Lectures on Hadron-Nucleus Collisions at High Energies

  • A. H. Mueller
Part of the NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series book series (NSSB, volume 31)


Hadron-nucleus collisions are discussed. It is assumed that the hadron energy is greater than or equal to 200 GeV and that large nuclei like lead or uranium constitute the nuclear targets. It is argued that a relatively large amount of blackness in hadron-nucleus cross sections puts strong constraints on the inclusive spectrum. Reasons are given why the spectrum of fast particles in a hadron-nucleus collision must be very different than such a spectrum in a hadron-hadron collision. A possible reconciliation of an approximate Glauber expansion with the Regge pole expansion in a soft field theory is suggested.


Wave Function Total Cross Section Regge Pole Large Nucleus Pomeron Exchange 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. (1).
    J. Koplik and A. Mueller, Phys. Rev. D1J2, 3638 (1975).ADSGoogle Scholar
  2. (2).
    N. Nikolaev in lectures presented at the International Topical Meeting on Multiparticle Production at Very High Energies, Trieste (1976).Google Scholar
  3. (3).
    J. Weis, CERN preprint (1976).Google Scholar
  4. (4).
    L. Bertocchi in Proceedings of the Vlth International Conference on High Energy Physics and Nuclear Structure, Santa Fe and Los Alamos, 1975.Google Scholar
  5. (5).
    R. Glauber, in Lectures in Theoretical Physics, edited by W.E. Britten and G. Dunham (Interscience, New York, 1959 ), Vol. 1.Google Scholar
  6. (6).
    V. Gribov, JETP 30, 709 (1970).ADSGoogle Scholar
  7. (7).
    The following example is apparently well known to experts in hadron-nucleus collisions. I thank L. Bertocchi for a discussion.Google Scholar
  8. (8).
    O. Kancheli, JETP Letters 18, 274 (1973). See also E. Lehman and G. Winbow, Phys. Rev. D10, 2962 (1974).Google Scholar
  9. (9).
    K. Gottfried, Phys. Rev. Letters 32, 957 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. (10).
    W. Buza et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 34, 838 (1975).ADSGoogle Scholar
  11. (11).
    P. Murthy et al., Nucl. Phys. B92, 269 (1975).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. (12).
    J. Biel et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 36, 1004 (1976).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. (13).
    I have greatly benefited from a number of comments made by J.D. Bjorken concerning such possible wave functions of a fast hadron.Google Scholar
  14. (14).
    A. Capella and A. Kaidalov, CERN preprint. However, I disagree with the neglect of final state interactions, in the language of Capella and Kaidalov, since it is impossible to have initial and not final state absorptions in a soft field theory. In other words an absorptive model should depress the one Reggeon cut by an amount ~ e-n where n is the typical number of scatterings at some average impact parameter. I thank A. Krzywicki for discussions on this point.Google Scholar
  15. (15).
    L. Caneschi and A. Schwimmer, Nucl. Phys. B102, 381 (1975).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. (16).
    L. Caneschi, A. Schwimmer, and R. Jengo. (To be published).Google Scholar
  17. (17).
    L. Bertocchi, S. Fubini, and M. Tonin, Nuovo Cimento 25, 626 (1962); D. Amati, A. Stanghellini, and S. Fubini, Nuovo Cimento 23, 6 (1962).Google Scholar
  18. (18).
    R. Feynman, Phys. Rev. Letters. 23, 1415 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. (19).
    J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Phys. Reports 8C, No. 2 (1973).Google Scholar
  20. (20).
    V. Abramovskii, O. Kancheli, and V. Gribov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. I8, 308 (1974).Google Scholar
  21. (21).
    J. Koplik and A. Mueller, Phys. Letters 58B, 166 (1975).ADSGoogle Scholar
  22. (22).
    L. McLerran and J. Weis, Nucl. B100, 329 (1975).Google Scholar
  23. (23).
    M. Baker and K. Ter-Martirosyan, Phys. Reports (to be published).Google Scholar
  24. (24).
    For R not too large there may be an R dependence in A. However, as R → ∞A1 → constant. If the Glauber expansion is correct, in an approximate sense, as I would expect is the case, then this non asymptotic dependence of A. or R is crucial.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. H. Mueller
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of PhysicsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations