1: \documentclass[12pt,aps,color,,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint,aps,showpacs,color]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[epsfig]{revtex4}
4: %\documentclass[floats,psfig,aps]{revtex4}
5: %\documentclass[12pt]{book}
6: %\documentclass[10pt,english,epsf,aps]{revtex}
7: %\usepackage{amsmath}
8: \usepackage{epsfig}
9: %\usepackage{color}
10: %\usepackage{amsmath}
11: %\usepackage{amstext}
12: %\usepackage{amssymb}
13: %\usepackage{amsfonts}
14: \usepackage{graphicx}
15: \usepackage{graphics}
16: %\usepackage{axodraw}
17: %\usepackage{doublespace}
18: %\usepackage{vmargin}
19: %\usepackage{amscd}
20: %\usepackage{bbold}
21: %\usepackage{mathrsfs}
22: %\usepackage{fancyheadings}
23: %\usepackage{pifont}
24: %\usepackage{pst-node}
25:
26: %\lhead[\fancyplain{}{\bfseries\thepage}]
27: % {\fancyplain{}{\bfseries\rightmark}}
28: %\rhead[\fancyplain{}{\bfseries\leftmark}]
29: % {\fancyplain{}{\bfseries\thepage}}
30: %chapitre concernant les collisions
31: \newcommand{\pcm}{\vec{p}^{\star}}
32: \newcommand{\gk}{\vec{\gamma}\vec{k}}
33: \newcommand{\gE}{\gamma_0 E_k}
34: \newcommand{\ppl}{\vec{p}}
35: \newcommand{\bcm}{\vec{b}^{\star}}
36: \newcommand{\becm}{\vec{\beta}^{\star}}
37: \newcommand{\bepl}{\vec{\beta}}
38: \newcommand{\rcm}{\vec{r}^{\star}}
39: \newcommand{\rpl}{\vec{r}}
40: \newcommand{\A}{{$\mathcal A$}}
41: \newcommand{\wpk}{ \omega_{p-k}}
42: \newcommand{\wk}{ \omega_{k}}
43: \newcommand{\BOne}{{\mathbb{1}}}
44: \newcommand{\Bthree}{{\mathbb{3}}}
45: \newcommand{\Bsix}{\mathbb{6}}
46: \newcommand{\feyn}[1]{{#1}\!\!\!{\slash}}
47: \newcommand{\feynn}[1]{{#1}\!\!\!\!{\slash}}
48: \newcommand{\vp}{\vec{p}}
49: \newcommand{\dpq}{ \frac{d^4 {\bf p}}{(2 \pi)^4}}
50: \newcommand{\dptt}{ \frac{d^3 \vec{p}}{(2 \pi)^3}}
51: \newcommand{\ds}{\Delta_{qs}}
52: \newcommand{\dq}{\Delta_{qq}}
53: \newcommand{\MeV}{\mbox{\ MeV}}
54: \newcommand{\Journal}[4]{ #1 {\bf #2} (#4) #3}
55: \newcommand{\NPA}{Nucl.\ Phys.\ A}
56: \newcommand{\PLB}{Phys.\ Lett.\ B}
57: \newcommand{\PR}{Phys.\ Rep.}
58: \newcommand{\PRL}{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}
59: \newcommand{\PRD}{Phys.\ Rev.\ D}
60: \newcommand{\PRC}{Phys.\ Rev.\ C}
61: \newcommand{\ZPC}{Z.\ Phys.\ C}
62: \newcommand{\DQQ}[4]{\langle #1 , #2 \arrowvert #3 , #4 \rangle}
63: \newcommand{\chp}{\frac{1+\gamma^5}{2}}
64: \newcommand{\chm}{\frac{1-\gamma^5}{2}}
65: \newcommand{\LL}{{\mathcal{L}}}
66: \newcommand{\rrt}{ \rangle \! \rangle}
67: \newcommand{\llt}{\langle \! \langle}
68: \newcommand{\et}{$E_{trans12}\ $}
69: \newcommand{\lcu}{ \; \; \begin{rotate}{90} $ \! \! \curvearrowleft $ \end{rotate}}
70: \newcommand{\rcu}{ \begin{rotate}{-90} $\! \! \! \! \! \curvearrowleft $ \end{rotate}}
71: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0}
72: %\bibliographystyle{plain}
73:
74:
75:
76:
77:
78:
79:
80: \begin{document}
81: \title{Analysis of Dilepton Invariant Mass Spectrum in C+C at 2 and 1 AGeV}
82: \author{M. Thom\`ere${^1}$, C. Hartnack${^1}$, G. Wolf ${^2}$, J. Aichelin${^1}$}
83: \affiliation{
84: $^1$ SUBATECH \\
85: Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et des
86: Technologies Associ\'ees \\
87: Universit\'e de Nantes - IN2P3/CNRS - Ecole des Mines de Nantes \\
88: 4 rue Alfred Kastler, F-44072 Nantes, Cedex 03, France\\
89: $^2$ KFKI, P.O. Box 49, H-1525 Budapest Hungary}
90:
91: \begin{abstract}
92: Recently the HADES collaboration has published the invariant mass
93: spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs, dN/dM$_{e^+e^-}$, produced in C+C
94: collisions at 2 AGeV. Using electromagnetic probes, one hopes to get
95: in this experiment information on hadron properties at high density
96: and temperature. Simulations show that firm conclusions on possible
97: in-medium modifications of meson properties will only be possible
98: when the elementary meson production cross sections, especially in
99: the pn channel, as well as production cross sections of baryonic
100: resonances are better known. Presently one can conclude that a)
101: simulations overpredict by far the cross section at $M_{e^+e^-}
102: \approx M_{\omega}{^0}$ if free production cross sections are used
103: and that b) the upper limit of the $\eta$ decay into $e^+e^-$ is
104: smaller than the present upper limit of the Particle Data Group.
105: This is the result of simulations using the Isospin Quantum
106: Molecular Dynamics (IQMD) approach.
107: \end{abstract}
108: \date{\today}
109: \maketitle
110:
111: \section{Introduction}
112: Theory predicts since long that the properties of hadrons change if they
113: are surrounded by matter. For baryons this change has been verified in
114: $\gamma$A reactions where the total photon absorption cross section
115: \cite{gama} shows a nontrivial dependence on the mass of the target nucleus.
116: This nontrivial dependence has been interpreted as a change of the properties
117: of the nuclear resonances in matter \cite{gamth}. It is, however, difficult
118: to asses whether the observed in-medium modifications have to be attributed
119: to a change of the resonance properties or to a change of those of
120: their decay products. Coupled channel calculations provide a mean to answer
121: this question but presently neither the data are sufficiently precise
122: nor the theoretical ingredients can be sufficiently well determined in order to
123: allow for firm conclusions even if for some hadrons like the $\rho$ \cite{rapp} and K \cite{kor}
124: mesons a lot of progress has been made recently.
125:
126: The strategy is different for both cases. The study of the strange
127: mesons takes advantage of the fact that they have to be produced in
128: a heavy ion reaction, that each strange hadron is accompanied by an
129: anti-strange one and that the production cross sections are phase
130: space dominated. Systematic studies of the excitation function and
131: of the system size dependence of the yields as well as of the
132: modification of the measured K meson spectra as compared to that
133: measured in pp collisions allow for conclusions on the interaction
134: of the K's with the environment \cite{kaon}.
135:
136:
137: The $\rho$ meson can decay into a dilepton pair which - being an
138: electromagnetic probe - does not interact anymore with the nuclear
139: environment. Therefore this dilepton pair carries direct information
140: on the particle at the time point of its decay in the medium. The
141: problem is that many resonances and mesons contribute to the
142: dilepton yield and it is all but easy to determine which particle is
143: at the origin of the dilepton pair. In order to compare data with
144: theory, one has to identify all dilepton sources and their
145: contribution to the dilepton spectra. This superposition of the
146: different sources is called cocktail plot. If it deviates from
147: experiment at least one of the sources is not correctly described
148: and one may start to test how this source is modified by the
149: hadronic environment.
150:
151: It was the DLS collaboration which first presented dilepton
152: invariant mass spectra in heavy ion collisions at beam energies of
153: around 1 AGeV \cite{dls}. The systematic errors of these exploratory
154: experiments have been, however, too large to allow for a detailed
155: conclusion on the behavior of hadrons in matter. Later, at higher
156: (SPS) energies, the CERES/NA45 collaboration \cite{ceres} presented
157: spectra, which were not in agreement with the standard cocktail
158: plots. Two theoretical models have been advanced to explain
159: this difference. Rapp et al. \cite{rapp} calculated the in medium
160: modification of the spectral function of the $\rho$ in hadronic
161: matter. With this in-medium change of the spectral function the
162: theoretical and experimental yields agree. As Eletsky et al. \cite{kapu}
163: explained $\rho$ - meson and $\rho$ - baryon interactions compensate each
164: other as far as the shift of the pole mass is concerned but collisions
165: broaden the width considerably. Gallmeister et al.
166: \cite{gall} showed on the other side that the discrepancy disappears as well if one
167: adds to the spectrum the emission of the dileptons from a thermal
168: $q\bar{q}$ (or hadron-hadron) annihilation using lowest order QCD calculations.
