1: \documentclass[prl,twocolumn,showpacs,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}% \usepackage{dcolumn} \usepackage{amsmath}
3: \usepackage[dvips]{color}
4: \usepackage{colordvi}
5: %\usepackage{cite}
6: %\usepackage{graphics}
7: %\selectlanguage{english}
8: %\usepackage{graphicx}
9: \newcommand{\rt}{$\langle r \rangle_{(2)}$}
10: \newcommand{\rp}{$\langle r^2 \rangle^{1/2}_p$}
11: \newcommand{\qs}{$q^2$}
12: \newcommand{\rs}{$r^2$}
13: \newcommand{\dt}{d^3}
14: \newcommand{\aei}{$\alpha^8$}
15: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}
16: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}
17: \newcommand{\bes}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
18: \newcommand{\ees}{\end{eqnarray*}}
19: \newcommand{\et}{{\em et al}}
20: \newcommand{\sig}{$\sigma(q,\omega)$}
21: \newcommand{\de}{deuteron}
22: \newcommand{\rms}{$rms$-radius}
23: \newcommand{\rmss}{$rms$-radii}
24: \newcommand{\crms}{charge-$rms$-radius}
25: \newcommand{\mrms}{body-$rms$-radius}
26: \newcommand{\qrt}{$q2 \langle r2 \rangle /6$}
27: %\newcommand{\rt}{$\langle r2 \rangle$}
28: %\newcommand{\rf}{$\langle r4 \rangle$}
29: \newcommand{\cs}{cross section}
30: \newcommand{\cd}{Coulomb distortion}
31: \newcommand{\cc}{Coulomb corrections}
32: \newcommand{\es}{electron scattering}
33: \newcommand{\fcz}{$F_{C0}(q)$}
34: \newcommand{\fmo}{$F_{M1}(q)$}
35: \newcommand{\fct}{$F_{C2}(q)$}
36: \newcommand{\aq}{$A(q)$}
37: \newcommand{\bq}{$B(q)$}
38: \newcommand{\ff}{form factor}
39: \newcommand{\mt}{momentum transfer}
40:
41: \begin{document}
42: \title{Correlated Strength in Nuclear Spectral Function}
43: \date{\today}
44: \author{}\affiliation{}
45: \author{D.~Rohe}\email[]{Daniela.Rohe@unibas.ch}\affiliation{University of Basel, CH--4056 Basel, Switzerland}
46: \author{C.S.~Armstrong}\affiliation{Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, VA 23606, USA}
47: \author{R.~Asaturyan}\affiliation{Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia}
48: \author{O.K.~Baker}\affiliation{Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23668, USA}
49: \author{S.~Bueltmann}\affiliation{University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA}
50: \author{C.~Carasco}\affiliation{University of Basel, CH--4056 Basel, Switzerland}
51: \author{D.~Day}\affiliation{University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA}
52: \author{R.~Ent}\affiliation{Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, VA 23606, USA}
53: \author{H.C.~Fenker}\affiliation{Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, VA 23606, USA}
54: \author{K.~Garrow}\affiliation{Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, VA 23606, USA}
55: \author{A.~Gasparian}\affiliation{Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23668, USA}
56: \author{P.~Gueye}\affiliation{Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23668, USA}
57: \author{M.~Hauger}\affiliation{University of Basel, CH--4056 Basel, Switzerland}
58: \author{A.~Honegger}\affiliation{University of Basel, CH--4056 Basel, Switzerland}
59: \author{J.~Jourdan}\affiliation{University of Basel, CH--4056 Basel, Switzerland}
60: \author{C.E.~Keppel}\affiliation{Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23668, USA}
61: \author{G.~Kubon}\affiliation{University of Basel, CH--4056 Basel, Switzerland}
62: \author{R.~Lindgren}\affiliation{University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA}
63: \author{A.~Lung}\affiliation{Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, VA 23606, USA}
64: \author{D.J.~Mack}\affiliation{Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, VA 23606, USA}
65: \author{J.H.~Mitchell}\affiliation{Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, VA 23606, USA}
66: \author{H.~Mkrtchyan}\affiliation{Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia}
67: \author{D.~Mocelj}\affiliation{University of Basel, CH--4056 Basel, Switzerland}
68: \author{K.~Normand}\affiliation{University of Basel, CH--4056 Basel, Switzerland}
69: \author{T.~Petitjean}\affiliation{University of Basel, CH--4056 Basel, Switzerland}
70: \author{O.~Rondon}\affiliation{University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA}
71: \author{E.~Segbefia}\affiliation{Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23668, USA}
72: \author{I.~Sick}\affiliation{University of Basel, CH--4056 Basel, Switzerland}
73: \author{S.~Stepanyan}\affiliation{Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia}
74: \author{L.~Tang}\affiliation{Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23668, USA}
75: \author{F.~Tiefenbacher}\affiliation{University of Basel, CH--4056 Basel, Switzerland}
76: \author{W.F.~Vulcan}\affiliation{Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, VA 23606, USA}
77: \author{G.~Warren}\affiliation{University of Basel, CH--4056 Basel, Switzerland}
78: \author{S.A.~Wood}\affiliation{Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, VA 23606, USA}
79: \author{L.~Yuan}\affiliation{Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23668, USA}
80: \author{M.~Zeier}\affiliation{University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA}
81: \author{H.~Zhu}\affiliation{University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA}
82: \author{B.~Zihlmann}\affiliation{University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA}
83:
84: \collaboration{E97-006 Collaboration}\noaffiliation
85:
86: \begin{abstract}
87: We have carried out an (e,e'p) experiment at high momentum transfer and in
88: parallel kinematics to measure the strength of the nuclear spectral function
89: $S(k,E)$ at
90: high nucleon momenta $k$ and large removal energies $E$. This strength is related
91: to the presence of short-range and tensor correlations, and was known hitherto
92: only indirectly and with considerable uncertainty from the {\em lack} of
93: strength in the independent-particle region. This experiment locates by direct
94: measurement the correlated strength predicted by theory.
95: \end{abstract}
96: \pacs{21.10.Jx, 25.30.-c, 25.30.Fj}
97: \maketitle
98:
99: {\bf Introduction.}
100: %
101: The concept of independent particle (IP) motion has been rather successful in the
102: description of atomic nuclei; the shell model, based on the assumption that
103: nucleons move,
104: independently from each other, in the average potential created by the
105: interaction with all other nucleons, has been able to explain many
106: nuclear properties. This success often comes at the expense of the need to use
107: effective operators that implicitly account for the shortcomings of the IP
108: basis.
109:
110: A more fundamental approach to the understanding of nuclei has to start from the
111: underlying nucleon-nucleon (N-N) interaction. This N-N interaction is well known
112: from many experiments on N-N scattering, and several modern parameterizations
113: are available. The N-N interaction exhibits a strongly repulsive central
114: interaction at small internucleon distances, and at medium distances a strong
115: tensor component. These features lead to properties of nuclear wave functions that are
116: beyond what is describable in terms of an IP model. In particular, strong
117: short-range correlations (SRC) are expected to occur.
118:
119: The effects of the short-range correlations were studied for systems where
120: the Schr\"odinger equation can be solved for a realistic N-N interaction
121: \cite{Pandharipande97}. Very light nuclei (today up to A$\leq$10) and infinite nuclear
122: matter are amongst the systems where this is feasible
123: \cite{Pieper01,Benhar89,Muther00}. The corresponding
124: calculations show that in a microscopic description of nuclear systems
125: the short-range and tensor parts of
126: the N-N interaction have a very important, not to say dominating, influence
127: without which not even nuclear binding can be explained.
128:
129: The consequences of these short-range correlations are that the momentum
130: distributions of
131: nucleons acquire a tail extending to very high momenta $k$ and at the same
132: time part of the strength, located in IP descriptions at low excitation energy
133: $E$, is moved to very high excitation energies.
134:
135: In the past, most experimental investigations were confined to rather low
136: momenta and energies, {\em i.e.} to the region where the strength is dominated
137: (but not entirely given) by the IP properties. In this region, the consequences
138: of short-range correlations are indicated primarily by a {\em depopulation} of states in
139: comparison to the predictions of IP models (including the long-range correlations
140: which can be described by configuration mixing). According to several
141: calculations for infinite matter and finite nuclei using different realistic
142: N--N potentials, a depopulation of the order of 15 to 20\% is expected.
143:
144: Studies of one-nucleon transfer reactions like (d,$^3$He) (see {\em e.g.} \cite{Kramer01})
145: first appeared to be compatible with a 100\%
146: occupation of IP states (within $\pm$10MeV of the Fermi edge). It was later
147: shown by $(e,e'p)$ experiments that this result was a consequence of a biased
148: choice of the nucleon radial wave functions $R(r)$ used in the interpretation
149: of the surface-dominated transfer reactions \cite{Kramer01}.
150: Reactions like $(e,e'p)$,
151: which are more sensitive to the nuclear interior and measure the nucleon
152: momentum distribution as well,
153: gave occupancies of IP states in the 60\%-70\% range, largely independent of
154: nuclear mass number A \cite{Lapikas93}.
155: These ``occupancies''
156: correspond to partial sums of spectroscopic factors up to a limit in
157: excitation energy. This limit was experimental and varied: it was set by the
158: demand that one must be able to still observe and identify the
159: IP strength. At the same time, these and other \cite{Cavedon82,Donnelly84}
160: experiments showed that, apart from the overall normalization,
161: the wave functions (in $k$ or $r$-space) have shapes quite similar to the ones predicted
162: by IP models.
163:
164: From the experimental information available up to now, the
165: depopulation of IP strength at low $k,E$ is unambiguous. Determining the
166: total correlated strength is not so direct, however. The total correlated
167: strength is a factor of 4 or so (see below) smaller than the IP strength,
168: and the determination of this strength by taking the {\em difference} of the
169: experimental IP strength with unity suffers from the unfavorable propagation of
170: uncertainties in the experimental measurement and theoretical interpretation of the
171: $(e,e'p)$ data. A {\em direct} measurement of the correlated strength is needed.
172:
173: %
174: {\bf Correlated strength from (e,e'p). }
175: %
176: According to calculations that solve the Schr\"odinger equation for a realistic
177: N-N interaction, the correlated
178: strength is expected to be identifiable at high nucleon momenta $k$ and high removal
179: energies $E$; there, the values of the nuclear spectral function $S(k,E)$, the
180: probability to find in the nucleus nucleons of given $k$ and $E$, is increased by
181: orders of magnitude relative to IP descriptions. The correlated strength also
182: contributes to the region dominated by the IP strength, but there it cannot be
183: isolated via (e,e'p). While initial searches for
184: high-$k$ components \cite{Bobeldijk95b,Blomqvist95a} were restricted to
185: low--lying states, it has been understood for some time that the SRC produce
186: strength at high $k$ and $E$ {\em simultaneously} \cite{Dieperink76,Benhar89}.
187:
188: Locating this strength at large $k$ {\em and} $E$ is difficult.
189: The correlated strength (perhaps 20\%) is spread over a very large range in $E$
190: (one to several hundred $MeV$), so the density of $S(k,E)$ is very low.
191: Processes other than the single-step proton knockout ---
192: the basis of the Plane Wave Impulse Approximation (PWIA) interpretation of
193: $(e,e'p)$ --- can contribute.
194: Strength can be moved to large $E$ (appearing as large ``missing
195: energy'' $E_m$) by processes such as multi-nucleon knockout or
196: $\pi$-production, where the additional particle is not observed.
197: Unless, by the choice of
198: kinematics, this contribution can be reduced to a size where it can
199: be corrected for by a calculation,
200: identification of the correlated strength is not possible.
201:
202: A systematic study \cite{Sick97a} of $(e,e'p)$ data
203: %taken over the past two decades
204: \cite{Marchand88,Weinstein90,Lourie86,Ulmer87,Baghaei89,Morrison93,Offerman96}
205: has shown that the best chance for an identification of the correlated strength
206: occurs for data taken in {\em parallel kinematics}, {\em i.e.} with the initial
207: nucleon momentum $\vec{k}$ parallel to the momentum transfer $\vec{q}$ (most
208: available data have been taken in (nearly) perpendicular
209: kinematics). This study has also shown that multi-step
210: processes have a small impact at large momentum
211: transfer. Similar observations could be drawn from a recently published
212: (e,e'p) experiment performed at $^4$He \cite{Leeuwe01}. %With the multi-GeV
213: %continuous-wave electron beam available at
214: %Jefferson Lab, an experiment in these kinematics is feasible.
215: This Letter describes the results of the first experiment designed explicitly
216: to study SRC via a measurement of the strength at large $k$ {\em and} $E$
217: under optimal kinematics.
218:
219: {\bf Experiment.}
220: %
221: The experiment was performed in Hall C at Jefferson Lab employing three
222: quasi-parallel and two perpendicular kinematics at a q $\gtrsim$ 1~(GeV/c)
223: (for a detailed discussion see
224: \cite{Rohe04}). Electrons of 3.3~GeV energy
225: and beam currents up to 60~$\mu$A were incident upon
226: $^{12}$C, $^{27}$Al,
227: $^{56}$Fe and $^{197}$Au targets (in the present Letter we limit the discussion
228: to $^{12}$C). The scattered electrons were detected in the HMS spectrometer
229: (central momenta 2 - 2.8~GeV/c), the protons were detected in the SOS
230: spectrometer (central momenta 0.8 - 1.7~GeV/c). Fig.~\ref{empm} gives the
231: kinematical coverage for the parallel kinematics.
232:
233: Data on Hydrogen were taken as check,
234: to determine the various kinematical offsets and to verify the reconstruction
235: of particle trajectories and the
236: normalizations. Data for the IP region were also taken.
237: The resulting proton transparency
238: agrees with previous determinations \cite{Garrow02} and
239: modern calculations \cite{Benhar04,Pandharipande92}. The overall accuracy of
240: the resulting cross sections is $\pm$6\%.
241:
242: The spectra of all important observables have been compared to the results of
243: the Monte Carlo simulation package SIMC of the Hall C collaboration;
244: excellent agreement is found. The comparison also shows that the
245: resolution in $E_m$ ($p_m$) is 5~MeV (10~MeV/c).
246:
247: \begin{figure}
248: \includegraphics[width=7.8cm,clip]{fig1.eps}
249: \caption{\label{empm}Coverage of the $E_m$,$p_m$-plane by the runs taken in
250: parallel kinematics shown in a cross section times phase space plot.(Due to the large momentum acceptance of the spectrometers,
251: part of the data (green) are for $\theta_{kq}>45^\circ$).}
252: \end{figure}
253:
254: The raw data were analyzed using two different procedures, both based on an
255: iterative approach and a model spectral function. In one, the phase
256: space is taken from a Monte Carlo simulation of the experiment, and the spectral
257: function is determined from the acceptance corrected cross sections.
258: Radiative corrections are taken into account according to
259: \cite{Ent01}. The approach has been verified on special sets of data where
260: radiative corrections are large. The other is based on a bin-by-bin comparison of
261: experimental and Monte Carlo yield, where the Monte Carlo simulates
262: the known radiative processes, multiple scattering and energy loss of the
263: particles, spectrometer transfer matrices, focal plane detector efficiencies,
264: the software cuts applied {\em etc}. The parameters of the model spectral
265: function then are iterated
266: to get agreement between data and simulation. We have found good agreement
267: between the two procedures.
268:
269: The resulting $S(k,E)$ at low $k, E$ shows the familiar features known from
270: low-$q$ $(e,e'p)$ experiments
271: \cite{Lapikas00}. At large $k,E$ we observe the tail resulting from SRC. At
272: very large
273: missing energy $E_m$, the peak due to multi-step interactions involving pion
274: emission from the various nucleon resonances, appears. The data taken in
275: perpendicular kinematics lead to a three times larger strength compared to the
276: parallel kinematics, which makes it clear that the cross sections measured in perpendicular kinematics receive
277: dominant contributions from multi-step reactions (the most important ones being
278: knock-out of another nucleon by the outgoing proton, and processes involving
279: meson production);
280: such data then are hardly usable to determine the correlated strength, but can
281: serve to check our ability to predict multi-step processes.
282:
283: The $(e,e'p)$ data at low momentum transfer (leading to knock--out protons
284: with low momenta $k'$) have
285: generally been analyzed using a DWBA description for the outgoing proton. At
286: very large $k'$ the effect of the real part of the optical potential is small,
287: particularly for the continuum strength, where a small shift in $k'$
288: is of little concern due to energy/momentum dependences which are weak as
289: compared to the ones in the IP region. The main final state interaction effect is the absorption
290: of the outgoing proton, which is taken into account via the transparency factor
291: \cite{Benhar04}. For the analysis of the Carbon data, we use
292: T = 0.60. Also important at large $E$ is the consideration of
293: recoil-protons which result from 2-step processes (see below).
294:
295: \begin{figure}[t!]
296: \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{fig2.eps}
297: \caption{\label{integ}Breakdown of the strength from CBF theory in various
298: integration regions. Numbers in percent. The shaded area is used to determine the correlated
299: strength accessible in this experiment. The region labeled '76' contains
300: the IP plus a fraction of the correlated strength.}
301: \end{figure}
302:
303: {\bf Results.}
304: %
305: Here, we concentrate on the overall strength in the correlated region.
306: Fig. \ref{integ} gives, for Correlated Basis Function theory (CBF),
307: a schematical breakdown of the various regions of
308: interest in the missing energy $E_m$ and the missing momentum $p_m$ plane, the
309: quantities that are experimentally defined and identifiable --- in PWIA --- with
310: $k, E$. The strength corresponding to the IP motion at low $k, E$
311: amounts to $\sim$80\% for
312: the CBF calculation \cite{Benhar89}. In some of the regions IP and SRC strength
313: overlap and cannot be separated. In the shaded region, the strength from SRC is
314: measurable with the kinematics employed in the present experiment. The shaded
315: region at large $E_m$ is bounded by a cut that excludes
316: unwanted contributions from $\Delta$-excitation and $\pi$-production. These
317: processes have been modeled using MAID \cite{Drechsel99}
318: to study possible contributions in our region of interest.
319:
320: In this shaded region, we find the strength listed in Table \ref{strength}. It
321: is compared to the strength predicted by theory and integrated over the same
322: region of $k,E$. This comparison is slightly dependent on the the limits of the
323: shaded area as the $k$ and $E$-dependence of
324: experimental and theoretical $S(k,E)$ are not the same (s. Fig. \ref{comp}); for
325: the present comparison we will ignore this minor effect.
326:
327: The result shown in Table~\ref{strength} has been obtained using the off--shell
328: e-p cross section $\sigma_{CC}$ \cite{Rohe04}; for this treatment
329: the best agreement of the resulting $S(k,E)$ from different kinematics
330: (kin3, kin4, kin5) is found. The uncertainty quoted
331: includes an estimate for the uncertainty due to the
332: off-shell cross section (judging from difference of strength obtained using
333: the cross
334: sections $\sigma_{CC1}$ and $\sigma_{CC2}$ of \cite{Forest83}). The error does
335: not contain an uncertainty for the transparency factor used to correct for FSI
336: because this value is commonly accepted and in agreement with the
337: Glauber calculations of several authors. The statistical error is negligible.
338:
339: \begin{table}[htb]
340: \begin{center}
341: \begin{tabular}{l|l}
342: \hline
343: \rule{0mm}{5mm} Experiment & ~~0.61 $\pm 0.06$ \\
344: ~Greens function theory \cite{Muther95}~~ & ~~0.46 \\
345: ~CBF theory \cite{Benhar89} & ~~0.64 \\[2mm]
346: \hline
347: \end{tabular}
348: \end{center}
349: \caption{\label{strength} Correlated strength, integrated over shaded area of
350: Fig.\ref{integ} (quoted in
351: terms of the number of protons in $^{12}$C.)}
352: \end{table}
353:
354: \begin{figure}[thb]
355: \includegraphics[height=8cm,angle=270,clip ]{fig3.eps}
356: \caption{\label{comp}Comparison of the experimental spectral function (solid) with the
357: theories of ref. \cite{Benhar90} (dashed) and ref. \cite{Muther95} (dotted) for three
358: momentum bins. The line indicates the cut made to separate the correlated and resonance
359: region. }
360: \end{figure}
361:
362: For the kinematics of Fig.\ref{empm} the dominant multi-step process is
363: rescattering of the knocked out nucleon by another nucleon. Barbieri
364: \cite{Barbieri03a,Barbieri03b} has calculated this process using Glauber theory
365: and an in-medium N-N cross section accounting for Pauli blocking.
366: He finds, in agreement with our data, that the multi-step contribution is much
367: smaller for parallel kinematics. For the experimental result quoted in
368: Table~\ref{strength}, a multi-step correction of $-$4\% has to be
369: applied.
370:
371:
372: {\bf Theoretical predictions of correlated strength.} %\hspace{5mm}
373: %
374: We compare our results to two calculations, performed for $^{16}$O (and adjusted
375: to correspond to $^{12}$C) and nuclear
376: matter, respectively. For {\em short range} properties, corresponding to
377: $S(k,E)$ at large $k$
378: and $E$, the results are not expected to depend sensitively on the exact
379: nucleus \cite{Sick94}.
380:
381:
382: %In the Self-consistent evaluation of Greens Functions SCGF of Frick {\em et al.}
383: %\cite{Frick04} the self energy is evaluated in the ladder approximation, using
384: %the CD-Bonn N-N interaction. To
385: %circumvent the pairing instability, the theory of finite-temperature Green's
386: %function is used. In order to compare to data on $^{12}$C, the calculation is
387: %performed at half the empirical nuclear matter density.
388:
389: M\"uther {\em et al} \cite{Muther95}
390: use the Green's function approach, approximating the
391: self-energy of the nucleon including all contributions up to second order in
392: the G-matrix. This finite-nucleus calculation has been performed for the
393: Bonn B N-N potential.
394:
395: In the variational CBF theory of
396: Benhar {\em et al.} \cite{Benhar90} the
397: correlations are introduced in the wave function via pair-correlation operators
398: that have the same structure as the terms occurring in the N-N
399: interaction. The Urbana V14+TNI interaction was
400: used, and the results for $^{12}$C were computed in the local density
401: approximation \cite{Sick94}.
402:
403:
404:
405: The theoretical and experimental results are compared in Table \ref{strength}.
406: One should note that the strength listed in Table \ref{strength} is only a {\em
407: fraction} of the total correlated strength; the integral over the correlated
408: strength covers only the region where it experimentally can be identified
409: without undue
410: contributions from more complicated reactions. The theoretical calculations show
411: that the correlated strength contributes also at {\em low} $k$ and $E$, but
412: there it experimentally cannot be separated from the IP strength.
413: The {\em full} correlated
414: strength amounts to 0.72(1.32) correlated protons for the Green's function
415: (CBF) approach.
416:
417: Table \ref{strength} indicates that 10~\% of the protons could be
418: found experimentally in the shaded area of Fig. \ref{integ}.
419: %Tab. \ref{strength} indicates that
420: The prediction of CBF theory --- which
421: overall predicts 22\% of correlated nucleons --- is close
422: to experiment, although the detailed $k$ and $E$ dependence does show
423: deviations; the correlated strength found using the Green's function approach
424: appears to be somewhat low. This may be related to the fact that the latter approach
425: employs a softer N-N potential which is known to lead to a significantly
426: smaller correlation hole in the N-N wave function and to less
427: correlated strength \cite{Muther00}. A recent finite--nucleus calculation for
428: $^{12}$C yields a larger correlated strength (16~\%) \cite{Muther04}.
429:
430: In conclusion, we have performed the first experiment to directly measure the
431: strength due to short-range correlations in $(e,e'p)$ reactions at high $(E_m, p_m)$
432: and have found the results to be in reasonable agreement with predictions.
433:
434: {\bf Acknowledgments.}
435: The authors want to thank O. Benhar, C. Barbieri and H. M\"uther for
436: providing results and for many discussions.
437: This work was supported by the Schweizerische Nationalfonds, the US Dept. of
438: Energy and the US National Science Foundation.
439:
440: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
441:
442: \bibitem{Pandharipande97}
443: V.R. Pandharipande, I.~Sick, and P.~deWitt Huberts.
444: \newblock {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.}, 69:981, 1997.
445:
446: \bibitem{Pieper01}
447: S.C. Pieper and R.B. Wiringa.
448: \newblock {\em Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.}, 51:53, 2001.
449:
450: \bibitem{Benhar89}
451: O.~Benhar, A.~Fabrocini, and S.~Fantoni.
452: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys. A}, 505:267, 1989.
453:
454: \bibitem{Muther00}
455: H.~M{\"u}ther and A.~Polls.
456: \newblock {\em Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.}, 45:243, 2000.
457:
458: \bibitem{Kramer01}
459: G.J. Kramer, H.P. Blok, and L.~Lapikas.
460: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys. A}, 679:267, 2001.
461:
462: \bibitem{Lapikas93}
463: L.~Lapik\'as.
464: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys. A}, 553:297c, 1993.
465:
466:
467: \bibitem{Cavedon82}
468: J.M. Cavedon {\em et al.}
469: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 49:978, 1982.
470:
471: \bibitem{Donnelly84}
472: T.W. Donnelly and Ingo Sick.
473: \newblock {\em Review of Modern Physics}, 56:461, 1984.
474:
475: \bibitem{Bobeldijk95b}
476: I.~Bobeldijk {\em et al.}
477: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett. B}, 356:13, 1995.
478:
479: \bibitem{Blomqvist95a}
480: K.~I.~Blomqvist {\em et al.}
481: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett. B}, 344:85, 1995.
482:
483: \bibitem{Dieperink76}
484: A.E.L. Dieperink, T.~de~Forest, I.~Sick, and R.A. Brandenburg.
485: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, 63B:261, 1976.
486:
487: \bibitem{Sick97a}
488: I.~Sick.
489: \newblock {\em Electron Nucleus Scattering, edts. O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini,
490: World Scientific}, page 445, 1997.
491:
492: \bibitem{Marchand88}
493: C.~Marchand {\em et al.}
494: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 60:1703, 1988.
495:
496: \bibitem{Weinstein90}
497: L.B. Weinstein {\em et al.}
498: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 64:1646, 1990.
499:
500: \bibitem{Lourie86}
501: R.W. Lourie {\em et al.}
502: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 56:2364, 1986.
503:
504: \bibitem{Ulmer87}
505: P.E. Ulmer {\em et al.}
506: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 59:2259, 1987.
507:
508: \bibitem{Baghaei89}
509: H.~Baghaei {\em et al.}
510: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. C}, 39:177, 1989.
511:
512: \bibitem{Morrison93}
513: J.H. Morrison {\em et al.}
514: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. C} 59:221 (1999)
515:
516: \bibitem{Offerman96}
517: E.~Offerman.
518: \newblock {\em priv. comm.}
519:
520: \bibitem{Leeuwe01}
521: J.J.~vanLeeuwe {\em et al.}
522: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett. B} 523:6 (2001)
523:
524: \bibitem{Rohe04}
525: D.~Rohe.
526: \newblock {\em Habilitationsschrift, Uni Basel}, 2004.
527:
528: \bibitem{Garrow02}
529: K. Garrow {\em et al.},
530: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. C}, 66:044613, 2002.
531:
532: \bibitem{Benhar04}
533: O.~Benhar, V.R. Pandharipande, and S.~Pieper.
534: \newblock {\em priv. com.}, 2004.
535:
536: \bibitem{Pandharipande92}
537: V.R. Pandharipande and S.C. Pieper.
538: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. C}, 45:791, 1992.
539:
540: \bibitem{Ent01}
541: R.~Ent {\em et al.}
542: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. C}, 64:054610, 2001.
543:
544: \bibitem{Lapikas00}
545: L.~Lapik\'as {\em et. al.}
546: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. C}, 61:064325, 2000.
547:
548: \bibitem{Drechsel99}
549: D.~Drechsel, S.S.~Kamalov, L.~Tiator.
550: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys. A.}, 645:145, 1999.
551:
552: %\bibitem{Frick04}
553: %T.~Frick, Kh.A.A.~Hassanein, D.~Rohe, H.~M{\"u}ther.
554: %\newblock {\em Phys. Rev. C} in print, nucl-th0406010
555:
556: \bibitem{Forest83}
557: T.~de~Forest.
558: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys. A.}, 392:232, 1983.
559:
560: \bibitem{Barbieri03a}
561: C.~Barbieri.
562: \newblock priv. comm., 2003.
563:
564: \bibitem{Barbieri03b}
565: C.~Barbieri.
566: \newblock {\em Proc. 6th workshop on e-m iduced two-hadron emission, Pavia},
567: 2003.
568:
569: \bibitem{Sick94}
570: I.~Sick, S.~Fantoni, A.~Fabrocini, and O.~Benhar.
571: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett. B}, 323:267, 1994.
572:
573: \bibitem{Muther95}
574: H.~M{\"u}ther, G.~Knehr, and A.~Polls.
575: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. C.}, 52:2955, 1995.
576:
577: \bibitem{Benhar90}
578: O.~Benhar, A.~Fabrocini, and S.~Fantoni.
579: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. C}, 41:24, 1990.
580:
581: \bibitem{Muther04}
582: H.~M{\"u}ther,
583: \newblock {\em priv. com.}, 2004
584:
585: \end{thebibliography}
586: \end{document}
587:
588: