1: %% This document created by Scientific Word (R) Version 3.5
2:
3: \documentclass[12pt]{article}%
4: \usepackage{citesort}
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}%
7: \usepackage{amsfonts}%
8: \usepackage{amssymb}
9: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=latex2.dll}
10: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Monday, December 04, 2006 11:35:18}
11: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}
12: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}
13: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}
14: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}
15: \def\l{\label}
16: \def\nn{\nonumber \\}
17: \def\bi{\bibitem}
18: \textwidth=15.0 truecm
19: \textheight=22.5 truecm
20: \hoffset=-1.0 truecm
21: \voffset-.8in
22: \def\baselinestretch{1.1}
23: \parskip 3pt
24:
25:
26: \begin{document}
27:
28: \title{Constituent quark and diquark properties from small angle proton-proton
29: elastic scattering at high energies}
30: \author{A.Bialas and A.Bzdak\thanks{Fellow of the Polish Science Foundation (FNP)
31: scholarship for the year 2006.}\\M.Smoluchowski Institute of Physics \\Jagellonian University, Cracow\footnote{Address: Reymonta 4, 30-059 Krakow,
32: Poland; e-mail: bialas@th.if.uj.edu.pl}}
33: \maketitle
34:
35: \begin{abstract}
36: Small momentum transfer elastic proton-proton cross-section at high energies
37: is calculated assuming the nucleon composed of two constituents - a quark and
38: a diquark. A comparison to data (described very well up to $-t \approx2$
39: GeV$^{2}$/c) allows to determine some properties of the constituents. While
40: quark turns out fairly small, the diquark appears to be rather large,
41: comparable to the size of the proton.
42:
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45: \section{Introduction}
46:
47: The quark structure of hadrons at low momentum transfers can manifest itself
48: in many physical phenomena. It is very important for their static properties
49: as, e.g., magnetic moments and mass relations which are reasonably well
50: described by the constituent quark model \cite{mm}. It can be used for
51: description of the elastic amplitudes at low momentum transfers and spin
52: effects in two-body processes \cite{el}. Also, as it was suggested long time
53: ago \cite{bcf}, and rediscovered recently \cite{reszta}, the quark structure
54: of nucleon may be crucial in analysis of particle production from nuclear targets.
55:
56: In most applications of the quark model to low-momentum transfer phenomena
57: only single $qq$ interactions are considered. In this case the possible
58: correlations between constituents are unimportant. When multiple scattering is
59: taken into account \cite{bj}, however, the effects of correlations cannot be
60: neglected.\footnote{An indication that they may indeed be necessary to account
61: for the precise data on elastic $pp$ scattering can be inferred from
62: \cite{pp-3q}.}
63:
64: One possibility to introduce correlations between the constituent quarks
65: inside the nucleon is to combine two of the quarks into one object, a diquark
66: \cite{Wilczek}. This is the possibility we explore in the present
67: investigation: we discuss the elastic nucleon-nucleon scattering, assuming
68: that the nucleon is composed of two constituents - a quark and a diquark. Our
69: main goal is to determine the properties of these two constituents by
70: comparing the results of calculations with data. They are needed for the
71: analysis of RHIC data on particle production from nuclei \cite{phobos} in the
72: ''wounded'' \cite{bbc} constituent model \cite{bb}.
73:
74: In its most general formulation, the quark-diquark model assumes that the
75: nucleon consists of two constituents (quark and diquark), acting
76: independently. This assumption must be, surely, supplemented by a more
77: detailed description of the specific properties of constituents and of the
78: distribution of constituents inside the nucleon. Thus the model is rather
79: flexible and one should not be surprised that it can be adjusted to describe
80: correctly the data. The real interest is that, when confronted with data, the
81: model can provide information on the details of nucleon structure at small
82: momentum transfers.
83:
84: This is exactly the logic behind the present investigation. We first verify if
85: the model can account for the data on low momentum transfer elastic
86: proton-proton scattering at high energies. We found that this is indeed the
87: case and that one obtains a really excellent description of data. This allows
88: to discuss the main point of this paper: the properties of the two
89: constituents and their distribution inside the nucleon.
90:
91: Two formulations, differing by the treatment of the diquark structure, were
92: considered. One treats the diquark as a single object, the second one as an
93: object composed of two constituent quarks. Both gave rather similar results,
94: indicating that our conclusions are not sensitive to the details of the model.
95: The most spectacular outcome is that the diquark turns out to be rather large,
96: comparable to the size of the nucleon itself. Other conclusions are discussed
97: in the last section.
98:
99: In the next section the general formulation of the model and its consequences
100: for high-energy small momentum transfer scattering are described. Two specific
101: examples of the implementation of these general ideas are presented (and the
102: corresponding results discussed) in Sections 3 and 4. In the last section our
103: conclusions are listed and commented.
104:
105: \section{Low momentum transfer elastic scattering in the quark-diquark model}
106:
107: We follow the standard point of view that the imaginary part of the elastic
108: scattering amplitude, dominating at high energy, is generated by the
109: absorption of the incident particle wave, represented by the inelastic
110: (non-diffractive) collisions. The inelastic proton-proton cross-section at a
111: fixed impact parameter $b$, $\sigma(b)$, is calculated using the rules of the
112: probability calculus. One writes%
113: \begin{equation}
114: \sigma(b)=\int d^{2}s_{q}d^{2}s_{q}^{\prime}d^{2}s_{d}d^{2}s_{d}^{\prime
115: }D(s_{q},s_{d})D(s_{q}^{\prime},s_{d}^{\prime})\sigma(s_{q},s_{d}%
116: ;s_{q}^{\prime},s_{d}^{\prime};b), \label{sigma}%
117: \end{equation}
118: where $D(s_{q},s_{d})$ denotes the distribution of quark and diquark inside
119: the nucleon, $s_{q}(s_{q}^{\prime})$, $s_{d}(s_{d}^{\prime})$ are transverse
120: positions of the quarks and diquarks in the two colliding nucleons, and
121: $\sigma(s_{q},s_{d};s_{q}^{\prime},s_{d}^{\prime};b)$ is the probability of
122: interaction at fixed impact parameter and the transverse positions of all
123: constituents taking part in the process. This configuration is illustrated in
124: Fig. \ref{Fig_pp}. Since the constituents act independently we have
125: \cite{cm,Glauber}:%
126: \begin{align}
127: 1-\sigma(s_{q},s_{d};s_{q}^{\prime},s_{d}^{\prime};b) & =[1-\sigma
128: _{qq}(b+s_{q}^{\prime}-s_{q})][1-\sigma_{qd}(b+s_{d}^{\prime}-s_{q}%
129: )]\nonumber\\
130: & [1-\sigma_{dq}(b+s_{q}^{\prime}-s_{d})][1-\sigma_{dd}(b+s_{d}^{\prime
131: }-s_{d})],
132: \end{align}
133: where $\sigma_{ab}(s)\equiv d^{2}\sigma_{ab}(s)/d^{2}s$ are inelastic
134: differential cross-sections of the constituents ($ab$ denotes $qq$, $qd$ or
135: $dd$).\begin{figure}[h]
136: \begin{center}
137: \includegraphics[scale=1]{pp.eps}
138: \end{center}
139: \caption{Proton-proton scattering in the quark-diquark model.}%
140: \label{Fig_pp}%
141: \end{figure}
142:
143: For the distribution of the constituents inside the nucleon we take a Gaussian
144: with radius $R$:
145: \begin{equation}
146: D(s_{q},s_{d})=\frac{1+\lambda^{2}}{\pi R^{2}}e^{-(s_{q}^{2}+s_{d}^{2})/R^{2}%
147: }\delta^{2}(s_{d}+\lambda s_{q}). \label{D}%
148: \end{equation}
149: The second parameter, $\lambda$, has the physical meaning of the ratio of the
150: quark and diquark masses $\lambda=m_{q}/m_{d}$ (the delta function guarantees
151: that the center-of-mass of the system moves along the straight line). One
152: expects of course $1/2\leq\lambda\leq1$.
153:
154: Our strategy is to adjust the parameters of the model by demanding that (i)
155: the total inelastic cross section (ii) the slope of the elastic cross section
156: at $t=0$ (iii) the position of the first diffractive minimum in elastic cross
157: section and (iv) the height of the second maximum in elastic scattering are in
158: agreement with data.
159:
160: The unitarity condition implies for the elastic amplitude\footnote{Here and in
161: the following we are ignoring the real part of the amplitude.}
162: \begin{equation}
163: t_{el}(b)=1-\sqrt{1-\sigma(b)}. \label{unitarity}%
164: \end{equation}
165: The elastic amplitude in momentum transfer representation $T(\Delta)$ is a
166: Fourier transform of the amplitude in impact parameter space:%
167: \begin{equation}
168: T(\Delta)=\int t_{el}(b)e^{i\vec{\Delta}\cdot\vec{b}}d^{2}b=2\pi\int
169: t_{el}(b)J_{0}(\Delta b)bdb,
170: \end{equation}
171: where $J_{0}$ is the Bessel function.
172:
173: With this normalization one can evaluate the relevant measurable quantities.
174: Total cross section:%
175: \begin{equation}
176: \sigma_{tot}=2T(0),
177: \end{equation}
178: elastic differential cross section ($t\simeq-|\Delta|^{2}$):%
179: \begin{equation}
180: \frac{d\sigma}{dt}=\frac{1}{4\pi}|T(\Delta)|^{2},
181: \end{equation}
182: slope of the elastic cross section (at $t=0$):%
183: \begin{equation}
184: B\equiv\frac{d}{dt}\left( \ln\frac{d\sigma}{dt}\right) |_{t=0}=\frac{\int
185: t_{el}(b)b^{3}db}{2\int t_{el}(b)bdb}. \label{B}%
186: \end{equation}
187:
188: In the next sections we discuss two different choices for inelastic
189: differential cross-sections of the constituents $\sigma_{ab}(s)$.
190:
191: \section{Diquark as a simple constituent}
192:
193: As a first choice we parametrized $\sigma_{ab}(s)$ using simple Gaussian
194: forms:%
195: \begin{equation}
196: \sigma_{ab}(s)=A_{ab}e^{-s^{2}/R_{ab}^{2}}. \label{pab}%
197: \end{equation}
198: The radii $R_{ab}$ were constrained by the condition $R_{ab}^{2}=R_{a}%
199: ^{2}+R_{b}^{2}$ where $R_{a}$ denotes the quark or diquark's radius (a natural
200: constraint for the Gaussians).
201:
202: This means that the quark and the diquark are treated on the same footing,
203: their internal structures being described by one parameter, the radius
204: ($R_{q}$ or $R_{d}$).
205:
206: From (\ref{pab}) we deduce the total inelastic cross sections: $\sigma
207: _{ab}=\pi A_{ab}R_{ab}^{2}$. To reduce the number of parameters, we also
208: demand that the ratios of cross-sections satisfy the condition:%
209: \begin{equation}
210: \sigma_{qq}:\sigma_{qd}:\sigma_{dd}=1:2:4, \label{124}%
211: \end{equation}
212: expressing the idea that there are twice as many partons in the constituent
213: diquark than those in the constituent quark (shadowing neglected). This allows
214: to evaluate $A_{qd}$ and $A_{dd}$ in terms of $A_{qq}$:%
215: \begin{equation}
216: A_{qd}=A_{qq}\frac{4R_{q}^{2}}{R_{q}^{2}+R_{d}^{2}},\quad A_{dd}%
217: =A_{qq}\frac{4R_{q}^{2}}{R_{d}^{2}}. \label{A=A}%
218: \end{equation}
219:
220: One sees that the model in this form contains $5$ parameters $R$, $\lambda$,
221: $R_{q}$, $R_{d}$ and $A_{qq}$ (we expect $A_{qq}$ to be close to $1$).
222:
223: Now the calculation of $\sigma(b)$ shown in (\ref{sigma}) reduces to
224: straightforward gaussian integrations. The relevant formula is given in the Appendix.
225:
226: We have analyzed the data at all ISR energies \cite{elastic,p(0)}. It turns
227: out that the model works very well indeed, thus it is flexible enough. Note
228: that this is not entirely trivial conclusion. For instance, an analogous
229: calculation performed in the model with the assumption that the proton
230: consists of three uncorrelated constituent quarks led to negative conclusions
231: \cite{pp-3q}.
232:
233: Four examples of our calculations are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig_a}, where the
234: differential cross section $d\sigma/dt$ at the ISR energies $23$, $31$, $53$
235: and $62$ GeV, evaluated from the model, are compared with data \cite{elastic}%
236: .\begin{figure}[h]
237: \begin{center}
238: \includegraphics[scale=1.05]{1.eps} \hspace{0.2cm}
239: \includegraphics[scale=1.05]{2.eps}
240: \end{center}
241: \caption{The quark-diquark model compared to data on differential cross
242: section at four energies. Diquark as a simple constituent.}%
243: \label{Fig_a}%
244: \end{figure}
245:
246: One sees an impressive agreement. Note that we are adjusting the model to
247: account only for the slope and the value at $t=0$, and for the position of the
248: minimum. Nevertheless, one sees that the resulting curve follows very well the
249: subtle structure of the cross-section between $t=0$ and the minimum. This
250: indicates that the nucleon model with two very different constituents may
251: indeed represent more than a simple parametrization of data.
252:
253: The values of the parameters at various energies are given in the Table
254: \ref{Tab_a}.\footnote{The values of $A_{qq}$ and $\lambda$ are correlated.
255: Those given in the table are obtained by demanding $A_{qq}=1$.} One sees some
256: tendency for all radii to increase with increasing energy. Given the
257: experimental and theoretical inaccuracies the effect is barely
258: significant.\begin{table}[h]
259: \begin{center}%
260: \begin{tabular}
261: [c]{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline\hline
262: $\sqrt{s}$ [GeV] & $\lambda$ & $R_{q}$ [fm] & $R_{d}$ [fm] & $R$ [fm] &
263: $A_{qq}$\\\hline\hline
264: $23$ & 0.64 & 0.275 & 0.739 & 0.312 & 1\\\hline
265: $31$ & 0.64 & 0.279 & 0.752 & 0.316 & 1\\\hline
266: $53$ & 0.71 & 0.288 & 0.770 & 0.327 & 1\\\hline
267: $62$ & 0.71 & 0.290 & 0.774 & 0.327 & 1\\\hline
268: \end{tabular}
269: \end{center}
270: \caption{Diquark as a simple constituent. The parameters of the model at four
271: different energies.}%
272: \label{Tab_a}%
273: \end{table}
274:
275: The most striking feature seen in the Table \ref{Tab_a} is the large value of
276: the diquark radius $R_{d}$. It is almost three times larger than the radius of
277: the quark, and not very much smaller than the radius of the proton itself. It
278: is interesting that this feature agrees with other estimates \cite{Wilczek},
279: based on rather different arguments.
280:
281: \section{Diquark as a qq system}
282:
283: In this section we consider another option, treating the diquark as a system
284: composed of the two constituent quarks. As before we parametrize $\sigma
285: _{qq}(s)$ using the same simple Gaussian as in (\ref{pab}).
286: \begin{equation}
287: \sigma_{qq}(s)=A_{qq}e^{-s^{2}/2R_{q}^{2}}. \label{pqq}%
288: \end{equation}
289:
290: To evaluate quark-diquark and diquark-diquark cross-sections we need the
291: distribution of the quarks inside the diquark which we again take as a
292: Gaussian:
293: \begin{equation}
294: D(s_{q1},s_{q2})=\frac{1}{\pi d^{2}}e^{-\left( s_{q1}^{2}+s_{q2}^{2}\right)
295: /2d^{2}}\delta^{2}(s_{q1}+s_{q2}),
296: \end{equation}
297: where $s_{q1}$ and $s_{q2}$ are transverse positions of the quarks in the diquark.
298:
299: Using the Glauber \cite{Glauber} and Czyz-Maximon \cite{cm} expansions,
300: analogous to (\ref{sigma}), we have:%
301: \begin{equation}
302: \sigma_{qd}(s)=\frac{4A_{qq}R_{q}^{2}}{R_{d}^{2}+R_{q}^{2}}e^{-s^{2}\tfrac
303: {1}{R_{d}^{2}+R_{q}^{2}}}-\frac{A_{qq}^{2}R_{q}^{2}}{R_{d}^{2}}e^{-s^{2}%
304: /R_{q}^{2}}, \label{pdq}%
305: \end{equation}%
306: \begin{align}
307: \sigma_{dd}(s) & =\frac{4A_{qq}R_{q}^{2}}{R_{d}^{2}}e^{-s^{2}\tfrac
308: {1}{2R_{d}^{2}}}-\frac{4A_{qq}^{2}R_{q}^{4}}{R_{d}^{4}}e^{-s^{2}/R_{d}^{2}%
309: }-\frac{2A_{qq}^{2}R_{q}^{2}}{2R_{d}^{2}-R_{q}^{2}}e^{-s^{2}/R_{q}^{2}%
310: }\label{pdd}\\
311: & +\frac{4A_{qq}^{3}R_{q}^{4}}{R_{d}^{2}(2R_{d}^{2}-R_{q}^{2})}%
312: e^{-s^{2}\tfrac{2R_{d}^{2}+R_{q}^{2}}{2R_{q}^{2}R_{d}^{2}}}-\frac{A_{qq}%
313: ^{4}R_{q}^{4}}{(2R_{d}^{2}-R_{q}^{2})^{2}}e^{-s^{2}\tfrac{2}{R_{q}^{2}}%
314: },\nonumber
315: \end{align}
316: where%
317: \[
318: R_{d}^{2}=d^{2}+R_{q}^{2}%
319: \]
320: is the effective diquark radius.
321:
322: Introducing this result into the general formulae given in Section 2 one can
323: evaluate the differential and total inelastic pp cross-sections.
324:
325: Again we have analyzed the data at all ISR energies \cite{elastic,p(0)}. It
326: turns out that the model in this form also works reasonably well. The results
327: are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig_b}, where the differential cross-section
328: $d\sigma/dt$ at the various ISR energies (the same as in Fig. \ref{Fig_a}) are
329: compared with the data. There is little difference between plots in Fig.
330: \ref{Fig_b} and that in Fig. \ref{Fig_a}, except the region $-t>2.5$ GeV$^{2}$
331: which is of no interest in the present context.\begin{figure}[h]
332: \begin{center}
333: \includegraphics[scale=1.05]{3.eps} \hspace{0.2cm}
334: \includegraphics[scale=1.05]{4.eps}
335: \end{center}
336: \caption{The quark-diquark model compared to data on differential cross
337: section at four energies. Diquark as a $qq$ system.}%
338: \label{Fig_b}%
339: \end{figure}
340:
341: The parameters used in Fig. \ref{Fig_b} are given\footnote{The results are
342: insensitive to the value of $\lambda$. We have taken $\lambda=1/2$, conforming
343: to the idea that the binding of quarks inside the diquark is rather weak.} in
344: Table \ref{Tab_b}.\begin{table}[h]
345: \begin{center}%
346: \begin{tabular}
347: [c]{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline\hline
348: $\sqrt{s}$ [GeV] & $\lambda$ & $R_{q}$ [fm] & $R_{d}$ [fm] & $R$ [fm] &
349: $A_{qq}$\\\hline\hline
350: $23$ & 1/2 & 0.322 & 0.748 & 0.154 & 0.78\\\hline
351: $31$ & 1/2 & 0.327 & 0.761 & 0.157 & 0.78\\\hline
352: $53$ & 1/2 & 0.335 & 0.781 & 0.161 & 0.79\\\hline
353: $62$ & 1/2 & 0.336 & 0.786 & 0.163 & 0.80\\\hline
354: \end{tabular}
355: \end{center}
356: \caption{Diquark as a $qq$ system. The parameters of the model at four
357: different energies.}%
358: \label{Tab_b}%
359: \end{table}
360:
361: One sees the similar features as in the model of Section 3. The diquark is
362: much larger than the quark (confirming a weak binding), and the distance
363: between quark and diquark even smaller than that in previous calculation.
364:
365: From (\ref{pqq}), (\ref{pdq}) and (\ref{pdd}) one can evaluate the total
366: inelastic cross-section of the constituents. It turns out that the ratio of
367: the cross-sections of the constituents satisfies:
368: \begin{equation}
369: \sigma_{qq}:\sigma_{qd}:\sigma_{dd}\approx1:1.9:3.7,
370: \end{equation}
371: which is rather close to (\ref{124}), indicating a small amount of shadowing.
372:
373: \section{ Discussion and conclusions}
374:
375: Our main conclusions can be summarized in three points.
376:
377: (i) The constituent quark-diquark structure of the nucleon can account very
378: well for the data on elastic $pp$ scattering at low momentum transfers and c.
379: m. energies above $20$ GeV.
380:
381: (ii) The confrontation with data allows to determine the parameters
382: characterizing the two nucleon constituents.
383:
384: (iii) The radius of the constituent diquark turns out much larger than that of
385: the constituent quark. It is comparable to the radius of the nucleon.
386:
387: Several comments are in order.
388:
389: (a) It seems remarkable that our calculation reconstructs precisely the fine
390: structure of the elastic scattering cross-section in the region before the
391: first minimum. This indicates that, indeed, the two components of the proton
392: with rather different radii are needed to explain the details of data.
393:
394: (b) It is reassuring that our conclusion about the large radius of the diquark
395: agrees with that obtained in \cite{Wilczek} from rather different arguments.
396:
397: (c) We have verified that the quark-diquark model gives also a good
398: description of the $\pi p$ scattering. The discussion of this problem will be
399: subject of a separate investigation \cite{b}.
400:
401: (d) Finally, we find it significant that the quark-quark and quark-diquark
402: cross-sections obtained here, when used in the wounded constituent model
403: \cite{bb}, explain very well the RHIC data on particle production in the
404: central rapidity region.
405:
406: Given all these arguments, it seems that the quark-diquark model of the
407: nucleon structure at low momentum transfers does indeed capture the main
408: features of this problem and thus deserves a closer attention.
409:
410: \bigskip
411:
412: \textbf{Acknowledgements}
413:
414: We thank R. Peschanski, M. Praszalowicz and G. Ripka for discussions. This
415: investigation was supported in part by the MEiN Grant No 1 P03 B 04529 (2005-2008).
416:
417: \section{Appendix}
418:
419: The presence of the two $\delta$ functions [c.f. (\ref{D})] reduces
420: (\ref{sigma}) to two gaussian integrations with the substitution
421: \begin{equation}
422: s_{d}=-\lambda s_{q};\quad s_{d}^{\prime}=-\lambda s_{q}^{\prime}.
423: \end{equation}
424:
425: The integration gives%
426: \begin{gather}
427: \frac{4v^{2}}{\pi^{2}}\int d^{2}s_{q}d^{2}s_{q}^{\prime}e^{-2v(s_{q}^{2}%
428: +s_{q}^{\prime2})}e^{-c_{qq}(b-s_{q}+s_{q}^{\prime})^{2}}e^{-c_{qd}%
429: (b-s_{q}+s_{d}^{\prime})^{2}}\times\\
430: \times e^{-c_{dq}(b-s_{d}+s_{q}^{\prime})^{2}}e^{-c_{dd}(b-s_{d}+s_{d}%
431: ^{\prime})^{2}}=\frac{4v^{2}}{\Omega}e^{-b^{2}\Gamma/\Omega},\nonumber
432: \end{gather}
433: where:%
434: \begin{align}
435: \Omega & =\left[ 4v+\left( 1+\lambda\right) ^{2}\left( c_{qd}%
436: +c_{dq}\right) \right] \left[ v+c_{qq}+\lambda^{2}c_{dd}\right] +\\
437: & +\left( 1-\lambda\right) ^{2}\left[ v\left( c_{qd}+c_{dq}\right)
438: +\left( 1+\lambda\right) ^{2}c_{qd}c_{dq}\right] ,\nonumber
439: \end{align}%
440: \begin{align}
441: \Gamma & =\left[ 4v+\left( 1+\lambda\right) ^{2}\left( c_{qd}%
442: +c_{dq}\right) \right] \left[ v\left( c_{qq}+c_{dd}\right) +\left(
443: 1+\lambda\right) ^{2}c_{qq}c_{dd}\right] +\\
444: & +\left[ 4v+\left( 1+\lambda\right) ^{2}\left( c_{qq}+c_{dd}\right)
445: \right] \left[ v\left( c_{qd}+c_{dq}\right) +\left( 1+\lambda\right)
446: ^{2}c_{qd}c_{dq}\right] .\nonumber
447: \end{align}
448:
449: Other integrals can be obtained by putting some of the $c_{ab}=0$.
450:
451: \begin{thebibliography}{9} %
452:
453: \bibitem {mm}See, e.g., D. H. Perkins, Introduction to High Energy Physics,
454: Cambridge U. Press (Cambridge, 2000).
455:
456: \bibitem {el}See, e.g., H. J. Lipkin, F. Scheck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16 (1966)
457: 71; E. Levin, L. Frankfurt, JETP Lett. 2 (1965) 65; A. Bialas, K. Zalewski,
458: Nucl. Phys. B6 (1968) 465.
459:
460: \bibitem {bcf}A. Bialas, W. Czyz, W. Furmanski, Acta Phys. Pol. B8 (1977) 585;
461: A. Bialas, W. Czyz, L. Lesniak, Phys. Rev. D25 (1982) 2328.
462:
463: \bibitem {reszta}R. Nouicer, AIP Conf. Proc. 828 (2006) 11, nucl-ex/0512044;
464: S. Eremin, S. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C67 (2003) 064905; P. K. Netrakanti, B.
465: Mohanty, Phys. Rev. C70 (2004) 027901; Bhaskar De, S. Bhattacharyya, Phys.
466: Rev. C71 (2005) 024903. See also E. K. G. Sarkisyan, A. S. Sakharov, AIP Conf.
467: Proc. 828 (2006) 35 and hep-ph/0410324 where the quark model is used to
468: evaluate the energy deposition in the collision.
469:
470: \bibitem {bj}See, e.g., J. Bjorken, Acta Phys. Polon. B23 (1992) 637.
471:
472: \bibitem {pp-3q}A. Bialas, K. Fialkowski, W. Slominski, M. Zielinski, Acta
473: Phys. Pol. B8 (1977) 855.
474:
475: \bibitem {Wilczek}See, e.g., R. Jaffe, F. Wilczek, Phys. World 17 (2004) 25;
476: Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 232003; M. Cristoforetti, P. Faccioli, G. Ripka, M.
477: Traini, Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 114010.
478:
479: \bibitem {phobos}B. B. Back et al., Phys. Rev. C65 (2002) 061901; Phys. Rev.
480: C70 (2004) 021902; Phys. Rev. C72 (2005) 031901; Phys. Rev. C74 (2006) 021901.
481:
482: \bibitem {bbc}A. Bialas, M. Bleszynski, W. Czyz, Nucl. Phys. B111 (1976) 461.
483:
484: \bibitem {bb}A. Bialas, A. Bzdak, nucl-th/0611021.
485:
486: \bibitem {cm}W. Czyz, L. C. Maximon, Ann. of Phys. 52 (1969) 59.
487:
488: \bibitem {Glauber}R. J. Glauber, Lectures in Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1.
489: Interscience, New York 1959.
490:
491: \bibitem {elastic}E. Nagy et al., Nucl. Phys. B150 (1979) 221; N. Amos et al.,
492: Nucl. Phys. B262 (1985) 689; A. Breakstone et al., Nucl. Phys. B248 (1984)
493: 253; A. Bohm et al., Phys. Lett. B49 (1974) 491.
494:
495: \bibitem {p(0)}U. Amaldi, K. R. Schubert, Nucl. Phys. B166 (1980) 301.
496:
497: \bibitem {b}A. Bzdak, to be published.
498: \end{thebibliography}
499: \end{document}