1: % version 12.03.02
2: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
3: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}
4: %\def\baselinestretch{1.7}
5: \setlength{\textwidth}{15cm}
6: \setlength{\textheight}{23cm}
7: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{-0.5cm}
8: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.5cm}
9: \topmargin=-1cm
10: \parindent = 1.5em
11: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
12: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
13: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
14: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17: \title{Probing hadronic formation times with antiprotons in $p+A$ reactions at AGS energies
18: \thanks{Supported by the European Graduate School 'Complex Systems of Hadrons and Nuclei',
19: Copenhagen-Giessen} }
20: \author{ W. Cassing$^1$, E. L. Bratkovskaya$^2$, O. Hansen$^3$\\
21: \\
22: $^1$Institut f\"{u}r Theoretische Physik, Universit\"{a}t Giessen \\
23: D-35392 Giessen, Germany\\
24: $^2$Institut f\"{u}r Theoretische Physik, Universit\"{a}t Frankfurt
25: \\
26: D-60054 Frankfurt, Germany\\
27: $^3$Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen \\ 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark}
28: \maketitle
29: \begin{abstract}
30: The production of antiprotons in $p+A$ reactions is calculated in
31: a microscopic transport approach employing hadronic and string
32: degrees of freedom (HSD). It is found that the abundancies of
33: antiprotons as observed by the E910 Collaboration in $p+A$
34: reactions at 12.3 GeV/c as well as 17.5 GeV/c can approximately
35: be described on the basis of primary proton-nucleon and secondary
36: meson-baryon production channels for all targets. The transport
37: calculations demonstrate that the antiproton rapidity
38: distributions for heavy targets are sensitive to the $\bar{p}$ (or
39: hadron) formation time in the nuclear medium. Within our analysis
40: the data from the E910 Collaboration are reasonably described
41: with a formation time of $ 0.4-0.8$ fm/c in the hadron rest frame.
42: \end{abstract}
43:
44: \vspace{2cm} \noindent PACS: 24.10.-i; 24.10.Cn; 24.10.Jv;
45:
46: \noindent Keywords: Nuclear reaction models and methods; Many-body
47: theory; Relativistic models;
48:
49: \newpage
50: \section{Introduction}
51: Since the first observation of antiproton production in
52: proton-nucleus \cite{chamberlain,elioff,dorfan} and
53: nucleus-nucleus collisions \cite{JINR,BEVALAC1,BEVALAC2}
54: the production mechanism has been quite a matter of debate. Especially
55: in nucleus-nucleus collisions at subthreshold energies
56: traditional cascade calculations, that employ free $NN$ production
57: and $\bar{p}N$ annihilation cross sections, essentially fail in
58: describing the high cross sections seen from 1.5 - 2.1 A$\cdot$GeV
59: \cite{Cass92,Faess1}. Thus multiparticle nucleon
60: interactions \cite{Danielewicz90,Weise} have been suggested as a
61: possible solution to this problem. On the other hand it has been
62: pointed out that the quasi-particle properties of the nucleons
63: and antinucleons might be important for the $\bar{p}$ production
64: process which become more significant with increasing nuclear
65: density \cite{Schaffner91,Koch,Teis94,Ko93,RQMD,sibirtsev}.
66: Relativistic transport calculations have indicated that
67: all the low energy data from proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus
68: collisions are compatible with attractive $\bar{p}$ self energies
69: (at normal nuclear matter density $\rho_0$) in the order of -100
70: to -150 MeV \cite{sibirtsev,Cass99,Ko96}. However, it had been
71: stressed at that time that the high antiproton yield might also be
72: attributed to mesonic production channels \cite{ko1}
73: since $p \bar{p}$ annihilation leads to multi-pion final states
74: with an average abundancy of 5 pions \cite{Dover}.
75:
76: With new data coming up on antibaryon production from
77: proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions at the AGS
78: \cite{AGSall,E877,AGSnew,E864n,E910} and SPS
79: \cite{NA49,Na49b,NAxx,Andersen} the $\bar{p}, \bar{\Lambda}$
80: enhancement factors seen experimentally were no longer that
81: dramatic as at SIS energies, however, traditional cascade
82: calculations employing free production and annihilation cross
83: sections again were not able to reproduce the measured abundancies
84: and spectra \cite{AGS1,AGS2,Kahana,Bleicher} especially for $\Xi,
85: \bar{\Xi}$ and $\Omega, \bar{\Omega}$. Here additional collective
86: mechanisms in the entrance channel have been suggested such as
87: color rope formation \cite{Sorge} or hot plasma droplet formation
88: \cite{Werner}. In another language this has been addressed also as
89: string fusion \cite{Carlos,Carlos2}, a precursor phenomenon for
90: the formation of a quark-gluon plasma (QGP).
91:
92: The intimate connection of antibaryon abundancies with the
93: possible observation of a new state of the strongly interacting
94: hadronic matter, i.e. the quark-gluon plasma, has been often
95: discussed since the early suggestion in Ref. \cite{Rafelski} that
96: especially the enhanced yield of strange antibaryons --
97: approximately in chemical equilibrium with the other hadronic
98: states -- should be a reliable indicator for a new state of
99: matter. In fact, the data on strange baryon and antibaryon
100: production from the NA49 and WA97 Collaborations show an
101: approximate chemical equilibrium \cite{BM,becca,Red01} with an
102: enhancement of the $\Omega^-, \Omega^+$ yield in central $Pb + Pb$
103: collisions (per participant) relative to $p Be$ collisions at the
104: same invariant energy per nucleon by a factor $\sim $ 15. As
105: pointed out in Ref. \cite{Redlich2} the data on multi-strange
106: antibaryons at the SPS seem compatible with a canonical ensemble
107: in chemical equilibrium.
108:
109: In Ref. \cite{Rapp} Rapp and Shuryak have proposed multi-meson
110: production channels for $p\bar{p}$ pairs to describe the
111: antiproton abundancies in central $Pb+Pb$ collisions at the SPS.
112: Later on, Greiner and Leupold \cite{Carsten} have applied the same
113: concept for the $\bar{\Lambda}$ production by a couple of mesons
114: including a $K^+$ or $K^0$ (for the $\bar{s}$ quark). In fact,
115: their estimates have been supported by the microscopic
116: multi-particle calculations in Ref. \cite{Cass02} employing
117: detailed balance relations for 2 hadron $\leftrightarrow$ n
118: hadron transitions and vice versa. Thus, in case of relativistic
119: nucleus-nucleus collisions at AGS and SPS energies the low
120: effective antibaryon absorption seen experimentally can naturally
121: be explained by the backward reaction channels, i.e. multi-meson
122: fusion channels.
123:
124: The latter mechanism, however, does not apply to proton-nucleus
125: reactions since there is no longer an approximately thermal 'meson
126: bath' feeding the baryon-antibaryon production channel as pointed
127: out in Ref. \cite{Cass02}. Nevertheless, the $\bar{p}$ yield
128: measured by the E910 Collaboration in $p+A$ reactions at 12.3
129: GeV/c and 17.5 GeV/c was found to be surprisingly high
130: \cite{E910}. An analysis within the Glauber model showed that
131: either the annihilation cross section $\sigma_{ann}$ should be
132: small compared to the cross section in free space or the $\bar{p}$
133: formation time $\tau_F$ should be a couple of fm/c when employing
134: the free annihilation cross section \cite{E910}. The authors of
135: the latter work conclude that the 'naive' first-collision model
136: with subsequent annihilation of antiprotons is incompatible with
137: their data supporting the earlier finding from Ref. \cite{Gonin},
138: where previous data from $p+A$ and $A+A$ reactions had been
139: analysed within a similar model.
140:
141:
142: In this work we will address $\bar{p}$ production in
143: proton-nucleus collisions at 12.3 GeV/c and 17.5 GeV/c within the
144: covariant HSD\footnote{Hadron-String-Dynamics} transport approach
145: \cite{Ehehalt} which is based on the concept of string formation
146: and decay at invariant collision energies $\sqrt{s} \geq$ 2.6 GeV
147: for baryon-baryon collisions and $\sqrt{s} \geq$ 2.3 GeV for
148: meson-baryon collisions, while the low-energy reactions are
149: described by known vacuum cross sections or resonance formation
150: and decay cross sections. A single sensitive parameter in this
151: approach is the string duration or hadron formation time $\tau_F
152: \approx$ 0.7-0.8 fm/c which has been fitted to the proton rapidity
153: distribution in nucleus-nucleus collisions at SPS energies
154: \cite{Ehehalt} and kept fixed furtheron. For more details we refer
155: the reader to the review \cite{Cass99}.
156:
157: \section{Qualitative considerations}
158: The physical picture within this transport approach for $\bar{p}$ production in $p+A$
159: reactions is as follows: The impinging proton might create a
160: $N\bar{N}$ pair in a first collision at position $x_1$ (cf. Fig.
161: 1) and the prehadronic quark-antiquark configuration travels essentially in
162: forward direction by a time $\gamma \tau_F$ -- where $\gamma$
163: denotes the Lorentz dilatation factor -- until the hadronic
164: $\bar{p}$ emerges at position $x_2$. The hadronic state then
165: propagates further in the same direction and reacts with the
166: remaining nucleons elastically or inelastically. In the latter
167: phase the dominant channel will be annihilation with a cross
168: section
169: \begin{equation}
170: \label{appann} \sigma_{ann} (\sqrt{s}) = \frac{50 [mb]}{v_{rel}} ,
171: \end{equation}
172: where the relativistic relative velocity is given by
173: \cite{Byckling}
174: \be
175: \label{vrel} v_{rel}= \frac{\sqrt{(s-M_1^2-M_2^2)^2-4 M_1^2 M_2^2}
176: }{2 E_1 E_2}, \ee which is evaluated in the lab. frame. As shown
177: in Fig. 3 of Ref. \cite{Cass02} the expression (\ref{appann}) well
178: describes the experimental data \cite{LB,Caso} on $\bar{p}$
179: annihilation for relative momenta up to 2--3 GeV/c.
180:
181: In rapidity space the produced antibaryons will be localized
182: around midrapidity $y_m$; fast antiprotons hadronize later than
183: slow $\bar{p}$'s due to the larger $\gamma$ factor and in view of
184: (\ref{appann}) also experience a smaller annihilation cross
185: section. Thus antiprotons from first-chance collisions in heavy
186: nuclei should result in rapidity distributions that are highly
187: asymmetric with respect to midrapidity and a larger suppression
188: should be observed for $y \leq y_m$ than for $y \geq y_m$, if the
189: target is located at $y=$ 0. In fact, a simple look at the
190: experimental $\bar{p}$ rapidity distribution from Fig. 2 of Ref.
191: \cite{E910} does not support the first-collision picture.
192:
193: On the other hand, in Ref. \cite{sibirtsev} it was found that a
194: dominant fraction of antiprotons emerge from secondary
195: pion-nucleon reactions in $p+A$ reactions at lower energies. Such
196: secondary reaction channels might also be a reason for the
197: observations of Ref. \cite{E910} since the $\bar{p}$ production
198: cross section in $\pi N$ reactions close to threshold is large
199: compared to the production cross section in $pp$ collisions (cf.
200: Fig. 6 of Ref. \cite{sibirtsev}). The dymical effects of such
201: secondary production channels are easy to map out within the
202: string/hadron dynamical picture: In a first $pN$ collision a
203: 'meson' ($q \bar{q}$ pair) $M$ is produced at position $x_1$ which
204: hadronizes after time $\gamma_M \tau_F$ at position $x_2$. Then it
205: propagates on average for a distance $\lambda_M \sim (\sigma_{tot}
206: \rho_0)^{-1} \approx$ 2 fm (in the lab. frame of reference) before
207: reacting with another nucleon. In this reaction (at position
208: $x_3$) it may also produce a pre-$N\bar{N}$ pair which hadronizes
209: after time $\gamma \tau_F$ in position $x_4$. Then the antinucleon
210: propagates in the same direction and may be rescattered,
211: annihilated or emerge to free space. The antibaryons from
212: secondary -- or even ternary -- processes have a much shorter way
213: to escape the nucleus without being annihilated than those from
214: first-chance collisions. Furthermore, their initial rapidity
215: distribution will be shifted closer to target rapidity because the
216: primary mesons are produced symmetrically around $y_m$ and only
217: the energetic mesons will give a sizeable contribution to the
218: $\bar{p}$ production provided that they hadronize in the medium.
219:
220: As mentioned above we
221: here adopt the HSD transport approach that has e.g. been tested in
222: Ref. \cite{Geiss} for pion production and proton stopping in $p+A$
223: reactions at AGS energies using $\tau_F$ = 0.8 fm/c. Since the
224: description of the related data is very satisfactory (cf. Fig. 8
225: in Ref. \cite{Geiss}) we continue with aspects of meson formation
226: and secondary interactions, that are relevant for antiproton
227: production and propagation in $p+A$ reactions.
228:
229: In order to achieve a quantitative idea about the time scales for
230: meson production and propagation we show in Fig. 2 for $p+Au$ at
231: 12.3 GeV/c the time dependence of the 'formed' meson number (solid
232: line) in comparison to the number of string-like $q\bar{q}$
233: excitations (dashed line) that convert to mesons on a time scale
234: of $\tau_F$ in their individual rest frame. The reference frame
235: for the transport calculation is the nucleon-nucleon cms. (at
236: $y_{lab} \approx 1.63$) with a Lorentz $\gamma$-factor of $\approx
237: 2.67$ for the projectile proton and target nucleus, respectively,
238: such that the dimensions of the target in space - as seen by the
239: hadrons - are squeezed by the factor $\gamma$. The sharp increase
240: of the dashed line at t= 0 denotes the beginning of the $p+Au$
241: reaction with the excitation of strings that may lead to the
242: formation of $N\bar{N}$ pairs, too. The latter also appear as
243: hadronic states on a similar time scale as the mesons --
244: approximately 2 fm/c later -- and may be annihilated or
245: rescattered on the residual target nucleons. We recall that only
246: the formed hadronic states are allowed to interact with the
247: nucleons of the target again and to produce secondary mesons or
248: baryon-antibaryon pairs. Thus antiprotons or mesons, that move
249: fast with respect to the target at rest, may only form in the
250: vacuum and not interact in the nucleus again. In fact, this is
251: approximately the case for a $Be$-target at this energy, while the
252: dominant fraction of hadrons are formed inside the $Au$-nucleus
253: and reinteract again (see below). For completeness we note, that
254: the increase of the meson number for $t \geq 7$ fm/c is
255: essentially due to the decays of mesonic resonances ($\rho,
256: \omega, \phi, K^*$) that increase the net meson number.
257:
258: The distribution in the invariant collision energy $\sqrt{s}$ is
259: shown in Fig. 3 for $p+Au$ at 12.3 GeV/c for baryon-baryon ($BB$)
260: collisions (solid line) in comparison to the reactions of formed
261: mesons with nucleons ($mB$, dashed line). The high energy peak of
262: the $BB$-distribution (around $\sqrt{s} \approx$ 5 GeV) is due to
263: primary $pN$ collisions; it is smeared out substantially due to
264: Fermi motion. The low energy peak of the $BB$-distribution
265: reflects multiple scattering of baryons in the target that,
266: however, do not contribute to $p\bar{p}$ production due to the
267: threshold of $\sim$ 3.75 GeV (solid arrow). The $\sqrt{s}$
268: distribution for interactions of formed mesons with baryons
269: (dashed line) extends to about 4.5 GeV, which is well above the
270: $\bar{p}p$ production threshold of $\sim$ 2.8 GeV (dashed arrow).
271: The distribution in the collision number above threshold is
272: substantially larger for $BB$-reactions than for meson-nucleon
273: collisions, however, the distributions have to be 'folded' with
274: the respective $p\bar{p}$ production cross sections. We recall
275: that in $\pi N$ reactions close to threshold this cross section is
276: large compared to the production cross section in $pp$ collisions
277: (cf. Fig. 6 of Ref. \cite{sibirtsev}) such that the $mB$ channels
278: might well compete with the $BB$ channels.
279:
280: \section{Comparison to data}
281: It should be noted that for the present analysis the perturbative
282: production scheme of Ref. \cite{sibirtsev} has been employed due
283: to the low multiplicities for $\bar{p}$ production ($\sim 2\times
284: 10^{-4}$ for $p+Au$ at 12.3 GeV/c). All cross sections are the
285: same as in the latter work; the only modification introduced is a
286: new parametrisation of the individual rapidity $(y)$ and
287: transverse momentum $(p_T)$ dependence for antiprotons in the
288: elementary $pN$ and $\pi N$ production channels, since the
289: kinematical regime is substantially different from the latter
290: study and the final states can no longer be described accurately
291: by 4- or 3-body phase-space, respectively. To this aim high
292: statistics event generation has been performed within the LUND
293: string model \cite{LUND} -- as implemented in the HSD approach --
294: for $\bar{p}$ production and the resulting two-dimensional spectra
295: have been fitted by a Gaussian in rapidity and exponential in
296: $p_T^2(y)$. As demonstrated in Refs. \cite{Cass99,Geiss} the LUND
297: model works rather well for this purpose in comparison to the
298: available data \cite{Caso}, however, uncertainties in the order of
299: 50\% for the elementary cross sections cannot be ruled so far
300: since there are no data available for invariant energies close to
301: threshold.
302:
303:
304: With the input cross sections defined we can step on with a
305: quantification of the physics addressed above. In Fig. 4 we show
306: the $\bar{p}$ rapidity spectra for $p+Be$ at 12.3 GeV/c in
307: comparison to the experimental data from \cite{E910}. The dashed
308: line ($BB prim.$, upper part) gives the $\bar{p}$ spectrum from
309: $BB$ production channels prior to final state interactions (FSI).
310: The contribution from secondary $mB$ collisions is not visible on
311: a linear scale for the $Be$ target. When including $\bar{p}$
312: rescattering as well as annihilation the dash-dotted line ($BB
313: final$) is obtained for $BB$ production channels. It is clearly
314: seen that $\bar{p}$ annihilation is more pronounced for low
315: rapidities -- with the target at $y=0$ -- than for $y \geq y_m
316: \approx $ 1.63. Thus for $p+Be$ the $pN$ production channel
317: clearly dominates and the comparison with the experimental
318: rapidity distribution (lower part of Fig. 4) essentially tests the
319: adequacy of the elementary differential $\bar{p}$ production cross
320: section in $pN$ collisions which appears to be underestimated
321: slightly (by about 30\%) in the present approach using the input
322: from Ref. \cite{sibirtsev} and assuming that the data point for
323: $y$ = 1.1 is solid. One might rescale the elementary cross section
324: accordingly, however, the focus of our present work is not on
325: fitting data. On the other hand, antiprotons from a feeddown of
326: $\bar{\Lambda}$ and $\bar{\Sigma}^0$ might also be contained in
327: the data while they are excluded in the calculation\footnote{In
328: Ref. \cite{E910} such a feeddown contribution was estimated to be
329: less than 5\%.}. Thus, provided that the reactions are described
330: properly in the HSD transport approach, the cross sections for all
331: targets should be low by about 30\%, too, in case the $\bar{p}$
332: yield is dominated by the $BB$ channels (see below).
333:
334: The numerical results for $p+Cu$ and $p+Au$ at 12.3 GeV/c are
335: shown in Figs. 5 and 6 adopting the same assignment of the lines
336: as in Fig. 4. It is clearly seen that for the $Cu$-target the
337: contribution from $mB$ collisions -- as displayed by the short
338: dashed line ($mB prim.$) --
339: becomes visible and that the
340: annihilation of $\bar{p}$'s from the secondary interactions is
341: rather small as expected from the schematic Fig. 1. On the other hand, in case of the
342: $Au$-target the antiprotons from $NN$ channels are annihilated to
343: a large extent especially for $y \leq y_m$ and the surviving
344: $\bar{p}$'s in the experimental rapidity window $1.0 \leq y \leq
345: 2.0$ \cite{E910} practically stem from the secondary production channels.
346: Nevertheless, the experimental data are underestimated on average
347: again by about 30\% as in case of the $Be$-target which might be due to
348: improper elementary cross sections and/or still missing production
349: channels in the transport approach.
350:
351: The relative antiproton absorption according to Figs. 4--6
352: strongly depends on rapidity due to a larger formation time
353: $\tau_F$ and lower annihilation cross section with increasing
354: rapidity $y$. In case of $p+Be$ there is practically no $\bar{p}$
355: annihilation for $y \geq$ 2 since the fast antinucleons only form
356: in the vacuum. For the $p+Cu$ system this threshold is shifted to
357: $y \geq$ 2.6 while for the $p+Au$ system the annihilation becomes
358: negligible only for $y \geq$ 3. The sensitivity to the formation
359: time $\tau_F$ is demonstrated in the lower part of the Figs. 5 and
360: 6, where also the final antiproton rapidity spectra are displayed
361: for $\tau_F$ = 0.4 fm/c (dashed line) and 1.6 fm/c (dotted line),
362: respectively. In case of the light $Be$-target no sensitivity to
363: $\tau_F$ was found within the numerical statistics of the
364: transport calculations since there is practically no contribution
365: from the $mB$ channels. As can be extracted from Figs. 5 and 6 a
366: shorter formation time $\tau_F$ leads to an enhancement of the
367: secondary production channel by $mB$ collisions, whereas a larger
368: formation time ($ \sim$ 1.6 fm/c) essentially suppresses the
369: contribution from secondary meson induced reactions in line with
370: Fig. 1. In fact, the experimental spectra for $Cu$ and $Au$ appear
371: to be better described by $\tau_F$ = 0.4 fm/c for the elementary
372: cross sections employed.
373:
374: The average $\bar{p}$ multiplicity in the rapidity interval $1
375: \leq y \leq 2$ at 12.3 GeV/c is compared in Fig. 7 as a function
376: of target mass $A$ with the data from \cite{E910} for different
377: $\tau_F$. As mentioned before, for the $Be$-target the
378: calculations for $\tau_F$ = 0.4, 0.8 and 1.6 fm/c give
379: approximately the same result, which in comparison to the
380: experimental data is down by about 30\% just scratching the lower
381: level of the experimental error bars. For the $Cu$-target both
382: calculations for $\tau_F$ = 0.8 fm/c and $\tau_F$ = 1.6 fm/c fall
383: down too low. In case of the $Au$-target only the calculation for
384: $\tau_F$ = 1.6 fm/c is out of range in comparison to the data and
385: also incompatible with the shape of the $dN/dy$ spectra such that
386: a formation time in the order of 1.6 fm/c should be excluded.
387:
388:
389: We, furthermore, compare our calculations to the system $p+Au$ at
390: 17.5 GeV/c where the E910 Collaboration has taken data, too
391: \cite{E910}. In this case (Fig. 8) the most important production
392: channel is due to primary $pN$ inelastic collisions, however, the
393: surviving antiprotons dominantly appear above midrapidity $y_{m}
394: \approx$ 1.81 due to the strong absorption. Within the rapidity
395: window $1 \leq y \leq 2$ of the data the contribution from
396: secondary $mB$ channels is almost compatible (thin solid line, $mB
397: final$, compared to the dot-dashed line, $BB final$). The sum of
398: the contributions is reasonably well in line with the experimental
399: data from \cite{E910} (lower part) for $\tau_F$ =0.8 fm/c (solid
400: line). A slightly better description is achieved with $\tau_F$ =
401: 0.4 fm/c for $y \approx$ 1-1.5 in line with the data at 12.3
402: GeV/c, however, now the $\bar{p}$ rapidity distribution is
403: slightly overestimated for $y \approx$ 2. In view of the fact,
404: that the elementary antiproton production cross section is
405: underestimated by about 30\% in our calculations, this provides a
406: lower limit for the formation time $\tau_F$.
407:
408:
409: \section{Summary}
410: In this work we have analyzed antiproton production in $p+A$
411: reactions at AGS energies within the HSD transport approach to
412: examine the apparent low $\bar{p}$ annihilation seen
413: experimentally \cite{E910,Gonin}. Whereas the rather high
414: antibaryon yield in nucleus-nucleus collisions at AGS and SPS
415: energies can be attributed to multi-meson fusion channels
416: employing detailed balance \cite{Rapp,Carsten,Cass02} the
417: experimental data in proton-nucleus collisions at AGS energies
418: appear to be compatible with primary proton-nucleon and secondary
419: meson-baryon production channels as also found in Ref.
420: \cite{sibirtsev} for lower energies.
421:
422: Detailed calculations employing different hadronic formation times
423: rule out long formation times of the order of 1.6 fm/c (in the
424: hadron rest frame) since such times strongly suppress the meson
425: reinteraction rate. The comparison with the data from the E910
426: Collaboration instead favors formation times of 0.4-0.8 fm/c when
427: adopting the free antibaryon annihilation cross section. The
428: latter cross section might be somewhat reduced in the nuclear
429: medium, but it is not likely to be down by factors $\sim$ 5 as
430: quoted in the analysis of Ref. \cite{E910}. We have pointed out,
431: furthermore, that especially the high momentum/rapidity part of
432: the $\bar{p}$ spectrum, which dominantly arises from primary $pN$
433: collisions, shows a sensitivity to the $\bar{p}$ formation time
434: since 'fast' antiprotons may only form in free space and no longer
435: get annihilated in the medium. Unfortunately, this rapidity regime
436: is out of the E910 acceptance such that further experimental
437: studies will be necessary to provide a final answer to the issue
438: of antiproton formation times.
439:
440:
441:
442: \vspace{0.5cm} The authors like to acknowledge valuable discussions with C. Greiner.
443:
444: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
445: \bibitem{chamberlain} O. Chamberlain et al., Nuovo Cimento { 3} (1956) 447.
446: \bibitem{elioff} T. Elioff et al., Phys. Rev. { 128} (1962) 869.
447: \bibitem{dorfan} D. Dorfan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. { 14} (1965) 995.
448: \bibitem{JINR} A. A. Baldin et al., JETP Lett. { 47} (1988) 137.
449: \bibitem{BEVALAC1} J. B. Carroll et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. { 62} (1989) 1829.
450: \bibitem{BEVALAC2} A. Shor, V. Perez-Mendez, K. Ganezer,
451: Phys. Rev. Lett. { 63} (1989) 2192.
452: \bibitem{Cass92} W. Cassing, A. Lang, S. Teis, K. Weber,
453: Nucl. Phys. { A 545} (1992) 123c.
454: \bibitem{Faess1} S. W. Huang, G. Q. Li, T. Maruyama, A. Faessler,
455: Nucl. Phys. { A 547} (1992) 653.
456: \bibitem{Danielewicz90} P. Danielewicz, Phys. Rev. { C 42} (1990)
457: 1564.
458: \bibitem{Weise} E. Hernandez, E. Oset, W. Weise,
459: Z. Phys. A 351 (1995) 99.
460: \bibitem{Schaffner91} J. Schaffner et al.,
461: Z. Phys. { A 341} (1991) 47.
462: \bibitem{Koch} V. Koch, G. E. Brown, C. M. Ko, Phys. Lett. B 265 (1991) 29.
463: \bibitem{Teis94} S. Teis, W. Cassing, T. Maruyama, U. Mosel,
464: Phys. Rev. C 50 (1994) 388.
465: \bibitem{Ko93} G. Q. Li, C. M. Ko, X. S. Fang, Y. M. Zheng,
466: Phys. Rev. C 49 (1994) 1139.
467: \bibitem{RQMD} C. Spieles, A. Jahns, H. Sorge, H. St\"ocker,
468: W. Greiner, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 27 (1993) 2547.
469: \bibitem{sibirtsev} A. Sibirtsev, W. Cassing, G. I. Lykasov,
470: M. V. Rzjanin, Nucl. Phys. A 632 (1998) 131.
471: \bibitem{Cass99} W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya,
472: Phys. Rep. 308 (1999) 65.
473: \bibitem{Ko96} C. M. Ko, G. Q. Li, J. Phys. G 22 (1996) 1673.
474: \bibitem{ko1} C. M. Ko, X. Ge, Phys. Lett. { B 205} (1988) 195.
475: \bibitem{Dover} C. B. Dover, T. Gutsche, M. Maruyama, A. Faessler,
476: Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 29 (1992) 87.
477: \bibitem{AGSall} L. Ahle et al., Nucl. Phys. A 610 (1996) 139c.
478: \bibitem{E877} J. Barrette et al., Phys. Lett. B 485 (2000) 319.
479: \bibitem{AGSnew} B. B. Back et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 242301.
480: \bibitem{E864n} T. A. Armstrong et al., Phys. Rev. C 59 (1999)
481: 2699.
482: \bibitem{E910} I. Chemakin et al., Phys. Rev. C 64 (2001) 064908.
483: \bibitem{NA49} G. I. Veres and the NA49 Collaboration,
484: Nucl. Phys. A 661 (1999) 383c.
485: \bibitem{Na49b} J. B\"achler et al., Nucl. Phys. A 661 (1999) 45c.
486: \bibitem{NAxx} F. Antinori et al., Nucl. Phys. A 661 (1999) 130c;
487: R. Caliandro et al., J. Phys. G 25 (1999) 171;
488: F. Antinori et al., Nucl. Phys. A 681 (2001) 165c.
489: \bibitem{Andersen} E. Andersen et al., Phys. Lett. B 449 (1999)
490: 401.
491: \bibitem{AGS1} A. Jahns, H. St\"ocker, W. Greiner, H. Sorge,
492: Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 (1992) 2895.
493: \bibitem{AGS2} S. H. Kahana, Y. Pang, T. Schlagel, C. B. Dover,
494: Phys. Rev. C 47 (1993) 1356.
495: \bibitem{Kahana} Y. Pang, D. E. Kahana, S. H. Kahana, H. Crawford,
496: Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 3418.
497: \bibitem{Bleicher} M. Bleicher et al., Phys. Lett. B 485 (2000) 133.
498: \bibitem{Sorge} H. Sorge, Z. Phys. C 67 (1995) 479;
499: Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995) 3291.
500: \bibitem{Werner} K. Werner, J. Aichelin, Phys. Lett. B 308 (1993) 372.
501: \bibitem{Carlos} M. A. Braun, C. Pajares, Nucl. Phys. B 390 (1993) 542;
502: N. Armesto, M. A. Braun, E. G. Ferreiro, C. Pajares,
503: Phys. Lett. B 344 (1995) 301; M. A. Braun, C. Pajares, J. Ranft,
504: Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. A 14 (1999) 2689.
505: \bibitem{Carlos2} N. S. Amelin, N. Armesto, C. Pajares, D. Sousa,
506: Eur. Phys. J. C22 (2001) 149.
507: \bibitem{Rafelski} P. Koch, B. M\"uller, J. Rafelski,
508: Phys. Rep. 142 (1986) 167.
509: \bibitem{BM} P. Braun-Munzinger, I. Heppe, J. Stachel,
510: Phys. Lett. B 465 (1999) 15.
511: \bibitem{becca} F. Becattini et al., Phys. Rev. C64 (2001) 024901.
512: \bibitem{Red01} K. Redlich, Nucl. Phys. A 698 (2002) 94c.
513: \bibitem{Redlich2} S. Hamieh, K. Redlich, A. Pounsi,
514: Phys. Lett. B 486 (2000) 61.
515: \bibitem{Rapp} R. Rapp, E. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 2980.
516: \bibitem{Carsten} C. Greiner, S. Leupold, J. Phys. G27 (2001) L95.
517: \bibitem{Cass02} W. Cassing, Nucl. Phys. A 700 (2002) 618.
518: \bibitem{Gonin} M. Gonin, O. Hansen, Eur. Phys. J. A7 (2000) 293.
519: %
520: \bibitem{Ehehalt} W. Ehehalt, W. Cassing, Nucl. Phys. A 602 (1996) 449.
521: \bibitem{Byckling} A. Lang, H. Babovsky, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, H.-G. Reusch, K. Weber, J. Comp. Phys. 106 (1993) 391.
522: \bibitem{LB} H. Schopper (Editor), Landolt-B\"ornstein, New
523: Series, Vol. I/12, Springer-Verlag, 1988.
524: \bibitem{Caso} C. Caso et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 3 (1998) 1.
525: \bibitem{Geiss} J. Geiss, W. Cassing, C. Greiner,
526: Nucl. Phys. A 644 (1998) 107.
527: \bibitem{LUND}
528: B. Anderson, G. Gustafson, Hong Pi, Z. Phys. C 57 (1993) 485.
529: \end{thebibliography}
530: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
531:
532: \newpage
533: \begin{figure}[h]
534: \centerline{\psfig{file=Fig1pbar.eps,height=7cm}}
535: \caption{Illustration of primary $p\bar{p}$ production (in $x_1$),
536: formation (in $x_2$) and propagation in the nucleus (upper part).
537: The lower part shows the primary production of a pre-meson
538: ($q\bar{q}$ pair) in $x_1$, its formation to a hadron in $x_2$,
539: the propagation of the hadron in the nucleus and rescattering with
540: another nucleon in $x_3$. In the secondary interaction also a
541: pre-$p\bar{p}$ can be created which hadronizes in $x_4$ and
542: further propagates in the nucleus or in the vacuum (see text).}
543: \label{bild1}
544: \end{figure}
545: %
546: \begin{figure}[h]
547: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig2pbar.eps,height=10cm}}
548: \caption{Time evolution of the string-like $q\bar{q}$ excitations (dashed line) and the
549: formed meson number in $p+Au$ reactions at 12.3 GeV/c within the HSD approach
550: employing the 'default' formation time $\tau_F$ = 0.8 fm/c.
551: The time is given in the $NN$ center-of-mass system.
552: }
553: \label{bild2}
554: \end{figure}
555: %
556: \begin{figure}[h]
557: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig3pbar.eps,height=12cm}}
558: \caption{The differential number of baryon-baryon collisions (solid line) and meson-baryon
559: collisions (dashed line) in $p+Au$ reactions at 12.3 GeV/c within the HSD approach
560: employing the 'default' formation time $\tau_F$ = 0.8 fm/c.
561: The solid arrow denotes the threshold for $p\bar{p}$ production in $BB$ collisions
562: and the dashed arrow the threshold for $mB$ collisions, respectively.}
563: \label{bild3}
564: \end{figure}
565: %
566: \begin{figure}[h]
567: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig4pbar.eps,height=12cm}} \caption{Upper
568: part: Antiproton rapidity distribution in $p+Be$ reactions at 12.3
569: GeV/c within the HSD approach (dashed line, $BB prim$) without any
570: final state interactions. The influence of rescattering and
571: $\bar{p}$ annihilation is demonstrated in comparison to the
572: dash-dotted line ($BB final$), which shows the final antiproton
573: rapidity distribution. Note that there is no longer $\bar{p}$
574: annihilation for $y\geq$ 2 for the formation time $\tau_F$ = 0.8
575: fm/c adopted in the calculations. The contribution from $mB$
576: channels to antiproton production in this system is not visible on
577: a linear scale. Lower part: Comparison of the calculated $\bar{p}$
578: rapidity distribution (for $\tau_F$ = 0.8 fm/c) with the
579: experimental data from Ref. \cite{E910}. Within the statistics
580: achieved in the transport calculations there is no change in the
581: $\bar{p}$ rapidity distribution when changing $\tau_F$ in the
582: interval $[0.4,1.6]$ fm/c.} \label{bild4}
583: \end{figure}
584: %
585: \begin{figure}[h]
586: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig5pbar.eps,height=14cm}}
587: \caption{Upper part: Antiproton rapidity distribution in $p+Cu$ reactions at 12.3 GeV/c within the HSD
588: approach for baryon-baryon production channels (dashed line, $BB prim$) without any final
589: state interactions. The influence of rescattering and
590: $\bar{p}$ annihilation is demonstrated in comparison to the dash-dotted line ($BB final$), which
591: shows the final antiproton rapidity distribution from $BB$ channels for a formation time $\tau_F$ = 0.8 fm/c.
592: The short dashed line displays the contribution from secondary meson-baryon ($mB$) reactions without FSI while
593: the thin solid line corresponds to the final $\bar{p}$ rapidity distribution from $mB$ reactions
594: including rescattering
595: and annihilation.
596: Lower part: Comparison of the calculated final $\bar{p}$ rapidity distribution from $BB$ and $mB$ collisions
597: (solid line for $\tau_F$ = 0.8 fm/c)
598: with the experimental data from Ref. \cite{E910}. The dashed and dotted lines demonstrate the results for
599: $\tau_F$ = 0.4 fm/c and 1.6 fm/c, respectively.}
600: \label{bild5}
601: \end{figure}
602: %
603: \begin{figure}[h]
604: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig6pbar.eps,height=14cm}}
605: \caption{Upper part: Antiproton rapidity distribution in $p+Au$ reactions at 12.3 GeV/c within the HSD
606: approach for baryon-baryon production channels (dashed line, $BB prim$) without any final
607: state interactions. The influence of rescattering and
608: $\bar{p}$ annihilation is demonstrated in comparison to the dash-dotted line ($BB final$), which
609: shows the final antiproton rapidity distribution from $BB$ channels for a formation time $\tau_F$ = 0.8 fm/c.
610: The short dashed line displays the contribution from secondary meson-baryon ($mB$) reactions without FSI while
611: the thin solid line corresponds to the final $\bar{p}$ rapidity distribution from $mB$ reactions
612: including rescattering
613: and annihilation.
614: Lower part: Comparison of the calculated final $\bar{p}$ rapidity distribution from $BB$ and $mB$ collisions
615: (solid line for $\tau_F$ = 0.8 fm/c)
616: with the experimental data from Ref. \cite{E910}. The dashed and dotted lines demonstrate the results for
617: $\tau_F$ = 0.4 fm/c and 1.6 fm/c, respectively.}
618: \label{bild6}
619: \end{figure}
620: %
621: %
622: \begin{figure}[h]
623: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig7pbar.eps,height=8cm}} \caption{
624: Antiproton rapidity distribution in $p+A$ reactions at 12.3 GeV/c
625: within the HSD approach for different formation times $\tau_F$ =
626: 0.4, 0.8 and 1.6 fm/c for $Be$, $Cu$ and $Au$ targets. The
627: experimental data (full triangles) have been adopted from Ref.
628: \cite{E910}.}
629: \label{bild7}
630: \end{figure}
631: %
632:
633:
634:
635:
636: \begin{figure}[h]
637: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig8pbar.eps,height=14cm}} \caption{Upper
638: part: Antiproton rapidity distribution in $p+Au$ reactions at 17.5
639: GeV/c within the HSD approach for baryon-baryon production
640: channels (dashed line, $BB prim$) without any final state
641: interactions. The influence of rescattering and $\bar{p}$
642: annihilation is demonstrated in comparison to the dash-dotted line
643: ($BB final$), which shows the final antiproton rapidity
644: distribution from $BB$ channels for a formation time $\tau_F$ =
645: 0.8 fm/c. The short dashed line displays the contribution from
646: secondary meson-baryon ($mB$) reactions without FSI while the
647: thin solid line corresponds to the final $\bar{p}$ rapidity
648: distribution from $mB$ reactions including rescattering and
649: annihilation. Lower part: Comparison of the calculated final
650: $\bar{p}$ rapidity distribution from $BB$ and $mB$ collisions
651: (solid line: $\tau_F$ = 0.8 fm/c; dashed line: $\tau_F$ = 0.4
652: fm/c) with the experimental data from Ref. \cite{E910}.}
653: \label{bild8}
654: \end{figure}
655: %
656: %
657: \end{document}
658:
659: #!/bin/csh -f
660: # Uuencoded gz-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
661: # For more info (11/95), see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
662: # If you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself: strip
663: # any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., figures.uu
664: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
665: # Then say csh figures.uu
666: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
667: # uudecode figures.uu ; gunzip figures.tar.gz ;
668: # tar -xvf figures.tar
669: # On some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use editor to change filename
670: # in "begin" line below to figures.tar-gz , then execute
671: # uudecode figures.uu
672: # gzip -d figures.tar-gz
673: # tar -xvf figures.tar
674: #
675: uudecode $0
676: chmod 644 figures.tar.gz
677: gunzip -c figures.tar.gz | tar -xvf -
678: rm $0 figures.tar.gz
679: exit
680:
681: