Particle Interactions at Very High Energies pp 247-370 | Cite as

# Multi-Body Phenomena in Strong Interactions

## Abstract

A survey of research at the CERN Intersecting Storage Rings during the last year, this paper deals with five main topics: Elastic Scattering and Total Cross-Sections, Scaling and the Approach to Scaling, Diffraction Excitation, Two-Body Correlations and finally, Large Transverse Momentum Phenomena. Experimental results are only briefly presented. They are discussed from a theoretical point of view, with emphasis on the information they give, the questions they raise and the type of further experiments which they suggest.

The presentation tries to be self-contained. This paper, however, does not go into technical points and does not describe detailed model calculations. They are only referred to.

Lecture Notes : 1973 CERN/JINR School of Physics, Ebeltoft, Denmark.

1973 Summer Institute on Particle Interactions at Very High Energies, Louvain, Belgium.

This article is also appearing at part of the proceedings of the CERN/OINR School of Physics, published as a Cern Yellow report.

## Keywords

Transverse Momentum Rapidity Distribution Rapidity Interval Inclusive Distribution Pion Yield## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References and Notes

- 1).Experiments at ISR have been so far performed with coasting beams of 11, 15, 22, 26 and 31 GeV/c, respectively. The highest energy requires acceleration in the storage rings proper. These beam energies span a range extending from 250 to 2000 GeV, when expressed in terms of stationary target experimentation. It will be referred throughout as the ISR energy range. Beam-beam collisions with beams of different momenta allow to reach intermediate centre-of-mass energies.Google Scholar
- 2).At present the luminosity reaches the value L = 4.4x1030cm-2 sec-1. It is obtained with coasting beams of 11–12 A each. The interaction rate of a reaction is obtained multiplying the luminosity by the cross-section. With a total cross-section of 40 mb we obtain about 2x105 event/sec and correspon¬dingly about 2x106 charged secondary particles/sec on each intersection.Google Scholar
- 3).For a detailed review of the features and performances of the machine, see, K. Johnsen, Instruments and Methods 108, 205 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4).Lepton physics at the ISR (single electron or muon distributions probing for W, or dilepton search probing for heavy photon and more generally for any weak interaction effect) has so far met with negative results only. Improvements in machine luminosity, detector solid angle and efficiency should eventual¬ly allow for a much more detailed search than so far possible. In any case, this review limits itself to hadronic phenomena only.Google Scholar
- 5).U. Amaldi et al., Phys. Letters 44B, 112 (1973);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- U. Amaldi, Erice Lecture Notes (1973);Google Scholar
- S.R. Amendolia et al., Phys. Letters 44B, 119 (1973); Nuovo Cimento to be published;Google Scholar
- G. Belletini, Rencontres de Moriond. (1973).Google Scholar
- 6).G. Giacomelli, Rapporteur’s talk, proceedings of the Batavia-Chicago Conference, Vol. 3, 219 (1973), edited by J.D. Jackson and A. Roberts.Google Scholar
- 7).For a review of the implications of unitarity, causality used together with extremely general properties such as the short-range nature of strong interactions, see S.M. Roy, Physics Reports 5C, 1125 (1972). This includes the well-known Froissart bound according to which a(E) cannot rise faster than log2E, asymptotically.Google Scholar
- 8).Explicit models actually meet the Froissart bound. This is in particular the case of the Cheng and Wu model. H. Cheng and T.T. Wu, Phys. Rev. Letters 24, 1456 (1970) and related papers. The model is based on an electrodynamic analogy. For a detailed fit, see, H. Cheng, J. Walker and T.T. Wu, to be published.Google Scholar
- 9).This is most generally expected in the framework of the Gribov Reggeon calculus. See: A. Tavkhelidze, Rapporteur’s talk, Kiev Conference (1971); K.A. Ter Martirosyan, JETP 11, 45 (1970).Google Scholar
- 10).We will refer to as NAL energies the 100–400 GeV energy range.Google Scholar
- 11).J. Benecke; T.T. Chan, C.N. Yang and E. Yen, Phys. Rev. 188, 159 ( 1969 ); C.N. Yang, “High Energy Collisions”, Gordon and Breach Publ., New York (1969).Google Scholar
- 12).R.P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. Letters 23, 1415 (1969) and “High Energy Collisions”, cp. cit.Google Scholar
- 13).K. Wilson, Acta Physica Austriaca 17, 37 (1963).Google Scholar
- 14).A.H. Mueller, Phys. Rev. D2, 2963 (1970). This is being discus¬sed by K. Kajantie and by R. Muradyan, Ebeltoft School Pro¬ceedings.Google Scholar
- 15).The elastic cross-section is 20% of the total cross-section and single diffractive excitation corresponds to a cross-section about as large as ael. But probably a little smaller.Google Scholar
- 16).A. Wroblewski, Rapporteur’s talk, Kiev Conference (1970);Google Scholar
- M. Deutschmann, Rapporteur’s talk, Amsterdam Conference (1971); H. Satz, ibid;Google Scholar
- M. Jacob, Rapporteur’s talk, Batavia-Chicago Conference (1972);Google Scholar
- D.R.O. Morrison, Proceedings of the Oxford Conference (1972);Google Scholar
- H.M. Chan, ibid., and CERN School (1972);Google Scholar
- J. Sens, Proceedings of the Oxford Confernece (1972), and meeting of the New York Academy of Sciences (1973).Google Scholar
- 17).L. Van Hove, Physics Reports 1C, 347 (1971);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- D. Horn, Physics Reports 4C, 1 (1972);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- W.R. Frazer et al., Revs. Modern Phys. 44, 284 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- F.L. Feinberg, Physics Reports 5C, 237 (1972);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- For a summary of the present review, one may see:Google Scholar
- M. Jacob, Physics at the ISR, a Review of Recent Results, CERN preprint TH. 1639 (1973). “Feldo and quanta”, to be published the key features of the multi-exchange picture often quoted here should be traced back to D. Amati et al, Nuovo Cimento 26, 896 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18).The topics covered have been the following: Correlation at wide angle 1; large transverse momentum phenomena 2; scaling and the approach to scaling 3; two-body correlations and associated multiplicity 4; diffraction excitation 5; elastic scattering and total cross-section 6.Google Scholar
- 19).As a tentative guide to the partly preprint literature which is available, as well as to forthcoming publications; one may list under each topics the ISR collaborations which have relevant data in final or preliminary form. They should be contracted for further information when it is available. The acrostics thus introduced will be used throughout. Elastic scattering and total cross-section (Section 2) CERN-Rome (CR), Pisa-Stony Brook (PSB), Aachen-CERN Genova-Harvard-Turino (ACGHT). Scaling and the approach to scaling (Section 3) CERN-Holland-Lancaster-Manchester (CHLM), CERN-Bologna (formally including Argone) (CB), PSB, ACGHT, Saclay Strasbourg (SS), British-Scandinavian (BS), the latter two at wide angle (slow centre-of-mass secondaries). Diffractive excitation (Section 4) CHLM, ACGHT, PSB. Correlations (Section 5) PSB, CERN-Hamburg-Vienna (CHV), CHLM, CERN-Columbia¬Rockefeller (CCR), the latter one in connection with large pT secondaries. Large transverse momentum phenomena (Section 6) CCR, SS, BS, PSB.Google Scholar
- 20).This corresponds to an isotropic decay of the cluster, with associated multiplicity increasing linearly with the cluster mass M (fixed and#x003C;pTand#x003E;). However, if one associates the cluster with the decay products of an excited hadron, this primary state should generally be produced in an aligned configuration with high spin (high mass) and low helicity. The corresponding secondaries should then show an asymmetry resulting from an¬gular momentum conservation with and#x003C;pLand#x003E; and#x003E; and#x003C;pTand#x003E; when both are measured in the cluster rest frame. The rapidity domain on which the decay products are expected to scatter will there¬fore increase with increasing mass. As a result, the associa¬ted multiplicity will increase more slowly than linearly with M at large M. Our choice of two units for the minimal cluster size is therefore a very conservative one. It maximizes the secondary density.Google Scholar
- 21).This has not been possible so far. The split field magnet facility which is being installed on one of the intersection regions should allow such a type of analysis for the first time.Google Scholar
- 22).NAL-ANL Collaboration. J. Whitmore, private communication, and invited paper Vanderbilt Conference (1973).Google Scholar
- 23).G. Barbiellini et al. (ACGHT), Phys. Letters B39, 663 (1972);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- G. Barbiellini B35, 355, 361 (1971). See also, G. Giacomelli, Ref. 6 ).Google Scholar
- 24).V. Bartenev et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 29, 1755 (1972);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R.L. Cool, Proceedings of the Royal Society, to be published (1973).Google Scholar
- 25).G.G. Beznogikh at al., Phys. Letters 30B, 274 (1969)Google Scholar
- JINR preprint E1–6615 (1972).Google Scholar
- 26).U. Amaldi et al., Phys. Letters 43E, 231 (1973); 36B, 504 (1971).Google Scholar
- 27).The exponential fit to the low It! data neglects any spin flip effects. They are thus assumed to be negligible but a more detailed analysis should also introduce them. Recent fits also assume that p does not vary appreciably with t in the interference range. For Coulomb effect, consult: B. West and D.R. Yennie, Phys. Rev. 172, 1413 (1968).Google Scholar
- 28).A. Wu Chao and C.N. Yang, Stony Brook preprint (1973);Google Scholar
- T.T. Chou and C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 170, 1591 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29).This minimum is very different in nature from those observed at typical PS energies in Grp or K-p scattering and which are associated with the interference of secondary Regge tra¬jectory exchange. In pp (and Op) scattering, a featureless diffractive peak should develop a minimum with increasing energy, whereas in 7-p (and K-p) scattering the clear minimum at t=-0.6 seen as PS energy should first gradually disappear, while a diffraction minimum at higher It! would appear.Google Scholar
- 30).The first zero of the amplitude is then put in correspondence with the first zero of J1 (RA). (One has to integrate over the nonflip eikonal amplitudes which are proportional to Jo(rVTt).) We are therefore facing a typical distance of 0.5 fermi.Google Scholar
- 31).K. Kajantie, Proceedings of the CERN-JINR School (1973). For a review of Regge models and duality, see, M. Jacob, Brandeis Lecture Notes (1970), Vol. II.Google Scholar
- 32).N.N. Khuri and T. Kinoshita, Phys. Rev. 1376, 720 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33).For a comprehensive review of present key questions, see: A. Martin, Proceedings of the Royal Society, to be published (1973), CERN preprint TH. 1650 (1973).Google Scholar
- 34).J. Fischer and C. Bourrely, CERN preprint TH. 1652 (1973). J. Diddens and W. Bartel, CERN preprint NP (1973).Google Scholar
- 35).In terms of J plane singularity a loges increase of atot corresponds to a branch point at J=1 with a higher singulari¬ty tan a pole ((J-1)2 corresponds to log s ...). A (log s)-1 approach to an asymptotic value is generally associated with a logarithmic branch point at J=1. See, F. Zachariasen, Models with growing cross-sections, Caltech preprint (1973).Google Scholar
- 36).A behaviour of the type imposed by a fixed pole and its shiel¬ding cut deviced in order to avoid the Gribov paradox would also give a rising cross-section (for a while) and a slope parameter approaching a constant. The question of fixed pole has been discussed by R. Oehme.Google Scholar
- 37).R.J. Eden, Phys. Rev. Letters 16, 39 (1966);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- T. Kinoshita, Perspectives in Modern Physics, Interscience Publ. New York (1966).Google Scholar
- 38).L. Lukaszuk and A. Martin, Nuovo Cimento 52A, 122 (1966).Google Scholar
- 39).J. Whitmore, Invited paper, Vanderbilt Conference (1973), and references therein.Google Scholar
- The Brookhaven energy results are from R. Panvini et al. For a review of the NAL track chamber results, see:Google Scholar
- J. Whitmore, Physics Reports, in preparation.Google Scholar
- 40).S. Fubini, Scottish Universities Summer School (1963), and references therein.Google Scholar
- F. Zachariasen and G. Zweig, Phys. Rev. 160, 1322, 1326 (1967). For a review:Google Scholar
- M. Jacob, Les Houches Lecture Notes (1971).Google Scholar
- 41).F.Zachariasen, Physics Reports 2C, 1 (1971), and references therein.Google Scholar
- 42).Even at ISR we may casually speak about beam and target par¬ticles even though the situation is experimentally symmetri¬cal (it is always the case in the cetnre-of-mass system). With rapidity distribution switching from the laboratory to the centre-of-mass system amounts merely to a translation.Google Scholar
- 43).A.H. Mueller, Proceedings of the Batavia-Chicago Conference (1972);Google Scholar
- Ed. Berger et al., Phys. Rev. D9, 2580 (1972).Google Scholar
- 44).The same applies to statistical and thermodynamical models. They give scaling distribution for the very same reason. For a review: K. Gottfried, CERN Academic Training Lectures (1973).Google Scholar
- 45).T.T. Chou and C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. Letters 25, 1072 (1970);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- For a review: L. Caneschi, Ref. 18. 3 ).Google Scholar
- CHLM Collaboration, J. Albrow et al., Nuclear Phys. 51B, 388 (1973);Google Scholar
- CHLM Collaboration, J. Albrow et al., Phys. Letters 44B, 207 (1973)Google Scholar
- CHLM Collaboration, J. Albrow et al., 44B, 518 (1973).Google Scholar
- The last papers contain data relevant to Section 5. CHLMGoogle Scholar
- Preprints (1973).Google Scholar
- CB Collaboration, A. Bertin et al., Phys. Letters 41B, 201 (1972). CB Preprints (1973).Google Scholar
- 48).R.J. Eden, P.V. Landshoff, D.I. Olive and J.C. Polkinghorne, “The Analytic S Matrix”, Cambridge (1966).Google Scholar
- 49).A leading Pomeranchon trajectory with intercept one gives constant cross-section asymptotically. Scaling cannot there¬fore be considered as a priori more reliable than the appro¬ximation of a constant cross-section which remains a good approximation (10%) on a tremendous energy range 20–2000 GeV ! It is the more so impressive that most partial cross-sections for exclusive channels show strong variations with energy. f/a could still reach a limiting value but there is at pre¬sent no compelling theoretical reasons for it if a rises. The behaviour of multiplicity distributions will not be discussed here. See Refs 17), 18) and 19) and in particularGoogle Scholar
- Z. Koba, Ebeltoft Proceedings (1973). Section 5 can be con¬sidered as an introduction to Koba’s lectures.Google Scholar
- 50).M. Jacob and R. Slansky, Phys. Rev. D5, 1847 (1972);Google Scholar
- M. Jacob, R. Slansky and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. 09, 2444 (1972).Google Scholar
- 51).M. Jacob, Invited paper, Argonne Conference (1972).Google Scholar
- 52).M. Einhorn, Contribution to the Batavia-Chicago Conference (1972).Google Scholar
- 53).An isolated pole at 3=1 is only an approximation. One may well try to test scaling or factorization to better than 10% but one should not be surprised if they fail at such an accuracy level. A 10% accuracy over such a wide energy range remains impressive.Google Scholar
- Saclay-Strasbourg Collaboration, M. Banner et al. Phys. Letters 41E, 547 (1972);Google Scholar
- Saclay-Strasbourg Collaboration, M. Banner et al. Phys. Letters 44B, 537 (1973). SS Preprints (1973).Google Scholar
- 55).For a review of fragmentation models, see Refs. 17), 18), and: J.M. Wang, Zakopane Conference (1972);Google Scholar
- Ed. Berger, Oxford Conference (1972).Google Scholar
- The empirical validity of the key assumptions on an extended though limited energy range is discussed in Ref. 50).Google Scholar
- 56).A fragmentation model in its most simple form, namely isotro¬pic decay of excited hadronic states with constant production cross-section is now certainly incorrect. It does not mean though that it cannot be used to parametrize reasonably well important effects and thus achieve some predictive value. To the extent that its including leading particle effects gives a good description of the initial rise of higher multiplicity cross-sections with increasing energy and to the extent that their eventual decrease is not obvious experimentally until one reaches at least 100 GeV, it could thus be used at predic¬ting (see Refs. 43) and 50)) correctly the rise of the inclu¬sive distribution at x=0 (almost a factor 2 from PS to NAL energies) and the widening of the multiplicity distribution (important rise of f2 from PS to NAL energies). The corres¬ponding approximations can a posteriori be introduced in a multiperipheral calculation which, provided it also includes some clustering among slow centre-of-mass secondaries, is certainly more amenable to the description of the observed effects at ISR energies. However, as stressed in Ref. 50), a rapidity interval of 4, as available at PS energy is not enough to see anything but simple fragmentation at the single and even two particle level.Google Scholar
- 57).British-Scandinavian Collaboration, H. Boggild et al., Pre¬prints (1973).Google Scholar
- 58).P. Carruthers, Cornell Preprints (1973).Google Scholar
- 59).R. Slansky, Invited paper, Meeting of the New York Academy of Sciences (1973), and Physics Reports, in preparation. Clustering effects have been extensively discussed phenomeno¬logically by Ed. Berger and G. Fox, Preprints ( 1972, 73 ).Google Scholar
- 60).L. Van Hove, Ref. 17), and F. Zachariasen, Ref. 41). See also, L. Van Hove, Ref. 18. 5 ).Google Scholar
- 61).For any particular excitation mass, one thus minimizes momen¬tum transfer and maximizes the rapidity gap between the quasi-elastically scattered proton and the remainder secondaries. This enforces the Pomeranchon exchange approximation (diffrac¬tion) in the production amplitude.Google Scholar
- 62).R. Slansky, Invited paper APS Meeting, Washington (1972). With wider acceptance small angle sectrometers or the SFM, one will also be able to study double excitation, looking at a forward well-isolated pTr+7r-system. A detailed analysis of A++ production is the first experimental step (ACGHT-UCLA).Google Scholar
- 63).For obvious geometrical reasons such distributions could not yet be obtained at very low It or pT, when it would be extremely interesting to have the corresponding data. Experi¬mentation with unequal momenta should help (CHLM) with present angular limitations.Google Scholar
- 64).Such a statement should be supported by a better resolution. It is very important to know whether those resonances which are diffractively produced at PS energies are still produced with similar cross-sections at ISR energies. The first N# are all dumped into the first bin in Fig. 13a. Study of exclusive channels in the SFM will be very interesting (CHOV and Prince¬ton-Pavia).Google Scholar
- 65).H. Abarbanel et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 26, 937 (1971);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R.D. Peccei et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 26, 1076 (1971);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- P. Chliapnikov et al., Phys. Letters 35B, 581 (1971).Google Scholar
- 66).P.V. Landshoff and J.C. Polkinghorne, Physics Reports 5C, 1 (1972); C. De Tar, Physics Reports, in preparation;Google Scholar
- S.D. Ellis et al., Phys. Rev. D6, 1347 (1972);Google Scholar
- A.B. Kaidalov et al., Leningrad Preprint (1973).Google Scholar
- 67).F. Sannes et al., Rutgers Preprint (1973), and Vanderbilt Conference (1973);Google Scholar
- R. Pagnamenta, private communication.Google Scholar
- One finds a similar approach to scaling in the fragmentation region (x=0.8) and in the “dip” at x = 0.9 between the fall of the fragmentation component and the rise of the quasi-elastic contribution.Google Scholar
- 68).F.T. Dao et al., Contribution to the APS meeting, New York and Vanderbilt Conference (1973);Google Scholar
- P. Schlein, to be published, and Ref. 18.5).Google Scholar
- 69).The absolute value of the associated multiplicity should probably be further corrected for electron contamination (the quoted results are preliminary). The relative values are, however, meaningful and most valuable.Google Scholar
- 70).The features mentioned here still correspond to very preli¬minary results, Refs. 18.4). They are listed as provocative statements for a more extensive analysis. The Pisa-Stony¬Brook Collaboration should be consulted for any more detailed information.Google Scholar
- 71).See proposals form the Princeton-Pavia and CERN-Hamburg-Orsay¬Vienna Collaborations: pp - pp7+r-and pp7+Tr-e7- reactions.Google Scholar
- 72).C. Quigg, Invited talk, Vanderbilt Conference (1973); A. Mueller, Summary of the Discussion Session on ParticleGoogle Scholar
- Production, Chicago-Batavia Conference (1972); See also Ref. 18) (1 and 4).Google Scholar
- 73).This is done for one further, temporary reason. Observing charged secondaries, it is still difficult to separate actual pions from the electrons which they knock off the walls. This increases the single aprticle yield by a spurious factor which should cancel out, however, to a large extent, in (5.3). The observed secondaries are far apart enough so that one may consider globally each pion with its “associated” electrons, without being fooled by pion-electron correlations (cross talk between counters).Google Scholar
- 74).K. Wilson, Cornell Preprint (1971);Google Scholar
- R. Arnold, Argonne Preprints (1972);Google Scholar
- R. Arnold and D. Campbell, Revs. Modern Phys., to be published.Google Scholar
- CHV Collaboration, K. Winter et al. Preprint (1973). See also Ref. 18.4).Google Scholar
- 76).Z. Koba, CERN-JINR School lecture notes (1973). See also Ref. 16) (Batavia Conference), and Ref. 72 ). J.D. Jackson, Invited paper Vanderbilt Conference (1973).Google Scholar
- 77).For the detailed analysis of correlation in a multiperipheral and diffraction model, see:Google Scholar
- W. Frazer, La Jolla Preprints (1973).Google Scholar
- 78).J. Finkelstein, Columbia Preprint (1973); J. Ellis, J. Finkelstein and R. Peccei, SLAC Preprint (1972).Google Scholar
- 79).This point of view has been emphasized in:Google Scholar
- M. Jacob, “Two Topical Questions at ISR Energy”, Comments, to be published (1973).Google Scholar
- 80).The CERN-Munich streamer chamber and the BS-Orsay-MIT, SFM experiment should clarify these questions.Google Scholar
- 81).One should not undermine the fact that at present the best reliable correlation data show an increase of the single par¬ticle yield (inclusive distribution) which is much more than what is reported by experiments using spectrometers (BS and SS). As already discussed, the observed multiplicity is pro¬bably too high. However, such effects disappear to a large extent when one calculates R. Focusing on R, discrepancies notwithstanding, is probably the correct attitude to follow and this is what is done here anyway. Nevertheless, one cannot consider the situation as satisfactorily settled before correlations are measured in experiments which fully agree with single arm spectrometer results. The same remark applies to the data shown in Fig. 21b. The magnificent sca¬ling seen in the central region should be considered keeping in mind the much different behaviour found in the typical fragmentation region. As illustrated by Fig. 19, limiting fragmentation should be a reliable picture and a simple relation among the distributions should be found.Google Scholar
- 82).One should keep in mind that, within the same approximation, ael vanishes asymptotically.Google Scholar
- 83).Such a behaviour is quite compatible with the data shown in Fig. 21. However, as discussed in Section 5d, one should not already conclude that an expected Regge behaviour has been found. The Mueller formalism is indeed not very well suited to small Ay where the approximation of a leading secondary trajectory disappears. See Ref. 72).Google Scholar
- 84).In a multiexchange model, this would correspond to a large rapidity gap (lyC-y0l » 1), hence to a good Reggeon exchange approximation. We may therefore consider this as a dual effect.Google Scholar
- 85).M. Jacob and J. Weyers, Nuovo Cimento 70, 285 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 86).A 90° double arm spectrometer experiment is now set up (SS¬CCR).Google Scholar
- 87).P. Pirilä and S. Pokorski, CERN Preprints (1972, 1973). See also:Google Scholar
- A. Morel and F. Hayot, Saclay Preprint (1973);Google Scholar
- W. Schmidt Parzefall, Preprint (1973).Google Scholar
- 88).J.D. Jackson and C. Quigg, NAL Preprint (1972), and Ref. 77);Google Scholar
- F. Fialkowski and H.I. Miettinen, Phys. Letters 43B, 61 (1973);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- L. Van Hove, Phys. Letters 43B, 65 (1973);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- H. Harari et al., Phys. Letters 43B, 49 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 89).The pl. correlation at small x appears to be particularly strong. Even though the proton yield is small, pr correlations may not be negligible among charged-charged correlations at wide angle. There is a great interest in the study of those cases where the proton is produced with x=0 and in particular since the pp ratio is still 2. Results from the SFM, the SS double arm spectrometer and NAL should be interesting in that respect. In words, it would be important to know how a nucleon can be practically “brought to rest” in an ISR collision.Google Scholar
- 90).Correlation results such as those seen in Fig. 21 are then interpreted as the sum of two terms. One distinguishes a flat top contribution (at the 30% level, say) corresponding to long-range effects and extending over the rapidity plateau (about 4 units across) and a slightly narrower short-range effect (2 to 3 units across) which is associated with the clustering among pions proper. One may then not yet attach too much importance to the actual shape of R even though it matches what is predicted in the Mueller formalism which would asymptotically include short-range effects only. With increasing energy, one may expect short-range and long-range effects to show different specific width (a 3 unit width spike on a flat plateau, say). It is an amusing feature that ISR energies are such that the two effects match so well to each other. See also Ref. 72). As stressed in Ref. 79), separating the two effects requires a model calculation. Which belongs to which exactly is still an open question.Google Scholar
- 91).G. Giacomelli, CB Collaboration, private communication.Google Scholar
- 92).See Refs. 18) and 19) (CB, BS, SS and CHLM).Google Scholar
- 93).It is even remarkable that the pT distribution varies so weakly even as one goes from fragmentation pions to pioni¬zation pions or as one considers it for different multipli¬cities. The proton pT distribution could a priori show a stronger variation, slowly increasing with multiplicity at any given energy.Google Scholar
- 94).F. Gilman, Physics Reports 4C, 95 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 95).S. Berman, J. Bjorken and J. Kogut, Phys. Rev. 04, 3388 (1971);Google Scholar
- J. Kogut and D. Susskind, Physics Reports, to be published.Google Scholar
- 96).F. Low and S. Treiman, Phys. Rev. D5, 756 (1972).Google Scholar
- 97).See Refs. 18) and 19) (CCR). With an increase in luminosity which can be rightfully expected or (and) an increase in detection efficiency (large solid angle detector) lepton search should be eventually successful. The question of neutral currents gives an extraordinary interest to lepton pair search.Google Scholar
- 98).Data on large transverse momentum phenomena (inclusive yields) have been obtained by the CCR, SS and BS Collaborations. They were first presented at the Batavia Conference. For a com¬prehensive review, see Ref. 18. 2 ).Google Scholar
- 99).B.J. Blumenfeld et al., Contribution to the APS Meeting, New York (1973).Google Scholar
- 100).M. Banner et al., Phys. Letters 44B, 537 (1973); Ref. 18.4) and SS Preprints (1973).Google Scholar
- 101).The lack of scaling of the large transverse momentum Tr° distribution reported by the CCR Collaboration at the Batavia Conference would exaggerate somewhat the actual effect. As discussed in Ref. 99), the trigger then used in this experi¬ment cannot be considered as actually inclusive. Requiring fast particles on both sides is a bias against events with large transverse momentum secondaries and the more so the lower the energy is. The SS Collaobration (Fig. 24b) used no extra trigger since its set-up was much less sensitive to background beam gas collisions.Google Scholar
- 102).M. Jacob, “The Question of Early Scaling”, Argonne Conference (1972).Google Scholar
- 103).T.T. Wu and C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 137, B708 (1965); H. Abarbanel et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 20, 280 (1968); Phys. Rev. 177, 2458 (1969).Google Scholar
- 104).M. Jacob and S. Berman, Phys. Rev. Letters 25, 1683 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 105).For a review of the parton picture, see: R.P. Feynman, Benjamin Lecture series (1973);Google Scholar
- J. Kogut and D. Susskind, Physics Reports, to be published; V. Matveev, Ebeltoft Proceedings (1973), and references therein.Google Scholar
- 106).The low pT component would be due to outer meson cloud effects (this of course includes resonance formation and multi-Reggeon exchange), while the large pT component would correspond to the inner (practically pointlike) structure apparently present within the proton. As already stressed there is, however, no clear cut separation between two compo¬nents.Google Scholar
- 107).P.V. Landshoff and J. Polkinghorne, Cambridge DAMTP Preprints (1972 and 1973 ).Google Scholar
- 108).R. Blankenbecler et al., Phys. Letters 42B, 461 (1972); SLAG Preprints (1972 and 1973 ).Google Scholar
- 109).A large transverse momentum secondary is now required as a trigger in several recent proposals (SS-CCR, CERN-Munich Streamer Chamber and CERN-Munich SFM).Google Scholar
- 110).In the rest frame of particle B, y is the energy received times twice mB when A scatters into C.Google Scholar
- 111).D. Amati, L. Caneschi and M. Testa, CERN Preprint (1972).Google Scholar
- 112).We already emphasized the importance of threshold effects which should be mixed up with more interesting (partonlike) dynamical effects. This should be kept in mind when analyzing data in terms of a specific S dependence at fixed pT in order to determine n in (6.7). At present, one should probably put more weight on qualitative effect (charge effect, particle ratio, associated multiplicity) rather than on a specific fit to the inclusive distribution.Google Scholar
- 113).For a specific model calculation, see, for instance: Ed. Berger and D. Branson, CERN Preprint (1973).Google Scholar
- British-Scandinavian Collaboration, B. Alper et al., Phys. Letters 44B, 521, 527 (1973), and Preprints (1973); H. Boggild, Private communication.Google Scholar
- 115).One should watch out for new results from the BS and SS Collaborations.Google Scholar
- 116).It is definitely too early to report specific results. Ref. 18.4) can be consulted for more details. One should now watch out for new results from the PSB and CCR Collaboration but also from CERN-Munich.Google Scholar
- 117).At least two new experiments will use a large pTy as a trigger. The associated multiplicity will first be analyzed in the streamer chamber (CERN-Munich) and next in the split field magnet. A detailed picture should then be obtained through these “second generation” experiments. At the same time, observation of the large pT inclusive distribution at NAL, and later on, some detailed analysis of the correspon¬ding final states, will be very interesting.Google Scholar
- 118).CCR Collaboration, Proceedings of the Vanderbilt Conference (1973).Google Scholar
- 119).Separating arbitrarily as a “jet”, particles of similar rapi¬dities with 0.6 and#x003C; pT and#x003C; 6 GeV/c, say, one may expect a typical 0.4 GeV/c transverse momentum spread measured with respect to the mean jet direction. This gives a rather wide opening angle. A small aperture detector would therefore be too selective or too sensitive to large pT secondaries with simi¬lar momenta only. This may be a relative minority within the jetGoogle Scholar
- 120).J. Benecke et al., Nuovo Cimento A7, 311 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- P. Carruthers, Physics Reports 1C, 1 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar