1: %\documentclass[epj,final]{svjour}
2: \documentclass[epj]{svjour}
3: \usepackage{psfig}
4: %\usepackage{times}
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Production of $a_0$-mesons in the reactions $\pi N \to a_0 N$
8: and $p p \to d a_0^+$ at GeV energies \thanks{Supported by DFG, RFFI
9: and GSI Darmstadt}}
10: \author{V. Yu. Grishina $^a$, L. A. Kondratyuk $^b$, E. L. Bratkovskaya $^c$,
11: M. B\"uscher $^d$, and W. Cassing $^c$ \\}
12: \institute{$^a$ Institute for Nuclear Research,
13: 60th October Anniversary Prospect 7A, 117312 Moscow, Russia \\
14: $^b$ Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics,
15: B.Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117259 Moscow, Russia \\
16: $^c$ Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Giessen,
17: D-35392 Giessen, Germany\\
18: $^d$ Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, Forschungszentrum J\"ulich,
19: D-52425 J\"ulich, Germany}
20: \date{Received: date / Revised version: date}
21:
22: \abstract{
23: We investigate the reactions $\pi N \to a_0 N$ and $p p \to d
24: a_0^+$ near threshold and at medium energies. An effective
25: Lagragian approach and the Regge pole model are applied to analyze
26: different contributions to the cross section of the reaction $\pi
27: N \to a_0 N$. These results are used to calculate the differential
28: and total cross sections of the reaction $p p \to d a_0^+$ within
29: the framework of the two-step model in which two nucleons produce
30: an $a_0$-meson via $\pi$ -meson exchange and fuse to a deuteron.
31: The necessity of new measurements on $a_0$ production and
32: branching fractions (of its decay to the $K\bar K$ and $\pi\eta$
33: channels) is emphasized for clarifying the $a_0$ structure.
34: Detailed predictions for the reaction $pp \rightarrow d a_0^+$ are
35: presented for the energy regime of the proton synchrotron COSY-J\"ulich.}
36:
37: \PACS{ {25.10.+s} {Nuclear reactions involving few-nucleon systems}
38: \and {13.75.-n} {Hadron induced reactions} \and {13.60.Le} {Meson
39: production}}
40:
41: \authorrunning{V. Yu. Grishina et al.}
42: \maketitle
43:
44: \titlerunning{Production of $a_0$-mesons in the reactions $\pi N \to a_0 N$
45: and $p p \to d a_0^+$ at GeV energies}
46:
47: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
48: \section{Introduction}
49:
50: \begin{table*}[t]
51: \begin{center}
52: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c }
53: \hline
54: Reaction & $R$ & $M_r($GeV$)$ & $g_1($GeV$)$ & Comment & Reference
55: \\ \hline
56: $p\bar p\to \eta\pi^0\pi^0, \eta\eta\pi^0$ &
57: 1.05$\div $2.05 & 1.013$\div $1.058 & 0.241$\div $0.287 & i) & \cite{Bugg}
58: \\ \hline
59: $p\bar p\to \eta\pi^0\pi^0, \eta\eta\pi^0$ &
60: 1.05$\div $1.45 & 1.004$\div $1.024 & 0.229$\div $0.312 & ii) & \cite{Bugg}
61: \\ \hline
62: $p\bar p\to \eta\pi^0\pi^0, \eta\eta\pi^0$ &
63: 1.12$\div $1.37 & 0.999$\div $1.006 & 0.211$\div $0.275 & iii) & \cite{Bugg}
64: \\ \hline
65: $p\bar p\to \eta\pi^0\pi^0$ & 1.15$\pm $0.10 &
66: 0.999$\pm 0.00$6 & 0.218$\pm $0.020 & iv) & \cite{Amsler94}
67: \\ \hline
68: \begin{minipage} [l] {3cm}
69: $p\bar p\to K_L K^+\pi^-,$\\
70: $\phantom{p\bar p\to } K_L K^-\pi^+$
71: \end{minipage}
72: &
73: 1.03$\pm $0.4 & 0.999$\pm 0.00$2 & 0.324$\pm $0.015 & v) & \cite{Abele}
74: \\ \hline
75: $\pi^-p\rightarrow n\eta\pi^-\pi^+, n\eta\pi^0$ & 0.91$\pm $0.10
76: & 1.001$\div $0.0019 & 0.122$\pm $0.008 & vi) & \cite{E852}
77: \\ \hline
78: \end{tabular}
79: \end{center}
80: \caption{\label{Tab1} Parameters of the Flatt\'e parametrization
81: for the $a_0(980)$. Comments: i) without any external constraint;
82: ii) with constraint on $|a_0(980)|^2$ at half-width from the
83: reaction $p\bar p\rightarrow \eta\omega\pi^0$; iii) with
84: constraint on $|a_0(980)|^2$ at half-width from the reaction
85: $p\bar p\rightarrow \eta\omega\pi^0$ and contribution from a
86: hypothetical $a_2^\prime(1620)$ in the fit; iv) solution B with
87: constraint on the $a_0$ mass from the reaction $p\bar p
88: \rightarrow \eta\omega\pi^0$; v) with constraint that the ratio of
89: integrated intensities in the $K\bar K$ and $\eta\pi$ channels is
90: given by Eq.~(\protect\ref{eq1}); vi) Ref.~\protect\cite{E852}
91: presents the value $g_{\pi\eta}=$0.243$\pm$0.015 which is related
92: to $g_1$ as $g_{\pi\eta}=(2/M) g_1$. }
93: \end{table*}
94:
95: The scalar mesons play a very important role in the physics
96: of hadrons since they carry the quantum numbers of the vacuum.
97: Nevertheless, the structure of the lightest scalar mesons
98: $a_0(980)$ and $f_0(980)$ is not yet understood and an important
99: topic of hadronic physics (see e.g.
100: \cite{Clo,Gen,Jan,Ani,Hadron99a,Hadron99b,Close2000} and
101: references therein). It has been discussed that they could be
102: either ``Unitarized $q\bar{q}$ states'', ``Four-quark cryptoexotic
103: states'', $K\bar{K}$ molecules or vacuum scalars (Gribov's
104: minions) (see e.g. Ref. \cite{Hadron99a}). Nowadays, theory gives
105: some preference to the unitarized quark model proposed by
106: T\"ornqvist \cite{Tornqvist} (cf. \cite{Hadron99a,Hadron99b}).
107: However, other options cannot be ruled out so far. Since there is
108: a strong mixing between the uncharged $a_0(980)$ and the
109: $f_0(980)$ due to a coupling to $K\bar K$ intermediate states
110: \cite{Jan,Kerbikov}, it is important to study independently the
111: uncharged and charged components of the $a_0(980)$ because the
112: latter ones do not mix with the $f_0(980)$ and preserve their
113: original quark content. It is generally expected, furthermore,
114: that the different $a_0(980)$ production cross sections in $\pi N$
115: and $NN$ reactions will provide valuable information on its
116: internal structure.
117:
118: Until now the charged components of the $a_0(980)$ have been
119: studied dominantly in the $\eta\pi^+$ or $\eta\pi^-$ decay
120: channels \cite{PDG}. Recent experimental data from the E852
121: Collaboration at BNL give for the charged $a_0^+$ meson a mass of
122: $0.9983\pm 0.0040$ GeV/c$^2$ and a width of $0.072\pm 0.0010$
123: GeV/c$^2$ \cite{E852}. Note, that the mass of the $a_0$ reported
124: by the E852 Collaboration is significantly larger than the average
125: value of $0.9834\pm 0.0009$ GeV/c$^2$ presented in the last issue
126: of the PDG \cite{PDG}.
127:
128: The branching ratios to the two main $a_0$ decay channels
129: ($\eta\pi$ and $K\bar{K}$) are still unclear: the $\eta\pi$ mode
130: is quoted by the PDG \cite{PDG} as `dominant' and the $K\bar{K}$
131: mode as `seen'. We point out, that the data from only two
132: experiments \cite{Deb,Abele}, where the decay of the $a_0(980)$ to
133: $K\bar{K}$ was observed, have been used for the PDG analysis
134: \cite{PDG}. The authors of Ref.~\cite{Abele} report a ratio of
135: branching ratios
136: \begin{eqnarray}
137: Br(\bar pp\to a_0\pi; a_0\to K\bar K) /
138: Br(\bar pp\to a_0\pi; a_0\to \pi \eta) \nonumber\\
139: = 0.23\pm 0.05. \label{eq1}
140: \end{eqnarray}
141: However, the second branching ratio taken from Ref.
142: \cite{Amsler94} might have a systematic uncertainty stemming from
143: a strong interference of the $a_0$ signal with the broad resonance
144: $a_0(1450)$, which has a width of about 265 MeV. As a consequence
145: the $a_0(980)$ maximum in the reaction $\bar p p\rightarrow
146: \eta\pi^0\pi^0$ might be distorted. Moreover, the invariant-mass
147: resolution in Refs.~\cite{Abele,Amsler94} is only $\sim 27$
148: MeV/c$^2$.
149:
150: In another recent study \cite{WA102} the WA102 collaboration
151: reported the branching ratio
152: \begin{equation}
153: \Gamma(a_0\to K\bar K) / \Gamma(a_0\to \pi \eta) = 0.166\pm
154: 0.01\pm 0.02 , \label{eq02}
155: \end{equation}
156: which was determined from the measured branching ratio for the
157: $f_1(1285)$-meson,
158: \begin{equation}
159: \Gamma(f_1\to K\bar K \pi) / \Gamma(f_1\to \pi \pi \eta) =
160: 0.166\pm 0.01\pm 0.08 , \label{eq03}
161: \end{equation}
162: produced centrally in the reaction $pp \to p_f(X_0)p_s$ at 450
163: GeV/c. However, the authors assumed that the $f_1(1285)$ decays
164: effectively by 100\% to $a_0(980) \pi$ while the PDG quotes only
165: a branching $Br(f_1(1285)\to a_0(980) \pi) =0.34 \pm 0.08$.
166:
167: Therefore, it is necessary to measure the branching fractions of
168: the two main $a_0$ decay channels ($\eta\pi$ and $K\bar K$) under
169: different dynamical conditions with a higher mass resolution
170: ($\Delta m < 10$ MeV/c$^2$) and lower background in an independent
171: experiment. A related experiment to detect the $a_0^+$ in both
172: main decay modes in the reaction $pp\to da_0^+$ will be performed
173: at COSY (J\"{u}lich) \cite{COSY55}. An important
174: dynamical feature of the latter reaction is that the production of
175: the $a_0^+(980)$ near threshold cannot be related to an
176: intermediate production of the $f_1(1285)$ (see below).
177:
178: In this paper we investigate the $a_0$- production cross section in
179: the reactions $\pi N\to a_0N$ and $pp\to da_0^+$ near threshold
180: and at medium energies. In Sect. \ref{sec:br} we present a short
181: overview on the uncertainties of the $a_0$- decay parameters
182: according to present knowledge. To analyze different contributions
183: to the cross section of the reaction $\pi N\to a_0N$ we employ an
184: effective Lagragian approach as well as the Regge-pole model in
185: Sect. 3. The results of this analysis then are used in Sect. 4 to
186: calculate the differential and total cross sections of the
187: reaction $pp\to da_0^+$ within the framework of the two-step model
188: (TSM), in which two nucleons produce an $a_0$-meson via
189: $\pi$-meson exchange and fuse to a deuteron. The TSM has been used
190: before in Refs. \cite{Grishina1,Grishina2} for the analysis of
191: $\eta$, $\eta^\prime$, $\omega$ and $\phi$ production in the
192: reaction $pn\to dM$ near threshold. An important difference of our
193: analysis here is that the $S$-wave channel in the reaction $pp\to
194: da_0^+$ is forbidden due to angular momentum conservation and the Pauli
195: principle and that this reaction is dominated near threshold by the
196: $P$-wave contribution. A summary of our work is presented in Sect.
197: \ref{sec:Conclusion}.
198:
199: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
200: \section{Models and data on the $K\bar K$ and $\pi\eta$ decay channels
201: of the $a_0(980)$} \label{sec:br}
202:
203:
204: Within the framework of a coupled-channel formalism an
205: appropriate parametrization of the shape of the $a_0(980)$ in each
206: ($\eta\pi$ or $K\bar K$) channel can be taken in the form proposed
207: by Flatt\'e \cite{Flatte},
208: \begin{eqnarray}
209: |A_i|^2 = {\rm Const} \frac{|\Gamma_i^{}(M)|\ M_r^2}
210: {(M^2-M_r^2)^2+M_r^2|\Gamma_{tot}^2(M)|}
211: \label{matrNNf}
212: \end{eqnarray}
213: where $M_r$ is the K-matrix pole, $\Gamma_{tot}(M) = \Gamma_1(M)
214: +\Gamma_2(M) = g_1\rho_1+g_2\rho_2$, while $g_1$ and $g_2$ are
215: coupling constants to the two final states and $\rho _i$ is given
216: by the momenta of the final particles $q_i$ as $\rho_i=2q_i/M$.
217: Note that molecular or ''threshold cusp'' cases would imply a
218: dominance of the $|K\bar K\rangle$ component in Fock space and
219: therefore correspond to a relatively large ratio $R=(g_2/g_1) \gg
220: 1$. In Table \ref{Tab1} we present the most recent results for the
221: $a_0(980)$ parameters $R, M_r$ and $g_1$, which show a sizeable
222: variation especially in the coupling $g_1$ and ratio $R$,
223: respectively.
224:
225: In Ref.~\cite{Bugg} it has been shown that, when fitting the
226: $\eta\pi$ mass distribution without any additional constraints,
227: the parameters $M_r$, $R $ and $g_1$ cannot be fixed very well.
228: These parameters are strongly correlated and if one of them is
229: moved in steps, the value of $\chi^2$ changes rather slowly, but $M_r$,
230: $R$ and $g_1$ move together. Thus additional constraints are used in
231: most fits. In Ref.~\cite{E852} a Breit-Wigner (BW) fit of the
232: $a_0(980)$ shape in the $\eta\pi$ channel has been performed where
233: the mass and width of the $a_0^+$ were determined to be
234: 0.9964$\pm$0.0016 and 0.062$\pm$0.006 GeV/c$^2$, respectively. The two
235: extractions of the $a_0$ mass and width (BW and Flatt\'e) were
236: found to be statistically consistent. Since in a Breit-Wigner
237: parametrization only two parameters enter, it is not sensitive at
238: all to the ratio $R$. This implies that for a reliable
239: determination of $R$ the measurements of both channels are
240: necessary. Recall that two zero's of the function
241: $D(M)=M^2-M_r^2+i M_r(g_1 \rho_1(M)+g_2\rho_2(M))$ define two
242: T-matrix poles on sheets II and III where only the position of the
243: pole in sheet II defines the mass ($m_0$) and width
244: ($\Gamma_0$) of the $a_0(980)$. Note that the pole mass $m_0$ is
245: usually different from the resonance mass $M_r$ in Eq. (4).
246: According to the PDG \cite{PDG} the average value of the $a_0(980)$
247: mass is $0.9834\pm 0.0009$ GeV/c$^2$ for the
248: $\eta\pi$ final state (without the new result of the E852
249: Collaboration\cite{E852} ($0.9983\pm 0.004$ GeV/c$^2$)) and
250: $0.9808\pm 0.0027$ GeV/c$^2$ for the $K\bar K$ final state
251: \cite{Abele}. The width of the $a_0(980)$ is quoted as $0.092\pm 0.008$
252: GeV in the $K\bar K$ final state \cite{Abele} and $0.072\pm 0.01$ GeV
253: in the $\eta\pi$ final state \cite{E852}.
254:
255: The values of the ratio $R$ presented in Table \ref{Tab1} are not
256: in favor of a pure molecular or pure ''threshold cusp''
257: interpretation of the $a_0(980)$. This statement is also in line
258: with the results of Ref.~\cite{Jan}, where it was shown that
259: the pure ''threshold cusp'' model gives an $a_0$ width of about
260: 200 MeV, which is much larger than the experimental value.
261: Nevertheless, there is still a comparatively large uncertainty in
262: $g_1$ and $g_2$ : the values of $g_1$ may vary from 0.12 to 0.32
263: GeV and $R=g_2/g_1$ from 0.9 to 2.05. A better knowledge of $g_1$
264: and $g_2$ will help to understand the $a_0(980)$ internal
265: structure or its decomposition in Fock space, respectively.
266:
267: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
268: \section{The reaction $\pi N\to a_0N$}
269: \label{sec:pi-N}
270:
271: \subsection{An effective Lagrangian Approach}
272:
273: \begin{figure}[t]
274: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig1a0.eps,width=9cm}}
275: \vspace*{-1.5cm}
276: \caption{The diagrams for $a_0$ production in the reaction
277: $\pi N\rightarrow a_0 N$ near threshold. }
278: \label{Fig1}
279: \end{figure}
280:
281: The most simple mechanisms for $a_0$ production in the reaction
282: $\pi N\rightarrow a_0 N$ near threshold are described by the pole
283: diagrams shown in Fig. \ref{Fig1} a--d. It is known experimentally
284: that the $a_0$ couples strongly to the channels $\pi\eta$ and $\pi
285: f_1(1285)$ because $\pi\eta$ is the dominant decay channel of the
286: $a_0$ while $\pi a_0$ is one of the most important decay channels
287: of the $f_1(1285)$ \cite{PDG}. The amplitudes, which
288: correspond to the $t$-channel exchange of $\eta(550)$- and
289: $f_1(1285)$- mesons (a,b), can be written as
290: \begin{eqnarray}
291: &&\hspace*{-4mm}M_\eta^t(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^- p) = g_{\eta\pi a_0} g_{\eta NN}\
292: \bar u(p_2^\prime) \gamma_5 u(p_2)\nonumber\\
293: &\times& {1\over t-m_\eta ^2} \ F_{\eta\pi a_0}(t) F_{\eta NN}(t)
294: \label{eq2}\end{eqnarray}
295: \begin{eqnarray}
296: &&\hspace*{-4mm}M_{f_1}^t(\pi^- p\rightarrow a_0^- p) = g_{f_1\pi a_0} g_{f_1NN} \nonumber\\
297: &\times& (p_1+p_1^\prime)_\mu \ \left(g_{\mu\nu}-{q_\mu q_\nu\over
298: m_{f_1}^2}\right) \ \bar u(p_2^\prime) \gamma_\nu \gamma_5 u(p_2) \nonumber\\
299: &\times& {1\over t-m_{f_1}^2}\ F_{f_1\pi a_0}(t) F_{f_1NN}(t).
300: \label{eq3}
301: \end{eqnarray}
302: Here $p_1$ and $p_1^\prime$ are the four momenta of $\pi^-, a_0^-$,
303: whereas $p_2$ and $p_2^\prime$ are the four momenta of the initial and
304: final protons, respectively; furthermore, $q=p_2^\prime-p_2$,
305: $t=(p_2^\prime-p_2)^2$. The functions $F_j$ present form factors at the
306: different vertices $j$ ($j=f_1NN,\eta NN$), which are taken of the
307: monopole form
308: \begin{eqnarray}
309: F_j(t)=\frac{\Lambda_j^2-m_j^2}{\Lambda _j^2-t},
310: \label{form}
311: \end{eqnarray}
312: where $\Lambda_j$ is a cut-off parameter. In the case of $\eta$
313: exchange we use $g_{\eta NN}=3$, $\Lambda_{\eta NN}$=1.5 GeV from
314: Ref. \cite{Holinde} and $g_{\eta\pi a_0}$=2.46 GeV which results from
315: the width $\Gamma(a_0 \to \eta \pi$) = 80 MeV. The contribution of
316: the $f_1$ exchange is calculated for two parameter sets; set $A$:
317: $g_{f_1 NN}=11.2$, $\Lambda_{f_1 NN}=1.5$~GeV from
318: Ref.~\cite{Bonnf1}, set $B$: $g_{f_1 NN}=14.6$, $\Lambda_{f_1
319: NN}=2.0$~GeV from Ref.~\cite{Kirchbach} and $g_{f_1a_0\pi}$=2.5
320: for both cases. The latter value for $g_{f_1 a_0 \pi}$ corresponds
321: to $\Gamma(f_1\to a_0\pi)=24$~MeV and $Br(f_1\to a_0\pi)=34\%$.
322:
323:
324: In Fig. \ref{dsdt_pip} (upper part) we show the differential cross
325: sections $d\sigma/dt$ for the reaction $\pi^-p\to a_0^- p$ at 2.4
326: GeV/c corresponding to $\eta$ (dash-dotted) and $f_1$ exchanges
327: with set $A$ (solid line) and set $B$ (dashed line). A soft
328: cut-off parameter (set $A$) close to the mass of the $f_1$ implies
329: that all the contributions related to $f_1$ exchange become
330: negligibly small. On the other hand, for the parameter values
331: given by set $B$, the $f_1$ exchange contribution is much larger
332: than that from $\eta$ exchange. Note, that this large uncertainty
333: in the cut-off presently cannot be controlled by data and we will
334: discuss the relevance of the $f_1$ exchange contribution for all
335: reactions separately throughout this study. For set $B$ the total
336: cross section for the reaction $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^-p$ can be
337: about 0.5 mb at 2.4 GeV/c (cf. Fig.~\ref{stot_pip} (upper part))
338: while the forward differential cross section can be about 1
339: mb/GeV$^2$.
340:
341: \begin{figure}[t]
342: \psfig{figure=fig2a0.eps,width=8.3cm}
343: \caption{ The differential cross sections $d\sigma/dt$ for the
344: reactions $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^-p$ (upper part) and
345: $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$ (lower part) at 2.4 GeV/c. The
346: dash-dotted line corresponds to the $\eta$ exchange, solid and
347: dashed lines (upper part) show the $f_1$ contributions within sets
348: $A$ and $B$, respectively. The dotted and dash-double-dotted lines
349: indicate the $s$- and $u$- channels while the solid line (lower
350: part) describes the coherent sum of $s$- and $u$- channel
351: contributions. The short dotted and short dash-dotted lines
352: present the results within the $\rho_2$ and ($\rho_2, \ b_1$)
353: Regge exchange model, respectively (see text). The experimental point
354: is taken from Ref.~\protect\cite{Cheshire}.}
355: \label{dsdt_pip}
356: \end{figure}
357: \begin{figure}[t]
358: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig3a0.eps,width=8.5cm}}
359: \caption{ The total cross sections for the reactions
360: $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^-p$ (upper part) and $\pi^-p\rightarrow
361: a_0^0n$ (middle and lower part) as a function of the incident
362: momentum. The assignment of the lines is the same as in Fig.
363: \protect\ref{dsdt_pip}. The experimental data point at 18 GeV/c
364: (lower part) is taken from Ref. \protect\cite{Brookhaven}.}
365: \label{stot_pip}
366: \end{figure}
367:
368: The $\eta$ and $f_1$ exchange, however, do not contribute to the
369: amplitude of the charge exchange reaction $\pi^-p\rightarrow
370: a_0^0n$. In this case we have to consider the contributions of the
371: $s$- and $u$-channel diagrams (Fig. \ref{Fig1} c and d):
372: \begin{eqnarray}
373: &&\hspace*{-4mm}M_N^s(\pi^-p\to a_0^0n) = g_{a_0NN} {f_{\pi NN}\over m_\pi}
374: \ {1\over s-m_N^2} F_N(s)
375: \nonumber \\
376: &\times&p_{1\mu}\ \bar u(p_2^\prime) \left[(p_1+p_2)_\alpha \gamma_\alpha +m_N\right]
377: \gamma_\mu \ \gamma_5 u(p_2);
378: \label{eqpip1}
379: \end{eqnarray}
380: \begin{eqnarray}
381: &&\hspace*{-4mm}M_N^u(\pi^-p\to a_0^0n) = g_{a_0NN} {f_{\pi NN}\over m_\pi} \
382: {1\over u-m_N^2} F_N(u) \nonumber\\
383: &\times&p_{1\mu} \ \bar u(p_2^\prime) \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \left[(p_2-p_1^\prime)_\alpha
384: \gamma_\alpha + m_N\right] u(p_2),
385: \label{eqpip2}
386: \end{eqnarray}
387: where $s=(p_1+p_2)^2, \ u=(p_2-p_1^\prime)^2$ and $m_N$ is the
388: nucleon mass.
389:
390: The $\pi NN$ coupling constant is taken as $f_{\pi NN}^2/4\pi
391: =0.08$~\cite{Holinde} and the form factor for each virtual nucleon
392: is taken in the form \cite{Feuster}
393: \begin{eqnarray}
394: F_N(u) = \frac{\Lambda_N^4}{\Lambda_N^4+(u-m_N^2)^2}
395: \label{FN}\end{eqnarray}
396: with a cut-off parameter $\Lambda_N =1.2\div 1.3$~GeV.
397:
398: The dotted and dash-double-dotted lines in the lower part of
399: Fig.~\ref{dsdt_pip} show the differential cross section for the
400: charge exchange reaction $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$ at 2.4 GeV/c
401: corresponding to $s$- and $u$- channel diagrams, respectively. Due
402: to isospin only the $s$- channel contributes to the $\pi^-p\to
403: a_0^-p$ reaction (dotted line in the upper part of
404: Fig.~\ref{dsdt_pip}). In these calculations the cut-off parameter
405: $\Lambda_N$ = 1.24 GeV and $g_{a_0NN}^2/4\pi$=1.075 is taken from
406: Ref.~\cite{Kirchbach}. The solid line in the lower part of
407: Fig.~\ref{dsdt_pip} describes the coherent sum of the $s$- and
408: $u$- channel contributions. Except for the very forward region the
409: $s$- channel contribution (dotted line) is rather small compared
410: to the $u$- channel for the charge exchange reaction
411: $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$, which may give a backward differential
412: cross section of about 1 mb/GeV$^2$ . The corresponding total
413: cross section can be about 0.3 mb at this energy (cf.
414: Fig.~\ref{stot_pip}, middle part).
415:
416: Unfortunately, there are no experimental data for the total cross
417: section of $a_0$ production in $\pi N$ collisions near the threshold.
418: Some crude estimates can only be done by comparing the $a_0$ production
419: with $\rho $ and $\omega$ production. For example, the WA57
420: collaboration has measured inclusive photoproduction of $a_0^\pm(980)$
421: mesons at photon energies of 25 -- 55 GeV \cite{WA57}. It was found
422: that the cross section of this process is rather large and about $\sim$
423: 1/6 of the cross sections for the corresponding non-diffractive
424: production of leading $\rho^0, \omega, \rho^+$ and $\rho^-$ mesons.
425: Furthermore, in the LBL experiment \cite{Abolins} the measured cross
426: sections $d\sigma /d\Omega$ for the reaction $pp\rightarrow
427: da_0^+(980)$ at 3.8 -- 6.3 GeV/c are $\sim (1/4\div 1/6)$ of the cross
428: section for $\rho ^{+}$ production (Table \ref{Tab2}).
429:
430: \begin{table}[h]
431: \begin{center}
432: \begin{tabular}{ c c c c }
433: \hline
434: $pp\to d\rho^+$ & 3.8 GeV/c & 4.5 GeV/c & 6.3 GeV/c
435: \\
436: $d\sigma /d\Omega ,\mu $b$/$sr & 3.2$\pm 0.5$ & 2.0$\pm 0.4$ & 0.5$\pm 0.5$
437: \\[1mm] \hline \vspace*{1mm}
438: $pp\to da_0^+(980)$ & 3.8 GeV/c & 4.5 GeV/c & 6.3 GeV/c
439: \\
440: $d\sigma /d\Omega ,\mu $b$/$sr & 0.5$_{-0.15}^{+0.7}$
441: & 0.48$_{-0.15}^{+0.28} $ & 0.35$_{-0.15}^{+0.10}$
442: \\ \hline
443: \end{tabular}
444: \end{center}
445: \caption{\label{Tab2}Cross sections for the reactions $pp\rightarrow
446: da_0^+(980)$ and $pp\rightarrow d\rho^+$ from
447: Ref.~\protect\cite{Abolins}. }
448: \end{table}
449:
450: In view of these arguments we also compare the cross sections for
451: the reactions $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$ and $\pi^-p\rightarrow
452: \rho^0 (\omega) n$ at 2.4 GeV/c. According to the parametrization
453: of Ref.~\cite{Sibirtsev} we have $\sigma(\pi^-p\rightarrow \rho^0
454: n) \approx 2\sigma(\pi^-p\rightarrow \omega n) \approx 1.8 \
455: \rm{mb}$; our estimate then gives $\sigma(\pi^-p\rightarrow
456: a_0^0n)\approx 0.15\div 0.3$ mb, which is in a reasonable
457: agreement with the $u$- channel mechanism as well as $f_1$
458: exchange contribution with parameters from set $B$ (cf.
459: Fig.~\ref{stot_pip}).
460:
461: There is a single experimental point for the forward differential
462: cross section of the reaction $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$ at 2.4
463: GeV/c (Ref. \cite{Cheshire}, lower part of Fig. 2),
464: $$\left.{d\sigma\over dt}(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n)\right|_{t\approx 0} =
465: 0.49 \ \rm{mb/GeV}^2.$$ Since in the forward region ($t \approx$
466: 0) the $s$- and $u$- channel diagrams only give a smaller cross
467: section, the charge exchange reaction $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$
468: is most probably dominated at small $t$ by the isovector $b_1
469: (1^{+-})$- and $\rho_2 (2^{--})$- meson exchanges (see e.g. Ref.
470: \cite{Achasov}). Though the couplings of these mesons to $\pi a_0$
471: and $NN$ are not known, we can estimate
472: $\frac{d\sigma}{dt}(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n)$ in the forward
473: region using the Regge-pole model as developed by Achasov and
474: Shestakov \cite{Achasov}. Note, that the Regge-pole model is
475: expected to provide a reasonable estimate for the cross section at
476: medium energies of about a few GeV and higher (see e.g. Refs.
477: \cite{Kaidalov1,Kondrat} and references therein).
478:
479: \subsection{The Regge-pole model}
480:
481: The $s$- channel helicity amplitudes for the reaction $\pi^-p
482: \rightarrow a_0^0n$ can be written as
483: \begin{eqnarray}
484: &&\hspace*{-4mm}M_{\lambda_2^\prime\lambda_2}(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n) =
485: \bar u_{\lambda_2^\prime}(p_2^\prime)\ \left[-A(s,t) \right.\nonumber\\
486: &+&\left.(p_1+p_1^\prime)_\alpha \gamma_\alpha {B(s,t)\over 2}\right]
487: \gamma_5 u_{\lambda_2}(p_2),
488: \label{Reg1}\end{eqnarray}
489: where the invariant amplitudes $A(s,t)$ and $B(s,t)$ do not contain
490: kinematical singularities and (at fixed $t$ and large $s$) are related
491: to the helicity amplitudes as
492: \begin{eqnarray}
493: M_{++}\approx -sB, \hspace{3mm} M_{+-}\approx \ M_{++}\approx
494: \sqrt{t_{\min }-t}\ A. \label{Reg2}\end{eqnarray}
495: The differential
496: cross section then can be expressed through the helicity
497: amplitudes in the standard way as
498: \begin{eqnarray}
499: \hspace*{-4mm} {d\sigma\over dt}(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n)
500: ={1\over 64 \pi s} {1\over (p_1^{\rm{cm}})^2} (|M_{++}|^2+|M_{+-}|^2).
501: \label{eq:sigQGSM1}
502: \end{eqnarray}
503:
504: Usually it is assumed that the reaction $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$
505: at high energies is dominated by the $b_1$ Regge-pole exchange.
506: However, as shown by Achasov and Shestakov \cite{Achasov} this
507: assumption is not compatible with the angular dependence of
508: $d\sigma/dt(\pi^-p \rightarrow a_0^0n)$ observed at Serpukhov at
509: 40 GeV/c \cite{Serpukhov,Serpukhov1} and Brookhaven at 18 GeV/c
510: \cite{Brookhaven}. The reason is that the $b_1$ Regge trajectory
511: contributes only to the amplitude $A(s,t)$ giving a dip in
512: differential cross section at forward angles, while the data show
513: a clear forward peak in $d\sigma/dt(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n)$ at
514: both energies. To interpret this phenomenon Achasov and Shestakov
515: introduced a $\rho_2$ Regge-pole exchange conspiring with its
516: daughter trajectory. Since the $\rho_2$ Regge trajectory
517: contributes to both invariant amplitudes, $A(s,t)$ and $B(s,t)$,
518: its contribution does not vanish at $\Theta =0$ thus giving a
519: forward peak due to the term $|M_{++}|^2$ in $d\sigma/dt$. At the
520: same time the contribution of the $\rho _2$ daughter trajectory to
521: the amplitude $A(s,t)$ is necessary to cancel the kinematical pole
522: at $t=0$ introduced by the $\rho_2$ main trajectory (conspiracy
523: effect). In this model the $s$- channel helicity amplitudes can be
524: expressed through the $b_1$ and the conspiring $\rho_2$ Regge
525: trajectories exchange as
526: \begin{eqnarray}
527: M_{++}\approx M_{++}^{\rho_2}(s,t) = \gamma_{\rho_2}(t)
528: \exp [-i {\pi\over 2} \alpha_{\rho _2}(t)]
529: \left( \frac s{s_0}\right)^{\alpha_{\rho_2}(t)}\hspace*{-6mm},
530: \hspace*{6mm} \label{Reg3}\end{eqnarray}
531: \begin{eqnarray}
532: M_{+-}\approx M_{+-}^{b_1}(s,t) &=& \sqrt{(t_{\min }-t)/s_0}\
533: \gamma_{b_1}(t) \nonumber\\
534: &\times& i\exp [-i {\pi\over 2} \alpha_{b_1}(t)]
535: \left(\frac s{s_0}\right)^{\alpha_{b_1}(t)},
536: \label{Reg4}\end{eqnarray}
537: where $\gamma _{\rho_2}(t) = \gamma_{\rho _2}(0)\ \exp (b_{\rho_2}t)$,
538: $\gamma_{b_1}(t)\ = \gamma_{b_1}(0)\ \exp (b_{b_1}t)$,
539: $t_{\min}\approx -m_N^2 (m_{a_0}^2-m_\pi ^2)/s^2$,
540: $s_0\approx 1$ GeV$^2$ while the meson Regge trajectories have the
541: linear form $\alpha_j(t) = \alpha_j(0)+\alpha_j^\prime(0)t$.
542:
543: Achasov and Shestakov describe the Brookhaven data on the $t$
544: distribution at 18~GeV/c for $-t_{\min }\leq -t\leq 0.6$ GeV$^2$
545: \cite{Brookhaven} by the expression
546: \begin{eqnarray}
547: \frac{dN}{dt} = C_1 \left[e^{\Lambda_1t} + (t_{\min }-t)
548: \frac{C_2}{C_1} e^{\Lambda_2t} \right], \label{Reg5}\end{eqnarray}
549: where the first and second terms describe the $\rho _2$ and $b_1$
550: exchanges, respectively. They found two fits: a) $\Lambda_1=4.7$
551: GeV$^{-2}, C_2/C_1=0$; b) $\Lambda_1=7.6$ GeV$^{-2},
552: C_2/C_1\approx 2.6$~GeV$^{-2}, \Lambda _2=5.8$~GeV$^{-2}$.
553: This implies that the $b_1$ contribution is equal to zero for fit a)
554: and yields only 1/3 of the integrated cross section for fit b) at 18
555: GeV/c. Moreover, using the available data on the reaction
556: $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_2^0(1320)n$ at 18 GeV/c and comparing them with
557: the data on the $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$ reaction they estimated the
558: total and forward differential cross sections $\sigma
559: (\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n\rightarrow \pi ^0\eta n)\approx 200$ nb and
560: $[d\sigma /dt(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n\rightarrow \pi^0\eta
561: n)]_{t=0}\approx 940$ nb/GeV$^2.$ Taking $Br(a_0^0\rightarrow
562: \pi^0\eta)\approx 0.8$ we find $\sigma (\pi^-p\rightarrow
563: a_0^0n)\approx 0.25$ $\mu$b and $[d\sigma /dt(\pi^-p\rightarrow
564: a_0^0n)]_{t=0}\approx 1.2$ $\mu$b/GeV$^2$. In this way all the
565: parameters of the Regge model can be fixed and we will employ it for
566: the energy dependence of the $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$ cross section
567: to obtain an estimate at lower energies, too.
568:
569: The mass of the $\rho_2(2^{--})$ is expected to be about 1.7 GeV
570: (see \cite{Kokoski} and references therein) and the slope of the
571: meson Regge trajectory in the case of light ($u, d$) quarks is 0.9
572: GeV$^{-2}$ \cite{Kaidalov}. Therefore, the intercept of the
573: $\rho_2$ Regge trajectory is $\alpha_{\rho
574: _2}(0)=2-0.9m_{\rho_2}^2\approx -0.6$. Similarly -- in the case of
575: the $b_1$ trajectory -- we have $\alpha_{b_1}(0)\approx -0.37$. At
576: forward angles we can neglect the contribution of the $b_1$
577: exchange (see discussion above) and write the energy dependence of
578: the differential cross section in the form
579: \begin{eqnarray}
580: \left.{d\sigma_{Regge}\over dt}(\pi^{-}p\rightarrow a_0^0n)\right|_{t=0}
581: &\approx&\left.\frac{d\sigma_{\rho_2}}{dt}\right|_{t=0} \sim\nonumber\\
582: &\sim&{1\over (p_1^{cm})^2}\left(\frac s{s_0}\right)^{-2.2}\hspace*{-5mm}.
583: \hspace*{5mm} \label{eq:sigQGSM2}
584: \end{eqnarray}
585: This provides the following estimate for the forward differential
586: cross section at 2.4 GeV/c,
587: \begin{eqnarray}
588: \left.{d\sigma_{Regge}\over dt} (\pi^-p\rightarrow
589: a_0^0n)\right|_{t=0} \approx 0.6\ \rm{ mb/GeV}^2,
590: \label{eq:sigQGSM3}
591: \end{eqnarray}
592: which is in agreement with the experimental data point
593: \cite{Cheshire} (lower part of Fig. 2). Since the $b_1$ and
594: $\rho_2$ Regge trajectories have isospin 1, their contribution to
595: the cross section for the reaction $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^-p$ is
596: twice smaller,
597: \begin{eqnarray}
598: {d\sigma_{Regge}\over dt} (\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^-p)=
599: \frac 12\ {d\sigma_{Regge}\over dt} (\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n).
600: \label{eq:sigQGSM4}
601: \end{eqnarray}
602:
603: In Fig. \ref{dsdt_pip} the short-dotted lines show the resulting
604: differential cross sections for $d\sigma_{Regge}(\pi^-p\rightarrow
605: a_0^-p)/dt$ (upper part) and $d\sigma_{Regge}(\pi^-p\rightarrow
606: a_0^0n)/dt$ (lower part) at 2.4 GeV/c corresponding to $\rho_2$
607: Regge exchange (fit a) ), whereas the dash-dotted lines indicate the
608: contribution for $\rho_2$ and $b_1$ Regge trajectories (fit b) ).
609: For $t\to 0$ both Regge parametrizations agree, however, at large
610: $|t|$ the solution including the $b_1$ exchange gives a smaller cross
611: section. The cross section $d\sigma_{Regge}(\pi^-p\rightarrow
612: a_0^-p)/dt$ in the forward region exceeds the contributions of $\eta$,
613: $f_1$ (set $A$) and $s$- channel exchanges, however, is a few times
614: smaller than the $f_1$ exchange contribution for set $B$. On the other
615: hand, the cross section $d\sigma_{Regge} (\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n)/dt$
616: is much larger than the $s$- and $u$- channel contributions in the
617: forward region, but much smaller than the $u$- channel contribution in
618: the backward region.
619:
620: The integrated cross sections for $\pi^- p \rightarrow a_0^- p$
621: (upper part) and $\pi^- p \rightarrow a_0^0 n$ (middle and lower
622: part) for the Regge model are shown in Fig. \ref{stot_pip} as a
623: function of the pion lab. momentum by short-dotted lines for
624: $\rho_2$ exchange and by short dash-dotted lines for $\rho_2, b_1$
625: trajectories. In the few GeV region the cross sections are
626: comparable with the $u$-channel and $f_1$ -exchange contribution
627: (set $B$). At higher energies it decreases as $s^{-3.2}$ in
628: contrast to the non-Reggeized $u$-channel and $f_1$- exchange
629: contributions which anyhow should only be employed close to the
630: threshold region.
631:
632: The main conclusions of this Section are as follows: In the region
633: of a few GeV the dominant mechanisms of $a_0$ production in the
634: reaction $\pi N \rightarrow a_0 N$ are $u$-channel nucleon and
635: $t$-channel $f_1$ -meson exchanges which give cross sections for
636: $a_0$ production about $0.3 \div 0.4$ mb (cf. upper part of
637: Fig.~\ref{stot_pip}). Similar cross sections ($\simeq 0.4 \div 1$
638: mb) are predicted by the Regge model with conspiring $\rho_2$ (or
639: $\rho_2$ and $b_1$) exchanges, normalized to the Brookhaven data
640: at 18 GeV/c (lower part of Fig.~\ref{stot_pip}). The contributions
641: of $s$-channel nucleon and $t$-channel $\eta$ -meson exchanges are
642: small (cf. upper and middle parts of Fig.~\ref{stot_pip}).
643:
644:
645: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
646: \section{The reaction $pp \to d a_0^+$}
647: \label{sec:da0}
648:
649: The missing mass spectrum in the reaction $pp\rightarrow dX$
650: for deuterons produced at $0^{\circ}$ in the laboratory and
651: incident momenta of 3.8, 4.5 and 6.3 GeV/c has been measured at
652: LBL (Berkeley) \cite {Abolins}. It is interesting, that apart from
653: the missing mass peaks corresponding to $\pi$ and $\rho$
654: production, there is a distinctive structure in the missing mass
655: spectrum at 0.95 GeV$^2$, which was identified as $a_0$
656: production.
657:
658: \begin{figure}[t]
659: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig4a0.eps,width=8.5cm}}
660: \caption{ The diagrams describing the different mechanisms of the
661: $a_0$-meson production in the reaction $NN\to da_0$ within the
662: framework of the two-step model (TSM).}
663: \label{fig:tsm}
664: \end{figure}
665:
666: In order to estimate the cross section for the reaction $pp \to d
667: a_0^+$ at lower momenta (available at COSY) we use the two-step
668: model (TSM) (cf. Refs.~\cite{Grishina1,Grishina2}). The
669: contributions of hadronic intermediate states to the $P$-wave
670: amplitude of the reaction $pp\to da_0^{+}$ (within the framework
671: of the TSM) are described by the diagrams $a - d$ in
672: Fig.~\ref{fig:tsm}. We consider three different contributions from
673: the amplitude $\pi N \to a_0 N$: i) the $f_1(1285)$- meson
674: exchanges (Fig.~\ref{fig:tsm} a); ii) the $\eta$- meson exchange
675: (Fig.~\ref{fig:tsm} b); iii) $s$- and $u$- channel nucleon
676: exchanges (Fig.~\ref{fig:tsm} c and d). As follows from the
677: analysis in Sect. 3 the contributions of the $\eta$- exchange and
678: $s$- channel nucleon can be neglected. We thus restrict to the
679: $f_1$- exchange (set $B$) and the $u$- channel nucleon current.
680:
681: The cut-off $\Lambda_N$ for nucleon exchange (Eq.~(\ref{FN})) is
682: considered as a free parameter now within the interval 1.2 -- 1.3
683: GeV. In order to preserve the correct structure of the amplitude
684: under permutations of the initial nucleons (which are
685: antisymmetric in the isovector state) the amplitude is written as
686: the difference of $t$- and $u$- channel contributions in the form
687: \begin{equation}
688: T_{pp\to dM}^\pi (s,t,u) = A_{pp\to dM}(s,t)-A_{pp\to dM}(s,u),
689: \label{Atu}
690: \end{equation}
691: where $M$ stands for the $a_0^+$- meson. Furthermore,
692: $s=(p_1+p_2)^2$, $t=(p_3-p_1)^2$, $u=(p_3-p_2)^2$ where $p_1$,
693: $p_2$, $p_3$, and $p_4$ are the 4-momenta of the initial protons,
694: meson $M$ and the deuteron, respectively. The structure of the
695: amplitude (\ref{Atu}) guarantees that the S-wave part vanishes
696: since it is forbidden by angular momentum conservation and the
697: Pauli principle.
698:
699: Since we are interested in the $pp\to da_0^{+}$ cross section near
700: threshold, where the momentum of the deuteron is comparatively
701: small, we use a non-relativistic description of this particle by
702: neglecting the 4th component of it's polarization vector.
703: Correspondingly, the relative motion of nucleons in the deuteron
704: is also treated non-relativistically. Then one can write the first
705: ($t$-channel) term on the r.h.s. of Eq.~(\ref{Atu}) as
706: (\cite{Grishina1})
707: \begin{eqnarray}
708: &&\hspace*{-4mm} A_{pp\to da_0^+}(s,t) = \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{m_\pi} \
709: g_{f_1NN}\ g_{f_1a_0\pi} \label{Adir} \\
710: &\times& \sqrt{(p_1^0+m_N)(p_2^0+m_N)} \nonumber \\
711: &\times& M^{jl}({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_3)\ \varphi_{\lambda_2}^T(\vec p_2)\
712: (-i\sigma_2)\sigma^j \vec\sigma \cdot {\vec\epsilon}^{\ *(d)} \sigma^l
713: \varphi_{\lambda_1}(\vec p_1), \nonumber
714: \end{eqnarray}
715: where $\vec \epsilon^{\ (d)}$ is the polarization vector of the
716: deuteron; $p_1^0=p_2^0=\sqrt{\vec p_1^{\,2}+m_N^2}$, while
717: $\varphi_\lambda $ are the (2-component) spinors of the nucleons
718: in the initial state. The tensor function ${M}^{jl}({\vec
719: p}_1,{\vec p}_3)$ is defined by the integral
720: \begin{eqnarray}
721: &&\hspace*{-4mm} M^{jl}(\vec p_1,\vec p_3) = \sqrt{2 m_N} \int \
722: \frac{d^3p_2^\prime}{(2\pi)^{3/2}} \label{Mr}\\
723: &\times& \sqrt{(p_1^{\prime 0}+m_N)
724: (p_2^{\prime 0}+m_N)}\ \left\{\frac{p_1^j}{p_1^0+m_N} +
725: \frac{p_2^{\prime j}}{p_2^{\prime 0}+m_N}\right\} \nonumber \\
726: &\times& I \cdot \Phi_{\pi^0N\to a_0^0N}^l
727: (\vec p_2^{\, \prime},\vec p_1,\vec p_3)\
728: \frac{F_{\pi NN}(q_\pi^2)}{q_\pi ^2-m_\pi ^2}\
729: \Psi_d(\vec p_2^{\, \prime} + \vec {p_3}/2), \nonumber
730: \end{eqnarray}
731: where the contribution of $f_1$- exchange is given by
732: \begin{eqnarray}
733: &&\hspace*{-4mm}\Phi_{\pi^0N\to a_0^0N(f_1)}^l (\vec p_2^{\, \prime},\vec p_1,\vec p_3) =
734: g_{f_1NN}\ g_{f_1a_0\pi}\ \frac{F_{f_1NN}(q_{f_1}^2)} {q_{f_1}^2-m_{f_1}^2}
735: \nonumber\\
736: &\times& \left\{ 2p_3^l-\frac{2(p_3+p_2^\prime)^l}{p_1^{\prime 0}+m_N}\
737: \left(m_N\left[1+\frac{m_{a_0}^2-q_2^2}{m_{f_1}^2}\right] -p_3^0\right)
738: \right.\nonumber\\
739: &-&\left.\frac{2p_1^l}{p_1^0+m_N}\ \left(m_N\left[1
740: +\frac{m_{a_0}^2-q_2^2}{m_{f_1}^2}\right] + p_3^0\right) \right\}.
741: \label{eqPhi1}
742: \end{eqnarray}
743: The $u$- channel contribution reads
744: \begin{eqnarray}
745: &&\hspace*{-4mm}\Phi_{\pi^0N\to a_0^0N(u)}^l
746: (\vec p_2^{\, \prime},\vec p_1,\vec p_3)
747: =g_{a_0NN}\ \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{m_\pi}\ 2m_N
748: \nonumber \\
749: &\times&\left\{-p_3^l+\frac{(p_3+p_2^\prime)^l}{p_1^{\prime \,0}+m_N}\
750: \left( {m_N\over 2}\ \left[3+\frac{q_N^2}{m_N^2}\right] -p_3^0\right)\right.
751: \label{eqPhi2}\\
752: &+&\left.\frac{p_1^l}{p_1^0+m_N}\ \left( {m_N\over2}\
753: \left[3+\frac{q_N^2}{m_N^2}\right] +p_3^0\right)\right\}
754: \ \frac{F_N(q_N^2)}{q_N^2-m_N^2}.
755: \nonumber
756: \end{eqnarray}
757: Here $\Psi_d(\vec p_2^{\,\prime} +\vec{p_3}/2)$ is the deuteron wave
758: function for which we use the Paris model \cite{Lacombe}.
759: In (\ref{Mr}) $I$ is the isospin factor
760: which depends on the mechanism of the reaction $pp\to (pn)a_0^+$.
761: For $f_1$ and $u$- channel exchange we have
762: $I_{(f_1)}=1$ and $I_{(u)}=3\sqrt{2}$, respectively.
763: Further kinematical quantities, which also dependent on the
764: momenta $\vec p_1$, $\vec p_3$ and $\vec p_2^\prime$, are defined
765: as
766: \begin{eqnarray}
767: && q_\pi^2 = -\delta_0(\vec p_2^{\, \prime 2}+\beta_\pi(\vec p_1))
768: - 2\vec p_1 \vec p_2^{\, \prime}, \nonumber\\
769: && q_{f_1}^2 = -\delta_0\left(\vec p_2^{\, \prime 2}+\beta_{f_1}
770: (\vec p_1,\vec p_3)\right) + \frac{p_3^0}{m_N}\ \vec p_2^{\, \prime 2}
771: \nonumber\\
772: &&\hspace*{6mm} -2\vec p_1\cdot \vec p_2^{\, \prime}-2\vec p_3\cdot
773: \vec p_2^{\, \prime} -2\vec p_3\cdot \vec p_1, \nonumber \\[1mm]
774: && q_N^2 = m_N^2+m_{a_0}^2-2p_1^0p_3^0+2\vec p_1\cdot \vec p_3, \nonumber\\
775: && \beta_\pi(\vec p_1) = (\vec p_1^{\, 2}-T_1^2)/\delta _0, \label{eqkin}\\
776: && \beta_{f_1}(\vec p_1,\vec p_3) = \beta_\pi(\vec p_1)-m_{a_0}^2/\delta_0
777: +p_3^0m_N \nonumber \\
778: && \delta_0 = p_1^0/m_N,\ \ T_1=\sqrt{\vec p_1^{\, 2}+m_N^2}-m_N\ , \nonumber\\
779: && p_2^{ \prime \, 0} = \sqrt{\vec p_2^{\, \prime 2}+m_N^2}, \ \
780: p_3^0 = \sqrt{\vec p_3^{\, 2}+m_{a_0}^2}, \nonumber \\
781: && p_1^{ \prime 0} = \sqrt{(\vec p_2^{\, \prime} +\vec p_3)^{\, 2}+m_N^2}.
782: \nonumber
783: \end{eqnarray}
784: with $m_{a_0}$ denoting the mass of the $a_0$ meson. The form
785: factors $F_{f_1 NN}$ and $F_{\pi NN}$ are taken in the form
786: (\ref{form}) within $\Lambda_{\pi NN} = 1.3$~GeV for the $\pi NN$
787: vertex according to Ref. \cite{Holinde} and parameter set $B$ for
788: the $f_1 NN$ vertex. The $u$- channel term $A_{pp\to da_0^+}(s,u)$
789: in Eq.~(\ref{Atu}) can be obtained from (\ref{Adir}) by the
790: substitution $p_1\leftrightarrow p_2$,
791: $\varphi_{\lambda_1}\leftrightarrow \varphi_{\lambda_2}$.
792:
793: \begin{figure}[h]
794: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig5a0.eps,width=8.5cm}}
795: \caption{Forward differential cross section of the reaction
796: $pp\rightarrow d a_0^+$ as a function of $(p_{\rm{lab}} - 3.29)$
797: GeV/c. The full dots are the experimental data from
798: Ref.~\protect\cite{Abolins}. The dash-dotted and solid lines
799: describe the results of the TSM calculated at $\Lambda_N = 1.2$
800: and 1.3 GeV, respectively. The dotted line shows the
801: contribution of $f_1$ exchange for the parameter set $B$ (see
802: text).} \label{fig:dsacosy}
803: \end{figure}
804:
805: The differential cross section $pp\to da_0^+$ then can be written
806: as
807: \begin{eqnarray}
808: {d\sigma_{pp\to da_0^+}\over dt} &=&
809: {1\over 64\pi s}\ \frac 1{(p_1^{\rm{cm}})^2} \label{eq:sigmaVd}\\
810: &\times&\overline{|A_{pp\to da_0^{+}}(s,t) - A_{pp\to da_0^{+}}(s,u)|^2}.
811: \nonumber
812: \end{eqnarray}
813: The calculated forward differential cross section (as a function
814: of the proton-beam momentum) is presented in
815: Fig.~\ref{fig:dsacosy}. The dash-dotted and solid lines describe
816: the results of the TSM for different values of the nucleon cut-off
817: parameter: $\Lambda _N=1.2$ and 1.3 GeV, respectively. A rather
818: good description of the existing data \cite{Abolins} is achieved
819: for $\Lambda _N=1.3$ GeV (solid line). We recall that in Sect. 3
820: we have used $\Lambda_N =$ 1.24 GeV from Ref. \cite{Kirchbach}
821: which gives a cross section in between the dash-dotted and solid
822: line. Our predictions for this cross section practically do not
823: depend on the couplings of the $f_1$ since the $f_1$ exchange
824: contribution turns out to be very small even for parameter set $B$
825: (dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:dsacosy}). The arrow in
826: Fig.~\ref{fig:dsacosy} indicates the maximum proton momentum
827: presently available at COSY. At this energy a differential cross
828: section of $0.1 \div 0.2$ $\mu$b/sr should be expected according to
829: our calculations.
830:
831: \begin{figure}[t]
832: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig6a0.eps,width=8.5cm}}
833: \caption{Angular dependence of the differential cross section
834: $d\sigma/d\Omega$ of the reaction $pp\rightarrow d a_0^+$ in
835: the c.m.s. at different energies. The cut-off parameter for the
836: $u$-channel nucleon exchange is $\Lambda_N = 1.3$ GeV.}
837: \label{fig:dsacosy1}
838: \end{figure}
839:
840: In Fig.~\ref{fig:dsacosy1} the calculated angular differential
841: cross section for the reaction $pp\to da_0^{+}$ is shown as a
842: function of the center-of-mass angle $\Theta$ which can be
843: parametrized as
844: \begin{eqnarray}
845: \frac{d\sigma }{d\Omega} = A+B\cdot \cos^2{\Theta}
846: + C\cdot \cos^4{\Theta}.
847: \label{eqTheta}
848: \end{eqnarray}
849: The results of our calculations in the framework of the TSM for
850: $\Lambda_N=1.3$ GeV are:\\
851: $A=21.3$ nb/sr, $B=15.3$ nb/sr, $C=-2.1$ nb/sr \\
852: at $T_{\rm{lab}}=2.52$ GeV ($\sigma_{tot}=330$ nb);\\
853: $A=68$ nb/sr, $B=76$ nb/sr, $C=-22$ nb/sr \\
854: at $T_{\rm{lab}}=2.6$ GeV ($\sigma_{tot}=1120$ nb);\\
855: $A=78$ nb/sr, $B=97$ nb/sr, $C=-31$ nb/sr \\
856: at $T_{\rm{lab}}=2.62$ GeV ($\sigma_{tot}=1310$ nb).
857:
858: We note that an understanding of the $a_0(980)$ production
859: mechanism may also give interesting information on its internal
860: structure. For example, the WA57 collaboration has interpreted the
861: relatively strong production of the $a_0^\pm(980)$ in photon
862: induced reactions at energies of 25 -- 55 GeV as evidence for a
863: $q\bar q$ state rather than a $qq\bar q\bar q$ state \cite{WA57}.
864: This argument can also be used here. If measurements at COSY will
865: confirm a comparatively large value of the $a_0^+(980)$- production
866: cross section as presented in this work, this will provide further
867: evidence that the $a_0^+(980)$ has an essential admixture of a
868: $q\bar q$ component.
869:
870: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
871: \section{Conclusions}
872: \label{sec:Conclusion}
873:
874: In this work we have estimated $a_0$ production cross sections in
875: the reaction $\pi N \to a_0 N$ near threshold and at medium
876: energies by considering the $a_0(980)$-resonance as a usual $q
877: \bar q$-meson. Using an effective Lagragian approach we have
878: analyzed different contributions to the differential and total
879: cross sections, i.e. $t$- channel $\eta$- and $f_1$- meson
880: exchanges as well as $s$- and $u$-channel nucleon exchanges, and
881: have found that the $f_1$- and $u$- channel contributions are
882: dominant in the $\pi^- p \to a_0^- p$ and $\pi^- p
883: \rightarrow a_0^0 n$ reactions, respectively. We have analyzed
884: also predictions of the Regge model with conspiring $\rho_2$
885: exchange normalized to the data at 18 GeV/c. We found that this
886: model gives (in the few GeV region) a cross section comparable to
887: the $f_1$- and $u$- channel mechanisms.
888:
889: The latter results have been used to calculate the differential
890: and total cross section of the reaction $p p \to d a_0^+$ within
891: the framework of the two-step model, where the amplitude of the
892: $NN \to d a_0$ reaction can be expressed through the amplitude of
893: the $\pi N \to a_0 N$ reaction and a structure integral containing
894: the deuteron wave function in the non-relativistic limit. It is
895: found that the cross section of the $p p \to d a_0^+$ reaction is
896: dominated almost entirely by the $u$- channel mechanism reaching
897: a value of about 1 $\mu$b at $T_{lab}$ = 2.6 GeV. An experimental
898: confirmation of this comparatively large production cross section
899: would imply that the $a_0^+(980)$ has an essential admixture of a
900: $q\bar q$ component.
901:
902: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
903: \section*{Acknowledgements}
904: We are grateful to A. Sibirtsev for helpful discussions.
905:
906: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
907: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
908: \bibitem{Clo}
909: F. E.~Close et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B 319} (1993) 291; hep-ph/0006288.
910: \bibitem{Gen}
911: M.~Genovese et al., Nuovo Cim. {\bf 107A} (1994) 1249.
912: \bibitem{Jan}
913: G.~Janssen, B.~Pierce, K.~Holinde and J.~Speth,
914: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 52} (1995) 2690.
915: \bibitem{Ani}
916: V. V.~Anisovich et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B 355} (1995) 363.
917: \bibitem{Hadron99a}
918: K.~Maltman, Proc. 8$^{\rm th}$ Int. Conf. on Hadron Spectroscopy,
919: Beijing, China, Aug. 24--28, 1999, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 675} (2000) 209.
920: \bibitem{Hadron99b}
921: S.~Narison, Proc. 8$^{\rm th}$ Int. Conf. on Hadron Spectroscopy,
922: Beijing, China, Aug. 24--28, 1999, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 675} (2000) 54;
923: Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 86} (2000) 242.
924: \bibitem{Close2000}
925: F. E. Close, A. Kirk, Phys. Lett. {\bf B483} (2000) 345.
926: \bibitem{Tornqvist}
927: N. A. T\"ornqvist, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 49} (1982) 624.
928: \bibitem{Kerbikov}
929: S. V.~Bashinsky and B. O.~Kerbikov, Phys. Atom. Nucl.
930: {\bf 59} (1996) 1979.
931: \bibitem{PDG}
932: C.~Caso et al.\ (Particle Data Group),
933: Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C 3} (1998) 1.
934: \bibitem{E852}
935: S.~Teige et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D 59} (1998) 012001.
936: \bibitem{Deb}
937: L. de Billy et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 176} (1980) 1.
938: \bibitem{Abele}
939: A.~Abele et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D 57} (1998) 3860.
940: \bibitem{Amsler94}
941: C. Amsler et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B 333} (1994) 277.
942: \bibitem{WA102}
943: D.~Barberis et al. (WA102 Collaboration),
944: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 440} (1998) 225.
945: \bibitem{COSY55}
946: V.~Chernyshev et al., COSY proposal \#55 ``Study of $a_0^+$
947: mesons at ANKE'' (1997) and M. B\"uscher et al., beam-time request
948: for COSY proposal \#55; {\it available via www:}
949: {\texttt http://ikpd15.ikp.kfa-juelich. de:8085/doc/Anke.html};
950: L. A. Kondratuk et al., Preprint ITEP 18-97, Moscow (1997).
951: \bibitem{Grishina1}
952: V. Yu. Grishina et al. nucl-th/9905049;
953: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 475} (2000) 9.
954: \bibitem{Grishina2}
955: V. Yu.~Grishina et al., nucl-th/9906064;
956: Yad. Fiz. {\bf 63} (2000).
957: \bibitem{Flatte}
958: S.~Flatt\'e, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 63} (1976) 224.
959: \bibitem{Bugg}
960: D. V. Bugg, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 50} (1994) 4412.
961: \bibitem{Holinde}
962: R. Machleidt, K. Holinde, and Ch. Elster,
963: Phys. Rep. {\bf 149} (1987) 1.
964: \bibitem{Bonnf1}
965: V. Mull and K. Holinde, Phys. Rev. C 51 (1995) 2360.
966: \bibitem{Kirchbach}
967: M. Kirchbach, D. O. Riska, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 594} (1995) 419.
968: \bibitem{Feuster}
969: T. Feuster and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 58} (1998) 457;
970: {\bf C 59} (1999) 460.
971: \bibitem{WA57}
972: M.~Atkinson et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B 138} (1984) 459.
973: \bibitem{Abolins}
974: M. A.~Abolins et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 25} (1970) 469.
975: \bibitem{Sibirtsev}
976: A. A.~Sibirtsev, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 604} (1996) 455.
977: \bibitem{Cheshire}
978: D. L. Cheshire et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 28} (1972) 520.
979: \bibitem{Achasov}
980: N. N.~Achasov and G. N.~Shestakov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 56} (1997) 212;
981: hep-ph/9710537.
982: \bibitem{Kaidalov1}
983: A.B.~Kaidalov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 53} (1991) 872.
984: \bibitem{Kondrat}
985: L.A.~Kondratyuk et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf C 48} (1993) 2491.
986: \bibitem{Serpukhov}
987: D.~Alde et al., Yad. Fiz. {\bf 41} (1985) 126; D.~Alde et al.,
988: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 205} (1988) 397;
989: \bibitem{Serpukhov1}
990: D. Alde et al., Phys. Atom. Nucl. {\bf 59} (1996) 982;
991: S.~Sadovsky, Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Hadron Spectroscopy,
992: Hadron`95, edited by M.C. Birse et al.,
993: (World Scientific Publ. Co., 1996) p. 445.
994: \bibitem{Brookhaven}
995: A. R.~Dzierba, in Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Physics and
996: Detectors for DA${\rm\Phi}$NE`95, Frascati, 1995, edited by R.~Baldini
997: et al., Frascati Physics Series {\bf 4}, 99 (1996).
998: \bibitem{Kokoski}
999: R.~Kokoski and N.~Isgur, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 35} (1987) 907.
1000: \bibitem{Kaidalov}
1001: A. B.~Kaidalov, in Surveys in High Energy Physics, {\bf 13} (1999) 265.
1002: \bibitem{Lacombe}
1003: M. Lacombe et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B 101} (1981) 139.
1004: \end{thebibliography}
1005: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
1006: \end{document}
1007:
1008: #!/bin/csh -f
1009: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
1010: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
1011: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
1012: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., figures.uu
1013: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
1014: # then say csh figures.uu
1015: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
1016: # uudecode figures.uu ; uncompress figures.tar.Z ;
1017: # tar -xvf figures.tar
1018: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
1019: # filename in "begin" line below to figures.tar_Z , then execute
1020: # uudecode figures.uu
1021: # compress -d figures.tar_Z
1022: # tar -xvf figures.tar
1023: #
1024: uudecode $0
1025: chmod 644 figures.tar.Z
1026: zcat figures.tar.Z | tar -xvf -
1027: rm $0 figures.tar.Z
1028: exit
1029:
1030: