INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FORstreaming.ictp.it/preprints/P/70/058.pdf · INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR...
Transcript of INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FORstreaming.ictp.it/preprints/P/70/058.pdf · INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR...
IC/70/58
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FORTHEORETICAL PHYSICS
THE ROLE OP FORM FACTORS
IN HADRON RESONANCES
A.N. MITRA
INTERNATIONAL
ATOMIC ENERGYAGENCY
UNITED NATIONSEDUCATIONAL.
SCIENTIFICAND CULTURALORGANIZATION 1970 MIRAMARE-TRIESTE
IC/70/58
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
and
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS
THE ROLE OP FORM FACTORS
IN HADRON RESONANCES *
A.N. MITRA **
MIRAMARE - TRIESTE
July 1970
* To be submitted for publication.
* * Summer visitor to ICTP- Permanent addressi Dept. of Physics, University of Delhi, Delhi-7, India,
ABSTRACT
A phenomenological structure is proposed for the couplings of hadron
resonances to the 56 baryons and 36 me sons with a view to exploring the
possibilities of detailed dynamical applications of resonance data to several
other areas of particle physics where these have relevance. The group
structure used for hadron (H, HT ) classifications is that of SU(6) x O(3) ,
while the basic framework for a unified description of the HPHT andLi
HVHT interactions is provided by broken SU(3) x SU(3) , or partial sym-
metry, in conjunction with the language (not dynamics) of the quark model.
The coupling structures are expressed in terms of generalized Rarita-Schwinger fields and a Lorentz-invariant form factor (f ) for whose con-
Ij
struction a general set of criteria is proposed at the phenomenological level.
One explicit construction of the form x f satisfying the requirements of
crossing symmetry and consistent with Regge universality of the reduced
coupling constant (g ) together with a common form of parametrization forLi
BBT M and MM M couplings is obtained. The coupling struptures notLi LJ
only account satisfactorily for several "difficult" branching ratios in baryon
decays but also give i) the observed "transverse" angular distribution in
B -* UT decay and ii) a ratio (h' /h ) # 0. 57 of the helicity amplitudes for
A _» pur in rather good agreement with experiment. A PCAC relationbetween the A-.pT and pvir coupling constants which is derivable in a simple
way within this framework is found to be in very good agreement with the
value of the meson (L = 1} supermultiplet coupling constant g. determined
from the tensor meson decays.
The mathematics of an explicit application of the model, viz., u-channel
T -p scattering through the exchange of A-resonances in the spirit of the
Van Hove model, is worked out in some detail to bring out the practical applic-
ability of the model, especially in the intermediate energy region. Several
other applications, viz., ranging from photo- and electroproduction of re-
sonances to their effects on electromagnetic mass differences in hadrons,
are discussed with special reference to the role of the form factor.
- 1 -
I. INTRODUCTION
In spite of the discoveries of FESR [ 1] , duality [1, 2] and the
Veneziano model [3] , the interaction between theory and experiment in
the domain of resonance physics, apart from some notable exceptions [4] ,
seems to have been much weaker than, for example, in the realm of Regge
phenomenology [2, 5, 6] where various forms of parametrization for the
purpose of fitting high-energy data \ 7] have acquired a certain amount of
credibility, from the point of view of theory. The developments of the
idea of duality have taken on a very different course. Its theoretical base
has been expanding at a considerable rate through impressive sophistications
of the Veneziano model, successively through the stages of multi- Veneziano
structures [8] , duality diagrams [9] , operator formalism [10] , functional
methods [11], and so on. However, a corresponding degree of enthusiasm
for trying its validity at a more phenomenological level, through a more
detailed use of the resonance data,seems to be lacking. Thus the original
FESR spirit, viz. , the correlation of data in the (low-energy) resonance
region (s-channel) with those in the (high-energy) Regge region (t-channel)
in a quantitative fashion at the phenomenological level got largely buried
under the fast developments that followed. A similar fate also befell the
Van Hove model [12] whose strong similarity to the language of field theory
would make it a particularly attractive tool for the correlation of data in the
resonance region to those in the high-energy region, provided that the form
factors appearing in this model could be more closely related to the re-
sonance data. As things stand, this model never received more than formal
mathematical attention in the literature [13] , though its physical possibilities
would appear to be more substantial.
Development of resonance physics during the years has taken place
more or less independently of the main stream of high-energy physics. The
predictive powers of the dual models have been put to little quantitative use
in this regard except for the empirical fact of straight-line trajectories for
the resonances. At the experimental level [14] , the data have generally
been analysed in terms of phase space and SU(3) structures [15] , though in
more recent times experimentalists are showing greater awareness of the
role of centrifugal barrier factors [16] . From the point of view of theory,
- 2 -
moat investigations have been in the nature of i) classification according to
group theory [17] and ii) study of decay widths mainly for the purpose of
checking on the consistency of the assigned group structures [18] ,
Extensive calculations on these lines are available at the levels of the
SU{6) x O(3) quark model [19, 20] and more formal groups such as O(3, 1)
and 0(4, 2) with greater predictive powers [21, 22] . However, there is
little evidence so far in these attempts to show enough practical enthusiasm
for seeking more dynamical manifestations of the resonance data when
these are continued off the mass shell. The applications of the Veneziano
model which formally offers such scope,have so far been limited mostly
to purely mesonic processes, presumably because of its formal difficulties
with baryonic processes [24] .
We believe that the data from resonance physics, especially for baryons,
offer considerable scope for dynamical manifestation in the unphysical regions
through a fuller utilization of their coupling structures to the more familiar
hadrons. Unfortunately, at the present stage, the absence of a fully accept-
able theory necessitates the use of a certain degree of phenomenology.
However, we see little reason for objection to such a procedure in principle,
when we remember that many of the interesting predictions of the Regge
theory are based on a generous degree of parametrization [7] . The analogous
point of view at the domain of resonance physics would be to advocate greater
utilization of the "form factors" in the couplings of resonances to the £6
baryons (B and B*) and 36 mesons (P and V) , which must be given
suitable parametrizations within a well-defined framework and certain broad
guide-lines for their construction. (This has an obvious analogy in the
domain of nuclear physics, where potentials are fitted to the two-body phase
shifts, or prescriptions are given for continuing the T- matrix off
the energy shell, ostensibly for the purpose of application to three or many-
body problems.) The simplest language in this case is that of effective
Lagrangians with Lorentz-invariant structures. It is also possible to formu-
late broad guide-lines for • constructing the form factors at the pheno-
menological level without the immediate necessity of going into the sophistic-
ated framework of chiral lagrangian theories [25] with all their theoretical
implications. Now the idea of evaluating low-energy data starting from
- 3 -
parametrizations at the "Regge" end is not new. In more recent times
there have been interesting attempts to utilize the Khuri-Jones represent-
ation in the high-energy TT-N Regge amplitude to calculate the energy
dependence of the P. and S phase shifts, with considerable
success [26] . We are, in a sense, proposing to "reverse" this direction
of parametrization, viz., to start from the level of resonance physics by
mtroducingjconvenient structure for the form factors based on simple guide-
lines and then look for their off-shell manifestations in suitable areas in-
cluding the high-energy region.
For construction of the couplings we make the simplest assumpt-
ions on the group structures, viz. , that the baryons are given by the re-
presentations (56, even"**) and (70, odd") of the group SU(6) x O(3) [27] , together
with their radial excitations [28] , while the mesons are given by nonetC + +
structures [29] for each of J = (L±l) , L and L . The coupling
scheme, on the other hand, is conveniently expressed in the framework of
broken SU(3) iS SU(3) symmetry [30-33] . Unfortunately, the correlative
powers of such a symmetry are not strong enough for quantitative application
to resonance physics unless supplemented by additional assumptions. It
has also been suggested [34] that the violation of the Goldberger-Treiman
relations, especially for matrix elements of the currents between opposite
parity states, may be so large as to invalidate the practical usefulness of
the method. Additional assumptions may, for example, bear on the manner
of saturation of the algebra of SU(3) x SU(3) by suitable hadron states. One
such attempt has been made recently [35] with a certain amount of success,
but the essential point is that the correlative powers of any such theory are
limited to at least one parameter for a supermultiplet transition, in contrast
to a more detailed theory, possibly with non-compact group features.
We take a more pedagogical point of view in this respect. While keep-
ing the general framework of chiral SU(3) x SU(3) for the basis of coupling
structures we use the language of the quark model for their explicit construct-
ion. This construction is greatly facilitated by using a praticularly con-
venient formulation of (presumably) the same symmetry, outlined by
Schwinger 136],who gives it the name of "partial symmetry". The philosophy
- 4 -
of "partial symmetry", as also that of the quark model, is largely im-
material for this purpose. In the Schwinger scheme, which is ideally
suited to the non-relativistic quark language, one arranges the positive
parity components of the vector (V) and axial-vector (A) fields in the
form of a meson matrix (M) in the space of spin and SU(3), the coefficients
of the different terms in M being so adjusted as to reproduce the correspond-
ing terms in their respective free Lagrangians with correct normalizations1 2
when one evaluates — Tr M . The matrix elements of the meson matrix,o
evaluated between appropriate hadron (H) states, readily yield the couplings
of V and A mesons (and hence also of P-mesons via PCAC) to the cor-
responding baryon (B) and meson (M) states. Thus one obtains couplingsof the types _
B(V, A, P) BT and M(V, A, P) MT
where B and M represent the higher baryon and meson supermultiplets
of SU(6) x O{3) . It should be emphasised that this method need not be re-
garded as more than a simple pedagogical device for obtaining the correct
geometrical factors associated with the various coupling terms and has
little dynamical content beyond what is implied by the broken symmetry.
The real dynamics resides in the form factors for which (though these are
formally expressible in the quark model as the overlap integrals between the
spatial parts of the initial and final wave functions) we see no way to an ex-
plicit evaluation within the model without more detailed assumptions, such
as harmonic oscillator functions [37] , These quantities will be parametrized
directly in terms of certain general principles, without any reference to the
quark model.
For some time we have been trying to develop a coupling scheme of
the type outlined above [38-40] . It is built within the framework of multiple-
index tensor and Rarita-Schwinger fields, involving multiple derivatives.
Such structures,which were developed in the 'fifties [41],have been extensively
used in various connections, e. g., the electroproduction of resonances [42]
and the mathematical treatment of the Van Hove model [13] , The additional
feature that we wish to emphasise in our approach is the appearance of a
multiplying form factor which can be formally expressed in a Lorentz-
invariant manner and carries the main load of dynamics. Various criteria
-5-
can be used for its construction. For example, in the Veneziano modelit has a strong dependence on _J (or Jj) and hence on the mass of the re-
2sonance (via the linear relation MT = aL + b), but the predictions on the
Li
decay widths are not only qualitative 143] but seem to leave considerable
scope for parametrization. A more promising form (especially for applic-
ations off the mass shell involving integrations over virtual momenta) is
provided by the lessons of non-compact group theories [21] which have a
built-in mechanism for "toning down" the effect of strong momentum de-
pendence implicit in the multiple-derivative tensorial couplings. We have
found it convenient to adopt the latter point of view in conjunction with the
desirable requirement of "Regge universality" in the coupling structures,
manifested in the near equality of the "reduced" coupling constants multi-
plying the form factors. This last will not happen in general with any shape
of the form factor, but one which has this feature would naturally be preferred.
Indeed one such structure, exhibiting Regge universality for the A -reson-
ances,was found in the earlier treatment which,moreover, seemed to give
a fair amount of agreement with the data on decay widths of baryons [44]
and mesons [45] under a common form of parametrization for both.
This last feature may well be more general than its realization through
a particular empirical construction might suggest, so in this paper we wish
to examine somewhat more closely the problem of construction of the form
factor at the phenomenological level, by extending the guide-line to include
some additional requirements such as crossing symmetry in the momenta,
and reasonable simplicity of structure (consistent with fits to the data).
These points,which did not find any explicit emphasis in the earlier treat-
ments, are especially important for applications off the mass shell,which
represents the main theme of this paper. We shall therefore take the
opportunity in this paper to re-examine the earlier form of parametrization
in the light of extended guide-lines and see if some alternative structures
are also consistent with the data.
This paper has a two-fold objective: i) to discuss a more general set
of criteria for the construction of phenomenological form factors and ii) to
indicate the possibilities of application in several areas involving their off-
shell aspects. One such explicit construction for the form factors which
- 6 -
provides a reasonable description of the decay data will be given, and the
mathematics of an explicit application with this framework, viz. , the
Van Hove model for the u-channel ff-p scattering;will be described. The
scope for several other applications (including the nature of certain results
already obtained) will also be briefly indicated. However, no attempt will
be made in this paper towards either a detailed fit to the resonance decay
data or a detailed numerical analysis of the suggested applications, which
are best relegated to separate publications. Apart from this limitation,
the paper is designed to be a reasonably self-contained one with its emphasis
on the wide applicational aspect of the formalism as a practical means of
correlating the data on resonance physics with several other areas ranging
from intermediate to high energies, where resonances play a possible role.
In Sec. II we review the essential assumptions on our coupling scheme
developed earlier for BPB, and MPM. (without going into their mathe-
matical details), with a view to finding a more acceptable basis for their
rationalization, using some of the pertinent data from resonance physics.
Sec. Ill is devoted to the problem of constructing form factors in terms
of a list of several criteria which we consider desirable, partly from the
point of view of general theory and partly from the view point of possible
applications. One explicit construction is given and its predictions com-
pared with a small but selected list of some of the "more difficult" cases
among decay data. In particular, the new structure can account satisfactorily
for the experimental angular correlations in B -* WTT and A.-* P* decays,
as well as certain branching ratios in baryon decays which cannot be under-
stood in terms of SU(3) alone. The new form factor (fT)j which has aL
simple structure (/v x ) and is consistent with Regge universality for the
reduced coupling constant (g ), is employed in Sec. IV to make an exactLi
evaluation of TN scattering in the u-channel in the spirit of a Van Hove
model. Apart from the usual Regge features (including the "dip"-effects),
one now obtains an explicit structure for the residue function in terms of
the resonance parameters. The exact structure of the amplitude makes it
a convenient tool for application to the intermediate energy region. In
Sec. V we give an outline of the applications to electromagnetic interactions
through the VMD mechanism, and indicate the nature of some results al-
-7--
ready obtained (photoproduction of pions and the n-p mass difference).
Finally,Sec. VI is a summary of the possibilities and limitations of this
phenomenological approach.
II. A REASSESSMENT OF HADRON COUPLINGS
As the method of evaluation of these structures has been extensively
discussed elsewhere [20, 39] we shall not go into these details. The no-
tation is also the same as in earlier references, except that the vector
q. (or q J of Ref. 39 is relabelled as k. (or k J and an SU(3) general-
ization is made. Thus the M-matrix of Ref. 39 now reads:
8 r «, A- i
(2.1)
where the sets of indices (i, j , k , . . . ) , {ti,V,X,...) and (a, b, c , . . . ) stand
respectively for three-vector, four-vector and SU(3) labels^ and the euclidean
metric (A- B = A B = A* B + A , B . , A. = iAn) is used throughout. For
the P-meson terms in (2. 1) A are the usual Gell-Mann matrices• v ' a
(A = JTfTj). However, for the V-meson terms the notations A and A
will be concurrently used to stand for their w-like and ^-like counterparts
according to the ideal mixing angle, viz. ,
7L->\, = ° ' ° . \-»)u - V*
For transitions between Q states, the adjoint representations of the A-
matrices is necessary. The couplings of (2.1) to hadron states are given
by the matrix elements of the quark current
between appropriate QQQ or QQ states. The quantity f in (2. 3) is
inversely proportional to the PCAC constant f (f & f, * f ) for the cor-P "" is 'I
responding P-field <f> (x) defined by
- 8 -
•P ) <£pW, Sjr* - i r /v* > (2.4)
and is related to the NNT coupling constant G by
(2.5)
Let us restate some of our older prescriptions with a view to a better
re-appraisal in the light of the current experimental situation [14] which
seems to be much more confused than was the case even a year ago. In
this brief analysis we shall concentrate on some of the more pertinent
features of the data which have generally stood out, leaving the question of
detailed fits to a separate publication. The prescriptionsused in Refs. 20,
44 and 45 were the following:
A. A straightforward relativistic boosting from three-dimensional to
four-dimensional indices for both (L±l) wave couplings.
B. An additional prescription k> k -* k k to eliminate the extra threshold<- - n u
factor k-k appearing in the (L-l) wave terms.
C. A Van Royen-Weisskopf (V. W.) factor v#/m for transitions in-
volving the emission of a heavy meson (mass n) used as the radiation
quantum 146] .
D. A factor i/M/m or (2M) for BBT P and MM. P couplings respect-
ively, (M, m) being the masses of the parent and daughter hadron
respectively.
E. A form factor fJ, (JU/W ) — for (L±l) wave couplings.
There is little choice on A, which may be regarded almost as the
language for description of relativistic couplings. Assumption C is
probably also O. K., since it seems to have a raison d' etre in terms of QQ
relativistic wave equations [47] , Assumption D is much more tenuous,
having been introduced from considerations of energetics for emission of
a quantum in the exact PCAC limit. While it gives a better result for
A-+NT decay, its working is rather bad for the decays of strange baryons.
-9-
We are therefore inclined to drop this assumption for baryons, pretending
that better values for A -*NTT , etc., widths are more a matter of consider-
ing detailed physical effects such as the energy dependence of the width [48]
than one of modifying the basic coupling structures. We note in passing
that another possible (though not very attractive) mechanism for accounting
for the variation of the decimet widths from their SU(6) values is to con-
sider the effect of a small induced pseudoscalar term in the input axial
current between quark states. It is easy to show that while such a term
makes negligible contributions to the octet (B) couplings, it nevertheless
has a mechanism for increasing A-*Njr and decreasing ^ -» £ T T >
especially if its sign is opposite to that of the main axial term in the quark
current. The role of D- for ne son coupling is discussed later in this
section.
Assumption B:
This assumption is more substantial and can be examined partly on
its own and partly in the context of E. It was motivated by the necessity
to keep certain heavy meson modes of (L - 1) wave decays, suffering
from little phase space arid yet showing considerable enhancements (e. g.2T +3
Nu(1550) ->N^, AQ1 (1670) -*A(J> from collapsing like k ^ . In the
quark language, the extra term "k^k in k k can be formally interpreted
as the effect of the quark recoil. However, since the value of k k on the
mass shell is equal to {-** ) , it would give much too strong a heavy meson
enhancement {n :m ) for the experimental requirements which are largely
met by C. In the earlier work [38, 44, 45] it was therefore sought to "scale-2
away" this factor by an extra factor n appearing in the form factor for
the (L- 1) wave (ansatz E ). We now examine alternative possibilities in
the light of certain pertinent baryon data. For this purpose we discuss i)
the coupling ratio of Y(1405) to KN and T.TT and ii) the ratio of ^ (1670)
decays to Av\ and ZJT . The former works out as /m^/m [ILL/ M \ •
Clearly, the choice A* = ITL is out of the question since the ratio is too
large (/v20) for any "gentle structure" of the form factor. On the other2 2
hand, if instead of the assumption /u = m , we choose to continue the
quantity k k all the way along the P-meson trajectory from its value
-10-
2 P ~ 2 P +-m at J «0 to the value -m. at J «1 (viz., the correspondingP A 2
A-meson mass shell), the variation of the factor {-fx ) would be much
more gentle, so as to put much less load on the form fac tor^ We there-
fore revise our earlier prescription as follows:
Old: /U^= >^p I New: £ * ^ . (2.6)
With this prescription the ratio of the Y(1405) couplings becomes
(2. 7)
in contrast to our earlier prediction of Vm '/m = 1. 87 and the experimental
value [32] of *3. The model of Gell-Mann et al. [32] using the A -— — jj
coupling as Y A B gives (Y"N)/(Y- I ) » 2 , 3 , in surprisingly close
agreement with our empirical prescription,though based on a very different
mechanism for the coupling structures. We note in passing that equivalent
structures in the quark language can come about only through an ihduced
pseudoscalar term in the input quark current.
Interest in the Ani (1670) —»An, Z/r modes arises from the fact that its
SU(6) couplings to Ai and £ v states are identical in magnitude and phase,
irrespective of whether it belongs to J , , 8 or 1 , of 70 . This facta q a —
prevents any mixing effect from being of any help in increasing the ratio
of Ah to £JT modes from the phase space value of ~1/18 to the experi-
mental value of ** 0. 7 . Of this the V. W. factor supplies a factor of A-4. 04 4
while the new prescription gives an additional factor of m /m « 2 . 1 ,where m is the mass of the D(1285) meson chosen as the axial counter-
part of ?| . Thus, apart from^ossible effect of the form factor (and this
is small), our new prescription increases the ratio to ^0. 5 which is
reasonably close to experiment.
2 2
Because of the huge difference between m p and m , a relative
scale factor is now necessary between the (L±i) wave couplings of a given
supermultiplet. This can,however,be fixed only after taking account of the
effect of the form factor(E), to be discussed in the next section. When-11-
this is done, using a common form factor for (L±l) couplings, the scale
factor (S. F.), adjusted to the experimental Y{1405) -> £ff width as input,
= 42MeV (40 ± 10) , (2.8)
comes out as a surprisingly simple number, viz.,
S.F. * ' ' ^ i r / ^ ~, •"*/•»> . (2.9)
Its consequences on the angular correlations in B and A1 meson decays
turn out to be even more interesting, as we see below.
Meson decays
Before proceeding with a discussion of the form factors, let us see
the effect of the assumptions A —D , and their baryonic modifications, on
some meson couplings. One important difference in this case concerns
the role of assumption D , since some normalization factor is now formally
necessary for providing an acceptable translation from non-relativistic to
relativistic structures. As was found in Ref. 45, the factor (2M) did not
play a particularly helpful role for the V-meson decays to PP systems,
while its role in the decay of higher mesons (though it appeared helpful at
first sight) could not really be judged independently of the parametrization
of the form factors. Therefore,in the same spirit as employed for its
baryonic counterparts, we now propose to replace the factor 2M by
v 2M X 2m ; which would result if the problem of energy conservation in
the PCAC limit were not taken literally. However, for couplings to equally
massive particles (e. g. 7"r, KK) we are forced to replace rn_ by (M/2) in
the factor \/4Mm , a prescription which has really no deep principle behind
it, but is best regarded as a pedagogical device for preventing a violent dis-
agreement with the data on V -* PP decays. The decay widths for p -> irw*- —
K —> Kir, <j> -*KK and w -* 3*r are now respectively (in MeV)
(2.10)
where the numbers in parentheses denote the experimental figures. The
value of g = g __ now comes out as
- 1 2 -
(2.11)
in contrast to the previous value of (3. 6), We are unable to offer any formal
defence of this prescription but we believe that an analysis by Weisskopf
and collaborators [49] subsequent to the V. W. paper 146] is numerically
consistent with the above.
We now consider the effect of assumption B., together with the modi-2 2
fication m 4 m and the associated scale factor (m^/m ) obtained from
baryon data, on two crucial meson data, viz., the angular correlations in
B—¥ »i<i and A1 •-> Pw . The simple quark model predicts the BUJT and
A1 pfl1 couplings as
respectively. According to prescriptions A and B, we must first separate
the d- and s-wave components before writing relativistic structures.
Thus, we rewrite the Bujr coupling as T , , k . k . + - t k B ' « , where
- r , \ T> ,x . ^ 1 r T> . . (2.12)
with a similar reduction for A. P"" . The boosted structures for B<J?r and
A, pir, taking account of the scale factor (m /m ) ri the S-wave term,are1 * • n p
where
and
-13-
•4
From (2,13), the distribution in the angle X • cos w* k works out as pro-2 2
portional to (1 - 0. 76 cos X), compared with an almost pure sin X distri-
bution found experimentally [50] . This distribution is considerably better
than the one found in Ref. 45 with the older prescription. Similarly, from
(2. 14), the ratio of the helicity (1) to the helicity (0) amplitudes for A1 P*2 2
couplings works out as (taking m - 2m )
Z G-S7(2. 17)
where the quantity in parentheses represents the recent experimental number
translated into the helicity language [51] .
Ill, STRUCTURE OF THE FORM FACTOR
In this section we re-examine assumption E. on the parametrization
of the form factor (F, F ), keeping in view some pertinent data on baryon
decays for putting a particular choice to experimental test. In this respect
it is useful to remember two features of the latest Rosenfeld tables, viz. ,
i) less uncertainty in data on "strange" modes and ii) less confidence in
absolute rates than in the ratios of modes within an SU(3) multiplet. Since
the form factor (F F ) is empirical, it allows a considerable degree of free-
dom in its choice, and it is convenient to lay down certain broad guide-lines
for its construction. Some desirable features are :
a) It should be an explicitly Lorentz-invariant quantity.
b) It should have a dimension k in the momentum variable to offset
the effect of the multiple derivatives in the coupling structures for large
k , even off the mass shell.
c) It should be crossing symmetric in the momenta,
d) It should exhibit universality for the coupling strengths of successive
resonances which are believed to lie on a given Regge trajectory.
e) It should have a simple enough structure for easy applicability for
different processes which involve its behaviour off the mass shell for
one or more legs.
-14-
f) Its structure should show strong similarity for meson and baryon
couplings, so as to provide a unified framework for both.
g) It should lead to values of the "reduced" coupling constants for super-
multiplet transitions in harmony with the intuitive belief that super-
multiplets of the same representation exhibit much better overlaps
(e. g. , 56 with 56) than those with different representations (e. g.
56 with 70).
h) Lastly (and this is most important) it should exhibit the main experi-
mental features of various decay modes as a function of the physical
masses .
Unfortunately our ear l ier version of the P. P did not satisfy some of
these cr i ter ia , especially c). In particular,the undue emphasis on the
"quantum" P-meson for producing both the dimensional s tructure
ond the damping effect for large k_ , led to unusually large magnitudes for
heavy-baryon-cum-light-meson modes (especially A^ and ZTTT), Another
problem with this P F, was the relative enhancement of the couplings of
"unstretched s ta tes" compared with their fully "stretched" counterparts
(e .g . , N1(.(1688) -» NT versus A (1950) ->NT). Finally, the relative
magnitudes of the supermultiplet coupling constants g and g , v iz . ,2 2 .
g > 4g , did not appear to be in harmony with our cri terion (g) whichshould ra ther imply the opposite inequality.
We shall attempt to formulate a Class of F F. ' s designed to satisfy
the cr i te r ia a)-h) to a greater extent than was possible in the ear l ier t rea t -
ment. Though one explicit s tructure will be worked out in relation to some
selected data on baryons and mesons, the present treatment should be r e -
garded as largely illustrative from the point of view of fitting the data in
detail, a task which by itself is best relegated to a separate, more com-
prehensive, investigation.
Taking the four-momenta of the resonance (mass JM) daughter hadron
(mass nj) and quantum (mass j ^ as P , p and k ,respectively, we form
the invariants
-15-
quantities which are expressible, on the mass shell, in terms of the com-2 2 2
binations M ± m ± V . As we are primarily interested in application of
the F. F 's off the mass shell (for one or more legs), we must specify at
the outset the off-shell structures for the above quantities as well, For
this purpose, we choose the simplest ansatz: Eqs. (3.1) define the off-shell
extensions as they stand. This point of view was also taken in the earlier
version of the F F , the predictions of which in respect of several processes
viz., Tp -» pN 152] , 7p -*• ffN [53] and the (n-p) electromagnetic mass
difference [54], are in rather good accord with experiment. (We shall give
a brief discussion of the last two processes in a later section,) The chief
motivation for this ansatz is that this is the easiest way to ensure that the
contributions of successive (s-channel) resonances to a particular process
have a reasonable energy dependence. In the language of dispersion theory,
the effect of this ansatz is that contributions from successive s-channel re-
sonances in general imply more than mere "pole" contributions, though
formally they might look like the latter. This is because the residue function
in such a model is, so to say, a function of both energy and momentum trans-
fer, and not merely the latter. The same ansatz which, incidentally, keeps
our model closer to the spirit of conventional field theory than that of dispersion
theory, also prevents divergences from appearing in a calculation involving
integration over a virtual four-momentum, e. g., the electromagnetic self-
energy of a hadron [54] . There are, of course, problems of unf ore seen
singularities involved in an indiscriminate extension into the complex plane,
but these can be examined only in the context of a particular situation.
For comparison we exhibit the off-shell parametrization of our old
FF for (L±l) wave couplings explicitly in terms of the invariants (3. 1) as
. ( 3 - 2 )
While this structure no doubt has the desired features outlined in the pre-
ceding paragraph, the entire emphasis on the single invariant b out of a
list of four, makes it asymmetrical between the two outgoing particles.
Another disadvantage, from the applicational point of view, lies in its ex-
plicit dependence on the mass of the resonance, which in turn gives it a
-16-
much stronger L»-dependence than implied by the exponent, because of the2
(observed) linear relation between ML and L . In a way it violates
criterion e), which we really do not know how to formulate clearly except
through illustrations. Thus a structure which shows an explicit Li-depend-
ence only in the exponent, and none inside the argument, is clearly pre-
ferable to one which does not have this feature when it is remembered that
a summation over L is implied in any calculation where the resonance
appears as an intermediate state. The simplest way for the mass M to
appear is through a suitable combination of the invariants of (3. 1), which
have enough flexibility to show the correct dependence on the mass
shell, without giving up some obvious advantages off the mass shell. This
restriction does not of course apply to the physical masses of the decay
products.
The foregoing considerations leave us with the task of constructing an
F F of the form x , where x has the dimension of inverse momentum
and is built out of a suitable combination of the invariants of (3.1) and the
fixed masses (m, w) of the system. We should also prefer to have a
common parametrization for (L± 1) wave couplings, rather than separate
structures like (3. 2). Since crossing symmetry is an important require-
ment, preferably in all the three momenta, we are eventually led to consider-
ing the combinations y'abc and ,/ abed , which are of momentum (q) di-3/2 2
mensions q ' and q respectively. Since this factor has to come in the""• 1 / 2
denominator, the corresponding numerators must have dimensions q '
and q respectively. Several possible structures can be built out of the
masses m, 14 or a symmetrical combination, e. g., /m/u" . It is amusing
to note the following purely empirical relations involving the masses of the
corresponding V-meson which may serve as a further guide to the construct-
ion;
^ rf)Aw ' i j - "'CO ,(3.3)
- 1 7 -
A more attractive possibility for ensuring a gentler variation of the F F
with the masses is to make use of the masses of the axial counterparts of
the P-mesons as was suggested in Sec, II. More important, this proposal
offers much better prospects for a unified description of the F F 's of
BPBj and MPM. than, for example, structures of the type Jmfl which
show rather wide variations between meson and baryon couplings.
Baryon decays:
From the experimental point of view, fairly reliable guide-lines for
(h±l) wave modes are provided by the decay patterns of A (1520),
AQ5(1815), N15(1688), A37(1950) and A (2100) which (one hopes) are
comparatively free from mixing effects. Thus one observes a sharp increase
in the ratio of NK to T* modes of the successive A-resonances as the L-
value is increased. By a process of multiple feed-back between "guess"
structures and the above data, one acceptable form turns out to be
*-• r 1 Ljf U V "^A / G-v-C- j /o 4.\
where 2 is a scale factor to be adjusted from some absolute decay rates
which are fairly reliable. In (3. 4) we have suppressed some of the factors
which are already covered by the discussion in Sec. II, viz., the V. W. , SU(6)
and the coefficients of the Clebsch-Gordan expansion of the direct production
of spin and orbital functions. However, it has been written in a form which
permits a transition all the way to the L = 0 , showing the correct SU(6)
structures for the £6 couplings. The parametrization is now the same for
L±l couplings except for a scale factor for the latter, which we have also
shown in (3. 4). As to the dimensionless constant g , we expect it toLi _
satisfy our criterion d) which requires the following equalities:
g0 = g2 = g4 hi <3'5)
as also the criterion g) which requires (note that by definition g = 1)
-18-
To give a sample comparison with the data we first list certain pertinent
decay ratios within given L-values which are independent of the constants
g and o" , the quantities in parentheses denoting the experimental
numbers:
( l 5 ) [ i / ] = 1-1
A o l
To the extent that the comparison looks favourable we feel encouraged by the
general approach. In particular, these figures indicate that by our new
parametrization we seem to have succeeded in remedying two important
defects of the earlier parametrization mentioned in the beginning of this
section, viz., i) we now have more reasonable (smaller) magnitudes for
the £ JT and A?r modes and ii) the earlier suppression of the coupling
strengths of stretched states in relation to the unstretched ones no longer
exists. The physical reason for this is directly traceable to one less
power in the momentum structure of the form factor in the new parametrization
(3. 4) compared with the old form (3, 2), for (L + l) wave decays.
For the absolute rates, we determine o- from the experimental width
(12. 5 ± 2. 5) MeV of A(1815) -> I> which is free from heavy meson effects,
by using the equality (3. 5). This gives
CT- (1.8 ±04) . (3.8)
Next we fix the value of g by reference to the absolute width (6. 5 ± . 5 MeV)
of ^^1520) -+Zir decay, giving
g^ fc 0.62 ± 0 . 1 . (3,9)
- 1 9 -
It is pleasing to note that this value satisfies the inequality (3, 7). To check
on Eq. (3. 6), the value of A(2100) -*2> which comes out as 1. 0 MeV with
the parameters (3. 8) and (3. 9)j seems to be consistent with the experimental
value of 1 ± . 5 MeV.
Before concluding this brief discussion on baryon resonances we make
some comments on the Regge universality of the coupling structures for the
higher baryons, especially the 56 A-sequence. The strong L-dependence
of the decay widths is exhibited by the structure
(3. 10)
whose asymptotic representation for large L is
(3.11)
in qualitative agreement with the Veneziano features [43] and also with ex-
periment. Here we have used the empirical, but numerically accurate}
relation (all the way down to L = 0)
for the successive recurrence of the A-sequence. The data are quite com-
patible with the Regge universality implied by Eq. (3. 5) though a quantitative
comparison at this stage would not be in order. The same remarks apply
to (3. 6), where the data are even more inadequate.
Meson decays:
Since there are fewer (and probably less accurate) data for comparison
in the meson system, the extension of this analysis to this case is much
more limited. In this respect we are inclined to take seriously our criterion
- 2 0 -
f) and to this end check the same parameters as determined from the
baryonic decays for consistency {or lack of it) with the limited meson data.
Thus the form factor in this case has the same structure as (3. 4), except
for a separate constant g and the .normalization /4Mm or y2MLi
needed for the relativist'ic meson couplings for m f (t and m = v respect-
ively, as already postulated in Sec. II. Again, by definition, g = g = 1 ,
while g is expected to satisfy the inequality (3. 7). We determine f
from the piece of meson data which we consider more reliable than most
others, viz., K,-(1420) -* K*r which has an experimental decay width of
47 ± 4 MeV and find „gx ^ 0.47 ± 0 . 1 , (3.13)
The value of the decay width A1 -* P*" is found from (2.14) and (3. 13)
as 110 MeV (95 ± 35 MeV), while that of B ->UTT , obtained from (2.13) and
(3. 13) works out rather low at 38 MeV (102 ± 20 MeV), though we note that
the experimental value itself has come down appreciably, during the last
year. Similarly the f(1260) -*• nn and ^(1514) -> KK modes,on the assumption
of w-like and <£-like objects, come out as 92 MeV (150 ±25) and 89 MeV
(60 + 25) respectively. , (It may be noted that the last pair is extremely
sensitive even to small mixing effects.) Finally, the p (1660) -» fffr modeiN p
which can be calculated in this model assuming it to be an L = 2 , J =3recurrence of the p , worjcs out as ^40 MeV, while the quoted experimental
number is "dominant fraction of a total of 110 ± 30 MeV". The situation is
apparently too confused in this region to warrant further comments, but -
and this is important for our approach - the figures do not seem to be in-
consistent with the equality (3. 5) for the reduced meson coupling constants.
For the equality (3. 6) there is even less to go by. The general feature of
a strong decrease in the width with still higher p-recurrences (^ that is
present in the model in exact analogy with the AT -» N?r case (indeed the
p_ TT coupling is in some sense the exact mesic counterpart to the A NTL i •LI
coupling) is also not inconsistent with the qualitative experimental trends in
the "UXYZ" region,Before ending this section it is tempting to make a comment on the
2 _2relative magnitudes of the numbers g and g and their relevance (if any)
- 2 1 -
to the criterion f) for the form factors. Indeed, a simple consideration
based on a naive application of the quark model does seem to bear out their
relative magnitudes. Thus if we suppose that the spatial "quark wave
functions" of baryons (QQQ) and mesons (QQ) have essentially the same
structures, or at least play an unimportant role in the emission of a radiation
quantum, then a careful analysis of the overlap integral in terms of properly
normalized internal momentum variables, yields the simple ratio /2/3 :
/ i / 2 for the emission amplitudes involving QQQ and QQ states respect-
ively. It seems that these ratios are not only compatible with the values2 _2
of g and g given by (3.9) and (3.13) respectively, but even their absolute
values are very close to 2/3 and 1/2 respectively, giving some credibility to
the speculation that perhaps the spatial wave functions involved in the over-
lap integrals are influenced little by the difference between, for example,
56 and 70 symmetries, apart from purely geometrical factors which can
already be accounted for by the SU(6) x 0(3) structures. A fuller discussion
of this idea will be given elsewhere.
To summarize, we have been able to construct an explicit structure
for the form factor which has all the desirable features listed in a) to h).
In particular, the baryonic data are quite compatible with Regge universality
for the coupling constants, while the mesic data are at least not incompatible
with it. An equally interesting result is that the same parametrization for
the form factors (except for a relativistic normalization for the meson
couplings) gives quite a good description for hadronic resonances, on the
basis of a limited but pertinent set of data chosen for this analysis.
Presumably other form factors of a similar kind can be constructed, but the
one evaluated here appears to be a satisfactory candidate for applications
off the mass shell.
A PCAC relation:
As the simplest illustration of the application of our crossing-sym-
metric form factor off the mass shell, we note that it is ideally suited for
the derivation of a PCAC relation between the supermultiplet coupling
constants g\ and g by exploiting the coupling structure for A-P^ and
expressing it in terms of the pinr coupling in the limit of PCAC. A simple
- 2 2 -
method which is rather different in spirit from the conventional dispersion
approach [55] , has recently been described [56] and consists essentially
of the following steps. i) Regarding the full A.pff coupling as an effective
Lagrangian, identify the effective A current between ( x \ and / p>
states as the coefficient of the A field, and then divide by the universal
coupling g for the A-field to obtain the normalized A -current, ii) Relate
the latter to the pion field via PCAC and identify the result with <( * \ it \ p >2
in the limit when the (four-momentum) of A. tends to zero. This pre-
scription yields the relation (with L = 1)
\ c*where we have neglected (m^fm
2) in the form factor (3. 4) and used the
prescribed relativistic normalization /4m m for the A1P* coupling
(2.14). Finally, the Weinberg sum rule [57] g ^ 2g and the value
f z m //2 for the pion decay constant [49] yields,via (2,11), the PCACIT n
estimatev (0,75)2^ 0.55
which is in excellent agreement with the more empirical estimate (3.13)
from the point of view of supermultiplet (L = 1) transitions. This feature,
which was also present in the earlier form factor, appears to provide a
welcome check on the "numerical consistency" of the coupling structure and
gives reasonable confidence in the reliability of extending the form factor
considerably beyond the mass shell.
- 2 3 -
IV, APPLICATION TO HIGH-ENERGY SCATTERING
As a more substant ia l application of our coupling s t ruc tu re , we
shal l consider the process of TrU sca t t e r ing through the exchange of
baryon resonances in the s p i r i t of the Van Hove model* To describe the
essent ia l s t ructure of the theory in reasonable de ta i l we sha l l confine
our a t tent ion to a r e l a t i ve ly simple case, v i z , , backward Tr"p scattering^
which receives contributions only from A-exchange, unlike ir+p sca t te r ing ,
which i s dominated by U-exchange, Further , the t ra jec tory of the (56,
even+) ^ - s t a t e of J w L + 4 , being higher lying than any other , should be
the dominant contr ibutor to the process . This in terac t ion i s of the form
(suppressing the isotopio indices)
where
(4.2)
In making this translation k^—> q^, for the momentum factors we have kept
to the more conventional spirit [133 and this in any case makes no ^
difference for th-e predictions on the decay widths. For the process
ifp -• pTT~ , we take the initial and final (p***) momenta as (p^jk^
(p',k'), respectively, so that
?~ ^ /fO"3". (4.3)
Taking the propagator for AL in the standard form [133 the invariant
amplitude A-i is expressible as [58]
k = -i L 8*1
x
- 2 4 -
where
= U -(4.5)
(4.6)
^ S\^) (4.7)
and the "daughter" contributions have been neglected in view of the
inequality
(4.8)
The s»oond term in the curly brackets in (4*4) ~ the spin-flip part - makes
negligible contribution at high energy and will thus be dropped. For
MT , a oonvenient and numerically accurate representation is (3.12) which
works well al l the way from L « 0 onwards* For the summation over Lf
we use the following integral representations:
and
")- It") -
The summation over L which can now be carried out exactly, is expressible
in the following form:
-25-
\» w'4"v s!
" 6
( 4 * 1 5 )
These integrations,which lend themselves to rapid evaluation in the limit
of large j j t lead finally to
4 = ii 0-
A - A /s^C^) K^-t)3 £(-i« i S i + v ) {4#18)
k *" B ( i 4 - ^ i+au (4.19)
X "being the parameter oharacterizing the form factor. It is clear that
the above method of summation will work for any form factor of the type
X where x is independent of L. For completeness, the differential
cross-section in the backward direction at high energy is
where we have used our empirical relation between f and g :
>- ^ > . (4.21)
-26-
A few general remarks on "the structure of the u-channel amplitude
are probably in order* The Regge struo-bure whioh i s ,o f oourae, guaranteed
through the mechanism of the Van Hove model oan "be made more transparent
through the identif icat ion
CLtlX X <*AM~\ . (4.22)
The essential difference between conventional Regge phenomenologyand this model lies in the mode of parametrization of the Regge residuefunotion f(u). While,in the former, the choioe of this function isdirectly governed by the experimental features of the high-energydifferential cross-sections, the-present approach proposes to shift theemphasis to the experimental patterns exhibited in the decay channel,eventually leading to a "determination" of @(u) via the assumed structureof the form factors, (A formal advantage is that the present methodyields an amplitude which includes the "background integral" in the Reggelanguage and this may be of some value in the intermediate energy region,)However, once having "obtained" this function from the resonance data,one must depend entirely on i ts predictive role for the detailed fits tothe high energy data which should therefore provide a quantitative testfor the ohoioe of a particular structure, such as eq.,(3*4)» of the formfactor*
As for the general features of our amplitude (4.17-4.19)» one can,e,g., reoognize the out-structure (at u » 0) in the A-term which isdirectly traoeable to the mass terra of (M-iy.p) in the baryon propagator.To eliminate this i t is formally necessary to invoke the Gribov-Pomeranchuktheorem [59] on parity doublets, evidence for which does not seem to existin the baryon speotrum. On the other hand, i t has been found that the/u-out is in fact helpful in producing a better f i t to the backward pTrscattering data [60], Hbte also that the signature factor in front of(4,17) is just enough to prevent the B-amplitude from blowing up (orvanishing) at u»0, while the A-amplitude indeed vanishes at u-0 becauseof the effect of i t s multiplying beta-function. Further, as expected for7T*p backward scattering, the point a((u ) - - £ (whioh corresponds toa-u « - l ) exhibits no dip in the cross-section (4.20),
The method allows a straightforward extension to the exchange of
N-resonanoes whioh play the dominant role in tfp backward scattering. It
is clear that the "dip meohanism" in thiB case would be automatically
- 2 7 -
present in this model sinoe the signature faotor now turns out to be
4(1 + e" iauir) where au « *N(u) - £ as in (4*22). The numerical details
on this subject are currently "being investigated.
Behaviour in other channels
The struoture of the s-channel amplitude (whioh oan also "be
obtained by using a similar technique of summation over baryon resonances)
does not lead to any interesting structures in the high-energy region.
However, in view of the "exaot" structure of the amplitude obtained in this
manner, i t should be of considerable interest in the intermediate energy
region where the resonanoes are expected to play a more quantitative role.
In particular, i t may provide an alternative mechanism for the dip
struoture near the backward direction in yr p scattering at intermediate
energies and could therefore serve as a phenomenologioal test of duality.
Indeed a recent attempt on these lines has oome to our notice [61] and
we wish to remark that the present model provides a natural quantitative
base for such investigations.
Unfortunately, this model is inadequate for the description of
high-energy behaviour of amplitudes near the forward direction. This
requires the necessary Regge struoture in the t-ohannel, a feature which
cannot be obtained in this model without summing over t-channel (meson)
resonances. In principle, such a feature can be simulated by assuming,
e.g., universal ooupling of the suooessive Regge recurrences j>j(J=l,3,!>»*«•)
to TTtr and M systems, leading to ooupling structures of the respective
forms (suppressing the isospin indices)
< 4 > 2 3 )
L
(4.25)
where the quantities fL f include the form factors. The practical
difficulty l ies in the cut-structure of the la t ter in the t-channel. Themathematics goes through as before with the forms f ' ~ (x^ ^) , but i t
- 2 8 -
is now necessary to exert much more care in choosing appropriate cut—
structures for these functions in the light of stronger restrictions on
these structures dictated by general theory. Thus while the absence of
doublets in baryons allows a oertain degree of "tolerance" in the
construction of their form factors, the standards are, so to say, more
exaoting for their mesio counterparts for a theoretically acceptable
description of t-channel amplitudes* Prom this point of view the
representation (3*4) for the meson form factors must be regarded as more
tenuous than for baryons and the data on meson resonances (which are still
very qualitative) may well be compatible with stronger selection rules on
their form faotors than implied by our limited list (a-h) outlined in Sec.Ill
We have not yet succeeded in obtaining better structures of the general
form x compatible with general "cut" requirements in the t-ohannel, and
yet satisfying our "intuitive" criterion (f) which may well have to be
dropped or at least toned down to a more qualitative level. We close this
section with the remark that a oloser examination of purely mesonic
amplitudes may offer better insight into this question.
V . VECTOR AND ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTIONS
Another interesting area of application of our ooupling structure
off the mass shell is in the domain of vector meson couplings and especially
the electromagnetic interaction. The basic mechanism for the correlation
of V-meson to P-meson couplings, viz., SU(3) x SU(3) or partial symmetry,
is expressed by the structure of the M-matrix (2.1) which fixes the relative
strengths of the different terms. Relativistically invariant Bl V
interactions of four different varieties which were worked out in Ref,(3i)
as a straightforward generalization of the techniques for B^P couplings,
are reproduced below for easy reference.
V7
-29-
1 rL ^--^L. (5.3)
(5.4)
Corresponding structures for MM-V couplings could also be written down in
an analogous fashion but these are not of immediate physioal interest*
The correlative powers of the ooupling soheme are incorporated in the
assumption of a common coupling constant g-r and form factor f, for a
given supermultiplet transition B, —> B, through V or P mesons. A recent
application of this prinoiple to the evaluation of the differential cross-
section and density matrices for the prooess TTp -• pN shows a good fit
to the data (in magnitude and shape) with no free parameters [52] #
To introduce the e.m, interaction, an extra ingredient is necessary,
the simplest one being the vector meson dominance (VMD) [62] . In spito
of reoent claims about its failure on finer details, it is safe to assume
that VMD still represents the major mechanism for the ooupling of photons
to hadrons. The V-y coupling is described by the interaction
oL.,.. - HuA • 3.e 4V
which must be taken in conjunction with any one of the terms (5*l)~(5«4)
to obtain BB-rY couplings from BB_V, One important problem concerns the
question of gauge invarianoe. While it is not possible to go into the
full sophistications [63] of this point, perhaps the essential features of
gauge invariance can be incorporated without muoh difficulty even within
this phenomenologioal framework. Thus it is clear that the couplings (A)
and (D) are explicitly gauge invariant (Gfl) as they stand, (B) is gauge
invariant for equal-mass baryons, while for unequal masses the following
prescription is adequate:
-30-
For coupling (C), two points of view are possible* For an "external"photon lino (k*k» 0) it can "be regarded as gauge invariant in the (limited)
ttiat
senseAthe associated current is conserved* On the other hand, this is not
so for an "internal" photon line. A different point of view, which is more
in the spirit of the prescriptions for (L-l) wave BB,P couplings used in
Sec.II, is to take some "fixed" value of the k-k , say at the position of
the corresponding T-meson mass to which the photon is coupled via (5*5)*This reduoes type (C ) essentially to the form ^±y_ /• V "^suppressing the
(inessential) k^-factors and 4-vector indices. The other term under (C),
is also reducible to the same form on the mass ehell of thebaryons. Since this structure is no longer gauge invariant, a simple
prescription to make it so would beAanalogue of (5*6),
YS ] If (5.7)
This prescription does not of oourse work for equal masses. Fortunately
the negative evidence for parity doublets in "baryons is a help in this
regard*
Obvious candidates for the application of this e.m. interaction
are (i) Vp —» TtN via the s-ohannel, (ii) electroproduction of resonances
and (iii) e.m* masses of hadrons. Results of reoent calculations of the
first [533 and third [541 prooesses using the earlier version (3#2) of the
form factor are now available* While the details will be reported elsewhere,
it may be of interest to record some essential features of these results,
since the qualitative struoture of (3*2) is not very different from that of
eq,.(3.4)«
V-produotion of N*
This process has been considered by a number of authors [64] » K>51
in reoent times, with a view to understanding the following main experimental
features (6611
i ) The resonances 3). .,(1520) and F _(l688) contribute strongly to
total y-production oross^seotions but are absent in the forward and back-
ward directions.
i i ) Over a wide energy range 1 only the A-resonanoes are
prominent in the backward direotion*
i i i ) The TT+» cross-section is significantly larger than ir P near
the forward direotion.
-31-
The present oaloulation [53], which was also oriented towards an
understanding of the above features, seem to bear out the features (i ) and
(ii) fully and (iii) partially. Thus the fits to the experimental data
for 7r p and jrn are found to "be extremely good, except that the TT n
differential cross-section near the forward direotion falls short of
experiment by about (3O-4O)#, This last should probably be ascribed to
the role of pion exchange [64^ an effect which has not been included in the
calculation of Ref,53. However, for the other two features,(i) and (ii),
no special mechanism [65] seems to be called for, except for the coupling
structures implied by SU(2) z Stl(2) which automatically fixes the relative
strengths of the minimal and magnetio interactions of the photon with the
baryon*
(n~p) mass difference
The present model iB rather well suited to the problem of evaluation
of e,m, masses of hadrons,since the structure of the form factor (3»2) or
(3»4)| together with the propagators of p and u> (via VMD) are just
sufficient to make a prediction free from cut-off parameters • The
language is that of the old-fashioned Feynman diagram of the second order
t67 rather than dispersion theory [68],[69]» yet beoause of the role of
the form factor, which depends on both energy and momentum transfer, the
numerical effect of a formal "second-order.11 calculation extends far beyond
the naive interpretation in terms of strictly "pole" contributions of
different resonances. In particular, the role of "subtraction'may be
thought to have been effectively incorporated in the structure of the
form factor. Thus there is no formal problem of contradiction with the
analysis in terms of dispersion theory 169)t though it is difficult to
establish a one-to-one correspondence between the two methods.
The present model, which happens to give the right sign and
magnitude for the (n-p) mass difference,works essentially on the following
meohanism. For a given SU(6) 1 0(3) supermultiplet, the state J 0 L ± •§•
provide the "wrong" and "right" sign, respectively, for olfn-p). This
statement is independent of a detailed model for the form factor and
depends only on the algebraic structures of the respective couplings. The
form factor (3.2) on which the calculations are based [54] has the additional
property of giving a larger numerical contribution from (L-jjj-) than from
(L+j ) states, However, this effect is zero for L = 0 and small for L » 1,
It becomes pronounced in the range L a 2 to L o 4,which plays the crucial
-32-
role in bringing about the requisite change of signs, Beyond L o 4, the
overall magnitude declines rapidly toeoauee of the proportionality to a
factor B(L+1, L+l), Thus the moat significant contributors to the "right"
sign for (n-p) in this model are the P1^(l86O) as the L-|- counterpart of
F (1688) (and perhaps also the corresponding Regge recurrences of P.... (1450)),
To examine the "stability" of this result against alternative parametrizations
of the form factor, this region needs a more detailed investigation, "but
the essential mechanism seems to be veil founded* We note in this connection
that Cini and collaborators [70] have found the correct sign for S (n-p)
and several other sets through a different approach*
This model is also well suited to the calculation of electro-
production of ff*~resonanoes where the experimental data 171^ seem to indicate ap
very gentle fall of the differential cross-section with q , In aqualitative way, this feature comes about in the model through a super-
position of the following two effects 1
i) the momentum factorsc(kM) in the couplings (5«l)~(5»4)»
ii) the structure * / of the form factor, which was designed
mainly to tone down the effect of faotors (Qoff the mass shell.
Detailed calculations on this process are in progress.
VI. SUMMARY AKD CONCLUSIONS
We have tried to outline a phenomenological approach centred
round the physica of baryon resonances with a view to exploring its
dynamical manifestations in several areas requiring considerable extensions
off the mass shell. This point of view is opposite to the more conventional
approach which is centred round the Regge region for the parametrization of
data,and probably offers some differential advantage over Regge phenomenology
for the study of the intermediate energy region in a more quantitative form.
The language of classification of hadrons is that of SIT(6) x 0(3), while the
basic framework of interaction is provided by a pedagogical version of
chiral SU(3) x SU(3) going by the name of "partial symmetry". The quark model
is used as a convenient device for writing down the algebraic structure of
the interactions of BB, currents with P and V mesons, while no use is made
of its dynamical implications. The structure of the various interactions
-33-
is given by that of multiple-index Rarita-Sohwinger fields associated with
multiple derivatives of the P and V fields. The central role is played "by
a Lorentz-invariant multiplicative form factor fL for each supermultiplet
transition B. -> B, In the absence of any acceptable dynamical "basis for
its evaluation, a comprehensive set of general guidelines is used for
writing down its possible structures whose quality must be judged by their
capacityAprovide a sufficiently wide coverage of the main features of the
resonance data.
The problem of explioit construction of the form factor has been
dealt with in some detail. In particular, an explioit construction of
the form X is suggested to meet, among other things , the general requirements
of Regge universality, crossing symmetry, "gentle" behaviour for large
momenta off the mass shell and easy applicability to different phenomena.
This is achieved by chossing X to be explicitly independent of the
resonance mass (and hence of L) and of the dimensions of an inverse momentum
to "balance" the effect of the multiple derivatives in the Rarita-Schwinger
structure* This represents an improvement over an earlier form of
parametrization whioh, however, shares its main mathematical features. The
new form factor is found to provide a reasonably accurate description of
the main features of the hadronic data on the basis of a sample collection
of some of the more pertinent baryonic data. The same structure is found
to work broadly for the meson resonances as well, keeping in view the status
of the data on toe latter (which show a less dear pattern beyond "1,5 GeV),
Among the experimental successes of the new scheme are several ratios of
the baryonic coupling constants and decay widths, which are not easily
amenable to a simple treatment, and the reproduction of the observed angular
correlations in B -» WTT and A. -> pTT decays, A PCAC relation which is
derived between the A o7T and OTTTT couplings provides a further check on the
numerical consistency of the supermultiplet coupling constants for meson*.
Being phenomenological in character, the model cannot claim a
formal theoretical basis, but it is sought to compensate for this by its wide
applioational base; to which it is mainly oriented. From this point of view
the possibilities of several applications are discussed. Thus the model
provides a natural mechanism for the description of iTp scattering in the
u-channel, via the Van Hove mpdel. Some other areas of application are
indicated by s-channel processes such as PB -* PB, PB -* VB, yp -* BP in the
intermediate energy region, electroproduction of baryon resonances and e,m.
mass differences of baryons, all of which must make essential use of the off-
-34-
shell extensions of the form factors fL in various degrees* As most ofthese oaloulations are still under way, this aspect of the approach must "be
regarded as largely at the stage of a programme, and this has been indicatedat appropriate places in the text. However, to keep this aooount
reasonably self-contained, we have taken the opportunity to indicate the
nature of the results in respect of two processes, viz,, yp -?- nN and the
(n-p) mass difference (for whioh the numerical data are available with the
older version of the form factor), both of which seem to be fairly well
accounted for by the model*
One can also envisage applications to systems with baryon number
greater than unity. An interesting possibility is the explicit construction
it provides for the dKN* coupling as a potential candidate for understanding
certain phenomena associated with deuteron scattering, e.g., pp —» dn and
pd -» dp reactions [72], [73], Thus it has bean suggested [72] that the
magnitude of the backward peak in a pd —> dp process is too large to be
given by a simple nucleon exchange and that even a small percentage of
N* (1688) in the deuteron is adequate to explain the data* However,
the quantitative aspeots require a more careful evaluation of d M * coupling
for which the present model provides a very convenient framework using
standard techniques available in the literature [743,1751* A short derivationis given in the Appendix.
The formal similarity of parametrization of the baryon and meson
form factors would, off-hand,1 seem to suggest corresponding applications to
processes in which the coupling to the meson resonances plays the main role,
especially high-energy scattering near the forward direction (t-channel),
a feature which cannot be reproduced in our framework with baryon resonances
alone. However, the cut-structure for the mesic form factors must be
chosen much more carefully before such applications are possible in practice.
(This is because the theoretical disciplines on meson form factors are some-
what more exacting than those on their baryonic counterparts.),, Because of
this limitation we are inolined to regard our insistence on criterion (f),
viz., the desirability of formally similar structures for meson and baryon
form factors, with a certain degree of caution in .spite of its otherwise
intuitive appeal in the language of quarks.
As this is essentially an attempt to build a phenomenological
theory out of the experimental data on resonances, the structure automatically
shares the limitations and uncertainties of the latter. However, being
phenomenological in character, it has enough built-in flexibility to respond to
changes in the datafunlike a full-fledged theory which cannot stand ad hoc
-35-
modifications)* Its simple but comprehensive applioational base makes
it a convenient tool for the correlation of "resonance physios" with other
areas of particle physios* We hope that the quality of future data on
resonanoes will lend more meaning and purpose to such an approach*
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author has benefitted from discussions with several colleagues
on this subject, especially Professor L, Van Hove,whose insistence on "betterfled to this work;
criteria for the construction of form factors^ and Drs* D, Plane andFerro-Luzzi who helped in ohecking several"guesses" on the form factors
in terms of their computer programme at CBRN, He is indebted to Drs.
F. Halzen and F, Buccella for helpful discussions on certain aspects of thia
paper in relation to their respective lines of approach and to (Miss)
R, Mehrotra and Dr, D* Choudhury for permission to quote from their results
prior to publication. This work was performed during the author's visit
to the International Centre for Theoretioal Physios, Trieste,in the summer
of 1970 (which was made possible by the Swedish International Development
Authority). He is grateful to Professors Abdus Salam and P. Budini as
well as the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNESCO for warm
hospitality at the Centre.
-36-
APPENDIX
We shall give here a short derivation of the dNN vertex in terms
of the model described in the text. For this purpose we also need the
relativistic dNN vertex which has been given by various authors 174, 76] .
Thus in the limit when the internal structure of the deuteron (four-momentum
d and polarization £J is neglected, this quantity is given by [74]
c5 ^ i [0+-h
C = -y^' CTgC = 7 5 (A. 2)
{ A ' 3 )
2
where a /m is the deuteron binding energy, (p , p ) are the four-
momenta of the two nucleons (mass m) and the on-shell value of 1c! (£: -a )
has been used. The quantity p is just the ratio of the asymptotic normal-
izations of the deuteron wave function [77] and
(A. 4)
A corresponding expression can be written down when the internal structure
of the deuteron is taken into account. Thus for the Yamaguchi [78] wave
function,which has recently received a certain degree of attention in the
literature1 on account of its interest in connection with the three-body
problem [79] , the corresponding form of the dNN vertex is:
m - iy- d r • 2— \
where C(k) and T(k) are the formal relativistic "notations" for the cor-
responding quantities C(p) and T(p) appearing in the Yamaguchi potential
- 3 7 -
g(p) [76,78]
g{p) = C(p) - -ft £ • 2) (£ * P) T(p) (A. 6)
T(p) =p" 2 T(p) (A. 7)
and the identification
p2 = - tt2 + | (m 2 -u ) , u = -"k2 (A. 8)
has been used. The new normalization constant N is given by
2*2 N"2 = f dq g2(q)(q2 + a2)'2 . (A. 9}
Now in any deuteron process (e. g., pd -»dp , pp -» * d) involving
nucldon exchange it is necessary to use a vertex of the form (A. 5) to re-
produce the essential features of a sharp decrease in the cross-section
away from the backward direction. However, for the evaluation of the
dNN* vertex, we shall use the simpler form (A. 1), in terms of the triangle
diagram of Fig. l(b). This is based on the assumption that while the u-
dependence of the N-exchange process comes mainly from the structure of
the deuteron wave function, the corresponding effect arising from N*~exchange
is. (hopefully) provided by the triangle diagram (Fig. l(b)) (since in any case
the latter is not expected to be the dominant effect).
For the evaluation of the dNN* vertex (whose kinematics i s shown
in Fig. I) the essential ingredients are the dNN vertex (A. 1), the NNir
vertex G ^iT_0 »5(Sees. II and III):
vertex G ^iT_0 *" and the N ""N vertex given by the general structureo
U(p2) %;" v *%*•. ^ { *>'« (A-10)
where f is a form factor of the type (3.4), a = 1 or iy_ , depending on
the quantum numbers of N , and
«„•*<"*.-V • (A11)
The effect of isospin is extremely simple; In terms of the triangle diagram,
the isospin indices lead to zero for dNA vertices and a factor of three for
- 3 8 -
,-fr. •
dNN vertices, so that only N-resonances need be considered. With this
understanding the isospin indices will be dropped. In the notation of
Yao 175] , the vertex structure corresponding to Fig. l(b) is given by
,
x fj °" q • • • q^ % . . . tf fp)
4For integration over d n. we closely follow the Yao approximation of "pole1
dominance in the two-nucleon propagators and transform to the variables2 2 2n , po , k and $ , where1 2
rest frame [73,75], so that:
2 2 2n , p , k and $ , where # is the azimuthal angle of k in the deuteron1 2 **~
2
= d(n^)
2' P 2 ** "]
u =
tn2
- P 2
!) d(k2)
2i K g^
= - ( d -
d0/8m[p
2-3m -u
P ) 2 .
(A. 13)
(A. 14)
(A. 15)
The form factor f does not have any singularities in the region2 2 2
(n m p_ » -m ) where the integral (A. 12) receives its main contribution.2Further, the k -integration is over a very restricted region of total range
2Ak « 4ia |p | . Collecting all these points we obtain finally:
where tf (p) = u(p)C , f is evaluated at the point (A. 14) and the quantityC JL
( ' " V " ) represents the azimuthal average of the indicated product in the
sense of integration described above. To evaluate the latter in a covariant
-39-
manner, the vector q can be resolved as
where q is essentially a two-vector determined by the conditions
leading to
sin20 q^ = [.(q. p) - (d- q)(d- p) d"2] p~2 p^ + [(q. d) - (d- p) (p. q) p ' 2 ] d"2
(A. 19)
sin2G «= 1 - (p- d)2 p " 2 d"2 . (A. 20)
The process of azimuthal averaging can now be carried out in a straight-
forward way in ierms of the tensor
Thus we have
"q2) V ' (A-22)
cyclic
(A. 23)
and so on, while the average of an odd number of q-factors vanishes. This
provides a convenient form for the application of the dNN* vertex.
-40-
REFERENCES
1) R, Dolen, D, Horn and C. Sohmid, Phys, Rev, 166,, 1768 (1968)$
K, Igi, Phys. Rev, Letters £, 76 (1962).
2) 0. Chew and A. Pignotti, Phys. Rev. Letters ,20, IO78 (1968).
3) G. Veneziano, Kiiovo Cimento £j[A, 190 (1968)*
4) C. Sohmid, Nuovo Cimento Letters 1,, 165 (1969).
5) G.E. Bite, Rev. Mod. Phys. 4JL, 669 (1969), espeoially for referencesto the literature.
6) Proceedings of the Lund International Conference on Elementary
Particles, Lund, 1969 (CERN Soientifio Information Service, Geneva
1970}
7) E.g., V. larger and R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. l8£, I852 (1969),
8) K. Bardakgi and H. Ruegg, Phys. Letters 28B, 342 (1968 )j
C. Qoefrel et aL.Phys. Rev. 182, 1487 (1969).
9) H. Harari, Phys. Rev. Letters 22, 562 (l969)j
J. Rosner, ibid 22. 689 (1969).
10) S, Puhini, D. Gordon and G. Veneziano, Phys, Letters 21» 6?9 (1969).
11) B. Sakita and M, Virasoro, Phys. Rev. Letters 2£, 1,146 (1970).
12) L. Van Hove, Phys. Letters 24J, 183 (1967);
aleo L. Durand III, Phys. Rev. 154, 1537 (1967).
13) R, Sugar and J, Sullivan, Phys. Rev. 166» 1515 (1968)j
R. Blankenbecler and R, Sugar, ibid 168, 1597 (1968),
14) Particle Data Group, Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 87 (1970).
15) E.g., R. Levi Setti, in Ref.6.
16) 3). Plane et al.,Huol, Phys. B (1970), to he published.
17) R.H. Talita, Rapporteur talk in the Proceedings of the XIII.
International Conference on High-Energy Physics, Berkeley, 1966
(jJniv. of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1967).
18) H, Harari, Rapporteur talk in the Proceedings of the XIV. International
Conference on High-Energy Physios, Vienna, 1968 (OKRN Scientific
Information Service, Geneva 1968),
-41-
19) 0,W, Greenberg, Ref.6.
20) A,IT, Mitra, in Lectures in High-Energy Theoretical Physics, Ed,H.H, Aly fGordon and Breach, London 197°)• This review describesthe general philosophy /method of calculation and gives a comprehensivel i s t of references to oontemporary l i t e r a t u r e ,
21) A.O, Barut, Boulder Summer Ins t i tu t e of Theoretioal Physios,
22) H. Kleinert , Springer Tracts in Modern Physios, Vol.42. (1969),
23) E .g . , C. Lovelace, Phys. Letters 28B, 264 (1968).
24) See, how»v»r, Ch*n Hong-Mo et a l .* Hucl. Phys, Big., 173 (1970).
25) See, e . g . , S. Adlor and R. Dashen, Current Algebras (V.A. Benjamin,I n c , New York 1968).
26) P. Hal sen, et a l . . Univ. of Zurich preprint (1970), to he published.
27) K.T, Mahsnthappa and E.C.O. Sudarshan, Phys. Rev. Letters 1^., 163
(1965).
28) A.N. Mitra, Muovo Cimento £6A, II64 (1968).
29) R.H. Dal i tz , a r t io le on , Meson s ta tes in Meson S-peotrosoopy, Ed.C. Bait ay and A.H, Bosenfeld (W.A. Benjamin and Sons I n c , New York1968),
30) Y. Nambu and D. LurU, Phys. Hev. 12£, 1429 (1962).
31) M. Cell-Mann, Physics i , 74 (1964).
32) M, Gell-Mann.et aL.Phys . Rev. 1X£, 2198 (1968). Also M. Gell-Mann,Lectures in the Summer School of Theoretical Physics, Univ. of Hawaii,1969, to "be published.
33) R. Dashen, Phys. Rev. 182, 1245 (1969).
34) R. Dashen and M. Weinstein, Phys. Rev. 188, 2330 (1969).
35) F. Buooella et al.,CERN-TH.1152t 1970, to be published.
36) J . Schwinger, Phys. Rev. Letters 18, 923 (1967).
37) E .g . , D, Faiman and A.W. Hendry, Phys. Rev. 180, 1609 (1968).
38) A.N. Mitra, Nuovo Cimento 61A, 344 (1969).
39) A.N. Mitra, ffaovo Cimento 64A, 603 (1969).
-42-
40) A.N, Mitra, Invited paper at the International Conference on
Symmetries and Quark Models, Wayne State Univ., Detroit , 1969(Oordon and Breaoh, New York 197 dl
41) C." Fronsdal, Suppl. Kuovo Cimento £, 416 (1958)$H. Umezawa, Quantum Field Theory (iffortb Holland Publishing Co.,Amsterdam 1956),
42) J.D. Bjorken and J.D. Kalecka, Ann, Phys. (ITT) ^ 8 , 35 (1966).
43) E.G., M. Virasoro, Phys. Rev. l8£, 1621 (1969).
44) D.L. Katyal and A.ST. Mitra, Phys. Rev. ID, 338 (1970).
45) D.K. Choudhury and A.K. Mitra, Phys. Rev. 13), 351 (1970).
46) R. Van Royen and V.F, Weisskopf, Buovo Cimento 50A. 617 (1967).
47) C.H. Llewellyn Smith, Ann. Phys. (NT) ^ 521 (1969).
48) E.g . , H. Pilkhun and A. Swohoda, Huovo Cimento Letters 1,, 854 (1969)*
49) A. Bar and V.F. tfeisskopf, MIT Preprint (1968).
50) 0. Ascoli et a l . ,Phys . Rev. Letters ,20, 1411 (1968),
51) J . Ballam et al..Ph.TS. Rev. ID, 94 (1970).
52) K, Sen Oupta and V.K. Gupta, Univ. of Delhi, 1970, to he published.
53) R. Mehrotra et al . ,Univ. of Delhi, 1970, to t e puhlished.
54) D.K. Choudhury and A.N. Mitra, tlniv. of Delhi, 197Of to 'b© puhlished,
55) E .g . , S. Brown and G. West, Phys. Rev. 168, I6O5 (1968)j also for
a l i s t of references.
56) A.N. Mitra, Phys. Rev. ID, ^ ( 1 9 7 0 ) , in press .
57) S. Weinherg, Phye. Rev. Letters 18, 507 (1967).
58) See, e .g . , J .C. Taylor, Univ. of Oxford prepr int , 1968, unpublished.
59) V.N. Grihov, Soviet PhysrJETP 1^, 1080 (1963)\
V.N. Qri"bov and I . Ta. Pomeranchuk, Soviet Phys.-JETP Ij5, 1098 (1963).private
60) F, Halaen et al.. Phys. Letters 32B« 111 (197O)J also * oommunioations,
61) D.B, Liohtenberg- et al.% Phys. Rev. ID, 169 (1970).
62) See, e.g., J.J. Sakurai, Invited talk in the International Conference
on Electron and Photon Interactions at High Energy, Univ. of Liverpool,
1969, to he published.
-43-
63) N.M, Kroll , T.D. ! • • and B. Zumino, Phy«. Rev, 151, 1376 (1967).
64) Y.C. Chau et al . ,Phya. Rev. 16^, 1632 .(1967 )>
S.L. Walker, Phys. Rev. 182, 1729 (1969).
65) L. Copley et_al . t Kucl. Phys. B13_, 303 (1969).
66) D.S.Beder, Nuovo Cimento Q, 94 (l964)» G.I». Cassiday et a l , ,Pbys .
Rev. Le t te rs 21 , 933 (1968)} S.I), Euokland and R.L. Walker, Phys.
Rev. 15£, 1195 (1967).
67) R. Peynman and G. Speisman, Phys. Rev. 21t 500 (1964).
68) K. Cottingnam, Ann. Phys. (NT) 2£, 424 (1963).
69) M. E l i t zur and H. Harar i , Ann. Phys. (ITY) ^ 6 , 81 (1970),
70) M. Cini-et a l . , Muovo Cimento 64^, 927 (1969).
71) C.H. Llewellyn Smith, p r iva te communication,
72) A. Kerman and L. Kiss l inger , Phys, Rev. 180, 1483 (1969).
73) N. Cragie and C. Wilkin, Biiol. Phys, B14., 477 (1969).
74) R. Blankenhecler et a l . .Kuol , Phys. 12,629 (1959).
75) T. Yao, Phys, Rev. 13J;, B454 (1964).
76) M, Oourdin et a l .« Kuovo Ciraento ,21, 524 (1965).
77) L. Hulth^n and M, Sugawara in Handbuch der Physik Vol. J 2
(Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1957), pp.1-143.
78) Y. Yamaguohi and Y. Yamaguohi, Phys. Rev. 21t !635 (1954).
79) See, e . g . , A.1T. Mitra,"The JSTuolear Three-Body Prot>lem"in Advances
in Huolear Phyaios, V o l . I l l , Ed,; Baranger and Vogt (Plenum Press ,
Wev York 1969).
FIGURE CAPTIOUS
Fig* 1 (a) Backward 7T~p soattering diagram,
(la) Tlie dirar* vertex*
-44-
u
N(p)
N(P')
\
(a)
(b)
Fig. 1n inn
CURRENT ICTP PREPRINTS AND INTERNAL REPORTS
*IC/70/21 F. FLORES, F. GARCIA-MOLINER and J. RUBIO;INT. REP. The Green funotton method for the twe-iurftce
problem.
IC/70/22 N.M. BUTTi Determination of. thermal diffusescattering contributions to the Debye-Waller factorsof sodium chloride crystal using Mossbauer effect.
IC/70/23 A.A. LUCAS, E. KARTHEUSER and R.G. BADROiElectron in dielectric films. Quantum theory ofelectron energy loss and gain spectra.
IC/70/24 T.J. GAJDICAR and J.C. HUANG: Phonons.baryonresonances and the high-energy, large-angle baryon-baryon scattering.
IC/70/25 R. GUARDIOLA and J.L. SANCHEZ-GOMEZ:Broken channels in IT4"-production on 3He.
IC/70/26 P. CORDEROand G.C. GHIRARDI: Search forquantum systems with a given spectrum-generatingalgebraj detailed study of the case of SO(2,1).
IC/70/27 G. FURLAN, N. PAVER and C. VERZEGNASSIt Low-energy electroproduction and equal-timecommutators.
*=IC/70/28 M. DOBROWOLNY and D. POGUTSE: PlasmaINT. REP. diffusion in toroidal systems with anisotropic
pressure.
IC/70/29 A. LOPEZ and D.K. GHOSH: A gaussian averagerepresentation for the Chebyshev polynomials.
IC/70/30 L.A. COPLEY and J.C. EILBECK: Non-paralleldaughters and ir-ir scattering.
IC/70/31 A.K. DAS: Screening of an impurity in a semi-conductor in a magnetic field.
* IC/70/32 A. N. Mitra: A PCAC check on the consistencyINT. REP. among (±) parity meson couplings in the quark
model.
IC/70/33 R. ARENS: Hamiltonian structures for homogeneousspaces, (sent only to Libraries)
*IC/70/35 G. LAVAL, E.K. MASCHKE, R. PELLAT and
INT. REP. M.N. ROSENBLUTH: Limiting & for Tokamak
with elliptical magnetic surfaces.
IC/70/36 M.O. TAHA: Direct-and cross-duality amplitudes.
IC/70/37 P. BUDINI and G. CALUCCI: Regularization ofquantum electrodynamics through non-polynomialLagrangians.
, IC/70/38 ABDUS SALAM and J. STRATHDEE: Quantumgravity and infinities in quantum electrodynamics.
* IC/70/39 G. ALBERI, L. BERTOCCHI and P.J.R. SOPER;INT. REP. n^p high-energy total cross-sections and deuteron
shadow.
IC/70/40 T. DUPREE: Theory of resistivity in collisionlessplasma.
IC/70/41 A.A. LUCAS and M. SUNJIC: Many-body theoryof electron energy lou ipeotia in thin film*.
IC/70/42 R. ARENSi Classical relativistic particles.
IC/70/43 M, A. AHMED: Pion production and the algebraicrealization of chiral symmetry.
IC/70/44 T.M. O'NEIL: Similarity arguments for high-fieldelectrical conductivity in a plasma.
IC/70/45 B.B. KADOMTSEV and O.P. POGUTSE: On thetheory of beam-plasma interaction.
*IC/70/46 N. PANCHAPAKESANs Dual resonant amplitudeINT.REP. for many pions.
IC/70/48 E. CREMMER, J. NUYTS and H. SUGAWARA:Duality and Adler condition.
*IC/70/49 F. SANTINIand H. TASSOi Vlasov equation inINT.REP. orthogonal co-ordinates.
*IC/70/50 M.A. AHMED and D.B. FAIRLIE: The structureINT.REP. of an equal-time commutator occurring in a
theory of currents.
IC/70/52 M.O. TAHA: Superconvergence sum rules andexchange degeneracy in the cross-duality model.
IC/70/53 B. COPPI: Linear mechanism for thermal energytransport in current-carrying plasmas.
IC/70/54 B.B. KADOMTSEV and O.P. POGUTSE: Collision-less relaxation in systems with Coulomb interactions.
IC/70/56 M. DOBROWOLNY, L. KOVR1ZHNYKH andR. PELLAT: Perturbation of magnetic surfaces in arotating high 3 toroidal plasma.
* IC/70/57 R.C. DAVIDSON! Electrostatic shielding of a testINT.REP. charge in a non-neutral plasma.
IC/70/58 A.N. MITRA: The role of form factors in hadronresonances.
IC/70/59 I.T. TODOROV: Quasipotential equation for therelativistic Balmer formula.
"• Internal Report; Limited distributionTHESE PREPRINTS ARE AVAILABLE FROM PUBLICATIONS OFFICE,IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO WRITE TO THE AUTHORS.
ICTP, P.O.BOX 586, 1-34100 TRIESTE, ITALY.
*