1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{psfig}

3: \topmargin -48pt

4: \textwidth  160mm   \oddsidemargin  2mm

5: \textheight 240mm   \evensidemargin 2mm

6: 

7: \begin{document}

8: \title{Near-threshold production of $a_0(980)$-mesons in $\pi N$ and

9: $NN$ collisions and $a_0/f_0$-mixing}

10: \author{

11: L.A. Kondratyuk,

12: E.L. Bratkovskaya\footnote{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik,

13:         Universit\"at Frankfurt, D-60054 Frankfurt, Germany},

14: V. Yu. Grishina\footnote{Institute for Nuclear Research,

15:         60th October Anniversary Prospect 7A, 117312 Moscow, Russia},\\

16: M. B\"uscher\footnote{Institut f\"ur Kernphysik,

17:         Forschungszentrum J\"ulich, D-52425 J\"ulich, Germany},

18: W.~Cassing\footnote{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik,

19:         Universit\"at Giessen, D-35392 Giessen, Germany},

20:  \ and H.~Str\"oher$^\ddag$ \\[5mm]

21:  Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, \\

22:  B. Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117259 Moscow, Russia  }

23: \date{  }

24: \maketitle

25: 

26: \begin{abstract}

27: We consider near-threshold $a_0(980)$-meson production in $\pi N$ and

28: $NN$ collisions. An effective Lagrangian approach with one-pion

29: exchange is applied to analyze different contributions to the cross

30: section for different isospin channels. The Reggeon exchange mechanism

31: is also evaluated for comparison.  The results from $\pi N$ reactions

32: are used to calculate the contribution of the $a_0$ meson to the cross

33: sections and invariant $K \bar K$ mass distributions of the reactions

34: $pp\to pn K^+\bar K^0$ and $pp\to pp K^+K^-$. It is found that the

35: experimental observation of $a_0^+$ mesons in the reaction $pp\to pn

36: K^+\bar K^0$ is much more promising than the observation of $a_0^0$

37: mesons in the reaction $pp\to pp K^+K^-$.  Effects of isospin violation

38: in the reactions $pN \rightarrow d a_0$, $pd \rightarrow

39: \mathrm{^3He/^3H}\, a_0$, and $ dd \rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, a_0$,

40: which are induced by $a_0(980)$--$f_0(980)$ mixing, are also analyzed.

41: \end{abstract}

42: 

43: %\vspace{0.5cm}\noindent

44: %PACS{ {25.10.+s} {Meson production} \and

45: %{13.75.-n} {Proton induced reactions} }

46: 

47: 

48: 

49: 

50: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

51: \newpage

52: \section{Introduction}

53: 

54: 

55: The structure of the lightest scalar mesons $a_0(980)$ and $f_0(980)$

56: is still under discussion (see, e.g.,

57: \cite{Clo}--\cite{Hadron99b} and references

58: therein). Different authors interpreted them as unitarized $q\bar{q}$

59: states,  as four-quark cryptoexotic states,  as $K\bar{K}$ molecules

60: or even as vacuum scalars (Gribov's minions).  Although it has been

61: possible to describe them as ordinary $q\bar{q}$ states (see

62: \cite{Montanet}--\cite{Narison}), other options cannot be ruled out

63: up to now.  Another problem is the possible strong mixing between the

64: uncharged $a_0(980)$ and the $f_0(980)$ due to a common coupling to

65: $K\bar K$ intermediate states

66: \cite{Achasov}--\cite{Grishina2001}.

67: This effect can influence the structure of the uncharged component of

68: the $a_0(980)$ and implies that it is important to perform a

69: comparative study of $a_0^0$ and $a_0^+$ (or $a_0^-$).  There is no

70: doubt that new data on $a_0^0$ and $a_0^+/a_0^-$ production in $\pi N$

71: and $NN$ reactions are quite important to shed new light on the $a_0$

72: structure and the dynamics of its production.

73: 

74: In our recent paper \cite{Grishina3} we have considered $a_0$ production

75: in the reaction $\pi N \to a_0N$ near the threshold and at GeV

76: energies. An effective Lagrangian approach as well as the Regge pole

77: model were applied to investigate different contributions to the

78: cross section of the reaction  $\pi N \to a_0N$.  In \cite{Brat01}

79: we have employed the latter results for an analysis of $a_0$ production

80: in $NN$ collisions. Furthermore, in \cite{Grishina2001} we have

81: considered the $a_0$--$f_0$ mixing in reactions involving the lightest

82: nuclei $d,{}^3$H, ${}^3$He, and ${}^4$He. Here we give an overview of

83: those results and present a comparative analysis of $a_0(980)$

84: resonance production and nonresonant background channels in the

85: reactions $\pi N \to a_0 N \to K \bar{K} N$ and $N N \to a_0NN \to K

86: \bar K NN$. Our study is particularly relevant to the current

87: experimental program at COSY (J\"ulich) \cite{COSY1}--\cite{COSY3}.

88: 

89: Our paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we discuss the $K\bar K$

90: and $\pi \eta$ decay channels of the $a_0(980)$. An analysis of

91: $a_0(980)$ resonance production and nonresonant background in the

92: reactions $\pi N \to K \bar{K} N$ and $N N \to a_0NN \to K \bar K NN$

93: is presented in Section 3.  Section 4 is devoted to the calculation of the

94: cross sections for the reactions $NN \to NN a_0$ and $N N \to a_0NN \to

95: K \bar K NN$ in comparison to nonresonant $K \bar K$ production.  In

96: Section 5 we consider $a_0(980)$--$f_0(980)$ mixing and isospin violation

97: in the reactions $pN \rightarrow d a_0$, $pd \rightarrow

98: \mathrm{^3He/^3H}\, a_0$ and $ dd \rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, a_0$.

99: 

100: \section{The $K\bar K$ and $\pi \eta$ Decay Channels

101: of the $a_0(980)$}

102: 

103:    The $a_0(980)$ invariant mass distribution in $K\bar K$ and $\pi\eta$

104: modes can be parametrized by the well-known Flatt\'e formula

105: \cite{Flatte} which follows from analyticity and unitarity for the

106: two-channel $T$-matrix.

107: 

108: For example, in the case of the reaction $N N \to a_0NN \to K \bar K

109: NN$ the mass distribution of the final $K\bar K$ system can be written

110: as a product of the total cross section for $a_0$ production (with the

111: ``running'' mass $M$) in the $NN\to NN a_0$ reaction and

112: the Flatt\'e mass distribution function

113: \begin{eqnarray}

114: \frac{d\sigma _{K\bar K}}{d M^2} (s,M) = \sigma_{a_0}(s,M)

115: \ C_F \frac{M_R \Gamma_{a_0 K\bar K}(M)}

116: {(M^2-M_R^2)^2

117: + M_R^2 \Gamma_{\rm tot}^2(M)} \label{dsdmKK}

118: \end{eqnarray}

119: with the total width $\Gamma_{\rm tot}(M)=\Gamma_{a_0 K\bar K}(M)+

120: \Gamma_{a_0 \pi\eta}(M)$.

121: The partial widths

122: \begin{eqnarray}

123: &&\Gamma_{a_0 K\bar K}(M) = g_{a_0 K\bar K}^2 {q_{K\bar K}\over 8\pi M^2},

124: \nonumber\\

125: &&\Gamma_{a_0 \pi\eta}(M) = g_{a_0 \pi\eta}^2 {q_{\pi\eta}\over 8\pi M^2}

126: \label{width}\end{eqnarray}

127: are proportional to the decay momenta in the c.m. system

128: (in case of scalar mesons),

129: \begin{eqnarray}

130: && q_{K\bar K} = {\left[(M^2-(m_{K}+m_{\bar K})^2)

131: (M^2-(m_{K}-m_{\bar K})^2)\right]^{1/2} \over 2M}, \nonumber\\

132: && q_{\pi\eta}={\left[(M^2-(m_{\pi}+m_{\eta})^2)

133: (M^2-(m_{\pi}-m_{\eta})^2)\right]^{1/2} \over 2M}

134: \nonumber\end{eqnarray}

135: for a meson of mass $M$ decaying to  $K\bar K$ and $\pi\eta$,

136: correspondingly.  The branching ratios ${\rm Br}(a_0\to K\bar K)$ and

137: ${\rm Br}(a_0\to \pi\eta)$ are given by the integrals of the Flatt\'e

138: distibution over the invariant mass squared $dM^2 = 2 M dM$:

139: \begin{eqnarray}

140: \phantom{a}\hspace*{-3mm}

141: &&{\rm Br}(a_0\!\to\! K\bar K)=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\int\limits_{m_K

142: +m_{\bar K}}^{\infty}

143: \!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{dM \ 2\ M\ C_F \ M_R\ \Gamma_{a_0 K\bar K}(M)}

144: {(M^2-M_R^2)^2+M_R^2 \Gamma_{\rm tot}^2(M)},

145: \label{BrKK}  \\

146: \phantom{a}\hspace*{-3mm}

147: &&{\rm Br}(a_0\!\to\! \pi\eta)=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\int\limits_{m_K

148: +m_{\bar K}}^{\infty}

149: \!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{dM \ 2 \ M \ C_F \ M_R \ \Gamma_{a_0 \pi\eta}(M)}

150: {(M^2-M_R^2)^2+M_R^2 \Gamma_{\rm tot}^2(M)} + \label{Brpieta}\\

151: \phantom{a}\hspace*{-3mm}

152: &&\!\!+\int\limits_{m_{\pi}+m_{\eta}}^{m_K+m_{\bar K}}

153: \!\!\frac{dM \ 2 \ M \ C_F \ M_R \  \Gamma_{a_0 \pi\eta}(M)}

154: {(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)}.

155: \nonumber

156: \end{eqnarray}

157: The parameters $C_F, g_{K\bar K}, g_{\pi\eta}$ have to be fixed under the

158: constraint of the unitarity condition

159: \begin{eqnarray}

160: {\rm Br}(a_0 \to K\bar K) + {\rm Br}(a_0 \to \pi \eta)=1 \ .

161: \label{unitar}

162: \end{eqnarray}

163: Choosing the parameter $\Gamma_0=\Gamma_{a_0 \pi \eta}(M_R)$ in the

164: interval $50 - 100$ MeV (as given by the PDG \cite{PDG}),

165: one can fix the coupling $g_{\pi\eta}$ according to (\ref{width}).

166: In \cite{CrysBar98} a ratio of branching ratios has been reported,

167: \begin{eqnarray}

168: r(a_0(980))=\frac{{\rm Br}(a_0\to K\bar K)}{{\rm Br}(a_0\to

169: \pi\eta)}=0.23\pm 0.05,

170: \label{ratBr}

171: \end{eqnarray}

172: for $m_{a_0}=0.999$~GeV, which gives ${\rm Br}(a_0\to K\bar K)=0.187$.

173: In another recent study \cite{WA102} the WA102 collaboration

174: reported the branching ratio

175: \begin{equation}

176: \Gamma(a_0\to K\bar K) / \Gamma(a_0\to \pi \eta) = 0.166\pm

177: 0.01\pm 0.02 , \label{eq02}

178: \end{equation}

179: which was determined from the measured branching ratio for the

180: $f_1(1285)$-meson.

181: In our present analysis we use the results from \cite{CrysBar98},

182: however, keeping in mind that this branching ratio ${\rm Br}(a_0\to K\bar K)$

183: more likely gives an ``upper limit'' for the $a_0\to K \bar K$ decay.

184: 

185: Thus, the two other parameters in the Flatt\'e distribution $C_F$ and

186: $g_{a_0 K\bar K}$ can be found by solving the system of integral

187: equations, for example, Eq. (\ref{BrKK}) for ${\rm Br}(a_0 \to K \bar K)

188: =0.187$ and the unitarity condition (\ref{unitar}).

189: For our calculations we choose either $\Gamma_{a_0 \pi \eta}(M_R)=70$~MeV

190: or 50 MeV, which gives two sets of independent parameters

191: $C_F, g_{a_0 K \bar K}, g_{a_0 \pi \eta}$ for a fixed branching

192: ratio ${\rm Br}(a_0 \to K \bar K)=0.187$:

193: \begin{eqnarray}

194: &&\hspace*{-8mm}

195: {\rm set} \ 1 \ \ (\Gamma_{a_0\pi\eta}=70~{\rm MeV}): \label{set1}\\

196: &&\phantom{a}\hfill  g_{a_0 K \bar K}=2.3 ~{\rm GeV}, \ g_{a_0 \pi \eta}=2.2~ {\rm GeV},

197: \ C_F=0.365 \nonumber\\

198: &&\hspace*{-8mm}

199: {\rm set} \ 2 \ \ (\Gamma_{a_0\pi\eta}=50~{\rm MeV}): \label{set2}\\

200: &&\phantom{a}\hfill  g_{a_0 K \bar K}=1.9~{\rm GeV}, \ g_{a_0 \pi \eta}=1.9~ {\rm GeV},

201: \ C_F=0.354.\nonumber

202: \end{eqnarray}

203: Note, that for the $K^+K^-$ or $K^0 \bar K^0$  final state one has

204: to take into account an isospin factor for the coupling constant, i.e.,

205: $g_{a_0 K^+K^-}=g_{a_0 K^0 \bar K^0} = g_{a_0 K\bar K}/\sqrt{2}$,

206: whereas $g_{a_0 K^+\bar K^0}=g_{a_0 K^- \bar K^0} = g_{a_0 K\bar K}$.

207: 

208: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

209: \section{The Reactions $\pi N\to a_0N$ and $\pi N\to K \bar K N$ }

210: \label{sec:pi-N}

211: 

212: \subsection{An effective Lagrangian Approach}

213: 

214:    The most simple mechanisms for $a_0$ production in the reaction $\pi

215: N\rightarrow a_0 N$ near threshold  are described by the pole diagrams

216: shown in Fig. \ref{Fig1} {\it a} -- \ref{Fig1} {\it d}.  It is known

217: experimentally that the $a_0$ couples strongly to the channels

218: $\pi\eta$ and $\pi f_1(1285)$ because $\pi\eta$ is the dominant decay

219: channel of the $a_0$ while $\pi a_0$ is one of the most important decay

220: channels of the $f_1(1285)$ (\cite{PDG}). The amplitudes, which

221: correspond to the $t$-channel exchange of $\eta(550)$- and

222: $f_1(1285)$-mesons (see Fig. \ref{Fig1} {\it a} and Fig. \ref{Fig1} {\it b}), can be written as

223: \begin{eqnarray}

224: &&\hspace*{-4mm}M_\eta^t(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^- p) = g_{\eta\pi a_0}

225: g_{\eta NN}\ \bar u(p_2^\prime) \gamma_5 u(p_2) \times \nonumber\\

226: &\times& {1\over t-m_\eta ^2} \ F_{\eta\pi a_0}(t) F_{\eta NN}(t),

227: \label{eq2}\end{eqnarray}

228: \begin{eqnarray}

229: &&\hspace*{-4mm}M_{f_1}^t(\pi^- p\rightarrow a_0^- p) = g_{f_1\pi a_0}

230: g_{f_1NN}  \times \nonumber\\

231: &\times& (p_1+p_1^\prime)_\mu \ \left(g_{\mu\nu}-{q_\mu q_\nu\over

232: m_{f_1}^2}\right) \ \bar u(p_2^\prime) \gamma_\nu \gamma_5 u(p_2) \times

233:         \nonumber\\

234: &\times& {1\over t-m_{f_1}^2}\ F_{f_1\pi a_0}(t) F_{f_1NN}(t).

235: \label{eq3}

236: \end{eqnarray}

237: Here $p_1$ and $p_1^\prime$ are the four momenta of $\pi^-, a_0^-$,

238: whereas $p_2$ and $p_2^\prime$ are the four momenta of the initial and

239: final protons, respectively; furthermore, $q=p_2^\prime-p_2$,

240: $t=(p_2^\prime-p_2)^2$. The functions $F_j$ present form factors at the

241: different vertices $j$ ($j=f_1NN,\eta NN$), which are taken of the

242: monopole form

243: \begin{eqnarray}

244: F_j(t)=\frac{\Lambda_j^2-m_j^2}{\Lambda _j^2-t},

245: \label{form}

246: \end{eqnarray}

247: where $\Lambda_j$ is a cut-off parameter. In the case of $\eta$

248: exchange we use $g_{\eta NN}=6.1$, $\Lambda_{\eta NN}$=1.5 GeV from

249: \cite{Holinde} and $g_{\eta\pi a_0}$

250: is defined by (8). The contribution of

251: the $f_1$ exchange is calculated for two parameter sets; set $A$:

252: $g_{f_1 NN}=11.2$, $\Lambda_{f_1 NN}=1.5$~GeV from

253: \cite{Bonnf1}, set $B$: $g_{f_1 NN}=14.6$, $\Lambda_{f_1

254: NN}=2.0$~GeV from \cite{Kirchbach} and $g_{f_1a_0\pi}$=2.5

255: for both cases. The latter value for $g_{f_1 a_0 \pi}$ corresponds

256: to $\Gamma(f_1\to a_0\pi)=24$~MeV and ${\rm Br}(f_1\to a_0\pi)=34\%$.

257: 

258: In Fig. \ref{dsdt_pip} (upper part) we show the differential cross

259: sections $d\sigma/dt$ for the reaction $\pi^-p\to a_0^- p$ at 2.4

260: GeV$/c$ corresponding to $\eta$ (long-dash-dotted) and $f_1$ exchanges

261: with set $A$ (solid line) and set $B$ (long-dashed line). A soft

262: cut-off parameter (set $A$) close to the mass of the $f_1$ implies

263: that all the contributions related to $f_1$ exchange become

264: negligibly small. On the other hand, for the parameter values

265: given by set $B$, the $f_1$ exchange contribution is much larger

266: than that from $\eta$ exchange. Note, that this large uncertainty

267: in the cut-off presently cannot be controlled by data and we will

268: discuss the relevance of the $f_1$ exchange contribution for all

269: reactions separately throughout this study. For set $B$ the total

270: cross section for the reaction $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^-p$ is

271: about 0.5 mb at 2.4 GeV$/c$ (cf. Fig.~\ref{stot_pip} (upper part))

272: while the forward differential cross section is about 1

273: mb/GeV$^2$.

274: 

275: The $\eta$ and $f_1$ exchanges, however, do not contribute to the

276: amplitude of the charge exchange reaction $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$.

277: In this case we have to consider the contributions of the $s$- and

278: $u$-channel diagrams (Fig. \ref{Fig1} {\it c} and  \ref{Fig1} {\it d}):

279: \begin{eqnarray}

280: &&\hspace*{-4mm}M_N^s(\pi^-p\to a_0^0n) = g_{a_0NN} {f_{\pi NN}\over m_\pi}

281: \ {1\over s-m_N^2} F_N(s) \times

282: \nonumber \\

283: &\times&p_{1\mu}\ \bar u(p_2^\prime)  \left[(p_1+p_2)_\alpha \gamma_\alpha

284: +m_N\right] \gamma_\mu \ \gamma_5 u(p_2);

285: \label{eqpip1}

286: \end{eqnarray}

287: \begin{eqnarray}

288: &&\hspace*{-4mm}M_N^u(\pi^-p\to a_0^0n) = g_{a_0NN} {f_{\pi NN}\over m_\pi} \

289: {1\over u-m_N^2} F_N(u)  \times \nonumber\\

290: &\times&p_{1\mu} \ \bar u(p_2^\prime) \gamma_\mu \gamma_5

291: \left[(p_2-p_1^\prime)_\alpha \gamma_\alpha + m_N\right] u(p_2),

292: \label{eqpip2}

293: \end{eqnarray}

294: where $s=(p_1+p_2)^2, \ u=(p_2-p_1^\prime)^2$ and  $m_N$ is the

295: nucleon mass.

296: 

297: The $\pi NN$ coupling constant is taken as $f_{\pi NN}^2/4\pi

298: =0.08$~\cite{Holinde} and the form factor for each virtual nucleon

299: is taken in the so-called monopole form

300: \begin{eqnarray}

301: F_N(u) = \frac{\Lambda_N^4}{\Lambda_N^4+(u-m_N^2)^2}.

302: \label{FN}\end{eqnarray}

303: Following \cite{Grishina3} we adopt here a cut-off

304: parameter $\Lambda_N =1.24$~GeV (see also discussion below).

305: 

306: 

307: The the rare-dotted and dash-double-dotted lines in the lower part of

308: Fig.~\ref{dsdt_pip} show the differential cross section for the charge

309: exchange reaction $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$ at 2.4 GeV$/c$

310: corresponding to $s$- and $u$-channel diagrams, respectively. Due to

311: isospin constraints  only the $s$ channel contributes to the

312: $\pi^-p\to a_0^-p$ reaction (rare-dotted line in the upper part of

313: Fig.~\ref{dsdt_pip}). In these calculations the cut-off parameter

314: $\Lambda_N$ = 1.24 GeV and $g_{a_0NN}^2/4\pi \simeq 1$ have been

315: employed in line with the Bonn potential \cite{Holinde}.  The solid

316: line in the lower part of Fig.~\ref{dsdt_pip} describes the coherent

317: sum of the $s$- and $u$-channel contributions. Except for the very

318: forward region the $s$-channel contribution (rare-dotted line) is rather

319: small compared to the $u$ channel for the charge exchange reaction

320: $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$, which may give a backward differential

321: cross section of about 1 mb/GeV$^2$ . The corresponding total cross

322: section can be about 0.3 mb at this energy (cf.  Fig.~\ref{stot_pip},

323: middle part).

324: 

325: There is a single experimental point for the forward differential cross

326: section of the reaction $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$ at 2.4 GeV$/c$

327: (\cite{Cheshire}, lower part of Fig. \ref{dsdt_pip}),

328: $$\left.{d\sigma\over dt}(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n)\right|_{t\approx 0}

329: = 0.49 \ \rm{mb/GeV}^2.$$

330: Since in the forward region ($t \approx$ 0) the $s$-

331: and $u$-channel diagrams only give a smaller cross section, the charge

332: exchange reaction $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$ is most probably dominated

333: at small $t$ by the isovector $b_1 (1^{+-})$- and $\rho_2 (2^{--})$-

334: meson exchanges (see, e.g., \cite{Achasov}). Though the couplings

335: of these mesons to $\pi a_0$ and $NN$ are not known, we can estimate

336: $\frac{d\sigma}{dt}(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n)$ in the forward

337: region using the Regge-pole model as developed by Achasov and

338: Shestakov \cite{Achasov2}. Note, that the Regge-pole model is

339: expected to provide a reasonable estimate for the cross section at

340: medium energies of about a few GeV and higher (see, e.g.,

341: \cite{Kaidalov1,Kondrat} and references therein).

342: 

343: \subsection{The Regge-Pole Model}

344: 

345:    The $s$-channel helicity amplitudes for the reaction $\pi^-p

346: \rightarrow a_0^0n$ can be written as

347: \begin{eqnarray}

348: &&\hspace*{-4mm}M_{\lambda_2^\prime\lambda_2}(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n) =

349: \bar u_{\lambda_2^\prime}(p_2^\prime)\ \left[-A(s,t) \right. + \nonumber\\

350: &+&\left.(p_1+p_1^\prime)_\alpha \gamma_\alpha {B(s,t)\over 2}\right]

351: \gamma_5 u_{\lambda_2}(p_2),

352: \label{Reg1}\end{eqnarray}

353: where the invariant amplitudes $A(s,t)$ and $B(s,t)$ do not contain

354: kinematical singularities and (at fixed $t$ and large $s$) are related

355: to the helicity amplitudes as

356: \begin{eqnarray}

357: M_{++}\approx -sB, \hspace{3mm} M_{+-}\approx \sqrt{t_{\min }-t}\ A. \label{Reg2}\end{eqnarray}

358: The differential

359: cross section then can be expressed through the helicity

360: amplitudes in the standard way as

361: \begin{eqnarray}

362: \hspace*{-4mm} {d\sigma\over dt}(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n)

363: ={1\over 64 \pi s} {1\over (p_1^{\rm{cm}})^2}  (|M_{++}|^2+|M_{+-}|^2).

364: \label{eq:sigQGSM1}

365: \end{eqnarray}

366: Usually it is assumed that the reaction $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$

367: at high energies is dominated by the $b_1$ Regge-pole exchange.

368: However, as shown by Achasov and Shestakov \cite{Achasov2} this

369: assumption is not compatible with the angular dependence of

370: $d\sigma/dt(\pi^-p \rightarrow a_0^0n)$ observed at Serpukhov at

371: 40 GeV$/c$ \cite{Serpukhov,Serpukhov1} and Brookhaven at 18 GeV$/c$

372: \cite{Brookhaven}. The reason is that the $b_1$ Regge trajectory

373: contributes only to the amplitude $A(s,t)$ giving a dip in

374: differential cross section at forward angles, while the data show

375: a clear forward peak in $d\sigma/dt(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n)$ at

376: both energies. To interpret this phenomenon Achasov and Shestakov

377: introduced a $\rho_2$ Regge-pole exchange conspiring with its

378: daughter trajectory.  Since the $\rho_2$ Regge trajectory

379: contributes to both invariant amplitudes, $A(s,t)$ and $B(s,t)$,

380: its contribution does not vanish at the forward scattering angle

381: $\Theta =0$ thus giving a

382: forward peak due to the term $|M_{++}|^2$ in $d\sigma/dt$. At the

383: same time the contribution of the $\rho _2$ daughter trajectory to

384: the amplitude $A(s,t)$ is necessary to cancel the kinematical pole

385: at $t=0$ introduced by the $\rho_2$ main trajectory (conspiracy

386: effect). In this model the $s$-channel helicity amplitudes can be

387: expressed through the $b_1$ and the conspiring $\rho_2$ Regge

388: trajectories exchange as

389: \begin{eqnarray}

390: M_{++}\approx M_{++}^{\rho_2}(s,t) = \gamma_{\rho_2}(t)

391: \exp [-i {\pi\over 2} \alpha_{\rho _2}(t)]

392: \left( \frac s{s_0}\right)^{\alpha_{\rho_2}(t)}\hspace*{-6mm},

393: \hspace*{6mm} \label{Reg3}\end{eqnarray}

394: \begin{eqnarray}

395: M_{+-}\approx M_{+-}^{b_1}(s,t) &=& \sqrt{(t_{\min }-t)/s_0}\

396: \gamma_{b_1}(t) \times \nonumber\\

397: &\times& i\exp [-i {\pi\over 2} \alpha_{b_1}(t)]

398: \left(\frac s{s_0}\right)^{\alpha_{b_1}(t)},

399: \label{Reg4}\end{eqnarray}

400: where $\gamma _{\rho_2}(t) = \gamma_{\rho _2}(0)\ \exp (b_{\rho_2}t)$,

401: $\gamma_{b_1}(t)\ = \gamma_{b_1}(0)\ \exp (b_{b_1}t)$,\\

402: $t_{\min}\approx -m_N^2 (m_{a_0}^2-m_\pi ^2)/s^2$,

403: $s_0\approx 1$ GeV$^2$ while the meson Regge trajectories have the

404: linear form $\alpha_j(t) = \alpha_j(0)+\alpha_j^\prime(0)t$.

405: 

406: Achasov and Shestakov describe the Brookhaven data on the $t$

407: distribution at 18~GeV$/c$ for $-t_{\min }\leq -t\leq 0.6$ GeV$^2$

408: \cite{Brookhaven} by the expression

409: \begin{eqnarray}

410: \frac{dN}{dt} = C_1 \left[e^{\Lambda_1t} + (t_{\min }-t)

411: \frac{C_2}{C_1} e^{\Lambda_2t} \right], \label{Reg5}\end{eqnarray}

412: where the first and second terms describe the $\rho _2$ and $b_1$

413: exchanges, respectively. They found two fits: a) $\Lambda_1=4.7$

414: GeV$^{-2}, C_2/C_1=0,C_1\approx 0$; b) $\Lambda_1=7.6$ GeV$^{-2},

415: C_2/C_1\approx 2.6$~GeV$^{-2}, \Lambda _2=5.8$~GeV$^{-2}.$ This

416: implies that at 18 GeV$/c$ the $b_1$ contribution yields only 1/3 of

417: the integrated cross section. Moreover, using the available data

418: on the reaction $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_2^0(1320)n$ at 18 GeV$/c$ and

419: comparing with the data on the $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$

420: reaction they estimated the total and forward differential cross

421: sections $\sigma (\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n\rightarrow \pi ^0\eta

422: n)\approx 200$ nb and $[d\sigma /dt(\pi^-p\rightarrow

423: a_0^0n\rightarrow \pi^0\eta n)]_{t=0}\approx 940$ nb/GeV$^2.$

424: Taking ${\rm Br}(a_0^0\rightarrow \pi^0\eta)\approx 0.8$ we find $\sigma

425: (\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n)\approx 0.25$ $\mu$b and $[d\sigma

426: /dt(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n)]_{t=0}\approx 1.2$ $\mu$b/GeV$^2$.

427: 

428: In this way all the parameters of the Regge model can be fixed and

429: we will employ it for the energy dependence of the

430: $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$ cross section to obtain an estimate at

431: lower energies, too.

432: 

433: The mass of the $\rho_2(2^{--})$ is expected to be about 1.7 GeV

434: (see \cite{Kokoski} and references therein) and the slope of the

435: meson Regge trajectory in the case of light ($u, d$) quarks is 0.9

436: GeV$^{-2}$  \cite{Kaidalov2}. Therefore, the intercept of the

437: $\rho_2$ Regge trajectory is $\alpha_{\rho

438: _2}(0)=2-0.9m_{\rho_2}^2\approx -0.6$. Similarly -- in the case of

439: the $b_1$ trajectory -- we have $\alpha_{b_1}(0)\approx -0.37$. At

440: forward angles we can neglect the contribution of the $b_1$

441: exchange (see discussion above) and write the energy dependence of

442: the differential cross section in the form

443: \begin{eqnarray}

444: \left.{d\sigma_{\rm Regge}\over dt}(\pi^{-}p\rightarrow a_0^0n)\right|_{t=0}

445: &\approx&\left.\frac{d\sigma_{\rho_2}}{dt}\right|_{t=0} \sim\nonumber\\

446: &\sim&{1\over (p_1^{\rm c.m.})^2}\left(\frac s{s_0}\right)^{-2.2}\hspace*{-5mm}.

447: \hspace*{5mm} \label{eq:sigQGSM2}

448: \end{eqnarray}

449: This provides the following estimate for the forward differential

450: cross section at 2.4 GeV$/c$,

451: \begin{eqnarray}

452: \left.{d\sigma_{\rm Regge}\over dt} (\pi^-p\rightarrow

453: a_0^0n)\right|_{t=0} \approx 0.6 \ \rm{ mb/GeV}^2,

454: \label{eq:sigQGSM3}

455: \end{eqnarray}

456: which is in agreement with the experimental data point

457: \cite{Cheshire} (lower part of Fig. \ref{dsdt_pip}). Since the $b_1$ and

458: $\rho_2$ Regge trajectories have isospin 1, their contribution to

459: the cross section for the reaction $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^-p$ is

460: twice smaller,

461: \begin{eqnarray}

462: {d\sigma_{\rm Regge}\over dt} (\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^-p)=

463: \frac 12\ {d\sigma_{\rm Regge}\over dt} (\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n).

464: \label{eq:sigQGSM4}

465: \end{eqnarray}

466: In Fig. \ref{dsdt_pip} the dotted lines  show the resulting

467: differential cross sections for $d\sigma_{\rm Regge}(\pi^-p\rightarrow

468: a_0^-p)/dt$ (upper part) and $d\sigma_{\rm Regge}(\pi^-p\rightarrow

469: a_0^0n)/dt$ (lower part) at 2.4 GeV$/c$ corresponding to $\rho_2$ Regge

470: exchange, whereas the dash-dotted lines indicate the contribution for

471: $\rho_2$ and $b_1$ Regge trajectories.  For $t \to 0$ both Regge

472: parametrizations agree, however, at large $|t|$ the solution including

473: the $b_1$ exchange gives a smaller cross section. The cross section

474: $d\sigma_{\rm Regge}(\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^-p)/dt$ in the forward region

475: exceeds the contributions of $\eta$, $f_1$ (set $A$) and $s$-channel

476: exchanges, however, is a few times smaller than the $f_1$-exchange

477: contribution for set $B$. On the other hand, the cross section

478: $d\sigma_{\rm Regge} (\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n)/dt$ is much larger than the

479: $s$- and $u$-channel contributions in the forward region, but much

480: smaller than the $u$-channel contribution in the backward region.

481: 

482: The integrated cross sections for $\pi^- p \rightarrow a_0^- p$ (upper

483: part) and $\pi^- p \rightarrow a_0^0 n$ (middle and lower part) for the

484: Regge model are shown in Fig. \ref{stot_pip} as a function of the pion

485: lab. momentum by dotted lines for $\rho_2$ exchange and by

486: dash-dotted lines for $\rho_2, b_1$ trajectories. In the few GeV region

487: the cross sections are comparable with the $u$-channel contribution. At

488: higher energies the Regge cross section decreases as $s^{-3.2}$ in

489: contrast to the non-Reggeized  $f_1$-exchange contribution which

490: increases with energy and seems to be too large at 2.5 GeV$/c$ for

491: parameters from the set $B$. We thus expect parameter set $B$ to be

492: unrealistic.

493: 

494: The main conclusions of this Subsection are as follows. In the region of a

495: few GeV the dominant mechanisms of  $a_0$ production in the reaction

496: $\pi N \rightarrow a_0 N$ is the  $u$-channel nucleon exchange (cf.

497: middle part of Fig.~\ref{stot_pip}).  Similar cross section ($\simeq$

498: 0.4--1 mb) is predicted by the Regge model with conspiring $\rho_2$

499: (or $\rho_2$ and $b_1$) exchanges, normalized to the Brookhaven data at

500: 18 GeV$/c$ (lower part of Fig.~\ref{stot_pip}). The contributions of

501: $s$-channel nucleon and $t$-channel $\eta$-meson exchanges are small

502: (cf. upper and middle parts of Fig.~\ref{stot_pip}).

503: 

504: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

505: \subsection{Possible Signals of $a_0$ Production in the Reaction\\

506: $\pi N \to K \bar K N$}

507: 

508:    In Fig. \ref{pinkk_bg} we show the existing experimental data on the

509: reactions $\pi^- p \to n K^+ K^-$ (upper left), $\pi^- p \to nK^0  \bar

510: {K^0}$ (upper right), $\pi^+ p \to p K^+ \bar {K^0} $ (lower left), and

511: $\pi^- p \to pK^0 K^- $ (lower right) taken from \cite{Landolt}.

512: The solid curves describe s- and u-channel contributions, calculated

513: using the dipole nucleon form factor $(F^2_N(u))$ with $\Lambda_N =

514: 1.35$ GeV.  The short-dashed and long-dashed curves describe $\eta$ and

515: $f_1$ $t$-channel exchanges, respectively. Two different choices of

516: the Regge-pole model are shown by the dash-dotted curves which describe

517: $\rho_2$ exchange (upper) and $\rho_2 b_1$ exchange (lower). The

518: crossed solid lines display the background contribution (see diagram e) in

519: Fig. \ref{Fig1}) which was calculated using parameters of the $K^*$

520: exchange from the J\"ulich model \cite{Jan}. It is important that for

521: the reactions $\pi^+ p \to p K^+ \bar {K^0} $ and $\pi^- p \to pK^0 K^-

522: $, where the $K\bar K$ pair has isospin 1, the main contributions

523: come from $P$-wave $K\bar K$ pair production from the $\pi \pi$ state and

524: from $S$-wave $K \bar K$ pair production from the $\eta \pi$ state.

525: These selection rules follow from $G$-parity conservation (note that

526: the $G$ parity of the $K \bar K$ system with orbital momentum $L$ and

527: isospin $I$ is given by $(-1)^{L+I}$).  At the same time for the

528: reactions $\pi^- p \to n K^+ K^-$ and $\pi^- p \to nK^0  \bar {K^0}$

529: the essential contribution to the background stems from $S$-wave

530: $K\bar K$ pair production from the isoscalar $\pi \pi$ state.  Let us

531: note that the parametrization of the total cross sections for the reactions

532: $\pi N \to K \bar K N$ has been discussed previously in

533: \cite{Sibirtsev1}. Here we analyze also contributions from

534: different channels to the total cross sections.

535: 

536: The most important point is that for all the reactions the

537: background  is essentially below the data at the c.m. energy release

538: $Q \leq 300$ MeV. In

539: case of the reactions $\pi^+ p \to p K^+ \bar {K^0} $ and $\pi^- p

540: \to pK^0 K^- $ this, to our opinion, can only be due to a

541: contribution of the $a_0$. Of course, in the reactions $\pi^- p \to n K^+

542: K^-$ and $\pi^- p \to nK^0  \bar {K^0}$ both scalar mesons, $f_0$ and

543: $a_0$, can contribute. In a series of bubble chamber experiments,

544: performed in 60$-$70-ties, a structure was reported in the mass

545: distribution of the $K_s^0 K_s^0$ system produced in the reaction

546: $\pi^- p \to nK^0_s {K^0_s}$ (see, e.g., \cite{Dahl} and references

547: therein).  Usually this structure was attributed to the $f_0(980)$. In

548: our previous work we used the data on $\pi^- p \to n f_0 \to nK^0_s

549: {K^0_s}$ to find a restriction on the branching ${\rm Br}(f_0 \to K \bar K$)

550: \cite{Brat99}. We see here from Fig. \ref{pinkk_bg} (upper right) that

551: an important contribution to the cross section of the reaction

552: $\pi^- p \to nK^0 \bar {K^0}$ at $Q \leq 300$ MeV comes also from the

553: $a_0$.  We cannot exclude that there can also be some contribution from

554: $a_0(980)$ at $Q \geq 300$ MeV. If this is really the case, our

555: restriction on ${\rm Br}(f_0 \to K \bar K)$ \cite{Brat99} has to be

556: corrected. This problem, however, requires further analysis.

557: 

558: Let us note that the amplitude corresponding to the Feynman diagram {\it e})

559: in Fig. \ref{Fig1}  would predict a sharply rising cross section for $Q

560: \geq 400$ MeV. To suppress this unrealistic behavior we used a

561: Reggeized $K^*$- propagator multiplying the Feynman propagator of the

562: vector meson in all the amplitudes by the Regge power

563: $(s/s_0)^{(\alpha_{K^*}(0)-1)}$ with $\alpha_{K^*}(0) \simeq 0.25$,

564: $\sqrt{s_0}= 2m_K +m_N$.  The background curves are in reasonable

565: agreement with the data on the reactions $\pi^+ p \to p K^+ \bar {K^0}

566: $ and $\pi^- p \to pK^0 K^- $ at $Q \geq 400$ MeV (see the crossed

567: solid lines in two lower parts of Fig. \ref{pinkk_bg}).

568: 

569: The Regge-pole model for $a_0$ production, especially the set with

570: $b_1\rho_2$ exchange, is in a good agreement with the data for all the

571: reactions at $Q \leq$300 MeV giving a cross section of the reaction

572: $\pi N \to a_0 N \to K \bar K N$ of about 20$-$30 $\mu$b at $Q \simeq

573: 100$--$300$ MeV. At larger $Q$ it drops very fast. The $u$-channel

574: contribution is also in a good agreement with the data on the reaction

575: $\pi^+ p \to p K^+ \bar {K^0}$, but the coherent sum of the $u$-

576: and $s$-channel contributions is below the data for the

577: reactions $\pi^- p \to n K^+ K^-$ and $\pi^- p \to nK^0  \bar {K^0}$.

578: The $t$-channel $\eta$ and $f_1$ exchange contributions

579: are small and can be neglected.

580: 

581: Note that both invariant mass distributions of the $K^- \bar{K^0}$ and

582: $K^0_s {K^0_s}$ systems presented in \cite{Dahl} show a resonance-like

583: structure near the $K \bar K$ threshold at $Q \leq 300$ MeV.  However,

584: because of a comparatively small number of events for each fixed

585: initial momentum those distributions are averaged over a large interval

586: of about 1 GeV$/c$ in $p_{\rm{lab}}$. Unfortunately, those

587: distributions cannot be directly compared with theoretical ones at any

588: fixed $Q$ especially in the near-threshold region.  In order to give

589: another strong argument, that the $a_0$ contribution is really

590: necessary to explain the existing experimental data, let us consider

591: the energy dependence of the total cross section of the reaction

592: $\pi^- p \to p K^- \bar {K^0} $.  Averaging the existing data from

593: \cite{Landolt} versus $p_{{\rm lab}}$ over the intervals $2.0 \pm 0.15$

594: and $3.0 \pm 0.15$ GeV$/c$ we find $\sigma_{\rm av}= 34.9 \pm 3.3$ and $

595: 73.8\pm 7.6 ~\mu$b, respectively.  The ratio of those cross sections

596: is equal to $R_{21} \simeq 2.1 \pm 0.05$. The energy behaviour of the

597: background contribution in our model is $\sigma_{{\rm bg}} \sim

598: Q^{2.3}$. If we assume that in the interval of $Q =250 - 630$ MeV (which corresponds to the interval of $p_{\rm lab}=2$--3 GeV/$c$) the

599: background contribution is present only, we get $R^{{\rm bg}}_{21}

600: \simeq 5.5$. This means that at 3 GeV$/c$ we should expect cross

601: section $\simeq 200$~$\mu$b instead of  $\sim 70\ \mu$b. Evidently, experimental data are inconsistent with this assumption.

602: 

603: Let us formulate the main conclusions of this Subsection. The existing

604: data on the reactions $\pi^+ p \to p K^+ \bar {K^0} $ and $\pi^- p \to

605: pK^0 K^- $ give a rather strong evidence that at low energy above

606: threshold ($Q \leq 300$ MeV) they are dominated by $a_0$

607: production. The same is true also for the reactions $\pi^- p \to n K^+ K^-$

608: and $\pi^- p \to nK^0  \bar {K^0}$, where some smaller contribution of

609: $f_0$ may also be present.  The value of the $a_0$ production cross

610: section is reasonably described by the Regge-pole model with

611: ($\rho_2,b_1$) exchange as proposed by Achasov and Shestakov

612: \cite{Achasov2}. The $u$-channel exchange mechanism also gives

613: a reasonable value of the cross section.

614: 

615: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------

616: \section{The Reaction $N N\to N N a_0$}

617: 

618: \subsection{An Effective Lagrangian Approach with One-Pion Exchange}

619: 

620:    We consider $a_0^0$, $a_0^+$, $a_0^-$ production in the reactions

621: $j=pp\to pp a_0^0$, $pp\to pn a_0^+$, $pn\to pp a_0^-$, and $pn\to pn

622: a_0^0$ using the effective Lagrangian approach with one-pion exchange

623: (OPE). For the elementary $\pi N\to N a_0$ transition amplitude we take

624: into account different mechanisms $\alpha$ corresponding to $t$-channel

625: diagrams with $\eta(550)$- and $f_1(1285)$-meson exchanges

626: ($\alpha=t(\eta)$, $t(f_1)$) as well as $s$- and $u$-channel graphs

627: with an intermediate nucleon ($\alpha=s(N)$, $u(N)$) (cf.

628: \cite{Grishina3}).  The corresponding diagrams are shown in

629: Fig.~\ref{diagr_a0}.  The invariant amplitude of the $NN\to NN a_0$

630: reaction then is the sum of the four basic terms (diagrams in Fig.

631: \ref{diagr_a0}) with permutations of nucleons in the initial and

632: final states

633: \begin{eqnarray}

634: \hspace*{-5mm} {\mathcal{M}}_{j(\alpha)}^{\pi}[ab;cd]

635: &&=\xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ab;cd] \ {\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha}^{\pi}[ab;cd] +

636: \xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ab;dc] \ {\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha}^{\pi}[ab;dc]+

637: \label{NNa0sum} \\

638: &&+\xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ba;dc] \ {\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha}^{\pi}[ba;dc] +

639: \xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ba;cd] \ {\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha}^{\pi}[ba;cd],

640: \nonumber

641: \end{eqnarray}

642: where the coefficients $\xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}$ are given in

643: Table.  The amplitudes for the $t$-channel exchange with

644: $\eta(550)$- and  $f_1(1285)$-mesons are given by

645: \begin{eqnarray}

646: {\mathcal{M}}_{t(\eta)}^{\pi}[ab;cd] &=&

647: g_{a_0\eta\pi} F_{a_0\eta\pi}\left((p_a-p_c)^2,(p_d-p_b)^2\right)

648: \  g_{\eta NN}

649: F_{\eta }\left((p_a-p_c)^2\right)

650:  \times \nonumber \\

651: &\times&  {1\over (p_a-p_c)^2-m_\eta ^2} \

652: \bar u(p_c) \gamma_5 u(p_a)\times {\mathrm{\Pi}}(p_b;p_d),

653: \label{NN-eta}

654: \end{eqnarray}

655: \begin{eqnarray}

656: {\mathcal{M}}_{t(f_1)}^{\pi}[ab;cd] &=&

657: -g_{a_0 f_1\pi} F_{a_0 f_1\pi} \left((p_a-p_c)^2,(p_d-p_b)^2\right)

658: g_{f_1 NN} F_{f_1}\left((p_a-p_c)^2\right) \times \nonumber\\

659: &\times& {1\over (p_a-p_c)^2-m_{f_1}^2}

660:  \ (p_a-p_c+2 \ (p_b-p_d))_\mu   \times \nonumber\\

661: &\times& \left(g_{\mu\nu}-{(p_a-p_c)_\mu (p_a-p_c)_\nu\over

662:         m_{f_1}^2}\right) \times \nonumber\\

663: &\times& \bar u(p_c) \gamma_5\gamma_{\nu} u(p_a)\times

664:  {\mathrm{\Pi}}(p_b;p_d),

665: \label{NN-f1}

666: \end{eqnarray}

667: with

668: \begin{eqnarray}

669: {\mathrm{\Pi}}(p_b;p_d) &=&

670: \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{m_{\pi}}\ F_{\pi }\left((p_b-p_d)^2\right)

671: (p_b-p_d)_{\beta} \

672: \bar u(p_d) \gamma_5 \gamma_{\beta} u(p_b) \times \nonumber\\

673: &\times&  \frac{1}{(p_b-p_d)^2-m_{\pi}^2}.

674: \label{piNN}

675: \end{eqnarray}

676: The amplitudes for the $s$ and $u$ channels (lower part of

677: Fig.~\ref{diagr_a0}) are given as

678: \begin{eqnarray}

679: {\mathcal{M}}_{s(N)}^{\pi}[ab;cd] &=&

680: {\mathrm{\Pi}}(p_b;p_d)\

681: \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{m_{\pi}} F_{\pi }\left((p_d-p_b)^2\right)

682: \ g_{a_0 NN} \times \label{NN-s}\\

683: &\times&{ F_{N} \left((p_a+p_b-p_d)^2\right)\over

684:         (p_a+p_b-p_d)^2-m_N^2} \times \nonumber\\

685: &\times& (p_d-p_b)_{\mu}\

686:  \bar u(p_c)[(p_a+p_b-p_d)_{\delta}\gamma_{\delta}+m_N]

687: \gamma_5 \gamma_{\mu} u(p_a), \nonumber

688: \end{eqnarray}

689: \begin{eqnarray}

690: {\mathcal{M}}_{u(N)}^{\pi}[ab;cd] &=&

691: {\mathrm{\Pi}}(p_b;p_d)\

692: \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{m_{\pi}} F_{\pi }\left((p_d-p_b)^2\right)

693: \ g_{a_0 NN} \times \label{NN-u}\\

694: &\times& {F_{N}\left((p_c+p_d-p_b)^2\right)

695: \over (p_c+p_d-p_b)^2-m_N^2} \times \nonumber\\

696: &\times& (p_d-p_b)_{\mu}

697: \ \bar u(p_c)\gamma_5 \gamma_{\mu} [(p_c+p_d-p_b)_{\delta}

698: \gamma_{\delta}+m_N] u(p_a).

699: \nonumber

700: \end{eqnarray}

701: Here $p_a, p_b$ and $p_c, p_d$ are the four momenta of the initial and

702: final nucleons, respectively.

703: As in the previous Section we mostly employ coupling constants and form

704: factors from the Bonn$ -$J\"ulich potentials (see, e.g.,

705: \cite{Holinde,Bonnf1,Haidenbauer}).

706: 

707: For the form factors at the $a_0 f_1 \pi$ (as well as $a_0 \eta\pi$) vertex

708: factorized forms are applied following the assumption from

709: \cite{Chung,Nakayama},

710: \begin{eqnarray}

711: F_{a_0 f_1 \pi}(t_1,t_2)=F_{f_1 NN}(t_1) \ F_{\pi NN}(t_2),

712: \label{ff_f1pia0}\end{eqnarray}

713: where $F_{f_1 NN}(t), F_{\pi NN}(t)$ are taken in the monopole form

714: (see previous Section). Usually the cut-off parameter $\Lambda_{\pi NN}$

715: is taken in the interval 1$-$1.3 GeV. Here we take

716: $\Lambda_{\pi NN}=1.05$ GeV (see also the discussion in \cite{Brat01}).

717: 

718: As shown in the analysis of \cite{Grishina3} the contribution of

719: the $\eta$ exchange to the amplitude $\pi N \to a_0 N$ is small (cf. also

720: Section 3).  Note that in \cite{Baru2} only this mechanism

721: was taken into account for the reaction $pn \to pp a_0^-$.  Here we

722: also include the $\eta$ exchange because it might be noticeable in

723: those isospin channels where a strong destructive interference of $u$-

724: and $s$-channel terms can occur (see below).

725: 

726: 

727: Since we have two nucleons in the final state it is necessary to take

728: into account their final state interaction (FSI), which has some

729: influence on meson production near threshold. For this purpose we adopt

730: the FSI model from \cite{BaruFSI} based on the (realistic) Paris

731: potential. We use, however, the enhancement factor $F_{NN}(q_{NN})$ --

732: as given by this model -- only in the region of small relative momenta

733: of the final nucleons $q_{NN} \leq q_0$, where it is larger than 1.

734: Having in mind that this factor is rather uncertain at larger $q_{NN}$,

735: where for example contributions of nonnucleon intermediate states to

736: the loop integral might be important, we assume that $F_{NN}(q_{NN})

737: =1$ for $q_{NN} \geq q_0$.

738: 

739: In Fig.~\ref{pp_q} we show the total cross section as a function of the

740: energy excess $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$ for the reactions -- $pp\to

741: pp a_0^0$ (upper part) and $pp\to pn a_0^+$ (lower part).  The solid

742: lines with full dots and with open squares (r.h.s.) represent the

743: results within the $\rho_2$ and $(\rho_2,b_1)$ Regge exchange model.

744: The dotted lines (l.h.s.) correspond to the $t(f_1)$ channel,

745: the rare-dotted lines to the $t(\eta)$ channel, the dashed lines to the

746: $u(N)$ channel, the short dashed lines to the $s(N)$ channel.  The

747: dashed line in the right upper part of Fig.~\ref{pp_q} is the

748: incoherent sum of the contributions from $s(N)$ and $u(N)$ channels

749: ($s+u$).

750: 

751: As seen from Fig. \ref{pp_q}, the $u$ and $s$ channels give the

752: dominant contribution; the $t(f_1)$ channel is small for both isospin

753: reactions.  For the reaction $pp\to pn a_0^+$, the Regge exchange

754: contribution (extended to low energies) becomes important.  For the $pp

755: \to pp a_{0}^0$ channel the Regge model predicts no contribution from

756: $\rho_2$ and ($\rho_2,b_1$) exchanges due to isospin arguments (i.e.,

757: the vertex with a coupling of three neutral components of isovectors

758: vanishes); thus only $s$, $u$, $t(\eta)$, and $t(f_1)$ channels are

759: plotted in the upper part of Fig.~\ref{pp_q}.

760: 

761: Here we have to point out the influence of the interference between the

762: $s$ and $u$ channels. According to the isospin coefficients from the

763: OPE model presented in Table, the phase (of interference

764: $\alpha$) between the $s$ and $u$ channels

765: ${\mathcal{M}}_{s(N)}^{\pi}+\exp(-i\alpha){\mathcal{M}}_{u(N)}^{\pi}$

766: is equal to zero, i.e., the sign between ${\mathcal{M}}_{s(N)}^{\pi}$

767: and ${\mathcal{M}}_{u(N)}^{\pi}$ is ``plus''.  The solid lines in

768: Fig.~\ref{pp_q} indicate the coherent sum of $s(N)$ and

769: $u(N)$ channels including the interference of the amplitudes

770: ($s+u+$int.). One can see that for the $pp\to pn a_0^+$

771: reaction the interference is positive and

772: increases the cross section, whereas for the $pp\to pp a_0^0$ channel

773: the interference is strongly destructive since we have identical

774: particles in the initial and final states and the contributions of $s$

775: and $u$ channels are very similar.

776: 

777: Here we would like to comment  about an extension of the OPE (one-pion

778: exchange) model to an OBE (one-boson exchange) approximation, i.e.,

779: accounting for the exchange of $\sigma, \rho, \omega, ...$ mesons as

780: well as for multi-meson exchanges.  Generally speaking, the total cross

781: section of $a_0$ production should contain the sum of all the

782: contributions:

783: $$\sigma(NN\to NNa_0) = \Sigma_j \sigma_j,$$

784: where $j=\pi,\sigma,\rho,\omega...$.  Depending on their cut-off

785: parameters the heavier meson exchanges might give a comparable

786: contribution to the total cross section for $a_0$ production. An

787: important point, however, is that near threshold (e.g. $Q \leq 0.3-0.6$

788: GeV) the energy behavior of all those contributions is the same, i.e.,

789: it is proportional to the three-body phase space $ \sigma_j \sim Q^2$

790: (when the FSI is switched off and the narrow resonance width limit is

791: taken). In this respect we can consider the one-pion exchange as an

792: effective one and normalize it to the experimental cross section by

793: choosing an appropriate value of $\Lambda_{\pi}$.  The most appropriate

794: choice for $\Lambda_{\pi}$ is about 1 -- 1.3 GeV.  Another question

795: is related to the isospin of the effective exchange.  As it is known

796: from a serious of papers on the reactions $NN\to NNX,

797: X=\eta,\eta^{\prime},\omega,\phi$ the  most important

798: contributions to the corresponding cross sections near threshold come

799: from $\pi$ and $\rho$ exchanges (see, e.g., the review

800: \cite{NakayamaReview} and references therein). In line with those

801: results we assume here that the dominant contribution to the cross

802: section of the reaction $NN \to NNa_0$ comes also from  the isovector

803: exchanges (like $\pi$ and $\rho$).  In principle, it is also possible

804: that some baryon resonances may contribute. However, there is no

805: information about resonances which couple to the $a_0N$ system.  Our

806: assumptions thus enable us to make exploratory estimates of the $a_0$

807: production cross section without introducing free parameters that would

808: be out of control by existing data. The model can be extended

809: accordingly when new data on the $a_0$ production will be available.

810: 

811: Another important question is related to the choice of the form factor

812: for a virtual nucleon, that -- in line with the Bonn$-$J\"ulich

813: potentials -- we choose as given by (\ref{FN}), which corresponds to

814: monopole form factors at the vertices.  In the literature, furthermore,

815: dipole-like form factors (at the vertices) are also often used (cf.

816: \cite{Nakayama,NakayamaReview,Feuster}).  However,

817: there are no strict rules for the ``correct'' power of the nucleon form

818: factor. In physics terms, the actual choice of the power should  not be

819: relevant; we may have the same predictions for any reasonable choice of

820: the power if the cut-off parameter $\Lambda_N$ is fixed accordingly.

821: Note, that $\Lambda_N$ may also depend on the type of mesons involved

822: at the vertices.

823: In our previous work \cite{Grishina3} we have fixed $\Lambda_N$ for the

824: monopole related form factor (\ref{FN})  in the interval 1.2--1.3 GeV

825: fitting the forward differential cross section of the reaction $pp \to

826: da_0^+$ from \cite{BNL73}. On the other hand, the same data can be

827: described rather well using a dipole form factor (at the vertices) with

828: $\Lambda_N=$1.55$-$1.6 GeV. If we employ this

829: dipole form factor with $\Lambda_N=$1.55--1.6 GeV in the present case we

830: obtain practically identical predictions for the cross sections of the

831: channels $pp \to pn a_0^+$,  $pn \to pn a_0^0$, $pn \to pp a_0^-$,

832: where the $u$-channel mechanism is dominant and $u-s$ interference is

833: not too important. In the case of the channel $pp \to pp a_0^0$ we

834: obtain cross sections by up to a factor of 2 larger for the dipole-like

835: form factor in comparison to the monopole one.  This is related to the

836: strong destructive interference of the $s$ and $u$ exchange mechanisms,

837: which slightly depends on the type of form factor used.  However, our

838: central result, that the cross section for the $pn a_0^+$ final channel

839: is about an order of magnitude higher than the $ppa_0^0$ channel in

840: $pp$ collisions, is robust (within less than a factor of 2) with

841: respect to different choices of the form factor.

842: 

843: 

844: As seen from Fig.~\ref{pp_q}, we get the largest cross

845: section for the $pp\to pn a_0^+$ isospin channel. For this reaction the

846: $u$ channel gives the dominant contribution, the $s$-channel cross

847: section is small such that the interference is not so essential as for

848: the $pp\to pp a_0^0$ reaction.

849: 

850: 

851: As it was already discussed in our previous study \cite{Grishina3} an

852: effective Lagrangian model cannot be extrapolated to high energies

853: because it predicts the elementary amplitude $\pi N \to a_0N$ to rise

854: fast. Therefore, such model can only be employed not far from the

855: threshold.  On the other hand, the Regge model is valid at large

856: energies and we have to worry, how close to the threshold we can

857: extrapolate corresponding amplitudes.  According to duality arguments

858: one can expect that the Regge amplitude can be applied at low energy,

859: too, if the reaction $\pi N \to a_0N$ does not contain essential

860: $s$-channel resonance contributions. In this case the Regge model might

861: give a realistic estimate of the $\pi N \to a_0N$ and $NN \to NNa_0$

862: amplitudes even near threshold.

863: 

864: Anyway, as we have shown in \cite{Grishina3} (see

865: also Section 3) the Regge and $u$-channel model give quite

866: similar results for the $\pi^- p \to a_0^0 n$ cross section in the near

867: threshold region; some differences in the cross sections of the

868: reactions $NN \to NNa_0$ -- as predicted by those two models -- can be

869: attributed to differences in the isospin factors and effects of $NN$

870: antisymmetrization which is important near threshold (the latter was

871: ignored in the Regge model formulated for larger energies).

872: 

873: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------

874: \subsection{The Reaction $N N\to NN a_0 \to N N K \bar K$}

875: 

876: 

877: \subsubsection{Numerical Results for the Total Cross Section}

878: 

879:    In the upper part of Fig.~\ref{pp_kk} we display the calculated total

880: cross section (within parameter set 1 (\ref{set1})) for the

881: reaction $pp\to pn a_0^+ \to pn K^+ \bar K^0$ in comparison to the

882: experimental data for $pp \to pn K^+ \bar K^0$ (solid dots) from

883: \cite{Landolt} as a function of the excess energy

884: $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$.  The dot-dashed and solid lines in Fig.

885: \ref{pp_kk} correspond to the coherent sum of $s(N)$ and $u(N)$

886: channels with  interference ($s+u+$int.), calculated with a monopole

887: form of the form factor (\ref{FN}) with $\Lambda_N=1.24$~GeV and with a

888: dipole form $(F_{N}(u)^2)$ with $\Lambda_N=1.35$~GeV, respectively. We

889: mention that the  latter (dipole) result is in better agreement with

890: the constraints on the near-threshold production of $a_0$ in the

891: reaction $\pi^+p \to K^+ \bar {K^0} p $ (see Section 3).  In the

892: middle part of Fig.~\ref{pp_kk} the solid lines with full dots and with

893: open squares present the results within the $\rho_2$ and $(\rho_2,b_1)$

894: Regge exchange model. The dotted line shows the 4-body phase

895: space (with constant interaction amplitude), while the dashed line is

896: the parametrization from Sibirtsev {\it et al.}  \cite{Sibirtsev1}.  We

897: note, that the cross sections for parameter set 2 (\ref{set2}) are

898: similar to set 1 (\ref{set1}) and larger by a factor $\sim 1.5$.

899: 

900: In the lower part of Fig.~\ref{pp_kk} we show the calculated total

901: cross section (within parameter set 1) for the reaction $pp\to pp

902: a_0^0 \to pp K^+ K^-$ as a function of $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$ in

903: comparison to the experimental data. The  solid dots indicate the data

904: for $pp \to pp K^0 \bar K^0$ from \cite{Landolt}, the open square for

905: $pp\to pp K^+K^-$ is from the DISTO collaboration~\cite{DISTO}, and the

906: full down triangles show the data from COSY-11 \cite{COSY11}.

907: 

908: For the $pp \to pp a_0^0\to pp K^+K^-$ reaction (as for $pp\to  pp

909: a_0^0$) there is no contribution from meson Regge trajectories; $s$

910: and $u$ channels give similar contributions such that their

911: interference according to the effective OPE model (line $s+u+$int.) is

912: strongly destructive (cf. upper part of Fig.~\ref{pp_q}).  The

913: $t(f_1)$ contribution (dotted line) is practically negligible,

914: while the $t(\eta)$ channel (rare-dotted line) becomes important closer to the

915: threshold.

916: 

917: Thus our model gives quite small cross sections for $a_0^0$ production

918: in the $pp\to pp K^+K^-$ reaction which complicates its experimental

919: observation for this isospin channel.  The situation looks more

920: promising  for the $pp\to pn a_0^+ \to pn K^+\bar K^0$ reaction since

921: the $a_0^+$ production cross section is by an order of magnitude larger

922: than the $a_0^0$ one. Moreover, as has been pointed out with respect to

923: Fig.~\ref{pp_q}, the influence of the interference is not so strong as

924: for the $pp\to pp a_0^0 \to pp K^+K^-$ reaction.

925: 

926: 

927: Here we stress again the limited applicability of the effective

928: Lagrangian model (ELM) at high energies. As seen from the upper part of

929: Fig. \ref{pp_kk}, the ELM calculations at high energies go through the

930: experimental data, which is not realistic since also other channels

931: contribute to $K^+\bar K^0$ production in $pp$ reactions (cf. dashed

932: line from \cite{Sibirtsev1}). Moreover, the ELM calculations are

933: higher than the Regge model predictions which indicates, that the ELM

934: amplitudes at high energies have to be reggeized.

935: 

936: 

937: \subsubsection{Numerical Results for the Invariant Mass Distribution}

938: 

939:    As follows from the lower part of Fig.~\ref{pp_kk}, the $a_0$

940: contribution to the $K^+K^-$ production in the $pp\to pp K^+K^-$

941: reaction near the threshold is hardly seen. With increasing energy the

942: cross section grows up, however, even at $Q=0.111$~GeV the full cross

943: section with interference ($s+u+$int.) gives only a few percent

944: contribution to the $0.11\pm 0.009\pm 0.046\ \mu$b ``nonresonant'' cross

945: section (without $\phi\to K^+K^-$) from the DISTO collaboration

946: \cite{DISTO}.

947: 

948: To clarify the situation with the relative contribution of $a_0^0$ to

949: the total $K^+K^-$ production in $pp$ reactions we calculate the

950: $K^+K^-$ invariant mass distribution for the $pp\to pp K^+K^-$ reaction

951: at $p_{{\rm lab}}=3.67$~GeV$/c$, which corresponds to the kinematical

952: conditions for the DISTO experiment \cite{DISTO}. The differential

953: results are presented in Fig.~\ref{distf0a0}.  The upper part  shows

954: the calculation within parameter set 1, whereas the lower part

955: corresponds to set 2.  The dot-dashed lines (lowest curves)

956: indicate the coherent sum of $s(N)$ and $u(N)$ channels with

957: interference ($s+u+$int.) for the $a_0$ contribution.  However, one has

958: to consider also the contribution from the $f_0$ scalar meson, i.e.

959: the $pp\to pp f_0\to pp K^+K^-$ reaction.  The $f_0$ production in $pp$

960: reactions has been studied in detail in \cite{Brat99}. Here we use

961: the result from  \cite{Brat99} and show in Fig.~\ref{distf0a0} the

962: contribution from the $f_0$ meson (calculated with parameter set $A$

963: from \cite{Brat99}) as the solid line with open circles ($f_0$).

964: 

965: We find that when adding the $f_0$ contribution to the phase-space of

966: nonresonant $K^+K^-$ production (the dotted lines in

967: Fig.~\ref{distf0a0}) and the contribution from $\phi$ decays (resonance

968: peak around 1.02 GeV), the sum (solid) lines almost perfectly describe

969: the DISTO data.  This means that there is no visible signal for an

970: $a_0^0$ contribution in the DISTO data according to our calculations

971: while  the $f_0$ meson gives some contribution to the $K^+K^-$

972: invariant mass distribution at low invariant masses $M$, that is $\sim

973: 12\%$ of the total ``nonresonant'' cross section from the DISTO

974: collaboration \cite{DISTO}. Thus the reaction $pp \to pn K^+ \bar K^0$

975: is more promising for $a_0$ measurements as has been pointed  above.

976: 

977: \subsubsection{Nonresonant Background}

978: 

979:    Following \cite{Sibirtsev1} we consider two mechanisms of

980: nonresonant $K \bar K$ production, related to pion and kaon exchanges,

981: which are described by the diagrams a) and b) in Fig.~\ref{fig10r}.

982: The pion exchange amplitude can be calculated using the results of

983: Section 3.  As concerning the kaon exchange mechanism, the amplitude of

984: the reaction  $NN \to NN a_0 \to NN K \bar K$ can be written as

985: \begin{eqnarray}

986: &&\hspace*{-4mm}\mathrm{M_{K-exchange}}(p_a,p_b;p_c,p_d,k_1,k_2) =

987: \frac{F_{K}^2(q^2)}{q^2-m_K^2} \times \nonumber \\

988: &\times&

989: \bar u(p_c) \ A_{KN \to KN}(p_c,k_1;p_a,q)\ u(p_a) \times \nonumber \\

990: &\times&

991: \bar u(p_d) \ A_{\bar{K}N \to \bar{K}N}(p_d,k_2;p_b,q) \ u(p_b)

992: \label{KKNN}

993: \end{eqnarray}

994: with permutations of nucleons in the initial and final states.

995: Here $p_a, p_b$ and $p_c, p_d$ are the four momenta of the initial and

996: final nucleons, respectively; $k_1$ and $k_2$ are the momenta of the

997: final kaons; $q$ is the momentum of the virtual kaon; $F_{K}(q^2)$ is

998: the kaon form factor which we take in the monopole form with the cut-off

999: parameter $\Lambda$ =1.2 GeV.

1000: 

1001: The antikaon--nucleon amplitude $A_{\bar{K}N \to \bar{K}N}$ has been

1002: taken from \cite{Martin} explicitly.  Since near threshold the

1003: $KN\to KN$ cross section depends mainly on the normalization of the

1004: amplitude, but not on its spin dependence, we adopt the simplest

1005: approximation that the amplitude  $A_{KN \to KN}$ is a Lorentz scalar.

1006: This allows us to connect the $A_{KN \to KN}$ amplitude (squared)

1007: by simple kinematical factor to the $KN\to KN$ cross section, where the

1008: parametrization for the elastic $K^+p\to K^+p$ cross section has been

1009: taken from \cite{Gugnon} and the $K^0p\to K^+n$ cross section has

1010: been parametrized according to the existing data \cite{Landolt,Armitage77}.

1011: 

1012: 

1013: The results of our calculations are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig11r} in

1014: comparison to the experimental data. The contribution of the pion

1015: exchange mechanism (which we denoted as ``BG:$\pi-K^* ~exchange$'') is shown

1016: by the dotted curves.  The dashed lines in the upper and lower parts

1017: describe the $K$-exchange mechanism. The thin solid lines show the

1018: total background, which in our model is the sum of pion and kaon

1019: exchange contribution.  This background can be compared with the $a_0$

1020: production cross section shown by the bold solid lines. In the case of

1021: the reaction $pp \to pnK^+ \bar{K^0}$ (upper part) the $a_0$

1022: production cross section is much larger than the background, while in

1023: the case of the reaction $pp \to ppK^+ K^-$ (lower part) the

1024: $a_0(980)$ resonance contribution (bold solid line) appears to be

1025: much smaller than the nonresonant background.  We mention that the

1026: disagreement with the DISTO ($Q \simeq 100$ MeV) and COSY--11 ($Q \simeq

1027: 17$ MeV) data should be related to the $K^-pp$ final state interaction,

1028: which is known to be strong.

1029: 

1030: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1031: \subsubsection{Concluding Remarks on $a_0$ Production in $pN$ Reactions}

1032: 

1033:    In this Section we have estimated the cross sections of  $a_0$ production

1034: in the reactions $pp\to pp a_0^0$ and $pp\to pn a_0^+$

1035: near threshold and at medium energies.  Using an

1036: effective Lagrangian approach with one-pion exchange we have analyzed

1037: different contributions to the cross section corresponding to

1038: $t$-channel diagrams with $\eta(550)$- and $f_1(1285)$-meson exchanges

1039: as well as $s$- and $u$-channel graphs with an intermediate nucleon.

1040: We additionally have considered  the $t$-channel Reggeon exchange

1041: mechanism with parameters normalized to the Brookhaven data for

1042: $\pi^-p\to a_0^-p$ at 18 GeV$/c$ \cite{Brookhaven}.  These results have been

1043: used to calculate the contribution of $a_0$ mesons to the cross

1044: sections of the reactions  $pp\to pn K^+\bar K^0$ and $pp\to pp

1045: K^+K^-$.  Due to unfavorable isospin Clebsh--Gordan coefficients as

1046: well as rather strong destructive interference of the $s$- and

1047: $u$-channel contributions  our model gives quite small cross sections

1048: for $a_0^0$ production in the $pp\to pp K^+K^-$ reaction.  However, the

1049: $a_0^+$ production cross section in  the $pp\to pn a_0^+ \to pn K^+\bar

1050: K^0$ reaction should be larger by about an order of magnitude.

1051: Therefore the experimental observation of $a_0^+$ in the reaction

1052: $pp\to pn K^+\bar K^0$ is much more promising than the observation of

1053: $a_0^0$ in the reaction $pp\to pp K^+K^-$.  We note in passing that the

1054: $\pi\eta$ decay channel is experimentally more challenging since, due

1055: to the larger nonresonant background \cite{Mueler01}, the

1056: identification of the $\eta$-meson (via its decay into photons) in a

1057: neutral-particle detector is required.

1058: 

1059: We have also analyzed invariant mass distributions of the $K \bar K$

1060: system  in the reaction $pp\to pN a_0 \to pN K \bar K$ at different

1061: excess energies $Q$ not far from threshold.  Our analysis of the DISTO

1062: data on the reaction $pp \to pp K^+K^-$ at 3.67 GeV$/c$ has shown that

1063: the $a_0^0$ meson is practically not seen in $d\sigma /dM$ at low

1064: invariant masses, however, the $f_0$ meson gives some visible

1065: contribution.  In this respect the possibility to measure the $a_0^+$

1066: 

1067: meson in $d\sigma /dM$ for the reaction $pp\to pn K^+\bar K^0$ (or $\to

1068: d K^+\bar K^0$) looks much more promising not only due to a much larger

1069: contribution for the  $a_0^+$, but also due to the absence of the $f_0$

1070: meson in this channel. It is also very important that the nonresonant

1071: background  is expected to be much smaller than the $a_0$ signal in the

1072: $pp\to pn K^+\bar K^0$ reaction.

1073: 

1074: Experimental data on $a_0$ production in $NN$ collisions are

1075: practically absent (except of the $a_0$ observation in the reaction

1076: $pp\to dX$ \cite{BNL73}).  Such measurements might give new information

1077: on the $a_0$ structure. According to Atkinson {\it et al.}

1078: \cite{Atkinson} a relatively strong production of the $a_0$ (the same

1079: as for the $b_1(1235)$) in non-diffractive reactions can be considered

1080: as evidence for a $q \bar q$ state rather than a $qq \bar q \bar q$

1081: state. For example, the cross section of $a_0$ production in $\gamma p$

1082: reactions at 25--50 GeV is about 1/6 of the cross sections for $\rho$

1083: and $ \omega$ production.  Similar ratios are found  in the two-body

1084: reaction $pp \to d X$ at 3.8--6.3 GeV$/c$ where $\sigma (pp \to d

1085: a_0^+) =(1/4 - 1/6)\sigma (pp \to d \rho^+)$.

1086: 

1087: In our case we can compare $a_0$ and $\omega$ production.  Our model

1088: predicts  $\sigma (pp \to pn a_0^+) = 30-70\  \mu$b at $Q \simeq 1$

1089: GeV which can be compared with $\sigma (pp \to

1090: pp\omega) \simeq  100-200 \ \mu$b at the same $Q$.  If such a large

1091: cross section could be detected experimentally this would be a serious

1092: argument in favor of the $q \bar q$ model for the  $a_0$.

1093: 

1094: To distinguish between the threshold cusp scenario and a resonance

1095: model one can exploit different analytical properties of the $a_0$

1096: production amplitudes. In case of a genuine resonance the amplitude of

1097: $\eta \pi$ and $K \bar K$ production through the $a_0$ has a pole and

1098: satisfies the factorization property.  This implies that the shapes of

1099: the invariant mass distributions in the $\eta \pi$ and $K \bar K$

1100: channels should not depend on the specific reaction in which the $a_0$

1101: resonance is produced (for $Q \geq \Gamma_{\rm tot}$). On the other hand,

1102: for the threshold cusp scenario the $a_0$ bump is produced through the

1103: $\pi \eta$ final state interaction.  The corresponding amplitude has a

1104: square root singularity and in general can not be factorized (see, e.g.,

1105: \cite{BaruFSI} were the factorization property was disproven for

1106: $pp$ FSI in the reaction $pp \to pp M$).  This implies that for a

1107: threshold bump the invariant mass distributions in the $\eta \pi$ and

1108: $K \bar K$ channels are expected to be different for different

1109: reactions and will depend on kinematical conditions (i.e., momentum transfer)

1110: even at the same value of excess energy, e.g., $Q\simeq 1$ GeV.

1111: 

1112: 

1113: \section{$a_0(980)$-$f_0(980)$ Mixing and Isospin Violation in the

1114: Reactions $pN \rightarrow d a_0$, $pd \rightarrow \mathrm{^3He/^3H}\,

1115: a_0$ and $ dd \rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, a_0$}

1116: 

1117: \subsection{Hints for $a_0(980)$--$f_0(980)$ Mixing}

1118: 

1119:    As it was suggested long ago in \cite{Achasov} the dynamical

1120: interaction of the $a_0(980)$- and $f_0(980)$-mesons with states

1121: close to the $K \bar K$ threshold may give rise to a significant

1122: $a_0(980)$--$f_0(980)$ mixing. Different aspects of this mixing and

1123: the underlying  dymanics as well as the possibilities to measure

1124: this effect have been  discussed in

1125: \cite{Jan},\cite{Achasov2}--\cite{Grishina2001}, \cite{Kudryavtsev}.

1126: Furthermore, it has been  suggested  by Close and Kirk~\cite{Close2000}

1127: that the new data from

1128: the WA102 collaboration at CERN~\cite{WA102} on the central

1129: production of $f_0$ and $a_0$ in the reaction $pp\rightarrow p_s X

1130: p_f$ provide evidence for a significant $f_0$--$a_0$ mixing

1131: intensity  as large as $|\xi|^2=8\pm 3$\%.

1132: In this Section we will discuss possible experimental tests of this

1133: mixing in the reactions

1134: $$pp\rightarrow da_0^+~~(a),~~pn \rightarrow da_0^0~~(b),$$

1135: $$pd\rightarrow \mathrm{^3H}\, a_0^+~~(c),~~pd \rightarrow

1136: \mathrm{^3He}\, a_0^0~~(d)$$

1137: and

1138: $$dd\rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, a_0^0~~ (e)$$

1139: near the corresponding thresholds. We recall that the $a_0$-meson can

1140: decay to $\pi \eta$ or $K \bar K$. Here we only consider  the

1141: dominant $\pi \eta$ decay mode.  Note that the isospin violating

1142: anisotropy in the reaction $pn \rightarrow da_0^0$ due to the

1143: $a_0(980)$--$f_0(980)$ mixing is very similar to that which might arise in

1144: the reaction $pn \rightarrow d \pi^0$ because of the $\pi^0$--$\eta$

1145: mixing (see \cite{Tippens}). Recently measurements of the

1146: charge-symmetry breaking in the reactions $\pi^+ d \rightarrow pp \eta$

1147: and  $\pi^- d \rightarrow nn \eta$ near the $\eta$ production threshold

1148: were performed at BNL \cite{Tippens}. A similar experiment, comparing the

1149: reactions $p d \rightarrow \mathrm{^3 He} \pi^0$ and $p d \rightarrow

1150: \mathrm{^3 H} \pi^+$ near the $\eta$ production threshold, is now in

1151: preparation at COSY (J\"ulich) ( see, e.g., \cite{Magiera}).

1152: 

1153: \subsection{Reactions $pp\rightarrow da_0^+$ and

1154:                        $pn \rightarrow da_0^0$ }

1155: 

1156: 

1157: \subsubsection{Phenomenology of Isospin Violation}

1158: 

1159:    In the reactions (a) and (b) the final $da_0$ system has isospin $I_f=1$,

1160: for $l_f=0$ ($S$-wave production close to threshold) it has spin--parity

1161: $J^P_f=1^+$. The initial $NN$ system cannot be in

1162: the state $I_i=1,~J^P_i=1^+$ due to the Pauli principle. Therefore,

1163: near threshold the $da_0$ system should be dominantly produced in

1164: $P$-wave with quantum numbers $J_f^P=0^-,~1^-$ or $2^-$. The states with

1165: $J_i^P=0^-,~1^-$ or $2^-$ can be formed by an $NN$ system with

1166: spin $S_i=1$ and $l_i=1$ and 3. At the beginning for qualitative discussion

1167: we neglect the contribution of the

1168: higher partial wave ($l_i=3$)\footnote{See, e.g., phenomenological analysis in \cite{Kudryavtsev2002} where this partial wave was also taken into account.}. In this case we can write the amplitude of reaction (a) in the following form\\

1169: \begin{eqnarray}

1170:   &&T(pn \rightarrow d~a_0^+)= \nonumber \\

1171:   &&=\alpha^{+}\ {\bf {p \cdot S}}\ {\bf {k \cdot e}}{}^* +\beta^{+}\

1172: {\bf {p \cdot k}}\ {\bf {S \cdot e}}{}^* +\gamma^{+}\ {\bf {S \cdot k}}\

1173: {\bf {p \cdot e}}{}^*,

1174: \end{eqnarray}

1175: where ${\bf S}=\phi_N^T \sigma_2 \

1176: \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}\phi_N$ is the spin operator of the

1177: initial $NN$ system; $\bf{p}$ and $\bf{k}$ are the initial and

1178: final c.m. momenta; $\bf e$ is the deuteron

1179: polarization vector; $\alpha^+$, $\beta^+$, $\gamma^+$ are three

1180: independent scalar amplitudes which can be considered as constants

1181: near threshold (at $k \rightarrow 0$).

1182: 

1183: Due to the mixing, the $a_0^0$ may also be produced via the $f_0$. In

1184: this case the $a_0^0 d$ system will be in $S$-wave and the

1185: amplitude of reaction (b) can be written as:

1186: \begin{eqnarray}

1187:   &&T(pn \rightarrow d~a_0^0)= \nonumber \\

1188:   &&=\alpha^{0}\ {\bf {p \cdot S}}\ {\bf {k \cdot e}}{}^* +\beta^{0}\

1189: {\bf {p \cdot k}}\ {\bf {S \cdot e}}{}^* +\gamma^{0}\ {\bf {S \cdot k}}\

1190: {\bf {p \cdot e}}{}^* + \xi F \ \bf {S \cdot e}{}^*,

1191: \end{eqnarray}

1192: where $\xi$ is the mixing parameter and $F$ is the $f_0$ production

1193: amplitude. In the limit $k \rightarrow 0$, $F$ is again a constant.

1194: The scalar amplitudes $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ for reactions (a)

1195: and (b) are related to each other by a relative factor of $\sqrt{2}$

1196: as: $\alpha^{+}=\sqrt{2} \alpha^0$, $\beta^{+}=\sqrt{2} \beta^0$,

1197: $\gamma^{+}=\sqrt{2} \gamma^0$.

1198: 

1199: The differential cross sections for reactions (a) and (b) have the

1200: form (up to terms linear in $\xi$)

1201: \begin{eqnarray}

1202:   &\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma(pp\rightarrow

1203:     d~a_0^+)}{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}=&

1204:   2\ \frac{k}{p}\left(C_0+C_2 \cos^2 \Theta \right) \label{pp},\\

1205:   &\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma(pn\rightarrow d ~a_0^0)}

1206:   {{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}=& \frac{k}{p}\left(C_0+ C_2 \cos^2 \Theta

1207:   \right.+\left. C_1 \cos \Theta \right)\ ,\label{pn}

1208: \end{eqnarray}

1209: where

1210: \begin{eqnarray}

1211: \label{coeff} &&C_0=\frac{1}{2}\ p^2 k^2

1212: \left[|\alpha^0|^2+|\gamma^0|^2 \right] ,~ C_1=p\ k

1213: \left[\mathrm{Re} ((\xi F)^{*}(\alpha^0 +3\,

1214: \beta^0+\gamma^0))\right] \, \nonumber \\ &&C_2=\frac{1}{2}\ p^2

1215: k^2\left[ 3\, |\beta^0|^2\right. \left. +2\, \mathrm{Re} (\alpha^0

1216: \beta^{0\, *}+\alpha^0 \gamma^{0\, *}+ \beta^0 \gamma^{0\,

1217: *})\right] \ .

1218: \end{eqnarray}

1219: Similarly, the differential cross section of the reaction $pn

1220: \rightarrow d f_0$ can be written as

1221: \begin{equation}

1222:   \frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma( pn \rightarrow d f_0)}

1223:   {{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}= \frac{3\, k}{2\, p}\ |F|^2\ . \nonumber

1224: \end{equation}

1225: The mixing effect --- described by the term $C_1\cos \Theta$ in

1226: Eq. (\ref{pn}) --- then leads to an isospin violation in the ratio

1227: $R_{ba}$ of the differential cross sections for reactions (b)

1228: and (a),

1229: \begin{equation}

1230: R_{ba}=\frac12+\frac{C_1 \cos\Theta}{C_0+C_2\cos ^2\Theta} ,

1231: \nonumber

1232: \end{equation}

1233: and to the forward--backward asymmetry for reaction (b):

1234: \begin{equation}

1235: A_b(\Theta)=\frac{\sigma_b(\Theta)-\sigma_b(\pi- \Theta)}

1236: {\sigma_b(\Theta)+\sigma_b(\pi-\Theta)}=

1237: \frac{C_1 \cos\Theta}{C_0+C_2\cos^2\Theta}\nonumber \ .

1238: \label{asym}

1239: \end{equation}

1240: 

1241: The latter effect has been already discussed in \cite{Kudryavtsev}

1242: where it was argued that the asymmetry $A_b(\Theta=0)$ can reach (5--

1243: 10)\% at an energy excess of $Q=(5- 10)$~MeV. However, if we adopt a

1244: mixing parameter $|\xi|^2=(8\pm 3)$\%, as it follows from the WA102

1245: data, we can expect a much larger asymmetry. We note explicitly, that

1246: the coefficient $C_1$ in (\ref{coeff}) depends not only on the

1247: magnitude of the mixing parameter $\xi$, but also on the relative

1248: phases with respect to the amplitudes of $f_0$ and $a_0$ production,

1249: which are unknown so far. This uncertainty has to be kept in mind for

1250: the following discussion.

1251: 

1252: If $a_0$ and $f_0$ were very narrow particles, then near threshold the

1253: differential cross section (\ref{pp}), dominated  by the $P$-wave, would

1254: be proportional to $k^3$ or $Q^{3/2}$, where $Q$ is the c.m. energy

1255: excess. Due to $S$-wave dominance in the reaction $pn\rightarrow d f_0$

1256: one would expect that the cross section scales like $\sim k $ or $\sim

1257: \sqrt{Q}$.  In this limit the $a_0$--$f_0$ mixing leads to an enhancement

1258: of the asymmetry $A_b(\Theta)$ as $1/k$ near threshold. In reality,

1259: however, both $a_0$ and $f_0$ have widths of about 40$ - $100 MeV.

1260: Therefore, at fixed initial momentum their production cross section

1261: should be averaged over the corresponding mass distributions.  This

1262: will essentially change the threshold behavior of the cross sections.

1263: Another complication is that broad resonances are usually accompanied

1264: by background lying underneath the resonance signals. These problems

1265: will be discussed below in the following Subsections.

1266: 

1267: \subsubsection{Model Calculations}

1268: 

1269: In order to estimate isospin-violation effects in the differential

1270: cross-section ratio $R_{ba}$ and in the forward--backward asymmetry

1271: $A_b$ we use the two-step model (TSM), which was successfully applied

1272: earlier to the description of $\eta$-, $\eta^{\prime}$-, $\omega$- and

1273: $\phi$-meson production in the reaction $pN \rightarrow d X$ in

1274: \cite{Grishina1,Grishina2}. Recently, this model has been also used for

1275: an analysis of the reaction $pp \rightarrow d a_0^+$ \cite{Grishina3}.

1276: 

1277: The diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:tsm} describe the different mechanisms of

1278: $a_0$- and $f_0$-meson production in the reaction $NN\to da_0/f_0$

1279: within the framework of the TSM. In the case of $a_0$ production the

1280: amplitude of the subprocess $\pi N \to a_0 N$ contains three different

1281: contributions: i) the $f_1(1285)$-meson exchange (Fig.~\ref{fig:tsm}

1282: {\it a}); ii) the $\eta$-meson exchange (Fig.~\ref{fig:tsm} {\it b});

1283: iii) $s$- and $u$-channel nucleon exchanges (Fig.~\ref{fig:tsm} {\it c}

1284: and \ref{fig:tsm} {\it d}).  As it was shown in \cite{Grishina3} the

1285: main contribution to the cross section for the reaction $pp \rightarrow

1286: d a_0^+$ stems from the $u$-channel nucleon exchange (i.e., from the

1287: diagram of Fig.~\ref{fig:tsm} {\it d}) and all other contributions can

1288: be neglected. In order to preserve the correct structure of the

1289: amplitude under permutations of the initial nucleons (which is

1290: antisymmetric for the isovector state and symmetric for the isoscalar

1291: state) the amplitudes of $a_0$ and $f_0$ production can be written as

1292: the following combinations of the $t$- and $u$-channel contributions:

1293: \begin{eqnarray}

1294: &&T_{pn\to da_0^0}(s,t,u) = A_{pn\to da_0^0}(s,t)-A_{pn \to

1295:  da_0^0}(s,u),\nonumber\\ &&T_{pn\to df_0}(s,t,u) = A_{pn \to

1296: df_0}(s,t)+A_{pn\to df_0}(s,u),\label{Atu}\end{eqnarray}

1297: where $s=(p_1+p_2)^2$, $t=(p_3-p_1)^2$, $u=(p_3-p_2)^2$ and $p_1$,

1298: $p_2$, $p_3$, and $p_4$ are the 4-momenta of the initial protons, meson

1299: $M$ and the deuteron, respectively. The structure of the amplitudes

1300: (\ref{Atu}) guarantees that the $S$-wave part vanishes in the case of

1301: direct $a_0$ production since it is forbidden by angular momentum

1302: conservation and the Pauli principle.  Also higher partial waves are

1303: included in (\ref{Atu})(in contrast to the simplified discussion in Section 5.1).

1304: 

1305: In the case of $f_0$ production the amplitude of the subprocess $\pi N

1306: \to f_0 N$ contains two different contributions: i) the $\pi$-meson

1307: exchange (Fig.~\ref{fig:tsm} b); ii) $s$- and $u$-channel nucleon

1308: exchanges (Fig.~\ref{fig:tsm} {\it c}) and \ref{fig:tsm} {\it d}). Our

1309: analysis has shown that similarly to the case of $a_0$ production the

1310: main contribution to the cross section of the reaction $pn \rightarrow

1311: d f_0$ is due to the $u$-channel nucleon exchange (i.e., from the

1312: diagram of Fig.~\ref{fig:tsm} {\it d}); the contribution of the

1313: combined $\pi\pi$ exchange (Fig.~\ref{fig:tsm} {\it b}) as well as the

1314: $s$-channel nucleon exchange  can be neglected.  In this case we get

1315: for the ratio of the squared amplitudes

1316: \begin{equation}

1317: \frac{{|A_{pn\to df_0}}(s,t)|^2}{|A_{pn\to da_0}(s,t)|^2}=

1318: \frac{{|A_{pn\to df_0}}(s,u)|^2}{|A_{pn\to da_0}(s,u)|^2}=

1319: \frac{|g_{f_0NN}|^2}{|g_{a_0NN}|^2} .

1320: \label{f0a0}

1321: \end{equation}

1322: If we take $g_{a_0NN}$ = 3.7 (see, e.g., \cite{Holinde}) and

1323: $g_{f_0NN}$ =8.5  \cite{Bonnf1}, then

1324: we find for the ratio of the amplitudes $R(f_0/a_0) =

1325: g_{f_0NN}/g_{a_0NN} =2.3$. Note, however, that Mull and Holinde \cite{Bonnf1}

1326: give a different value for the ratio of the coupling constants

1327: $R(f_0/a_0)=1.46$

1328: which is lower by about 37 \%. In the following we use

1329: $R(f_0/a_0)=$1.46--2.3.

1330: 

1331: The forward differential cross section for reaction (a) as a function

1332: of the proton beam momentum is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:dsacosy}.

1333: The bold dash-dotted and solid lines  (taken from \cite{Grishina3}

1334: and calculated for the zero width limit) describe the results of the

1335: TSM for different values of the nucleon cut-off parameter,

1336: $\Lambda_N=1.2$ and 1.3 GeV, respectively.

1337: 

1338: In order to take into account the finite width of $a_0$ we use  a

1339: Flatt\'e mass distribution with the same parameters as in

1340: \cite{Brat01}: the $K$-matrix pole at 999 MeV, $\Gamma_{a_0 \to \pi

1341: \eta}=$ 70 MeV, $\Gamma(K \bar K)/ \Gamma(\pi \eta)$ = 0.23 (see also

1342: \cite{PDG} and references therein).  The thin dash-dotted and solid

1343: lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:dsacosy} are calculated within TSM using this

1344: mass distribution with the cut $M(\pi^+ \eta) \geq 0.85$ GeV and

1345: $\Lambda _N=1.2$ and 1.3 GeV, respectively.  The corresponding  $\pi^0

1346: \eta$ invariant mass distribution for the reaction $pn \rightarrow

1347: da_0^0 \rightarrow d \pi^0 \eta$ at 3.4 GeV$/c$ is shown in

1348: Fig.~\ref{fig:MM} by the dashed line.

1349: 

1350: 

1351: In the case of the $f_0$ meson, where ${\rm Br}(K \bar K)$ is not yet fixed

1352: \cite{PDG}, we use the Breit-Wigner mass distribution with

1353: $m_R=980$ MeV and $\Gamma_R \simeq \Gamma_{f_0 \to \pi \pi}=$ 70 MeV.

1354: 

1355: The calculated total cross sections for the reactions $pn \to da_0$ and

1356: $pn \to df_0$ (as a function of $T_{\mathrm{lab}}$ for $\Lambda_N$=1.2

1357: GeV ) are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:siga0f0}. The solid and dashed lines

1358: describe the calculations with zero and finite widths, respectively. In

1359: the case of $f_0$ production in the $\pi \pi$ mode we take the same cut

1360: in the invariant mass of the $\pi \pi $ system, $M_{\pi \pi} \geq 0.85$

1361: GeV. The lines denoted by 1 and 2 are obtained for $R(f_0/a_0)=1.46$

1362: and 2.3. Comparing the solid and dashed lines we see that near the

1363: threshold the finite width corrections to the cross sections are quite

1364: important. The most important changes are introduced to the energy

1365: behavior of the $a_0$ production cross section. (Compare also bold and

1366: thin lines in Fig. \ref{fig:dsacosy}).

1367: 

1368: In principle, mixing can modify the mass spectrum of the $a_0$ and

1369: $f_0$. However, in this case the effect is expected to be less

1370: spectacular than for the $\rho$--$\omega$ case where the widths of $\rho$

1371: and $\omega$ are very different (see, e.g., the discussion in

1372: \cite{Tippens} and references therein). Nevertheless, the

1373: modification of the $a_0^0$ spectral function due to $a_0$--$f_0$ mixing

1374: can be measured comparing the invariant mass distributions of $a_0^0$

1375: with that of $a_0^+$.  According to our analysis, a much cleaner signal

1376: for isospin violation can be obtained from the measurement of the

1377: forward--backward asymmetry in the reaction $pn \to d a_0^0 \to d \pi^0

1378: \eta$ for the integrated strength of the $a_0$.  That is why for all

1379: calculations on isospin violation effects below, the strengths of $f_0$

1380: and $a_0$ are integrated over the invariant masses  in the interval

1381: 0.85$ - $1.02 GeV.

1382: 

1383: The magnitude of the isospin violation effects is shown in

1384: Fig.~\ref{fig:dsa0f0}, where we present the differential cross section

1385: of the reaction $pn \to d a_0^0$ at $T_p=2.6$ GeV as a function of

1386: $\Theta_{\mathrm{c.m.}}$ for different values of the mixing intensity

1387: $|\xi|^2$: 0.05 and 0.11. For reference, the solid line shows the

1388: case of isospin conservation, i.e.,  $|\xi|^2=0$.  The dash-dotted

1389: curves include the mixing effect. Note that all curves in

1390: Fig.~\ref{fig:dsa0f0} were calculated assuming maximal interference of

1391: the amplitudes describing the direct $a_0$ production and its

1392: production through $f_0$.  The maximal values of the differential cross

1393: section may also occur at $\Theta_{\mathrm{c.m.}}=0^{\circ}$ depending

1394: on the sign of the coefficient $C_1$ in Eq.~(36).

1395: 

1396: It follows from Fig. \ref{fig:dsa0f0} in either case that  the

1397: isospin-violation parameter $A_b(\Theta)$ for

1398: $\Theta_{\mathrm{c.m.}}=180^o$ may be quite large, i.e.,

1399: \begin{equation}

1400: A_b(180^\circ)= 0.86-0.96~~ \mathrm{or}~~ 0.9-0.98

1401: \label{asymmax}

1402: \end{equation}

1403: for  $R(f_0/a_0) $= 1.46 or 2.3, respectively.

1404: Note that the asymmetry depends rather weakly on $R(f_0/a_0)$.

1405: It might be more sensitive to the relative phase of

1406: $a_0$ and $f_0$ contributions.

1407: 

1408: \subsubsection{Background}

1409: 

1410:    The dash-dotted line in Fig.~\ref{fig:MM} shows our

1411: estimations of possible background from nonresonant $\pi^0 \eta$

1412: production in the reaction $pn \rightarrow d \pi^0 \eta$ at

1413: $T_{{\rm lab}}=2.6$ GeV (see also  \cite{AnnRep2000}).

1414: The background amplitude was described by the diagram shown

1415: in Fig. \ref{fig:tsm} e), where $\eta$ and $\pi$ mesons are created

1416: through the intermediate production of $\Delta(1232)$ (in the amplitude

1417: $\pi N \rightarrow \pi N$) and $N(1535)$ (in the amplitude

1418: $\pi N \rightarrow \eta N$). The total cross section of the nonresonant

1419: $\pi \eta$ production due to this mechanism was found to be

1420: $\sigma_{{\rm bg}} \simeq $ 0.8  $\mu$b for a cut-off in the

1421: one-pion exchange $\Lambda_{\pi}= 1$ GeV.

1422: 

1423: The background is charge-symmetric and cancels in the difference of the

1424: cross sections $ \sigma(\Theta) - \sigma(\pi - \Theta) $.

1425: Therefore, the complete separation of the background is not

1426: crucial for a test of isospin violation due to the $a_0$--$f_0$ mixing.

1427: There will be also some contribution from

1428: $\pi$-$\eta $ mixing as discussed in

1429: \cite{Tippens,Magiera}. According to the results of \cite{Tippens}

1430: this mechanism yields a charge-symmetry breaking in the

1431: $\eta NN$ system of about 6\%:

1432: $$R=d\sigma (\pi^+d \rightarrow pp\eta)/\sigma (\pi^-d \rightarrow

1433: nn\eta)=~0.938 \pm 0.009.$$

1434: A similar isospin violation due to

1435: $\pi$-$\eta $ mixing can also be expected in our case.

1436: 

1437: 

1438: The best strategy to search for isospin violation is a measurement of

1439: the forward--backward asymmetry for different intervals of $M_{\eta

1440: \pi^0}$.  As it follows from Fig. \ref{fig:MM} we have $\sigma_{a_0}

1441: (\sigma_{{\rm bg}})= 0.3(0.4),~0.27(0.29)$ and 0.19(0.15) $\mu$b for

1442: $M_{\eta \pi^0} \geq 0.85,~0.9$ and 0.95 GeV, respectively.  For

1443: $M_{\eta \pi^0} \leq$ 0.7 GeV the resonance contribution is rather

1444: small and the charge-symmetry breaking will be mainly related to

1445: $\pi$-$\eta $ mixing and, therefore, will be small.  On the other hand,

1446: in the interval $M \geq$ 0.95 GeV the background does not exceed the

1447: resonance contribution and we expect a comparatively large isospin

1448: breaking due to $a_0$-$f_0$ mixing.

1449: 

1450: \subsection{Reaction $pn \rightarrow d f_0 \rightarrow d \pi \pi $}

1451: 

1452:    The isospin-violation effects can also be measured in the reaction

1453: \begin{equation}

1454: pn \to d f_0 \to d \pi^+ \pi^- , \label{f0pipi}

1455: \end{equation}

1456: where, due to mixing, the $f_0$ may also be produced via the $a_0$.

1457: The corresponding differential cross section is shown in

1458: Fig.~\ref{fig:dsf0a0}. The differential cross section for $f_0$

1459: production is expected to be essentially larger than for $a_0$

1460: production, but the isospin violation effect turns out to be smaller

1461: than in the $\pi \eta$-production channel. Nevertheless, the isospin-

1462: violation parameter $A$ is expected to be about 10$-$30\% and can

1463: be detected experimentally.

1464: 

1465: \subsection{Reactions $pd \rightarrow \mathrm{^3H}\, a_0^+$

1466:              and $pd \rightarrow \mathrm{^3He}\, a_0^0$}

1467: 

1468:    We continue with $pd$ reactions and compare the final states

1469: $\mathrm{^3H}\, a_0^+$ (c) and $\mathrm{^3He}\, a_0^0$ (d). Near

1470: threshold the amplitudes of these reactions can be written as

1471: 

1472: \begin{eqnarray}

1473: &&T(pd \rightarrow \mathrm{^3H}~ a_0^+)

1474: =\sqrt{2} D_a \,{\bf S}_A \cdot {\bf e} ,

1475: \end{eqnarray}

1476: \begin{equation}

1477: T(pd \rightarrow \mathrm{^3He}~ a_0^0)=(D_a+ \xi D_f){\bf S}_A \cdot {\bf e},

1478: \end{equation}

1479: with ${\bf S}_A=\phi_A^T \sigma_2 \

1480: \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}\phi_N$. $D_a$ and $D_f$ are the scalar

1481: $S$-wave amplitudes describing the $a_0$ and $f_0$ production in case

1482: of $\xi$=0. The ratio of the differential cross sections for

1483: reactions (d) and (c) is then given by

1484: \begin{equation}

1485: R_{dc}=\frac{|D_a+ \xi D_f|^2}{2|D_a|^2} = \frac12+

1486: \frac{2 \mathrm{Re}(D_a^* \xi D_f)+|\xi D_f|^2}{|D_a|^2}.

1487: \label{R_dc}

1488: \end{equation}

1489: The magnitude of the ratio $R_{dc}$ now depends on the relative

1490: value of the amplitudes $D_a$ and $D_f$. If they are comparable

1491: ($|D_a| \sim |D_f|$) or $|D_f|^2 \gg |D_a|^2$ the deviation of

1492: $R_{dc}$ from 0.5 (which corresponds to isospin conservation)

1493: might be 100\% or more. Only in the case $|D_f|^2 \ll |D_a|^2$ the

1494: difference of $|R_{dc}|^2$ from 0.5 will be small. However, this

1495: seems to be very unlikely.

1496: 

1497: Using the two-step model for the reactions $pd \rightarrow

1498: \mathrm{^3He}~ a_0^0$ and $pd \rightarrow \mathrm{^3He}~ f_0$,

1499: involving the subprocesses $pp \rightarrow d \pi^+$ and $\pi^+ n

1500: \rightarrow p~ a_0/f_0$ (cf.  \cite{Faldt,Uzikov}), we find

1501: \begin{equation}

1502: \frac{\sigma(pd \rightarrow \mathrm{^3He}~a_0^0)}{\sigma(pd

1503: \rightarrow\mathrm{^3He}~f_0)} \simeq

1504: \frac{\sigma(\pi^+ n\rightarrow p~a_0^0)}{\sigma(\pi^+ n\rightarrow p~f_0)}.

1505: \end{equation}

1506: According to the calculations in \cite{Grishina3} we expect

1507: $\sigma(\pi^+ n \rightarrow pa_0^0)=\sigma(\pi^- p \rightarrow

1508: na_0^0) \simeq 0.5$-$1$~mb at 1.75--2 GeV$/c$. A similar value for

1509: $\sigma(\pi^- p \rightarrow n f_0)$ can be found using the results

1510: from \cite{Brat99}. According to the latter study $\sigma(\pi^-

1511: p\rightarrow nf_0 \rightarrow nK^+K^-) \simeq 6-8\ \mu$b at 1.75--2

1512: GeV$/c$ and ${\rm Br}(f_0 \to K^+ K^-)\simeq 1\%$, which implies that

1513: $\sigma(\pi^- p\rightarrow nf_0) \simeq$ 0.6--0.8~mb. Thus we

1514: expect that near threshold $|D_a| \sim |D_f|$ . This would imply

1515: that the effect of isospin violation in the ratio $R_{dc}$ can

1516: become quite large.

1517: 

1518: Recently, the cross section of the reaction $pd\rightarrow

1519: \mathrm{^3He}~K^+K^-$ has been measured by the MOMO collaboration at

1520: COSY (J\"ulich) \cite{MOMO}. It was found $\sigma =9.6 \pm 1.0$ nb and $17.5 \pm 1.8$ nb

1521: for $Q= 40$ and 56 MeV, respectively.  The authors note that the

1522: invariant $K^+K^-$ mass distributions in those data contain a broad

1523: peak which follows phase space.  However, as it was shown in

1524: \cite{Brat01} the form of the invariant mass spectrum, which follows

1525: phase space, can not be distinguished from the $a_0$ resonance

1526: contribution at such small Q.  Therefore, the events from the broad

1527: peak in \cite{MOMO} can also be related to the $a_0$ and/or $f_0$.

1528: Moreover, due to the phase-space behavior near the threshold one would

1529: expect a dominance of two-body reactions. Thus the real cross

1530: section of the reaction $pd \rightarrow \mathrm{^3He}~a_0^0 \rightarrow

1531: \mathrm{^3He}~\pi^0 \eta$ is expected to be not essentially smaller

1532: than its upper limit of about 40$-$70 nb at $Q$ = 40--60 MeV which

1533: follows from the MOMO data \cite{MOMO}.

1534: 

1535: \subsection{Reaction $dd\rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, a_0^0$}

1536: 

1537:    The direct production of the $a_0$ in the reaction $dd \rightarrow

1538: \mathrm{^4He}\, a_0^0$ is forbidden. It thus can only be observed due

1539: to the $f_0$--$a_0$ mixing:

1540: \begin{equation}

1541: \frac{\sigma(dd\rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, a_0^0)}

1542: {\sigma(dd\rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, f_0)}= |\xi|^2.

1543: \end{equation}

1544: Therefore it will be very interesting to study the reaction

1545: \begin{equation}

1546: dd \rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, (\pi^0~ \eta) \label{dd}

1547: \end{equation}

1548: near the $f_0$-production threshold. Any signal of the reaction

1549: (\ref{dd}) then will be related to isospin breaking. It is

1550: expected to be much more pronounced near the $f_0$ threshold as

1551: compared to the region below this threshold.

1552: 

1553: In summarizing this Section, we have discussed the effects of isospin

1554: violation in the reactions $pN \rightarrow da_0$, $pn \rightarrow d f_0$

1555: $pd \rightarrow \mathrm{^3He/^3H}\, a_0$ and $ dd \rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, a_0$

1556: which can be generated by $f_0$--$a_0$ mixing. It has been demonstrated

1557: that for a mixing intensity of about ($8\pm3$)\%, the isospin violation

1558: in the ratio of the differential cross sections of the reactions $pp

1559: \to da_0^+ \to d \pi^+ \eta$ and $pn \to da_0^0 \to d \pi^0 \eta$ as

1560: well as in the forward--backward asymmetry in the reaction $pn \to

1561: da_0^0 \to d \pi^0 \eta$ not far from threshold may be about 50--100\%.

1562: Such large effects are caused by the interference of direct $a_0$

1563: production and its production via the $f_0$ (the former amplitude is

1564: suppressed close to threshold due to the $P$-wave amplitude whereas the

1565: latter is large due to the $S$-wave mechanism).  A similar isospin

1566: violation is expected in the ratio of the differential cross sections

1567: of the reactions $pd \rightarrow \mathrm{^3H}\, a_0^+(\pi^+ \eta)$ and

1568: $pd \rightarrow \mathrm{^3He}\, a_0^0(\pi^0\eta)$.  Finally, we have

1569: also discussed the isospin violation effects in the reactions $pn \to

1570: df_0(\pi^+\pi^-)$ and $ dd \rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, a_0$.  All

1571: reactions together --- once studied experimentally --- are expected to

1572: provide detailed information on the strength of the $f_0/a_0$ mixing.

1573: Corresponding measurements are now in preparation for the ANKE

1574: spectrometer at COSY (J\"ulich) \cite{proposal}.

1575: 

1576: 

1577: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1578: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1579:    The authors are grateful to J. Ritman for stimulating discussions and

1580: useful suggestions and to V. Baru for providing the parametrization of the

1581: FSI enhancement factor.

1582: This work is supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

1583: and by Russian Foundation for Basic Research.

1584: 

1585: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1586: 

1587: 

1588: \begin{thebibliography}{999}

1589: \bibitem{Clo}

1590:     F.E.~Close {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf319}, 291 (1993).

1591: \bibitem{Gen}

1592:     M.~Genovese {\it et al.}, Nuovo Cimento {\bf 107}A, 1249 (1994).

1593: \bibitem{Jan}

1594:     G.~Janssen, B.~Pierce, K.~Holinde, and J.~Speth,

1595:     Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 2690 (1995).

1596: \bibitem{Ani}

1597:     V.V.~Anisovich {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 355}, 363 (1995).

1598: \bibitem{Tornqvist}

1599:    N. A. T\"ornqvist, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 49}, 624 (1982).

1600: \bibitem{Hadron99a}

1601:     K.~Maltman,

1602:         Nucl. Phys.  A {\bf 675}, 209 (2000).

1603: \bibitem{Hadron99b}

1604:     S.~Narison, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 86}, 242 (2000).

1605: \bibitem{Montanet}

1606:         L. Montanet, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)  {\bf 86}, 381 (2000).

1607: \bibitem{Anisovich}

1608:     V.V.~Anisovich, L. Montanet, and V.N. Nikonov, Phys. Lett.

1609:       B {\bf 480}, 19 (2000).

1610: \bibitem{Narison}

1611:         S. Narison, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 96}, 244 (2001).

1612: \bibitem{Achasov}

1613:         N.N. Achasov, S.A. Devyanin, and G.N. Shestakov,

1614:         Phys. Lett. {\bf B88}, 367 (1979).

1615: \bibitem{Achasov2}

1616:         N.N. Achasov,  G.N. Shestakov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 212 (1997).

1617: \bibitem{Barnes}

1618:         T. Barnes, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 165}, 434 (1985).

1619: \bibitem{Speth}

1620:         O. Krehl, R. Rapp, and  J. Speth, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 390}, 23 (1997).

1621: \bibitem{Kerbikov}

1622:         B.O.~Kerbikov, F. Tabakin, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 62}, 064601 (2000).

1623: \bibitem{Close2000}

1624:         F. E. Close and A. Kirk, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 489}, 24 (2000).

1625: \bibitem{Grishina2001}

1626:         V.Yu. Grishina, L.A. Kondratyuk, M. B\"uscher, {\it et al.},

1627:          Phys. Lett. B {\bf 521}, 217 (2001).

1628: \bibitem{Grishina3}

1629:         V.Yu. Grishina, L.A. Kondratyuk, E.L. Bratkovskaya,

1630:         {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. A {\bf 9}, 277 (2000).

1631: \bibitem{Brat01}

1632:         E.L.~Bratkovskaya {\it et al.}, nucl-th/0107071.

1633: \bibitem{COSY1}

1634:         V.~Chernyshev {\it et al.}, COSY proposal \#55 ``Study of

1635:         a$_0^+$ mesons at ANKE'' (1997) {\em available via:} {\tt

1636:         http://www.fz-juelich.de/ikp/anke};

1637:         L.A.~Kondratyuk {\it et al.}, {\it Preprint ITEP}

1638:          {\bf 18-97}, Moscow (1997).

1639: \bibitem{COSY2}

1640:         M.~B\"uscher {\it et al.}, Beam-time request for COSY

1641:         proposal \#55 ``Study of a$_0^+$ mesons at ANKE'' (2000) {\em

1642:         available via:} {\tt

1643:         http://www.fz-juelich.de/ikp/anke}.

1644: \bibitem{COSY3}

1645:         M.~B\"uscher {\it et al.}, Status report for COSY

1646:         experiment \#55 ``Study of a$_0^+$ mesons at ANKE'' and

1647:         Proposal ``Investigation of neutral scalar mesons a$_0^0$/f$_0$

1648:         with ANKE'' {\em available via:} {\tt

1649:         http://www.fz-juelich.de/ikp/anke}.

1650: \bibitem{Flatte}

1651:         S. Flatt\'e, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 63}, 224 (1976).

1652: \bibitem{PDG}

1653:         C.~Caso {\it et al.} (Particle Data Group),

1654:         Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 15}, 1 (2000).

1655: \bibitem{CrysBar98}

1656:         A. Abele {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 3860 (1998).

1657: \bibitem{WA102}

1658:         D.~Barberis {\it et al.} (WA102 Collaboration),

1659:         Phys. Lett. B {\bf 440}, 225 (1998).

1660: \bibitem{Holinde}

1661:         R. Machleidt, K. Holinde, and Ch. Elster,

1662:         Phys. Rep. {\bf 149}, 1 (1987).

1663: \bibitem{Bonnf1}

1664:         V. Mull and K. Holinde, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 51}, 2360 (1995).

1665: \bibitem{Kirchbach}

1666:         M. Kirchbach, D.O. Riska, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 594}, 419 (1995).

1667: \bibitem{Cheshire}

1668:         D. L.  Cheshire {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 28}, 520 (1972).

1669: \bibitem{Kaidalov1}

1670:     A.B.~Kaidalov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 53}, 872 (1991).

1671: \bibitem{Kondrat}

1672:     L.A.~Kondratyuk {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 48}, 2491 (1993).

1673: \bibitem{Serpukhov}

1674:     D.~Alde {\it et al.}, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 41}, 126 (1985);

1675:     D.~Alde {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf  205}, 397 (1988).

1676: \bibitem{Serpukhov1}

1677:     D. Alde {\it et al.}, Phys. Atom. Nucl. {\bf 59} (1996) 982;

1678:     S.~Sadovsky, in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference

1679:     on Hadron Spectroscopy, Hadron`95, edited by M.C. Birse {\it et al.}

1680:     (World Scientific, 1996), p. 445.

1681: \bibitem{Brookhaven}

1682:     A.R.~Dzierba, in Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Physics and

1683:     Detectors for DA${\rm\Phi}$NE`95, Frascati, 1995, edited by R.~Baldini

1684:     {\it et al.},  Frascati Physics Series {\bf 4}, 99 (1996).

1685: \bibitem{Kokoski}

1686:     R.~Kokoski and N.~Isgur, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 35}, 907 (1987).

1687: \bibitem{Kaidalov2}

1688:     A.B.~Kaidalov, in Surveys in High Energy Physics, {\bf 13}, 265 (1999).

1689: \bibitem{Landolt}

1690:         Landolt-B{\"{o}}rnstein, {\it New Series},

1691:         ed. H. Schopper, I/12 (1988).

1692: 

1693: \bibitem{Sibirtsev1}

1694:         A.A. Sibirtsev, W. Cassing, and C.M. Ko,

1695:         Z. Phys. A {\bf 358}, 101 (1997).

1696: \bibitem{Dahl}

1697:         O.I.~Dahl {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf 163}, 1377 (1967).

1698: \bibitem{Brat99}

1699:         E.L. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing, L.A. Kondratyuk, and A. Sibirtsev,

1700:         Eur. Phys. J. A {\bf 4}, 165 (1999).

1701: \bibitem{Haidenbauer}

1702:     T. Hippchen, J. Haidenbauer, K. Holinde, and V. Mull,

1703:         Phys. Rev. C {\bf 44}, 1323 (1991);

1704:     V. Mull, J. Haidenbauer, T. Hippchen, and K. Holinde,

1705:        Phys. Rev. C {\bf 44}, 1337 (1991).

1706: \bibitem{Chung}

1707:         W.S. Chung, G.Q. Li, and C.M. Ko,

1708:         Nucl. Phys. A  {\bf 625}, 371 (1997).

1709: \bibitem{Nakayama}

1710:         K. Nakayama, A. Szczurek, C. Hanhart, {\it et al.},

1711:         Phys. Rev. C {\bf 57}, 1580 (1998).

1712: \bibitem{Baru2}

1713:         V. Baru, A. Kudryavtsev, V. Tarasov, and V. Chernyshev,

1714:         {\it Preprint ITEP 30-00}, Moscow (2000).

1715: \bibitem{BaruFSI}

1716:         V. Baru, A.M. Gasparian, J. Haidenbauer, {\it et al.},

1717:         nucl-th/0006075, Phys. Atom. Nucl. {\bf 64}, 579 (2001).

1718: \bibitem{NakayamaReview}

1719:         K. Nakayama, nucl-th/0108032.

1720: \bibitem{Feuster}

1721:     T. Feuster and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 58}, 457 (1998);

1722:     C {\bf 59}, 460 (1999).

1723: \bibitem{BNL73}

1724:     M.A. Abolins {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 25}, 469 (1970).

1725: \bibitem{DISTO}

1726:         F. Balestra {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 63}, 024004 (2001).

1727: \bibitem{COSY11}

1728: 

1729:         C. Quentmeier {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 515}, 276 (2001).

1730: \bibitem{Martin}

1731:         A.D. Martin, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 179}, 33 (1981).

1732: \bibitem{Gugnon}

1733:         J. Cugnon, P. Deneye, and J. Vandermeulen,

1734:         Phys. Rev. C {\bf 41}, 1701 (1990).

1735: \bibitem{Armitage77}

1736:         J.C.M. Armitage {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 123}, 111 (1977).

1737: \bibitem{Mueler01}

1738:         H. M\"uller, Eur. Phys. J. A {\bf 11}, 113 (2001).

1739: \bibitem{Atkinson}

1740:         M. Atkinson {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 138}, 459 (1984).

1741: \bibitem{Tippens}

1742:         W. B. Tippens {\it et al.},  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 052001 (2001).

1743: \bibitem{Magiera}

1744:         A. Magiera and H. Machner, Nucl.Phys. A {\bf 674}, 515 (2000).

1745: \bibitem{Kudryavtsev2002}

1746:         A. Kudryavtsev {\it et al.}, nucl-th/0203034.

1747: \bibitem{Kudryavtsev}

1748:         A. Kudryavtsev and V.E. Tarasov, JETP Lett.  {\bf 72}, 410 (2000).

1749: \bibitem{Grishina1}

1750:         V.Yu. Grishina {\it et al.},  Phys. Lett. B {\bf 475}, 9 (2000).

1751: \bibitem{Grishina2}

1752:         V.Yu. Grishina, L.A. Kondratyuk, and M. B\"uscher,

1753:         Phys. Atom.  Nucl. {\bf 63}, 1824 (2000).

1754: \bibitem{AnnRep2000}

1755:         V. Yu. Grishina {\it et al.}, in: ``IKP Annual Report

1756:         2000'', Berichte des Forschungszentrums J\"ulich, J\"ul-3852,

1757:         ISSN 0944-2952, p.30.

1758: \bibitem{Faldt}

1759:         G. F\"aldt and C. Wilkin, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 354}, 20 (1995).

1760: \bibitem{Uzikov}

1761:         L.A. Kondratyuk and Yu.N. Uzikov, JETP Lett. {\bf 63}, 1 (1996).

1762: \bibitem{MOMO}

1763:         F. Belleman {\it et al.}, in: ``IKP Annual Report

1764:         2000'', Berichte des Forschungszentrums J\"ulich, J\"ul-3852,

1765:         ISSN 0944-2952, p.62.

1766: \bibitem{proposal}

1767:         M.~B\"uscher {\it et al.}, COSY proposal \#97 (2001),  available via:

1768:         http://www.fz-juelich.de/ikp/anke.

1769: \end{thebibliography}

1770: 

1771: 

1772: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1773: \newpage

1774: \begin{table*}[t]

1775: \caption{\label{Tab1} Coefficients in Eq. (\ref{NNa0sum})

1776: for different mechanisms of the $pp\to pp a_0^0$,

1777: $pp \to pn a_0^+$, $pn\to pp a_0^-$ and  $pn \to pn a_0^0$ reactions}

1778: \vspace*{5mm}

1779: \begin{center}

1780: \begin{tabular}{l c c c c }

1781: \hline

1782: Reaction $j$ (mechanism $\alpha$)

1783: & $\xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ab;cd]$ & $\xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ab;dc]$ &

1784: $\xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ba;dc]$ &  $\xi^{\pi}_{j(\alpha)}[ba;cd]$

1785: \\ \hline

1786: $pp\to pp a_0^0 \ (t(\eta),t(f_1))$

1787: & $+1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$ & $+1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$

1788: \\

1789: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (s(N))$

1790: & $+1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$ & $+1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$

1791: \\

1792: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (u(N))$

1793: & $+1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$ & $+1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$

1794: \\

1795: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ \mathrm{Regge}$

1796: & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$

1797: \\

1798: \hline

1799: $pp\to pn a_0^+ \ (t(\eta),t(f_1))$

1800: & $-\sqrt{2}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $+\sqrt{2}$

1801: \\

1802: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (s(N))$

1803: & $0$ & $+\sqrt{2}$ & $-\sqrt{2}$ & $0$

1804: \\

1805: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (u(N))$

1806: & $+2\sqrt{2}$ & $-\sqrt{2}$ & $+\sqrt{2}$ & $-2\sqrt{2}$

1807: \\

1808: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ \mathrm{Regge}$

1809: & $-1$ & $+1$ & $-1$ & $+1$

1810: \\

1811: \hline

1812: $pn\to pp a_0^- \ (t(\eta),t(f_1))$

1813: & $+1$ & $-1$ & $0$ & $0$

1814: \\

1815: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (s(N))$

1816: & $-2$ & $+2$ & $-1$ & $+1$

1817: \\

1818: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (u(N))$

1819: & $0$ & $0$ & $+1$ & $-1$

1820: \\

1821: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ \mathrm{Regge}$

1822: & $+1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$ & $-1/\sqrt{2}$ &

1823: $+1/\sqrt{2}$

1824: \\

1825: \hline

1826: $pn\to pn a_0^0 \ (t(\eta),t(f_1))$

1827: & $-1$ & $0$ & $+1$ & $0$

1828: \\

1829: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (s(N))$

1830: & $-1$ & $-2$ & $+1$ & $+2$

1831: \\

1832: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ (u(N))$

1833: & $-1$ & $+2$ & $+1$ & $-2$

1834: \\

1835: $\hphantom{pp\to pp a_0^0 }\ \mathrm{Regge}$

1836: & $0$ & $+\sqrt{2}$ & $0$ & $-\sqrt{2}$

1837: \\

1838: \hline

1839: \end{tabular}

1840: \end{center}

1841: \end{table*}

1842: 

1843: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

1844: 

1845: 

1846: \clearpage

1847: \begin{figure}[t]

1848: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig1r.eps,width=15cm}}

1849: \vspace*{1cm}\caption{

1850: The diagrams {\it a)-d)} for $a_0$ production in the reaction

1851: $\pi N\rightarrow a_0 N \rightarrow \bar{K} K$ near threshold and a

1852: diagram {\it e)} for nonresonant $\bar K K$ ``background'' production.

1853: }\label{Fig1}

1854: \end{figure}

1855: 

1856: \clearpage

1857: \begin{figure}[t]

1858: \psfig{figure=fig2r.eps,width=14cm}

1859: \caption{

1860: The differential cross sections $d\sigma/dt$ for the reactions

1861: $\pi^-p\rightarrow  a_0^-p$ (upper part) and $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$

1862: (lower part) at 2.4 GeV$/c$.  The dash-dotted line corresponds to the

1863: $\eta$ exchange, solid and dashed lines (upper part) show  the $f_1$

1864: contributions within sets $A$ and $B$, respectively. The dotted and

1865: dash-double-dotted lines indicate the $s$ and $u$ channels while the

1866: solid line (lower part) describes the coherent sum of $s$- and $u$-

1867: channel contributions. The short dotted and short dash-dotted lines

1868: present the results within the $\rho_2$ and ($\rho_2, \ b_1$) Regge

1869: exchange model, respectively (see text).

1870: }\label{dsdt_pip}

1871: \end{figure}

1872: 

1873: \clearpage

1874: \begin{figure}[h]

1875: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig3r.eps,width=13cm}}

1876: \caption{

1877: The total cross sections for the reactions $\pi^-p\rightarrow

1878: a_0^-p$ (upper part) and $\pi^-p\rightarrow a_0^0n$ (middle and lower

1879: part) as a function of the incident momentum. The assignment of the

1880: lines is the same as in Fig. 2.  The experimental data point at 18 GeV$/c$

1881: (lower part) is taken from \protect\cite{Brookhaven}.

1882: }\label{stot_pip}

1883: \end{figure}

1884: 

1885: \clearpage

1886: \begin{figure}[h]

1887: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig4r.eps,width=15cm}}

1888: \vspace*{1cm}\caption{

1889: The total cross sections for the reactions $\pi^- p \to n K^+

1890: K^-$ (upper left), $\pi^- p \to nK^0  \bar {K^0}$ (upper right), $\pi^+

1891: p \to p K^+ \bar {K^0} $ (lower left) and $\pi^- p \to pK^0 K^- $

1892: (lower right). Experimental data are taken from \cite{Landolt}.

1893: The solid curves describe $s$- and $u$-channel contributions, calculated

1894: with the dipole nucleon form factor $(F^2_N(u)$ with $\Lambda_N =

1895: 1.35$ GeV.  The short-dashed and long-dashed curves describe $\eta$ and

1896: $f_1$ $t$-channel exchanges, respectively. Two different choices of

1897: the Regge-pole model are shown by the dash-dotted curves which describe

1898: $\rho_2$-exchange (upper) and conspiring $\rho_2 b_1$ -exchange

1899: (lower). The crossed solid lines show the background contribution from

1900: diagram e) in Fig.~1.

1901: }\label{pinkk_bg}

1902: \end{figure}

1903: 

1904: 

1905: \clearpage

1906: \begin{figure}[h]

1907: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig5r.eps,width=15cm}}

1908: \vspace*{1cm}\caption{

1909: Diagrams for $a_0$ production in the reaction $N N\rightarrow

1910: a_0 N N$.

1911: }\label{diagr_a0}

1912: \end{figure}

1913: 

1914: 

1915: \clearpage

1916: \begin{figure}[h]

1917: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig6r.eps,width=15.5cm}}

1918: \vspace*{1cm}\caption{

1919: The total cross sections for the reactions $pp\to pp a_0^0$

1920: (upper part) and $pp\to pn a_0^+$ (lower part) as a function of the

1921: excess energy $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$ calculated with FSI.  The short

1922: dotted lines (l.h.s.) corresponds to the $t(f_1)$ channel, the dotted

1923: lines to the $t(\eta)$ channel, the dashed lines to the $u(N)$ channel,

1924: the short dashed lines to the $s(N)$ channel.  The dashed line (upper

1925: part, r.h.s.) is the incoherent sum of the contributions from $s(N)$

1926: and $u(N)$ channels ($s+u$).  The solid lines indicate the coherent sum

1927: of $s(N)$ and $u(N)$ channels with interference ($s+u+int.$).  The

1928: solid lines with full dots and with open squares (lower part, r.h.s.)

1929: present the results within the $\rho_2$ and $(\rho_2,b_1)$ Regge

1930: exchange model.

1931: }\label{pp_q}

1932: \end{figure}

1933: 

1934: \clearpage

1935: \begin{figure}[t]

1936: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig7r.eps,width=10cm}}

1937: \caption{

1938: Upper part: the calculated total cross section (within

1939: parameter set 1 (\ref{set1})) for the reaction $pp\to pn

1940: a_0^+ \to pn K^+ \bar K_0$ in comparison to the experimental data for

1941: $pp \to pn K^+ \bar K_0$ (solid dots) from \protect\cite{Landolt}

1942: as a function of $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$.  The dot-dashed and solid

1943: lines  correspond to the coherent sum of $s(N)$ and $u(N)$ channels

1944: with interference ($s+u+int.$) calculated with the monopole form factor

1945: with $\Lambda_N=1.24$~GeV and with the dipole form factor with

1946: $\Lambda_N=1.35$~GeV, respectively.  Middle part: the solid lines with

1947: full dots and with open squares represent the results within the

1948: $\rho_2$ and $(\rho_2,b_1)$ Regge exchange model.  The short dashed

1949: line shows the 4-body phase space (with constant interaction

1950: amplitude); the dashed line is the parametrization from Sibirtsev {\it et

1951: al.}~\protect\cite{Sibirtsev1}.  Lower part: the calculated total cross

1952: section (within parameter set 1) for the reaction $pp\to pp a_0^0

1953: \to pp K^+ K^-$ as a function of $Q=\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0}$ in comparison

1954: to the experimental data.  The solid dots indicate the data for $pp \to

1955: pp K_0 \bar K_0$ from \protect\cite{Landolt}, the open square for

1956: $pp\to pp K^+K^-$ from \protect\cite{DISTO}; the full down

1957: triangls show the data from \protect\cite{COSY11}.

1958: }\label{pp_kk}

1959: \end{figure}

1960: 

1961: 

1962: \clearpage

1963: \begin{figure}[h]

1964: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig8r.eps,width=12cm}}

1965: \vspace*{1cm}\caption{

1966: The $K^+K^-$ invariant mass distribution for the $pp\to

1967: pp K^+K^-$ reaction at $p_{lab}=3.67$~GeV$/c$.  The short dotted lines

1968: indicate the 4-body phase space with constant interaction amplitude,

1969: the dot-dashed lines show the coherent sum of $s(N)$ and $u(N)$

1970: channels with interference ($s+u+int.$).  The solid lines with open

1971: circles correspond to the $f_0$ contribution from

1972: \protect\cite{Brat99}.  The thick solid lines show the sum of all

1973: contributions including the decay $\phi\to K^+K^-$.  The experimental

1974: data are taken from \protect\cite{DISTO}.

1975: }\label{distf0a0}

1976: \end{figure}

1977: 

1978: 

1979: \clearpage

1980: \begin{figure}[h]

1981: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig9r.eps,width=12cm}}

1982: \vspace*{1cm}\caption{

1983: The diagrams a)-b) describing  different mechanisms of

1984: nonresonant $K\bar K$ production in the reaction $NN\to NN K \bar K$.

1985: }\label{fig10r}

1986: \end{figure}

1987: 

1988: \clearpage

1989: \begin{figure}[h]

1990: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig10r.eps,width=15cm}}

1991: \vspace*{1cm}\caption{

1992: Comparison of the $a_0$-resonance contribution (bold solid

1993: curves) and nonresonant background (thin solid curves) in the reactions

1994: $pp\to pnK^+ \bar{K^0}$ (upper part) and $pp \to pp K^+ K^-$ (lower part).

1995: }\label{fig11r}

1996: \end{figure}

1997: 

1998: \clearpage

1999: \begin{figure}[h]

2000: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig11r.eps,width=15cm}}

2001: \vspace*{1cm}\caption{

2002: Diagrams a)-d) describing different mechanisms of $a_0$

2003: and $f_0$-meson production in the reaction $NN\to da_0(f_0)$ within

2004: the framework of the two-step model (TSM). The nonresonant $\pi\eta$

2005: production is described by the diagram e).

2006: }\label{fig:tsm}

2007: \end{figure}

2008: 

2009: \clearpage

2010: \begin{figure}[h]

2011: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig12r.eps,width=15cm}}

2012: \vspace*{1cm}\caption{

2013: Forward differential cross section of the reaction

2014: $pp\rightarrow d a_0^+$ as a function of $(p_{\rm{lab}} - 3.29)$

2015: GeV$/c$. The full dots are the experimental data from

2016: \protect\cite{BNL73} while the bold dash-dotted and solid lines

2017: describe the results of the TSM for $\Lambda_N = 1.2$ and 1.3 GeV,

2018: respectively.  The thin dash-dotted and solid lines are calculated

2019: using the Flatt\'e mass distribution for the $a_0$ meson with a cut $M

2020: \geq$ 0.85 GeV.

2021: }\label{fig:dsacosy}

2022: \end{figure}

2023: 

2024: \clearpage

2025: \begin{figure}[h]

2026: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig13r.eps,width=15cm}}

2027: \vspace*{1cm}\caption{

2028: $\pi^0 \eta$ invariant mass distribution for the reaction $pn

2029: \rightarrow d \pi^0 \eta$ at 3.4 GeV$/c$. The dashed and dash-dotted

2030: lines describe the $a_0$ resonance contribution and nonresonance

2031: background, respectively. The solid line is the sum of both

2032: contributions.

2033: }\label{fig:MM}

2034: \end{figure}

2035: 

2036: \clearpage

2037: \begin{figure}[h]

2038: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig14r.eps,width=15cm}}

2039: \vspace*{1cm}\caption{

2040: Total cross sections for the reactions $pn \to da_0$ and $pn

2041: \to df_0$ as a function of ($T_{\mathrm{lab}}-2.473$) GeV. The

2042: solid and dashed curves are calculated using narrow and finite

2043: resonance widths, respectively. The curves denoted by 1 and 2

2044: correspond to the choices $R(f_0/a_0) $= 1.46 and 2.3, respectively.

2045: }\label{fig:siga0f0}

2046: \end{figure}

2047: 

2048: \clearpage

2049: \begin{figure}[h]

2050: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig15r.eps,width=15cm}}

2051: \vspace*{1cm}\caption{

2052: Differential cross section of the reaction $pn \to d a_0^0$ at

2053: $T_p=2.6$ GeV as a function

2054: of $\Theta_{\mathrm{c.m.}}$. The solid curve corresponds to the

2055: case of isospin conservation, i.e.\  $|\xi|^2=0$. The

2056: dashed-dotted lines include the mixing effect with $|\xi|^2$ =

2057: 0.05 for the lower curves (1a and 2a) and $|\xi|^2 = 0.11$ for

2058: the upper curves (1b and 2b). The lines 1a, 1b and 2a, 2b have

2059: been calculated for $R(f_0/a_0) = 1.46$ and 2.3, respectively.

2060: }\label{fig:dsa0f0}

2061: \end{figure}

2062: 

2063: \clearpage

2064: \begin{figure}[h]

2065: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig16r.eps,width=15cm}}

2066: \vspace*{1cm}\caption{

2067: Differential cross section of the reaction $pn \to d f_0$ at

2068: $T_p=2.6$ GeV as a function of $\Theta_{\mathrm{c.m.}}$. The

2069: notation of the curves is the same as in Fig. \ref{fig:dsa0f0}.

2070: }\label{fig:dsf0a0}

2071: \end{figure}

2072: 

2073: \end{document}

2074: 

2075: #!/bin/csh -f

2076: # Uuencoded gz-compressed .tar file created by csh script  uufiles

2077: # For more info (11/95), see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html

2078: # If you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself: strip

2079: # any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., figures.uu

2080: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)

2081: # Then say        csh figures.uu

2082: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):

2083: #    uudecode figures.uu ;   gunzip figures.tar.gz ;

2084: #    tar -xvf figures.tar

2085: # On some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use editor to change filename

2086: # in "begin" line below to figures.tar-gz , then execute

2087: #    uudecode figures.uu

2088: #    gzip -d figures.tar-gz

2089: #    tar -xvf figures.tar

2090: #

2091: uudecode $0

2092: chmod 644 figures.tar.gz

2093: gunzip -c figures.tar.gz | tar -xvf -

2094: rm $0 figures.tar.gz

2095: exit

2096: 

2097: