1: \documentclass[epj]{svjour}
2: \usepackage{epsfig} \usepackage{psfig} \usepackage{times}
3:
4: \begin{document}
5:
6: \title{Forward-backward angle asymmetry and polarization observables in high-energy
7: deuteron photo\-disintegration}
8: \author{V.Yu.~Grishina $^a$, L.A.~Kondratyuk $^{b}$, W.~Cassing $^c$, E.~ De~Sanctis $^d$, M.~Mirazita $^d$,
9: F.~Ronchetti $^d$ and P.~Rossi $^d$ \\}
10: \institute{$^a$ Institute for Nuclear Research, 60th October Anniversary Prospect 7A, 117312 Moscow, Russia\\
11: $^b$ Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, B.\
12: Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117218 Moscow, Russia \\
13: $^c$ Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Giessen, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 16, D-35392 Giessen, Germany\\
14: $^d$ INFN-Laboratori Nationali di Frascati, CP 13, via E. Fermi, 40; I-00044, Frascati, Italy}
15: \date{Received: date / Revised version: date}
16:
17: \abstract{Deuteron two-body photodisintegration is analysed within the framework of the Quark-Gluon Strings Model.
18: It is found that the forward-backward angle asymmetry predicted by the model is confirmed by the recent
19: data at different photon energies from Jlab. New calculations for polarization observables, the cross section
20: asymmetry $\Sigma$ and the polarization transfer $C_{z^{\prime}}$, for photon energies $(1.2\div6)$~GeV are
21: presented and compared with the data available up to 2~GeV.}
22:
23: \PACS{ {13.40.-f} {Electromagnetic processes and properties} \and
24: {25.20.-x} {Photonuclear reactions}}
25:
26: \authorrunning{V. Yu. Grishina et al.}
27:
28: \titlerunning{Polarization observables...}
29: \maketitle
30: \section{Introduction}
31:
32: Experiments on high energy two-body photodisintegration of the deuteron \cite{Bochna,Schulte} have shown that the
33: cross section data at proton angles $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}} = 89^{\circ}$ and $69^{\circ}$ exhibit scaling
34: consistent with the
35: constituent quark counting rule behavior \cite{Matveev}\footnote{i.e. at fixed c.m.
36: angle the differential cross
37: section $d\sigma/dt_{\gamma d \to pn}$ scales as $\sim s^{-11}$}
38: for photon energies $E_{\gamma} \geq~1$~GeV
39: while at forward angles, $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}} = 36^{\circ}$ and $52^{\circ}$,
40: scaling is not observed for
41: $E_{\gamma} \leq~4$~GeV.
42: Moreover, the data on the recoil polarization for the
43: $d(\overrightarrow{\gamma},\overrightarrow{p})n$ reaction at
44: $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}} = 90^{\circ}$ for photon energies up to
45: 2.4~GeV \cite{Wijesooriya} do not support the
46: helicity conservation as predicted by perturbative QCD (pQCD). Thus scaling is no
47: longer considered as sufficient evidence for the
48: applicability of pQCD in the energy range $E_{\gamma} = (1\div 4)$~GeV and
49: nonperturbative approaches should be applied, too.
50:
51: To this aim, recently, some of us have studied the high-energy deuteron photodisintegration within the framework
52: of the Quark-Gluon Strings Model (QGSM) \cite{Grishina,Kondratyuk}. This model - proposed by Kaidalov
53: \cite{Kaidalov,Kaidalov99} - is based on two ingredients: i) a topological expansion in QCD and ii) a space-time
54: picture of the interactions between hadrons that takes into account the confinement of quarks. In a more general
55: sense the QGSM can be consi\-dered as a microscopic (nonperturbative) model of Regge phenomenology for the
56: analy\-sis of exclusive and inclusive hadron-hadron and photon-hadron reactions on the quark level.
57:
58:
59: We recall that originally the QGSM has been formulated for small scattering angles or low 4-momentum transfer
60: (squared) $t$ (here $t$, $u$ and $s$ are the usual Mandelstam variables).
61: The question thus arises, how to
62: extrapolate the QGSM amplitudes to large angles (or large $t$). Following Coon et al. \cite{Coon} we assume that
63: there is only a single analytic Regge term that smoothly connects the small angle and fixed-large-angle regions.
64: Thus, according to Ref.\cite{Arik}, we require that the amplitude at fixed angle should be obtained either as the
65: large $t$ limit of the forward Regge form or as the large $u$ limit of the backward Regge form. The only
66: solution to these boundary conditions is a logarithmic decreasing trajectory,
67: \begin{equation}
68: \alpha_N (t)=\alpha_N(-T_B) - d\, \mathrm{ln} (-t/T_B), \label{LDM}
69: \end{equation}
70: where $d$ is a constant and $T_B$ is a scale parameter. Such a form of the Regge trajectory naturally arises in
71: the logarithmic dual model (LDM), that very well describes the differential cross section $d\sigma/dt$ for elastic
72: $pp$ scattering in the energy range $(5\div24)$~GeV for $-t$ up to 18 GeV${}^2$ \cite{Coon}. It is worth noti\-cing
73: that logarithmic form of non-linear Regge trajectories have also been discussed in
74: Refs.~\cite{Chikovani,Ito,Bugrij,Brisudova}.
75: The special case with $d=0$ corresponds to 'saturated' trajectories, which means
76: that all the trajectories
77: approach a constant at large negative $t$. We recall, that this case leads to the
78: constituent-interchange model which is a predecessor of the asymptotic
79: quark-counting rules \cite{Matveev,Brodsky}. The approach
80: with 'saturated' trajectories was successfully used to explain the
81: large $t$ behavior of hadron and photon induced reactions in
82: Refs. \cite{Guidal,Fiore,White,Battaglieri}.
83:
84: Within the QGSM the deuteron photodisintegration amplitude $T(\gamma d \to pn)$ can be described in first
85: approximation by planar graphs with three valence quark exchange in $t$ (or $u$)-channels, which corresponds to a
86: nucleon Regge trajectory (see Fig. \ref{fig:qgsm}). In Ref. \cite{Grishina} deuteron photodisintegration has been
87: analyzed using nonlinear Regge trajectories. It was found that the QGSM provides a reasonable description of the
88: Jlab data on deuteron photodisintegration at large momentum transfer $t$ \cite{Bochna} when using a logarithmic
89: form for the nucleon trajectory similar to that of Eq. (\ref{LDM}).
90: This has provided new evidence for a nonlinearity of the Regge trajectory $\alpha_N(t)$.
91:
92: In this work we compare the predictions of the QGSM with all data available at high energies
93: \cite{Bochna,Schulte,Crawford,Napolitano,Freedman,Beltz,Gilman,Mirazita,Ronchetti,Rossi}
94: and provide a more detailed analysis of the
95: forward-backward angle asymmetry. Moreover, as a novel aspect we calculate the cross section asymmetry $\Sigma$ and the
96: polarization transfer to the proton $C_{z^{\prime}}$ in the reaction
97: $\overrightarrow{\gamma}d \to \overrightarrow{p}n$ for photon energies $E_\gamma = (1.2\div6)$~GeV and compare them to
98: the data available at $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}} = 90^{\circ}$ and
99: up to 2~GeV \cite{Wijesooriya,Adamian}.
100:
101: The layout of the paper
102: is as follows: In Section 2 the spin structure of the $\gamma d \to p n$
103: amplitude is eva\-luated and in Section 3
104: the analysis of the forward-backward asymmetry is discussed. In Section 4 the results (and predictions) of the
105: QGSM are compared with the available data for the energy dependence of the differential cross section at fixed
106: angles. Section 5 is devoted to the definition and calculation of polarization observables while Section 6
107: summarises the results of the work.
108:
109:
110: \section{Spin structure of the $\gamma d \to p n$ amplitude}
111:
112: As already mentioned above the main assumption of the QGSM is that the deuteron photodisintegration amplitude
113: $T(\gamma d \to pn)$ can be described by planar graphs with three valence quark exchange in $t-$ or $u-$ channels
114: with any number of gluon exchanges between them (cf. Fig.\ref{fig:qgsm}). This corresponds to the contributions
115: of the $t$- and $u$- channel nucleon Regge trajectories. In the space-time picture the intermediate $s$-channel
116: consists of a $6q$ string (or color tube) with $q$ and $5q$ states at the ends.
117:
118: \begin{figure}[h]
119: \centerline{\psfig{figure=gdpn.eps,width=6.0cm}}
120: \caption{Diagrams for deuteron photodisintegration describing
121: three valence quark exchanges in the $t$- (a) and
122: $u$-channel (b).} \label{fig:qgsm}
123: \end{figure}
124:
125:
126: The spin dependence of the $\gamma p \to pn$ amplitude has been evaluated in Ref. \cite{Grishina} in a simple
127: way by assuming that all intermediate quark clusters have minimal spins and the $s$-channel helicities in the
128: quark-hadron and hadron-quark transition amplitudes are conserved. In this limit the spin structure of the
129: amplitude $T(\gamma d \to pn)$ can be written as (see Ref. \cite{Grishina}, comment after Eq.~(27))
130: \begin{eqnarray}
131: \lefteqn{ \langle p_3,\lambda_{p}; p_4,\lambda_{n} |
132: \hat{T}\left(s, t\right)|
133: p_2,\lambda_{d};p_1,\lambda_{\gamma}\rangle \simeq }\nonumber \\ &&\bar
134: u_{\lambda_p}(p_3) \hat {\epsilon}_{\lambda_{\gamma}}
135: \left[{A(s,t)( \hat{p}_3-\hat{p}_1) +B(s,t) m}\right] \hat
136: {\epsilon}_{\lambda_{d}} v_{\lambda_n}(p_4), \label{spin1}
137: \end{eqnarray}
138: where $m$ is the nucleon mass, $p_1$, $p_2$, $p_3$, and $p_4$ are the 4-momenta
139: of the photon, deuteron, proton,
140: and neutron, respectively, and $\lambda_i$ denotes the $s$ channel
141: helicity of the $i$-th particle.
142: The invariant amplitudes $A(s,t)$ and $B(s,t)$ have similar
143: Regge asymptotics (see below). It is possible to show
144: (cf. Ref. \cite{Grishina}) that at small scattering angles the ratio $R=A(s,t)/B(s,t)$ is
145: a smooth function of $t$
146: and can be considered as an effective constant that depends on the ratio of the nucleon mass to the constituent
147: quark mass $m_q$: $R\simeq m/(2 m_q)$. It is interesting to note that the spin
148: structure of the $\gamma d \to pn$
149: amplitude in Eq. (\ref{spin1}) is very similar to the amplitude within the
150: Reggeized Nucleon Born Term Model
151: (see Refs. \cite{Guidal,Irving}) where the ratio $R=A/B=1$ is directly related to the nucleon propagator. In line with
152: Ref. \cite{Grishina} we also treat the ratio $R$ as a
153: constant value that, however, may range between 1 and 2.5.
154:
155: The differential cross section for the reaction $\gamma
156: d\to pn$ is
157: \begin{eqnarray}
158: &\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{\gamma d\to pn}}{d t}& =
159: \frac{1}{64\,\pi s}\ \frac{1}{(p_{\gamma \, \mathrm{cm}})^2}\
160: \nonumber\\
161: &&\times \left[ S_{t}\ \left|B^{(+)}(s,t)\right|^2+
162: S_u\ \left|B^{(-)}(s,u) \right|^2 \nonumber \right.\\
163: && \left. + 2S_{tu}\ {\mathrm
164: {Re}}\, (B^{(+)}(s,t) B^{(-)*}(s,u))
165: \vphantom{\left|B^{(+)}(s,t)\right|^2}
166: \right], \label{eq:sigt}
167: \end{eqnarray}
168: where the amplitudes $B^{(\pm)}(s,t)=B^{(\rho)}(s,t)\pm B^{(\omega)}(s,t)$ are combinations of the contributions
169: from isovector ($\rho$ like) and isoscalar ($\omega$ like) photons. The kinematical functions $S_t$,
170: $S_u$, $S_{tu}$ in (\ref{eq:sigt}) can be written in a covariant form as
171: \begin{eqnarray}
172: S_t=\frac{1}{6} \sum _{\lambda_{\gamma},\ \lambda_{d}}
173: {\mathrm {Sp}}\, \left[\vphantom{\hat {\epsilon}^*_{\lambda_{\gamma}}}
174: \hat {\epsilon}_{\lambda_{\gamma}}
175: \left(R \,( \hat{p}_3-\hat{p}_1)
176: + m \right)
177: \hat {\epsilon}_{\lambda_{d}}
178: \left(\hat {p}_4- m \right) \right. \nonumber \\
179: \times \left. \hat {\epsilon}^*_{\lambda_{d}}
180: \left(R \, ( \hat{p}_3-\hat{p}_1)
181: + m \right)
182: \hat {\epsilon}^*_{\lambda_{\gamma}}
183: \left(\hat {p}_3+ m \right) \right] \ ,\nonumber \\
184: S_u=\frac{1}{6} \sum _{\lambda_{\gamma},\ \lambda_{d}}
185: {\mathrm {Sp}}\, \left[ \vphantom{\hat {\epsilon}^*_{\lambda_{\gamma}}}
186: \hat {\epsilon}_{\lambda_{d}}
187: \left(R\, ( \hat{p}_4-\hat{p}_1)- m \right)
188: \hat {\epsilon}_{\lambda_{\gamma}}
189: \left(\hat {p}_4- m \right) \right. \nonumber \\ \times \left.
190: \hat {\epsilon}^*_{\lambda_{\gamma}} \left(R\, (
191: \hat{p}_4-\hat{p}_1) - m \right) \hat
192: {\epsilon}^*_{\lambda_{d}} \left(\hat {p}_3+ m
193: \right)\right] \ ,\nonumber\\
194: S_{tu}=-\frac{1}{6} \sum
195: _{\lambda_{\gamma},\ \lambda_{d}} {\mathrm {Sp}}\,
196: \left[ \vphantom{\hat {\epsilon}^*_{\lambda_{\gamma}}}
197: \hat{\epsilon}_{\lambda_{\gamma}} \left(R \, ( \hat{p}_3-\hat{p}_1) +
198: m \right) \hat {\epsilon}_{\lambda_{d}} \left(\hat {p}_4- m
199: \right)\right. \nonumber \\ \times \left. \hat
200: {\epsilon}^*_{\lambda_{\gamma}} \left(R\, (
201: \hat{p}_4-\hat{p}_1) - m \right) \hat
202: {\epsilon}^*_{\lambda_{d}} \left(\hat {p}_3+ m
203: \right)\right].
204: %\nonumber
205: \end{eqnarray}
206: In order to achieve consistency of the differential cross section $d\sigma/dt$
207: with Regge asymptotics for large $s$ and fixed $t$, we use the
208: following parametrization of the amplitude $B^{(+)}(s,t)$
209: \begin{equation}
210: \left|B^{(+)}(s,t)\right|^{2}=\frac{1}{C_{0}\, p_{\gamma \, \mathrm{cm}}^2} \
211: \left|\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm {Regge}}(s,t)\right|^2\ ,
212: \label{Bst}
213: \end{equation}
214: where $C_{0}=(36\pm3)~$GeV$^2$ and
215: \begin{equation}
216: \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{Regge}}(s,t)= F(t)
217: \left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha_{N}(t)} \exp{\left[
218: -i\ \frac{\pi}{2}\left(\alpha_{N}(t) -
219: \frac{1}{2}\right)\right]}\ .
220: \label{eq:Mregge}
221: \end{equation}
222: Here $\alpha_N(t)$ is the trajectory of the nucleon Regge pole and
223: $s_0 =4~\mathrm{GeV}^2 \simeq m_d^2$ ($m_d$
224: denoting the mass of the deuteron). We take the dependence of the residue $F(t)$ on $t$ in the form
225: \begin{equation}
226: F(t) = B_{\mathrm{res}}
227: {\left[\frac{1}{m^2 - t}\ \exp{(R_1^2t)} + C\, \exp{(R_2^2t)} \right]}\
228: \label{eq:resid1}
229: \end{equation}
230: as it has been used in Refs. \cite{KaidalovP,Guaraldo} for the description of the reactions $pp \to d \pi^+$ and
231: $\bar p d \to p \pi^-$ at $-t \leq 1.6$ GeV$^2$.
232: In Eq. (\ref{eq:resid1}) the first term in the square brackets contains the nucleon pole and the second term
233: ($\sim C$) accounts for the contribution of non-nucleonic degrees of freedom in the deuteron.
234:
235: The amplitude defined by Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigt}) has a rather simple covariant structure and can be extrapolated to
236: large angles.
237: As shown in Ref. \cite{Grishina} the energy behavior of the cross section crucially depends on the form of
238: the Regge trajectory $\alpha _N(t)$ for large negative $t$. The form, that better
239: describes the data, is the
240: logarithmic one with nonleading contributions:
241: \begin{equation} \label{nonlin} \alpha_N(t)
242: = \alpha_N(0)- \alpha^{\prime}_{N}(0) T_{B}\ln (1 - {t}/{T_B}). \end{equation}
243: Here we use this trajectory with $\alpha_{N}(0)=- 0.5, \alpha^{\prime}_{N}(0)=0.9$~GeV${}^{-2}$, and
244: $T_B = 1.7$~GeV${}^2$; furthermore, we take $R=A(s,t)/B(s,t) =2$ and adopt
245: the following values for the parameters of
246: the residue $F(t)$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:resid1}):
247: \begin{eqnarray}
248: B_{\mathrm{res}}=2.05 \cdot10^{-4}\, \mathrm{kb}^{1/2}\mathrm{GeV} ,\;
249: C = 0.7\ \mathrm{GeV}^{-2} , \nonumber\\
250: \ R_1^2 = 2\ \mathrm{GeV}^{-2} , \;
251: R_2^2 = 0.03\ \mathrm{GeV}^{-2}.\; \label{Set_par}
252: \end{eqnarray}
253: Note that these parameters, except for the overall normalization factor $B_{\mathrm{res}}$, are not very different
254: from those determined by fitting data on the reaction $pp \to \pi^+ d$ at $-t \leq 1.6\ \mathrm{GeV}^2$
255: \cite{KaidalovP}. In our case, $C$ remains unchanged and the
256: factor $B_{\mathrm{res}}$ and the radii $R_1^2$ and
257: $R_2^2$ have been fixed using two experimental values of the deuteron
258: photodisintegration cross section at
259: 1.6~GeV and $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}}=36^{\circ}$ and $52^{\circ}$. These parameters are the same as in Ref.
260: \cite{Grishina}, apart from a small (about 13\%) readjustment of
261: $B_{\mathrm{res}}$ ($2.05 \cdot10^{-4}\, \mathrm{kb}^{1/2}$~GeV, instead of
262: $1.8 \cdot10^{-4}\, \mathrm{kb}^{1/2}$~GeV). This is due to the fact that in the present work the energy
263: dependence of the differential cross section has been calculated taking into account two amplitudes that describe
264: the contribution of isovector ($\rho$ like) and isoscalar ($\omega$ like) photons (see Eq. (\ref{eq:sigt})),
265: while in Ref.~\cite{Grishina} the isovector photon dominance (i.e.~$B^{\omega}=0$) was assumed.
266:
267: Adopting the Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) model we get
268: \begin{equation}
269: B^{\omega}(s,t)=B^{\rho}(s,t)/\sqrt{8}, \hspace{0.4cm}
270: B^{\omega}(s,u)=B^{\rho}(s,u)/\sqrt{8}.
271: \end{equation}
272:
273:
274:
275: \section{Angular distributions and forward-backward angle asymmetry}
276: As argued in Ref. \cite{Grishina} a forward-backward angle asymmetry in the angular distribution in the reaction
277: $\gamma d \to p n$ arises from the interference of the isovector and isoscalar amplitudes.
278: \begin{figure}[h]
279: \begin{center}
280: \leavevmode \psfig{file=dsdo.eps,width=9.0cm}
281: \caption{The differential cross section for the reaction $\gamma d \to pn$ as a function of the proton
282: angle $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}}$ for different photon energies $E_{\gamma}$ from the QGSM (dashed lines).
283: The experimental data are from SLAC \cite{Napolitano,Freedman,Beltz}, Jlab-Hall C \cite{Bochna} and
284: Jlab-Hall A \cite{Gilman}.}
285: \label{fig:dsdo}
286: \end{center}
287: \end{figure}
288: \noindent In Fig.~\ref{fig:dsdo} we present the angular dependence of ${d\sigma}/{d\Omega}$
289: (dashed lines) at
290: four photon energies $E_{\gamma}$ = 1.1 GeV, 1.6 GeV, 1.9 GeV, and 2.4 GeV. The QGSM
291: calculations are found to be in very good
292: agreement with the experimental data taken from Refs.
293: \cite{Bochna,Napolitano,Freedman,Beltz,Gilman} and also with the new preliminary data from Jlab-Hall B, (not
294: shown in the figure), which determine almost the full angular distributions
295: \cite{Mirazita,Ronchetti,Rossi}.
296: These latter data, in particular, clearly support the predicted forward-backward angle asymmetry (see Fig. 3 of
297: Ref.\cite{Mirazita} and Fig. 2 of Ref. \cite{Ronchetti}). The calculated angular distributions have a dip for
298: $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}} =0^{\circ}$ and 180$^{\circ}$ which is related to the choice of the ratio
299: $R=A(s,t)/B(s,t)=2$. This dip does not appear for $R=1$, which corresponds to the
300: limit of the Reggeized Nucleon Born Term
301: Model (cf. Section~2). As argued in Ref. \cite{Mirazita} a full analysis of the data from
302: Jlab-Hall B will allow to
303: prove/disprove the appearance of the dips predicted by the QGSM.
304:
305:
306:
307: \section{Energy dependence of the differential cross section}
308: The QGSM predicts, furthermore, that the differential cross section
309: $d\sigma/dt$ at fixed $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}}$ angles decreases faster than any finite
310: power of $s$ and that at sufficiently large energies the perturbative regime
311: will become dominant. Moreover, as it was
312: shown in Ref. \cite{Grishina}, the model well describes the energy dependence of ${d\sigma}/{dt}\cdot s^{11}$ at
313: different $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}}$ angles for photon energies of $(1\div 4)$~GeV.
314: This is shown in Fig.\ref{fig:dsts11} where the QGSM predictions for the energy dependence of
315: ${d\sigma}/{dt}\cdot s^{11}$ at four $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}}$ angles -
316: calculated for the logarithmic nonlinear
317: trajectory (dashed lines) - are compared with all data available at high energies:
318: Mainz \cite{Crawford}, SLAC
319: \cite{Napolitano,Freedman,Beltz}, Jlab-Hall A \cite{Gilman}
320: and Jlab-Hall C \cite{Bochna,Schulte}. One can see
321: that above 4~GeV the QGSM overestimates the data at $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}}$ = 36$^{\circ}$ and systematically
322: underpredicts the data at~$\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}} = 89^{\circ}$. These discrepancies
323: might be attributed to the simplifying assumption that all the
324: intermediate quark clusters have minimal spins. Moreover, the
325: ratio $R=A/B$ may also deviate from a constant at large momentum
326: transfer $t$. For a better understanding of the situation
327: new data at intermediate angles appear to be important.
328:
329: \begin{figure}[h]
330: \begin{center}
331: \leavevmode \psfig{file=dsts11.eps,width=8.5cm,height=6.cm}
332: \caption{The differential cross section for the reaction $\gamma d\to pn$ (multiplied
333: by $s^{11}$) as a function of the photon lab. energy $E_{\gamma}$ at different proton angles
334: $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}}$ in the center-of-mass frame in comparison to the experimental data from
335: Mainz \cite{Crawford}, SLAC \cite{Napolitano,Freedman,Beltz}, Jlab-Hall C \cite{Bochna,Schulte}
336: and Jlab-Hall A \cite{Gilman}. The dashed lines are calculated
337: within the QGSM using the logarithmic nucleon
338: Regge trajectory (8).}
339: \label{fig:dsts11}
340: \end{center}
341: \end{figure}
342:
343:
344:
345: \section{Polarization observables}
346:
347: \indent
348: The energy dependence of the photodisintegration cross section has been shown to
349: be a potentially misleading indicator
350: for the success of pQCD. Models with asymptotic behaviour, which differ from pQCD,
351: fit the data as well or even better
352: than pQCD (see e.g. Refs. \cite{Grishina,Brodsky,Frankfurt,Dieperink,HarryLee}). Thus
353: further theoretical
354: developments and experimental tests of nonperturbative quark models will be necessary.
355: To this aim, polarization
356: observables are very important to further constrain the different approaches.
357:
358:
359: For the definitions of these observables in terms of helicity amplitudes we refer the reader to Ref.
360: \cite{Barannik}. We briefly recall here the necessary notations and definitions:
361: \begin{eqnarray}
362: F_{i,\pm}= {\langle \lambda_{p};\lambda_{n} |
363: \hat{T}\left(s, t\right)|
364: \lambda_{\gamma};\lambda_{d}\rangle },
365: \end{eqnarray}
366: where
367: \begin{eqnarray}
368: F_{1,\pm}= {\langle \pm \frac{1}{2};\pm \frac{1}{2} |
369: \hat{T}\left(s, t\right)|1;1\rangle },
370: \end{eqnarray}
371: \begin{eqnarray}
372: F_{2,\pm}= {\langle \pm \frac{1}{2};\pm \frac{1}{2}|
373: \hat{T}\left(s, t\right)|1;0\rangle },
374: \end{eqnarray}
375: \begin{eqnarray}
376: F_{3,\pm}= {\langle \pm \frac{1}{2};\pm \frac{1}{2} |
377: \hat{T}\left(s, t\right)|1;-1\rangle },
378: \end{eqnarray}
379: \begin{eqnarray}
380: F_{4,\pm}= {\langle \pm \frac{1}{2};\mp \frac{1}{2}|
381: \hat{T}\left(s, t\right)|1;1\rangle },
382: \end{eqnarray}
383: \begin{eqnarray}
384: F_{5,\pm}= {\langle \pm \frac{1}{2};\mp \frac{1}{2} |
385: \hat{T}\left(s, t\right)|1;0\rangle },
386: \end{eqnarray}
387: \begin{eqnarray}
388: F_{6,\pm}= {\langle \pm \frac{1}{2};\mp \frac{1}{2}|
389: \hat{T}\left(s, t\right)|1;-1\rangle }.
390: \label{helicityam}
391: \end{eqnarray}
392: The angular distribution in terms of the helicity amplitudes then is given by
393: \begin{eqnarray}
394: f(\theta)= \sum _{i=1}^6 \sum _{\pm} \left| F_{i,\pm}\right|^2 ,
395: \end{eqnarray}
396: while the polarization observables, i.e. the induced polarization, $P_y$, the cross section asymmetry, $\Sigma$, and the
397: polarization transfers, $C_{x^{\prime}}$, $C_{z^{\prime}}$ are defined via:
398: \begin{eqnarray}
399: f(\theta)\ P_y=2\ \mathrm{Im} \sum _{i=1}^3 \left[ F_{i,+}^*
400: F_{i+3,-} - F_{i,-}^* F_{i+3,+}\right],
401: \end{eqnarray}
402: \begin{eqnarray}
403: \label{asigma}
404: f(\theta) \ \Sigma =-2\ \mathrm{Re} \left[ \sum _{\pm} \left( F_{1,\pm}^*
405: F_{3,\mp} - F_{4,\pm} F_{6,\mp}^*\right) - \right. \nonumber \\ \left.
406: F_{2,+}^* F_{2,-}+ F_{5,+}^* F_{5,-}
407: \vphantom{\sum _{\pm} \left( F_{1,\pm}^*
408: F_{3,\mp} - F_{4,\pm} F_{6,\mp}^*\right)}
409: \right],
410: \end{eqnarray}
411: \begin{eqnarray}
412: f(\theta)\ C_{x^{\prime}}=2\ \mathrm{Re}\sum _{\pm} \left[ F_{1,\pm}
413: F_{4,\mp}^*+ F_{2,\pm} F_{5,\mp}^*\right. + \nonumber \\
414: \left.F_{3,\pm} F^*_{6,\mp} \right],
415: \end{eqnarray}
416: \begin{eqnarray}
417: \label{csp}
418: f(\theta)\ C_{z^{\prime}} = \sum _{i=1}^6 \sum _{\pm}\left[\pm
419: \left| F_{i,\pm}\right|^2 \right] .
420: \label{polobs}
421: \end{eqnarray}
422: Note that the asymmetry $\Sigma$ is defined here with a different sign as compared to that in Ref.
423: \cite{Barannik} (cf. the recent review \cite{Gross} and references therein).
424: %\breakpage
425: \begin{figure}[h]
426: \begin{center}
427: \leavevmode \psfig{file=plotsigmaall.eps,width=9cm}
428: \caption{The asymmetry $\Sigma$ (23) for linearly polarized photons as a function of the photon energy for different
429: $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}}$ angles. The dashed lines are calculated within the QGSM for $R=2$ while the experimental
430: data are taken from Ref. \cite{Adamian}. The solid line for $\Sigma = 0$ is added to guide the eye.}
431: \label{fig:sigmaold}
432: \end{center}
433: \end{figure}
434:
435: In the following we present the QGSM predictions for the asymmetry $\Sigma$ and the polarization transfer
436: to the proton, $C_{z^{\prime}}$, for photon energies $E_{\gamma} = (1.2\div 6)$~GeV.
437: In Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmaold} the QGSM results of the asymmetry $\Sigma$ (dashed lines) -
438: calculated for linearly polarized
439: photons - are shown as a function of the photon energy $E_{\gamma}$
440: for different angles $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}}$.
441: The QGSM predicts a slow decrease of $\Sigma (90^{\circ})$ with the photon energy from 0.6 (at 1.5 GeV) to 0.2
442: (at $5-6$~GeV). Also at the other angles, the asymmetry $\Sigma$ is a decreasing function of $E_{\gamma}$,
443: although slightly smaller in absolute magnitude. At 6~GeV it can even become negative at 70$^{\circ}$ and
444: 110$^{\circ}$.
445:
446: It is worth noticing that the behavior of the asymmetry $\Sigma$ in the QGSM is quite different from the one
447: predicted by the Hadron-Helicity Conservation (HHC) model as discussed in Refs. \cite{Adamian,Nagornyi}.
448: Moreover, according to Brodsky and Hiller \cite{Brodsky}, one should get $\lambda_d = \lambda_p + \lambda_n$
449: within pQCD independently of $\lambda_{\gamma}$. Assuming that - in the scaling limit - the transverse deuteron
450: helicities are suppressed as compared to the longitudinal ones, the $\Sigma$ asymmetry for linearly polarized
451: photons
452: \begin{equation}
453: \Sigma(\theta) = (d\sigma_{||} - d\sigma_{\perp})/
454: (d\sigma_{||} + d\sigma_{\perp})
455: \end{equation}
456: at $\theta_p^{\rm{CM}} = 90^{\circ}$ should approach the value \cite{Nagornyi}:
457: \begin{equation}
458: \Sigma (90^{\circ}) \simeq -2\ {\mathrm{Re}}(F_{5,+}F_{5,-}^*)/ (|F_{5,+}|^2
459: + |F_{5,-}|^2).
460: \end{equation}
461: Using the axial symmetry $F_{5,+}(90^{\circ})=F_{5,-}(90^{\circ})$, Nagornyi et al. \cite{Nagornyi} predicted
462: that $\Sigma (90^{\circ})$ should approach the value $-1$. We note, however, that the condition
463: $F_{5,+}(90^{\circ})= F_{5,-}(90^{\circ})$ is only valid for $\it{isoscalar}$ photons, where the isospin function
464: is antisymmetric. In the case of $\it{isovector}$ photons, the isospin function is symmetric and, due to the Pauli
465: principle, one has $F_{5,+}(90^{\circ})=-F_{5,-}(90^{\circ})$. Furthermore, according to the VMD model the isovector
466: photon couples to hadrons more strongly that the isoscalar photon. Thus one expects
467: that, in the case of hadron-helicity conservation, $\Sigma (90^{\circ})$ should not be very different from
468: $+1$ and, therefore, be significantly larger than the value predicted by the QGSM.
469:
470: Also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmaold} are the experimental data from Ref. \cite{Adamian}
471: that are available only at
472: $\theta_p^{\rm{CM}} = 90^{\circ}$. The data are compatible with the QGSM predictions at 1.5 GeV:
473: unfortunately at lower energies, where resonance amplitudes are important, the QGSM, as well as pQCD and related
474: high-energy approaches, cannot be applied. Thus, polarization measurements at higher energies are necessary to
475: discriminate between the models in a more adequate way.
476:
477:
478: In Fig.~\ref{fig:czold} the QGSM predictions of the polarization transfer $C_{z^{\prime}}$ for circularly polarized
479: photons are shown as a function of $E_{\gamma}$ at different $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}}$ angles. It is interesting to note
480: that the values of $C_{z^{\prime}}$ from the QGSM are quite large and
481: at $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}}=38^{\circ}$ almost
482: reach the maximal value of $\sim$1 above 2~GeV photon energy. This is directly related to the spin structure of the
483: amplitude defined in Eq.~(\ref{spin1}).
484:
485: Also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:czold} are the experimental data available only at
486: $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}}=90^{\circ}$
487: \cite{Wijesooriya}; the latter have been corrected for spin rotation due to the lab-CM transformation.
488: For photon energies $E_{\gamma} \geq 1.5$ GeV the data are in reasonable agreement with the QGSM
489: results\footnote{In our previous calculations in Ref. \cite{GrishinaQNP}
490: at $\theta_p^{\rm{CM}}=90^{\circ}$
491: there was an error in the sign of $C_{z^{\prime}}$ which is corrected now.}. Again, at lower energies resonant
492: contributions to the amplitudes are expected such that a comparison should only be meaningful for photon
493: energies above about 2~GeV.
494:
495: The difference in the absolute value of $C_{z^{\prime}}$ between the present values and those given in
496: Ref. \cite{GrishinaQNP} is related to the effect of the forward-backward angle
497: asymmetry of the amplitude, which was not
498: taken into account there for polarization observables. As we have learned now, this effect is quite important not
499: only for the angular distribution of the differential cross section (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:dsdo}) but also for
500: polarization observables.
501:
502: \begin{figure}[h]
503: \begin{center}
504:
505: \leavevmode \psfig{file=cz.eps,width=9cm,height=7cm}
506: \caption{ Polarization transfer $C_{z^{\prime}}$ for circularly polarized photons as
507: a function of $E_{\gamma}$
508: for different angles $\theta_p^{\mathrm{CM}}$. The dashed lines are calculated within the QGSM for $R=2$ while the
509: experimental data are taken from Ref. \cite{Wijesooriya} and have been corrected for spin rotation due to the
510: lab-CM. transformation. The solid line for $C_{z^{\prime}}$ = 0 is added to guide the eye.}
511: \end{center}
512: \label{fig:czold}
513: \end{figure}
514:
515: We finally note, that the analysis of the asymmetries $C_{x^{\prime}}$ and $P_y$ is much more involved because
516: it is sensitive to the re\-lative phase of the helicity amplitudes (which might also depend on the final-state
517: interaction of the np system). In this respect calculations of $C_{z^{\prime}}$ and $\Sigma$ are more stable
518: because they do not depend on this phase, but only (for $C_{z^{\prime}}$) or mainly (for $\Sigma$) on the moduli
519: squared of the helicity amplitudes.
520:
521: \section{Summary}
522: The deuteron photodisintegration has been studied within the Quark-Gluon String Model, employing a logarithmic
523: nucleon Regge trajectory (8). The angular distributions obtained have been compared
524: to the data available, which nicely confirm
525: the forward-back\-ward angle asymmetry predicted by the model.
526:
527: In addition, new results from the QGSM for the polarization transfer to the proton, $C_{z^{\prime}}$ and the cross
528: section asymmetry, $\Sigma$, for photon energies $(1.2\div 6)$~GeV and at different proton CM-angles,
529: $\theta_p^{\rm{CM}}$, have been calculated. The results have been compared to the data available only at
530: $\theta_p^{\rm{CM}}$ = 90$^{\circ}$ and up to 2~GeV; for photon energies
531: $\geq 1.5$~GeV the data are found in
532: reasonable agreement with the QGSM results. Since contributions from
533: resonant amplitudes should be present in the data, a meaningful comparison with the QGSM results can only be
534: performed for higher energies. Data at high energy should come up in the near future from Jlab \cite{Ron} and
535: will allow to discriminate between the different approaches discussed in this work.
536:
537:
538:
539: \vspace{0.5cm} We are grateful to Ronald Gilman for useful comments and for sending us the experimental data on
540: the polarization transfer $C_{z^{\prime}}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:czold} corrected for spin rotation due to the lab-CM
541: transformation. The work has been supported by the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), the Russian
542: Fund for Basic Research (grant 02-02-16783) and by the Federal Program of the Russian Ministry of Industry,
543: Science and Technology No. 40.052.1.1.1112.
544:
545:
546: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
547:
548: \bibitem{Bochna} C.~Bochna et al., {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 81}, 4576 (1998).
549: \bibitem{Schulte} E.C.~Schulte et al.,
550: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 87}, 102302 (2001).
551:
552: \bibitem{Matveev} S.J.~Brodsky and G.R.~Farrar,
553: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 31}, 1153 (1973); V.~Matveev,
554: R.M.~Muradyan, A.N.~Tavkhelidze, {\em Lett. Nuovo Cimento \/} {\bf7},
555: 719 (1973).
556: \bibitem{Wijesooriya} K.~Wijesooriya et al.,
557: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86}, 2975 (2001).
558: \bibitem{Grishina} V.Yu.~Grishina et al., {\em Eur.Phys.J.\/}
559: {\bf A 10}, 355 (2001).
560: \bibitem{Kondratyuk} L.A.~Kondratyuk et al., {\em Phys. Rev. C\/} {\bf 48},
561: 2491 (1993).
562: \bibitem{Kaidalov} A.B. Kaidalov, {\em Z. Phys\/}
563: {\bf C 12}, 63 (1982).
564: \bibitem{Kaidalov99} A.B. Kaidalov, {\em Surv. High Energy Phys.\/}
565: {\bf 13}, 265 (1999).
566: \bibitem{Coon} D.D.~Coon et al., {\em Phys. Rev. D\/} {\bf 18}, 1451 (1978).
567: \bibitem{Arik} M.~Arik, {\em Phys. Rev. D\/} {\bf 19}, 3467 (1974).
568: \bibitem{Chikovani}Z.~Chikovani, L.L.~Jenkovszky, F.~Paccanoni,
569: {\em Mod. Phys. Lett. A\/} {\bf 6}, 1409 (1991).
570: \bibitem{Ito} H. Ito, {\em Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 84}, 94 (1990).
571: \bibitem{Bugrij} A.I.~Bugrij, G.~Cohen-Tannoudji, L.L.~Jenkovszky,
572: and N.I.~Kobylinsky, Fortschr. Phys. {\bf 31}, 427 (1973).
573: \bibitem{Brisudova} M.M.~Brisudov\'{a}, L.Burakovsky and T.~Goldman,
574: {\em Phys. Rev. D\/} {\bf 61}, 054013 (2000).
575: \bibitem{Brodsky} S.J. Brodsky and J.R. Hiller, {\em Phys. Rev.}
576: {\bf C 28}, 475 (1983).
577: \bibitem{Guidal} M.~Guidal, J.M.~Laget and M.~Vanderhaeghen,
578: {\em Nucl. Phys. A\/} {\bf 627}, 645 (1997).
579: \bibitem{Fiore} R.~Fiore et al., {\em Phys. Rev. D\/} {\bf 60}, 116003 (1999).
580: \bibitem{White} C.~White et al., {\em Phys. Rev. D\/} {\bf 49}, 58 (1994).
581: \bibitem{Battaglieri} M.~Battaglieri et al., {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
582: {\bf 87}, 172002 (2001).
583: \bibitem{Crawford}R.~Crawford et al.,
584: {\em Nucl. Phys. A\/} {\bf 603}, 303 (1996).
585: \bibitem{Napolitano} J.~Napolitano et al., {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
586: {\bf 61}, 2530 (1988).
587: \bibitem{Freedman} S.J.~Freedman et al.,
588: {\em Phys. Rev. C\/} {\bf 48}, 1864 (1993).
589: \bibitem{Beltz}
590: J.E.~Beltz et al., {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 74}, 646 (1995).
591: \bibitem{Gilman} E.C. Schulte et al., {\em Phys. Rev. C\/} {\bf 66},
592: 042201 (2002).
593: \bibitem{Mirazita} M. Mirazita et al., Proc. Int. Workshop Meson 2002,
594: May 24-28, 2002, Cracow, Poland; eds. L. Jarczyk, M. Magiera, C.
595: Guaraldo, H. Machner, World Scientific Publishing 2003, p. 413.
596: \bibitem{Ronchetti} F. Ronchetti et al., Proc. Int. Conf. on Quarks and
597: Nuclear Physics 2002 (QNP2002), June 9-14, J\"ulich, Germany; Eur.
598: {\em Phys. J. A} (in print)
599: \bibitem{Rossi} P.~Rossi for the CLAS Collaboration,
600: hep-ex/0302029.
601: \bibitem{Adamian} F. Adamian et al., {\em Eur.Phys.J.\/}
602: {\bf A 8}, 423 (2000).
603: \bibitem{Irving}A.C.~Irving and R.P.~Worden,{\em Phys. Rep.} {\bf 34 }, 117 (1977).
604: \bibitem{KaidalovP} A.B. Kaidalov, {\em Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.\/}
605: {\bf 53}, 872 (1991).
606: \bibitem{Guaraldo} C. Guaraldo, A.B. Kaidalov, L.A. Kondratyuk, Ye.S. Golubeva,
607: {\em Yad. Fiz.\/} {\bf 59}, 1896 (1996); {\em Phys. Atom. Nucl.\/}
608: {\bf 59}, 1395 (1996).
609: \bibitem{Frankfurt} L.L.~Frankfurt et al.,
610: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 84}, 3045 (2000).
611: \bibitem{Dieperink} A.E.L.~Dieperink and S.I.~Nagorny,
612: {\em Phys. Lett} {\bf B 456}, 9 (1999).
613: \bibitem{HarryLee} B.~Julia-Diaz and T.-S.H.~Lee, nucl-th/0210082.
614: \bibitem{Barannik} V.P.~Barannik et al., {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A 451}, 751 (1998).
615: \bibitem{Gross} R. Gilman and F. Gross, J.Phys. {\bf G 28}, R37 (2002).
616: \bibitem{Nagornyi} S.I. Nagornyi, Yu. A. Kasatkin, and I.K. Kirichenko,
617: {\em Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 55}, 189 (1992).
618: \bibitem{GrishinaQNP} V.Yu.~Grishina et al., Proc. Int. Conf. on Quarks and
619: Nuclear Physics 2002 (QNP2002), June 9-14, 2002, J\"ulich, Germany; Eur.
620: Phys. J. A (in print); nucl-th/0209076.
621: \bibitem{Ron} R. Gilman, private communication.
622: \end{thebibliography}
623:
624: \end{document}
625:
626: #!/bin/csh -f
627: # Uuencoded gz-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
628: # For more info (11/95), see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
629: # If you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself: strip
630: # any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., figures.uu
631: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
632: # Then say csh figures.uu
633: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
634: # uudecode figures.uu ; gunzip figures.tar.gz ;
635: # tar -xvf figures.tar
636: # On some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use editor to change filename
637: # in "begin" line below to figures.tar-gz , then execute
638: # uudecode figures.uu
639: # gzip -d figures.tar-gz
640: # tar -xvf figures.tar
641: #
642: uudecode $0
643: chmod 644 figures.tar.gz
644: gunzip -c figures.tar.gz | tar -xvf -
645: rm $0 figures.tar.gz
646: exit
647:
648: