Comparison of \(p\bar p/pp\) Interactions at the ISR

  • M. Jacob


The use of the SPS as a \(p\bar p\) collider is the driving force of the extensive \(p\bar p\) programme at CERN. However, it was realized that, at a relatively low extra cost, one could also use the PS to inject the accumulated antiprotons either into a low-energy ring LEAR or into the ISR, even if injection and acceleration into the SPS remains the major part of the programme.1 The purpose of this note is to review the ISR part of the pp programme, presenting the physics results obtained so far.


Valence Quark Fragmentation Region Particle Yield Prompt Photon Large Multiplicity 
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.
    For a review of the anticipated pp programme at CERN circa 1979, see: M. Jacob, “New Direction in Elementary Particle Physics; pp from Very Low to Very High Energies, ” Proceedings of the Los Alamos Workshop 1979, and Surveys in High Energy Physics 1 (3) (1980) 213.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Resources needed for the construction of LEP will impose a shutdown of the ISR before all opportunities could have been used to the full. All possible advantages have to be taken from the 1983 runs.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    For a review of anticipated physics at collider energies, see for instance: R. Horgan and M. Jacob, Physics at Collider Energies, CERN, Malente Summer School (1980) and Kupari Summer School (1981).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Jacob, Fermilab Workshop on the 30“ Downstream System (1975). 40 M. JACOBGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Pretzl, “An Investigation of Deep Inelastic Hadron-Hadron Collisions Using a Transverse Energy Trigger with Large Acceptance,” SLAC Summer Institute (1981).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Johnson discussed it as early as 1962.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stochastic Cooling as now used was discovered by:Google Scholar
  8. S. Van der Meer in 1972, ISR Workshop Report 2–12 (1977)Google Scholar
  9. D. Möhl et al., Physics Reports 58 (1980) 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 8.
    C. Rubbia’s proposal for the SPS was formulated in 1976.Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    ISR Workshop Report 2–16 (1977) and, in particular:Google Scholar
  12. P. Strolin, ISR Workshop Report 2–9 (1977).Google Scholar
  13. 10.
    ISR Discussion Meetings 2/5, CERN Report (June 1981), Eds. M. Albrow and M. Jacob;Google Scholar
  14. G. Jarlskog, Kupari Summer School (September 1981);Google Scholar
  15. M. Jacob, Madison Workshop (December 1981);Google Scholar
  16. L. Camilleri, Madison Workshop (December 1981).Google Scholar
  17. 11.
    L. Camilleri, Washington APS Meeting (April 1982).Google Scholar
  18. 12.
    The Volendam Conference (June 1982) includes a half-day session on pp physics at the ISR chaired by the author with invited contributions by Ch. Fabjan (p beams), D. Favart (total cross-section and elastic scattering), G. Giacomelli (low pT physics) and R. Miller (special triggers). The proceedings are published by World Scientific Company, Singapore, Eds. A. Diddens and W. Kittel.Google Scholar
  19. 13.
    U. Amaldi and K. Shubert, Nuclear Phys. B145 (1978) 367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. U. Amaldi et al., Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sc. 26 (1976) 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 14.
    For a review, see: Physics at the ISR, G. Giacomelli et al., Physics Reports 55 (1979) 1. This is used here as a general reference for ISR physics.Google Scholar
  22. 15.
    J. Fisher, Physics Reports 76 (1981) 3. For a detailed discussion of the present case, see:Google Scholar
  23. A. Martin, CERN Preprint TH. 3221 (1982).Google Scholar
  24. 16.
    R. Cahn and M. Block, CERN Preprint TH. 3307 (1982).Google Scholar
  25. 17.
    Annihilation reactions could be so far separated out only up to 12 GeV. From 12 to 100 GeV one can still consider the difference between the pp and pp cross-sections as being due to the annihilation processes alone and thus define an annihilation multiplicity. It is then a striking feature that this annihilation (negative) multiplicity follows the mean multiplicity in pp collisions in its increase with increasing energy, with a fixed excess of 2.3. See: J. Whitmore, Physics Reports 27 (1976) No. 5. Insofar as an annihilation process should result in no leading p(p), one may be tempted to compare annihilation reactions with pp reactions with two slowed down protons. The multiplicity excess could thus compare with the multiplicity measured in annihilation at rest.Google Scholar
  26. 18.
    J. G. Rushbrooke and B. R. Webber, Physics Reports 44 (1978) 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 19.
    A. Capella et al., Z. Phys. C3 (1979) 329.Google Scholar
  28. 20.
    ISR Discussion Meeting 2–1, CERN Report, Eds. M. Albrow and M. Jacob (1981).Google Scholar
  29. 21.
    M. Jacob, “High pT and Jets,” Rapporteur talk, EPS Conference, Geneva (1979).Google Scholar
  30. 22.
    B. Alpert et al., Nuclear Phys. 100B (1975) 237. Results from R203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Jacob
    • 1
  1. 1.CERNGeneva 23Switzerland

Personalised recommendations