169:
170:
171: Most recently the NA60 collaboration measured very precisely
172: the invariant mass spectrum of dileptons in the $\rho$ mass region
173: \cite{na60} but it is still debated whether the
174: discrepancy between cocktail plot and data is due to a modification of
175: hadronic properties or due to annihilation processes. Additional information may be obtained
176: from the $p_t$ spectra \cite{renk} because each emission source shows a specific
177: transverse momentum pattern. However, consensus about the relative importance of
178: the different possible production mechanism has not been obtained yet.
179:
180: To clarify this question it is necessary to study the dilepton production at lower energies
181: where quarks remain bound in hadrons and hadron hadron annihilations are rare.
182: Then the process
183: proposed by Gallmeister is absent and thermal production does not play a decisive
184: role. In addition one has to investigate small systems where direct
185: collisions dominate over the production in the participant heat bath.
186:
187: Recently the HADES collaboration has published the dilepton invariant
188: mass spectrum for the reaction C + C at 2 AGeV \cite{hades}. This system is small
189: and at this energy the formation of a
190: quark phase is beyond reach as the analysis of many other observables has
191: shown. It may therefore serve to solve the question of how the $\rho$ meson changes
192: in a hadronic environment provided that it can be proven that all the other
193: ingredients of the cocktail plot are well under control.
194:
195: It is the purpose of this article to investigate in detail the dilepton invariant mass
196: spectra using one of the presently available programs which simulate heavy ion reactions
197: on an event by event basis, the Isospin Quantum Molecular dynamics (IQMD)
198: approach. The main objective is to find out whether the present dilepton data are sufficiently precise
199: to allow for conclusions on the theoretically predicted change of the particle properties
200: in a nuclear environment or to identify the obstacles on the way to achieve this goal.
201: We concentrate in this exploratory study on the most significant modifications:
202: mass shifts and changes of the decay width.
203:
204: Before we present the results of our simulations we start out with a short presentation of the
205: model and a discussion of our present theoretical and experimental knowledge on all the elementary processes
206: which contribute to the dilepton spectra and of how they are implemented in our
207: simulation program.
208:
209: \section{The IQMD model}
210: The semi-classical IQMD program \cite{hartn} simulates heavy ion
211: reactions on a event by event basis and is one of the standard analyzing tools for heavy ion
212: reactions at and below 2 AGeV. In this program hadrons interact by potentials and by collisions.
213: The former ones are Br\"uckner G-matrix parameterizations for the baryons or parametrized
214: meson-baryon potentials. Thus nuclei are bound objects with a binding energy
215: following the Weizs\"acker mass formula. If two hadrons come closer than $r = \sqrt{\sigma_{tot} / \pi}$
216: they collide. If several exit channels are available a random number determines which one is realized.
217: The relative weight is given by the relative cross section. The momenta and the mass
218: (if the particles have a finite width) of the hadrons in the final state
219: are randomly determined.
220: Their distribution follows either experimental measurements or phase space, if experimental results
221: are not available. In the standard version \cite{hartn} of the program, nucleons as well as baryonic resonances, pions
222: and kaons are the particles which are propagated.
223:
224: For the investigation presented here we have
225: added production cross sections of all particles which
226: may contribute to the invariant mass spectrum of dileptons: np bremsstrahlung,
227: $\eta$ Dalitz and direct decay, $\omega$ (Dalitz and direct) and $\rho$ decay, $\Delta$ Dalitz
228: decay and $\pi^0$ Dalitz decay. Because we concentrate on a very light system,
229: where the probability that mesons have secondary interactions is small, it has not
230: been necessary to add the (largely unknown) meson absorption or rescattering cross sections
231: or to use off-shell transport approaches.
232: When these particles are produced we use the branching ratios of the Particle Data Group
233: \cite{rev} to determine their contribution to the dilepton spectrum.
234:
235:
236:
237: \section{elementary dilepton cross sections}
238:
239: \subsection{$\pi^0$ production and decay}
240: \subsubsection{$\pi^0$ decay into dileptons}
241: At low invariant mass the overwhelming number of dileptons comes from the decay of
242: $\pi^0$ mesons which can decay into dileptons via $\pi^0 \to e^+e^-\gamma$.
243: The shape of the mass distribution of a dilepton in a $\pi^0$ Dalitz decay is given by \cite{kroll}:
244:
245: \begin{equation}
246: \frac{dN}{dM}=\frac{1}{M}(1+2\frac{m_{e^-}^2}{M^2})(1-\frac{M^2}{m_{\pi_0}^2})^3\sqrt{1-4\frac{m_{e^-}^2}{M^2}}.
247: \end{equation}
248: $m_{\pi_0}$ is the mass of the $\pi_0$, $m_{e^-}$ the electron mass
249: and M that of the dilepton pair. We take the branching ratio
250: BR$(\pi^0 \to e^+e^-\gamma)$ as 0.01198.
251:
252:
253:
254: \subsection{$\eta$ production and decay}
255: In the energy regime which is of interest here, the $\eta$
256: production in pp collisions has been well studied by the TAPS
257: \cite{csppeta2} and the DISTO collaboration \cite{ppn*eta}. This can
258: be seen in fig. \ref{csppeta} which shows on top the distribution of
259: the $\eta$ excess energies in the nucleon nucleon collisions for the reaction
260: C+C at 2 AGeV. The excess energy $x_{\eta}$ is defined as
261: \begin{equation}
262: x_{\eta}=\sqrt{s}-2M_N-M_{\eta}.
263: \label{cross}
264: \end{equation}
265: We see that excess energies below 0.6 GeV are most relevant for this
266: reaction. In the bottom part of fig. \ref{csppeta} we display the
267: world data points for $\eta$ production in elementary NN collisions
268: \cite{csppeta2, ppn*eta, cernhera84}. Whereas the cross section
269: $\sigma(pp\to pp\eta)$ is known over the whole excess energy interval
270: which is relevant for our investigation the $\sigma(pn\to pn\eta)$
271: cross section is known only up to an excess energy of $x_{\eta} =
272: 0.12$ GeV. Thus we have to extrapolate this cross section into the
273: relevant excess energy domain. This extrapolation leaves a lot of
274: freedom even if the $\eta$ meson production cross section has been
275: measured in heavy ion reactions by the TAPS collaboration. The
276: reason is that in heavy ion reactions a multitude of processes may
277: modify the elementary cross section at the same nominal energy.
278: These processes and the consequences will be discussed later. We
279: parametrize the $\sigma(pn\to pn\eta)$ and $\sigma(pp\to pp\eta)$ cross
280: section by a fit using the form
281: \begin{equation}
282: \sigma(x_\eta)=ax_\eta^b
283: \label{fitppeta}
284: \end{equation}
285: with $a=1213.8, a=162.1, a=99.6$ $\mu b$ and b=1.50, b=-0.08, b=-1.24 for
286: excess energies of $x_\eta < 283$ MeV, 283 MeV $< x_\eta <$ 651 MeV , $x_\eta > 651$ MeV for pp
287: collisions and
288: $a=25623, a=324.3, a=199 $ $\mu b$ and b=2.03, b=-0.08, b=-1.24 for
289: excess energies of $x_\eta < 200$ MeV, 200 MeV $< x_\eta <$ 651 MeV , $x_\eta > 651$ MeV for np
290: collisions assuming that at large excess energies the np cross section is twice the pp cross section.
291: These fits are also displayed in fig. \ref{csppeta}.
292: \begin{figure}[!ht]
293: \epsfig{file=C+C_2GeV_excessmass_eta_figure1a.eps,width=10cm} \vspace*{-.3cm}
294: \epsfig{file=C+C_2GeV_crosssectioneta_figure1b.eps,width=10cm} \vspace*{-.3cm}
295: \caption{(Color online) Top: excess energy, $x_\eta$, distribution of NN collisions in the reaction 2 AGeV C+C.
296: Bottom: production cross section of the $\eta$ meson.
297: The solid curves are fits (eq. \ref{fitppeta}) to the data \cite{csppeta2,donneespneta}}.
298: \label{csppeta}
299: \end{figure}
300: We parametrize the shape of the mass distribution of the $\eta$ by \cite{woehri}
301: \begin{equation} \label{meta}
302: {
303: \frac{dN}{dM}=\frac{(1+2\frac{m_{e^-}^2}{M^2})\sqrt{1-4\frac{m_{e^-}^2}{M^2}}}{(m_{\eta}^2-M^2)^2+
304: [m_{\eta}(\frac{\Gamma_{\eta} m_\eta}{M}\frac{(M^2/4-m_{e^-}^2)^{3/2}}{(m_{\eta}^2/4-m_{e^-}^2)^{3/2}})]^2}
305: }
306: \end{equation}
307:
308: with $m_{\eta}=0.547$ GeV and $\Gamma_{\eta}$=1.18 keV.
309:
310: \subsubsection{Contribution of the N*(1535)}
311: The very detailed experimental investigation of the $\eta$ production in pp collisions at excess energies
312: of 324, 412, and 554 MeV (corresponding to beam energies of $E_{beam}$=2.15, 2.5 and 2.85 GeV)
313: by the DISTO collaboration \cite{ppn*eta} allows to identify the different production channels
314: by analyzing the p$\eta$ invariant mass spectrum. It turned out, as predicted by theory
315: \cite{csppetatheo1,csppetatheo2},
316: that there are essentially two
317: channels, a direct production channel and a production via the $N^*(1535)$ resonance.
318: The direct contribution follows the three body phase space for the $pp\to pp\eta$ reaction.
319: The experimental mass distribution of the $N^*(1535)$ resonance created in the reaction
320: p p $\to N^*(1535)$ p can be described by a Breit-Wigner distribution of the form \cite{ppn*eta}:
321: \begin{equation} \label{massen*}
322: {
323: \sigma(M) = \frac{AM_R^2\Gamma_R^2}{(M_R^2-M^2)^2+M_R^2\Gamma_R^2x^2(M,M_R)}
324: }
325: \end{equation}
326: with
327: \begin{equation} \label{xmassen*}
328: {
329: x(M,M_R) = b_\eta\frac{q_\eta(M)}{q_\eta(M_R)}+b_\pi\frac{q_\pi(M)}{q_\pi(M_R)}
330: }
331: \end{equation}
332: where $b_\eta$ is the branching ratio of the decay N*(1535) $\to$ N $\eta$ (which we assume to be 55\%), $b_\pi$ is the branching ratio of the decay N*(1535) $\to$ N $\pi$ (which counts for 45\%).
333: $q_\pi$ and $q_\eta$ are the momenta of $\pi$ and $\eta$ in the frame of the resonance
334: and are given by:
335: \begin{equation} \label{qetamassen*}
336: {
337: q_\eta(M_{N^*})=\sqrt{(\frac{M_{N^*}^2-M_p^2+M_\eta^2}{2M_{N^*}})^2-M_\eta^2}
338: }
339: \end{equation}
340: and
341: \begin{equation} \label{qpimassen*}
342: {
343: q_\pi(M_{N^*})=\sqrt{(\frac{M_{N^*}^2-M_p^2+M_\pi^2}{2M_{N^*}})^2-M_\pi^2}
344: .}
345: \end{equation}
346: We note in passing that in reference \cite{ppn*eta} the square on the $x$
347: in eq. \ref{massen*} has been forgotten.
348: In fig. \ref{mres} we display for the three energies which have been measured by the DISTO
349: collaboration \cite{ppn*eta} the total experimental and theoretical $p\eta $ invariant mass distribution
350: as well as the different contributions to the theoretical curve. The experimental data are best reproduced for $M_R$ = 1.530 GeV and
351: $\Gamma_R$ = 150 MeV. As expected, the $N^*(1535)$ resonance enhances the low invariant mass
352: part as compared to phase space.
353: \begin{figure}[!ht]
354: \epsfig{file=p+p_2.15GeV_mres_figure_2a.eps,width=7cm} \vspace*{-.3cm}
355: \epsfig{file=p+p_2.5GeV_mres_figure_2b.eps,width=7cm} \vspace*{-.3cm}
356: \epsfig{file=p+p_2.85GeV_mres_figure_2c.eps,width=7cm} \vspace*{-0.0cm}
357: \caption{(Color online) Simulated invariant mass spectrum of the outgoing proton
358: and the $\eta$ meson in the p p $\to$ p p $\eta$ reaction for three
359: beam energies (2.15 GeV, 2.5 GeV and 2.85 GeV). The curves
360: represent the sum of the contributions from the two productions
361: channels of the $\eta$, the direct production and that via the
362: N*(1535) resonance. The data \cite{ppn*eta} have no absolute normalization. We normalize
363: them here to our result at $M_{N^*(1535)}=1500$ MeV/$c^2 $} \label{mres}
364: \end{figure}
365: How the resonance production modifies the spectra of proton and $\eta$ as compared to the production
366: according to the three body phase space is shown in fig. \ref{impetaproton}. On the left
367: hand side we display the center of mass momentum of the $\eta$, on the right hand side the
368: proton momentum in the pp rest frame. Choosing these variables allows for a comparison with
369: the experimental results. We see clearly the consequence of the $\eta$ resonance
370: production and therefore it will be difficult to separate the modification of the
371: $\eta$ in the medium from that of the N*(1535) resonance. Both will show up as a modification of
372: the dilepton spectra.
373: \begin{figure}[!ht]
374: \epsfig{file=p+p_2.15_q_eta_figure_3a.eps,width=6cm} \vspace*{-.2cm}
375: \epsfig{file=p+p_2.15_q_proton_figure_3b.eps,width=6cm} \vspace*{-.2cm}
376: \epsfig{file=p+p_2.5_q_eta_figure_3c.eps,width=6cm} \vspace*{-.2cm}
377: \epsfig{file=p+p_2.5_q_proton_figure_3d.eps,width=6cm} \vspace*{-.2cm}
378: \epsfig{file=p+p_2.85_q_eta_figure_3e.eps,width=6cm} \vspace*{-.2cm}
379: \epsfig{file=p+p_2.85_q_proton_figure_3f.eps,width=6cm} \vspace*{-0.0cm}
380: \caption{(Color online) Differential cross section in IQMD as a function of the center of mass momentum of the $\eta$ meson (left)
381: and as a function of the proton momentum in the pp rest system (right) for $pp\to pp\eta$ collisions at
382: different beam energies, $E_{beam}$ = 2.15 GeV (up), $E_{beam}$ = 2.5 GeV (middle) and
383: $E_{beam}$ = 2.85 GeV (down). Solid lines represent $\eta$ production including the contribution
384: of the $N^*(1535)$ resonance and dashed curves represent the direct production
385: via an uniform three body phase space distribution. The experimental data are form ref. \cite{ppn*eta} }
386: \label{impetaproton}
387: \end{figure}
388:
389: \subsubsection{$\eta$ decay into dileptons}
390: With a branching ratio of $6 \cdot 10^{-3}$ \cite{rev} the $\eta$ decays into $e^+e^-\gamma$.
391: The shape of the invariant mass distribution of the dilepton pair is given by \cite{kroll}
392: \begin{equation}
393: \frac{dN}{dM}=\frac{1}{M}(1+2\frac{m_{e^-}^2}{M^2})(1-\frac{M^2}{m_{\eta}^2})^3\sqrt{1-4\frac{m_{e^-}^2}{M^2}}.
394: \end{equation}
395: $m_{\eta}$ is the mass of the $\eta$, $m_{e^-}$ the electron mass and M that of the dilepton pair.
396: It has been shown that this expression has to be multiplied with an electromagnetic form factor. With
397: \begin{equation}
398: (\frac{dN}{dM})_{tot}=F(M^2)*\frac{dN}{dM}
399: \end{equation}
400: where
401: \begin{equation}
402: F(M^2)=(\frac{1}{1-\frac{M^2}{\Lambda_\eta^2}})^2
403: \end{equation}
404: with $\Lambda_\eta$ = (0.72 $\pm$ 0.09) GeV one finds good
405: agreement with data \cite{woehri}. In addition to the three body
406: decay there may also be a two body one into a dilepton
407: pair. The Particle Data Group \cite{rev} quotes as an upper limit a
408: branching ratio of $7.7\cdot 10^{-5}$. We include this value in our
409: standard calculation (standard will be explained later).
410:
411:
412:
413: \subsection{$\omega$ production and decay}
414: The $\omega$ production in pp collisions for excess energies below
415: 440 MeV has been studied at COSY \cite{cos}, at SATURNE \cite{sat}
416: and by the DISTO \cite{disto} collaboration. The cross section as
417: well as our fit of the form $a{x_\omega}^b$ where ${x_\omega}$ is the
418: excess energy in MeV, $a=(192.204\pm 8.622)$ $\mu b$ and
419: $b=1.12182\pm 0.1077$ is shown in fig. \ref{csppomega}. We include
420: in our simulation as well the endothermic ($\sqrt{s_0}\simeq$m$_\omega$-m$_\pi$= 643
421: MeV) reaction $\pi$+N$\to \omega$+N. Because $\pi$'s have usually only
422: a small energy this reaction is less important than the baryonic channel.
423: The experimental
424: data have been parametrized \cite{pinomegarho} by
425: \begin{equation}
426: \sigma_{\pi N\to \omega N} (mb)=\frac{1.38(\sqrt{s}-
427: \sqrt{s_0})^{1.6}}{0.0011+(\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0})^{1.7}}
428: \end{equation}
429: with $\sigma$ in mb, $\sqrt{s}$ and $\sqrt{s_0}$ in GeV.
430: $\sqrt{s_0}=m_N+m_{\omega}$ (1.721 GeV for $\omega$ in vacuum) is the threshold energy. It has been suggested that the production of the $\omega$
431: passes by the excitation of baryon resonances \cite{tsuna,fuchs}
432: where the $N^*(1535)$ plays a prominent role having a substantial
433: branching ratio into the $N\omega$ channel \cite{fae,lutz,post}. It
434: produces $\omega$ mesons with masses well below 783 MeV. If this
435: were the case the strong $\omega$N coupling would lead to a strong
436: off-shell contribution to $d\sigma / dM$ (M being the invariant mass
437: of the dilepton pair) at invariant masses well below the free
438: $\omega$ mass peak. This off-shell $\omega$ production would even
439: dominate the dilepton spectra up to excess energies of several
440: hundred MeV. Only very recently calculations of the spectral
441: function have been advanced which exploit the available $\gamma N$
442: and $\pi N$ data in a coupled channel analysis \cite{lutz,mos}.
443:
444: %Recently the CBELSA/TAPS
445: %collaboration has concluded from $\gamma A \to \omega$ experiments that even
446: %at a moderate density of $0.6\rho_0$ low momentum $\omega$
447: %(which disintegrate in the nucleus) have a mass which is almost
448: %10\% lower than the free mass \cite{taps}. A different behavior has
449: %been observed in pA collisions at 12 GeV \cite{om} where
450: %no mass shift but a significant enhancement of the $\omega$ yield on
451: %the low mass side of the peak has been found.
452:
453: A $\gamma A \to \omega$ experiment was recently performed by the CBELSA/TAPS collaboration.
454: They observed that the pole mass decreases with increasing density of the environment.
455: \cite{taps}. For momenta less than 500 MeV/$c^2$, they observed an
456: $\omega$ pole mass of M=[$722^{+2}_{-2}$(stat)$^{+35}_{-5}$(syst)] MeV/c$^2$ for an average density of
457: 0.6 $\rho_0$. Unfortunately, no significant measurement of the width was obtained due to the
458: dominance of the experimental resolution. Using this data and the Brown-Rho scaling formula:
459: \begin{equation}
460: m_{\omega}^*=m_{\omega}^0*(1-\alpha\frac{\rho}{\rho_0})
461: \label{scal}
462: \end{equation}
463: %and
464: %\begin{equation}
465: %\Gamma_{\omega}=\Gamma_{\omega}^0-\beta\frac{d}{d_0}
466: %\end{equation},
467: we find $\alpha$=0.13. %and $\beta$=78.33.10$^{-3}$
468: Fig. \ref{density} shows the density distribution at the $\omega$
469: production points for a C+C collision at 2AGeV. The average density
470: of $<\rho>$=1.394 $\rho_0$ is twice as large as for the TAPS
471: experiment. Applying eq. \ref{cross} we obtain a wide distribution
472: around the average pole mass of M= 641 MeV.
473:
474: \begin{figure}[!ht]
475: \begin{center}
476: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{C+C_2GeV_crosssectionomega_figure_4.eps}
477: \end{center}
478: \caption{(Color online) Production cross section of the $\omega$ in pp collision up to an
479: excess energy of 440 MeV and our fit of the form $\sigma=ax_\omega^b$. The data
480: are from ref \cite{cos,sat,disto}.}
481: \label{csppomega}
482: \end{figure}
483:
484:
485: \begin{figure}[!ht]
486: \begin{center}
487: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{C+C_2GeV_density_figure_5.eps}
488: \end{center}
489: \caption{(Color online) Distribution of the density at the omega production points
490: in units of the normal nuclear matter density $\rho_0$ for the
491: reaction C+C at 2 AGeV.} \label{density}
492: \end{figure}
493:
494: In our simulation we have the option to use this in-medium mass
495: modification. Because there are no conclusive results on the width
496: we kept the free value of 8 MeV. The shape of the invariant mass distribution of dileptons from the
497: $\omega$ decay is given by the Breit-Wigner distribution :
498:
499: \begin{equation}
500: \label{momega}
501: {
502: \frac{dN}{dM}=\frac{(1+2\frac{m_{e^-}^2}{M^2})
503: \sqrt{1-4\frac{m_{e^-}^2}{M^2}}}{(m_{\omega}^2-M^2)^2+
504: [m_{\omega}(\frac{\Gamma_{\omega} m_\omega}{M}
505: \frac{(M^2/4-m_{e^-}^2)^{3/2}}{(m_{\omega}^2/4-m_{e^-}^2)^{3/2}})]^2}
506: }
507: \end{equation}
508: with $\Gamma_{\omega}$=8 MeV and $m_{\omega}$ as defined in eq. \ref{scal}.
509:
510: %as well as with the free $\omega$ mass
511: %distribution \cite{pinomegarho}
512:
513:
514:
515: Another uncertainty is the production of the $\omega$ in pn reactions. In meson
516: exchange models the relative strength of the production in pp and pn reactions
517: depends strongly on the quantum number of the exchanged mesons. Neglecting
518: possible differences due to initial and final state interactions, we expect
519: $\sigma(pn\rightarrow pn\omega)$/$\sigma(pp\rightarrow pp\omega)$ = 5, if only
520: isovector mesons ($\pi , \rho$) are exchanged \cite{bar}. The two data
521: points for the reaction $np \rightarrow d\omega$ point toward an enhancement
522: of the pn cross section as compared to the pp cross section \cite{bar}. The
523: error bars are, however, too large in order to quantify this enhancement.
524: In our simulations we assume $\sigma(pn\rightarrow
525: pn\omega)=b*\sigma(pp\rightarrow pp\omega)$ with different values of b.
526:
527:
528:
529: The $\omega$ contributes to the dilepton spectrum in two
530: different ways. Either it decays directly into a dilepton pair whose
531: invariant mass equals that of the $\omega$ meson or the dilepton
532: pair is accompanied by a $\pi_0$ meson. For the latter channel the shape of the
533: dilepton invariant mass distribution has been parametrized by Kroll
534: \cite{kroll}
535: \begin{equation} \label{omegadal}
536: \frac{dN}{dM}=\frac{1}{M}(1+2\frac{m_{e^-}^2}{M^2})[
537: (1+\frac{M^2}{m_{\omega}^2-m_{\pi^0}^2})^2-4
538: \frac{m_{\omega}^2 M^2}{(m_{\omega}^2-m_{\pi^0}^2)^2}]^{3/2}
539: \sqrt{1-4\frac{m_{e^-}^2}{M^2}}
540: \end{equation}
541: with M being the invariant dilepton mass. This Dalitz type decay has
542: to be corrected by an electromagnetic form factor \cite{woehri}
543: \begin{equation}
544: (\frac{dN}{dM})_{tot}=F(M^2)*\frac{dN}{dM}
545: \end{equation}
546: with
547: \begin{equation}
548: F(M^2)=\frac{a^4}{(a^2-M^2)^2+a^2b^2}
549: \end{equation}
550:
551: and a = 0.6519 GeV , b = 0.04198 GeV in order to be in agreement with data.
552: The branching ratios into the two channels are given
553: by $5.9\cdot 10^{-4} (7.14\cdot 10^{-5})$ for the $e^+e^-\pi$ $(e^+e^-)$ channel
554: \cite{rev}.
555: Both, the unknown pn cross section as well as the little known off-shell
556: contribution at small excess energies make it difficult to predict the
557: $\omega$ contribution at invariant dilepton masses between 0.6 and 0.8 GeV.
558:
559: \subsection{$\rho$ production and decay}
560: In our simulation the $\rho$ meson can be produced in three channels:
561: $N N \to N N \rho$, $\pi N \to \rho N$ and $\pi^+ \pi^- \to \rho$.
562:
563: The few experimental data points of the total
564: cross section in the $N N \to N N \rho$ channel have been fitted by \cite{pprho}
565: \begin{equation}
566: \sigma_{NN\to NN\rho} (mb)=\frac{0.24(\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0})}{1.4+(\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0})^2}
567: \end{equation}
568: with $\sqrt{s_0}=2.646$ GeV being the threshold of the reaction.
569: In view of the strong coupling of the $\rho$ to nuclear resonances
570: this course-grained parametrization has most probably large
571: systematic errors and presents a lower limit to the $\rho$
572: production. Other models like URQMD use a parametrization of the
573: resonance production which yield higher $\rho$ yields.
574: For the $\pi$+N $\to$ N+$\rho$ data \cite{lutz}
575: we use the parametrization of \cite{pinomegarho}
576: \begin{equation}
577: \sigma_{\pi N\to \rho N} (mb)=\frac{1.5(\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0})^{2.2}}{0.0018+(\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0})^{3.5}}
578: \end{equation}
579: with $\sqrt{s_0}=1.708$ GeV.
580:
581: Having a large width and therefore a short life time, the $\rho$
582: meson is an ideal particle to probe whether the nuclear environment
583: changes mesonic properties. If produced in hadronic matter the
584: majority of them decay in matter and therefore the dileptons carry
585: direct information on the in-medium properties. Theory predicts that
586: these properties are different from that of the free $\rho$. Whereas
587: there seems to be now consensus that the width of the $\rho$
588: increases if brought into a nuclear environment
589: \cite{pis,rap1,rapp}, the question of how the pole mass changes is
590: still debated. Based on QCD sum rule calculations, Hatsuda and Lee
591: \cite{hat} predicted a lowering of the $\rho$ mass in a nuclear
592: environment, a suggestion which has later been confirmed by Brown
593: and Rho \cite{bro1,bro2}. More recent and more sophisticated
594: calculations leave, on the contrary, the $\rho$ mass almost
595: unchanged \cite{rap1,kapu,rapp}. Experimentally the situation is also far
596: from being clear. In pA collisions \cite{om} at 12 GeV a decrease of
597: the mass ($m(\rho)/m(0) = 1 - 0.09 \rho /\rho_0$ - about half of
598: the value predicted by theory) and no increase of the width has been
599: reported. The dilepton data in In+In collisions at 158 AGeV
600: \cite{na60} are best described using the free $\rho$ pole mass but a
601: considerable broadening of the mass distribution. In contradiction
602: to the earlier theoretical expectations this broadening is almost symmetric
603: around the pole mass but recently it has been pointed out \cite{renk1} that
604: the $\Phi$-functional approach may explain this symmetry.
605:
606: Whether these experimental differences are
607: exclusively due to the different environments (cold nuclear matter
608: in pA reactions, an expanding meson dominated fireball after a
609: possible phase transition from a quark gluon plasma in AA
610: collisions) has not been fully explored yet. It is very difficult to
611: exploit this experimental information for heavy ion reactions at 2
612: AGeV where theory predicts that most of the $\rho$ mesons are decay
613: products from nuclear resonances, especially of the $N^*(1520)$
614: resonance which has a branching ratio of $15-25\%$ into the $\rho$N
615: channel. For the present status of the theoretical spectral function
616: calculations for the $\rho$ meson we refer to \cite{mos,rap3}.
617:
618: As for the $\omega$ meson the inconclusive situation of theory and experiment
619: suggest to employ for this exploratory study the free pole mass distribution
620: of the $\rho$:
621: \begin{equation}
622: \frac{dN}{dM}=\frac{m_{\rho}^2}
623: {(\frac{M^2-m_{\rho_2}^2}{m_{\rho}})^2+\Gamma_{\rho}^2}
624: \end{equation}
625: with
626: $m_{\rho}=0.775$ GeV/c$^2$, $m_{\rho_2}=0.761$ GeV/c$^2$,
627: $\Gamma_{\rho}=0.118$ GeV/c$^2$ \cite{sak} and the parametrized free cross sections. For the
628: branching ratio of the $\rho$ into dileptons we use $4.5\cdot 10^{-5}$.
629:
630: \subsection{pn - bremsstrahlung}
631: In each np collisions real and virtual photons can be produced. The invariant mass
632: distribution of the $e^+e^-$ pairs, the decay product of the virtual photon,
633: is given by:
634: \begin{equation} \label{brehm}
635: \frac{dP(s,M)}{dM}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{\alpha^2}{\pi^2}\frac{1}{M}\frac{s-(m_p+m_n)^2}{e_{cm}^2}ln(\frac{q_{max}+q_{0max}}{M}-\frac{q_{max}}{q_{0max}})
636: \end{equation}
637: with
638: \begin{equation}
639: q_{0max}=\frac{s+M^2-(m_p+m_n)^2}{2\sqrt{s}}
640: \end{equation}
641: \begin{equation}
642: q_{max}=\sqrt{q_{0max}^2-M^2}.
643: \end{equation}
644: $\sqrt{s}$ is the np center of mass energy, $e_{cm}$ is the energy of
645: the incoming proton in the np center of mass system, $\alpha$ is the
646: electromagnetic coupling constant, $m_p$ and $m_n$ the masses of
647: proton and neutron, $q_{0max}$ the maximal dilepton energy and
648: $q_{max}$ the maximal dilepton momentum. The bremsstrahlung from pp
649: collisions is of quadrupole type and can be neglected as compared to
650: the dipole pn bremsstrahlung.
651:
652: \subsection{$\Delta$ Dalitz decay}
653: It is not experimentally verified yet whether the Dalitz decay into
654: $e^+e^-$ of the $\Delta$ resonance exists but since it decays into a
655: photon it should also decay into a dilepton. The width of the
656: Dalitz-decay to dileptons of invariant mass $M$ is determined by
657: QED \cite{Lautrup}:
658: \begin{equation}
659: {d\Gamma \over dM^2} = {\alpha \over 3\ \pi } {\Gamma _0(M^2)\over M^2}
660: \end{equation}
661: where
662: \begin{equation}
663: \Gamma _0(M^2) =
664: {\lambda ^{1/2}(M^2,m_N^2,m_\Delta ^2)\over 16\ \pi \ m_\Delta ^2} m_N [
665: 2\ M_t(M^2) + M_l(M^2) ]
666: \end{equation}
667: is the total decay rate into a virtual photon with mass $M$ and
668: \begin{equation}
669: \lambda (x,y,z) = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - 2 (xy + xz + yz).
670: \end{equation}
671:
672: \medskip
673: \noindent
674: $M_t$ and $M_l$ depend on the form of the interaction. For the $\Delta $ decay
675: we take the $N\Delta \gamma $ vertex from \cite{ndeltagammavertex}. Using this
676: interaction we obtain the following matrix elements:
677: \begin{eqnarray}
678: M_l &=& (e\ f\ g)^2 {m_\Delta ^2\over 9\ m_N} M^2\ 4 (m_\Delta - m_N - q_0)
679: \nonumber \\
680: M_t &=& (e\ f\ g)^2 {m_\Delta ^2\over 9\ m_N} [q_o{}^2(5\ m_\Delta - 3(q_0 +
681: m_N)) - M^2(m_\Delta + m_N + q_0)]
682: \end{eqnarray}
683:
684: with
685:
686: \begin{equation}
687: f=-1.5 \frac{m_\Delta+m_N}{m_N((m_N+m_\Delta)^2-M^2)},
688: \end{equation}
689:
690:
691: $q_0$ the energy of the dilepton pair in the $\Delta$ center of mass, $e$ the electric charge and $g = 2.72$ is the coupling constant fitted to the photonic decay width
692: $\Gamma_0(0) = 0.72$ MeV \cite{wwolf}.
693:
694: \section{The C+C reaction at 2 and 1 AGeV}
695: For the simulation of the heavy ion reaction we use the
696: IQMD program which has been described in section I.
697: The details of this program can be found in \cite{hartn}.
698:
699: The presented results are impact parameter averaged and have been
700: corrected for the experimental mass resolution and acceptance with a
701: program provided by the HADES collaboration. We have neglected in
702: our calculation the reabsorption cross section of the $\eta$ mesons
703: which is of the order of 20 mb \cite{bha} in our kinematic domain
704: but of little importance for such a light system. We compare the
705: results of the standard set up, where free masses and widths as well
706: the most common extrapolations or theoretical predictions
707: of unknown cross sections are used, with calculation in which
708: it is assumed that the particle properties change in the medium
709: or in which other cross section parametrization are applied.
710:
711: Fig. \ref{van1} shows the result of the standard simulation set up: $\sigma (np \to
712: np \eta) = 2 \sigma(pp \to pp\eta)$ , $\sigma (np \to np\omega) = 5
713: \sigma(pp \to pp\omega)$, $M_{\omega} = M_{\omega}^0$ and the
714: branching ratio BR$_{\eta \to e^+e^-} = 7.7 \cdot 10^{-5}$.
715: It is called standard because it uses standard literature values
716: for the unknown physical input quantities. We see
717: first of all that with the resolution of the HADES experiment the
718: direct $\eta$ decay would yield a visible peak which is not present
719: in the data. Therefore the upper limit has to be lower than that
720: quoted by the Particle Data Group \cite{rev}. We see as well that the
721: simulations overpredict the yield in the region of the free $\omega$
722: mass. This confirms the result of the simulations with other
723: programs which have been published by the HADES collaboration
724: \cite{hades}. On the contrary, the simulations reproduce well the
725: mass region in which the lepton pairs are coming dominantly from the
726: $\eta$ decay and from pn bremsstrahlung. If the experimentally
727: unknown $\sigma (np \to {pn}\omega)$ equals $\sigma (pp \to
728: {pp}\omega)$ the yield in the $M_{\omega}$ mass region would be strongly
729: reduced and comes closer to experimental data as can be
730: seen in fig. \ref{van2}. We obtain the same level of agreement with data if
731: we take $\sigma (np \to pn\omega)$ = $5\sigma (pp \to pp\omega)$ but
732: assume in addition that the mass of the $\omega$ decreases in the
733: medium according to eq. \ref{scal}, as indicated by the CBELSA/TAPS
734: results \cite{taps}. This can be seen in fig. \ref{van3}. The experimental
735: error bars are large, however, do not show much structure and the
736: deviations are only a factor of two. Higher statistics data would certainly
737: improve this situation. The
738: best agreement is obtained in simulations with $\sigma (np \to {pn}\omega)$ = $\sigma (pp \to
739: {pp}\omega)$ and an in medium $\omega$ mass, as seen in fig. \ref{van5}.
740:
741:
742: Therefore, without further informations on $\sigma (np \to np\omega)$ heavy ion
743: reactions will not reveal any robust information on in medium modifications
744: of the $\omega$ meson.
745:
746:
747: If we assume $\sigma (np \to np\eta) = \sigma(pp \to pp\eta)$ in the
748: region where no data on the $\sigma (np \to np\eta)$ cross section
749: is available (only 5\% of the $\eta$ are produced at an energy where
750: experimental information on this cross section is available), we
751: underpredict slightly the yield in this mass region as seen in fig.
752: \ref{van4}. The experimental error bars are too large, however,
753: in order to conclude more than that there are indications
754: that if the mass of the $\eta$ does not change in the medium
755: the $\sigma (np \to np\eta)$ is larger
756: than $\sigma(pp \to pp\eta)$ at excess energies above 100
757: MeV. As for the $\omega$ meson possible in medium changes of the
758: $\eta$ meson require a detailed study of its production in the pn
759: channel.
760:
761: %\textcolor{red}{The dominant production channel for low mass dileptons is the $\eta$ decay. For our calculations, we have assumed
762: %that $\sigma(pn\to \eta)= 2\sigma(pp \to pp\eta)$, extrapolating data points at low $\sqrt{s}$. In the $\sqrt{s}$ region to which we are sensitive (see fig. \ref{csdiffpp2}) there are no experimental results available. The ratio of dileptons produced via $\eta$ decay and with a cross section which is well known (excesses of mass below 100 MeV) compared to the total multiplicity of dileptons produced via $\eta$ decay is only 5\%! Thus, almost all dileptons produced via this contribution are simulated with an extrapolated cross section. This conclusion shows clearly the interest of the measurement of pp $\to$ pp$\eta$ and pn $\to$ pn$\eta$ cross sections for excesses of mass larger than 100 MeV.
763: %.,Thus, if we assume that $\sigma(pn\to \eta)= 2\sigma(pp \to pp\eta)$ the calculated low energy dilepton
764: %spectrum is in agreement with experiment as shown in fig. \ref{spectremasseinvdil}.}
765:
766:
767: \begin{figure}[!ht]
768: \begin{center}
769: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{C+C_2GeV_masseinv_standard_figure_6.eps}
770: \end{center}
771: \caption{(Color online) The invariant mass spectrum of the HADES collaboration as compared with IQMD simulations
772: for C+C at 2AGeV using $\sigma (np \to np\eta) = 2 \sigma(pp \to pp\eta)$ , $\sigma (np \to np\omega) = 5 \sigma (pp \to \omega),
773: M_{\omega} = M_{\omega}^0$ and the branching ratio ($\eta \to e^+e^-$) = 7.7 10$^{-5}$ (model A).}
774: \label{van1}
775: \end{figure}
776: \begin{figure}[!ht]
777: \begin{center}
778: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{C+C_2GeV_masseinv_standard+br7.7e-6+omega1_figure_7.eps}
779: \end{center}
780: \caption{(Color online) The invariant mass spectrum of the HADES collaboration as compared with IQMD simulations
781: for C+C at 2AGeV using $\sigma (np \to np\eta) = 2\sigma(pp \to pp\eta)$ , $\sigma (np \to np\omega) = \sigma(pp \to pp\omega)$
782: $M_{\omega} = M_{\omega}^0$ and the branching ratio ($\eta \to e^+e^-$) = 7.7 10$^{-6}$ (model B).}
783: \label{van2}
784: \end{figure}
785: \begin{figure}[!ht]
786: \begin{center}
787: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{C+C_2GeV_masseinv_standard+br7.7e-6+omegamodif_figure_8.eps}
788: \end{center}
789: \caption{(Color online) The invariant mass spectrum of the HADES collaboration as compared with IQMD simulations
790: for C+C at 2AGeV using $\sigma (np \to np\eta) = 2\sigma(pp \to pp\eta)$ , $\sigma (np \to np\omega) = 5 \sigma(pp \to pp\omega)$
791: $M_{\omega} = M_{\omega}^0(1-0.13\rho/\rho_0)$ and the branching ratio ($\eta \to e^+e^-$) = 7.7 10$^{-6}$ (model C).}
792: \label{van3}
793: \end{figure}
794: \begin{figure}[!ht]
795: \begin{center}
796: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{C+C_2GeV_masseinv_standard+br7.7e-6+omegamodif1_figure_9.eps}
797: \end{center}
798: \caption{(Color online) The invariant mass spectrum of the HADES collaboration as compared with IQMD simulations
799: for C+C at 2AGeV using $\sigma (np \to np\eta) = 2 \sigma(pp \to pp\eta)$ , $\sigma (np \to np\omega) = \sigma (pp \to pp\omega)$,
800: $M_{\omega} = M_{\omega}^0(1-0.13\rho/\rho_0)$ and the branching ratio ($\eta \to e^+e^-$) = 7.7 10$^{-6}$ (model E).}
801: \label{van5}
802: \end{figure}
803: \begin{figure}[!ht]
804: \begin{center}
805: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{C+C_2GeV_masseinv_standard+br7.7e-6+eta1_figure_10.eps}
806: \end{center}
807: \caption{(Color online) The invariant mass spectrum of the HADES collaboration as compared with IQMD simulations
808: for C+C at 2AGeV using $\sigma (np \to np\eta) = \sigma(pp \to pp\eta)$ , $\sigma (np \to np\omega) = 5 \sigma(pp \to pp\omega)$
809: $M_{\omega} = M_{\omega}^0(1-0.13\rho/\rho_0)$ and the branching ratio ($\eta \to e^+e^-$) = 7.7 10$^{-6}$ (model D).}
810: \label{van4}
811: \end{figure}
812: Fig.\ref{comp} summarizes the study of the influence of the parametrization of unknown processes on the dilepton yield.
813: If one compares the results of the different scenarios of table III with the experimental results, we see that the standard
814: parameterizations of these input quantities (A) yield not results which are in agreement with data at invariant dilepton
815: masses around 550 MeV
816: and in between 750 MeV and 950 MeV. The former difference suggests that the partial width for the disintegration of the
817: $\eta$ into a dilepton pair is much smaller than the upper limit quoted by the Particle Data Group \cite{rev}. The latter
818: discrepancy contains the interesting physics as far as in medium particle properties are concerned. We see that
819: even a reduced $\omega$ production cross section in the np channel (B) does not render the calculation
820: compatible with the data. Also the assumption that the mass of the $\omega$ changes in the medium but that it is produced
821: with the free cross section (C) overpredicts the experimental results because it shifts the surplus only to lower invariant
822: masses. Only the combination of a lower in medium mass and a reduction of the standard assumption on the cross section in
823: the pn channel (E) yield results which are compatible with the experimental error bars. The scenario (D) demonstrates that
824: the data are not sufficiently precise to allow for robust conclusions on the $np \rightarrow np\eta$ channel.
825: A variation of a factor of two gives results which are both compatible with experiment.
826:
827: Thus the C+C data at 2 AGeV show interesting new physics which is not compatible with the input of
828: state of the art transport codes. Unfortunately without further information on the elementary cross sections
829: with a neutron in the entrance channel it will not be possible to identify the origin of this discrepancy
830: because a modification of the mass of the mesons in the medium yields the same effect as a change of the
831: (experimentally unknown) cross section in the np channel.
832:
833: \begin{figure}[!ht]
834: \begin{center}
835: \includegraphics[width=15.0cm]{C+C_2GeV_rapport_theo_data_figure_11.eps}
836: \end{center}
837: \caption{(Color online) Invariant mass dependence of the ratio theory/experiment for the C+C
838: reaction at 2 AGeV
839: for the different parametrization of unknown physical input quantities (see table III for details)}
840: \label{comp}
841: \end{figure}
842:
843:
844:
845: Lowering the energy to 1 AGeV the importance of the different
846: channels changes and a comparison between the 2 and 1 AGeV data will
847: elucidate part of the physics. Because the experimental data are
848: divided by the number of $\pi^0$ the spectra for the pions change
849: only little due to the acceptance corrections. The same is true for
850: the $\Delta$ Dalitz decay. The yield of $e^+e^-$ pairs from $\eta$
851: Dalitz decay and bremsstrahlung are lower, on the contrary, and the
852: $\omega$ production is practically absent due to the lack of energy
853: (even if one takes into account that the Fermi momentum may create a
854: larger $\sqrt{s}$ value than in NN collisions at the same beam
855: energy). Fig. \ref{van11} displays our filtered and acceptance
856: corrected results. In the intermediate mass region the $\Delta$
857: Dalitz decay and bremsstrahlung have gained importance and are of
858: the same order of magnitude. Dilepton pairs from $\eta$ Dalitz decay
859: are less frequent and are not dominant anymore in the intermediate
860: mass region. At this energy about 35\% of the $\eta$ come from a
861: $\sqrt{s}$ region where the np production cross section is known. So
862: the uncertainty in this channel is reduced but still present. In the
863: standard set up of the simulations the dilepton invariant mass
864: spectrum at intermediate masses has always a
865: strong component of the bremsstrahlung which gives about 50\% of the
866: yield. At invariant masses of around 200 MeV the $\Delta$ Dalitz
867: decay contributes the other 50\% - if it exists. The data at 1 AGeV
868: should therefore allow do define an upper limit of the $\Delta$
869: Dalitz decay. At higher invariant masses it is the $\eta$ decay
870: which contributes the other 50\%. If we assume that $\sigma (np \to
871: np\eta) = \sigma(pp \to pp\eta)$ the $\eta$ yield becomes that low
872: that its influence on the spectrum is hardly visible.
873: \begin{figure}[!ht]
874: \begin{center}
875: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{C+C_1GeV_masseinv_standard_figure_12.eps}
876: \end{center}
877: \caption{(Color online) The invariant mass spectrum of IQMD simulations for C+C at
878: 1AGeV using $\sigma (np \to np\eta) = 2 \sigma(pp \to pp\eta)$ ,
879: $\sigma (np \to np\omega) = 5 \sigma (pp \to pp\omega)$,
880: $M_{\omega} = M_{\omega}^0$ and the branching ratio ($\eta \to e^+e^-$) = 7.7 10$^{-5}$.}
881: \label{van11}
882: \end{figure}
883: If we lower the in medium $\omega$ mass we see a larger $\omega$
884: production cross section but it remains a small contribution to the
885: total yield, as seen in fig. \ref{van13}.
886: \begin{figure}[!ht]
887: \begin{center}
888: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{C+C_1GeV_masseinv_standard+br7.7e-6+omegamodif_figure_13.eps}
889: \end{center}
890: \caption{(Color online) The invariant mass spectrum of IQMD simulations for C+C at
891: 1AGeV using $\sigma (np \to np\eta) = 2 \sigma(pp \to pp\eta)$ ,
892: $\sigma (np \to np\omega) = 5 \sigma (pp \to pp\omega)$, $M_{\omega} =
893: M_{\omega}^0(1-0.13\rho/\rho_0)$ and the branching ratio ($\eta \to
894: e^+e^-$) = 7.7 10$^{-6}$.} \label{van13}
895: \end{figure}
896:
897: It is interesting to see in detail the differences between
898: elementary collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 2.697$ GeV and heavy ion
899: collisions at the same nominal energy which show the large
900: $\sqrt{s}$ distribution of the NN collisions displayed in fig.
901: \ref{csdiffpp2GeV}. There we see two peaks. The high energy peak is
902: due to collisions between projectile and target nucleons, whereas
903: the low energy peak is due to collisions among either projectile or
904: target nucleons. The latter collisions contribute only to the
905: bremsstrahlung and to the $\pi^0$ part of the dilepton spectrum.
906: Due to rescattering the maximum of the distribution of the primary
907: collisions is shifted toward a lower $\sqrt{s}$ value. The consequences of the
908: broad $\sqrt{s}$ distribution on the $\eta$ and $\omega$ production
909: as compared to elementary collisions at the nominal energy are summarized in table
910: \ref{multiplicite2GeV}. The first line shows the average $\sqrt{s}$
911: value of all collisions above threshold. For the $\eta$ this value is
912: slightly below, for the $\omega$ - due to the larger threshold -
913: slightly above the value for elementary collisions. Also the average
914: number of collisions in C+C reactions depends on the particle type
915: as seen in the second line. For the $\eta$ production we find 4.65
916: collisions above threshold for the $\omega$ production 2.32. For
917: the standard scenario ($m_\omega=m_\omega^0$, BR($\eta \to
918: e^+e^-)=7.7.10^{-5}, \sigma(pn \to pn\eta) = 2\sigma (pp \to
919: pp\eta)$ and $\sigma(pn \to pn\omega)=5\sigma(pp \to pp\omega)$), we
920: display in the third and the fourth line the average production
921: cross section in np and pp collisions in the heavy ion reaction as
922: compared to the elementary reaction. For the $\eta$ the average
923: $\sigma(pp \to pp\eta)$ and $\sigma(pn \to pn\eta)$ are lower in CC
924: collisions than in elementary ones. This decrease has two origins:
925: firstly the lower $<\sqrt{s}_ {coll>threshold}>$ and secondly the
926: form of the $\eta$ production cross section which has a maximum at
927: around $\sqrt{s}$=2.697 GeV and stays almost constant at higher
928: energies. For the $\omega$ meson the situation is completely
929: different. The elementary cross section increases with energy for
930: all relevant energies and the average $\sqrt{s}$ value in C+C is
931: larger than that in elementary collisions. Therefore np as well as pp
932: collisions in the heavy ion reaction produce more $\omega$ mesons
933: than elementary collisions at the same nominal energy.
934: Consequently the enhancement factor of $\eta$ and $\omega$ mesons in
935: heavy ion collisions is very different.
936:
937:
938: For the 1 AGeV reaction (table \ref{multiplicite1GeV}) the situation
939: is very different. The $\sqrt{s}$ distribution of the collision in
940: C+C is displayed in fig. \ref{csdiffpp1GeV}. In elementary NN
941: collisions at the same energy neither $\omega$ nor $\eta$ mesons can be produced (
942: $\sqrt{s}_{threshold \textrm{ }\omega}$ = 2.659 GeV and $\sqrt{s}_{threshold \textrm{ } \eta}$ = 2.424 GeV).
943: However, with the Fermi momentum, in C+C
944: collisions subthreshold $\omega$ and $\eta$ production is possible.
945: Due to the larger threshold $\omega$ production is suppressed with
946: respect to the $\eta$ production. The production cross section at
947: this energy tests the Fermi motion in the simulations which is not
948: easy to model in semi-classical simulation codes. Therefore
949: systematic errors reduce the predictive power for the meson
950: production at this energy, but the analysis of the subthreshold kaon
951: production shows that in between a factor of two the
952: results are certainly trustworthy.
953:
954: In summary we have shown that the dilepton spectrum measured by the
955: HADES collaboration in the reaction 2 AGeV C+C at invariant masses
956: above 600 MeV is not compatible with the standard scenario of
957: simulation programs which uses free cross sections and free meson
958: masses. Introducing a medium modification of the $\omega$ mass and
959: lowering the unknown $pn \to pn\omega$ cross section brings the
960: calculation in agreement with data. The extrapolation from
961: elementary cross section at the same nominal energy to heavy ion
962: reactions is all but trivial. It depends on the threshold and on the
963: energy dependence of the cross section. Before the elementary
964: production cross sections in pn reactions are not determined and
965: before the cross sections for baryonic resonances are not better
966: known heavy ion data do not provide the desired information on
967: possible in medium modification of the meson properties.
968:
969:
970: \begin{figure}[!ht]
971: \begin{center}
972: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{C+C_2GeV_s_pp_pn_figure_14.eps}
973: \end{center}
974: \caption{Distribution of $\sqrt{s}$ of NN collisions in a C+C
975: reaction at 2 AGeV} \label{csdiffpp2GeV}
976: \end{figure}
977: \begin{figure}[!ht]
978: \begin{center}
979: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{C+C_1GeV_s_pp_pn_figure_15.eps}
980: \end{center}
981: \caption{Distribution of $\sqrt{s}$ of NN collisions in a C+C reaction at 1 AGeV}
982: \label{csdiffpp1GeV}
983: \end{figure}
984:
985:
986:
987:
988: \begin{table}[!ht]
989: \begin{center}
990: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
991: \hline
992: Particle & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$\eta$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$\omega$} \\
993: \hline
994: Collision & p+p & p+n & C+C & p+p & p+n & C+C \\
995: \hline
996: $<\sqrt{s}_{coll>threshold}>$ & 2.697 & 2.697 & 2.677 & 2.697 & 2.697 & 2.811 \\
997: \hline
998: $\langle N_{coll>threshold}\rangle$ & 1 & 1 & 4.65 & 1 & 1 & 2.32 \\
999: \hline
1000: $\langle \sigma_{prod}\rangle_{C+C}$ ($\mu b$) & 115 & 304 & 203 & 23.8 & 115 & 66.5 \\
1001: \hline
1002: $ \sigma_{prod}$ ($\mu b$) & 175 & 359 & & 4.90 & 24.51 & \\
1003: \hline
1004: Multiplicity & 3.89.10$^{-3}$ & 8.37.10$^{-3}$ & 2.25.10$^{-2}$ & 2.36.10$^{-4}$ & 5.57.10$^{-4}$ & 3.6.10$^{-3}$ \\
1005: \hline
1006: \end{tabular}
1007: \end{center}
1008: \caption{Comparison of the average number of collisions above
1009: threshold, of the average production cross section per NN collision in CC
1010: collisions, the cross section in elementary pp and pn reactions
1011: and the multiplicity in pp, pn and CC collisions at a beam energy
1012: of 2 AGeV for $\eta$ and $\omega$ mesons.}
1013: \label{multiplicite2GeV}
1014: \end{table}
1015: \begin{table}[!ht]
1016: \begin{center}
1017: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1018: \hline
1019: Particle & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$\eta$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$\omega$} \\
1020: \hline
1021: Collision & p+p & p+n & C+C & p+p & p+n & C+C \\
1022: \hline
1023: $<\sqrt{s}_{coll>threshold}>$ & x & x & 2.498 & x & x & 2.711 \\
1024: \hline
1025: $ N_{coll>threshold} $ & x & x & 0.812 & x & x & 0.0176 \\
1026: \hline
1027: $\langle \sigma_{prod}\rangle_{C+C}$ ($\mu b$) & 30.2 & 146.3 & 84.7 & 7.11 & 38.3 & 22.66 \\
1028: \hline
1029: $\langle \sigma_{prod}\rangle$ ($\mu b$) & 0 & 0 & & 0 & 0 & \\
1030: \hline
1031: Multiplicity & 0 & 0 & 1.61.10$^{-3}$ & 0 & 0 & 8.34.10$^{-6}$ \\
1032: \hline
1033: \end{tabular}
1034: \end{center}
1035: \caption{Comparison of the average number of collisions above
1036: threshold, of the average production cross section per NN collision in CC
1037: collisions, the cross section in elementary pp and pn reactions
1038: and the multiplicity in pp, pn and CC collisions at a beam energy
1039: of 1 AGeV for $\eta$ and $\omega$ mesons.}
1040: \label{multiplicite1GeV}
1041: \end{table}
1042:
1043: \begin{table}[!ht]
1044: \begin{center}
1045: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
1046: \hline
1047: Model & BR$_{\eta\to e^+ e^-}$ & $m_{\omega}$ & $\frac{\sigma_{pn\to pn\omega}}{\sigma_{pp\to pp\omega}}$ & $\frac{\sigma_{pn\to pn\eta}}{\sigma_{pp\to pp\eta}}$ \\
1048: \hline
1049: A & 7.7 10$^-5$ & vacuum & 5 & 2 \\
1050: \hline
1051: B & 7.7 10$^-6$ & vacuum & 1 & 2 \\
1052: \hline
1053: C & 7.7 10$^-6$ & in-medium modification & 5 & 2 \\
1054: \hline
1055: D & 7.7 10$^-6$ & in-medium modification & 5 & 1 \\
1056: \hline
1057: E & 7.7 10$^-6$ & in-medium modification & 1 & 2 \\
1058: \hline
1059: \end{tabular}
1060: \end{center}
1061: \caption{Definition of the various parameters for the IQMD simulations}
1062: \label{modelsparam}
1063: \end{table}
1064:
1065: {\it Acknowledgment}: We acknowledge valuable discussions with M.
1066: Bleicher, R. Holzmann, W. K\"uhn and J. Stroth and thank the HADES
1067: collaboration for providing us with the filter routines. G. Wolf
1068: acknowledge partial support by the grants T48833 and T47347.
1069:
1070:
1071:
1072:
1073:
1074:
1075: \begin{thebibliography}{WWW99}
1076: \bibitem{gama} N. Bianchi et al., \PRC 54 (1996) 1688\\
1077: V. Muccifora et al. \PRC 60 (1999) 064616\\
1078: B. Krusche, S. Schadmand, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys. 51 (2003) 399-485
1079: \bibitem{gamth} M.M. Giannini and E. Santopinto \PRC 49 (1994) R1258\\
1080: M. Hirata, N. Katagiri, K. Ochi, T. Takaki, \PRC66 (2002) 014612
1081: \bibitem{rapp} R. Rapp and J. Wambach, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 25 (2000) 1
1082: (hep-ph/9909229)
1083: \bibitem{kor}C.L. Korpa, M.F.M. Lutz, Acta Phys.Hung. A22 (2005) 21 and references therein
1084: \bibitem{kaon}C. Hartnack, J. Aichelin, J.Phys. G30 (2004) S531\\
1085: Ch. Hartnack, Habilitation, nucl-th/0507002
1086: \bibitem{dls} R.J. Porter et al. \PRL 79 (1997) 1229\\
1087: G. Roche \PLB 226 (1989) 228
1088: \bibitem{ceres} D. Miskowiec, Plenary talk in Quark Matter 2005, Budapest,
1089: nucl-ex/0511010
1090: \bibitem{kapu} V. L. Eletsky et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf C64} (2001) 035202
1091: \bibitem{gall} K. Gallmeister, B. K\"ampfer, O.P. Pavlenko and C. Gale \NPA 688 (2001) 939
1092: \bibitem{na60} R. Arnaldi et al. Phys.Rev.Lett. 96 (2006) 162302
1093: \bibitem{renk} T. Renk and J. Ruppert hep-ph/0612113\\ K. Dusling and I. Zahed hep-ph/0701253
1094: \bibitem{hades} I.Froehlich et al., nucl-ex/0610048
1095: \bibitem{hartn} C. Hartnack et al. Eur. Phys. J. {\bf A 1} (1998) 151.
1096: \bibitem{rev} S. Eidelmann et al., Review of Particle Physics \PLB 592 (2004) 1
1097: \bibitem{kroll} N.M. Kroll and W. Wada, Phys. Rev., Volume 98, p. 1355 (1955)
1098: \bibitem{csppeta2} P.Moskal et al, Phys. Rev. C69, (2004) 025203
1099: \bibitem{ppn*eta} F. Balestra et al., Phys. Rev. C69 (2004) 064003
1100: \bibitem{cernhera84} V. Flaminio, W.G. Moorhead, D.R.O. Morrison, N. Rivoire,
1101: Compilation of cross sections III : p and $\bar{p}$ (1984)
1102: \bibitem{donneespneta} K.Nakayama, J. Speth and T.-S. H. Lee, Phys.Rev. C, Volume 65, p. 045210 (2002)
1103: \bibitem{woehri} Hermine K.W\"ohri, Thesis, Low mass dimuon production in proton-nucleon collisions
1104: at 400 GeV at the CERN-SPS (2004)
1105: \bibitem{csppetatheo1} M.T Pe\~na, H. Garcilazo, and D.O Riska, Nucl. Phys. A, Volume 683, p. 322 (2001)
1106: \bibitem{csppetatheo2} K.Nakayama, J. Speth, and T.-S.H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C, Volume 65, p. 045210 (2002)
1107: \bibitem{cos}S. Abd El-Samad et al.,\PLB 522 (2001) 16
1108: \bibitem{sat} F. Hibou et al. \PRL 83 (1999) 492
1109: \bibitem{disto} F. Balestra et al., \PRC 63 (2001) 024004
1110: \bibitem{pinomegarho} Gy. Wolf, private communication
1111: \bibitem{tsuna} K. Tsushima, and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. C, Volume 68, p. 034612 (2003)
1112: \bibitem{fuchs}C. Fuchs et al., Phys. Rev. C67 (2003) 025202
1113: \bibitem{fae} M.I. Krivoruchenko et al., Annals Phys. (N.Y.) 296 (2002) 299
1114: \bibitem{lutz}M.F.M. Lutz, Gy. Wolf, B. Friman, Nucl.Phys. A706 (2002) 431-496; Erratum-ibid. A765 (2006) 431-496
1115: \bibitem{post} M. Post et al., Nucl: Phys. {\bf A689} (2001) 753
1116: \bibitem{mos} K. Gallmeister et al., nucl-th/0608025
1117: \bibitem{taps} D. Trnka et al., \PRL 94 (2005) 192303, nucl-ex 0504010
1118: \bibitem{bar} S. Barsov et al., Eur. Phys. J. A21 (2004) 521
1119: \bibitem{pprho} Gy. Wolf, Acta. Phys. Polon. B, Volume 26, p. 583 (1995)
1120: %\bibitem{urqmd}S. A. Bass et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 41 (1998) 225
1121: \bibitem{pis}
1122: R.~D.~Pisarski, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, R3773 (1995).
1123: \bibitem{rap1}
1124: G.~Chanfray, R.~Rapp and J.~Wambach, Phys.~Rev. Lett.~{\bf 76}, 368 (1996);
1125: R.~Rapp, G.~Chanfray and J.~Wambach, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A617}, 472 (1997).
1126: \bibitem{hat}
1127: T.~Hatsuda and S.~H.~Lee,
1128: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 46}, R34 (1992).
1129: \bibitem{bro1}
1130: G.~E.~Brown, M.~Rho, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 66}, 2720 (1991);
1131: G.~Q.~Li, C.~M.~Ko and G.~E.~Brown, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 75}, 4007 (1995).
1132: \bibitem{bro2}
1133: G.~E.~Brown and M.~Rho,
1134: Phys.\ Rept. {\bf 363}, 85 (2002).
1135: \bibitem{om} M. Naruki et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 96 (2006) 092301,
1136: K. Ozawa et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 86 (2001) 5019-5022
1137: \bibitem{renk1} T. Renk and J. Ruppert hep-ph/0605130
1138: \bibitem{rap3} R. Rapp et al., nucl-th/0608022
1139: \bibitem{sak} G.J. Gounaris and J. J. Sakurai, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 21} (1968) 244
1140: \bibitem{Lautrup} B.E. Lautrup and J. Smith, Phys. Rev. {\bf D3} (1971) 1122
1141: \bibitem{ndeltagammavertex} Gy. Wolf, G. Batko, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, K. Niita and M. Sch\"afer, Nucl. Phys. A517 (1990) 615
1142: \bibitem{wwolf} Gy. Wolf et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf A517} (1990) 615
1143: \bibitem{bha}R. S. Bhalerao and L. C. Liu, \PRL 54 (1985) 865
1144: \end{thebibliography}
1145: \end{document}
1146: