Advertisement

Do we understand the \(\eta N\) interaction from the near-threshold \(\eta\) photoproduction on the deuteron?

  • A. Fix
  • H. ArenhövelEmail author
Article

Abstract.

The effects of final-state interaction in incoherent \(\eta\) photoproduction on a deuteron are studied within a three-body approach including a realistic NN potential. The results are compared with available data, and differences with other theoretical predictions are analyzed. The role of the \(\eta N\) interaction and the possibility of extracting the \(\eta N\) scattering parameters from this reaction are discussed.

Keywords

Theoretical Prediction Incoherent Photoproduction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Fix, H. Arenhövel, Z. Phys. A 359, 427 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Fix, H. Arenhövel, Nucl. Phys. A 697, 277 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Sibirtsev, Phys. Rev. C 64, 024006 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Sibirtsev, Phys. Rev. C 65, 044007 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Sibirtsev, Phys. Rev. C 65, 067002 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Deloff, Phys. Rev. C 61, 024004 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Fix, H. Arenhövel, Eur. Phys. J. A 9, 119 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Wycech, A.M. Green, Phys. Rev. C 64, 045206 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Goebel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 143 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. 95, 1628 (1954).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. Hejny, Eur. Phys. J. A 13, 493 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Bennhold, H. Tanabe, Nucl. Phys. A 530, 62 (1991).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Fix, H. Arenhövel, nucl-th/0302050.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A.M. Green, S. Wycech, Phys. Rev. C 55, 2167 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R.A. Arndt, J.M. Ford, L.D. Roper, Phys. Rev. D 32, 1085 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Krusche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3736 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Drechsel, O. Hanstein, S.S. Kamalov, L. Tiator, Nucl. Phys. A 645, 145 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Hoffmann-Rothe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4697 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Weiss, Eur. Phys. J. A 16, 275 (2003).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Haidenbauer, Y. Koike, W. Plessas, Phys. Rev. C 33, 439 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Weiss, Eur. Phys. J. A 11, 371 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    F. Ritz, H. Arenhövel, Phys. Rev. C 64, 034005 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. Fäldt, C. Wilkin, Phys. Scr. 64, 427 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. Garcilazo, M.T. Peña, Phys. Rev. C 66, 034606 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. Sauermann, PhD Thesis, Technische Universität Darmstadt (1996) (http://theory.gsi.de/the/the\_diss.html)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    There is an inconsistency to the interaction effect shown in fig. 5 of [4], where the \(\eta N\) enhancement is even larger, namely more than 100% at \(E_\gamma = 635\) MeV.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. Roebig-Landau, Phys. Lett. B 373, 45 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    A.B. Migdal, Qualitative Methods in Quantum Theory (Benjamin, Reading, 1977).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    K.M. Watson, Phys. Rev. 88, 1163 (1952).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin/Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für KernphysikJohannes Gutenberg-Universität MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations