1: \documentstyle[sprocl,epsfig]{article}
2: \font\eightrm=cmr8
3: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
4: \arraycolsep1.5pt
5: % A useful Journal macro
6: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
7:
8: % Some useful journal names
9: \def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}
10: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
11: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
12: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
13: \def\NPA{{\em Nucl. Phys.} A}
14: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.} B}
15: \def\PLA{{\em Phys. Lett.} A}
16: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
17: \def\PRC{{\em Phys. Rev.} C}
18: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
19: \def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}
20: % Some other macros used in the sample text
21: \def\st{\scriptstyle}
22: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}
23: \def\mco{\multicolumn}
24: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
25: \def\vep{\varepsilon}
26: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
27: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}
28: \def\vp{{\bf p}}
29: \def\ko{K^0}
30: \def\kb{\bar{K^0}}
31: \def\al{\alpha}
32: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}
33: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
34: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
35: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
36: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
37: \def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}%temp replacement due to no font
38:
39:
40: \begin{document}
41:
42: \title { \bf $\eta$ Production in Hadronic Interactions }
43: \author {Alfred \v{S}varc, Sa\v{s}a Ceci}
44:
45: \address{ Rudjer Bo\v{s}kovi\'{c} Institute, Bijeni\v{c}ka cesta 54, \\
46: 10000 Zagreb, Croatia \\
47: E-mail: svarc@rudjer.irb.hr, ceci@rudjer.irb.hr
48: }
49:
50: \maketitle\abstracts
51: {A short, and definitely not a complete representation of $\eta$ production processes on hadrons is %%@
52: given. First of all, the different ways of obtaining the $\pi N \rightarrow \eta N$ and $\pi N %%@
53: \rightarrow \eta N$ amplitudes are presented. After that, an overview of results obtained using %%@
54: these amplitudes as input for calculating processes like: $NN \rightarrow \eta NN$ , $pd %%@
55: \rightarrow \eta ^{3}He$, $\pi d \rightarrow \eta NN$ and $\eta d$, $\eta ^{3}He$ and $\eta ^{4}He$ %%@
56: as well as $\eta$-light nuclei bond states, will be given. The experimental and theoretical results %%@
57: will be reviewed. The opened problems and the way how to solve
58: them will be presented.}
59:
60: \section{Introduction}
61: The problem of determining whether there exists a resonance in the N$^*$ system is a very %%@
62: nontrivial one. In addition to the problem of the definition what an N$^*$ resonance %%@
63: is\footnote{See the general discussion on the B(arion)R(esonance)A(nalysis)G(roup)-BRAG workshop %%@
64: preceding this workshop} there is a problem of coupling different resonances to the different %%@
65: channels. For example, S$_{11}$(1650) MeV resonance does not at all couple to the photoproduction %%@
66: channel, so it is practically invisible in all processes involving $\eta$ photoproduction. The %%@
67: second example is the fourth P$_{11}$ resonance, which is not visible in any process which does not %%@
68: involve $\eta$ production in hadronic reactions. Therefore, looking at photoproduction processes %%@
69: only it is not sufficient to see all possible N$^*$ resonances. Consequently, the only method %%@
70: which can be applied selfconsistently to obtain all resonances in all channels is a multichannel, %%@
71: multiresonance, unitary coupled channel model developed by \cite{Cut79}, and maximizing and %%@
72: updating the input to the model.
73: In order to value the strength of the used method, the amount of the worldwide work involved in the %%@
74: analysis, the mutual agreement of the results and the competence of the authors, we have decided to %%@
75: rank the publications by a number of stars, very similar to the method used by Particle Data Group %%@
76: (PDG). One star indicates the pioneering attempts, while four star denotes the general world %%@
77: interest and a significant level of agreement reached. The estimate is just a personal judgement of %%@
78: the authors of the article and anyone is welcomed to modify
79: it.
80:
81: \section { $\pi N \rightarrow \eta N$ and $\eta N \rightarrow
82: \eta N$ models }
83:
84: \subsection { Coupled channel models $^{****}$ }
85:
86: Multiresonance, coupled channel and unitary models offer the best possibility to treat all the %%@
87: channels simultaneously, without the problem of not seeing the resonances which couple poorly to %%@
88: one of the channels. The framework has been elaborated by \cite{Cut79}, and has been used by most %%@
89: of the modern approaches. It is essential to remind the reader to use the original article by %%@
90: Cutkosky \cite{Cut79} where the full formalism is explained. The results of the original model %%@
91: insignificantly differ from the predictions of KH80 group \cite{Hoe83}, and represent the state of %%@
92: the art of knowledge of 80es in $\pi$-N physics. Later on, in 90es the chain of articles started to %%@
93: use the same formalism and exploit the new data to make more precise conclusions %%@
94: \cite{Man92,Bat98,Vra99}.
95:
96: \begin{figure}
97: \begin{center}
98: \epsfig{figure=fig1.eps,height=4cm,width=8cm}
99: \caption{The 3-D T-matrix in
100: Cutkosky formalism.
101: \label{fig:1}}
102: \end{center}
103: \end{figure}
104:
105:
106: The idea of all three approaches was basically the same: to use the well known and tested formalism %%@
107: \cite{Cut79}, and to introduce the new knowledge about $\eta$ production processes in order to %%@
108: obtain more reliable information about N$^*$ resonances. The essence of the formalism was to obtain %%@
109: the "three dimensional" T-matrix shown in Fig.1 for three channels and has been used in %%@
110: \cite{Bat98}. In that case the chosen channels ($\pi-N$, $\eta-N$ and the third effective two body %%@
111: channel $\pi^2-N$ are given on the x-axes, while partial waves are given on the y-axes). The whole %%@
112: formalism allows the separation of the T-matrix in partial wave amplitudes which are indicated by %%@
113: vertical planes in the 3-D T-matrix. However, the main problem in this formalism was a numerical %%@
114: minimization procedure which tended to explode in number of fitting parameters for bigger number of %%@
115: channels if experimental observables were fitted, because all partial waves are automatically %%@
116: mixed. Each of three references have tried to overcome that problem in a different way. In refs. %%@
117: \cite{Man92,Bat98} authors have used three coupled channels only, but have chosen to fit the $\pi-%%@
118: N$ elastic T-matrices, and experimental observables. In ref \cite{Man92} the $\pi$-N elastic %%@
119: partial wave T-matrices from different sources \cite{Cut79,Hoe83} have been used for the first %%@
120: channel, the second channel-$\eta N$ channel have only been represented by the S$_{11}$(1535) %%@
121: resonance, and the whole known data set for continuum pion production $\pi N \rightarrow \pi \pi N$ %%@
122: have been used to represent the third channel. The number of parameters was acceptable, and the %%@
123: minimization has revealed results very similar to PDG group, but more constrained in other but $\pi %%@
124: N$ elastic channel. The second PWA \cite{Bat98} has as well used the $\pi-N$ elastic T-matrices %%@
125: from the same sources as \cite{Man92}, but have chosen to use the whole set of measured total and %%@
126: differential cross sections for the $\pi N \rightarrow \eta N$ process.
127:
128: In both cases the number of parameters to be fitted was quite big (of the order of 100), but the %%@
129: minimization procedure was still under full control. However, the drawback of both of these %%@
130: approaches was that it was not forseable to increase the number of coupled channels because the %%@
131: number of fitting parameters would explode beyond control if one uses MINUIT program. The third %%@
132: approach \cite{Vra99} has avoided the problems in that program by not fitting the experimental data %%@
133: but T-matrices obtained from different sources. In that way they have been able to fit partial wave %%@
134: by partial wave (or plane by plane in Fig.1), and that has significantly reduced the number of %%@
135: input parameters and allowed them to use much more then three channels. However, the choice of %%@
136: input T-matrices remains an opened question to be discussed and tested. The all three analysis show %%@
137: a fair level of agreement and self consistence, and we dare to say that T-matrices for $\pi-N$ and %%@
138: $\eta-N$ channel are quite confidently determined and can be used as the input for the calculation %%@
139: of more complicated processes.
140:
141: \subsection { Quark model and coupled channel model $^{****}$ }
142:
143: In ref \cite{Cap99} the importance of multichannel approach has been illustrated. Namely, the %%@
144: possibility of existence of the fourth P$_{11}$ resonance has been reported in spite of the fact %%@
145: that it has not been seen in any previous single channel analysis, or even in one three coupled %%@
146: channel analysis which included the channel into which that resonance does not couple \cite{Man92}. %%@
147: First the existence of that resonance has been predicted in the quark model \cite{Cap98}, but at %%@
148: the same time it was seen in the three coupled channel analysis \cite{Bat98}.
149: The agreement of the findings of both, theoretical and phenomenological analysis are striking, so %%@
150: it is quite likely that the number of P$_{11}$ N$^*$ resonances should be increased to four. The %%@
151: result is a good example of theoretical prediction confirmed by the "experimental" partial wave %%@
152: analysis. \\
153:
154: \begin{center}
155: {\normalsize
156: \begin{tabular}{|c|c@{}c@{}c@{}c@{}c|c@{}c@{}c@{}c@{}c|}
157: \hline
158: \multicolumn{1}{|c}{\bf PDG} & \multicolumn{5}{|c}{{\bf Zagreb group}} & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{\bf %%@
159: Quark model} \\
160: \hline
161: States & \multicolumn{5}{|c}{Four resonances} & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{Five %%@
162: resonances} \\
163: \hline
164: & Mass & Width & $x_\pi$ & $x_{\eta} $ & $x_{\pi^2} $ & Mass %%@
165: & Width & $x_\pi$ & $x_{\eta} $ & $x_{\pi^2} $ \\
166: L$_{2I,2J}$${\rm (_{Mass/Width}^{x_{el}})}$ & (MeV) & (MeV) & (\%) & (\%) %%@
167: & (\%) & (MeV) & (MeV) & (\%) & (\%) & (\%) \\
168: \hline
169: S$_{11}(_{1535/120}^{38})$ & 1553 & 182 & 46 & 50 %%@
170: & 4 & 1460 & 645 & 34 & 66 & 0 \\
171: S$_{11}(_{1650/180}^{61})$ & 1652 & 202 & 79 & 13 %%@
172: & 8 & 1535 & 315 & 47 & 39 & 14 \\
173: S$_{11}(_{2090/95 \: }^{9})$ & 1812 & 405 & 32 & 22 %%@
174: & 46 & 1945 & 595 & 6 & 2 & 89 \\ \hline
175: P$_{11}(_{1440/135}^{51})$ & 1439 & 437 & 62 & 0 %%@
176: & 38 & 1540 & 425 & 97 & 0 & 3 \\
177: P$_{11}(_{1710/120}^{12})$ & 1729 & 180 & 22 & 6 %%@
178: & 72 & 1770 & 305 & 6 & 22 & 72 \\
179: P$_{11}$ & 1740 & 140 & 28 & 12 %%@
180: & 60 & 1880 & 155 & 5 & 18 & 76 \\
181: P$_{11}$ & - & - & - & - %%@
182: & - & 1975 & 45 & 8 & 0 & 92 \\
183: P$_{11}(_{2100/200}^{ 9})$ & 2157 & 355 & 16 & 83 %%@
184: & 1 & 2065 & 270 & 22 & 1 & 77 \\ \hline
185: D$_{13}(_{1520/114}^{54})$ & 1522 & 132 & 55 & 0.1 %%@
186: & 45 & 1495 & 115 & 64 & 0 & 36 \\
187: D$_{13}(_{1700/110}^{ 8})$ & 1817 & 134 & 9 & 14 %%@
188: & 77 & 1625 & 815 & 4 & 0 & 96 \\
189: D$_{13}(_{2080/265}^{ 6})$ & 2048 & 529 & 17 & 8 %%@
190: & 75 & 1960 & 535 & 12 & 6 & 81 \\
191: \hline
192: \end{tabular}
193: }
194: \vspace{0.25cm}
195: \end{center}
196:
197: {\em Table 1:} Resonance parameters of the phenomenological
198: \protect{\cite{Bat97a}} and the quark \protect{\cite{Cap99}}
199: models. The states are defined by the latest values given by the
200: PDG group \protect{\cite{PDG}} and other parameters are defined
201: in the text. Errors can be find in original
202: publications.
203:
204:
205: \subsection{ $\eta$N S-wave scattering length $^{****}$}
206:
207: Another example of importance of the $\eta$ production in hadronic channels for understanding %%@
208: the structure of N$^*$ resonances is the need of the existence of the second S$_{11}$(1650) %%@
209: resonance (the resonance which is extremely poorly coupled to the photoproduction channels) for the %%@
210: complete understanding of the $\eta$N S-wave scattering length. Namely, the problem of extremely %%@
211: poorly determined value of the real part of the $\eta$N S-wave scattering length has been known for %%@
212: years, and the limits have been 0.2 fm $\leq$ Real($a_{\eta N}$) $\leq$ 0.98 fm. That ambiguity was %%@
213: directly prohibiting the estimate of the likelihood of formation of the $\eta$-light nuclei bound %%@
214: states, because the existence of these bound states was directly correlated to the value of the %%@
215: real part of the $\eta$N scattering length as it can be seen in
216: Fig.2.
217:
218: The spread in possible values of the real part of the $\eta$N S-wave scattering length is given in %%@
219: Fig.2, and can be easily understood. The problem has been extensively addressed in ref. %%@
220: \cite{Bat96}. As it has been explained, any single resonance model (containing only one resonance %%@
221: in the S-wave) with the addition of the quite reliably measured and remeasured slope of the $\pi^- %%@
222: p \rightarrow \eta n$ total cross section near threshold can only give the values of the real part %%@
223: of the $\eta$N scattering length fixed below $\approx$ 0.4 fm. For any value bigger then that, %%@
224: the existence of the second S$_{11}$ resonance (1650 in addition to 1535) has to be assumed.
225: The ambiguity has finally been resolved by getting the overlapping results from two calculations %%@
226: based on entirely different formalisms \cite{Bat98,Gre97}. It is indicative that both approaches %%@
227: {\bf have} to include the existence of the second S$_{11}$ resonance. As the both publications used %%@
228: completely different formalisms (Cutkosky formalism \cite{Bat98} and K-matrix formalism %%@
229: \cite{Gre97}), and results coincide within the error bars, we conclude that the real part of the %%@
230: $\eta$N S-wave scattering length is quite well determined now. The existence of the second %%@
231: S$_{11}$ resonance for the overall understanding of the results given in Fig.2. is, henceforth, %%@
232: established. Let us just remind the reader that the second S$_{11}$ resonance is not seen in %%@
233: photoproduction processes. On the basis of these results for the real part of the $\eta$ N S-wave %%@
234: scattering length the predictions for the existence of the bound states in different $\eta$ -light %%@
235: nuclei are given in Fig.2.
236:
237: \noindent
238: \begin{figure}[h]
239: \label{fig:2}
240: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=fig2.eps,height=6cm,width=12.cm,angle=0}}
241: \caption{
242: $\eta$N S-wave scattering length. The symbols for all extracted values of the $\eta$N scattering %%@
243: length are taken over from reference \protect \cite{Bat96}. The only addition are the values %%@
244: extracted in ref. \protect \cite{Bat98} - crossed empty circles and \protect \cite{Gre97} - %%@
245: crossed full circles. Lines given on the figure indicate for which values there is a probability %%@
246: for the $\eta$-light nuclei bound states \protect \cite{Wyc96} }
247: \end{figure}
248:
249: \subsection{ Other $\pi N \rightarrow \eta N$ and $\eta N \rightarrow \eta N$ models $^{***}$ }
250:
251: Numerous other models have been produced with the aim to extract PW T-matrices for $\eta$ meson %%@
252: production in hadronic reactions \cite{Bha85,Ben91,Ari92,Aba96,Den98}. All of them suffer from some %%@
253: of the drawbacks: they are either single resonance, or simplified in some way. However, they are %%@
254: valuable to be looked at in order to see other approaches and possible simplification valuable for %%@
255: some specific cases.
256:
257: \section { $NN \rightarrow NN \eta$ processes $^{**}$ }
258:
259: The knowledge of elementary PW $\pi N$ and $\eta$N amplitudes have been tested in calculations %%@
260: involving more then two bodies in order to test the reliability and self consistence of obtained %%@
261: partial waves. One of the simplest examples is the $\eta$ production in nucleon-nucleon scattering. %%@
262: The process has been investigated experimentally \cite{Ber93,Chi94,Cal98,Cal99} and theoretically %%@
263: \cite{Bat97a,Vet91,Lag91,Wil93,Fal96a,Ber98}. However, even the initial agreement in theoretical %%@
264: calculations which mechanism is dominating has not been reached. It is generally agreed that in %%@
265: addition to the Born term the final state interaction should be added, but the combination of %%@
266: exchanged mesons which are described in different models varies. Therefore, more theoretical and %%@
267: experimental effort should be done in order to bring the problem to the general agreement.
268:
269: \section {$\pi d \rightarrow NN \eta$ processes $^{**}$ }
270:
271: The testing of elementary PW $\pi$N and $\eta$N amplitudes is as well attempted for $\eta$ %%@
272: production processes in $\pi$d reaction. The experiments are scarce \cite{NefE890}, and theoretical %%@
273: calculations are just being developed \cite{Bat97b,Gar99,Gar00}. Among reproducing the various %%@
274: experimental quantities like total and differential cross sections, the idea of extracting the
275: $\pi^0$-$\eta$ mixing angle using ratios of $\pi^- d \rightarrow \eta nn$ and $\pi^+ d \rightarrow %%@
276: \eta pp$ has been suggested \cite{Bat97b}. However, the experimental analysis \cite{NefE890} has %%@
277: not yet been finished, therefore the comparison with the theoretical predictions is in a way %%@
278: "hanging in the air".
279:
280: \section { Bound states of $\eta$ mesons $^{**}$ }
281:
282: The attempts of finding indications of bound states in $\eta$-$^3$He system %%@
283: \cite{Fal95,Fal96b,Wil97} have been done. Results are, according to my belief, still opened to %%@
284: reader's interpretation.
285:
286: The same statement stands for finding $\eta$-$^4$He bound states what has been attempted in refs. %%@
287: \cite{Wil93,Wil97,Fra94,Wil94,Cec99}, as well for finding $\eta$-light nuclei bound states in refs.
288: \cite{Ben90,Fix97,Kul98}.
289:
290: As a final conclusion we tend to offer the \vspace*{0.5cm} statement:\\
291: {\bf The existence of any N$^*$ resonance have to be confirmed in all channels, therefore, %%@
292: coupled channel models offer the best possibility to establish
293: them unambiguously.}
294:
295: \section*{References}
296: \begin{thebibliography}{NefE890}
297: \bibitem{Cut79}
298: R.E.Cutkosky, C.P.Forsyth, R.E.Hendrick, and R.L.Kelly,
299: \Journal{\PRD}{20}{2839}{1979}.
300: \bibitem{Hoe83}
301: G. H\"{o}hler, in {\it Elastic and Charge Exchange Scattering of Elementary Particles}, %%@
302: edited by H. Schopper, Landolt-B\"{o}rnstein, New Series, Group X, Vol.9,Part 2b (Springer-Verlag, %%@
303: Berlin 1983).
304: \bibitem{Man92}
305: D.M.Manley and E.M.Salesky, \Journal{\PRD}{45}{4002}{1992} and references
306: therein.
307: \bibitem{Bat98}
308: M.Batini\' c, I. Dadi\'{c}, I.\v Slaus, A.\v Svarc B.M.K. Nefkens and T.-S.H. Lee, \Journal{ \em{Physica %%@
309: Scripta}}{58}{15}{1998} and references therein.
310: \bibitem{Vra99}
311: T.P.Vrana and S.A.Dytman, and T.-S.H.Lee, nucl-th/9910012 and nucl-th/ 9702033
312: available at http://xxx.lanl.gov and references therein.
313: \bibitem{Cap99}
314: S.Capstick, T.-S.H.Lee, W.Roberts, and A.\v Svarc, \Journal{\PRC}
315: {59}{R3002}{1999} and references therein.
316: \bibitem{Cap98}
317: S.Capstick, {\em N$^*$ Physics and Nonperturbative Quantum Chromodynamics},
318: Proceedings of the Joint ECT$^*$/JLAB Workshop, Trento, Italy, May 18-29, 1998,
319: Few Body Systems, Supplement 11 (1998) 86, SpringerWienNewYork.
320: \bibitem{Bat97a}
321: M.Batini\' c and A.\v Svarc, \Journal{\em{Physica
322: Scripta}}{56}{321}{1997} and references therein.
323: \bibitem{PDG} C.Casso {\it et al} \Journal{\em The European Physical
324: Journal}{C3}{1}{1998}, and former issues in {\em Phys. Rev.
325: D.}
326: \bibitem{Bat96}
327: M.Batini\' c and A.\v Svarc, \Journal{\em Few Body Syst.}{20}{69}{1996} and references therein.
328: \bibitem{Gre97}
329: A.M.Green and S.Wycech, \Journal{\PRC}{55}{R2167}{1997} and
330: references therein.
331: \bibitem{Wyc96}
332: S. Wycech, {\em Workshop on Physics with the WASA Detector}, S\"{a}tra Brunn, June 17-19, 1996,
333: Sweeden
334: \bibitem{Bha85}
335: R.S.Bhalerao and L.C.Liu, \Journal{\PRL}{54}{856}{1985}
336: \bibitem{Ben91}
337: C.Benhold and H.Tanabe, \Journal{\NPA}{530}{625}{1991} and references
338: therein.
339: \bibitem{Ari92}
340: M.Arima, K.Shinizu, and K.Yazaki, \Journal{\NPA}{543}{613}{1992} and references
341: therein.
342: \bibitem{Aba96}
343: V.V.Abaev and B.M.K.Nefkens, \Journal{\PRC}{53}{385}{1996} and
344: references therein.
345: \bibitem{Den98}
346: J.Denschlag, L.Tiator, and D.Drechsel, nucl-th/9802063
347: \bibitem{Ber93}
348: A.M.Bergdolt, G.Bergdolt, O.Bing, A.Bouchakour, F.Brochard,
349: F.Hibou, A.Moalem, A.Taleb, M.P.Combes-Comets, P.Courtat,
350: R.Gacougnolle, Y.Le Bornec, E.Loireleux, F.Reide, B.Tatischeff,
351: N.Willis, M.Boivin, B.M.K.Nefkens, and F.Ploiun, \Journal{\PRD}{48}{R2969}{1993} and references
352: therein.
353: \bibitem{Chi94}
354: E.Chivassa, G.Dellacasa, N.De Marco, C.De Oliviera Martinis,
355: M.Gallio, P.Guaita, A.Musso, A.Piccotti, E.Scomparin, and
356: E.Vercellin, \Journal{\PLB}{232}{270}{1994} and references
357: therein.
358: \bibitem{Cal98}
359: H.Cal\' en,~J.Dyring, K.Fransson, L.Gustafsson, S.H\" aggstr\" om,
360: ~B.H\" oistad, A.Johansson, T.Johansson, S.Kullander, A.M\"
361: ortsell, R.Ruber, U.Shuberth, J.Z\l oma\' ncuk, C.Ekstr\" om,
362: K.Kilian, W.Oelert, T.Sefzick, R.Bilger, W.Brodowski,
363: H.Clement, G.J.Wagner, A.Bondar, A.Kuzmin, B.Shwartz,
364: V.Sidorov, A.Sukhanov, A.Kup\' s\' c, P.Marciniewski,
365: J.Stepaniak, V.Dunin, B.Morosov, A.Povtorejko, A.Zernov, J.Zabi\- erowski, A.Turowiecki,
366: and Z.Wilhelmi,\Journal{\PRC}{58}{2667}{1998} and references
367: therein.
368: \bibitem{Cal99}
369: H.Cal\' en, J.Dyring, G.F\" aldt, K.Fransson, L.Gustafsson, S.H\" aggstr\"
370: om, B.H\" oistad, J.Johansson, A.Johansson, T.Johansson, S.Kullander, A.M\"
371: ortsell, R.Ruber, J.Z\l oma\' ncuk, C.Ekstr\" om,
372: K.Kilian, W.Oelert, T.Sefzick, R.Bilger, W.Brodowski,
373: H.Clement, G.J.Wagner, A.Bondar, A.Kuzmin, B.Shwartz,
374: V.Sidorov, A.Sukhanov, V.Dunin, B.Morosov, A.Povtorejko, A.Sukhanov,
375: A.Zernov, A.Kup\' s\' c, P.Marciniewski,
376: J.Stepaniak, J.Zabierowski, A.Turowiecki, Z.Wilhelmi, and
377: C.Wilkin, \Journal{\PLB}{458}{190}{1999} and references
378: therein.
379: \bibitem{Vet91}
380: T.Vetter, A.Engel, T.Bir\' o, and U.Mosel,
381: \Journal{\PLB}{263}{153}{1991} and references therein.
382: \bibitem{Lag91}
383: J.M.Laget and F.Wellers, \Journal{\PLB}{257}{254}{1991} and references
384: therein.
385: \bibitem{Wil93}
386: C.Wilkin, \Journal{\PRC}{47}{R938}{1993} and references
387: therein.
388: \bibitem{Fal96a}
389: G.F\" aldt and C.Wilkin, \Journal{\NPA}{604}{441}{1996}, nucl-th/9612019 and references
390: therein.
391: \bibitem{Ber98}
392: V.Bernard, N.Kaiser, and Ulf-G.Mai\ss ner, nucl-th/9806013
393: (accepted for publ. in {\em Eur.Phys.J.} A)
394: \bibitem{NefE890}
395: B.Nefkens {\em et al.}, proposal for the E890 experiment, {\em
396: to be published}
397: \bibitem{Bat97b}
398: M.Batini\' c {\em et al.} Few Body XV, Groenigen 1997
399: \bibitem{Gar99}
400: H.Garcialazo and M.T.Pe\~ na, \Journal{\PRC}{59}{2389}{1999} and references
401: therein.
402: \bibitem{Gar00}
403: H.Garcialazo and M.T.Pe\~ na, {\em to be published} and references
404: therein.
405: \bibitem{Fal95}
406: G.F\" aldt and C.Wilkin, \Journal{\NPA}{587}{769}{1995} and references
407: therein.
408: \bibitem{Fal96b}
409: G.F\" aldt, TSL/ISV-96-0143 Uppsala University preprint and
410: references therein
411: \bibitem{Wil97}
412: N.Willis, Y.Le Bornec, A.Zghiche, C.Wilkin, R.Wurzinger,
413: O.Bing, M.Boivin, P.Courtat, R.Gacougnolle, F.Hibou,
414: J.M.Martin, F.Plouin, B.Tatischef, and J.Yonnet, \Journal{\PLB}{406}{14}{1997} and references
415: therein.
416: \bibitem{Fra94}
417: R.Frascaria, F.Roudot, R.Wurzinger, M.-A.Duval, J.Ernst, L.Godzahl,
418: F.Hinterberger,
419: R.Jahn, R.Joosten, T.von Oepen, and
420: W.Spang , \Journal{\PRC}{50}{R537}{1994} and references
421: therein.
422: \bibitem{Wil94}
423: C.Wilkin, \Journal{\PLB}{331}{276}{1994}
424: \bibitem{Cec99}
425: S.Ceci, D.Hrupec, and A.\v Svarc, \Journal{\em J. Phys. G:
426: Nucl. Part. Phys.}{25}{L35}{1999}
427: \bibitem{Ben90}
428: C.Benhold and H.Tanabe, \Journal{\PLB}{243}{13}{1990}
429: \bibitem{Fix97}
430: A.Fix and H.Arenh\" ovel, nucl-th/9703002
431: \bibitem{Kul98}
432: J.Kulpa, S.Wycech, and A.M.Green, nucl-th/9807020
433:
434: \end{thebibliography}
435: \end{document}
436: