1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf]{article}

2: \topmargin=-.17in

3: \oddsidemargin=0.15in

4: \textwidth=6.5in

5: \headsep=0in

6: \headheight=0in

7: \textheight=9in

8: \footskip=6ex

9: \footheight=2ex

10: \thispagestyle{empty}

11: \begin{document}

12: \newcommand{\bfa}{{\bf a}}

13: \newcommand{\bfb}{{\bf b}}

14: \newcommand{\bfc}{{\bf c}}

15: \newcommand{\apo}{a^{+1}}

16: \newcommand{\amo}{a^{-1}}

17: \newcommand{\az}{a^0}

18: \newcommand{\bpo}{b^{+1}}

19: \newcommand{\bmo}{b^{-1}}

20: \newcommand{\bz}{b^0}

21: \newcommand{\cpo}{c^{+1}}

22: \newcommand{\cmo}{c^{-1}}

23: \newcommand{\cz}{c^0}

24: \newcommand{\exk}{e^{ikr}}

25: \newcommand{\exa}{e^{-\alpha r}}

26: \newcommand{\bfr}{{\bf r}}

27: \newcommand{\bfq}{{\bf q}}

28: \newcommand{\bfk}{{\bf k}}

29: \newcommand{\bfR}{{\bf R}}

30: \newcommand{\bfp}{{\bf p}}

31: \newcommand{\hr}{\hat{\bf r}}

32: \newcommand{\ea}{{\it et al.}}

33: \newcommand {\eq}{\begin{equation}}

34: \newcommand {\qe}{\end{equation}}

35: \newcommand {\cen}[1]{\begin{center} #1 \end{center}}

36: \newcommand {\pr}{Phys. Rev.}

37: \newcommand {\pip}{$\pi^+$ }

38: \newcommand {\pim}{$\pi^-$ }

39: \newcommand {\h}{\frac{1}{2}}

40: \newcommand {\bfP}{{\bf P}}

41: \newcommand {\ppi}{{\bf p}_{\pi}}

42: \newcommand {\prl}{{\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }}

43: \newcommand {\pl}{{\it Phys. Lett. }}

44: \newcommand {\nucp}{Nucl. Phys. }

45: \newcommand {\prc}{Phys. Rev. C}

46: \newcommand {\de}{$^\circ$}

47: %\baselineskip=15pt plus 0.2pt minus 0.2pt

48: \baselineskip=14pt

49: %\baselineskip =1.2 \baselineskip 

50: \lineskip=15pt plus 0.2pt minus 0.2pt

51: %\mbox{\today} \\

52: \begin{center}

53: 

54: {\large \bf Pion Charge Exchange on Deuterium}\\

55: 

56: \vspace*{.15in}

57: 

58:                            J.-P. Dedonder\\

59: GMPIB\\

60:                 Universit\'{e} Paris 7-Denis Diderot\\

61:                         2 Place Jussieu\\

62:                      F75251 Paris cedex 05, France\\

63: 

64: 

65: \vspace*{.1in}

66: 

67:                                and\\

68: 

69: \vspace*{.1in}

70:                           W. R. Gibbs\\

71:            Department of Physics, New Mexico State University\\

72:                        Las Cruces, NM 88003\\

73: 

74: 

75: \vspace{0.35in}

76: {\bf Abstract}

77: \end{center}

78: 

79: We investigate quantum corrections to a classical intranuclear cascade

80: simulation of pion single charge exchange on the deuteron. In order to

81: separate various effects the orders of scattering need to be

82: distinguished and, to that end, we develop signals for each order of

83: scattering corresponding to quasi-free conditions. Quantum corrections

84: are evaluated for double scattering and are found to be large. Global

85: agreement with the data is good.

86: 

87: \newpage

88: 

89: \section{Introduction}

90: 

91: The solution of the many-body Schr\"{o}dinger equation for scattering

92: problems is difficult indeed.  For this reason quantum mechanical reaction

93: calculations are often replaced with their classical analogs.

94: The replacement of the quantum problem by the classical one was 

95: first suggested by Serber \cite{serber}.  He observed that the early

96: data seemed to be consistent with a simple cascade of collisions

97: within a Fermi gas model of the nucleus. This idea was followed

98: by a long list of developing codes (see Refs.  \cite{goldberger}

99: through  \cite{gs}).

100: 

101: For heavy ion reactions the final state is very complicated and the

102: cascade calculation became one of the few tools available to predict

103: results. RQMD \cite{rqmd} and the Li\`ege code \cite{cugnon} provide

104: two standard calculational techniques for treating intermediate energy

105: heavy ion reactions. The code from Valencia \cite{valencia} is capable

106: of treating proton and pion projectiles.  New approaches include a

107: code developed by Li \ea\ \cite{li} using a set of coupled transport

108: equations and a cascade model developed with relativistic heavy-ion

109: collisions in mind, the ARC code \cite{kahana}.

110: 

111: Almost all of these models rely on the treatment of the scattering from

112: the point of view of classical probabilities with each scattering

113: being treated independently.  Of course we know that there are

114: phases arising from quantum mechanics which should enter into the

115: calculation of the total probability.  

116: 

117: If one wanted to perform a fully quantum mechanical cascade one

118: possibility might be to consider all possible results arising from the

119: initial conditions and then calculate the quantum mechanical probability

120: of each event. These probabilities would then be used as weights. This

121: would be an extremely inefficient procedure, however, since the dominant

122: fraction of the events, if chosen completely randomly, would occur with

123: very small probability and most of the calculational time would be wasted.  

124: A far more efficient procedure would be to choose the events according to

125: some approximate (well defined) probabilistic rule and then correct the

126: approximate rule by taking for the weight of the event the ratio of the

127: probabilities.  This is a standard technique in Monte Carlo procedures

128: known as ``importance sampling.'' The approximate event generator must

129: have the property that it can be sampled and that the probability for a

130: given event can be calculated. Of course, the full calculation will be

131: more efficient if the event generator gives results close to the

132: ``correct'' answer. For this event generator we will use the classical

133: simulation mentioned above.  It is known to give good results for simple

134: reactions such as quasi-elastic scattering. Deviations from the model are

135: also seen and it is never sure if these discrepancies should be ascribed

136: to new physics or to the fact the model is purely classical.  Because of

137: its simplicity we have chosen the $\pi^++d\rightarrow pp\pi^0$ reaction to

138: investigate some quantum corrections.

139: 

140: To elucidate, to the extent possible, the role and magnitude of the 

141: quantum corrections we have been led to explore the role of various 

142: parameters (counter size, lower momentum cuts, absorption parameters etc.) 

143: either in relation to the data or the model.

144: 

145: \section{Data}

146: 

147: For the case of single charge exchange on the deuteron, there exist

148: fairly complete data \cite{tacik} on the cross section with a

149: coincidence between the two final protons such that the final state

150: was entirely determined. The coincidences were between pairs of

151: counters on opposite sides of the beam at 228 and 294 MeV so that the

152: reaction took place in a plane.  The counter positions are at 20\de,

153: 45\de, 60\de\ and 125\de\ on each side of the beam. This would seem to

154: give 16 pairs but all coincidences were not possible. Removing the

155: (20\de,--20\de), (60\de,--125\de), (125\de,--60\de)  and

156: (125\de,--125\de) cases, there remain 12 angle pairs. By convention,

157: the momentum distribution displayed will be that of the counter

158: corresponding to the first element of the angle pair.

159: 

160: The coincidence requirement opens up new possibilities for analyzing the

161: data.  The quantum correction that we consider is the one due to quantum

162: vs. classical double scattering. The data of Tacik et al. \cite{tacik}

163: present the opportunity to explore its nature. One might think that the

164: double scattering contribution to single charge exchange on the deuteron

165: is small, and that is, in general, true.  However, the cases in which just

166: one charge exchange on the neutron takes place (without a scattering from

167: the other nucleon) the spectator proton has very low momentum in the final

168: state due to the low Fermi momentum of the deuteron.  In most experiments

169: (in particular the one we shall consider here \cite{tacik}) the two protons

170: are detected with a minimum momentum. Under these conditions the double

171: and higher scattering contributions are the most important.

172: 

173: This positive feature is balanced by the fact that the acceptance of the

174: experimental system must be understood.  Since the spectrum of one proton

175: was measured in coincidence with the second proton the threshold on the

176: second detector is important.

177: 

178: The data show a smooth variation as a function the counter pair position 

179: as well as a function of incident pion energy. However there are very 

180: strong, narrow peaks in the momentum spectra which are perhaps surprising. 

181: We shall argue that these peaks are normal kinematic features and can, to

182: some extent, serve as indicators of orders of scattering.

183: We need to characterize the data in terms of the multiple scattering

184: components since the relative weights of each order are different at 

185: 228 and 294 MeV. 

186: 

187: In the treatment of this data we first run a cascade code to generate an

188: event file with charge exchange events. This file is then analysed with

189: appropriate threshold cuts, selection of the number of scatterings etc.

190: After some studies attempting to match the experimental thresholds we

191: decided to use a standard momentum threshold of 226 MeV/c for all of the

192: cases. The counters were taken to have an extension of 5\de\ in the

193: $\theta$ sense and the back-to-back condition was enforced by requiring

194: that $\cos\Delta\phi\le -0.99$, where $\Delta\phi$ is the difference in

195: azimuthal angles for the two protons.

196: 

197: \section{Classical code}

198: 

199: The present INC (Intra-Nuclear Cascade) code was originally developed

200: to treat moderate-energy antiproton annihilation in nuclei and has

201: been applied to that end several times

202: \cite{anti1,wrg,gs,fermilab,gkruk}. However, the annihilation of an

203: antiproton leads to pions (or at least it is so treated by the model)

204: and so the history of pions in the energy range below, and of the

205: order of, 1 GeV is essential to the calculation of energy deposition.  

206: Of particular importance for the thermalization of the nuclear matter

207: are pion absorption and production.  For this reason the code needed

208: to be checked against reactions initiated by pion beams \cite{light}.  

209: Calculations have been done to compare with data on antiproton

210: annihilation of 5-10 GeV antiprotons on several nuclei \cite{rice}.  

211: Considerable success has been obtained in predicting the rapidity

212: distributions of strange particles produced in antiproton reactions

213: \cite{gkruk}. The question of pion absorption and comparison with data

214: has been addressed \cite{lanl} and the code has been used for the

215: comparison with inclusive data \cite{zumbro}.  It was quite successful

216: in describing the overall spectrum although there is a problem with

217: the number of final pions in the region of the delta resonance.

218: 

219: A description of the basic features of the pion version of the code can be 

220: found in Ref.  \cite{alqadi} where pion double charge exchange on

221: $^4$He was treated with a quantum correction for final state interaction

222: for the (unobserved) nucleon pair on which the two charge exchanges took

223: place. This was an important correction since, for high

224: energy final pions, these two nucleons often have low relative energies.

225: In the present case the two final nucleons cannot have low relative

226: energies (because the counter pairs require a substantial separation

227: in angle) so this final-state-interaction correction was not included.

228: 

229: As can be seen in the above mentioned descriptions, the absorption is

230: controlled by a parameter which expresses the probability that an

231: absorption takes place when it is permitted by conservation laws. In

232: the present work we varied this parameter to fit the experimental

233: absorption cross sections  \cite{ritchie}.  Even large variations of this

234: cross sections (a factor of two) led to variations in the magnitude of the

235: charge exchange cross sections of at most of the order of 20-30\% with no

236: major change in the shape of the spectra.

237: 

238: The initial bombarding pion is started with the appropriate initial

239: momentum toward a circle (in this case with a radius of 6.4 fm) which is

240: large enough to contain the projected density of the target nucleus.  A

241: fraction of the beam particles (usually about one half) pass without

242: interacting and cross sections are computed as the fraction of the

243: reactions of interest which occur multiplied by the area of this disk.

244: 

245: The first problem to be approached in attempting to make a classical

246: solution to the many-body scattering system act as a simulation of the

247: quantum system is the realization of the initial density of particles

248: in the bound target.  While one can choose the coordinate positions

249: appropriately, the distribution of momenta of the particles (we

250: will be mainly interested in magnitudes since the s-wave nature of the

251: present problem means that the directions of the momenta will be

252: isotropic) also needs to be taken to match the quantum case.  The

253: technique for the construction of a nucleus with A nucleons is given

254: in Ref. \cite{alqadi}.

255: 

256: For the case of the deuteron we can take the spatial distribution

257: directly from a probability density. Since there are two particles

258: with the center of mass located at the origin and the location of

259: the particles is isotropic, a direct sampling method can be used.

260: For the radial density we have taken that of the solution with

261: a one-pion-exchange potential \cite{rosa,fg,ballot,book}.

262: 

263: Since we intend to have the two nucleons propagate under the action

264: of a potential, once the position of an initial nucleon is 

265: established the kinetic energy is fixed by the relation

266: \eq

267: T(r)+V(r)=E

268: \qe

269: where $T$ is the kinetic energy of the particle and $V$ is the

270: potential chosen.  Once a value of $r$ is chosen then a value of the

271: kinetic energy (and hence of momentum) is fixed.  Since (as we will

272: see shortly) the coincidence requirement leads to delta functions for

273: the momentum distributions for double scattering in the absence of

274: Fermi motion in the deuteron it is important that the distribution of

275: this quantity be realistic.

276: 

277: If the potential in this equation is chosen to be the same as that

278: used in the quantum mechanical problem to provide a solution giving

279: the density, in general the distribution of the momenta obtained from

280: the classical procedure just outlined will give a (very) different

281: distribution of momenta from the one obtained from the square of the

282: momentum space wave function derived from the solution of the quantum

283: problem. In particular, the quantum solution gives a distribution of

284: momenta which has support to infinity whereas the classical solution,

285: because of the fact that a typical potential used in the solution of

286: the nucleon-nucleon problem has a maximum depth, has a cut-off at a

287: finite value.  This cut-off comes at a point well within the range of

288: interest of momenta so that the resulting momentum distribution is far

289: from realistic.

290: 

291: This problem can be solved (at an expense as we shall see) by choosing the

292: potential such that the momentum distribution is correct if the radial

293: density is the one desired.  In the present case, we have taken the

294: binding energy of the deuteron to be zero so that the kinetic energy is

295: equal to the negative of the potential.

296: 

297: To find the potential which will make these two distributions 

298: compatible in the classical sense, we first transform the 

299: momentum distribution to a distribution of kinetic energies. The 

300: momentum distribution used in this case is taken from a fit to the 

301: data of Bernheim et al. \cite{bern} where the data and the fit are

302: shown in Fig. \ref{bern}.

303: 

304: Given this distribution, the condition that the kinetic energy

305: distribution, $g(T)$, be obtained from a given radial distribution,

306: $\rho(r)$, is

307: 

308: \eq

309: \rho(r)dr=g(T)dT

310: \qe

311: for which the integrated form (taking account of the proper limits

312: to give the boundary conditions) is

313: \eq

314: F(r)\equiv \int_r^{\infty}\rho(r)dr=\int_0^Tg(T)dT\equiv G(T).

315: \qe

316: To obtain the desired solution the functions $F(r)$ and $G(T)$ are

317: tabulated numerically and then the numerical inversion

318: \eq

319: T(r)=G^{-1}[F(r)]

320: \qe

321: is made. The potential is then identified with the negative of the kinetic

322: energy.  The numerical inversion procedure introduces some error but is

323: stable except for very small values of r where the numerical procedure

324: limits to a constant potential whereas the true result goes to infinity. A

325: fit is then made to the potential which follows the potential in the

326: region where it is well determined. In general the procedure works well

327: and the resultant momentum distribution from the simulation is shown in

328: Fig. \ref{bern} compared with the input distribution. The agreement is

329: good but not perfect.

330: 

331: The resulting potential is shown in Fig. \ref{vbern}. It is seen

332: that it has only a cursory resemblance to a semi-realistic NN

333: potential at large r and is completely different at small r where it

334: lacks the repulsive hard core.  This potential is the price paid for

335: being able to have correct spatial and momentum distributions with

336: conservation of energy. For double scattering or higher this potential

337: is not very important since the nucleons have high energies and are

338: little affected by the final state interaction between the two

339: nucleons.

340: 

341: For single scattering, however, where the Fermi momentum (after final

342: state interaction) must be detected in one of the pair of counters,

343: the error can be substantial.  Since only the tail of the Fermi

344: momentum distribution has large enough values of momentum to be

345: observed in the detectors, the exact values of the momentum in the

346: tail is crucial. For a number of cases the single scattering plays a

347: small role while for others it contributes in certain parts of the

348: spectrum in ways that might not be imagined without some reflection.  

349: In the case where the original proton (not struck) is in the backward

350: direction (for one of the counters at 125\de\ in the present

351: experiment) the force due to the final state interaction will act to

352: slow it down.  If both nucleons are going forward in the final state

353: the force acts so as to increase the momentum of the spectator proton.  

354: Since the potential obtained with this procedure is too strong for

355: high momenta (compared with a realistic one) these effects may be over

356: estimated.

357: 

358: In the case where the momentum is determined by a potential, as in the

359: present model, we can get some feeling for this correction

360: (independent of the form of the potential) by considering a simplified

361: case. We assume that particle two (the spectator particle)  has a

362: given Fermi momentum $\bfp_2$ with the angle being given by the

363: coincidence counter.  Then particle one must have an initial momentum

364: equal and opposite.

365: 

366: With the usual center of mass expressions

367: \eq

368: \bfp=\frac{\bfp_1-\bfp_2}{2};\ \ \bfP=\bfp_1+\bfp_2;\ \ 

369: \bfp_1=\frac{\bfP}{2}+\bfp;\ \ \bfp_2=\frac{\bfP}{2}-\bfp

370: \qe

371: where, in fact, $\bfP=0$ in this case, we can write the sum of the 

372: kinetic and potential energy in the initial state as

373: \eq

374: \frac{\bfp^2}{m}+V=0,

375: \label{initial state}

376: \qe

377: where we assume zero binding. After the scattering with momentum

378: transfer, $\bfq$,\ we have

379: \eq

380: \bfp'_2=\bfp_2;\ \ \bfp'_1=\bfp_1+\bfq;\ \ \bfp'=\bfp+\frac{\bfq}{2}.

381: \qe

382: In the final state the relative momentum at infinity will be given by

383: \eq

384: \frac{{\bfp'}^2_{\infty}}{m}

385: =\frac{{\bfp'}^2}{m}+V=

386: \frac{\bfp'^2}{m}-\frac{\bfp^2}{m}\ \ {\rm or}\ \ 

387: {\bfp'}_{\infty}^2=\bfp'^2-\bfp^2=\frac{\bfq^2}{4}+\bfq\cdot\bfp.

388: \qe

389: Assuming that the direction in the center of mass does not change

390: as the particles propagate to infinity (as would be the case when

391: they are back to back)

392: \eq

393: \bfp'_{\infty}=\sqrt{\frac{\bfq^2}{4}+\bfq\cdot\bfp}\frac{\bfp'}

394: {|\bfp'|}=

395: \frac{\sqrt{\frac{\bfq^2}{4}+\bfq\cdot\bfp}}

396: {\sqrt{\frac{\bfq^2}{4}+\bfq\cdot\bfp+\bfp^2}}(\bfp+\frac{\bfq}{2}),

397: \qe

398: the final momentum of the spectator particle in the laboratory

399: will be

400: \eq

401: \bfp'_{2\infty}=\frac{\bfq}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{\frac{\bfq^2}{4}+\bfq\cdot\bfp}} 

402: {\sqrt{\frac{\bfq^2}{4}+\bfq\cdot\bfp+\bfp^2}}(\bfp_2-\frac{\bfq}{2}).

403: \qe

404: Thus, as $|\bfq|\rightarrow\infty$ the momentum of the spectator in the 

405: final state becomes equal to the initial Fermi momentum. However, 

406: the present case treats only moderate values of momentum transfer 

407: so a substantial correction is to be expected.

408: 

409: Since we know the initial distribution and we can select the events with

410: single scattering in the calculation and accumulate the distributions of

411: the final proton momenta, the effect of this potential in the final state

412: can be observed.  Figure \ref{specmoma} shows such a comparison for four

413: angle pairs. The curves have been normalized to the same integral values.  

414: It is seen that the momenta for the case of the forward angle counters

415: have been shifted to lower values as expected from the above arguments.  

416: In other cases the distribution is very similar to the starting

417: distribution or increased at high momenta. The largest angle counters show

418: a double peaked structure.

419: 

420: \section{Single, double and triple scattering}

421: 

422: While quasi-free single scattering peak has been known for a long

423: time, it is interesting that in a coincidence experiment, one can

424: expect peaks from quasi-free double and triple scattering. Since peaks

425: in spectra are sometimes interpreted as particle masses, one should be

426: aware of the possible presence of such peaks to avoid

427: misinterpretations which could arise. Scattering is carried only to

428: 4th order, i.e. after the pion has scattered four times it is not

429: allowed to interact. Thus, what we call quadruple scattering really

430: represents all of the rest of the scatterings which would have

431: occurred as well. We are not able to give an analytical discussion of

432: this higher order but we will treat the first three orders.

433: 

434: \subsection{\bf Single scattering}

435: 

436: The quasi free scattering peak is well known in measurements in which a

437: single particle is observed and, indeed, appears prominently in many

438: cases. It corresponds to a free nucleon at rest being struck. Since the

439: Fermi momentum distribution typically peaks at zero (or low) momentum, a

440: peak in the final momentum distribution is observed at the value of 

441: momentum appropriate for free scattering. In addition there is 

442: a distribution of counts on either side with the extent of the wings

443: depending on the Fermi momenta.

444: 

445: In the present coincidence experiment, where for the case of single

446: scattering, a substantial Fermi momentum is needed for the

447: observation of the spectator proton, the maximum of the quasi-free

448: peak is explicitly excluded. The most one might expect to see is one

449: or both of the wings of the distribution. This effect can lead to

450: rather unexpected contributions to the spectrum.

451: 

452: Figure \ref{sbernfca6} shows results for single scattering.  The

453: dotted curve shows the distribution without any thresholds for the

454: counters, and the quasi-free peak is clearly seen.  The solid curve

455: displays the result with the threshold cuts in place and one sees that

456: most of the single scattering is eliminated by the cuts. In some cases a

457: remnant of the single scattering is left. Interesting are the cases of the

458: angle pairs (45\de,--45\de) and (60\de,--20\de) where the quasi-free peak

459: is in the center of the spectrum and only the tails of the distribution

460: remain after the cut resulting in peaks at high and low momenta, with

461: precisely the opposite shape to the original spectrum before the cuts.  

462: Clearly, it is difficult to be sure of the strength of these peaks since

463: they depend on the values of the cuts and, especially, on the final state

464: interaction potential. In these two cases, since the momentum distribution

465: has been modified only slightly by the final state interaction one may

466: expect that the predictions are at least qualitatively correct. 

467: 

468: The remnants after cuts shown in Fig.\ \ref{sbernfca6} for 294 MeV are

469: among the largest for that energy. The remaining single scattering cross

470: sections at 228 MeV are large, not only in the case of the counter pairs

471: shown but in the pairs (20\de,--45\de) and (45\de,--20\de) and to a lesser

472: extent for the pairs (45\de,--60\de) and (60\de,--45\de). For the

473: (20\de,--60\de) angle pair the final momentum for the quasi-free peak is

474: clearly visible without cuts but mostly eliminated with them.  The effect

475: of the cuts is rather different at 228 MeV and 294 MeV.

476: 

477: \subsection{Double scattering}

478: 

479: We now discuss the existence of quasi-free double scattering peaks

480: where each of the two particles will receive a substantial momentum

481: from the scattering process. For this reason in this study we limit

482: ourselves to the case of zero Fermi momentum.  By specifying the angle

483: of the outgoing (first)  nucleon, with the incident pion momentum

484: known, the kinematics of the reaction are expressed by

485: \eq

486: \bfk_{\pi}=\bfk_1+\bfk 

487: \qe 

488: where $\bfk_1$ is the final energy of the first

489: struck nucleon and $\bfk$ is the pion momentum after the first scattering.

490: Equating the total laboratory energy before and after scattering we have:

491: \eq 

492: E=\omega+M= \sqrt{\mu^2+(\bfk_{\pi}-\bfk_1)^2}+\sqrt{M^2+k_1^2}

493: =\sqrt{\mu^2+k_{\pi}^2+k_1^2-2k_{\pi}k_1x}+\sqrt{M^2+k_1^2} 

494: \qe 

495: where $x$ is the cosine of the angle between the incident pion 

496: direction and $\bfk_1$. Solving this equation for $|\bfk_1|$ we have 

497: 

498: \eq 

499: |\bfk_1|=k_1=\frac{2M k_{\pi} x}{E-k_{\pi}^2x^2/E}.

500: \qe 

501: 

502: Since the final pion momentum from the first scattering is known, it

503: can be used as input for the second scattering and, with the direction

504: of the final nucleon fixed by the experimental conditions, all angles

505: and energies are again known. We can apply the same formula to find

506: \eq

507: k_2=\frac{2M k y}{E'-k^2y^2/E'}

508: \qe

509: where $E'=\sqrt{k^2+\mu^2}+M$ and $y$ is cosine of the angle between 

510: $\bfk$ and $\bfk_2$.

511: 

512: Thus, for a given angle pair there are two momenta (each in a different

513: counter) where one might expect to observe a peak.  Since the first

514: scattering must lead to the recoil of the nucleon in the forward

515: direction, when one counter at 125\de\ is involved there is only one

516: value possible corresponding to the scattering to the forward counter

517: first. Tables \ref{dtable294} and \ref{dtable228} give the peak position

518: expected at 294 and 228 MeV respectively.

519: 

520: \begin{table}[htb]

521: $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}

522: \hline

523: {\rm Angle\ Pair}&20,\ 125&20,\ 60\ &20,\ 45\ &\\

524: \hline

525: {\rm Peak\ Position(s) (MeV/c)}&573\ \ \ \ \ &573\ \ 507&573\ \ 316&\\

526: \hline

527: \hline

528: {\rm Angle\ Pair}&45,\ 125&45,\ 60\ &45,\ 45\ &45,\ 20\ \\

529: \hline

530: {\rm Peak\ Position(s) (MeV/c)}&415\ \ \ \ \ &415\ 557&415\ 447&415\ 75\ 

531: \\

532: \hline

533: \hline

534: {\rm Angle\ Pair}&&60,\ 60\ &60,\ 45\ &60,\ 20\ \\

535: \hline

536: {\rm Peak\ Positions (MeV/c)}&&287\ 529&287\ 486&287\ 165 \\

537: \hline

538: \hline 

539: {\rm Angle\ Pair}&&&125,\ 45&125,\ 20\\

540: \hline

541: {\rm Peak\ Position (MeV/c)}&&&\ \ \ \ \ \ 259&\ \ \ \ \ \ 376\\

542: \hline

543: \end{tabular}

544: $$

545: \caption{Expected peaks from quasi-free double scattering for a pion

546: incident energy of 294 MeV. The numbers are for the position of peaks

547: expected in the first counter of the pair. The first number corresponds

548: to the case where the first struck nucleon was detected in this counter

549: and the second number corresponds to the case where the second

550: scattered nucleon was detected in the first member of the counter pair.  

551: In the pairs in which one of the counters is at 125\de, only one value is

552: possible since the first scattering cannot lead to a particle recoiling

553: at greater than 90\de (without Fermi motion). }

554: \label{dtable294}\end{table}

555: 

556: \begin{table}[hbt]

557: $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}

558: \hline

559: {\rm Angle\ Pair}&20,\ 125&20,\ 60\ &20,\ 45\ &\\

560: \hline

561: {\rm Peak\ Position(s) (MeV/c)}&488 \ \ \ \ \ &488\ \ 427&488\ \ 260&\\

562: \hline

563: \hline

564: {\rm Angle\ Pair}&45,\ 125&45,\ 60\ &45,\ 45\ &45,\ 20\ \\

565: \hline

566: {\rm Peak\ Position(s) (MeV/c)}&357\ \ \ \ \ &357\ 476&357\ 378&357\ \ 

567: 54\\

568: \hline

569: \hline

570: {\rm Angle\ Pair}&&60,\ 60\ &60,\ 45\ &60,\ 20\ \\

571: \hline

572: {\rm Peak\ Positions (MeV/c)}&&249\ 458&249\ 416&249\ 135 \\

573: \hline

574: \hline 

575: {\rm Angle\ Pair}&&&125,\ 45&125,\ 20\\

576: \hline

577: {\rm Peak\ Position (MeV/c)}&&&\ \ \ \ \ \ 241&\ \ \ \ \ \ 334\\

578: \hline

579: \end{tabular}

580: $$

581: \caption{Expected peaks from quasi-free double scattering for a

582: pion incident energy of 228 MeV. See Table \protect\ref{dtable294} for 

583: an explanation of the entries.}\label{dtable228}

584: \end{table}

585: 

586: Figure \ref{totbernfnf} compares calculations with and without

587: Fermi momentum for double and total scattering. They are made including

588: the quantum correction to be discussed in the next section. It is

589: seen that peaks do indeed come where predicted by the above 

590: considerations (shown as triangles in the figure). Fermi motion

591: and higher order scatterings tend to blur and hide them but they are

592: often visible in the final result.

593: 

594: \subsection{Triple scattering}

595: 

596: In this case (perhaps remarkably) one also has regions of strength in

597: the quasi-free process. The reason for the existence of

598: structure is a Jacobian peak introduced by a transformation discussed

599: in the following. If we assume that the entire triple scattering

600: remains in a plane, then for a given value of the recoil angle for the

601: initial scattering, $\theta^{i}_1$, for a fixed $\theta_2$ all

602: kinematics are defined. The probability of such an event will be given

603: in terms of a product of the three scattering cross sections involved.  

604: Performing the transformation from the distribution in $z=\cos

605: \theta^{i}_1$ to the distribution in final momenta, $k_1(z)$ (the

606: momentum of the first nucleon {\it after} the {\it second}

607: scattering), the momentum distribution is given by

608: 

609: \eq

610: \frac{dP}{dk_1}=\frac{dP}{dz}/|\frac{dk_1}{dz}|

611: \qe

612: where the quantity $dP/dk_1$ is the probability of the triple

613: scattering taking place for a given $z$. $dk_1/dz$ typically has a

614: zero in the range of interest. This zero occurs at the maximum energy

615: possible for triple scattering which, in fact, coincides with the

616: maximum energy possible for the reaction (regardless of the number of

617: scatterings). Triple scattering is the first order in which this

618: maximum momentum can be reached. This peak will have the same form for

619: any value of Fermi momentum and hence is not broadened by the motion

620: of the nucleon. Since the measurement is a coincidence cross section,

621: one expects a companion peak in the second counter at the energy of

622: the second scattering which corresponds to the Jacobian peak. While

623: the Jacobian peak is clearly seen in the experimental results the

624: companion peak is usually much broader and generally not visible. It

625: is worthwhile to note that the counter size can influence what is seen

626: since there is a true singularity in these peaks. Table \ref{ttable}

627: gives the positions of these Jacobian peaks and the companion peak.

628: 

629: \begin{table}[thb]

630: $$

631: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}

632: \hline

633: &\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{294\ {\rm MeV}}&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{228\ {\rm MeV}}\\

634: \hline

635: {\rm Angle\ Pair}&$k_1$ {\rm (MeV/c)}&$k_2\ {\rm (MeV/c)}$& 

636: $k_1$ {\rm (MeV/c)}&$k_2\ {\rm (MeV/c)}$ \\

637: \hline

638: 20,\ -125&696&606&598&508\\

639: \hline

640: 45,\ -125&493&419&440&379\\

641: \hline

642: 20,\ -60&585&237&498&199\\

643: \hline

644: 45,\ -60&557&336&477&285\\

645: \hline

646: 60,\ -60&551&402&475&343\\

647: \hline

648: 20,\ -45&576&144&490&117\\

649: \hline

650: 45,\ -45&517&227&441&191\\

651: \hline

652: 60,\ -45&499&286&428&239\\

653: \hline

654: 125,\ -45&259&191&244&189\\

655: \hline

656: 45,\ -20&462&38&394&28\\

657: \hline

658: 60,\ -20&419&83&358&66\\

659: \hline

660: 125,\ -20&377&287&335&252\\

661: \hline

662: \end{tabular}$$

663: \caption{Expected peaks in triple scattering at 294 and 228 MeV based on the 

664: position of the Jacobian singularity. Both entries at a given energy 

665: correspond to the momentum in the first member of the angle pair. 

666: }\label{ttable}

667: \end{table}

668: 

669: Figure \ref{triple} gives the final momenta of the two nucleons as a

670: function of the (assumed in plane) scattering angle in the first

671: scattering for the angle pairs (20\de,--125\de) and (125\de,--20\de).

672: It is seen that the momentum of the particle in the second counter

673: also has a maximum (and hence also a Jacobian peak) for the case

674: (125\de,--20\de). For the conjugate pair, (20\de,--125\de) the case is

675: not realized for the peak of the second momentum.  However, this

676: second Jacobian peak in the 20\de\ counter means that there should be

677: two sharp peaks with no Fermi momentum. When Fermi momentum is

678: included in the problem the peak in the interior of the distribution

679: will be broadened but that at the maximum of momentum will not.

680: 

681: Figure \ref{tberna2} shows results of the INC calculation with a very

682: small Fermi momentum. It is seen that the peaks match the predictions

683: (marked with the triangles). While the companion peak to the Jacobian is

684: normally broad (see pair 45\de,--60\de), we see that, indeed, the 

685: angle pair (20\de,--125\de) is an exception with the second peak being 

686: also narrow. There is some broadening of the peaks due to the finite 

687: size taken for the counters in the analysis of the events coming from 

688: the INC.

689:  

690: \section{Quantum corrections}

691: 

692: In this section we discuss the quantum corrections that we apply

693: for the double scattering only. We will treat spin, space and isospin

694: in turn starting with the general form of the operator in spin space.

695: 

696: \subsection{General form}

697: 

698: In order to calculate the ratio of the quantum double scattering

699: cross section to the classical version we must evaluate the

700: double scattering amplitude.  Following the technique of Ref.\  

701: \cite{gek}

702: we can express the amplitude for a fixed position of the two nucleons

703: as an operator on a single function $g(r)$.

704: 

705: \eq 

706: e^{i(\bfk_1\cdot\bfr_1+\bfk_2\cdot\bfr_2-\bfk_{\pi}\cdot\bfr_1+

707: \bfk'_{\pi}\cdot\bfr_2)}

708: A_{ds}=(A_1+B_1\bfq\cdot\bfk+C_1\sigma_1\cdot\bfq\times\bfk)

709: (A_2+B_2\bfk'\cdot\bfq+C_2\sigma_2\cdot\bfk'\times\bfq )g(r) 

710: \label{adsdef} 

711: \qe

712: where $\bfq$ is to be interpreted as $-i\nabla$.  Here the constants

713: A, B and C are determined from pion-nucleon phase shifts and

714: correspond to the two processes possible: $\pi^+$ elastic scattering

715: on the proton followed by charge exchange on the neutron or charge

716: exchange on the neutron followed by $\pi^0$ elastic scattering on the

717: proton.  The phase factor on the left could be ignored in many cases but

718: we need to keep it here since we wish to consider the coherence of this

719: scattering (nucleon 1 followed by nucleon 2) with the reverse order.

720: 

721: The function $g(r)$ is given by

722: \eq

723: g(r)=\frac{e^{i\kappa r}-e^{-\alpha r}}{r}-\frac{(\kappa^2+\alpha^2)}

724: {2 \alpha}e^{-\alpha r}

725: \qe

726: where we have taken 

727: \eq  v(q)=\frac{\alpha^2+\kappa^2}{\alpha^2+q^2}, \qe

728: and $\kappa$ is the momentum of the intermediate propagating pion

729: and $\alpha$ is the range of the form factor (taken as 4 fm$^{-1}$ here).

730: 

731: We consider the transformations of the radius vectors according

732: to:

733: 

734: $$\bfr_1=\bfR +\frac{\bfr}{2}, \ \ \ \bfr_2=\bfR -\frac{\bfr}{2}.$$

735: 

736: 

737: We see that we have terms with no, one and two 

738: derivatives. Since $\nabla g(r)=\hr g'(r)=\bfr g'(r)/r$

739: we can make a simple replacement in the terms with one derivative.

740: For the terms with two derivatives a second term appears which 

741: corresponds to the operation of the derivative on the factor $\bfr$. 

742: Thus we can expand Eq. \ref{adsdef} as:

743: \eq e^{i(\bfk_1\cdot\bfr_1+\bfk_2\cdot\bfr_2-\bfk_{\pi}\cdot\bfr_1+

744: \bfk'_{\pi}\cdot\bfr_2)}

745: A_{ds}= A_1A_2\ g(r) \label{expand} \qe

746: $$ +(A_1B_2\ \bfk'\cdot\bfq +A_2B_1\ \bfq\cdot\bfk )\ g(r) $$

747: $$ +(B_1B_2\ \bfq\cdot\bfk\ \bfk'\cdot\bfq)\ g(r) $$

748: $$ +(A_1C_2\ \sigma_2\cdot\bfk'\times\bfq+A_2C_1\ \sigma_1\cdot\bfq

749: \times\bfk )\ g(r) $$

750: $$ +(B_1C_2\ \bfq\cdot\bfk\ \sigma_2\cdot\bfk'\times\bfq+

751: B_2C_1\ \bfk'\cdot\bfq\ \sigma_1\cdot\bfq\times\bfk) g(r) $$

752: $$ +C_1C_2\ \sigma_1\cdot\bfq\times\bfk\  

753: \sigma_2\cdot\bfk'\times\bfq)\ g(r), $$

754: where we have separated the terms according to the number of

755: derivatives and the number of occurrences of the spin operators.

756: Performing the operations we can write (still as an operator in

757: spin space):

758: 

759: \eq e^{i(\bfk_1\cdot\bfr_1+\bfk_2\cdot\bfr_2-\bfk_{\pi}\cdot\bfr_1+

760: \bfk'_{\pi}\cdot\bfr_2)}

761: A_{ds}= A_1A_2\ g(r) \label{expan} \qe

762: $$ -i(A_1B_2\ \bfk'\cdot\hr +A_2B_1\ \hr\cdot\bfk )\ g'(r) $$

763: $$ -B_1B_2\ \hr\cdot\bfk\ \bfk'\cdot\hr\ g^-(r)

764:  -B_1B_2\ \bfk\cdot\bfk'\ \frac{g'(r)}{r} $$

765: $$ -i(A_1C_2\ \sigma_2\cdot\bfk'\times\hr

766: +A_2C_1\ \sigma_1\cdot\hr\times\bfk )\ g'(r) $$

767: $$ -(B_1C_2\ \hr\cdot\bfk\ \ \sigma_2\cdot\bfk'\times\hr+

768: B_2C_1\ \bfk'\cdot\hr\ \sigma_1\cdot\hr\times\bfk)\ g^-(r)

769: -(B_1C_2\ \sigma_2\cdot\bfk'\times\bfk+B_2C_1\ \sigma_1

770: \cdot\bfk'\times\bfk)\ \frac{g'(r)}{r} $$

771: $$ -C_1C_2\ \left[(\sigma_1\cdot\hr\times\bfk\ 

772: \sigma_2\cdot\bfk'\times\hr) g^-(r)+(\sigma_1\cdot\bfk'\ 

773: \sigma_2\cdot\bfk-\sigma_1\cdot\sigma_2\ \bfk\cdot\bfk')

774: \ \frac{g'(r)}{r}\right] $$ 

775: where $g^-(r)\equiv g''(r)-g'/r$.  

776: 

777: Terms proportional to $g'(r)/r$ are ``quantum'' in origin and fall off

778: as $1/r^2$ for large distances.  For large values of $r$ also

779: 

780: $$g(r)\rightarrow \frac{e^{i\kappa r}}{r};\ \ 

781: g''(r)\rightarrow -\kappa^2\frac{e^{i\kappa r}}{r}; \ \ 

782: g'(r)\rightarrow i\kappa\frac{e^{i\kappa r}}{r}.$$

783: 

784: The spin-independent terms will be diagonal in the initial and final

785: states but we must take the expectation values of the the spin

786: operators for the other terms.  We will use the singlet-triplet

787: representation for the present problem since the initial state is a

788: pure triplet. The matrix elements needed for the spin amplitudes are

789: given in the appendix.

790: 

791: \subsection{Isospin of the deuteron}

792: 

793: In order to include the effect the definite isospin of the deuteron we 

794: can write the amplitude as

795: 

796: \eq

797: M=<pp|\sum_{i\ne j,j=1,2}

798: e^{i(\bfk_{\pi}\cdot\bfr_j-\bfk'_{\pi}\cdot\bfr_i)}

799: \int d\bfq \frac{f_i(\bfq,\bfk')f_j(\bfk,\bfq)

800: e^{i\bfq\cdot(\bfr_i-\bfr_j)}}{\bfq^2-k^2}|D>

801: \qe

802: where the operators $f_i$ are the pion-nucleon amplitudes in

803: spin and isospin space and the bras and kets refer to isospin states

804: only. We have included the initial and final spatial states of the

805: pion but not the final state of the two protons. Since 

806: there are two orders of the scattering

807: possible and there are two terms in the isospin expansion of the

808: deuteron wave function there are 4 terms in this expression, each

809: of the type presented in the previous section. 

810: 

811: Thus, since an operator cannot act on the same particle successively

812: the effect of one term on the isospin part of the  deuteron wave function 

813: is

814: \eq

815: <p_1|<p_2|(f_2f_1+f_1f_2)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|p_1>|n_2>-|n_1>|p_2>)

816: \qe

817: where each product of $f$'s can be decomposed into terms from Eq.  

818: \ref{expan} consisting of a constant multiplying an operator.  We make the

819: simplifying approximation that the amplitudes for the elastic scatterings

820: and charge exchanges depend only on the pion momentum (neglecting the

821: nucleon motion).  Thus, we assume all nucleons at rest for the purpose of

822: the evaluation of the $\pi$N amplitudes only.

823: 

824: These considerations allow us to write this in the form

825: \eq

826: f_2^x(k'_{\pi})f_1^+(k_{\pi})-f_2^0(k'_{\pi})f_1^x(k_{\pi})

827: +f_1^0(k'_{\pi})f_2^x(k_{\pi})-f_1^x(k'_{\pi})f_2^+(k_{\pi}).

828: \qe

829: Considering, term by term, the components in Eq. \ref{expan} which

830: have the form of constants times operators and taking the expression

831: for double scattering of a generic operator to be represented by

832: $R(\bfr,k)$ and a generic constant amplitude for the corresponding

833: term to be $D$ we can write

834: 

835: \eq

836: \left[D^x(k'_{\pi})D^+(k_{\pi})-D^0(k'_{\pi})D^x(k_{\pi})\right]

837: R(\bfr,q_1)e^{i(\bfk_{\pi}+\bfk'_{\pi})\cdot \bfr /2}

838: \qe

839: $$

840: +\left[D^0(k'_{\pi})D^x(k_{\pi})-D^x(k'_{\pi})D^+(k_{\pi})\right]

841: R(-\bfr,q_2)

842: e^{-i(\bfk_{\pi}+\bfk'_{\pi})\cdot \bfr /2}

843: $$

844: 

845: \eq = \left[D^x(k'_{\pi})D^+(k_{\pi})-D^0(k'_{\pi})D^x(k_{\pi})\right]

846: \left[R(\bfr,q_1)e^{i(\bfk_{\pi}+\bfk'_{\pi})\cdot \bfr /2}

847: -R(-\bfr,q_2)e^{-i(\bfk_{\pi}+\bfk'_{\pi})\cdot \bfr /2}\right]

848: \label{isoact}\qe

849: where $\bfq_i=\bfk_{\pi}-\bfk_i$ is the intermediate momentum of the

850: propagating pion in each case.

851: 

852: The subtraction of the strength of the two possible interactions

853: represented by the differences of the multiplying constants $D$ does

854: not depend on the spatial coordinates. The minus sign can be traced to

855: the isospin character of the deuteron.

856: 

857: \subsection{Phases from the proton-proton final state}

858: 

859: For the spatial final state wave function of the two protons we have

860: 

861: \eq

862: e^{-i(\bfk_1\cdot\bfr_1+\bfk_2\cdot\bfr_2)}\pm

863: e^{-i(\bfk_1\cdot\bfr_2+\bfk_2\cdot\bfr_1)}\rightarrow

864: e^{i(\bfk_2-\bfk_1)\cdot\bfr/2}\pm

865: e^{-i(\bfk_2-\bfk_1)\cdot\bfr/2}

866: \qe

867: where the plus sign corresponds to a singlet final state and the

868: minus sign to the triplet final state.

869: 

870: Taking into account the conservation of momentum $\bfk_{\pi}

871: =\bfk'_{\pi}+\bfk_1+\bfk_2$ we can combine the phase factor of

872: the two terms in Eq \ref{isoact} (dropping  the overall multiplying

873: constant for the moment) to find

874: 

875: \eq

876: \left[e^{i\bfr\cdot\bfq_1}\pm e^{i\bfr\cdot\bfq_2}\right]R(\bfr,q_1)

877: -\left[e^{-i\bfr\cdot\bfq_1}\pm 

878: e^{-i\bfr\cdot\bfq_2}\right]R(-\bfr,q_2).

879: \qe

880: 

881: The operators in Eq. \ref{expan} have a definite character in 

882: the parity of $\bfr$, either even or odd. The next step in computing the 

883: quantum matrix element would be to integrate over this vector thus picking 

884: out the matching terms in the final state nucleon wave function. Since we 

885: are ``correcting'' for the quantum effect event by event (and each event 

886: has a definite value of $\bfr$) we cannot proceed to this integration step 

887: but we will keep only those terms which would survive this integration.

888: This leads us to the following array which must be applied term by

889: term.

890: 

891: {\small

892: $$

893: \begin{array}{|l|c|c|}

894: \hline

895: {\rm Spin}&{\rm Triplet\ to\ Triplet}&{\rm Triplet\ to\ Singlet}\\

896: \hline

897: {\rm Even}&

898: [\cos(\bfr\cdot\bfq_1)-\cos(\bfr\cdot\bfq_2)][R(\bfr,q_1)+R(\bfr,q_2)]

899: &[\cos(\bfr\cdot\bfq_1)+\cos(\bfr\cdot\bfq_2)][R(\bfr,q_1)-R(\bfr,q_2)]

900: \\

901: \hline

902: {\rm Odd}&

903: i[\sin(\bfr\cdot\bfq_1)-\sin(\bfr\cdot\bfq_2)][R(\bfr,q_1)+R(\bfr,q_2)]

904: &i[\sin(\bfr\cdot\bfq_1)+\sin(\bfr\cdot\bfq_2)][R(\bfr,q_1)-R(\bfr,q_2)]\\

905: \hline

906: \end{array}

907: $$

908: }

909: 

910: \section{Results and conclusions}

911: 

912: The quantum effects on double scattering discussed were implemented in the

913: calculation by computing a weight corresponding to each event.

914: Calculations were performed with $4\times 10^8$ cascades.

915: 

916: The poor agreement of the obtained potential with a semi-realistic

917: nucleon-nucleon may worry some, and with good reason.  However, it seems

918: to be necessary in order to obtain some even more important conditions

919: in a classical simulation. First, the density distribution of nucleons

920: must be correct or else the magnitude of the cross section and estimates

921: of multiple scattering will be wrong. Even the early INC codes did this

922: (more or less) correctly. Second, Fermi momentum must be included. Without

923: this physical effect the coincidence spectra would appear as a series

924: of spikes. The correct degree of smearing is very important. Third, energy

925: must be conserved and definite. If one simply includes the motion of the 

926: nucleons without adding a potential to compensate the kinetic energy of

927: the nucleons that corresponds to the Fermi motion, the deuterium nucleus

928: will not have a definite energy and such features as the Jacobian peaks

929: would be washed out. Thus, these three conditions are absolutely

930: essential for the present calculation.  The selection of any two

931: implies the third, there is no choice: we are left with a specified

932: potential.  

933: 

934: The non-realistic nature of this potential mainly affects the single

935: scattering through distortion of the distribution of the final-state

936: momentum of the spectator particle.  Since single scattering is

937: largely eliminated by the momentum thresholds we do not expect a

938: large problem. In those cases in which there remains a significant

939: contribution from single scattering, errors may occur.  We believe

940: that we have taken the correct compromise for this particular set of

941: observables. For another case (one in which very low energy protons

942: were detected, for example) it might be more appropriate to choose a

943: realistic potential at the expense of the Fermi momentum distribution

944: or the correct density.

945: 

946: Figure \ref{cohqnqa} illustrates for a typical pair of angles that the

947: isospin correction is the most important one.  The phase correction is

948: much smaller. The constants, $D$, in Eq. \ref{isoact} tend to cancel. If

949: the amplitude were completely dominated by the 33 resonance, there would

950: be a constant reduction factor. That dominance is not so pronounced at

951: these energies but there is still a significant cancellation in many

952: cases.

953: 

954: Figures \ref{bernms228} and \ref{bernms294} show the various orders of

955: multiple scattering beyond single.  The interactions in the cascade were

956: stopped at fourth order so quadruple scattering really includes all 

957: higher orders which would have occurred if allowed to continue. We have

958: seen that the multiple scattering goes to higher orders at 294 MeV than

959: at 228 MeV. One possible reason for this is that the absorption is less

960: at the higher energy. When the energy is degraded by collisions the

961: absorption becomes larger and truncates the multiple scattering. This

962: may be one reason why we have so much multiple scattering.

963: 

964: Figures \ref{tot228} and \ref{tot294} give the results for all angular

965: pairs with and without quantum corrections in the double scattering.

966: We have seen that the quantum effects included (especially the isospin

967: one) give a large decrease in the double scattering cross section

968: which carries over into the total as well.  We see that the agreement

969: with the data at 228 MeV is generally good with the possible exception

970: of the counter pairs (60\de,--45\de) and (60\de,--60\de) where the

971: cross section is overestimated in the mid-momentum range.  At 294 MeV

972: the agreement is excellent except for a substantial overestimate for

973: the pairs (60\de,--60\de) and (20\de,--125\de).  Much, but not all, of

974: the overestimate (in the first counter pair at least) can be

975: attributed to third and higher order scatterings which suggests that

976: in some cases the model overestimates these contributions.  One

977: possible reason could be that the quantum corrections have not been

978: made to these orders. We anticipate that such corrections would go

979: again in the direction of reducing the cross section but their 

980: inclusion, though possible, is beyond the scope of the present work.

981: 

982: The comparison for the counter pair (125\de,--20\de) at 228 MeV is 

983: puzzling. The data reverses its trend from the same pair at 294 MeV

984: while the calculation gives the same general form.

985: 

986: We thank R. Tacik for supplying us with tables of the data

987: in electronic form.  JPD wishes to thank the Dept. of Physics of New 

988: Mexico State University for its hospitality and partial support and 

989: WRG expresses appreciation for the same to the Universit\'e Paris 7-

990: Denis Diderot. This work was supported by the National Science 

991: Foundation under contract PHY-0099729.

992: 

993: \newpage

994: 

995: \begin{center}{\bf Appendix}\end{center}

996: 

997: \begin{appendix}

998: 

999: \section{Spin matrix elements}

1000: 

1001: With the definitions

1002: \eq \bfc=\bfa\times\bfb \qe

1003: \eq \az=a^z;\ \ \apo=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a^x+ia^y);\ \ 

1004:  \amo=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a^x-ia^y), \qe

1005: the matrix elements of

1006: $<S'S_z'|\sigma_1\cdot\bfa\ \ \sigma_2\cdot\bfb |SS_z>$ can

1007: be written

1008: $$ \begin{array}{cccccccc}

1009: &&\vline&(0,\ \ 0)&(1,\ -1)&(1,\ \ 0)&(1,\ +1)&(S',S_z')\\ \hline 

1010: (S,S_z)&(0,\ \ \ 0)&\vline&-\bfa\cdot\bfb&-i\cmo&i\cz&-i\cpo \\

1011: &(1,\ -1)&\vline&-i\cpo&\az\bz&-\az\bpo-\apo\bz&2\apo\bpo\\

1012: &(1,\ \ \ 0)&\vline&-i\cz&\az\bmo+\amo\bz&\bfa\cdot\bfb-2\az\bz&

1013: \apo\bz+\az\bpo \\

1014: &(1,\  +1)&\vline&-i\cmo&2\amo\bmo&-\amo\bz-\az\bmo&\az\bz \\

1015: \end{array} $$

1016: 

1017: We need this matrix twice, once for $\bfa =\bfk$; $\bfb =\bfk '$ 

1018: and

1019: once for $\bfa =\hr \times\bfk$; $\bfb =\bfk '\times\hr$.  For the

1020: second case we can write $\bfc =-(\hr\cdot\bfk\times\bfk ')\hr$.

1021: 

1022: For a single spin operator we have

1023: $$ \begin{array}{cccccc}

1024: &\vline&(0,\ \ 0)&(1,\ -1)&(1,\ \ 0)&(1,\ +1)\\ \hline 

1025: (0,\ \ \ 0)&\vline&0&-\amo&\az&-\apo\\

1026: (1,\ -1)&\vline&\apo&-\az&\apo&0\\

1027: (1,\ \ \ 0)&\vline&\az&-\amo&0&\apo\\

1028: (1,\ +1)&\vline&\amo&0&-\amo&\az\\

1029: \end{array} $$

1030: for the matrix elements of $<S'S_z'|\sigma_1\cdot\bfa|SS_z>$ and

1031: 

1032: $$ \begin{array}{cccccc}

1033: &\vline&(0,\ \ 0)&(1,\ -1)&(1,\ \ 0)&(1,\ +1)\\ \hline 

1034: (0,\ \ \ 0)&\vline&0&+\amo&-\az&\apo\\

1035: (1,\ -1)&\vline&-\apo&-\az&\apo&0\\

1036: (1,\ \ \ 0)&\vline&-\az&-\amo&0&\apo\\

1037: (1,\ +1)&\vline&-\amo&0&-\amo&\az\\

1038: \end{array} $$

1039: for the matrix elements of $<S'S_z'|\sigma_2\cdot\bfa|SS_z>$.

1040: 

1041: \end{appendix}

1042: \begin{thebibliography}{999}

1043: 

1044: \bibitem{serber} R. Serber, \pr {\bf 72}, 1114(1947)

1045: 

1046: \bibitem{goldberger} M. L. Goldberger, \pr {\bf 74}, 1268(1948)

1047: 

1048: \bibitem{bernardini} G. Bernardini, E. T. Booth and S. J. 

1049: Lindenbaum, \pr 85, 826(1952); \pr {\bf 88}, 1017(1952)

1050: 

1051: \bibitem{met1} N. Metropolis, R. Bivins, M. Storm, A. Turkevich, J. M. 

1052: Miller and G. Friedlander, \pr {\bf 110}, 185(1958)

1053: 

1054: \bibitem{met2} N. Metropolis, R. Bivins, M. Storm, J. M. 

1055: Miller, G. Friedlander and A. Turkevich, \pr {\bf 110}, 204(1958)

1056: 

1057: \bibitem{ginocchio} J. N. Ginocchio, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 17}, 195(1978)

1058: 

1059: \bibitem{frankel} Y. Yariv and A. Frankel, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 20}, 

1060: 2227(1979)

1061: 

1062: \bibitem{rqmd} R. Mattiello, H. Sorge, H. St\"ocker and W. Greiner,

1063: Phys. Rev Lett. {\bf 63}, 1459(1989); H. Sorge, R. Mattiello, H.  

1064: St\"ocker and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}, 286(1992)

1065: 

1066: \bibitem{cugnon} J. Cugnon, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 22}, 1885(1980); G.  

1067: Montarou \ea , Phys. Rev. C {\bf 47}, 2764(1993); J. Cugnon, Phys.

1068: Rev. C {\bf 23}, 2094(1981); J. Cugnon, D. Kinet and J. Vandermeulen,

1069: Nucl. Phys.  {\bf A379}, 553(1982); M. Cahay, J. Cugnon and J.

1070: Vandermeulen, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A393}, 237(1983)

1071: 

1072: \bibitem{valencia} L. L. Salcedo, E. Oset, M. J. Vicente-Vacas and

1073: C. Garcia-Recio, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A484}, 557(1988); B. M. Abramov \ea, 

1074: Phys. of Atom. Nucl. {\bf 59}, 376(1996); M. J. Vicente, E. Oset, L. L. 

1075: Salcedo and C. Garcia-Recio, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 39}, 209(1989)

1076: 

1077: \bibitem{li} B. Li and W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 44}, 450(1991), B.  

1078: Li, W. Bauer and C. M. Ko, Phys. Lett. {\bf 382B}, 337(1996)

1079: 

1080: \bibitem{kahana} S. H. Kahana, D. E. Kahana, Y. Pang and T. J.

1081: Schlagel, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci {\bf 46}, 31(1996)

1082: 

1083: \bibitem{tacik}  R. Tacik, E. T. Boschitz, W. Gyles, C. R. Ottermann,

1084: M. Wessler, U. Wiedner, H. Garcilazo and R. R. Johnson, 

1085: \prc\ {\bf 42}, 1846(1990)

1086: 

1087: \bibitem{anti1} D. Strottman and W. R. Gibbs, Phys. Lett. {\bf 149B}, 288 

1088: (1984)

1089: 

1090: \bibitem{wrg} W. R. Gibbs, Proc. of the ``Intersections Between Particle

1091: and Nuclear Physics'', Lake Louise, Canada 1986 AIP Conference Proceedings

1092: {\bf 150}, p. 505

1093: 

1094: \bibitem{gs}W. R. Gibbs and D. Strottman, Proc. of the ``International

1095: Conference on Antinucleon- and Nucleon-Nucleon Interactions'' ,

1096: Telluride, CO March 18-21, 1985. Plenum Press, New York

1097: 

1098: \bibitem{fermilab}W. R. Gibbs, Proc. of the ``First Fermilab Workshop 

1099: on Low-Energy Antiproton Physics'' April 10-12, 1986, p. 355

1100: 

1101: \bibitem{gkruk} W. R. Gibbs and J. W. Kruk, Phys. Lett. {\bf 317B}, 

1102: 237(1990);  Z. Phys. {\bf C46}, S45(1990) 

1103: 

1104: \bibitem{light} W. R. Gibbs and W. B. Kaufmann, Proceedings of the 

1105: workshop on {\it Physics with Light Mesons}, August 14, 1987, 

1106: LA-11184-C, p. 28.

1107: 

1108: \bibitem{rice}  S. Ahmad \ea, ``Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial

1109: Conference on Low Energy Antiproton Physics'', Dinkelsb\"uhl, Germany,

1110: 27 Aug., 1996 \nucp B Sup. 56A, 118(1997)

1111: 

1112: \bibitem{lanl} W. R. Gibbs and W. B. Kaufmann, Proc. of LAMPF Workshop

1113: on ``Pion-nucleus Physics: Future Directions and New Facilities at

1114: LAMPF'', AIP Conference Proceedings 163, p. 279, {\bf B231}, 6(1989)

1115: 

1116: \bibitem{zumbro} J. D. Zumbro, C. L. Morris, J. A. McGill, S. J. Seestrom,

1117: R. M. Whitton, C. M. Riedel-Edwards, A.  L. Williams, M. Braunstein, M.

1118: Kohler, B. Kriss, S. Hoibraten, R. J. Peterson, J. Ouyang, J. E. Wise, and

1119: W. R. Gibbs, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 1796(1993)

1120: 

1121: \bibitem{alqadi} M. Alqadi and W. R. Gibbs, \prc\ {\bf 65}, 

1122: 044609(2002)

1123: 

1124: \bibitem{ritchie} B. G. Ritchie, \prc\ {\bf 28}, 926(1983)

1125: 

1126: \bibitem{rosa} T. E. O. Ericson and M. Rosa-Clot, Nucl. Phys. 

1127: {\bf A405}, 497(1983)

1128: 

1129: \bibitem{fg}J. L. Friar, B. F. Gibson and G. L. Payne, 

1130: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 30}, 1084(1984) 

1131: 

1132: \bibitem{ballot} J. L. Ballot and M. R. Robilotta, Phys. Rev. C

1133: {\bf 45}, 986(1992); Phys. Rev. C {\bf 45}, 990(1992);

1134: J. L. Ballot, A. M. Eir\'{o} and M. R. Robilotta, Phys. Rev. C 

1135: {\bf 40}, 1459(1989)

1136: 

1137: \bibitem{book}  W. R. Gibbs, ``Computation in Modern Physics'', (World

1138: Scientific, Singapore, 1994)

1139: 

1140: \bibitem{bern} M. Bernheim, A. Bussi\`ere, J. Mougey, D. Royer, D.  

1141: Tarnowski and S. Turck-Chi\`eze, G. P. Capitani, E. Desanctis, 

1142: E. Jans, Nucl. Phys.  {\bf A365}, 349(1981)

1143: 

1144: \bibitem{mt} R. A. Malfliet and J. A. Tjon, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A127},

1145: 161(1969)

1146: 

1147: \bibitem{gek} W. R. Gibbs, M. Elghossain and W. B. Kaufmann, Phys. Rev.

1148: C {\bf 48}, 1546(1993)

1149: 

1150: \end{thebibliography}

1151: 

1152: \begin{center}\begin{figure}[p]

1153: \epsfysize=185mm

1154: \epsffile{bern.ps}

1155: \caption{Comparison of the measurements of Fermi momenta by Bernheim

1156: et al.\protect \cite{bern} with a fit to the data (dashed line) and the 

1157: result of the INC (solid line) using the potential derived in the text and 

1158: shown

1159: in Fig. \protect\ref{vbern}. Also shown is the square of the momentum

1160: wave function of the one-pion-exchange deuteron (dotted).}

1161: \label{bern}\end{figure}\end{center}

1162: 

1163: \begin{center}\begin{figure}[p]

1164: \epsfysize=185mm

1165: \epsffile{vbern.ps}

1166: \caption{The potential obtained as described in the text. The solid

1167: line is the potential directly from the procedure and the dashed line

1168: shows the fit used in the cascade code.  The dash-dot line shows the

1169: Malfliet-Tjon \cite{mt} potential as modified \cite{book}.}

1170: \label{vbern}\end{figure}\end{center}

1171: 

1172: \begin{figure}[p]

1173: \begin{center}

1174: \epsfysize=185mm

1175: \epsffile{specmoma.ps}

1176: \caption{Comparison of the observed final momentum of the

1177: unstruck particle in single scattering events with the initial

1178: Fermi momentum (its initial momentum before interaction with the

1179: potential.}

1180: \label{specmoma}

1181: \end{center}

1182: \end{figure}

1183: 

1184: \begin{figure}[p]

1185: \begin{center}

1186: \epsfysize=185mm

1187: \epsffile{sbernfca6.ps}

1188: \caption{Single scattering with and without cuts at 228 and 294 MeV.

1189: The data points shown in this figure and all of the figures to follow

1190: is from \protect{ \cite{tacik}}.}

1191: \label{sbernfca6}

1192: \end{center}

1193: \end{figure}

1194: 

1195: \begin{center}

1196: \begin{figure}[p]

1197: \epsfysize=185mm

1198: \epsffile{totbernfnf.ps}

1199: \caption{Total and double scattering with and without Fermi motion at 294 

1200: MeV. The solid line represents the contribution of double scattering

1201: and the dashed line gives the total. Both calculations were made without 

1202: absorption.}

1203: \label{totbernfnf}

1204: \end{figure}

1205: \end{center}

1206: 

1207: \begin{figure}[p]

1208: \begin{center}

1209: \epsfysize=185mm

1210: \epsffile{triple.ps}

1211: \caption{Momenta for triple scattering at 294 MeV. The momentum $k_1$ 

1212: is the one measured in the 20\de\ counter and $k_2$ that measured in 

1213: the 125\de\ counter.}

1214: \label{triple}

1215: \end{center}

1216: \end{figure}

1217: 

1218: \begin{center}

1219: \begin{figure}[p]

1220: \epsfysize=185mm

1221: \epsffile{tberna2.ps}

1222: \caption{Triple scattering without cuts, with absorption and with

1223: a small Fermi momentum at 294 MeV to show the kinematic effects of the

1224: Jacobian peaks.}

1225: \label{tberna2}

1226: \end{figure}

1227: \end{center}

1228: 

1229: \begin{center}

1230: \begin{figure}[p]

1231: \epsfysize=185mm

1232: \epsffile{cohqnqa.ps}

1233: \caption{Double scattering comparing classical (dashed line), fully 

1234: quantum (solid line) and partial quantum effects without the coherent 

1235: deuteron wave function (dash-dot line) at 228 MeV.}

1236: \label{cohqnqa}

1237: \end{figure}

1238: \end{center}

1239: 

1240: \begin{figure}[p]

1241: \begin{center}

1242: \epsfysize=185mm

1243: \epsffile{bernms228.ps}

1244: \caption{Comparison of orders of multiple scattering and the total

1245: at 228 MeV. The single scattering for (45\de,--45\de) is shown in

1246: Fig. \protect{\ref{sbernfca6}}.}

1247: \label{bernms228}

1248: \end{center}

1249: \end{figure}

1250: 

1251: \begin{figure}[p]

1252: \begin{center}

1253: \epsfysize=185mm

1254: \epsffile{bernms294.ps}

1255: \caption{Comparison of orders of multiple scattering and the total

1256: at 294 MeV. The single scattering for (45\de,--45\de) is shown in

1257: Fig. \protect{\ref{sbernfca6}}.}

1258: \label{bernms294}

1259: \end{center}

1260: \end{figure}

1261: 

1262: \begin{center}

1263: \begin{figure}[p]

1264: \epsfysize=185mm

1265: \epsffile{tot228.ps}

1266: \caption{Total scattering at 228 MeV with (solid) and without (dashed)

1267: quantum corrections.}

1268: \label{tot228}

1269: \end{figure}

1270: \end{center}

1271: 

1272: \begin{center}

1273: \begin{figure}[p]

1274: \epsfysize=185mm

1275: \epsffile{tot294.ps}

1276: \caption{Total scattering at 294 MeV with (solid) and without (dashed)

1277: quantum corrections.}

1278: \label{tot294}

1279: \end{figure}

1280: \end{center}

1281: 

1282: \end{document}

1283: 

1284: