1: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
2: \usepackage{psfig}
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \title[Production of $a_0$-mesons in $pp$ and $pn$ reactions]
6: {Production of $a_0$-mesons in $pp$ and $pn$ reactions
7: \footnote{Supported by Forschungszentrum J\"ulich, DFG and RFFI} }
8:
9: \author{E.L. Bratkovskaya \dag, V. Yu. Grishina $\|$\S,
10: L.A. Kondratyuk $\sharp ^+$, M. B\"uscher $^+$ and W.~Cassing \dag }
11:
12: \address{\dag Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Giessen,
13: D-35392 Giessen, Germany}
14:
15: \address{$\|$ Institute for Nuclear Research,
16: 60th October Anniversary Prospect 7A, 117312 Moscow, Russia }
17:
18: \address{\S Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics,
19: B.Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117259 Moscow, Russia }
20:
21: \address{$^+$ Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, Forschungszentrum J\"ulich,
22: D-52425 J\"ulich, Germany}
23:
24: %\date{ }
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: We investigate the cross section for the reaction $NN \to
28: NNa_0$ near threshold and at medium energies. An effective Lagrangian
29: approach with one-pion exchange is applied to analyze different
30: contributions to the cross section for different isospin channels. The
31: Reggeon exchange mechanism is also considered. The results are used to
32: calculate the contribution of the $a_0$ meson to the cross sections and
33: invariant $K \bar K$ mass distributions of the reactions $pp\to pn
34: K^+\bar K^0$ and $pp\to pp K^+K^-$. It is found that the experimental
35: observation of $a_0^+$ mesons in the reaction $pp\to pn K^+\bar K^0$ is
36: much more promising than the observation of $a_0^0$ mesons in the
37: reaction $pp\to pp K^+K^-$.
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40: \vspace{0.5cm}\noindent
41: PACS: {25.10.+s, Meson production and
42: 13.75.-n, Proton induced reactions
43:
44: \submitto{\JPG}
45:
46: \maketitle
47:
48:
49: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
50: \section{Introduction}
51:
52: The excitations of the QCD vacuum with different quantum numbers as well
53: as their life times and decay modes are of fundamental interest in the
54: physics of the strong interaction. The masses of the pseudo-scalar
55: mesons have been found to be essentially due to a spontaneous breaking
56: of the chiral $SU(3)_R\times SU(3)_L$ symmetry or the $U(1)_A$ anomaly
57: (in case of the $\eta^\prime$). The vector mesons $\rho$, $\omega$, $\phi$,
58: $K^\star$, $J/\Psi$ etc., which are the dipole modes of the vacuum, have
59: found increasing attention during the last two decades. Especially
60: their decay to dileptons is presently investigated in elementary and
61: complex (nucleus-nucleus) collisions in different laboratories all over
62: the world (cf. the reviews \cite{Gerry,Cass99,Rapp00} and Refs.
63: therein). On the other hand, the scalar sector of vacuum excitations is
64: not well known experimentally and theoretically, so far.
65:
66:
67: The structure of the lightest scalar mesons $a_0(980)$ and $f_0(980)$
68: is still under discussion (see e.g.
69: \cite{Clo,Gen,Jan,Ani,Tornqvist,Hadron99a,Hadron99b} and references
70: therein). Different authors interpreted them as unitarized $q\bar{q}$
71: states or as four-quark cryptoexotic states or as $K\bar{K}$ molecules
72: or even as vacuum scalars (Gribov's minions). Although it has been
73: possible to describe them as ordinary $q\bar{q}$-states (see
74: Refs. \cite{Montanet,Anisovich,Narison}), other options cannot be ruled
75: out up to now. Another problem is the possible strong mixing between
76: the uncharged $a_0(980)$ and the $f_0(980)$ due to a common coupling to
77: $K\bar K$ intermediate states
78: \cite{Achasov,Achasov2,Barnes,Speth},\cite{Kerbikov,Close2000,Grishina2001}.
79: This effect can influence the structure of the uncharged component of
80: the $a_0(980)$ and implies that it is important to perform a
81: comparative study of $a_0^0$ and $a_0^+$ (or $a_0^-$). There is no
82: doubt that new data on $a_0^0$ and $a_0^+/a_0^-$ production in $\pi N$
83: and $NN$ reactions are quite important to shed new light on the $a_0$
84: structure and the dynamics of its production.
85:
86: In our recent paper
87: \cite{Grishina} we have considered $a_0$ production in the reaction
88: $\pi N \to a_0N$ near the threshold and at GeV energies. An effective
89: Lagrangian approach as well as the Regge pole model were applied to
90: investigate different contributions to the cross-section of the
91: reaction $\pi N \to a_0N$. Here we employ the latter results for an
92: analysis of $a_0$ production in $NN$ collisions. Our study is
93: particularly relevant to the current experimental program at
94: COSY-J\"ulich \cite{COSY1,COSY2,COSY3}.
95:
96: Our paper is organized as follows: In Sect. 2 we discuss an effective
97: Lagrangian approach with one-pion exchange while the Reggeon exchange
98: model is considered in Sect. 3. Sect. 4 is devoted to the calculations
99: of the cross section for the reaction $NN \to NN a_0$. In Sect. 5 we
100: analyze the contribution of the $a_0$ resonance to the cross sections
101: and invariant $K \bar K$ mass distributions for the reactions $pp \to
102: pp K^+K^-$ and $pp \to pn K^+ \bar K^0$. Our conclusions are presented
103: in Sect. 6.
104:
105: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
106: \section{An effective Lagrangian approach with one-pion exchange}
107:
108: We consider $a_0^0$, $a_0^+$, $a_0^-$ production in the reactions
109: $j=pp\to pp a_0^0$, $pp\to pn a_0^+$, $pn\to pp a_0^-$ and $pn\to pn
110: a_0^0$ using the effective Lagrangian approach with one-pion exchange
111: (OPE). For the elementary $\pi N\to N a_0$ transition amplitude we take
112: into account different mechanisms $\alpha$ corresponding to $t$-channel
113: diagrams with $\eta(550)$- and $f_1(1285)$-meson exchanges
114: ($\alpha=t(\eta)$, $t(f_1)$) as well as $s$- and $u$-channel graphs with
115: an intermediate nucleon ($\alpha=s(N)$, $u(N)$) (cf. Ref. \cite{Grishina}).
116: The corresponding diagrams are shown in Fig.~\ref{diagr_a0}. The
117: invariant amplitude of the $NN\to NN a_0$ reaction then is the sum of
118: the four basic terms (diagrams in Fig. \ref{diagr_a0}) with
119: permutations of nucleons in the initial and final states
120: \begin{eqnarray}
121: \hspace*{-10mm}{\mathcal{M}}_{j(\alpha)}^{\pi}[ab;cd]
122: &&=\xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ab;cd] \ {\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha}^{\pi}[ab;cd] +
123: \xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ab;dc] \ {\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha}^{\pi}[ab;dc]
124: \label{NNa0sum} \\
125: &&+\xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ba;dc] \ {\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha}^{\pi}[ba;dc] +
126: \xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ba;cd] \ {\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha}^{\pi}[ba;cd],
127: \nonumber
128: \end{eqnarray}
129: where the coefficients $\xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}$ are given in
130: Table~\ref{Tab1}. The amplitude for the $t$-channel exchange with
131: $\eta(550)$- and $f_1(1285)$-mesons are given by
132: \begin{eqnarray}
133: \hspace*{-10mm}{\mathcal{M}}_{t(\eta)}^{\pi}[ab;cd] &=&
134: g_{a_0\eta\pi} F_{a_0\eta\pi}\left((p_a-p_c)^2,(p_d-p_b)^2\right)
135: \ g_{\eta NN}
136: F_{\eta }\left((p_a-p_c)^2\right)
137: \nonumber \\
138: &\times& {1\over (p_a-p_c)^2-m_\eta ^2} \
139: \bar u(p_c) \gamma_5 u(p_a)\times {\mathrm{\Pi}}(p_b;p_d),
140: \label{NN-eta}
141: \end{eqnarray}
142: \begin{eqnarray}
143: \phantom{a}\hspace*{-27mm} {\mathcal{M}}_{t(f_1)}^{\pi}[ab;cd]&=&
144: -g_{a_0 f_1\pi} F_{a_0 f_1\pi} \left((p_a-p_c)^2,(p_d-p_b)^2\right)
145: g_{f_1 NN} F_{f_1}\left((p_a-p_c)^2\right)\nonumber\\
146: &\times&{1\over (p_a-p_c)^2-m_{f_1}^2}
147: \ (p_a-p_c+2 \ (p_b-p_d))_\mu \left(g_{\mu\nu}-{(p_a-p_c)_\mu
148: (p_a-p_c)_\nu\over m_{f_1}^2}\right) \nonumber\\
149: &\times&\bar u(p_c) \gamma_5\gamma_{\nu} u(p_a)\times
150: {\mathrm{\Pi}}(p_b;p_d), \label{NN-f1}
151: \end{eqnarray}
152: with
153: \begin{eqnarray}
154: \hspace*{-10mm}{\mathrm{\Pi}}(p_b;p_d) =
155: \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{m_{\pi}}\ F_{\pi }\left((p_b-p_d)^2\right)
156: (p_b-p_d)_{\beta}
157: \bar u(p_d) \gamma_5 \gamma_{\beta} u(p_b)\
158: \frac{1}{(p_b-p_d)^2-m_{\pi}^2}.
159: \label{piNN}
160: \end{eqnarray}
161: The amplitudes for the $s$- and $u$-channels (lower part of
162: Fig.~\ref{diagr_a0}) are given as
163: \begin{eqnarray}
164: \hspace*{-10mm}{\mathcal{M}}_{s(N)}^{\pi}[ab;cd] &=&
165: {\mathrm{\Pi}}(p_b;p_d)\
166: \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{m_{\pi}} F_{\pi }\left((p_d-p_b)^2\right)
167: \ g_{a_0 NN}\
168: { F_{N} \left((p_a+p_b-p_d)^2\right)\over (p_a+p_b-p_d)^2-m_N^2}\nonumber\\
169: &\times& (p_d-p_b)_{\mu}\
170: \bar u(p_c)[(p_a+p_b-p_d)_{\delta}\gamma_{\delta}+m_N]
171: \gamma_5 \gamma_{\mu} u(p_a)\ ,
172: \label{NN-s}
173: \end{eqnarray}
174: \begin{eqnarray}
175: \hspace*{-10mm}{\mathcal{M}}_{u(N)}^{\pi}[ab;cd] &=&
176: {\mathrm{\Pi}}(p_b;p_d)\
177: \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{m_{\pi}} F_{\pi }\left((p_d-p_b)^2\right)
178: \ g_{a_0 NN}\ {F_{N}\left((p_c+p_d-p_b)^2\right)
179: \over (p_c+p_d-p_b)^2-m_N^2} \nonumber\\
180: &\times& (p_d-p_b)_{\mu}
181: \ \bar u(p_c)\gamma_5 \gamma_{\mu} [(p_c+p_d-p_b)_{\delta}
182: \gamma_{\delta}+m_N] u(p_a).
183: \label{NN-u}
184: \end{eqnarray}
185: Here $p_a, p_b$ and $p_c, p_d$ are the four momenta of the initial
186: and final nucleons, respectively.
187:
188: The effective Lagrangians involving $a_0$ and $f_1$ mesons were taken
189: in the following forms:
190: \begin{eqnarray}
191: && {\cal L}_{a_0\eta\pi} = g_{a_0\eta\pi} \ \eta(x) \ \pi(x) \ a_0(x),
192: \nonumber\\
193: && {\cal L}_{a_0f_1\pi} = g_{a_0f_1\pi} \ \epsilon^{f_1}_{\lambda}(x)
194: \ \partial^{\lambda}\pi(x) \ a_0(x), \label{Lagrangians} \\
195: && {\cal L}_{a_0NN}=g_{a_0NN} \ \bar {\Psi}_N(x) \ a_0(x)\ \Psi_N(x),
196: \nonumber\\
197: && {\cal L}_{f_1NN}=g_{f_1NN} \ \epsilon_{\lambda}^{f_1}(x) \
198: \bar {\Psi}_N(x) \ \gamma^{\lambda}\ \Psi_N(x). \nonumber
199: \end{eqnarray}
200: We mostly employ coupling constants and form factors from the
201: Bonn-J\"ulich potentials (see e.g. Refs. \cite{Holinde,Haidenbauer,Bonnf1}).
202:
203: The functions $F_i$ in Eqs. (\ref{NN-eta})-(\ref{NN-u})
204: represent form factors for virtual mesons at the
205: different vertices $i$ ($i=\pi,\eta,f_1$) and for each vertex they
206: are taken in the monopole form
207: \begin{eqnarray}
208: F_i(t)=\frac{\Lambda_i^2-m_i^2}{\Lambda _i^2-t},
209: \label{form}
210: \end{eqnarray}
211: where $\Lambda_i$ is a cut-off parameter.
212: For the 'effective' $\pi $ exchange we use the coupling constant
213: $f_{\pi NN}^2/4\pi =0.08$ and cut-off parameter $\Lambda_{\pi
214: NN}=1.05\div 1.3$~GeV. In the case of $\eta$ exchange we take
215: $g_{\eta NN}^2/4\pi=3$, $\Lambda_{\eta NN}$=1.5 GeV and
216: $g_{a_0\eta\pi}$=2.46 GeV, which results from the width $\Gamma(a_0 \to
217: \eta \pi$) = 80 MeV.
218:
219: The contribution of the $f_1$ exchange is calculated with $g_{f_1
220: NN}=11.2$, $\Lambda_{f_1 NN}=1.5$~GeV from Ref.~\cite{Bonnf1} and
221: $g_{a_0 f_1\pi}$=2.5. The latter value for $g_{a_0 f_1\pi}$ corresponds
222: to \\ $\Gamma_{tot}(f_1)=24$~MeV and $Br(f_1\to a_0\pi)=34\%$. The
223: same parameters have been used in our previous study of $a_0$
224: production in $\pi N\to a_0 N$ and $pp\to da_0^+$ reactions
225: \cite{Grishina}.
226:
227: For the form factors at the $a_0 f_1 \pi$ (as well as $a_0 \eta\pi$) vertex
228: factorized forms are applied following the assumption from
229: Refs.~\cite{Chung,Nakayama},
230: \begin{eqnarray}
231: F_{a_0 f_1 \pi}(t_1,t_2)=F_{f_1 NN}(t_1) \ F_{\pi NN}(t_2),
232: \label{ff_f1pia0}\end{eqnarray}
233: where $F_{f_1 NN}(t), F_{\pi NN}(t)$ are taken as in (\ref{form}).
234:
235: According to different versions of the Bonn potential the coupling
236: constant $g_{a_0NN}^2/4\pi$ can vary from 1.1075 to
237: 2.67~\cite{Holinde,Bonnf1}. On the other hand, the unitary model for
238: meson-nucleon scattering \cite{Feuster} gives a different range for
239: this constant from 0.0026 to 0.88. In the latter model the $a_0$ only
240: gives a contribution to the $\pi \eta$ background because there are no
241: known resonances which decay to $a_0 N$. Since the model is extended
242: only up to energies $\sqrt{s}\leq 1.9$ GeV, which is below the $a_0$
243: threshold, the meson-nucleon dynamics is not very sensitive to the
244: $a_0NN$ coupling. We note that a small value of $g_{a_0NN}^2/4\pi$
245: certainly contradicts the experimental values of $Br(p\bar p \to
246: a_0\pi) =0.69\pm 0.12$ \cite{Smith} and $Br(p\bar p \to a_0\omega)
247: =0.354\pm 0.028$ \cite{Amsler}, which are quite large (see e.g. Refs.
248: \cite{Haidenbauer,Bonnf1}). Having in mind these considerations we
249: take (as well as in Ref. \cite{Grishina}) the minimal value suggested
250: by the Bonn potential $g_{a_0NN} \simeq 3.7$. This value is not very
251: different from the upper value of 3.33 given by the model of Ref.
252: \cite{Feuster}.
253:
254: Another problem is the treatment of a virtual nucleon.
255: In this case -- instead of the product of two monopole
256: form factors (at the $a_0NN$ and $\pi NN$ vertices) -- we use
257: a dipole-like form factor,
258: \begin{eqnarray}
259: F_{N}(s) = \frac{\Lambda_{N}^4}{\Lambda_{N}^4+(s-m_N^2)^2},
260: \label{FN}\end{eqnarray}
261: which is normalized at $s =m^2$ and has the same asymptotics at large $s$
262: (positive or negative) as $F_i(s)F_j(s)$.
263:
264: There are a couple of arguments in favour of using the form factor
265: (\ref{FN}) for virtual nucleons instead of those which are applied for
266: virtual mesons. In the $t$-channel graph in elastic $NN$ scattering the
267: value of $t$ is negative and the monopole form factor $F_{\pi}$ as
268: given by Eq. (\ref{form}) does not have a singularity in the physical
269: region and decreases with $t$. For the $s$-channel graph with a
270: nucleon exchange in the $\pi N \to a_0 N$ amplitude the value of $s$
271: is positive in the physical region and the conventional form factor
272: $$ \frac{\Lambda_{N}^2 - m_N^2}{\Lambda_{N}^2 -s}$$
273: may have even a pole in the physical region (this happens for
274: $\Lambda_N = 2$ GeV, which is used in the Bonn potential for a
275: virtual $a_0$). This undesirable property is absent in the form factor
276: (\ref{FN}), where we consider the
277: cut-off $\Lambda_N$ as a free parameter. In our previous work \cite{Grishina} we
278: fixed $\Lambda_N$ in the interval 1.2-1.3 GeV using experimental data
279: on the differential cross section of the reaction $pp \to d a_0^+$ at
280: $p_{lab}=3.8 \div 6.3$ GeV$/c$ \cite{BNL73}; in this study we take
281: $\Lambda_{N} =1.24$~GeV as an average value
282: (see also the discussion in Section 4).
283:
284: We recall that the functional form of the nucleon form factor
285: given by (\ref{FN}) was used in many papers, where meson production
286: in $\pi N$, $\gamma N$ and $NN$ collisions has been discussed
287: (see e.g. \cite{Nakayama,Feuster,Pearce,Feuster2,Nakayama2,Titov}
288: and references therein).
289:
290: The total cross section for $a_0$ production in the isospin reaction
291: $j$ is given as the coherent sum of the amplitudes (\ref{NNa0sum}) over
292: all channels ($\alpha=s(N), u(N), t(f_1), t(\eta)$)
293: integrated over phase space
294: \begin{eqnarray}
295: \sigma_{a_0}^j(s) &=& \int dE_c \ dq_0 \ d{\cos}\theta_q \ d\varphi_q
296: \ {1\over 2^9 \pi^4 p_a \sqrt{s}}
297: \ \left|\sum_\alpha {\mathcal{M}}_{j(\alpha)}^\pi[ab;cd]\right|^2.
298: \label{sig-tot}
299: \end{eqnarray}
300: Here $s=(p_a+p_b)^2$ is the total energy of the $NN$ system squared,
301: $E_c$ and $q_0$ are the energy of the outgoing nucleon and $a_0$ meson,
302: respectively. $\theta_q$ is the polar angle of the 3-momentum of the
303: $a_0$-meson ${\bf q}$ in the cms of the initial nucleons defined as
304: $\theta_q=\widehat{{\bf q},{\bf p_a}}$, while $\varphi_q$ is the
305: azimuthal angle of ${\bf q}$ in the cms.
306:
307: As shown in the analysis in Ref.~\cite{Grishina} the contribution of
308: the $\eta$-exchange to the amplitude $\pi N \to a_0 N$ is small.
309: Note that in Ref. \cite{Baru2} only this mechanism was taken into
310: account for the reaction $pn \to pp a_0^-$. Here we also include the
311: $\eta$-exchange because it might be noticeable in those isospin
312: channels where a strong destructive interference of $u$- and
313: $s$-channel terms can occur (see below).
314:
315: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
316:
317: \section{The Reggeon exchange model}
318:
319: Here as in Ref. \cite{Grishina} we also use the Regge-pole model
320: for the amplitude $\pi N \to a_0 N$ as developed by Achasov and Shestakov
321: \cite{Achasov2}.
322: The $s$-channel helicity amplitudes for the reaction $\pi^-p
323: \rightarrow a_0^0n$ in this approach can be written as
324: \begin{eqnarray}
325: M_{\lambda_2^\prime\lambda_2}(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n) =
326: \bar u_{\lambda_2^\prime}(p_2^\prime)\ \left[-A(s,t)
327: +(p_1+p_1^\prime)_\alpha \gamma_\alpha {B(s,t)\over 2}\right]
328: \gamma_5 u_{\lambda_2}(p_2),
329: \label{Reg1}\end{eqnarray}
330: where the invariant amplitudes $A(s,t)$ and $B(s,t)$ do not contain
331: kinematical singularities.
332: The relations between the invariant and s-wave helicity amplitudes
333: are given by
334: \begin{eqnarray}
335: M_{++}= -M_{--}
336: =\cos{\theta\over 2} \ \left[A(s,t)\sqrt{-t_{min}}
337: - B(s,t)\sqrt{-t_{max}s}\right], \label{Reg3}
338: \end{eqnarray}
339: \begin{eqnarray}
340: M_{+-}= M_{-+}
341: =\cos{\theta\over 2}\ \left[A(s,t)\sqrt{-t_{max}}
342: - B(s,t)\sqrt{-t_{min}s}\right],
343: \label{Reg4} \end{eqnarray}
344: where $\theta$ is the c.m. scattering angle, while $t_{min}$ and $t_{max}$
345: are the values of $t$ at $\theta$=0$^o$ and 180$^o$, respectively.
346:
347:
348: In the model of Ref. \cite{Achasov2}
349: the $s$-channel helicity amplitudes are
350: expressed through the $b_1$ and the conspiring $\rho_2$ Regge
351: trajectories exchange as follows
352: \begin{eqnarray}
353: M_{++} = \gamma_{\rho_2}(t)
354: \exp \left[-i {\pi\over 2} \alpha_{\rho _2}(t)\right]
355: \left(\frac s{s_0}\right)^{\alpha_{\rho_2}(t)},
356: \label{Reg3a}\end{eqnarray}
357: \begin{eqnarray}
358: M_{+-}&=& \sqrt{(t_{\min }-t)/s_0}\
359: \gamma_{b_1}(t)
360: \ i \ \exp \left[-i {\pi\over 2} \alpha_{b_1}(t)\right]
361: \left(\frac s{s_0}\right)^{\alpha_{b_1}(t)}.
362: \label{Reg4a}\end{eqnarray}
363: As in Ref. \cite{Grishina} we take the meson Regge trajectories in
364: linear form $\alpha_j(t) = \alpha_j(0)+\alpha_j^{\prime}(0)t$ with
365: $\alpha_{b_1}(0) \simeq -0.37$, $\alpha_{\rho _2}(0) \simeq -0.6$ and
366: $\alpha_{b_1}^{\prime}(0)$= $\alpha_{\rho _2}^{\prime}(0)=0.9$
367: GeV$^{-2}$. The residues are parametrized in a convential way,
368: $\gamma_{\rho_2}(t)=\gamma_{\rho _2}(0)\ \exp (b_{\rho_2}t)$,
369: $\gamma_{b_1}(t)=\gamma_{b_1}(0)\ \exp (b_{b_1}t)$; all
370: parameters were taken the same as in Ref. \cite{Grishina}. They
371: correspond to two fits of the Brookhaven data on $d\sigma/dt$ at 18
372: GeV/c \cite{Dzierba} found by Achasov and Shestakov \cite{Achasov2}: a)
373: with pure $\rho_2$ contribution and b) with combined $\rho_2 + b_1$
374: contribution.
375:
376:
377: The invariant amplitude corresponding to the diagram of Fig.
378: \ref{diagr_re} can be written as
379: \begin{eqnarray}
380: {\mathcal{M}}_{Regge}^{\pi}[ab;cd] &=&
381: \bar u(p_c)\ \left[-A(s,t)
382: +(p_{a_0}+p_d-p_b)_\alpha \gamma_\alpha {B(s,t)\over 2}\right]
383: \gamma_5 u(p_a)
384: \nonumber \\
385: &\times& \bar u(p_d) \gamma_5 u(p_b)\times {\mathrm{\Pi}}(p_b;p_d).
386: \label{NN-Regge}
387: \end{eqnarray}
388:
389:
390: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
391: \section{The reaction $N N\to N N a_0$}
392:
393: In order to demonstrate the sensitivity of the effective OPE model to
394: the cut-off parameter $\Lambda_{\pi NN}$ used in the $\pi NN$ vertices
395: we show in Fig.~\ref{cutoff} the total cross section for the reaction
396: $pp\to pn a_0^+$ for $u(N)$ and $t(f_1)$ channels as a function of the
397: excess energy $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$, where $\sqrt{s_0}=m_{a_0}+2m_N$,
398: calculated for different cut-off parameters. The dotted lines
399: correspond to $\Lambda_{\pi NN}=0.8$~GeV, the solid lines show the
400: result for $\Lambda_{\pi NN}=1.05$~GeV whereas the dashed lines
401: indicate $\Lambda_{\pi NN}=1.3$~GeV. The results for $\Lambda_{\pi
402: NN}=1.3$~GeV and 0.8 GeV differ by a factor of $\sim 5$. For our
403: subsequent calculation we choose $\Lambda_{\pi NN}=1.05$~GeV while
404: keeping the uncertainty on $\Lambda_{\pi NN}$ in our 'effective' approach
405: in mind.
406:
407: Since we have two nucleons in the final state it is necessary to take
408: into account their final-state-interaction (FSI), which has some
409: influence on meson production near threshold. For this purpose we adopt
410: the FSI model from Ref. \cite{BaruFSI} based on the (realistic) Paris
411: potential. We use, however, the enhancement factor $F_{NN}(q_{NN})$ --
412: as given by this model -- only in the region of small relative momenta
413: of the final nucleons $q_{NN} \leq q_0$, where it is larger than 1.
414: Having in mind that this factor is rather uncertain at larger $q_{NN}$,
415: where for example contributions of nonnucleon intermediate states to
416: the loop integral might be important, we assume that $F_{NN}(q_{NN})
417: =1$ for $q_{NN} \geq q_0$.
418:
419: In Fig.~\ref{fsi} we show the FSI effect on the total cross section for
420: the reactions $pp\to pp a_0^0$ (upper part) and $pp\to pn a_0^+$ (lower
421: part) for $u(N)$, $s(N)$ and $t(f_1)$ channels. The solid lines show
422: the calculation without FSI whereas the dashed lines indicate the
423: results with FSI. As seen from Fig.~\ref{fsi}, the FSI effect is
424: stronger for $pn$ than for $pp$ in the final state due to the Coulomb
425: repulsive interaction in the $pp$ system and the isospin dependence of
426: the $NN$ interaction at small relative momenta.
427:
428: The results of our calculations for the total cross sections with FSI
429: for the different isospin reactions are presented in Figs.~\ref{pp_q},
430: \ref{pn_q} as a function of $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$. In
431: Fig.~\ref{pp_q} we show the total cross section for the $pp$ reactions
432: -- $pp\to pp a_0^0$ (upper part) and $pp\to pn a_0^+$ (lower part),
433: whereas in Fig.~\ref{pn_q} we display the results for the $pn$
434: reactions -- $pn\to pp a_0^-$ (upper part) and $pn\to pn a_0^0$ (lower
435: part). The solid lines with full dots and with open squares (r.h.s.)
436: represent the results within the $\rho_2$ and $(\rho_2,b_1)$ Regge
437: exchange model. The short dotted lines (l.h.s.) corresponds to the
438: $t(f_1)$ channel, the dotted lines to the $t(\eta)$ channel, the dashed
439: lines to the $u(N)$ channel, the short dashed lines to the $s(N)$
440: channel. The dashed line in the right upper part of Fig.~\ref{pp_q} is
441: the incoherent sum of the contributions from $s(N)$ and $u(N)$ channels
442: ($s+u$).
443:
444: As seen from Figs. \ref{pp_q} and \ref{pn_q}, the $u$- and $s$-channels
445: give the dominant contribution; the $t(f_1)$ channel is small for all
446: isospin reactions. For the reactions $pp\to pn a_0^+$, $pn\to pp
447: a_0^-$ and $pn\to pn a_0^0$ the Regge exchange contribution (extended
448: to low energies) becomes important and for the $pn\to pn a_0^0$
449: reaction this contribution is even dominant near threshold. For the
450: $pp\to pp a_0^0$ channel the Regge model predicts no contribution from
451: $\rho_2$ and $\rho_2,b_1$ exchanges due to isospin arguments (i.e. the
452: vertex with a coupling of three neutral components of isovectors
453: vanishes); thus only $s$-, $u$- and $t(f_1)$- channels are plotted in
454: the upper part of Fig.~\ref{pp_q}.
455:
456: Here we have to point out the influence of the interference between the
457: $s$- and $u$-channels. According to the isospin coefficients from the
458: OPE model presented in Table \ref{Tab1}, the phase (of interference
459: $\alpha$) between the $s$- and $u$- channels
460: ${\mathcal{M}}_{s(N)}^{\pi}+\exp(-i\alpha){\mathcal{M}}_{u(N)}^{\pi}$ is
461: equal to zero, i.e. the sign between ${\mathcal{M}}_{s(N)}^{\pi}$ and
462: ${\mathcal{M}}_{u(N)}^{\pi}$ is 'plus'. The solid lines in
463: Figs.~\ref{pp_q}, \ref{pn_q} indicate the coherent sum of $s(N)$ and
464: $u(N)$ channels including the interference of the amplitudes
465: ($s+u+int.$). One can see that for $pp\to pn a_0^+$, $pn\to pp a_0^-$
466: and $pn\to pn a_0^0$ reactions the interference is positive and
467: increases the cross section, whereas for the $pp\to pp a_0^0$ channel
468: the interference is strongly destructive since we have identical
469: particles in the initial and final states and the contributions of $s$-
470: and $u$-channels are very similar.
471:
472: Here we would like to comment about an extension of the OPE (one-pion-
473: exchange) model to an OBE (one-boson-exchange) approximation, i.e.
474: accounting for the exchange of $\sigma, \rho, \omega, ...$ mesons as
475: well as for multi-meson exchanges. Generally speaking, the total cross
476: section of $a_0$ production should contain the sum of all the
477: contributions:
478: $$\sigma(NN\to NNa_0) = \Sigma_j \sigma_j,$$
479: where $j=\pi,\sigma,\rho,\omega...$. Depending on their cut-off
480: parameters the heavier meson exchanges might give a comparable
481: contribution to the total cross section for $a_0$ production. An
482: important point, however, is that near threshold (e.g. $Q \leq 0.3$ GeV
483: ) the energy behaviour of all those contributions is the same, i.e. it
484: is proportional to the three-body phase space $ \sigma_j \sim Q^2$
485: (when the FSI is switched off and the narrow resonance width limit is
486: taken). In this respect we can consider the one-pion exchange as an
487: effective one and normalize it to the experimental cross section by
488: choosing an appropriate value of $\Lambda_{\pi}$. The most appropriate
489: choice for $\Lambda_{\pi}$ is about 1$\div$1.3 GeV. Another question
490: is related to the isospin of the effective exchange. As it is known from
491: a serious of papers on the reactions $NN\to NNX,
492: X=\eta,\eta^{\prime},\omega,\phi$ near threshold the most important
493: contributions to the corresponding cross sections comes from $\pi$ and
494: $\rho$ exchanges (see e.g. the review \cite{NakayamaReview} and
495: references therein). In line with those results we assume here that the
496: dominant contribution to the cross section of the reaction $NN \to
497: NNa_0$ comes also from the isovector exchanges (like $\pi$ and
498: $\rho$). In principle, it is also possible that some baryon resonances
499: may contribute. However, as mentioned above, there is no information
500: about resonances which couple to the $a_0N$ system. Our assumptions
501: thus enable us to make exploratory estimates of the $a_0$ production
502: cross section without introducing free parameters that would be out of
503: control by existing data. The model can be extended accordingly when
504: new data on the $a_0$ production will be available.
505:
506: Another important question is related to the choice of the form factor
507: for a virtual nucleon, that -- in line with the Bonn-J\"ulich
508: potentials -- we choose as given by (\ref{FN}), which corresponds to
509: monopole form factors at the vertices. In the literature, furthermore,
510: dipole-like form factors (at the vertices) are also often used (cf.
511: Refs. \cite{Nakayama,Feuster,Pearce,Feuster2,Nakayama2}). However,
512: there are no strict rules for the 'correct' power of the nucleon form
513: factor. In physics terms, the actual choice of the power should not be
514: relevant; we may have the same predictions for any reasonable choice of
515: the power if the cut-off parameter $\Lambda_N$ is fixed accordingly.
516: Note, that $\Lambda_N$ may also depend on the type of mesons involved
517: at the vertices. Therefore, we can not simply employ the parameters from
518: Refs. \cite{Nakayama}, \cite{Pearce} or others in case of the $a_0$ problem.
519:
520:
521: In our previous work \cite{Grishina} we have fixed $\Lambda_N$ for the
522: monopole related form factor (\ref{FN}) in the interval 1.2-1.3 GeV
523: fitting the forward differential cross section of the reaction $pp \to
524: da_0^+$ from \cite{BNL73}. On the other hand, the same data can be
525: described rather well using a dipole form factor (at the vertices) with
526: $\Lambda_N=$1.55-1.6 GeV (cf. Fig. \ref{deutrLam}). If we employ this
527: dipole form factor with $\Lambda_N=$1.55-1.6 GeV in the present case we
528: obtain practically identical predictions for the cross sections of the
529: channels $pp \to pn a_0^+$, $pn \to pn a_0^0$, $pn \to pp a_0^-$,
530: where the $u$-channel mechanism is dominant and $u-s$ interference is
531: not too important. In the case of the channel $pp \to pp a_0^0$ we
532: obtain cross sections by up to a factor of 2 larger for the dipole-like
533: form factor in comparison to the monopole one. This is related to the
534: strong destructive interference of the $s$ and $u$ exchange mechanisms,
535: which slightly depends on the type of form factor used. However, our
536: central result, that the cross section for the $pn a_0^+$ final channel
537: is about an order of magnitude higher than the $ppa_0^0$ channel in
538: $pp$ collisions, is robust (within less than a factor of 2) with
539: respect to different choices of the form factor.
540:
541: As seen from Figs.~\ref{pp_q}, \ref{pn_q}, we get the largest cross
542: section for the $pp\to pn a_0^+$ isospin channel. For this reaction the
543: $u$-channel gives the dominant contribution, the $s$-channel cross
544: section is small such that the interference is not so essential as for
545: the $pp\to pp a_0^0$ reaction.
546:
547: The result within the Regge model is shown in Fig.~\ref{regge} for the
548: reactions $pp\to pn a_0^+$, $pn\to pn a_0^0$ (upper part) and $pn\to pp
549: a_0^-$ (lower part) in a wide energy regime for $Q=$1~MeV$\div$10~GeV.
550: The total cross section is calculated with the $\rho_2$ (dashed lines)
551: and $(\rho_2,b_1)$ (solid lines) Regge trajectories (with FSI) for a
552: cut-off parameter $\Lambda_{\pi NN}=1.05$~GeV. In order to show the
553: influence of the cut-off parameter $\Lambda_{\pi NN}$ in the Regge
554: model we present in the lower part of Fig.~\ref{regge} also the results
555: for $\Lambda_{\pi NN}=1.3$~GeV (dotted line for $\rho_2$ exchange and
556: the dot-dashed line for the $(\rho_2,b_1)$ trajectory). Changing the
557: cut-off $\Lambda_{\pi NN}$ from 1.05 to 1.3 GeV gives a factor $\sim 2$
558: in the total cross section similar to the results within the effective
559: Lagrangian model (cf. Fig.~\ref{cutoff}).
560:
561: As it was already discussed in our previous study \cite{Grishina} an
562: effective Lagrangian model cannot be extrapolated to high energies
563: because it predicts the elementary amplitude $\pi N \to a_0N$ to rise
564: fast. Therefore, such model can only be employed not far from the
565: threshold; at larger energies it has to be unitarized. On the other
566: hand, the Regge model is valid at large energies and we have to worry,
567: how close to the threshold we can extrapolate corresponding amplitudes.
568: According to duality arguments one can expect that the Regge amplitude
569: can be applied at low energy, too, if the reaction $\pi N \to a_0N$
570: does not contain essential $s$-channel resonance contributions. In this
571: case the Regge model might give a realistic estimate of the $\pi N \to
572: a_0N$ amplitude even near threshold.
573:
574: Anyway, as we have shown in our previous paper \cite{Grishina} the
575: Regge and $u$-channel model give quite similar results for the $\pi^- p
576: \to a_0^0 n$ cross-section in the near threshold region; some
577: differences in the cross sections of the reactions $NN \to NNa_0$ -- as
578: predicted by those two models -- can be attributed to differences in
579: the isospin factors and effects of $NN$ antisymmetrization which is
580: important near threshold (the latter was ignored in the Regge model
581: formulated for larger energies).
582:
583: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
584: \section{The reaction $N N\to NN a_0 \to N N K \bar K$}
585:
586: \subsection{The $K\bar K$ and $\pi\eta$ decay channels
587: of the $a_0(980)$}
588:
589: The $a_0(980)$ meson production has not yet been measured
590: in $NN\rightarrow NN a_0$ reactions. There are only a few
591: $pp\rightarrow pp K \bar K$ and $pp\rightarrow pn K \bar K$
592: experimental data points. Therefore, it is important to analyse a
593: possible resonance contribution to $K\bar K$ production in the
594: reactions $NN\rightarrow NN X$, using the calculated $NN\rightarrow NN
595: a_0$ amplitudes and the experimental fits obtained for the $a_0$
596: resonance mass distribution in the $K\bar K$ decay channel.
597:
598: The amplitude for the $a_0(980)$ decays into $K\bar K$ and
599: $\pi\eta$ modes can be parametrized by the well-known Flatt\'e formula
600: \cite{Flatte} which satisfies both requirements of analyticity and
601: unitarity for the two-channels $\pi\eta$ and $K\bar K$.
602:
603: In the case of the $a_0(980)$ resonance the mass
604: distribution of the final $K\bar K$ system can be written
605: as a product of the total cross section for $a_0$ production
606: (with the 'running' mass $M$) in the $NN\to NN a_0$ reaction
607: (\ref{sig-tot}) and the Flatt\'e mass distribution
608: function
609: \begin{eqnarray}
610: \frac{d\sigma _{K\bar K}}{d M^2} (s,M) = \sigma_{a_0}(s,M)
611: \ C_F \frac{M_R \Gamma_{a_0 K\bar K}(M)}
612: {(M^2-M_R^2)^2
613: + M_R^2 \Gamma_{tot}^2(M)} \label{dsdmKK}
614: \end{eqnarray}
615: with the total width $\Gamma_{tot}(M)=\Gamma_{a_0 K\bar K}(M)+
616: \Gamma_{a_0 \pi\eta}(M)$.
617: The partial widths
618: \begin{eqnarray}
619: &&\Gamma_{a_0 K\bar K}(M) = g_{a_0 K\bar K}^2 {q_{K\bar K}\over 8\pi M^2},
620: \nonumber\\
621: &&\Gamma_{a_0 \pi\eta}(M) = g_{a_0 \pi\eta}^2 {q_{\pi\eta}\over 8\pi M^2}
622: \label{width}\end{eqnarray}
623: are proportional to the decay momenta in the center-of-mass
624: (in case of scalar mesons),
625: \begin{eqnarray}
626: && q_{K\bar K} = {\left[(M^2-(m_{K}+m_{\bar K})^2)
627: (M^2-(m_{K}-m_{\bar K})^2)\right]^{1/2} \over 2M} \nonumber\\
628: && q_{\pi\eta}={\left[(M^2-(m_{\pi}+m_{\eta})^2)
629: (M^2-(m_{\pi}-m_{\eta})^2)\right]^{1/2} \over 2M}
630: \nonumber\end{eqnarray}
631: for a meson of mass M decaying to $K\bar K$ and $\pi\eta$, correspondingly.
632: The branching ratios $Br(a_0\to K\bar K)$ and $Br(a_0\to \pi\eta)$
633: are given by the integrals of the Flatt\'e distibution
634: over the invariant mass squared $dM^2 = 2 M dM$:
635: \begin{eqnarray}
636: \phantom{a}\hspace*{-3mm}
637: &&Br(a_0\!\to\! K\bar K)=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\int\limits_{m_K+m_{\bar K}}^{\infty}
638: \!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{dM \ 2\ M\ C_F \ M_R\ \Gamma_{a_0 K\bar K}(M)}
639: {(M^2-M_R^2)^2+M_R^2 \Gamma_{tot}^2(M)},
640: \label{BrKK} \\
641: \phantom{a}\hspace*{-3mm}
642: &&Br(a_0\!\to\! \pi\eta)=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\int\limits_{m_K+m_{\bar K}}^{\infty}
643: \!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{dM \ 2 \ M \ C_F \ M_R \ \Gamma_{a_0 \pi\eta}(M)}
644: {(M^2-M_R^2)^2+M_R^2 \Gamma_{tot}^2(M)}
645: \label{Brpieta}\\
646: \phantom{a}\hspace*{-3mm}
647: &&\!\!+\int\limits_{m_{\pi}+m_{\eta}}^{m_K+m_{\bar K}}
648: \!\!\frac{dM \ 2 \ M \ C_F \ M_R \ \Gamma_{a_0 \pi\eta}(M)}
649: {(M^2-M_R^2-M_R \Gamma_{a_0 K\bar K}(M))^2+M_R^2 \Gamma_{a_0 \pi\eta}^2(M)}.
650: \nonumber
651: \end{eqnarray}
652: The parameters $C_F, g_{K\bar K}, g_{\pi\eta}$ have to be fixed under the
653: constraint of the unitarity condition
654: \begin{eqnarray}
655: Br(a_0 \to K\bar K) + Br(a_0 \to \pi \eta)=1 \ .
656: \label{unitar}
657: \end{eqnarray}
658: Choosing the parameter $\Gamma_0=\Gamma_{a_0 \pi \eta}(M_R)$ in the
659: interval $50 \div 100$ MeV as given by the PDG \cite{PDG},
660: one can fix the coupling $g_{\pi\eta}$ according to (\ref{width}).
661: In Ref. \cite{CrysBar98} a ratio of branching ratios has been reported,
662: \begin{eqnarray}
663: r(a_0(980))=\frac{Br(a_0\to K\bar K)}{Br(a_0\to \pi \eta)}=0.23\pm 0.05,
664: \label{ratBr}
665: \end{eqnarray}
666: for $m_{a_0}=0.999$~GeV, which gives $Br(a_0\to K\bar K)=0.187$.
667: In another recent study \cite{WA102} the WA102 collaboration
668: reported the branching ratio
669: \begin{equation}
670: \Gamma(a_0\to K\bar K) / \Gamma(a_0\to \pi \eta) = 0.166\pm
671: 0.01\pm 0.02 , \label{eq02}
672: \end{equation}
673: which was determined from the measured branching ratio for the
674: $f_1(1285)$-meson.
675: In our present analysis we use the results from \cite{CrysBar98},
676: however, keeping in mind that this branching ratio $Br(a_0\to K\bar K)$
677: more likely gives an 'upper limit' for the $a_0\to K \bar K$ decay.
678:
679: Thus, the two other parameters in the Flatt\'e distribution $C_F$ and
680: $g_{a_0 K\bar K}$ can be found by solving the system of integral
681: equations, for example, Eq. (\ref{BrKK}) for $Br(a_0 \to K \bar K)=0.187$
682: and the unitarity condition (\ref{unitar}).
683: For our calculations we choose either $\Gamma_{a_0 \pi \eta}(M_R)=70$~MeV
684: or 50 MeV, which gives two sets of independent parameters
685: $C_F, g_{a_0 K \bar K}, g_{a_0 \pi \eta}$ for a fixed branching
686: ratio $Br(a_0 \to K \bar K)=0.187$:
687: \begin{eqnarray}
688: &&\hspace*{-8mm}
689: set \ 1 \ \ (\Gamma_{a_0\pi\eta}=70~{\rm MeV}): \label{set1}\\
690: &&\phantom{a}\hfill g_{a_0 K \bar K}=2.297, \ g_{a_0 \pi \eta}=2.189,
691: \ C_F=0.365 \nonumber\\
692: &&\hspace*{-8mm}
693: set \ 2 \ \ (\Gamma_{a_0\pi\eta}=50~{\rm MeV}): \label{set2}\\
694: &&\phantom{a}\hfill g_{a_0 K \bar K}=1.943, \ g_{a_0 \pi \eta}=1.937,
695: \ C_F=0.354.\nonumber
696: \end{eqnarray}
697: Note, that for the $K^+K^-$ or $K^0 \bar K^0$ final state one has
698: to take into account an isospin factor for the coupling constant, i.e.
699: $g_{a_0 K^+K^-}=g_{a_0 K^0 \bar K^0} = g_{a_0 K\bar K}/\sqrt{2}$,
700: whereas $g_{a_0 K^+\bar K^0}=g_{a_0 K^- \bar K^0} = g_{a_0 K\bar K}$.
701:
702: \subsection{Numerical results for the total cross section}
703:
704: In the upper part of Fig.~\ref{pp_kk} we display the calculated total
705: cross section (within parameter $set \ 1$) for the reaction $pp\to pn
706: a_0^+ \to pn K^+ \bar K^0$ in comparison to the experimental data for
707: $pp \to pn K^+ \bar K^0$ (solid dots) from Ref.~\cite{LB} as a function
708: of the excess energy $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$. The dot-dashed and solid
709: lines in Fig. \ref{pp_kk} correspond to the coherent sum of $s(N)$ and
710: $u(N)$ channels with interference ($s+u+int.$), calculated with a
711: monopole form of the form factor (\ref{FN}) with $\Lambda_N=1.24$~GeV
712: and with a dipole form of (\ref{FN}) with $\Lambda_N=1.35$~GeV,
713: respectively. We mention that the latter (dipole) result is in better
714: agreement with the constraints on the near-threshold production of
715: $a_0$ in the reactions $\pi^-p \to K^-\bar{K^0} p$ and $\pi^+p \to K^+
716: \bar {K^0} p $ \cite{Brat_pipKKN}. In the middle part of
717: Fig.~\ref{pp_kk} the solid lines with full dots and with open squares
718: present the results within the $\rho_2$ and $(\rho_2,b_1)$ Regge
719: exchange model. The short dashed line shows the 4-body phase space
720: (with constant interaction amplitude), while the dashed line is the
721: parametrization from Sibirtsev et al. \cite{Sibirtsev1}. We note, that
722: the cross sections for parameter $set \ 2$ are similar to $set \ 1$ and
723: larger by a factor $\sim 1.5$.
724:
725: In the lower part of Fig.~\ref{pp_kk} we show the calculated total
726: cross section (within parameter $set \ 1$) for the reaction $pp\to pp
727: a_0^0 \to pp K^+ K^-$ as a function of $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$ in
728: comparison to the experimental data. The solid dots indicate the data
729: for $pp \to pp K^0 \bar K^0$ from Ref.~\cite{LB}, the open square for
730: $pp\to pp K^+K^-$ is from the DISTO collaboration~\cite{DISTO} and the
731: full down triangels show the data from COSY-11 \cite{COSY11}.
732:
733: For the $pp \to pp a_0^0\to pp K^+K^-$ reaction (as for $pp\to pp
734: a_0^0$) there is no contribution from meson Regge trajectories; $s$-
735: and $u$-channels give similar contributions such that their
736: interference according to the effective OPE model (line $s+u+int.$) is
737: strongly destructive (cf. upper part of Fig.~\ref{pp_q}). The
738: $t(f_1)$ contribution (short dotted line) is practically negligible,
739: while the $t(\eta)$-channel (dotted line) becomes important closer to the
740: threshold.
741:
742: Thus our model gives quite small cross sections for $a_0^0$ production
743: in the $pp\to pp K^+K^-$ reaction which complicates its experimental
744: observation for this isospin channel. The situation looks more
745: promising for the $pp\to pn a_0^+ \to pn K^+\bar K^0$ reaction since
746: the $a_0^+$ production cross section is by an order of magnitude larger
747: than the $a_0^0$ one. Moreover, as has been pointed out with respect to
748: Fig.~\ref{pp_q}, the influence of the interference is not so strong as
749: for the $pp\to pp a_0^0 \to pp K^+K^-$ reaction.
750:
751: Here we stress again the limited applicability of the effective
752: Lagrangian model (ELM) at high energies. As seen from the upper part of
753: Fig. \ref{pp_kk}, the ELM calculations at high energies go through the
754: experimental data, which is not realistic since also other channels
755: contribute to $K^+\bar K^0$ production in $pp$ reactions (cf. dashed
756: line from Ref.~\cite{Sibirtsev1}). Moreover, the ELM calculations are
757: higher than the Regge model predictions which indicates, that the ELM
758: amplitudes at high energies have to be reggeized or unitarized.
759:
760:
761: \subsection{Numerical results for the invariant mass distribution}
762:
763: As follows from the lower part of Fig.~\ref{pp_kk}, the $a_0$
764: contribution to the $K^+K^-$ production in the $pp\to pp K^+K^-$
765: reaction near the threshold is hardly seen. With increasing energy the
766: cross section grows up, however, even at $Q=0.111$~GeV the full cross
767: section with interference ($s+u+int.$) gives only a few percent
768: contribution to the $0.11\pm 0.009\pm 0.046\ \mu$b 'nonresonant' cross
769: section (without $\phi\to K^+K^-$) from the DISTO collaboration
770: \cite{DISTO}.
771:
772: To clarify the situation with the relative contribution of $a_0^0$ to
773: the total $K^+K^-$ production in $pp$ reactions we calculate the
774: $K^+K^-$ invariant mass distribution for the $pp\to pp K^+K^-$ reaction
775: at $p_{lab}=3.67$~GeV$/c$, which corresponds to the kinematical
776: conditions for the DISTO experiment \cite{DISTO}. The differential
777: results are presented in Fig.~\ref{distf0a0}. The upper part shows
778: the calculation within parameter $set \ 1$, whereas the lower part
779: corresponds to $set \ 2$. The dot-dashed lines (lowest curves)
780: indicate the coherent sum of $s(N)$ and $u(N)$ channels with
781: interference ($s+u+int.$) for the $a_0$ contribution. However, one has
782: to consider also the contribution from the $f_0$ scalar meson, i.e.
783: the $pp\to pp f_0\to pp K^+K^-$ reaction. The $f_0$ production in $pp$
784: reactions has been studied in detail in Ref.~\cite{bratf0}. Here we use
785: the result from this previous work \cite{bratf0} and show in
786: Fig.~\ref{distf0a0} the contribution from the $f_0$ meson calculated
787: with parameter $set \ A$ from Ref.~\cite{bratf0} as the solid line with
788: open circles ($f_0$).
789:
790: We find that when adding the $f_0$ contribution to the phase-space of
791: nonresonant $K^+K^-$ production (the short dotted lines in
792: Fig.~\ref{distf0a0}) and the contribution from $\phi$ decays (resonance
793: peak around 1.02 GeV), the sum (solid) lines almost perfectly describe
794: the DISTO data. This means that there is no visible signal for an
795: $a_0^0$ contribution in the DISTO data according to our calculations
796: while the $f_0$ meson gives some contribution to the $K^+K^-$
797: invariant mass distribution at low invariant masses $M$, that is $\sim
798: 12\%$ of the total 'nonresonant' cross section from the DISTO
799: collaboration \cite{DISTO}. Thus the reaction $pp \to pn K^+ \bar K^0$
800: is more promising for $a_0$ measurements as it has been pointed out in
801: the previous subsection.
802:
803: For an experimental determination of the $a_0^+$ we present the
804: invariant mass distribution of $K^+ \bar K^0$ in the reaction $pp \to
805: pn K^+ \bar K^0$ at different $Q$ (solid lines) in Fig. \ref{dsdM}. The
806: dashed lines show the invariant mass distributions for 'background'
807: (i.e. according to phase space with constant interaction amplitude)
808: under the assumption that the integrals below the solid and dashed
809: lines are the same for each $Q$. We see that the shape of the solid
810: and dashed lines are practically the same for $Q \leq 50 $ MeV.
811: Noticeable differences between the lines can be found for $Q \geq 100$
812: MeV. This means that a separation of the resonance contribution from
813: the background very close to threshold can be done only in the case
814: when the background is small or very well known.
815:
816: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
817: \section{Conclusions}
818:
819: In this work we have estimated the cross sections of $a_0$ production
820: in the reactions $pp\to pp a_0^0$, $pp\to pn a_0^+$, $pn\to pp a_0^-$
821: and $pn\to pn a_0^0$ near threshold and at medium energies. Using an
822: effective Lagrangian approach with one-pion exchange we have analyzed
823: different contributions to the cross section corresponding to
824: $t$-channel diagrams with $\eta(550)$- and $f_1(1285)$-meson exchanges
825: as well as $s$ and $u$-channel graphs with an intermediate nucleon. We
826: use the same parameters as in our previous paper where we describe
827: rather well the Berkeley data \cite{BNL73} on the reaction $pp \to d
828: a_0^+$.
829:
830: We additionally have considered the $t$-channel Reggeon exchange
831: mechanism with parameters normalized to the Brookhaven data for
832: $\pi^-p\to a_0^-p$ at 18 GeV/c \cite{Dzierba}. These results have been
833: used to calculate the contribution of $a_0$ mesons to the cross
834: sections of the reactions $pp\to pn K^+\bar K^0$ and $pp\to pp
835: K^+K^-$. Due to unfavourable isospin Clebsh-Gordan coefficients as
836: well as rather strong destructive interference of the $s$- and
837: $u$-channel contributions our model gives quite small cross sections
838: for $a_0^0$ production in the $pp\to pp K^+K^-$ reaction. However, the
839: $a_0^+$ production cross section in the $pp\to pn a_0^+ \to pn K^+\bar
840: K^0$ reaction should be larger by about an order of magnitude.
841: Therefore the experimental observation of $a_0^+$ in the reaction
842: $pp\to pn K^+\bar K^0$ is much more promising than the observation of
843: $a_0^0$ in the reaction $pp\to pp K^+K^-$. We note in passing that the
844: $\pi\eta$ decay channel is experimentally more challenging since, due
845: to the larger nonresonant background \cite{Mueler01}, the
846: identification of the $\eta$-meson (via its decay into photons) in a
847: neutral-particle detector is required.
848:
849: We have also analyzed invariant mass distributions of the $K \bar K$
850: system in the reaction $pp\to pN a_0 \to pN K \bar K$ at different
851: excess energies $Q$ not far from threshold. Our analysis of the DISTO
852: data on the reaction $pp \to pp K^+K^-$ at 3.67 GeV/c has shown that
853: the $a_0^0$-meson is practically not seen in $d\sigma /dM$ at low
854: invariant masses, however, the $f_0$-meson gives some visible
855: contribution. In this respect the possibility to measure the $a_0^+$
856: meson in $d\sigma /dM$ for the reaction $pp\to pn K^+\bar K^0$ (or $\to
857: d K^+\bar K^0$) looks much more promising not only due to a much larger
858: contribution for the $a_0^+$, but also due to the absence of the $f_0$
859: meson in this channel.
860:
861: Experimental data on $a_0$ production in $NN$ collisions are
862: practically absent (except of the $a_0$ observation in the reaction
863: $pp\to dX$ \cite{BNL73}). Such measurements might give new information
864: on the $a_0$ structure. According to Atkinson et al. \cite{Atkinson} a
865: relatively strong production of the $a_0$ (the same as for the
866: $b_1(1235)$) in non-diffractive reactions can be considered as evidence
867: for a $q \bar q$ state rather than a $qq \bar q \bar q$ state. For
868: example the cross section of $a_0$ production in $\gamma p$ reactions
869: at 25--50 GeV is about 1/6 of the cross sections for $\rho$ and $
870: \omega$ production. Similar ratios are found in the two-body reaction
871: $pp \to d X$ at 3.8--6.3 GeV/c where $\sigma (pp \to d a_0^+) =(1/4
872: \div 1/6)\sigma (pp \to d \rho^+)$.
873:
874: In our case we can compare $a_0$ and $\omega$ production. Our model
875: predicts $\sigma (pp \to pn a_0^+) = 30 \div 70 \mu$b at $Q \simeq 1$
876: GeV (see Fig. \ref{regge}) which can be compared with $\sigma (pp \to
877: pp\omega) \simeq 100 - 200 \mu$b at the same $Q$. If such a large
878: cross section could be detected this would be a serious argument in
879: favour of the $q \bar q$ model for the $a_0$.
880:
881: To distinguish between the threshold cusp scenario and a resonance
882: model one can exploit different analytical properties of the $a_0$
883: production amplitudes in those approaches. In case of a genuine
884: resonance the amplitude of $\eta \pi$ and $K \bar K$ production through
885: the $a_0$ has a pole and satisfies the factorization property. This
886: implies that the shapes of the invariant mass distributions in the
887: $\eta \pi$ and $K \bar K$ channels should not depend on the specific
888: reaction in which the $a_0$ resonance is produced (for $Q \geq
889: \Gamma_{tot}$). On the other hand, for the threshold cusp scenario the
890: $a_0$ bump is produced through the $\pi \eta$ final state interaction.
891: The corresponding amplitude has a square root singularity and in
892: general can not be factorized (see e.g. Ref. \cite{BaruFSI} were the
893: factorization property was disproven for pp FSI in the reaction $pp \to
894: pp M$). This implies that for a threshold bump the invariant mass
895: distributions in the $\eta \pi$ and $K \bar K$ channels are expected to
896: be different for different reactions and will even depend on
897: kinematical conditions (i.e. initial energy and momentum transfer) at
898: the same exess energy, e.g. $Q\simeq 1$ GeV.
899:
900: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
901: \subsection{Acknowledgments}
902: The authors are grateful to J. Ritman for stimulating discussions and
903: useful suggestions, to V. Baru for providing the parametrization of the
904: FSI enhancement factor and to V. Kleber for a careful reading of the
905: manuscript.
906:
907: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
908: \section*{References}
909: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
910: \bibitem{Gerry}
911: Brown G E and Rho M 2002 {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 363} 85
912: \bibitem{Cass99}
913: Cassing W and Bratkovskaya E L 1999
914: {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 308} 65
915: \bibitem{Rapp00}
916: Rapp R and Wambach J 2000 {\it Adv. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 25} 1
917: \bibitem{Clo}
918: Close F E {\it et al.} 1993 {\it Phys. Lett.} B{\bf 319} 291
919: \bibitem{Gen}
920: Genovese M {\it et al.} 1994 {\it Nuovo Cim.} A{\bf 107} 1249
921: \bibitem{Jan}
922: Janssen G {it et al.} 1995 {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 52} 2690
923: \bibitem{Ani}
924: Anisovich V V {\it et al.} 1995 {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 355} 363
925: \bibitem{Tornqvist}
926: T\"ornqvist N A 1982 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 49} 624
927: \bibitem{Hadron99a}
928: Maltman K, {\it `Scalar Meson Decay Constants and the Nature
929: of the $a_0$(980)', Review talk at Hadron-99, Beijing,
930: Aug. 24--28, 1999}; hep-ph/0005155;
931: 2000 {\it Nucl. Phys.} A {\bf 675} 209
932: \bibitem{Hadron99b}
933: Narison S, {\it 'Gluonic Scalar Mesons Hybrids from QCD Spectral
934: Sum Rules', Review talk at Hadron-99, Beijing, Aug. 24--28, 1999};
935: hep-ph/9909470; 2000 {\it Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf 86} 242
936: \bibitem{Montanet}
937: Montanet L 2000 {\it Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf 86} 381
938: \bibitem{Anisovich}
939: Anisovich V V, Montanet L and Nikonov V N 2000 {\it Phys. Lett.}
940: B {\bf 480} 19
941: \bibitem{Narison}
942: Narison S 2001 {\it Nucl.Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf 96} 244
943: \bibitem{Achasov}
944: Achasov N N, Devyanin S A and Shestakov G N
945: 1979 {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 88} 367
946: \bibitem{Achasov2}
947: Achasov N N and Shestakov G N 1997 {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 56} 212
948: \bibitem{Barnes}
949: Barnes T 1985 {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 165} 434
950: \bibitem{Speth}
951: Krehl O, Rapp R and Speth J 1997 {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 390} 23
952: \bibitem{Kerbikov}
953: Kerbikov B O and Tabakin F 2000 {\it Phys. Rev.} C {\bf 62} 064601
954: \bibitem{Close2000}
955: Close F E and Kirk A 2000 {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 489} 24
956: \bibitem{Grishina2001}
957: Grishina V Yu {\it et al.} 2001 {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 521} 217
958: \bibitem{Grishina}
959: Grishina V Yu {\it et al.} 2000 {\it Eur. Phys. J.} A {\bf 9} 277
960: \bibitem{COSY1}
961: Chernyshev V {\it et al.}, COSY proposal \#55 `Study of
962: a$_0^+$ mesons at ANKE' (1997) {\em available via www:} {\tt
963: http://ikpd15.ikp.kfa-juelich. de:8085/doc/Anke.html};
964: Kondratyuk L A {\it et al.} {\it Preprint ITEP} {\bf 18-97},
965: Moscow (1997).
966: \bibitem{COSY2}
967: B\"uscher M {\it et al.}, Beam-time request for COSY
968: proposal \#55 `Study of a$_0^+$ mesons at ANKE' (2000) {\em
969: available via www:} {\tt
970: http://ikpd15.ikp.kfa-juelich. de:8085/doc/Anke.html}.
971: \bibitem{COSY3}
972: B\"uscher M {\it et al.}, Status report for COSY
973: experiment \#55 `Study of a$_0^+$ mesons at ANKE' and
974: Proposal `Investigation of neutral scalar mesons a$_0^0$/f$_0$
975: with ANKE' {\em available via www:} {\tt
976: http://ikpd15.ikp.kfa-juelich. de:8085/doc/Anke.html}.
977: \bibitem{Holinde}
978: Machleidt R, Holinde K and Elster Ch
979: 1987 {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 149} 1
980: \bibitem{Haidenbauer}
981: Hippchen T {\it et al.} 1991 {\it Phys. Rev.} C {\bf 44} 1323;
982: Mull V {\it et al.} 1991 {\it Phys. Rev.} C {\bf 44} 1337
983: \bibitem{Bonnf1}
984: Mull V and Holinde K 1995 {\it Phys. Rev.} C {\bf 51} 2360
985: \bibitem{Chung}
986: Chung W S, Li G Q and Ko C M
987: 1997 {\it Nucl. Phys.} A {\bf 625} 371
988: \bibitem{Nakayama}
989: Nakayama K {\it et al.} 1998 {\it Phys. Rev.} C {\bf 57} 1580
990: \bibitem{Feuster}
991: Feuster T and Mosel U 1998 {\it Phys. Rev.} C {\bf 58} 457;
992: 1999 C {\bf 59} 460.
993: \bibitem{Smith}
994: Smith G A 1987 {\it The elementary structure of Matter}
995: Les Houches, p. 197.
996: \bibitem{Amsler}
997: Amsler C {\it et al.} 1993 {\it Z. Phys.} C {\bf 58} 175
998: \bibitem{BNL73}
999: Abolins M A {\it et al.} 1970 {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 25} 469
1000: \bibitem{Pearce}
1001: Pearce B C and Jennings B K 1991 {\it Nucl. Phys.} A {\bf 528} 655
1002: \bibitem{Feuster2}
1003: Haberzettl H {\it et al.} 1998 {\it Phys. Rev.} C {\bf 58} R40
1004: \bibitem{Nakayama2}
1005: Nakayama K {\it et al.} 2000 {\it Phys. Rev.} C {\bf 60} 055209
1006: \bibitem{Titov}
1007: Titov A I, K\"ampfer B and Reznik B L
1008: 2000 {\it Eur. Phys.} A {\bf 7} 543
1009: \bibitem{Baru2}
1010: Baru V {\it et al.} 2000 {\it Preprint ITEP 30-00}, Moscow
1011: \bibitem{Dzierba}
1012: Dzierba A R {\it Proceedings of the Second Workshop
1013: on Physics and Detectors for DA${\rm\Phi}$NE`95, Frascati, 1995},
1014: edited by R.~Baldini et al.,
1015: 1996 Frascati Physics Series {\bf 4} 99
1016: \bibitem{BaruFSI}
1017: Baru V {\it et al.} nucl-th/0006075,
1018: 2001 {\it Phys. Atom. Nucl.} {\bf 64} 579
1019: \bibitem{NakayamaReview}
1020: Nakayama K nucl-th/0108032.
1021: \bibitem{Flatte}
1022: Flatt\'e S 1976 {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 63} 224
1023: \bibitem{PDG}
1024: Caso C {\it et al. (Particle Data Group)}
1025: 2000 {\it Eur. Phys. J.} C {\bf 15} 1
1026: \bibitem{WA102}
1027: Barberis D {\it et al. (WA102 Collaboration)}
1028: 1998 {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 440} 225
1029: \bibitem{CrysBar98}
1030: Adomeit J {\it et al.} 1998 {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 57} 3860
1031: \bibitem{LB}
1032: Landolt-B{\"{o}}rnstein 1988 {\it New Series},
1033: ed. H. Schopper, I/12
1034: \bibitem{Brat_pipKKN}
1035: Kondratyuk {\it et al.} 2002 submitted to {\it Phys. Atom. Nucl.}
1036: \bibitem{Sibirtsev1}
1037: Sibirtsev A A, Cassing W and Ko C M
1038: 1997 {\it Z. Phys. A} {\bf 358} 101
1039: \bibitem{DISTO}
1040: Balestra F {\it et al.} 2001 {\it Phys. Rev. C} {\bf 63} 024004
1041: \bibitem{COSY11}
1042: Quentmeier C {\it et al.} 2001 {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 515} 276
1043: \bibitem{bratf0}
1044: Bratkovskaya E L {\it et al.} 1999 {\it Eur. Phys. J.} A {\bf 4} 165
1045: \bibitem{Mueler01}
1046: M\"uller H 2001 {\it Eur. Phys. J.} A {\bf 11} 113
1047: \bibitem{Atkinson}
1048: Atkinson M {\it et al.} 1984 {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf B 138} 459
1049: \end{thebibliography}
1050:
1051: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1052:
1053: \begin{table*}[t]
1054: \begin{center}
1055: \begin{tabular}{l c c c c }
1056: \hline
1057: Reaction $j$ (mechanism $\alpha$)
1058: & $\xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ab;cd]$ & $\xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ab;dc]$ &
1059: $\xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ba;dc]$ & $\xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ba;cd]$
1060: \\ \hline
1061: $pp\to pp a_0^0 \ (t(\eta),t(f_1))$
1062: & $+1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$ & $+1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$
1063: \\
1064: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (s(N))$
1065: & $+1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$ & $+1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$
1066: \\
1067: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (u(N))$
1068: & $+1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$ & $+1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$
1069: \\
1070: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ \mathrm{Regge}$
1071: & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$
1072: \\
1073: \hline
1074: $pp\to pn a_0^+ \ (t(\eta),t(f_1))$
1075: & $-\sqrt{2}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $+\sqrt{2}$
1076: \\
1077: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (s(N))$
1078: & $0$ & $+\sqrt{2}$ & $-\sqrt{2}$ & $0$
1079: \\
1080: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (u(N))$
1081: & $+2\sqrt{2}$ & $-\sqrt{2}$ & $+\sqrt{2}$ & $-2\sqrt{2}$
1082: \\
1083: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ \mathrm{Regge}$
1084: & $-1$ & $+1$ & $-1$ & $+1$
1085: \\
1086: \hline
1087: $pn\to pp a_0^- \ (t(\eta),t(f_1))$
1088: & $+1$ & $-1$ & $0$ & $0$
1089: \\
1090: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (s(N))$
1091: & $-2$ & $+2$ & $-1$ & $+1$
1092: \\
1093: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (u(N))$
1094: & $0$ & $0$ & $+1$ & $-1$
1095: \\
1096: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ \mathrm{Regge}$
1097: & $+1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$ &
1098: $+1/\sqrt{2}$
1099: \\
1100: \hline
1101: $pn\to pn a_0^0 \ (t(\eta),t(f_1))$
1102: & $-1$ & $0$ & $+1$ & $0$
1103: \\
1104: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (s(N))$
1105: & $-1$ & $-2$ & $+1$ & $+2$
1106: \\
1107: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (u(N))$
1108: & $-1$ & $+2$ & $+1$ & $-2$
1109: \\
1110: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ \mathrm{Regge}$
1111: & $0$ & $+\sqrt{2}$ & $0$ & $-\sqrt{2}$
1112: \\
1113: \hline
1114: \end{tabular}
1115: \end{center}
1116: \caption{\label{Tab1} Coefficients in Eq. (\ref{NNa0sum})
1117: for different mechanisms of the $pp\to pp a_0^0$,
1118: $pp \to pp a_0^+$, $pn\to pp a_0^-$ and $pn \to pn a_0^0$ reactions. }
1119: \end{table*}
1120:
1121:
1122:
1123: \clearpage
1124: \begin{figure}[h]
1125: \phantom{a}\vspace*{1cm}
1126: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig1.eps,width=10cm}}
1127: \vspace*{5mm}
1128: \caption{Diagrams for $a_0$ production in the reaction
1129: $N N\rightarrow a_0 N N$ near threshold as considered in the present study. }
1130: \label{diagr_a0}
1131: \end{figure}
1132:
1133: \begin{figure}[h]
1134: \vspace*{5mm}
1135: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig2.eps,width=5cm}}
1136: \caption{The diagram for $a_0$ production in the reaction
1137: $N N\rightarrow N N a_0$ within the Regge exchange model. }
1138: \label{diagr_re}
1139: \end{figure}
1140:
1141: \clearpage
1142: \begin{figure}[h]
1143: \phantom{a}\vspace{3cm}
1144: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig3.eps,width=14cm}}
1145: \vspace*{5mm}
1146: \caption{The total cross section for the reaction $pp\to pn a_0^+$
1147: for $u(N)$ and $t(f_1)$ channels as a function of the excess energy
1148: $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$ for different cut-off parameters
1149: $\Lambda_{\pi NN}=0.8$~GeV (dotted lines),
1150: $\Lambda_{\pi NN}=1.05$~GeV (solid lines) and
1151: $\Lambda_{\pi NN}=1.3$~GeV (dashed lines).}
1152: \label{cutoff}
1153: \end{figure}
1154:
1155: \newpage
1156: \begin{figure}[h]
1157: \phantom{a}\vspace{1cm}
1158: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig4.eps,width=14cm}}
1159: \vspace*{5mm}
1160: \caption{The total cross section for the reactions $pp\to pp a_0^0$
1161: (upper part) and $pp\to pn a_0^+$ (lower part) as a function of the
1162: excess energy $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$ for $u(N)$, $s(N)$
1163: and $t(f_1)$ channels calculated without FSI (solid lines) and with
1164: FSI (dashed lines).}
1165: \label{fsi}
1166: \end{figure}
1167:
1168: \newpage
1169: \begin{figure}[h]
1170: \phantom{a}\vspace{1.5cm}
1171: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig5.eps,width=14cm}}
1172: \vspace*{5mm}
1173: \caption{The total cross sections for the reactions $pp\to pp a_0^0$
1174: (upper part) and $pp\to pn a_0^+$ (lower part) as a function of the
1175: excess energy $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$ calculated with FSI.
1176: The short dotted lines (l.h.s.) corresponds to the $t(f_1)$ channel,
1177: the dotted lines to the $t(\eta)$ channel,
1178: the dashed lines to the $u(N)$ channel,
1179: the short dashed lines to the $s(N)$ channel.
1180: The dashed line (upper part, r.h.s.) is the incoherent sum of the
1181: contributions from $s(N)$ and $u(N)$ channels ($s+u$).
1182: The solid lines indicate the coherent sum of $s(N)$ and $u(N)$
1183: channels with interference ($s+u+int.$).
1184: The solid lines with full dots and with open squares (lower part,
1185: r.h.s.) present the results within the $\rho_2$ and $(\rho_2,b_1)$
1186: Regge exchange model.}
1187: \label{pp_q}
1188: \end{figure}
1189:
1190: \newpage
1191: \begin{figure}[h]
1192: \phantom{a}\vspace{2.5cm}
1193: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig6.eps,width=15.5cm}}
1194: \vspace*{5mm}
1195: \caption{The total cross sections for the reactions $pn\to pp a_0^-$
1196: (upper part) and $pn\to pn a_0^0$ (lower part) as a function of
1197: $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$ calculated with FSI. The assignment of the
1198: individual lines is the same as in Fig. \protect\ref{pp_q}. The
1199: results from the effective OPE model are shown on the l.h.s. while
1200: those from the $\rho_2$ and $\rho_2 b_1$ Regge approach are displayed on
1201: the r.h.s.}
1202: \label{pn_q}
1203: \end{figure}
1204:
1205: \newpage
1206: \begin{figure}[h]
1207: \phantom{a}\vspace{1cm}
1208: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig7.eps,width=15cm}}
1209: \vspace*{5mm}
1210: \caption{Forward differential cross section of the reaction $pp \to d
1211: a_0^+$ as a function of ($p_{lab} -3.29$) GeV/c. The bold and thin
1212: solid curves are calculated at $\Lambda_{\pi NN}$=1.05 and 1.3 GeV,
1213: respectively. The solid curves correspond to a monopole nucleon form
1214: factor with $\Lambda_N$= 1.2 (thin) and 1.24 GeV (bold). The
1215: long-dashed and short-dashed curves are calculated using the dipole
1216: nucleon form factor for different values of $\Lambda_N$ as shown in the
1217: figure. The experimental data are taken from
1218: Ref.~\protect\cite{BNL73}. }
1219: \label{deutrLam}
1220: \end{figure}
1221:
1222:
1223: \newpage
1224: \begin{figure}[h]
1225: \phantom{a}\vspace{1.5cm}
1226: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig8.eps,width=12cm}}
1227: \vspace*{5mm}
1228: \caption{The total cross sections for the reactions $pp\to pn a_0^+$,
1229: $pn\to pn a_0^0$ (upper part) and $pn\to pp a_0^-$ (lower part)
1230: as a function of $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$ calculated
1231: within the $\rho_2$ (dashed lines) and $(\rho_2,b_1)$ (solid lines)
1232: Regge exchange model (with FSI) for cut-off parameters
1233: $\Lambda_{\pi NN}=1.05$~GeV. The dotted and dot-dashed lines
1234: in the lower part show the results for $\Lambda_{\pi NN}=1.3$~GeV
1235: within the $\rho_2$ and $(\rho_2,b_1)$ exchanges, respectively.}
1236: \label{regge}
1237: \end{figure}
1238:
1239: \newpage
1240: \begin{figure}[h]
1241: \phantom{a}\vspace{0.5cm}
1242: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig9.eps,width=11cm}}
1243: %\vspace*{5mm}
1244: \caption{Upper part: the calculated total cross section (within
1245: parameter $set \ 1$) for the reaction $pp\to pn a_0^+ \to pn K^+ \bar
1246: K_0$ in comparison to the experimental data for $pp \to pn K^+ \bar
1247: K_0$ (solid dots) from Ref.~\protect\cite{LB} as a function of
1248: $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$.
1249: The dot-dashed and solid lines correspond to the coherent sum of
1250: $s(N)$ and $u(N)$ channels with interference ($s+u+int.$)
1251: calculated with a monopole form of the form factor (\protect\ref{FN}) with
1252: $\Lambda_N=1.24$~GeV and with a dipole form of (\protect\ref{FN}) with
1253: $\Lambda_N=1.35$~GeV, respectively.
1254: Middle part: the solid lines with full dots and with open squares
1255: represent the results within the $\rho_2$ and $(\rho_2,b_1)$ Regge
1256: exchange model. The short dashed line shows the 4-body phase space
1257: (with constant interaction amplitude); the dashed line is the
1258: parametrization from Sibirtsev et al.~\protect\cite{Sibirtsev1}.
1259: Lower part: the calculated total cross section (within parameter $set \
1260: 1$) for the reaction $pp\to pp a_0^0 \to pp K^+ K^-$ as a function of
1261: $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$ in comparison to the experimental data. The
1262: solid dots indicate the data for $pp \to pp K_0 \bar K_0$ from
1263: Ref.~\protect\cite{LB}, the open square for $pp\to pp K^+K^-$ from
1264: Ref.~\protect\cite{DISTO}; the full down triangels show the data from
1265: Ref.~\protect\cite{COSY11}. }
1266: \label{pp_kk}
1267: \end{figure}
1268:
1269:
1270:
1271: \newpage
1272: \begin{figure}[h]
1273: \phantom{a}\vspace{1.5cm}
1274: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig10.eps,width=12cm}}
1275: \vspace*{5mm}
1276: \caption{The $K^+K^-$ invariant mass distribution for the $pp\to
1277: pp K^+K^-$ reaction at $p_{lab}=3.67$~GeV$/c$.
1278: The short dotted lines indicate the 4-body phase space with constant
1279: interaction amplitude, the dot-dashed lines show the coherent sum
1280: of $s(N)$ and $u(N)$ channels with interference ($s+u+int.$). The
1281: solid lines with open circles correspond to the $f_0$ contribution from
1282: Ref.~\protect\cite{bratf0}. The thick solid lines show the sum of all
1283: contributions including the decay $\phi\to K^+K^-$.
1284: The experimental data are taken from Ref.~\protect\cite{DISTO}. }
1285: \label{distf0a0}
1286: \end{figure}
1287:
1288: \newpage
1289: \begin{figure}[h]
1290: \phantom{a}\vspace{1.5cm}
1291: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig11.eps,width=12cm}}
1292: \vspace*{5mm}
1293: \caption{The $K^+\bar K^0$ invariant mass distribution for the $pp\to
1294: pn K^+\bar K^0$ reaction at different $Q = \sqrt{s} - \sqrt{s}_0$. The
1295: solid lines describe the $a_0^+$ resonance contributions. The dashed
1296: lines show the invariant mass distributions for 'background' under the
1297: assumption that the integrals below the solid and dashed lines are the
1298: same for each $Q$.}
1299: \label{dsdM}
1300: \end{figure}
1301:
1302:
1303: \end{document}
1304:
1305: #!/bin/csh -f
1306: # Uuencoded gz-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
1307: # For more info (11/95), see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
1308: # If you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself: strip
1309: # any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., figures.uu
1310: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
1311: # Then say csh figures.uu
1312: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
1313: # uudecode figures.uu ; gunzip figures.tar.gz ;
1314: # tar -xvf figures.tar
1315: # On some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use editor to change filename
1316: # in "begin" line below to figures.tar-gz , then execute
1317: # uudecode figures.uu
1318: # gzip -d figures.tar-gz
1319: # tar -xvf figures.tar
1320: #
1321: uudecode $0
1322: chmod 644 figures.tar.gz
1323: gunzip -c figures.tar.gz | tar -xvf -
1324: rm $0 figures.tar.gz
1325: exit
1326:
1327: