1: \begin{filecontents}{leer.eps}
2:
3: gsave
4: 72 31 moveto
5: 72 342 lineto
6: 601 342 lineto
7: 601 31 lineto
8: 72 31 lineto
9: showpage
10: grestore
11: \end{filecontents}
12: %
13: \documentclass[epj]{svjour}
14: %\documentclass[epj,draft]{svjour}
15: \usepackage{graphics}
16: \usepackage{amssymb}
17: \usepackage{amsmath}
18: \usepackage[dvips]{epsfig}
19: %----------
20: \newcommand{\half}{\mbox{${\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}$}} % 1/2
21: \newcommand{\third}{\mbox{${\textstyle \frac{1}{3}}$}} % 1/3
22: \newcommand{\fourth}{\mbox{${\textstyle \frac{1}{4}}$}} % 1/4
23: \newcommand{\fmn}[2]{\mbox{${\textstyle \frac{#1}{#2}}$}}
24: \newcommand{\rd}{\mbox{{\rm d}}}
25: \newcommand{\bmath}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}
26: \newcommand{\fsi}{\textit{fsi}}
27: \newcommand{\ddpipi}{\mbox{$dd\to\,^{4}\textrm{He}\,\pi\pi$}}
28: \newcommand{\pdpipi}{\mbox{$pd\to\,^{3}\textrm{He}\,\pi\pi$}}
29: \newcommand{\ddeta}{\mbox{$dd\to\,^{4}\textrm{He}\,\eta$}}
30: \newcommand{\pdeta}{\mbox{$pd\to\,^{3}\textrm{He}\,\eta$}}
31: \def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
32: %--------------------
33: \begin{document}
34: \title{Two--pion production in deuteron--deuteron collisions at low energies}
35: %
36: \author{G\"{o}ran F\"{a}ldt\inst{1}$\,$\thanks{\email{goran.faldt@tsl.uu.se}}
37: \and
38: Ulla Tengblad\inst{1}$\,$\thanks{\email{ulla.tengblad@tsl.uu.se}}
39: \and
40: Colin Wilkin\inst{2}$\,$\thanks{\email{cw@hep.ucl.ac.uk}}}
41: %
42: \institute{
43: Department of Radiation Sciences, Box 535, S-751 21 Uppsala, Sweden
44: \and
45: Department of Physics \& Astronomy, UCL, London WC1E 6BT, UK}
46: %
47: \date{Received: \today / Revised version:}
48: %
49: \abstract{The cross section for the \ddpipi\ reaction is estimated
50: near threshold in a two--step model where a pion created in a
51: first interaction produces a second pion in a subsequent
52: interaction. This approach, which describes well the rates of
53: $2\pi$ and $\eta$ production in the \pdpipi\ and \ddeta\
54: reactions, leads to predictions that are much too low compared to
55: experiment. Alternatives to this and the double--$\Delta$ model
56: will have to be sought to explain these data.
57: \PACS{{13.60.Le} {Meson production} \and
58: {14.40.Aq} {pi, K, and eta mesons}}}
59: \maketitle
60: %
61: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
62: %
63: \section{Introduction}
64: Over the last few years there has been increased experimental
65: interest in double-pion production near threshold in several
66: hadronic reactions. These include studies in
67: pion--proton~\cite{CB} and proton--proton collisions~\cite{Heinz},
68: as well as in the \pdpipi~\cite{MOMO,Andersson,Heinz2} and
69: \ddpipi~\cite{Pia1,Pia2,Pia3} reactions. For excess energies $Q$
70: below about 100$\:$MeV one sees no sign of the low mass $s$-wave
71: $\pi\pi$ enhancement, known as the ABC effect~\cite{ABC}, and the
72: maxima in the invariant mass distributions tend more to be pushed
73: to the highest possible values.
74:
75: Due in part to an isospin filter effect, the most spectacular
76: manifestation of the ABC is to be found in the case of \ddpipi\
77: for $Q\approx 200\!-\!300\:$MeV~\cite{Ban73}. These cross section
78: data, as well those representing the deuteron analysing
79: powers~\cite{SPESIII}, can be well understood within a model where
80: there are two independent pion productions, through the $pn\to
81: d\pi^0$ reaction, with a final state interaction between the two
82: deuterons to yield the observed $\alpha$--particle~\cite{Anders}.
83: Since the $pn\to d\pi^0$ amplitudes are dominated by $p$--wave
84: production, driven by the $\Delta$ isobar, this leads to much
85: structure in the predictions. Although such double--$\Delta$
86: effects are generally observed in the medium energy
87: data~\cite{Ban73,Anders}, there is little evidence of them nearer
88: to threshold~\cite{Pia1,Pia2,Chapman}. Furthermore, the cross
89: sections measured at low energies are over an order of magnitude
90: higher than the predictions of models behaving like the square of
91: $p$-wave production, where the amplitudes must be proportional to
92: $Q$.
93:
94: In an alternative approach to the \pdpipi\ reaction, the low
95: energy cross sections have been discussed in terms of a two--step
96: model, where a pion is produced through a $pp\to d\pi^+$ reaction
97: on the proton in the deuteron, with a further pion being created
98: in a secondary $\pi^+n\to p\pi^0\pi^0$ reaction~\cite{FGW}. There
99: are, of course, other contributions related to this through
100: isospin invariance. Semi-phenomenological models of the $\pi^+n\to
101: n\pi^0\pi^0$ amplitudes show strong $s$--wave production, behaving
102: rather like a contact term, plus another contribution involving
103: the decay chain $N^*(1440)\to \Delta(1232)\,\pi \to
104: N\pi\pi$~\cite{Oset}. The $s$--wave term is sufficient, in the
105: two--step model, to lead to reasonable agreement with the
106: available data on the \pdpipi\ total cross section. Moreover,
107: combined with $p$--waves required by the decay chain, it
108: reproduces the shift of the mass spectrum away from the ABC region
109: towards that of higher missing masses~\cite{MOMO,Andersson}. It is
110: therefore reasonable to ask whether a similar approach could not
111: be usefully tried for the low energy \ddpipi\ reaction.
112:
113: The two--step model with an intermediate
114: $pd\to\,^{3}\textrm{He}\,\pi^0$ step has in fact been applied
115: successfully to the production of $\eta$--mesons in the \ddeta\
116: reaction near threshold~\cite{FW2}, where it reproduces reasonably
117: well the magnitude of the total cross
118: section~\cite{Frascaria,Willis}. The approach is here extended in
119: section~\ref{sec2} to describe the \ddpipi\ reaction, using the
120: same $\pi N\to\pi\pi N$ amplitudes as those that worked for
121: \pdpipi. The other element that is crucial for the evaluation of
122: this model is the cluster decomposition of the $\alpha$--particle
123: in terms of $^3$He$\,n/\,^3$H$\,p$ constituents. This is discussed
124: in section~\ref{sec3}, where we rely on the work of the Argonne
125: group~\cite{VMC}. The results presented in section~\ref{Results}
126: show that the model is capable of describing the shape of the
127: $\pi\pi$ effective mass distribution, without the oscillatory
128: structure predicted by the double--$\Delta$ model~\cite{Anders}.
129: However, the total cross section estimates fall over an order of
130: magnitude below the experimental results found at low
131: energies~\cite{Pia1,Pia2,Chapman}. These data have low statistics
132: and limited acceptance, though they will be supplemented by more
133: precise results expected soon from CELSIUS~\cite{Pia3}. Since
134: neither this nor the double--$\Delta$ model gets even close to the
135: observed production rates, alternative approaches are necessary.
136: %
137: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
138: %
139: \section{The reaction model}
140: \label{sec2}
141:
142: The two--step model for the \ddpipi\ amplitudes, in terms of those
143: for $pd\to\,^3\textrm{H}\,\pi^+$ and $\pi^+n\to (\pi\pi)^0p$, is
144: depicted in Fig.~\ref{diagram}. Contributions involving
145: intermediate $^3$He and $\pi^0/\pi^-$ are all related to the
146: results for this diagram through isospin invariance. Due to the
147: identical nature of the incident deuterons, there is a similar set
148: of diagrams where the initial production takes place on the upper
149: deuteron.\vspace{-2mm}
150:
151: \begin{figure}[htb]
152: \begin{center}
153: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=8cm{\epsfbox{ddfig.eps}}}
154: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8cm{\epsfbox{fig.eps}}}
155: \end{center}
156: \vspace{-0.2cm} \caption{\label{diagram} Two--step model for the
157: production of $\pi^+\pi^-$ and $\pi^0\pi^0$ pairs through the
158: \ddpipi\ reaction. There are also contributions related to this by
159: isospin in addition to the terms arising from the interchange of
160: the two deuterons.}
161: \end{figure}
162:
163: The cross section corresponding to such a diagram has been
164: evaluated for the $dd\to\alpha\,\eta$ reaction~\cite{FW2} and we
165: follow closely the techniques used there. The unpolarised \ddpipi\
166: differential cross section is expressed in terms of the Lorentz
167: invariant matrix element $\mathcal{M}$ through
168: \begin{eqnarray}
169: \rd\sigma&=&\frac{p_{\alpha}}{ 144p_dW^2} \frac{1}{(2\pi)^4}
170: \sum_{\rm spins} \mid \mathcal{M}\mid^2\, k_{\pi\pi}\,
171: \rd{}m_{\pi\pi}\,
172: \rd\Omega_{\alpha}\,\frac{\rd\Omega_{\pi\pi}}{4\pi}\:\cdot
173: \label{Start-cross}\nonumber\\
174: \end{eqnarray}
175: Here $p_d$ and $p_{\alpha}$ are the initial and final momenta in
176: the overall cm system where the total energy is $W$. The angles
177: $\Omega_{\alpha}$ are also in the total cm system, whereas the
178: $\pi\pi$ relative momentum $k_{\pi\pi}$ and its angles
179: $\Omega_{\pi\pi}$ are evaluated in the dipion rest frame, where
180: the total energy is $m_{\pi\pi}$.
181:
182: The matrix element of Fig.~\ref{diagram} involves the integration
183: of the pion propagator between the two production vertices over
184: the two Fermi momenta $\bmath{k}$ and $\bmath{q})$. If initially
185: we neglect the deuteron $D$--state and the Lorentz boost of the
186: wave functions, this can be written as
187: \begin{eqnarray}
188: \nonumber \mathcal{M}&=&\sqrt{\frac{2}{3 m_p^2}}\
189: \frac{1}{(2\pi)^3} \int{\rd^3k }\,{\rd^3q}\,
190: \frac{m_n}{E_n(\bmath{p}_n)}\frac{m_t}{E_t(\bmath{p}_t)}\\
191: &&\times\frac{i}{q_{\pi}^2-m_{\pi}^2+i\epsilon}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}_N\:,
192: \label{full}
193: \end{eqnarray}
194: where the particle masses are denoted by $m_i$. The reduced
195: nuclear matrix element is
196: \begin{eqnarray}
197: \tilde{\mathcal{M}}_N&=&\textrm{Tr}\left[
198: \frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}}\,\bmath{\sigma}\cdot\bmath{\epsilon}_d
199: \left\{-\mathcal{A}\,\hat{\bmath{p}}_d\cdot
200: \bmath{\epsilon}_{d\,'} -i\mathcal{B}\,\hat{\bmath{p}}_d\cdot
201: (\bmath{\epsilon}_{d\,'}
202: \times\bmath{\sigma})\right\}\right.\nonumber\\
203: &&\left.\times\ \frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}}\,a(m_{\pi\pi},Q)\,
204: \bmath{\sigma}\cdot\bmath{p}_{\pi}\right]
205: \tilde{\varphi}_d(\bmath{q}) \,
206: \tilde{\psi}^{\dagger}_{\alpha}\,(\bmath{k})\:, \label{reduced}
207: \end{eqnarray}
208: where the $(\bmath{\epsilon}_{d},\bmath{\epsilon}_{d\,'})$ are the
209: polarisation vectors of the two incident deuterons and the
210: kinematics are defined as in the figure. The $S$-state
211: momentum--space wave functions for the deuteron and the
212: triton--proton configuration of the $\alpha$--particle are denoted
213: by $\tilde{\varphi}_d(\bmath{q})$ and
214: $\tilde{\psi}_{\alpha}\,(\bmath{k})$ respectively.
215:
216: In the forward and backward (cm) directions, only two terms are
217: needed to describe the spin structure of the
218: $dp\to\,^{3}\textrm{He}\,\pi^0$ amplitude. Using two--component
219: spinors to denote the $^3$He ($u_h$) and proton ($u_p$), this
220: reads
221: \begin{equation}
222: \mathcal{M}(dp\to\,^{3}\textrm{He}\,\pi^0) =
223: u^{\,\dagger}_h\left[\mathcal{A}\,\hat{\bmath{p}}_d\cdot
224: \bmath{\epsilon}_d +i\mathcal{B}\,\hat{\bmath{p}}_d\cdot
225: (\bmath{\epsilon}_d\times\bmath{\sigma}) \right]u_p\:,
226: \end{equation}
227: where $\bmath{p}_d$ and $\bmath{p}_{\pi}$ are the momenta of the
228: incident deuteron and produced pion respectively. In our
229: normalisation, the unpolarised differential cross section and
230: deuteron tensor analysing power $t_{20}$ are given in terms of the
231: two dimensionless spin amplitudes $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$
232: by
233: \begin{eqnarray}
234: \nonumber \frac{\rd\sigma}{\rd\Omega} &=&\frac{1}{3(8 \pi
235: W)^2}\frac{p_{\pi}}{p_d}\Big[\mid\mathcal{A}\mid^2
236: +2\mid\mathcal{B}\mid^2 \Big]\\
237: t_{20}&=&\sqrt{2}\left[\frac{\mid\mathcal{B}\mid^2
238: -\mid\mathcal{A}\mid^2}{\mid\mathcal{A}\mid^2
239: +2\mid\mathcal{B}\mid^2}\right]\,,
240: \end{eqnarray}
241: and these observables have been well measured in collinear
242: kinematics at Saturne~\cite{Kerboul}.
243:
244: For deuteron kinetic energies of interest here, the backward
245: ($\theta_{p\pi}=180^{\circ}$) values of $t_{20}$ are strongly
246: negative, so that $|\mathcal{A}|\gg|\mathcal{B}|$. In the 0.5 --
247: 0.8$\:$GeV range the results may be represented by
248: \begin{eqnarray}
249: \nonumber%
250: |\mathcal{A}|^2&\approx&
251: -565.6+2318.7T_d-2869.9T_d^2+1122.9T_d^3\hspace{10mm}\\
252: |\mathcal{B}|^2&\approx&
253: -197.9+1144.9T_d-2113.0T_d^2+1261.8T_d^3\:,
254: \end{eqnarray}
255: where the deuteron kinetic energy $T_d$ is measured in GeV.
256:
257: The spin structure of the $\pi^-p\to \pi^0\pi^0n$ amplitude is
258: unique near threshold:
259: \begin{equation}
260: \label{e0} M(\pi^-p\to \pi^0\pi^0n)= a(m_{\pi\pi},Q)\,
261: u_n^{\dagger} \bmath{\sigma}\cdot\bmath{p}_{p}\,u_{p}\:.
262: \end{equation}
263: In terms of the amplitude $a$, the unpolarised differential cross
264: section is
265: \begin{equation}
266: \label{e1} \textrm{d}\sigma(\pi^-p\to \pi^0\pi^0n) =
267: \frac{1}{64\pi^3}\,\frac{p_p\,p_n}{W_{\pi
268: N}^2}\,|a(m_{\pi\pi},Q)|^2\, k_{\pi\pi}\,\textrm{d}m_{\pi\pi}\:.
269: \end{equation}
270: Here $p_p$ and $p_n$ are respectively the initial and final
271: nucleon momenta, $W_{\pi N}$ the cm energy in the $\pi N$ system,
272: and $Q=W_{\pi N}-2m_{\pi}-m_N$ the excess energy above the
273: two--pion threshold.
274:
275: The low energy data in different isospin channels are well
276: described by the Valencia model~\cite{Oset} and this allows one to
277: project out the $I=0$ combination required as input in
278: equation~(\ref{reduced}). The results can be parameterised as:
279: \begin{eqnarray}
280: \nonumber
281: \lefteqn{\hspace{-5mm}\frac{1}{64\pi^3}\,|a(m_{\pi\pi},Q)|^2 =
282: (1.092-0.0211Q+0.00015Q^2)}&&\\ \nonumber
283: &&+(4.18+0.0075Q-0.00098Q^2)\,x\\
284: \label{e7}
285: &&+(47.65-0.935Q+0.00743Q^2)\,x^2\:\mu\textrm{b/MeV}^2\:,
286: \end{eqnarray}
287: where $x=(m_{\pi\pi}-2m_{\pi})/m_{\pi}$.
288:
289: Due to small recoil corrections, this parameterisation should be
290: used at an excess energy of $Q'$, where
291: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
292: Q'\approx xm_{\pi}+(Q-xm_{\pi})(1+2m_{\pi}/m_{\alpha})/(1+2m_{\pi}/m_p).\\
293: \end{eqnarray}
294:
295: Since large Fermi momenta are not required in the two--step model,
296: the $dp\to\,^{3}\textrm{He}\,\pi^0$ and $\pi N\to \pi\pi N$
297: amplitudes can be taken outside of the integration in
298: eq.~(\ref{full}) with the values pertaining at zero Fermi momenta.
299: Considering only the positive energy pion pole, to first order in
300: $\bmath{k}$ and $\bmath{q}$ one is left with a difference between
301: the external and internal energies of
302: \begin{equation}
303: \Delta E=E_{\rm ext}-E_{\rm int}= \Delta
304: E_{0}+\bmath{k}\cdot\bmath{W}+\bmath{q}\cdot\bmath{V}\:,
305: \end{equation}
306: where
307: \begin{equation}
308: \Delta E_0 = E_{\pi}^0 -E_{\pi}\:,
309: \end{equation}
310: with
311: \begin{equation}
312: E_{\pi}^0=2E_d-E_t-E_n -E_{\pi}\:.
313: \end{equation}
314: Here ($E_{\pi},\,E_d,\,E_t,\,E_n$) are the pion, deuteron, triton,
315: and nucleon total energies, evaluated respectively at momenta
316: $-\fmn{3}{4} \bmath{p}_{\alpha}-\fmn{1}{2}\bmath{p}_d$,
317: $\bmath{p}_d$, $\fmn{1}{2}\bmath{p}_d$, and
318: $\fmn{3}{4}\bmath{p}_{\alpha}$. \vspace{1mm}
319:
320: The relativistic relative velocity vectors $\bmath{V}$ and
321: $\bmath{W}$ depend only upon external kinematic variables:
322: \begin{eqnarray}
323: \nonumber \bmath{V} &=& \bmath{v}_{\pi}(-\fmn{3}{4}
324: \bmath{p}_{\alpha}-\fmn{1}{2}\bmath{p}_d)
325: - \bmath{v}_{n}(\fmn{1}{2}\bmath{p}_d)\\[1ex]
326: &=&-\frac{3}{4E_{\pi}}
327: \,\bmath{p}_{\alpha}-\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{E_{\pi}}
328: +\frac{1}{E_{n}}\right]\bmath{p}_d\:,
329: \nonumber \\[1ex] \nonumber
330: \bmath{W}&=&-\bmath{v}_{\pi}(-\fmn{3}{4} \bmath{p}_{\alpha}
331: -\fmn{1}{2}\bmath{p}_d)
332: + \bmath{v}_{t}(\fmn{3}{4}\bmath{p}_{\alpha})\\[1ex]
333: &=&\frac{3}{4}\left[\frac{1}{E_{\pi}}+\frac{1}{E_t}\right]
334: \bmath{p}_{\alpha}+\frac{1}{2E_{\pi}} \,\bmath{p}_d\:.
335: \label{VandW}
336: \end{eqnarray}
337: %
338: The resulting form factor
339: \begin{eqnarray}
340: \nonumber%
341: \lefteqn{\mathcal{S}(\bmath{V},\bmath{W},\Delta
342: E_0)=}\\%
343: &&\hspace{-5mm}-i\int{\rd^3k} \,{\rd^3q}\,\frac{1}{\Delta
344: E_0+\bmath{k}\cdot\bmath{W} + \bmath{q}\cdot\bmath{V}
345: +i\epsilon}\,\tilde{\psi}^{*}(\bmath{k})\,
346: \tilde{\varphi}(\bmath{q})\nonumber\\
347: &=&(2\pi)^3\int_0^{\infty}\rd t \,e^{it\Delta E_0} \;
348: \psi^{*}(-t\bmath{W})\,\varphi(t\bmath{V})\:, \label{FF0}
349: \end{eqnarray}
350: then involves a one--dimensional integration over wave functions
351: in configuration space. In terms of this form factor the \ddpipi\
352: differential cross section becomes:
353: \begin{eqnarray}
354: \nonumber \rd\sigma&=&\frac{N_{\alpha}}{48\,(2\pi)^{10}}
355: \frac{p_{\alpha}p_d}{[m_pW(E_{\pi}+E_{\pi}^0)]^2}\,
356: |a(m_{\pi\pi},Q)|^2\,\times\\
357: && \left|\mathcal{S}(\bmath{V},\bmath{W},\Delta E_0)+ (\bmath{p}_d
358: \Leftrightarrow -\bmath{p}_d)\right|^2\times \nonumber\\
359: &&\vphantom{\int}
360: \left\{\mid\mathcal{A}\mid^2+2\mid\mathcal{B}\mid^2\right\}\,
361: k_{\pi\pi}\,\rd{}m_{\pi\pi} \rd\Omega_{\alpha}\:,
362: \label{simple}
363: \end{eqnarray}
364: where $N_{\alpha}$ is the normalisation of the $^4$He wave
365: function and the extra form--factor contribution coming from the
366: interchange of the two incident deuterons is indicated. All
367: isospin factors have been included, but it must be stressed that
368: in eq.~(\ref{simple}) $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ refer to the
369: $dp\to\,^{3}\textrm{He}\,\pi^0$ and $\pi^-p\to \pi^0\pi^0n$ charge
370: states respectively. Isospin invariance dictates that $\pi^+\pi^-$
371: production in \ddpipi\ should be a factor of two larger than
372: $\pi^0\pi^0$, but this simple rule is significantly modified near
373: threshold by phase--space factors arising from the pion mass
374: difference.
375:
376: Two further refinements need to be implemented in
377: eq.~(\ref{simple}) before comparing its predictions with
378: experiment. Although the final $\alpha$-particle is slow in the cm
379: system, relativistic corrections cannot be neglected for the
380: incident deuterons. These can be included by boosting
381: $V_{\parallel}$, the longitudinal component of $\bmath{V}$,
382: \emph{i.e} by taking as argument of the deuteron wave
383: function~\cite{FW2}
384: \begin{equation}
385: \bmath{V}'=(\bmath{V}_{\!\perp},\,E_d V_{\parallel}/m_d)\:.
386: \label{V-prime-def}
387: \end{equation}
388:
389: Secondly, the effects of the deuteron $D$--state have to be
390: considered and this can be accomplished by introducing two form
391: factors:
392: \begin{eqnarray}
393: \nonumber%
394: \lefteqn{\mathcal{S}_{S,D}({V'},{W},\Delta E_0)}\\
395: &&=2\pi^2\!\!\int_0^{\infty}\rd t \,e^{it\Delta E_0} \,
396: \Psi^{*}(-t{W})\,\Phi_{S,D}(t{V'})\:,\label{FF1}
397: \end{eqnarray}
398: where $\Phi_{S,D}(r)$ are the deuteron $S$-- and $D$--state
399: configuration space wave functions normalised by
400: \begin{equation}
401: \int_{0}^{\infty}r^2\,\left\{\Phi_S(r)^2+\Phi_D(r)^2\right\}\,\rd
402: r =1\:.
403: \end{equation}
404: The $S$-- and $D$--state form factors enter in different
405: combinations for the $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ amplitudes
406: and, after making kinematic approximations in respect of the
407: $D$--state combined with the Lorentz boost, one finds
408: \begin{eqnarray}
409: \nonumber \lefteqn{\rd\sigma=\frac{N_{\alpha}}{48\,(2\pi)^{10}}
410: \frac{p_{\alpha}p_d}{[m_pW(E_{\pi}+E_{\pi}^0)]^2}\,
411: |a(m_{\pi\pi},Q)|^2\,k_{\pi\pi}}\\
412: && \times
413: \left\{\mid\mathcal{A}\mid^2\left|\mathcal{S}_S({V'},{W},\Delta
414: E_0)-\sqrt{2}\,\mathcal{S}_D({V'},{W},\Delta E_0)
415: \right|^2\right. \nonumber\\
416: && \nonumber\left.
417: +2\mid\mathcal{B}\mid^2\left|\mathcal{S}_S({V'},{W},\Delta
418: E_0)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,\mathcal{S}_D({V'},{W},\Delta
419: E_0)\right|^2 \right\}\,\\
420: &&\hspace{5cm}\times\,\rd{}m_{\pi\pi}\, \rd\Omega_{\alpha}\:,
421: \label{complex}
422: \end{eqnarray}
423: where, as in eq.~(\ref{simple}), it is assumed that contributions
424: from form factors resulting from the interchange $\bmath{p}_d
425: \Leftrightarrow -\bmath{p}_d$ have been included.
426:
427: %
428: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
429: %
430: \newpage
431: \section{The $\mathbf{^4}$He wave function}
432: \label{sec3}%
433: Over the last few years there has been remarkable progress in
434: \emph{ab initio} calculations of the structure of light nuclei
435: using variational Monte Carlo techniques~\cite{VMC}. Starting from
436: realistic nucleon--nucleon potentials, it has been possible to
437: identify various cluster sub-structures in nuclei as heavy as
438: $^9$Be. The results for the unnormalised
439: $^4\textrm{He}\,$:$\,^3\textrm{H}\,p$ overlap function in
440: configuration space are shown in Fig.~\ref{ANL}, where the error
441: bars arise from the sampling procedure.\vspace{-10mm}
442:
443: \begin{figure}[htb]
444: \begin{center}
445: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8cm{\epsfbox{pandar.eps}}}
446: \end{center}
447: \vspace{-1cm} \caption{\label{ANL} Unnormalised
448: $^4\textrm{He}\,$:$\,^3\textrm{H}\,p$ overlap function as a
449: function of the $^3$H--$p$ separation distance. For the purposes
450: of presentation, this has been multiplied by
451: $r\,\textrm{e}^{\alpha r}$, where the charge average
452: $\alpha=0.854$~fm$^{-1}$. The results of Ref.~\cite{VMC} have been
453: parameterised as in eq.~(\ref{param}).}
454: \end{figure}
455:
456: The overlap function has been parameterised by
457: \begin{equation}
458: \label{param} \psi(r)=\sqrt{N_{\!\alpha}}\,\frac{1}{r}
459: \sum_{n=1}^{6}a_n\,\textrm{e}^{-n\alpha r}\:,
460: \end{equation}
461: where $\alpha=0.854$~fm$^{-1}$ represents the average for the
462: $^3$H$\,p$ and $^3$He$\,n$ configurations. To ensure good
463: behaviour at the origin, the final parameter is fixed by
464: $a_6=-\sum_{n=0}^{5}a_n$, while the other values are sequentially
465: $5.1525$, $-2.8414$, $-45.1886$, $110.7401$, and $-100.3994$. The
466: normalisation has been chosen such that
467: \begin{equation}
468: \int_{0}^{\infty}r^2\,\left[\psi(r)\right]^2\,\rd r =
469: N_{\alpha}\:.
470: \end{equation}
471: In the spirit of our approach here to pion production, where only
472: these cluster contributions are considered, it is appropriate to
473: assume that the $p\,^3$H and $n\,^3$He components saturate the
474: wave function and take $N_{\,\alpha}=4$ rather than the reduced
475: spectroscopic factor obtained in ref.~\cite{VMC}.
476: %
477: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
478: %
479: \section{Results and Conclusions}
480: \label{Results}
481:
482: In Fig.~\ref{piafig} we show the prediction of the shape of the
483: missing--mass distribution for inclusive two--pion production at
484: an excess energy of $Q=29\:$MeV with respect to the $2\pi^0$
485: threshold. Though the general form is in good agreement with the
486: experimental data~\cite{Pia1,Pia2}, the results are too low by
487: almost a factor of twenty! The peak of the distribution is
488: predicted to be a little to the right of that corresponding to
489: pure phase space, which is also shown. Such a feature was clearly
490: observed for the \pdpipi\ reaction at low energies~\cite{FGW}, but
491: the limited statistics in the $dd$ case prevents us from drawing
492: firm conclusions here. Estimates in the double--$\Delta$
493: model~\cite{Anders}, which agreed convincingly with the data in
494: the resonance region, were even poorer compared to the
495: near--threshold data. Apart from being a similar factor of twenty
496: too low, this model also predicted significant structure in the
497: mass distribution which is absent from the experimental
498: data.\vspace{-5mm}
499:
500: \begin{figure}[htb]
501: \begin{center}
502: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8cm{\epsfbox{piafig.eps}}}
503: \end{center}
504: \vspace{-1cm} \caption{\label{piafig} Missing--mass distribution
505: for the $dd\to\,^{4\,}\textrm{He}\,X$ reaction measured at
506: 570$\:$MeV~\cite{Pia1}. The chain curve corresponds to
507: $\pi^0\pi^0$ production within the two--step model whereas the
508: solid one represents the sum of this and $\pi^+\pi^-$ production.
509: The predictions are normalised to the integrated cross section by
510: multiplying by a factor of 17.6. The dotted and broken curves are
511: the similar predictions from phase space, again normalised to the
512: total rate.}
513: \end{figure}
514:
515: The discrepancy is similar for the other low energy
516: data~\cite{Chapman}, though here the acceptance was small and
517: assumptions had to be made in order to extract a total cross
518: section. In Fig.~\ref{sigtotpia} we show the estimates of the
519: total cross sections for the production of charged and neutral
520: pions within the two--step model.
521:
522: \begin{figure}[htb]
523: \begin{center}
524: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8cm{\epsfbox{sigtotpia.eps}}}
525: \end{center}
526: \vspace{-1cm} \caption{\label{sigtotpia} Total cross section for
527: the \ddpipi\ reaction. The experimental data from Ref.~\cite{Pia1}
528: (star) and Ref.~\cite{Chapman} (circle) are compared to the
529: predictions of the two--step model scaled by a factor of $17.6$.
530: The chain curve corresponds to $\pi^0\pi^0$ production, the broken
531: to $\pi^+\pi^-$, and the solid to their sum. }
532: \end{figure}
533:
534: The central problem for any model that attempts to describe the
535: \ddpipi\ cross section at low energies is that the production of
536: isoscalar pion pairs is very similar in deuteron--deuteron and
537: proton--deuteron collisions. Thus at
538: $Q=29\:$MeV~\cite{Andersson,Pia1},
539: \begin{equation}
540: \frac{\sigma_{\rm tot}(\ddpipi)}{\sigma_{\rm tot}(\pdpipi)}\approx
541: \frac{40\:\textrm{nb}}{60\:\textrm{nb}}=\frac{2}{3}\:\cdot
542: \end{equation}
543:
544: On the other hand, the production of the $\eta$ meson is much
545: weaker in the $dd$ case, with the ratio of the squares of the
546: amplitudes being~\cite{Frascaria,Willis,Berger2,Mayer}
547: \begin{equation}
548: \frac{\left|f(\ddeta)\right|^2}{\left|f(\pdeta)\right|^2} \approx
549: \frac{1}{50}\,,
550: \end{equation}
551: though perhaps this would be increased by a factor of two if
552: corrections were made for the effects of the $\eta$--nucleus
553: final--state interaction. Since the low energy \pdpipi, \pdeta,
554: and \ddeta\ cross sections are all successfully described by the
555: two--step model, a factor of ten undershoot in the \ddpipi\ case
556: is not too surprising. The crude comparison made here does not
557: take into account fully the spin--parity considerations and the
558: prediction would have been increased by more than a factor of two
559: if the sign of the deuteron $D$--wave were reversed in
560: eq.~(\ref{complex}).
561:
562: Given that neither the two--step nor the double--$\Delta$ model
563: seems capable of describing the magnitude of the \ddpipi\ cross
564: section near threshold, one must seek alternative explanations or
565: modifications to the existing mechanisms. Other diagrams, such as
566: that of the impulse approximation where the process is driven by
567: \pdpipi\ with a spectator nucleon, give very small cross sections
568: due to the large momentum transfer. We have not included any
569: specific $\pi\pi$ final--state interaction, but the $s$--wave
570: scattering lengths are relatively small~\cite{Batley} and, in any
571: case, the effects are implicitly included through the use of
572: empirical $\pi N\to \pi\pi N$ amplitudes~\cite{Oset}.
573:
574: The interaction of the low energy pions with the final $^4$He
575: nucleus might enhance the cross section since it is known that the
576: $p$--wave pion--nucleus interaction is attractive near
577: threshold~\cite{Ericson}. However, the effect will steadily
578: diminish with energy and eventually change sign at the resonance.
579: Crude estimates indicate that any effects due to such final--state
580: interactions are likely to be less than 50\%, even very close to
581: threshold, and so they are very unlikely to provide the
582: explanation of the defect.
583:
584: Now, although we have normalised the $^4$He wave function as if it
585: consisted purely of $p\,^3$H/$n\,^3$He pairs, in reality the $^3$H
586: in such a nucleus is on average smaller than the physical triton.
587: Nevertheless we have taken the amplitudes for
588: $pd\to\,^{3}\textrm{He}\,\pi^0$ from the measured data. The same
589: criticism can be levelled at the double--$\Delta$ model, where the
590: final deuteron in the $pp\to d\pi^+$ input would really be
591: required for a \emph{small} deuteron. If there were major
592: corrections due to such effects they would be likely to be present
593: at all energies and hence destroy the excellent agreement with
594: data achieved at higher energies~\cite{Anders}. Further
595: inspiration is therefore clearly needed to resolve this dilemma.
596:
597: %
598: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
599: %
600: \begin{acknowledgement}
601: This work has been much influenced by long--standing discussions
602: with Pia Th\"orngren, which have been beneficial to both sides.
603: One of the authors (CW) is appreciative of the hospitality shown
604: to him by Uppsala University. Support from the EtaNet programme of
605: the EU is gratefully acknowledged.
606: \end{acknowledgement}
607:
608:
609: %
610: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
611: %
612: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
613: %
614: \bibitem{CB} S.~Prakhov \emph{et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C \textbf{69}
615: (2004) 045202.
616: %
617: \bibitem{Heinz} W.~Brodowski \emph{et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\
618: \textbf{88} (2002) 192301.
619: %
620: \bibitem{MOMO} F.~Belleman \emph{et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C
621: \textbf{60} (1999) 61002.
622: %
623: \bibitem{Andersson} M.~Andersson \emph{et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B
624: \textbf{485} (2000) 327.
625: %
626: \bibitem{Heinz2} M.~Bashkanov \emph{et al.}, Acta Phys.\ Slovaka
627: (\emph{in press}).
628: %
629: \bibitem{Pia1} C.~Bargholtz \emph{et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{398}
630: (1997) 264.
631: %
632: \bibitem{Pia2} P.~Th\"orngren Engblom, Ph.D.\ thesis, University of
633: Stockholm, 1997.
634: %
635: \bibitem{Pia3} P.~Th\"orngren Engblom, TSL proposal C65
636: (\emph{under analysis}).
637: %
638: \bibitem{ABC} A.~Abashian, N.E.~Booth, and K.M.~Crowe, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\
639: \textbf{5} (1960) 258.
640: %
641: \bibitem{Ban73} J.~Banaigs \emph{et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B \textbf{67} (1973) 1.
642: %
643: \bibitem{SPESIII} R.~Wurzinger \emph{et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B
644: \textbf{445} (1999) 423.
645: %
646: \bibitem{Anders} A.~G{\aa}rdestig, G.~F\"aldt, and C.~Wilkin,
647: Phys.\ Rev.\ C \textbf{59} (1999) 2608.
648: %
649: \bibitem{Chapman} K.R.~Chapman \emph{et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ \textbf{21}
650: (1966) 465.
651: %
652: \bibitem{Oset} M.J.~Vicente Vacas and E.~Oset, Phys.\ Rev.\ C
653: \textbf{60} (1999) 064621.
654: %
655: \bibitem{FW2} G.~F\"aldt and C.~Wilkin, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A \textbf{596} (1996)
656: 488.
657: %
658: \bibitem{Frascaria}
659: R.~Frascaria \emph{et~al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C \textbf{50} (1994) 537.
660: %
661: \bibitem{Willis}
662: N.~Willis \emph{et~al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{406} (1997) 14.
663: %
664: \bibitem{FGW} G.~F\"aldt, A.~G{\aa}rdestig, and C.~Wilkin, Phys.\
665: Lett.\ B \textbf{496} (2000) 185.
666: %
667: \bibitem{Kerboul} C.~Kerboul \emph{et al}., Phys.\ Lett.\ B
668: \textbf{181} (1986) 28.
669: %
670: \bibitem{VMC} J.L.~Forest \emph{et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C \textbf{54} (1996)
671: 646,\\ but see also the important updates reported in
672: http://www.phy.anl.gov/theory/research/overlap.
673: %
674: \bibitem{Berger2} J.~Berger \emph{et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{61}
675: (1988) 919.
676: %
677: \bibitem{Mayer} B.~Mayer \emph{et al}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C \textbf{53}
678: (1996) 2068.
679: %
680: \bibitem{Batley} J.R.~Batley \emph{et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{633} (2006)
681: 173.
682: %
683: \bibitem{Ericson} See for example, T.E.O.~Ericson and W.~Weise, \emph{Pions and Nuclei}
684: (OUP, Oxford, 1988).
685: %
686: \end{thebibliography}
687: \end{document}
688: