1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{graphics}

4: 

5: \setlength{\textwidth}{7in}

6: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-.2in}

7: 

8: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

9: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

10: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

11: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

12: 

13: \hyphenation{me-son me-sons DW}

14: 

15: \begin{document}

16: 

17: \begin{titlepage}

18: 

19: \pagestyle{empty}

20: 

21: \setlength{\baselineskip}{18pt}

22: 

23: \vskip .2in

24: 

25: \begin{center}

26: 

27: {\large{\bf Relativistic Calculations for Incoherent Photoproduction of

28: $\eta$ Mesons}} \end{center}

29: 

30: \vskip .1in

31: 

32: \begin{center}

33: I. R. Blokland and H. S. Sherif 

34: 

35: {\it Department of Physics, University of Alberta}

36: 

37: {\it  Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2J1}

38: 

39: \vskip .1in

40: 

41: \end{center}

42: 

43: \centerline{ {\bf Abstract} }

44: 

45: \setlength{\baselineskip}{18pt}

46: 

47: \noindent

48: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

49: 

50: We develop a relativistic model for incoherent $\eta$-photoproduction on

51: nuclei. The elementary process is described using an effective

52: Lagrangian containing photons, nucleons, the $S_{11}(1535)$ and

53: $D_{13}(1520)$ nucleon resonances, and $\rho$, $\omega$, and $\eta$

54: mesons. The nucleon and $\eta$ wavefunctions are obtained from

55: relativistic wave equations. Final-state interactions of the outgoing

56: particles are included via optical potentials. The effects of these

57: interactions are found to be large and lead to reduced cross sections.The

58: incoherent cross sections for isovector transitions are much larger than 

59: those for isoscalar ones. The dominant contributions are those from the

60: $S_{11}$ and $D_{13}$ resonances. We find important interference 

61: effects between the contributions of these two resonances. 

62: We give some detailed calculations for the cross sections for incoherent

63: $\eta$-photoproduction on $^{12}$C. We find that the incoherent

64: cross section for a subset of states in the excitation energy region 

65: below $17\,\rm{MeV}$ are significantly larger than those

66: of the coherent process. These cross sections may thus

67: be accessible experimentally.  

68: 

69: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

70: \vskip .1in

71: 

72: PACS numbers: 25.20.Lj, 24.10.Jv, 24.70.+s, 13.60.Le

73: 

74: %\centerline{{Submitted For Publication In: {\it Nuclear Physics A}}}

75: 

76: \end{titlepage}

77: 

78: \setlength{\baselineskip}{18pt}

79: 

80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

81: 

82: 

83: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

84: 

85: 

86: \section{Introduction}

87: \label{intro}

88: 

89: Over the past decade, $\eta$ meson photoproduction reactions have been

90: the subject of a number of investigations, both theoretical and

91: experimental. From a theoretical standpoint, $\eta$-photoproduction

92: provides a useful method to examine the properties of certain nucleon

93: resonances. In particular, since the $\eta$ meson is a spin- and

94: isospin-zero particle, its coupling to nucleons can lead to the

95: formation of only isospin-$\frac{1}{2}$ nucleon resonances. Using

96: nuclear targets, $\eta$-photoproduction can be used to investigate the

97: modification of hadron properties in the nuclear medium. These reactions

98: can also be used to study the final-state interactions of $\eta$ mesons

99: with nuclei, another topic of current interest. Reactions on nuclei can

100: complement and further test information obtained from studying

101: photoproduction reactions on free nucleons. 

102: 

103: In recent years, there have been several theoretical treatments of

104: coherent $\eta$-photoproduction reactions on nuclei. Fix and

105: Arenh{\"{o}}vel~\cite{fa} used an effective Lagrangian approach (ELA) to

106: examine the free $\eta$-photoproduction process, using only the

107: $S_{11}(1535)$ and $D_{13}(1520)$ resonances, as well as $t$-channel

108: vector meson exchange and nucleon pole terms. From these results, they

109: obtained cross sections for coherent $\eta$-photoproduction on $^{4}$He

110: and $^{12}$C in the near-threshold region. Peters {\it et

111: al.}~\cite{peters} used an ELA with a relativistic, non-local model to

112: study coherent $\eta$-photoproduction on spin-zero nuclei. They also

113: compared several optical potentials for the $\eta$ final-state

114: interactions. Piekarewicz {\it et al.}~\cite{psm1,psm2} used a

115: relativistic ELA to examine coherent $\eta$-photoproduction on $^{4}$He,

116: $^{12}$C, and $^{40}$Ca. Bennhold and Tanabe~\cite{benn} used a coupled

117: channel isobar model, in which the $(\gamma,\eta)$ reaction is related

118: to the $(\gamma,\pi)$, $(\pi,\eta)$, $(\pi,\pi)$, and $(\eta,\eta)$

119: reactions. They used the resulting elementary amplitude to study

120: coherent and incoherent photoproduction of $\eta$ mesons on nuclei. The

121: term incoherent photoproduction, as introduced by these authors, refers

122: to reactions leading to excited states of the final nucleus. We adopt

123: this same definition in the present work. 

124: 

125: The paper by Bennhold and Tanabe constitutes the only existing

126: theoretical treatment of incoherent $\eta$-photoproduction. The small

127: cross sections they obtained, relative to the dominant quasifree

128: $\eta$-photoproduction process, indicate that these processes are out of

129: reach for the current generation of experiments. Furthermore, nuclear

130: structure complications have curtailed theoretical interest in

131: incoherent reactions. To date, only inclusive measurements have been

132: made for $\eta$-photoproduction on complex nuclei~\cite{mami3}. In order

133: to understand the underlying mechanisms of the process better, these

134: measurements will need to be complemented by quasifree, coherent, and

135: incoherent measurements. 

136: 

137: In this paper we extend a previous relativistic model for quasifree

138: photoproduction of $\eta$ mesons on complex nuclei~\cite{hphs1,hphs2} to

139: the case of incoherent $\eta$-photoproduction. The main ingredients of

140: the present treatment are as follows. The effective Lagrangian of

141: Benmerrouche {\it et al.}~\cite{bmz} is used for the interactions

142: between fields. Contributions from the nucleon Born diagrams,

143: $t$-channel vector mesons, and the $S_{11}$ and $D_{13}$

144: nucleon resonances are included. The nuclear wavefunctions are solutions

145: of the Dirac equation with strong scalar and vector potentials in the

146: spirit of the relativistic mean field theory of

147: Walecka~\cite{walecka1,walecka2}. Calculations are carried out in the

148: plane wave approximation (PWA) and also in the distorted wave

149: approximation (DWA) in which the final-state interactions of the $\eta$

150: meson are taken into account.

151: 

152: In the following section, we outline the calculations for the amplitude

153: and observables of an incoherent $\eta$-photoproduction reaction. In

154: Sec.~\ref{parameters} we discuss the parameters that are used in the

155: effective Lagrangian. The results of the calculations are presented and

156: discussed in Sec.~\ref{results}. Conclusions are given in

157: Sec.~\ref{concs}.

158: 

159: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

160: 

161: 

162: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

163:     

164: 

165: \section{Reaction Model}

166: \label{model}

167: 

168: In an incoherent $\eta$-photoproduction reaction, a photon interacts

169: with a nucleus to produce an $\eta$ meson and raise the nucleus from its

170: ground state to an excited state. In the impulse approximation,

171: many-body contributions are neglected so that the production takes place

172: on a single nucleon. In this approximation, the transition amplitude for

173: the incoherent reaction $A(\gamma,\eta)A^{\ast}$ is closely related to

174: that of the elementary reaction $N(\gamma,\eta)N$.

175: 

176: The starting point in the present approach is a relativistic interaction

177: Lagrangian for a system of photons, mesons, nucleons, and nucleon

178: resonances from which one obtains the transition amplitude for the

179: $A(\gamma,\eta)A^{\ast}$ reaction. The amplitude is then used to

180: calculate the observables for the reaction.

181: 

182: In the photoproduction of $\eta$ mesons from complex nuclei, the

183: reaction takes place within the nuclear medium. The dynamics of the

184: nucleons within the nuclear matter are described by the relativistic

185: mean field Lagrangian of Walecka~\cite{walecka1,walecka2}. The $\eta$

186: meson is described by solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation. The

187: interactions of the fields involved in the reaction are described by the

188: interaction Lagrangian

189: \be

190: \label{l-int}

191: \mathcal{L}_{\rm{INT}} = 

192:      \mathcal{L}_{\eta NN} + \mathcal{L}_{\gamma NN} + 

193:      \mathcal{L}_{V \eta \gamma} + \mathcal{L}_{VNN} + 

194:      \mathcal{L}_{\eta NR} + \mathcal{L}_{\gamma NR}\; .

195: \ee

196: We use the effective Lagrangian of Benmerrouche {\it et al.}~\cite{bmz},

197: using pseudoscalar coupling for the $\eta NN$ vertex. The terms

198: in~(\ref{l-int}) can be written explicitly as:

199: \be

200: \label{l-enn}

201: \mathcal{L}_{\eta NN} = -i g_{\eta NN} \overline{\psi} \gamma_{5} \psi \eta \; ,

202: \ee

203: \be

204: \label{l-gnn}

205: \mathcal{L}_{\gamma NN} = -e \overline{\psi} \gamma_{\mu} A^{\mu} \psi - \frac{e\kappa_{p}}{4M} \overline{\psi} \sigma_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} \psi \; , 

206: \ee  

207: \be

208: \label{l-vnn}

209: \mathcal{L}_{VNN} = -g_{v} \overline{\psi} \gamma_{\mu} V^{\mu} \psi - \frac{g_{t}}{4M} \overline{\psi} \sigma_{\mu \nu} V^{\mu \nu} \psi \; , 

210: \ee

211: \be

212: \label{l-veg}

213: \mathcal{L}_{V\eta \gamma} = \frac{e\lambda_{v}}{4m_{\eta}} \epsilon_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma} F^{\mu \nu} V^{\lambda \sigma} \eta \; .

214: \ee

215: At the $VNN$ vertex, we use a form factor of the type

216: \be

217: \label{ff}

218: F(t) = \frac{\Lambda^{2} - m_{V}^{2}}{\Lambda^{2} - t}

219: \ee

220: with $\Lambda^{2} = 1.2 \, \rm{GeV}^{2}$.

221: For the $S_{11}$ resonance,

222: \be

223: \label{l-ens}

224: \mathcal{L}_{\eta NR} = -i g_{\eta NS_{11}} \overline{\psi} R \eta + \rm{H.c.} \; ,

225: \ee

226: \be

227: \label{l-gns}

228: \mathcal{L}_{\gamma NR} = - \frac{e \kappa_{S_{11}}}{2(M + M_{S_{11}})} \overline{R} \gamma_{5} \sigma_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} \psi + \rm{H.c.} \; .

229: \ee

230: For the $D_{13}$ resonance,

231: \be

232: \label{l-end}

233: \mathcal{L}_{\eta NR} = \frac{f_{\eta ND_{13}}}{m_{\eta}} \; \overline{R}^{\mu} \theta_{\mu \nu}(Z) \gamma_{5} \psi \partial^{\nu}\eta + \rm{H.c.} \; ,

234: \ee

235: \be

236: \label{l-gnd1}

237: \mathcal{L}_{\gamma NR}^{(1)} = \frac{ie\kappa^{(1)}_{D_{13}}}{2M} \; \overline{R}^{\mu} \theta_{\mu \nu}(Y) \gamma_{\lambda} \psi F^{\nu \lambda} + \rm{H.c.} \; ,

238: \ee

239: \be

240: \label{l-gnd2}

241: \mathcal{L}_{\gamma NR}^{(2)} = \frac{e\kappa^{(2)}_{D_{13}}}{4M^{2}} \; \overline{R}^{\mu} \theta_{\mu \nu}(X) \partial_{\lambda} \psi F^{\nu \lambda} + \rm{H.c.} \; ,

242: \ee

243: where the tensors $V^{\mu \nu}$ and $\theta_{\mu \nu}(V)$ are defined by

244: \be

245: \label{v}

246: V_{\mu \nu} = \partial_{\mu}V_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}V_{\mu} \; ,

247: \ee

248: \be

249: \label{theta}

250: \theta_{\mu \nu}(V) = g_{\mu \nu} + \left[ - \frac{1}{2} \; (1 + 4V) + V \right] \gamma_{\mu}  \gamma_{\nu} \; ,

251: \ee

252: for $V=X,Y,Z$.  We take $X,Y,Z=-1/2$ so that the $D_{13}$ terms of $\mathcal{L}$ agree with Peters {\it et al.}~\cite{peters}

253: 

254: At tree level, the $S$ matrix for the $A(\gamma,\eta)A^{\ast}$ reaction is

255: \be

256: \label{sfi}

257: S_{fi} = - \frac{1}{2} \int \left< f \left| T \left[ \mathcal{L}_{\rm{INT}}(x) \mathcal{L}_{\rm{INT}}(y) \right] \right| \! i \right> d^{4}x \; d^{4}y \; .

258: \ee

259: Following the procedure in~\cite{hphs1}, we obtain

260: \bea

261: \label{sfi2}

262: S_{fi} & = & \sum_{(j)} \frac{e}{(2\pi)^{3}} \sqrt{\frac{1}{2E_{\eta} \; 2E_{\gamma}}} \sum_{J_{C} J_{B} M_{B}} \sum_{J_{B^{\prime}} M_{B^{\prime}}} (J_{C},J_{B}; M_{C},M_{B} | J_{i},M_{i}) \nonumber \\

263: & & \times (J_{C},J_{B^{\prime}}; M_{C},M_{B^{\prime}} | J_{f},M_{f}) \left[ \mathcal{S}_{J_{i}J_{C}}(J_{B}) \right] ^{1/2} \left[ \mathcal{S}_{J_{f}J_{C}}(J_{B^{\prime}}) \right] ^{1/2} \nonumber \\ & & \times \int d^{4}x \Psi_{J_{B^{\prime}} M_{B^{\prime}}}^{\dagger} (x) \; \Gamma_{(j)} \; \Psi_{J_{B} M_{B}} (x) \; \Phi_{\eta}^{\ast}(x) \; e^{-i k_{\gamma} \cdot x} \; .

264: \eea

265: In the above equation, $E_{\gamma}$ and $E_{\eta}$ are the energies of

266: the photon and $\eta$ meson. The struck nucleon has angular momentum

267: quantum numbers $J_{B}$ and $M_{B}$ before the interaction and

268: $J_{B^{\prime}}$ and $M_{B^{\prime}}$ after the interaction. $J_{C}$ and

269: $M_{C}$ denote the angular momentum quantum numbers of the nuclear core,

270: which is defined to comprise the remainder of the nucleus. The nucleus

271: has angular momentum quantum numbers $J_{i}$ and $M_{i}$ before the

272: interaction and $J_{f}$ and $M_{f}$ after the interaction.

273: $(J_{C},J_{B}; M_{C},M_{B} | J_{i},M_{i})$ is a Clebsch-Gordan

274: coefficient and $\mathcal{S}$ denotes a spectroscopic factor.

275: $\Psi_{J_{B} M_{B}}(x)$ and $\Psi_{J_{B^{\prime}} M_{B^{\prime}}}(x)$

276: represent the wavefunctions of the bound nucleon, before and after the

277: interaction, and $\Phi_{\eta}(x)$ is the $\eta$ meson wavefunction.

278: Finally, $\Gamma_{(j)}$ is a $4\times 4$ matrix operator which contains

279: the details of the interaction relevant to a particular reaction

280: channel, labeled by $(j)$. The explicit forms for

281: $\Gamma_{\rm{proton}}$, $\Gamma_{S_{11}}$, $\Gamma_{D_{13}}$, and

282: $\Gamma_{V}$ are given in~\cite{hphs1}. 

283: 

284: We carry out two types of calculations depending on whether or not the

285: final-state interactions of the $\eta$ are taken into account. In the

286: PWA, we neglect final-state interactions so the $\eta$ meson

287: wavefunction takes the form

288: \be

289: \label{eta-pwa}

290: \Phi_{\eta}(x) = e^{-ik_{\eta}\cdot x} .

291: \ee 

292: In the DWA, the $\eta$ meson wavefunction is distorted through the use

293: of an optical potential in the Klein-Gordon equation. In our DWA

294: calculations, we will use two different optical potentials. The first

295: optical potential, which we will denote DW1, was introduced by Lee {\it

296: et al.}~\cite{lee} using the $\eta N$ scattering amplitude found by

297: Bennhold and Tanabe~\cite{benn}. The second optical potential, which we

298: will label DW3, was introduced by Peters {\it et al.}~\cite{peters}

299: using the results of Effenberger and Sibirtsev~\cite{eff}.

300: 

301: In order to write expressions for the observables of the reaction, we

302: will find it useful to define a function $\mathcal{Z}$ as

303: \be

304: \label{z}

305: \mathcal{Z}_{(j)} = \int d^{3}x \psi_{J_{B^{\prime}} M_{B^{\prime}}}^{\dagger} (\vec{x}) \; \Gamma_{(j)} \; \psi_{J_{B} M_{B}} (\vec{x}) \; \varphi_{\eta}^{\ast}(\vec{x}) \; e^{i \vec{k}_{\gamma} \cdot \vec{x}}\; ,

306: \ee

307: where $\psi$ and $\varphi$ are the spatial parts of the particle

308: wavefunctions. Equation (\ref{sfi2}) can then be written as

309: \bea

310: \label{sfi3}

311: S_{fi} & = & \sum_{(j)} \frac{e}{(2\pi)^{2}} \sqrt{\frac{1}{2E_{\eta} \; 2E_{\gamma}}} \; \delta (E_{B^{\prime}} + E_{\eta} - E_{B} - E_{\gamma}) \nonumber \\ & & \times \; \sum_{J_{C} J_{B} M_{B}} \sum_{J_{B^{\prime}} M_{B^{\prime}}} (J_{C},J_{B}; M_{C},M_{B} | J_{i},M_{i}) \nonumber \\

312: & & \times (J_{C},J_{B^{\prime}}; M_{C},M_{B^{\prime}} | J_{f},M_{f}) \left[ \mathcal{S}_{J_{i}J_{C}}(J_{B}) \right] ^{1/2} \nonumber \\ & & \times \left[ \mathcal{S}_{J_{f}J_{C}}(J_{B^{\prime}}) \right] ^{1/2} \mathcal{Z}_{(j)} \; .

313: \eea

314: The differential cross section is then related to $\mathcal{Z}_{(j)}$ by

315: \be

316: \label{dc}

317: \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega_{\eta}} = \frac{\alpha}{8\pi} \; 

318: \frac{(2J_{f} + 1)}{R} \;  

319: \frac{p_{\eta}}{E_{\gamma}} \sum_{(j)} \sum_{J_{B}, M_{B}} \sum_{J_{B^{\prime}}, M_{B^{\prime}}} \sum_{\xi} \frac{\mathcal{S}_{J_{i}J_{C}}(J_{B})}{(2J_{B} + 1)}

320: \frac{\mathcal{S}_{J_{f}J_{C}}(J_{B^{\prime}})}{(2J_{B^{\prime}} + 1)}

321: \left| \mathcal{Z}_{(j)} \right| ^{2} \; .

322: \ee

323: Note that $\mathcal{Z}$ depends on~$M_{B}, M_{B^{\prime}}$, and the

324: photon polarization~$\xi$. The recoil factor $R$ is given by

325: \be

326: \label{recoil}

327: R = 1 + \frac{E_{\eta}}{E_{R}} 

328:     \left( 1 - \frac{p_{\gamma}}{p_{\eta}} \; \cos \theta_{\eta} \right) \; ,

329: \ee

330: where $p_{\gamma}$ and $p_{\eta}$ are the momenta of the the photon and the

331: $\eta$-meson, respectively.  The photon asymmetry for linearly polarized incident photons is

332: \be

333: \label{sigma}

334: \Sigma = \frac{d\sigma_{\perp} - d\sigma_{\parallel}}{d\sigma_{\perp} + d\sigma_{\parallel}} \; ,

335: \ee

336: where $d\sigma_{\perp}$ and $d\sigma_{\parallel}$ are the differential

337: cross sections for specified polarizations of the incident photon,

338: namely, perpendicular and parallel to the plane of the reaction. 

339: 

340: 

341: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

342: 

343: 

344: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

345:     

346: 

347: \section{Parameters}

348: \label{parameters}

349: 

350: The effective Lagrangian in Sec.~\ref{model} contains a number of

351: parameters, such as coupling constants and anomalous magnetic moments,

352: which must be inferred from the experimental results of other reactions.

353: In particular, experimental studies of the elementary

354: $\eta$-photoproduction reaction $p(\gamma,\eta)p$ allow us to constrain

355: our parameter set.

356: 

357: The parameters relating to the $S_{11}$ and $D_{13}$

358: resonances are the most crucial inputs for our effective Lagrangian. By

359: considering the decays of these resonances through the $\gamma p$ and

360: $\eta p$ channels, we can relate the parameters in

361: equations~(\ref{l-ens}) through~(\ref{l-gnd2}) to more conventional

362: resonance parameters~\cite{bmz}. For example, for the $S_{11}$

363: resonance,

364: \be

365: \label{ek-s11}

366: \left| e\kappa_{S_{11}} \right| = \sqrt{\frac{2M(M_{S_{11}} + M)}{(M_{S_{11}} - M)}} \; \left| A^{p}_{1/2} \right| \; ,

367: \ee

368: \be

369: \label{g-s11}

370: \left| g_{\eta N S_{11}} \right| = \left( \frac{4\pi M_{S_{11}}}{p_{\eta} (E_{N} + M)} \; \Gamma_{S_{11} \rightarrow \eta N} \right) ^{1/2} \; ,

371: \ee

372: where $A^{p}_{1/2}$ is a helicity amplitude, and $p_{\eta}$ and $E_{N}$

373: are the momentum of the $\eta$ and the energy of the nucleon,

374: respectively, in the center of momentum frame for the decay

375: $S_{11}\rightarrow \eta N$. Similar expressions can be written

376: for $f_{\eta ND_{13}}\kappa_{D_{13}}^{(1)}$ and $f_{\eta

377: ND_{13}}\kappa_{D_{13}}^{(2)}$. While these expressions specify the

378: magnitudes of the resonance parameters, they do not provide us with any

379: information about their phases.  

380:  

381: In the present analysis we shall compare three slightly different sets of coupling 

382: parameters for the effective Lagrangians involving the resonances. Fix and 

383: Arenh{\"{o}}vel~\cite{fa} obtained a set of parameters that gave a good description 

384: of the elementary cross sections measured at Mainz~\cite{mami1}. We were able to reproduce 

385: their results using a certain set of phases for the extracted coupling parameters. As a 

386: further test of these parameters, we compared our predictions for

387: the photon asymmetry of the elementary process to the results obtained

388: by a recent experiment at the ESRF~\cite{esrf}. Figure~\ref{figure1}

389: shows our prediction, along with the experimental results, for the

390: photon asymmetry when $E_{\gamma}=740\,\rm{MeV}$. The parameters are 

391: listed as set 1 in Table~\ref{res-params}. Note that this set is given only for protons;

392: the handling of neutron cross sections in this particular case is explained in the 

393: following section. Peters {\it et

394: al.}~\cite{peters} have also used the Fix and Arenh{\"{o}}vel parameters 

395: to extract the 

396: coupling parameters for both protons and neutrons. The proton parameters are only 

397: slightly different from those mentioned above and the neutron parameters

398: are based on the 1996 listings of the Particle Data Group (these are also 

399: the same in the 2000 listings). 

400: These coupling parameters are listed as set 2 in Table~\ref{res-params}. 

401: The proton parameters in 

402: Set 3 in Table~\ref{res-params} are based on the recent analysis of Tiator {\it et

403: al.}~\cite{tiator} of several observables for the photoproduction process 

404: on proton targets.

405: This analysis produced new parameters for the $D_{13}$. In particular these

406: authors find a much smaller branching ratio than that used by Fix and 

407: Arenh{\"{o}}vel.  The rest of the coupling parameters are the same as for set 2. We shall 

408: compare the cross sections calculated using these three sets of parameters.

409: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

410: 

411: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

412:     

413: 

414: \section{Results and Discussion}

415: \label{results}

416: 

417: In order to put our final results into proper perspective we need to  

418:  discuss two relevant issues. The cross sections for the incoherent 

419: process depend strongly on the isospin of the excited state. For 

420: isospin-zero targets we calculate these cross sections for 

421: both $\,T_{f}=0\,$ and $\,T_{f}=1\,$ 

422: nuclear excited states. We explain here how these calculations are 

423: done for the three sets of coupling parameters discussed above. Set 1 lists only the 

424: coupling parameters for 

425: protons (see Table~\ref{res-params}). The calculations of the isospin dependent cross 

426: sections in this case make use of the experimental results from Mainz 

427: for $\eta$-photopoduction on the proton~\cite{mami1} and the 

428: deuteron~\cite{mami2}. An analysis 

429: by these authors, based on the dominance of the $S_{11}$ resonance, 

430: established

431: a neutron to proton cross section ratio. From this ratio the amplitude 

432: for the elementary process can be decomposed into isovector and isoscalar 

433: components. Specifically, based on the analysis by Krusche {\it et

434: al.}~\cite{mami2}, we 

435: take the ratio of the neutron to proton amplitudes to be $-0.80$. In our 

436: calculations we use the parameters of set 1 to obtain the contributions 

437: from the target protons to the incoherent amplitudes and use the above 

438: ratio to calculate the neutron contributions. These amplitudes can then 

439: be combined to yield the $\,T=0\,$ or

440:  $\,T=1\,$  amplitudes.  This procedure is 

441: used only with set 1; sets 2 and 3 have separate coupling parameters for 

442: protons and neutron and the amplitudes are calculated independently.

443: 

444: The other issue that also has some bearing on the calculated cross 

445: sections is the choice 

446: of the initial and final momenta of the participating nucleon. We

447: shall make a comparison between two choices. 

448: One is the ``frozen nucleon" approximation in which each nucleon moves 

449: as part of the target but without allowance for the Fermi motion. The 

450: second, and possibly more appropriate, choice for the nucleon momenta 

451: allows for Fermi motion using an approximate model employed by other 

452: authors~\cite{tiator2,mach,kam}. 

453: We use this model in the following form: The initial nucleon momentum in 

454: the lab frame is taken as: 

455: $\mbox{\boldmath{$p$}}_{i} = \frac{A-1}{2A}\left(\mbox{\boldmath{$p$}}_{\eta} 

456:                              - \mbox{\boldmath{$p$}}_{\gamma}\right)$. This choice is the 

457: same as the effective momentum used in refs~\cite{fa,benn,try}. 

458: The momentum 

459: of the nucleon in the final state is obtained by applying momentum 

460: conservation in the elementary production process.

461:  

462: 

463: Calculations were carried out as outlined in Sec.~\ref{model} for

464: incoherent $\eta$-photoproduction cross sections on $^{12}$C, $^{16}$O,

465: and $^{40}$Ca. Qualitatively, our calculations 

466: show similar results for all three nuclei. Calculations on $^{16}$O and 

467: $^{40}$Ca

468: do not produce any significant

469: features beyond what we observe on  $^{12}$C. We therefore limit our

470: discussion to the latter nucleus. We will present the results of the 

471: $^{12}$C calculations,

472: in which we have used the $1p$-shell spectroscopic factors of Cohen and

473: Kurath~\cite{ck}. We have selected four excited states of $^{12}$C that

474: are well described by a $1p_{3/2}^{-1}-1p_{1/2}$ configuration:

475: $(2^{+}0;4.44)$, $(2^{+}1;16.11)$, $(1^{+}0;12.71)$, and

476: $(1^{+}1;15.11)$. It is found that transitions to the

477: $\,T=1\,$ states are much 

478: stronger than those to $\,T=0\,$ states. For this reason we will present a 

479: number of comparisons below involving calculations for only

480: the $(2^{+}1;16.11)$ state. Additional calculations involving all of the 

481: four states will also be presented.

482:   

483: We now discuss the results of our calculations for the

484: $^{12}$C$(\gamma,\eta)^{12}$C$^{\ast}(2^{+}1;16.11)$ reaction.

485: We begin by looking at the dependence of the cross sections on the 

486: choice of nucleon momenta and the 

487: sensitivity to the three coupling parameter choices discussed 

488: above. Using parameter set 1, we show in Figure~\ref{figure2} a 

489: comparison between 

490: the two choices of nucleon momenta. The calculations, carried out

491: using the PWA, are presented for the 

492: differential cross section in the laboratory frame at 

493: $E_{\gamma}=766\,\rm{MeV}$.

494: The frozen nucleon approximation leads 

495: to larger cross sections in the forward direction than those for which the 

496: Fermi motion is taken into account in the approximate manner discussed above. The shapes 

497: of the two angular distributions are very similar.  Of particular interest, though, is that the relative contributions of the $S_{11}$ and $D_{13}$ resonances are strongly influenced by the choice of nucleon momenta, even though the total cross sections are reasonably stable. 

498: Because the allowance for Fermi motion 

499: is the more realistic choice, all subsequent calculations in 

500: this paper are carried out with this choice. 

501: 

502: In Figure~\ref{figure3} we compare the cross sections for the other 

503: two sets of coupling parameters (sets 2 and 3, Table~\ref{res-params}). 

504: The separate 

505: contributions of the $S_{11}$ and $D_{13}$ are also shown. 

506: Note that in the present model the background terms do

507: not contribute to isovector transitions, as the coupling parameters used for these terms~\cite{peters} are the same for protons and neutrons. The cross sections (dotted curve) 

508: due to the $S_{11}$ are the same for both sets since the two sets 

509: have identical parameters for this resonance. 

510: The contributions from the $D_{13}$ are much 

511: smaller, with those from set 2 being almost double those from set 3. This

512: reflects the small branching ratios extracted by the analysis of 

513: Tiator {\it et al.}~\cite{tiator}. This effect occurs despite the observation that the couplings $f_{\eta ND_{13}}\kappa_{D_{13}}^{(1)}$ and $f_{\eta ND_{13}}\kappa_{D_{13}}^{(2)}$ are larger for the set 3 parameters than for set 2.  We have found that these two parameters give rise to amplitudes of opposite sign and that the cancellation is stronger for the set 3 parameters.

514: One important feature evident in

515: Figure~\ref{figure3} is the strong constructive 

516: interference between the $S_{11}$ and $D_{13}$ contributions in this energy

517: region. Even though the $D_{13}$ cross section is by itself small, the 

518: combined cross section is strongly enhanced 

519: (see below for a discussion of the energy dependence of this 

520: interference effect).  The cross section curves in Figure~\ref{figure3} 

521: should also be compared with the thick solid curve in 

522: Figure~\ref{figure2} which gives the corresponding result for parameter 

523: set 1.  We see that the 

524: latter cross section falls in between those for sets 2 and 3. This gives

525: a measure of the adequacy of the assumption used together with set 1, namely 

526: that the isospin dependence of the total incoherent amplitude is the same 

527: as the $S_{11}$ amplitude.

528: 

529: From this point on all calculations will use parameter set 3 and 

530: allow for Fermi motion. Based on the comparisons presented above, 

531: this choice, in addition to being more realistic, should provide 

532: conservative estimates of the incoherent cross sections. 

533: 

534: It is now instructive to look at the energy dependence of the 

535: interference

536: between the $S_{11}$ and $D_{13}$ contributions. For the same state as above we 

537: show the results in Figure~\ref{figure4}, using parameter set 3 and 

538: again using plane waves for the outgoing eta particles. 

539: We see from the figure that the interference is destructive for 

540: energies near the threshold region. At photon energies above about 675 MeV

541: the interference  

542: pattern is constructive and the influence of the $D_{13}$ 

543: is somewhat enhanced. 

544: Calculations with sets 1 and 2 show similar behavior with slight changes 

545: in the energy at which transition from destructive to constructive 

546: interference takes place. For all parameter sets the total cross sections 

547: peak near $E_{\gamma}=750\,\rm{MeV}$. 

548:  

549: The cross sections in the above comparisons are calculated in the plane 

550: wave approximation in which the final-state interactions of the $\eta$ mesons

551: with the residual nucleus are 

552: neglected. In Figure~\ref{figure5} we study the effect of these 

553: final-state interactions. The calculations show the energy 

554: dependence of the total cross section for the same reaction on $^{12}$C. 

555: The two types of optical potentials referred to earlier are used to 

556: calculate the distorted waves of the $\eta$ mesons. 

557: The calculations show that the final-state 

558: interactions are substantial, leading to suppression of the cross sections 

559: particularly for photon energies near the peak region. For both 

560: distorting potentials

561: we observe a slight shift of the cross section peak towards

562: higher energies. At higher energies, the effects of the two optical

563: potentials begin to diverge. The DW1 potential

564: weakens at these energies whereas the DW3 potential retains its

565: strength and hence continues to suppress the cross section at these 

566: energies. The figure also shows the separate contributions from the 

567: $S_{11}$ and $D_{13}$ resonances for the DW1 calculations. We see 

568: that, as was the case 

569: for the PW calculations in Figure~\ref{figure4}, the 

570: interference between these two contributions changes from destructive 

571: near threshold to constructive at higher energies.

572: 

573: In Figure~\ref{figure6}, we compare the results of our calculations for

574: the differential cross sections of the

575: $^{12}$C$(\gamma,\eta)^{12}$C$^{\ast}(2^{+}0;4.44)$ and

576: $^{12}$C$(\gamma,\eta)^{12}$C$^{\ast}(2^{+}1;16.11)$ reactions at

577: $E_{\gamma}=650\,\rm{MeV}$ to the corresponding calculations by Bennhold

578: and Tanabe~\cite{benn}. Our calculations use optical potential DW1

579: and the coupling parameters of set 3. Based on the treatment of the bound 

580: nucleons, we

581: shall refer to our calculations as relativistic and Bennhold and

582: Tanabe's as nonrelativistic. There is good qualitative agreement between

583: the two sets of calculations. The relativistic calculations indicate a

584: larger cross section for the isovector transition than the

585: nonrelativistic calculations. The reverse holds for the 

586: isoscalar transition.

587: Furthermore, the suppression of the cross

588: sections due to final-state interactions is more significant in the

589: relativistic calculations. We note however that the two approaches

590: differ in many respects, for example, in the elementary input and the

591: form of the transition matrix elements.

592: 

593: From an experimental standpoint, it would be exceedingly difficult to

594: resolve a particular nuclear excited state left in the wake of an

595: incoherent $\eta$-photoproduction reaction. It might be possible,

596: however, to determine indirectly the excitation energy of the nucleus

597: with sufficient precision to exclude coherent and quasifree reactions.

598: To this effect, we have calculated the summed total incoherent

599: $\eta$-photoproduction cross section on $^{12}$C for $E_{x}$ in the

600: range of $4\,\rm{MeV}$ to $17\,\rm{MeV}$ by including all four excited

601: states mentioned at the beginning of this section. We have restricted 

602: the calculations to

603: excitation energies where we could treat the single-particle states as

604: bound states. 

605: Figure~\ref{figure7} shows this total cross section as a function of the

606: energy of the incident photon. The curves are DWA calculations using the

607: two optical potentials referred to earlier. This total cross section is

608: on the order of $100\,\rm{nb}$ or more for $750\,\rm{MeV}$ photons, 

609: which is

610: about an order of magnitude larger than several theoretical estimates of

611: the coherent cross section\cite{fa,peters} and only about two orders of

612: magnitude below the measured inclusive cross section for this target

613: nucleus~\cite{mami3}.

614: 

615: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

616: 

617: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

618: 

619: \section{Conclusions}

620: \label{concs}

621: 

622: In this paper we have developed a relativistic model for the incoherent

623: photoproduction of $\eta$ mesons. The ingredients of the model are that

624: (i) the nucleon wavefunctions are solutions of the Dirac equation with

625: appropriate scalar and vector potentials consistent with the

626: relativistic mean field approach, (ii) the $\eta$ meson is described by

627: solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation with appropriate optical

628: potentials, and (iii) the interactions between the fields are introduced

629: through a covariant effective Lagrangian. Contributions from the

630: $S_{11}(1535)$ and $D_{13}(1520)$ nucleon resonances, $t$-channel vector

631: mesons, and nucleon Born diagrams are included. The contributions by the latter two diagrams

632: to the incoherent cross sections are very small. 

633: 

634: Unlike coherent photoproduction on isoscalar targets,

635: the $S_{11}$ nucleon resonance provides the largest

636: contribution to the incoherent cross section. One of the interesting

637: results of the present work however, is the role of the $D_{13}$

638: resonance. Although its cross section is evidently smaller than that of 

639: the $S_{11}$, the $D_{13}$ has a significant effect on the cross

640: section through its interference with the $S_{11}$ contribution.  

641: We have established that this is independent of the set of coupling

642: parameters used. The interference pattern is destructive in the

643: threshold region, but becomes constructive at higher photon energies. The 

644: incoherent cross section is found to be much larger for 

645: isovector transitions than for isoscalar ones. This is consistent with

646: the results of the non-relativistic calculations of Bennhold and Tanabe.

647: We find however that the cross sections for the $\,T =1\,$ states are 

648: somewhat larger 

649: in our calculations, while the opposite is true for the $\,T =0\,$ 

650: transitions.  Furthermore

651: comparisons show that the suppression of the cross section due to

652: final-state inteactions is somewhat stronger in the relativistic approach.

653: 

654: Although the cross sections for an incoherent $\eta$-photoproduction

655: reaction to $\,T =0\,$ excited states are quite

656: small, those for $\,T =1\,$ excited states are found to be relatively large.

657: Our calculations show that the summed total incoherent

658: cross sections to a set of states in $^{12}$C, with excitation energies in the range $4-17\,\rm{MeV}$, are in excess of 100 nb. These are 

659: sufficiently large to be potentially observable. Such measurements would be 

660: valuable in  clarifying the seemingly enhanced role played by the $D_{13}$ 

661: in incoherent photoproduction.

662: 

663: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

664: \vskip .1in

665: 

666: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

667: 

668: \noindent{ {\bf Acknowledgements} }

669: 

670: \noindent 

671: We are grateful to M. Hedayati-Poor, J. I. Johansson, and R. L. Workman

672: for helpful communications concerning their work. This work was

673: supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research

674: Council of Canada.

675: 

676: 

677: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

678: 

679: \bibitem{fa} A. Fix and H. Arenh{\"{o}}vel, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 620} (1997) 457.

680: 

681: \bibitem{peters} W. Peters, H. Lenske, and U. Mosel, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 642} (1998) 506.

682: 

683: \bibitem{psm1} J. Piekarewicz, A. J. Sarty, and M. Benmerrouche, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 55} (1997) 2571.

684: 

685: \bibitem{psm2} L. J. Abu-Raddad, J. Piekarewicz, A. J. Sarty, and M. Benmerrouche, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 57} (1998) 2053.

686: 

687: \bibitem{benn} C. Bennhold and H. Tanabe, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 530} (1991) 625.

688: 

689: \bibitem{mami3} M. R{\"{o}}big-Landau {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 373} (1996) 45.

690: 

691: \bibitem{hphs1} M. Hedayati-Poor and H. S. Sherif, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 56} (1997) 1557.

692: 

693: \bibitem{hphs2} M. Hedayati-Poor and H. S. Sherif, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 58} (1998) 326.

694: 

695: \bibitem{bmz} M. Benmerrouche, N. C. Mukhopadhyay, and J. F. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 51} (1995) 3237.

696: 

697: \bibitem{walecka1} J. D. Walecka, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) {\bf 83} (1974) 491.

698: 

699: \bibitem{walecka2} B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, in {\it Advances in Nuclear Physics}, edited by J. W. Negele and E. Vogt (Plenum, New York, 1986), Vol. 16.

700: 

701: \bibitem{lee} F. X. Lee, L. E. Wright, C. Bennhold, and L. Tiator, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 603} (1996) 345.

702: 

703: \bibitem{eff} M. Effenberger and A. Sibirtsev, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 632} (1998) 99.

704: 

705: \bibitem{mami1} B. Krusche {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74} (1995) 3736.

706: 

707: \bibitem{esrf} J. Ajaka {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81} (1998) 1797.

708: 

709: \bibitem{tiator} L. Tiator, D. Drechsel, G. Kn{\"{o}}chlein, and C. 

710: Bennhold, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 60} (1999) 035210.

711: 

712: \bibitem{mami2} B. Krusche {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 358} (1995) 40.

713: 

714: \bibitem{tiator2} L. Tiator, A. K. Rej and D. Drechsel, Nucl . Phys. 

715: A {\bf 333} (1980) 343.

716: 

717: \bibitem{mach} R. Mach, Czech. J. Phys. {\bf 33} (1983) 549.

718: 

719: \bibitem{kam} S. S. Kamalov and T. D. Kaipov, Phys. Lett. {B \bf 162} (1985) 260.

720: 

721: \bibitem{try} V. A. Tryasuchev, Phys. Atom. Nucl. {\bf 57} (1994) 379.

722: 

723: \bibitem{ck} S. Cohen and D. Kurath, Nucl . Phys. A {\bf 101} (1967) 1.

724: 

725: \end{thebibliography}

726: 

727: \newpage

728: 

729: \begin{center}

730: \textbf{Tables}

731: \end{center}

732: 

733: \begin{table}[ht]

734: \begin{center}

735: \begin{tabular}{l c c c}

736: & \textbf{Set 1} & \textbf{Set 2} & \textbf{Set 3} \\

737: & $p$ & $p/n$ & $p/n$ \\

738: \hline

739: $g_{\eta N S_{11}}$ & 2.0846 & 2.1/2.1 & 2.1/2.1 \\

740: $\kappa_{S_{11}}$ & -0.958 & -0.962/+0.817 & -0.962/+0.817 \\

741: $f_{\eta ND_{13}}\kappa_{D_{13}}^{(1)}$ & 37.75 & 36.9/-6.56 & 42.47/-6.56 \\

742: $f_{\eta ND_{13}}\kappa_{D_{13}}^{(2)}$ & 40.0 & 38.9/4.46 & 51.24/4.46 \\

743: \hline

744: \end{tabular}

745: \caption{$S_{11}(1535)$ and $D_{13}(1520)$ resonance parameters used in

746: our calculations.}

747: \label{res-params}

748: \end{center}

749: \end{table}

750: 

751: % Figures

752: 

753: \newpage

754: 

755: \begin{center}

756: \textbf{Figure Captions}

757: \end{center}

758: 

759: \vskip .1in

760: 

761: \begin{figure}[!ht]

762: \caption{The photon asymmetry $\Sigma$, as a function of the center of

763: mass angle $\Theta_{\eta}$, for the elementary $\eta$-photoproduction

764: reaction $p(\gamma,\eta)p$ with $E_{\gamma}=740\,\rm{MeV}$. The present

765: calculations using parameter set 1 are represented by the solid line. 

766: The data points are from the

767: ESRF experiment~\cite{esrf}.}

768: \label{figure1}

769: \end{figure}

770: 

771: \begin{figure}[!ht]

772: \caption{The incoherent differential

773: cross section, as a function of the laboratory angle $\theta_{\eta}$,

774: for the $^{12}$C$(\gamma,\eta)^{12}$C$^{\ast}(2^{+}1;16.11)$ reaction at

775: $E_{\gamma}=766\,\rm{MeV}$. The curves are PWA

776: calculations using parameter set 1 according to the prescription explained in the text. The solid, dashed, and dash-dotted curves show the total, $S_{11}$, and $D_{13}$ cross sections, respectively.  The thin curves represent calculations in the frozen approximation for the struck 

777: nucleon kinematics and the thick curves show the results when Fermi motion 

778: is taken into account in the approximate manner discussed in the text.}

779: \label{figure2}

780: \end{figure}

781: 

782: \begin{figure}[!ht]

783: \caption{Same reaction as Figure~\ref{figure2} except that the 

784: calculations are for 

785: parameter sets 2 and 3. The thin solid curve (set 2) and thick solid curve

786: (set 3) are full PWA cross sections. The dotted curve shows the $S_{11} $

787: cross sections (identical for both sets). The dot-dashed

788: (dashed) curves show the $D_{13}$ cross sections for set 2 (set 3).} 

789: \label{figure3}

790: \end{figure}

791: 

792: \begin{figure}[!ht]

793: \caption{Total incoherent cross section for the 

794: $^{12}$C$(\gamma,\eta)^{12}$C$^{\ast}(2^{+}1;16.11)$ reaction as a 

795: function of the photon energy. The long- (short-) dashed curves show the 

796: separate cross sections of the $S_{11}$ ($D_{13}$) diagrams. 

797: The calculations are carried out using the PWA and parameter set~3.} 

798: \label{figure4}

799: \end{figure}

800: 

801: \begin{figure}[!ht]

802: \caption{Total incoherent cross section for the 

803: $^{12}$C$(\gamma,\eta)^{12}$C$^{\ast}(2^{+}1;16.11)$ reaction as a 

804: function of the photon energy.  The solid curve shows the PWA calculations.

805: The long-dashed (short-dashed) curves

806: are 

807: distorted wave calculations using optical potential DW1 (DW3).

808: The dotted (dash-dot) curves show the individual contributions of the 

809: $S_{11}$ ($D_{13}$) resonances.}

810: \label{figure5}

811: \end{figure} 

812: 

813: \begin{figure}[!ht]

814: \caption{Differential cross sections for the

815: $^{12}$C$(\gamma,\eta)^{12}$C$^{\ast}(2^{+}0;4.44)$ and

816: $^{12}$C$(\gamma,\eta)^{12}$C$^{\ast}(2^{+}1;16.11)$ reactions, denoted

817: by $T=0$ and $T=1$, respectively, with $E_{\gamma}=650\,\rm{MeV}$. The

818: upper graph, labeled {\it Relativistic}, shows the results of the

819: present calculations using parameter set 3. The lower graph, labeled {\it Nonrelativistic}, shows the

820: corresponding calculations by Bennhold and Tanabe~\cite{benn}. The

821: dashed curves indicate PWA calculations and the solid curves denote DWA

822: calculations using the DW1 optical potential.} 

823: \label{figure6}

824: \end{figure}

825: 

826: \begin{figure}[!ht]

827: \caption{Total cross sections for the incoherent $\eta$-photoproduction

828: reaction $^{12}$C$(\gamma,\eta)^{12}$C$^{\ast}$. Contributions from the

829: $^{12}$C$(\gamma,\eta)^{12}$C$^{\ast}(2^{+}0;4.44)$,

830: $^{12}$C$(\gamma,\eta)^{12}$C$^{\ast}(2^{+}1;16.11)$,

831: $^{12}$C$(\gamma,\eta)^{12}$C$^{\ast}(1^{+}0;12.71)$, and

832: $^{12}$C$(\gamma,\eta)^{12}$C$^{\ast}(1^{+}1;15.11)$ reactions are

833: included. The curves are distorted wave calculations using DW1 

834: (solid curve)

835: and DW3 (dashed curve) potentials.}

836: \label{figure7}

837: \end{figure}

838: 

839: \newpage

840: \begin{center}

841: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{figure1.ps}}

842: \end{center}

843: 

844: \newpage

845: \begin{center}

846: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{figure2.ps}}

847: \end{center}

848: 

849: \newpage

850: \begin{center}

851: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{figure3.ps}}

852: \end{center}

853: 

854: \newpage

855: \begin{center}

856: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{figure4.ps}}

857: \end{center}

858: 

859: \newpage

860: \begin{center}

861: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{figure5.ps}}

862: \end{center}

863: 

864: \newpage

865: \begin{center}

866: \resizebox{!}{\textheight}{\includegraphics{figure6.ps}}

867: \end{center}

868: 

869: \newpage

870: \begin{center}

871: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{figure7.ps}}

872: \end{center}

873: 

874: 

875: \end{document}

876: 

877: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

878: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

879: 

880: 

881: 

882: