emf6mod2.ps,width=9.7cm,height=9.cm}}
165: \vspace*{-5mm}
166: \caption{The Lorentz invariant amplitude squared for the
167: $e^+e^-{\to}p{\bar p}$ (circles) and ${\bar p}p{\to}e^+e^-$
168: (triangles) reactions extracted from the data~\cite{Bardin,Aubert0} by
169: Eq.~(\ref{phase}) shown as a function of the excess energy. The
170: dashed line is the result based on Eq.~(\ref{fit})
171: with $N$ fixed to the threshold data, while the solid line
172: is the scattering amplitude squared predicted by the J\"ulich
173: $N\bar N$ model A(OBE) \cite{Hippchen} for the $^3S_1$ partial wave.
174: }
175: \label{emf6}
176: \end{figure}
177:
178: Since the $e^+e^-{\to}p{\bar p}$ and ${\bar p}p{\to}e^+e^-$ data are
179: used for the extraction~\cite{Zichichi} of the proton
180: EMFF, the strong energy dependence of the
181: transition amplitude is reflected in the behaviour of the EMFF in the
182: time-like region close to threshold. Phenomenological models such as
183: vector dominance model (VDM), which assumes that the photon couples to
184: hadrons through intermediate vector mesons~\cite{Massam,Korner}, fail
185: to describe that steep energy dependence. To resolve this discrepancy the
186: VDM was extended to include also heavier vector mesons~\cite{Korner,Williams}
187: besides the light $\rho$, $\omega$ and $\phi$ mesons.
188: Taking the couplings of the heavy vector mesons to the proton as free
189: parameters it was possible to reproduce the steep dependence of
190: the ${\bar p}p{\to}e^+e^-$ cross section close to
191: $p{\bar p}$ threshold. For a discussion of this issue in the context of
192: dispersion relations, see~\cite{Hammer:1996kx,Hammer:2006mw}.
193:
194: On the other hand, the success of $p{\bar p}$ FSI effects in explaining
195: the near-threshold enhancement in the $p{\bar p}$ mass spectrum
196: of $J/\Psi \to \gamma p{\bar p}$ suggests that the same mechanisms
197: could be also responsible for the behaviour of the EMFF.
198: %
199: Indeed FSI effects have been already considered before
200: \cite{Dalkarov1,Dalkarov2} to describe the
201: near-threshold energy dependence of the ${\bar p}p{\to}e^+e^-$
202: reaction by the $p{\bar p}$ initial-state-interaction, though at a
203: time when only the less accurate LEAR data were available.
204: %
205: Based on the usual assumption that one-photon exchange constitutes
206: the main reaction mechanism the reaction can only proceed from the
207: $J^{PC}{=}1^{--}$ state.\footnote{There are indications that
208: two-photon exchange contributions are important in the space-like region
209: and can account for the discrepancy between the form factor values
210: extracted from polarization data and Rosenbluth separation
211: of cross section data
212: \cite{GV03,BMT03,CABCV04,RT04}. Their importance in the time-like
213: region is less clear. For a recent analysis, see Refs.~\cite{GaT05,GaT06}.}
214: Then ${\bar p}p{\to}e^+e^-$ as well as the
215: time-reversed reaction $e^+e^- \to p{\bar p}$ can only involve a single
216: partial wave, namely the coupled $^3S_1-{^3D}_1$ $p{\bar p}$ state.
217: Obviously, close to the $p{\bar p}$ threshold
218: the reaction amplitude will be dominated by the $^3S_1$ component.
219: %
220: Invoking the Watson-Migdal prescription for the treatment of
221: final-state effects \cite{WM} and using
222: the scattering length approximation with keeping only the term linear
223: in the antiproton momentum in the center-of-mass system, the squared
224: transition amplitude should behave like
225: \begin{eqnarray}
226: |A|^2\approx N \, / \left( 1- \ \Im{a}\sqrt{M^2(p{\bar p}) - 4m_p^2}\,
227: \right),
228: \label{fit}
229: \end{eqnarray}
230: where $\Im{a}$ is the imaginary part of the $^3S_1$ scattering length
231: and $N$ a normalization constant.
232:
233: Eq.~(\ref{fit}) has the advantage that one can obtain a rough but
234: model-independent estimate of the FSI effects by
235: utilizing available experimental values for the $p{\bar p}$
236: scattering lengths extracted from 1$s$ level shifts and widths of
237: antiprotonic hydrogen atoms \cite{Batty,Gotta}. The most recently
238: published value for the imaginary part of the pure strong-interaction
239: spin--averaged scattering
240: length is $\Im{a} = (-0.73 \pm 0.03)$~fm~\cite{Gotta}. The corresponding
241: result, the dashed line in Fig.~\ref{emf6}, is in line with the trend
242: shown by the data and, therefore, definitely an indication that FSI
243: effects might be responsible for the near-threshold enhancement in the
244: ${\bar p}p{\to}e^+e^-$ amplitude. One should say, however, that
245: there are uncertainties in using the experimental $\Im{a}$ since
246: the value extracted from $p{\bar p}$ atoms is, in fact, an
247: average of the $^3S_1$ and $^1S_0$ states and not the one corresponding
248: to the $^3S_1$ alone. Moreover, only data extremely close to the threshold
249: are expected to be in line with Eq.~(\ref{fit}), i.e. to exhibit a
250: linear dependence on the antiproton momentum $k$ in the
251: center-of-mass system. To include higher orders $\sim k^2$
252: would require the real part of the $p{\bar p}$ scattering
253: length, but also the (complex) effective range which is not known
254: experimentally.
255:
256: Therefore, in our analysis we use explicitely the full $^3S_1$ $p{\bar p}$
257: amplitude of the J\"ulich $N{\bar N}$ model A(OBE)~\cite{Hippchen}.
258: This model is constrained by the available data on $N{\bar N}$ interactions
259: and it will be interesting to see whether it can reproduce the
260: strong energy dependence of $|A|^2$. The purely nuclear $p{\bar p}$
261: scattering length predicted by this model for the $^3S_1$ partial wave
262: is $a = (0.96 - i 0.83)$ fm. The value for the imaginary
263: part is in reasonable agreement with the experimental information,
264: cited above, considering the fact that the latter is actually
265: a spin-averaged result. As already mentioned above, in a
266: previous study~\cite{Sibirtsev1} we have demonstrated that the
267: near-threshold enhancement in the $p{\bar p}$ invariant mass spectrum
268: from the $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma{p}{\bar p}$ decay observed by the BES
269: collaboration~\cite{Bai} is presumably due to the FSI between the
270: outgoing proton and antiproton, utilizing this
271: $N{\bar N}$ model. Similar conclusions on the origin of the
272: near-threshold enhancement in the $p{\bar p}$ mass spectrum were
273: drawn by other groups, employing the Paris $N{\bar N}$
274: model~\cite{Loiseau} but also within the effective range
275: approximation~\cite{Kerbikov,Bugg1,Zou}.
276:
277: The solid line in Fig.~\ref{emf6} is the $p{\bar p}$
278: isospin-averaged scattering amplitude squared predicted by the $N{\bar
279: N}$ model A(OBE) \cite{Hippchen} for the $^3S_1$ partial wave.
280: It is normalized to the
281: low-energy data in order to facilitate the comparision with the
282: $e^+e^- \to p{\bar p}$ amplitude. The same result is also shown in
283: Fig.~\ref{emf5}, multiplied by appropriate phase-space factors, cf.
284: Eq.~(\ref{phase}), in order to enable a comparision with the
285: $e^+e^- \to {\bar p}p$ cross section.
286: It is obvious that the energy dependence of the $e^+e^- \to {\bar p}p$
287: transition amplitude squared for energies $M(p{\bar p}) - 2m_p < 50$~MeV
288: is indeed rather similar to that of the $N{\bar N}$ scattering amplitude.
289: This results strongly suggests that, like for $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma{p}{\bar p}$,
290: the FSI in the $p{\bar p}$ system is predominantly responsible for the
291: near-threshold enhancement observed in the $e^+e^- \to {\bar p}p$ cross
292: section, and consequently for the strong dependence of the
293: proton EMFF on the momentum transfer near
294: $q^2\approx (2 m_p)^2$, extracted from those data.
295:
296: We want to mention that we also performed analogous calculations
297: utilizing other $N{\bar N}$ models of the J\"ulich group, specifically
298: the potentials A(BOX) and D, which are described in Refs.~\cite{Hippchen}
299: and \cite{Mull}. In all these cases the obtained results were rather
300: similar to the ones for the model A(OBE) and, therefore, we refrain from
301: showing them here.
302: %
303: Note that the disagreement with the experiment at higher excess energies
304: is not a reason of concern and, in particular, does not discredit
305: the interpretation of the data in terms of FSI effects.
306: We have omitted the contribution from the $^3D_1$ state in our
307: calculation, which is negligible in the near-threshold region.
308: However, at energies around $M(p{\bar p})-2m_p\approx$
309: 100-150 MeV its contribution is presumably no longer small and,
310: therefore, most likely responsible for the underestimation of the
311: experimental cross section by our model analysis in this energy
312: range.
313:
314: In summary, we have analyzed the energy dependence of the squared
315: transition amplitudes for the
316: ${\bar p}p{\to}e^+e^-$~\cite{Bardin} and $e^+e^-{\to}p{\bar
317: p}$~\cite{Aubert0} reactions utilizing the J\"ulich $N{\bar N}$
318: model~\cite{Hippchen,Mull}. Our investigation demonstrates
319: that the strong energy dependence of the $e^+e^- \to {\bar p}p$
320: cross section is driven by the initial or final-state-interaction
321: in the $^3S_1$ partial wave of the $p{\bar p}$ system.
322: This explanation is in line with
323: our previous studies \cite{Sibirtsev1,Haidenbauer:2006au} of the
324: near-threshold enhancement in the
325: $p{\bar p}$ invariant mass spectrum from the $J/\Psi{\to}\gamma{p}{\bar p}$
326: decay observed by the BES collaboration~\cite{Bai}
327: and the $B^+ \to p {\bar p} K^+$ decay
328: reported by the BaBar collaboration \cite{Aubert:2005gw}.
329: As a consequence, the steep dependence of the
330: proton electromagnetic form factor on the momentum transfer
331: in the time-like region near
332: $q^2 \approx (2 m_p)^2$ is presumably a reflection of this initial or
333: final-state-interaction effect. This leaves not much room for
334: other non-standard dynamics in the time-like EMFF close to threshold,
335: such as the narrow resonance scenario put forth in
336: Refs.~\cite{Antonelli,Calabrese}. Nevertheless, the dynamics of the
337: EMFF in the time-like region is far from well understood and many
338: important problems, such as the asymptotic ratio of the space-like
339: and time-like form factors or the reliable separation of electric and
340: magnetic form factors, remain.
341:
342:
343: \acknowledgments{
344: This work was partially supported by the
345: DFG (SFB/TR 16, ``Subnuclear Structure of Matter'') and by
346: the EU Integrated Infrastructure Initiative Had{\-}ron Physics Project
347: under contract no. RII3-CT-2004-506078. A.S. acknowledges support by
348: the JLab grant SURA-06-C0452 and the COSY FFE grant No.41760632 (COSY-085).
349:
350: \vfill
351:
352: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
353: \bibitem{Bardin}
354: G. Bardin et al., Nucl. Phys B {\bf 411}, 3 (1994).
355: \bibitem{Antonelli0}
356: A. Antonelli et al., Phys. Lett. B {\bf 334}, 431 (1994).
357: \bibitem{Antonelli}
358: A. Antonelli et al., Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 517}, 3 (1998).
359: \bibitem{Aubert0}
360: B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 012005 (2006)
361: [hep-ex/0512023].
362: \bibitem{Bai}
363: J.Z. Bai et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 022001 (2003)
364: [arXiv:hep-ex/0303006].
365: \bibitem{Sibirtsev1}
366: A. Sibirtsev, J. Haidenbauer, S. Krewald, U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner
367: and A.W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 054010 (2005)
368: [arXiv:hep-ph/0411386].
369: \bibitem{Loiseau}
370: B. Loiseau and S. Wycech, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 72},
371: 011001 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0501112].
372: \bibitem{Kerbikov}
373: B. Kerbikov, A. Stavinsky, and V. Fedotov, Phys. Rev. C
374: {\bf 69}, 055205 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0402054].
375: \bibitem{Bugg1}
376: D.V. Bugg, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 598}, 8 (2004)
377: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406293].
378: \bibitem{Zou}
379: B.S. Zou and H.C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69},
380: 034004 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0309273].
381: \bibitem{Hippchen}
382: T. Hippchen, J. Haidenbauer, K. Holinde, V. Mull,
383: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 44}, 1323 (1991);
384: V. Mull, J. Haidenbauer, T. Hippchen, K. Holinde,
385: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 44}, 1337 (1991).
386: \bibitem{Mull}
387: V. Mull, K. Holinde,
388: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 51}, 2360 (1995).
389: \bibitem{WM}
390: K.M. Watson, Phys. Rev. {\bf 88}, 1163 (1952);
391: A.B. Migdal, JETP {\bf 1}, 2 (1955).
392: %\bibitem{Bugg}
393: % D.V. Bugg et al., Phys. Lett. B {\bf 194}, 563 (1987).
394: \bibitem{Zichichi}
395: A. Zichichi, S.M. Berman, N. Cabibbo and R. Gatto,
396: Nuov. Cim. {\bf 24}, 170 (1962).
397: \bibitem{Massam}
398: T. Massam and A. Zichichi, Nuov. Cim. {\bf 43}, 1137 (1966).
399: \bibitem{Korner}
400: J.G. K\"orner and M. Kuroda, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 16}, 2165
401: (1977).
402: \bibitem{Williams}
403: R.A. Williams, S. Krewald and K. Linen, Phys. Rev.
404: C {\bf 51}, 566 (1995).
405: %
406: \bibitem{Hammer:1996kx}
407: H.-W.~Hammer, U.-G.~Mei{\ss}ner and D.~Drechsel,
408: %``Dispersion-theoretical analysis of the nucleon electromagnetic form
409: %factors: Inclusion of time-like data,''
410: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 385}, 343 (1996)
411: [arXiv:hep-ph/9604294].
412: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604294;%%
413:
414: \bibitem{Hammer:2006mw}
415: H.-W.~Hammer,
416: %``Nucleon form factors in dispersion theory,''
417: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ A direct (2006)
418: [arXiv:hep-ph/0602121].
419: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602121;%%
420:
421: \bibitem{Dalkarov1}
422: O.D. Dalkarov and K.V. Protasov, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 504}, 845
423: (1992).
424: \bibitem{Dalkarov2}
425: O.D. Dalkarov and K.V. Protasov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 280}, 117
426: (1992).
427:
428: \bibitem{GV03}
429: P.~A.~M.~Guichon and M.~Vanderhaeghen,
430: %``How to reconcile the Rosenbluth and the polarization transfer method in
431: %the measurement of the proton form factors,''
432: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91}, 142303 (2003)
433: [arXiv:hep-ph/0306007].
434: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306007;%
435:
436: \bibitem{BMT03}
437: P.~G.~Blunden, W.~Melnitchouk and J.~A.~Tjon,
438: %``Two-photon exchange and elastic electron proton scattering,''
439: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91}, 142304 (2003)
440: [arXiv:nucl-th/0306076].
441: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0306076;%%
442:
443: \bibitem{CABCV04}
444: Y.~C.~Chen, A.~Afanasev, S.~J.~Brodsky, C.~E.~Carlson and M.~Vanderhaeghen,
445: %``Partonic calculation of the two-photon exchange contribution to elastic
446: %electron proton scattering at large momentum transfer,''
447: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 122301 (2004)
448: [arXiv:hep-ph/0403058].
449: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403058;%%
450:
451: \bibitem{RT04}
452: M.~P.~Rekalo and E.~Tomasi-Gustafsson,
453: %``Model independent properties of two-photon exchange in elastic electron
454: %proton scattering,''
455: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ A {\bf 22}, 331 (2004)
456: [arXiv:nucl-th/0307066].
457: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0307066;%%
458:
459: \bibitem{GaT05}
460: G.~I.~Gakh and E.~Tomasi-Gustafsson,
461: %``Polarization effects in the reaction anti-p + p $\to$ e+ + e- in presence
462: %of two-photon exchange,''
463: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 761}, 120 (2005)
464: [arXiv:nucl-th/0504021].
465: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0504021;%%
466:
467: \bibitem{GaT06}
468: G.~I.~Gakh and E.~Tomasi-Gustafsson,
469: %``General analysis of polarization phenomena in e+ + e- $\to$ N + anti-N for
470: %axial parametrization of two-photon exchange,''
471: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 771}, 169 (2006)
472: [arXiv:hep-ph/0511240].
473: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511240;%%
474:
475: \bibitem{Batty}
476: C.J. Batty, Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 52}, 1165 (1989).
477: \bibitem{Gotta}
478: D. Gotta, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 52}, 133 (2004).
479:
480: \bibitem{Haidenbauer:2006au}
481: J.~Haidenbauer, U.-G.~Mei\ss ner and A.~Sibirtsev,
482: %``Near threshold p anti-p enhancement in B and J/psi decay,''
483: arXiv:hep-ph/0605127.
484: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605127;%%
485:
486: \bibitem{Aubert:2005gw}
487: B.~Aubert et al.,
488: %``Measurement of the B+ $\to$ p anti-p K+ branching fraction and study of
489: %the decay dynamics,''
490: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 051101 (2005)
491: [arXiv:hep-ex/0507012].
492: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507012;%%
493:
494: \bibitem{Calabrese}
495: R.~Calabrese,
496: %``Experimental status report on time - like baryon form-factors,''
497: in {\it Proc. of the $e^+ e^-$ Physics at Intermediate Energies Conference } ed. Diego Bettoni,
498: eConf {\bf C010430}, W07 (2001).
499: %%CITATION = ECONF,C010430,W07;%%
500:
501: \end{thebibliography}
502: \end{document}
503:
504: