format: text

text:
# The reactions 𝑝𝑛→𝑑𝜔 and 𝑝𝑛→𝑑ϕ near threshold

## I Introduction

The possibility that there might be a rather significant strangeness content in the nucleon, as indicated by the analysis of the $`\pi `$-nucleon $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ term  and the lepton deep-inelastic scattering data by the EMC and successor experiments , has triggered a wealth of experimental and theoretical investigations on this topic over the last decade. In this context, hadronic reactions at low and medium energy play an important role. Here one expects that the presence of strangeness in the nucleons would manifest itself in counting rates that significantly exceed predictions based on the Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka (OZI) rule . Indeed, the experiments on antiproton-proton ($`\overline{p}p`$) annihilation at rest at the LEAR facility at CERN revealed a strong violation of the OZI rule for various decay channels involving the $`\varphi `$ meson . Substantial deviations from the OZI rule were also found in the reactions $`pd^3`$He$`\varphi `$  and $`\overline{p}p\varphi \varphi `$ . More recently the DISTO collaboration reported on an experiment on exclusive production of $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega `$ mesons in proton-proton ($`pp`$) collisions . In this measurement a cross section ratio of about a factor 10 larger than the estimate from the OZI rule was observed (at a cms energy of about 80 MeV above the $`\varphi `$ production threshold). Further experimental investigations of the reactions $`pppp\varphi `$ and $`pppp\omega `$, as well as $`pnd\varphi `$ and $`pnd\omega `$, closer to their thresholds, are planned for the near future at the COSY facility in Jülich .

Recently we have developed a model for the reactions $`pppp\omega `$ and $`pppp\varphi `$ within the conventional meson-exchange picture . In this model meson production is described by the two mechanisms depicted in Fig. 1, namely the nucleonic current and the $`\pi \rho v`$ ($`v=\omega ,\varphi `$) meson exchange current. Those two processes were identified as providing the dominant contributions to these vector-meson production reactions. We employed this model for a combined analysis of close-to-threshold $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega `$ production data with special emphasis on the apparent OZI rule violation reported by the DISTO collaboration. It turned out that the data do not require a large $`NN\varphi `$ coupling constant. Indeed, the range of values for $`g_{NN\varphi }`$ extracted from this analysis was found to be compatible with the OZI value  \- which might be interpreted as an indication that there is no need for introducing an $`\overline{s}s`$ component into the nucleon in order to describe those data. On the other hand, it was necessary to introduce a violation of the OZI rule at the $`\pi \rho \varphi `$ vertex in the meson-exchange current - which, in turn, provided the enhancement of the $`\varphi `$ production cross section over the OZI estimation as seen in the DISTO data.

In the present paper we apply this model to the reactions $`pnd\omega `$ and $`pnd\varphi `$. First of all, it is desirable to have quantitative results for those reaction channels. In this context we would like to emphasize that all our model parameters have already been fixed in the previous study , where they were constrained by requiring a consistent description of the reactions $`pppp\omega `$ and $`pppp\varphi `$. Therefore we are able to provide genuine predictions for observables for $`pnd\omega `$ and $`pnd\varphi `$. Such predictions should be very useful for corresponding measurements that are planned at the COSY facility in Jülich. Furthermore they can be used for testing the reliability of our model when data become available in the future.

Secondly, in our previous studies  we found that the angular distribution of the produced vector mesons is very sensitive to the production mechanisms. We showed that this angular distribution enables us to determine both the relative importance of the basic reaction mechanisms (cf. Fig. 1) and their absolute magnitudes. In fact, it was this special feature that enabled us to extract the $`\varphi NN`$ coupling constant from the analysis in Ref. . Thus it is interesting to see whether a similar signature is also present in the reactions $`pnd\omega `$ and $`pnd\varphi `$ and, specifically, whether these reactions are even better suited for discriminating between the different production mechanisms.

Finally, in the aftermath of the LEAR experiments, Ellis et al.  proposed a qualitative model in which it is assumed that the nucleon contains, besides $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, an intrinsic $`\overline{s}s`$ component. In this model $`\varphi `$ production proceeds via a “shake-out” or a “rearrangement” of the $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ quarks in the nucleon. Assuming, furthermore, that the $`\overline{s}s`$ component in the nucleon is polarized introduces selection rules for the various $`\varphi `$ production channels and allows a qualitative interpretation of the state dependence shown by the $`\overline{p}p`$ annihilation data. Recently this picture has also been used for some qualitative estimates for the $`\varphi `$ production in $`NN`$ collisions . It is interesting to explore whether the predictions of our conventional model differ from the results that would follow from the picture of Ellis et al.

The paper is structured in the following way: In Section II we give a review of our relativistic meson-exchange model for vector-meson production. In Section III we present and discuss our results for the reactions $`pnd\omega `$ and $`pnd\varphi `$. The paper concludes with a short summary.

## II The model

We study the reaction $`pndv`$ ($`v=\omega ,\varphi `$) in a DWBA approach . The transition amplitude is given by

$$M^\mu =<\psi _d|J^\mu |\varphi _i>,$$
(1)
where $`\psi _d`$ is the deuteron wave function and $`\varphi _i`$ is the four-component unperturbed $`NN`$ wave function in the initial state. We take the deuteron wave function of the model Bonn B as defined in Table A.1 of Ref. . (Note that this model has been also used to generate the $`pp`$ final state interaction in our previous study  of the $`ppppv`$ reaction.) $`J^\mu `$ is the current describing the vector-meson production process. In our model $`J^\mu `$ is given by the sum of the nucleonic and $`v\rho \pi `$ meson-exchange currents, $`J^\mu =J_{nuc}^\mu +J_{mec}^\mu `$, as illustrated diagrammatically in Fig. 1. In principle there are, of course, many more meson-exchange currents that could contribute. Their relevance was thoroughly investigated in  and it was found that all other exchange currents yield contributions that are much smaller than those of the $`v\rho \pi `$ meson-exchange current.

Explicitly, the nucleonic current is defined as

$$J_{nuc}^\mu =\underset{j=1,2}{}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^\mu iS_jU+UiS_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^\mu \right),$$
(2)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^\mu `$ denoting the $`NNv`$ vertex and $`S_j`$ the nucleon (Feynman) propagator for nucleon $`j`$. The summation runs over the two interacting nucleons, 1 and 2. $`U`$ stands for the meson-exchange $`NN`$ potential. It is, in principle, identical to the driving potential  used in the calculation of the deuteron wave function $`\psi _d`$ in Eq. (1), except that here meson retardation effects are retained following the Feynman prescription. Eq. (2) is illustrated in Fig. 1a.

The structure of the $`NNv`$ vertex, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ (the subscript $`j=1,2`$ is omitted), required in Eq. (2) for the production is obtained from the Lagrangian density

$$(x)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)\left(g_{NNv}[\gamma _\mu \frac{\kappa _v}{2m_N}\sigma _{\mu \nu }^\nu ]V^\mu (x)\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(x),$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ and $`V^\mu (x)`$ stand for the nucleon and vector-meson fields, respectively. $`g_{NNv}`$ denotes the vector coupling constant and $`\kappa _vf_{NNv}/g_{NNv}`$, with $`f_{NNv}`$ the tensor coupling constant. $`m_N`$ denotes the nucleon mass.

As in most meson-exchange models of interactions, each hadronic vertex is furnished with a form factor in order to account for, among other things, the composite nature of the hadrons involved. In this spirit the $`NNv`$ vertex obtained from the above Lagrangian is multiplied by a form factor. The theoretical understanding of this form factor is beyond the scope of the present paper; we assume it to be of the form

$$F_N(l^2)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N^4}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N^4+(l^2m_N^2)^2},$$
(4)
where $`l^2`$ denotes the four-momentum squared of either the incoming or outgoing off-shell nucleon. It is normalized to unity when the nucleon is on its mass-shell, $`l^2=m_N^2`$.

The $`v\rho \pi `$ vertex required for constructing the meson-exchange current, $`J_{mec}^\mu `$ (Fig. 1b), is derived from the Lagrangian density

$$_{v\rho \pi }(x)=\frac{g_{v\rho \pi }}{\sqrt{m_vm_\rho }}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \nu \mu }^\alpha \stackrel{}{\rho }^\beta (x)^\nu \stackrel{}{\pi }(x)V^\mu (x),$$
(5)
where $`\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \nu \mu }`$ denotes the Levi-Civita antisymmetric tensor with $`\epsilon _{0123}=1`$. The $`v\rho \pi `$ vertex obtained from the above Lagrangian is multiplied by a form factor which is taken to be of the form

$$F_{v\rho \pi }(q_\pi ^2,q_\rho ^2)=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_M^2m_\pi ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_M^2q_\pi ^2}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_M^2xm_\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_M^2q_\rho ^2}\right).$$
(6)
It is normalized to unity at $`q_\pi ^2=m_\pi ^2`$ and $`q_\rho ^2=xm_\rho ^2`$. The parameter $`x`$ (= 0 or 1) is introduced in order to allow for different normalization points in order to take into account that the values of the $`v\rho \pi `$ coupling constants that we employ are extracted at different kinematics . $`g_{\varphi \rho \pi }`$ is determined at $`q_\rho ^2=m_\rho ^2`$ and $`q_\pi ^2=m_\pi ^2`$, whereas $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }`$ is extracted at $`q_\rho ^2=0`$ and $`q_\pi ^2=m_\pi ^2`$. Accordingly, we use the normalization $`x=1`$ for the form factor at the former vertex and $`x=0`$ for the latter.

The meson-exchange current is then given by

$$J_{mec}^\mu =[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NN\rho }^\alpha (q_\rho )]_1iD_{\alpha \beta }(q_\rho )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{v\rho \pi }^{\beta \mu }(q_\rho ,q_\pi ,k_\omega )i\mathrm{\Delta }(q_\pi )[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NN\pi }(q_\pi )]_2+(12),$$
(7)
where $`D_{\alpha \beta }(q_\rho )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(q_\pi )`$ stand for the $`\rho `$\- and $`\pi `$-meson (Feynman) propagators, respectively. The vertices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ involved are self-explanatory. Both the $`NN\rho `$ and $`NN\pi `$ vertices, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NN\rho }^\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NN\pi }`$, are taken consistently with the $`NN`$ potential used to generate the deuteron wave function in Eq. (1).

Our model described above contains five parameters to be fixed for a given vector-meson produced: two for the mesonic current (the coupling constant $`g_{v\rho \pi }`$ and the cutoff parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$) and three for the nucleonic current (the coupling constants $`g_{NNv}`$ and $`f_{NNv}`$, and the cutoff parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$).

The coupling constant $`g_{\varphi \rho \pi }`$ was extracted from the measured decay width ($`\varphi \rho +\pi `$) and $`g_{\varphi \rho \pi }`$ from the radiative decay width ($`\omega \gamma +\pi `$) assuming vector meson dominance. All other parameters were fixed in a combined analysis of all available near-threshold data on $`\varphi `$\- and $`\omega `$-meson production in $`pp`$ collisons . Besides using the data from both reactions, we also assumed relations between corresponding parameters in the production amplitudes. Specifically, we assumed that the form factors at the $`\varphi \rho \pi `$ and $`\omega \rho \pi `$ vertices are the same. Likewise, we assumed that the form factor at the meson production vertices in the nucleonic current are the same. The $`NN\omega `$ coupling constant is fixed to the SU(3) value, $`g_{NN\omega }`$ = 9, based on $`g_{NN\rho }`$ of Ref. . Furthermore we assumed that $`\kappa _\varphi =\kappa _\omega \kappa `$, as also suggested by SU(3) symmetry, with $`0.5\kappa 0.5`$.

Details of our strategy for fixing the model parameters are outlined in Ref. . Here we only want to mention that the lack of a more complete set of data prevented us from achieving a unique solution. Rather, we arrived at four different model solutions that all provide a comparably good description of the data but differ in the value of the nucleon cutoff mass $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$, the value of $`g_{NN\varphi }`$ and the value of $`\kappa `$, cf. Table I. We shall employ all these model solutions in the present investigation.

Finally, we want to mention that the initial state interaction (ISI) is not taken into account explicitly in our model. Rather, its effect is accounted for effectively via an appropriate adjustment of the (phenomenological) form factors at the hadronic vertices, cf. the corresponding statements in Ref. . Admittedly, this procedure leads to a certain degree of uncertainty of our predictions because the ISI in the reactions $`pndv`$ and $`ppppv`$, respectively, is governed by different partial waves (different isospin states). On the other hand, we don’t have at present any better and more solid alternative for dealing with the ISI interaction. There are no $`NN`$ interaction models in the literature that are still valid in the energy range relevant for $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ production for an explicit treatment of ISI effects. Furthermore, the qualitative prescription proposed in Ref. , based on phase shifts and inelasticity parameters, can’t be used either because there is no reliable phase shift analysis beyond 1.3 GeV for the isospin $`T`$ = 0 channel  that we need here.

## III Results and discussion

The data that were used in Ref.  to fix the free parameters of our model consisted of some near-threshold total cross sections for the reaction $`pppp\omega `$  and of the total cross section, as well as the angular distribution of the $`\varphi `$ at $`T_{lab}`$ = 2.85 GeV for the reaction $`pppp\varphi `$ . Naturally, the more selective experimental information available for the latter reaction (angular distributions) put also a stronger constraint on the model parameters and, as a consequence, the predictions for $`pnd\varphi `$ for the four parameter sets in Table I don’t differ much. As a matter of fact, the general features of the results are practically identical and therefore we show only the predictions for one of the sets (set 1 of Table I) in Fig. 2. Values for the total cross section at a few excess energies $`Q`$ are, however, compiled in Table II for all parameter sets. It is evident from Fig. 2 that the reaction $`pnd\varphi `$ is strongly dominated by the meson exchange current. The relative magnitude of the contribution from the nucleonic current is even smaller than in case of $`pppp\varphi `$; it was about 18 % there, here it is a mere 3 %. The stronger suppression of the nucleonic current in the reaction $`pnd\varphi `$ is due to the fact that the meson exchange current is weighted by a larger isospin coefficient (-3 for $`pnd\varphi `$ as compared to +1 in the case $`pppp\varphi `$). The nucleonic current, however, has contributions from the exchange of iso-scalar as well as iso-vector mesons. Consequently, only the latter are multiplied by a larger isospin coefficient. Furthermore, since the isospin factor changes sign, there are now also cancelations between the meson exchanges that contribute to the nucleonic current. As in the case of $`pppp\varphi `$, there is a destructive interference between the nucleonic current and the meson exchange current which, however, is now much less pronounced. Nonetheless, the predicted angular distributions of the emitted $`\varphi `$ meson, which are fairly flat, show some downward bending at very forward and backward angles as a consequence of this destructive interference between the two production mechanisms, cf. Fig. 3. For higher energies (Fig. 3, $`Q=100MeV`$) the suppression of the angular distribution at forward and backward angles becomes more pronounced and it should be possible to verify experimentally whether the angular distribution does indeed have such a structure. In general there is not much difference between the angular distributions resulting from the four parameter sets, except that those with $`\kappa `$ = 0.5 yield a total cross section which is about 20 % larger, cf. also Table II.

Predictions of total cross sections for the reaction $`pnd\omega `$ for the four parameter sets are shown in Fig. 4. Also here we observe that the meson exchange current is the dominant production mechanism. Its relative importance is likewise increased compared to $`pppp\omega `$. Indeed, now the meson exchange current dominates for all four parameter sets, whereas in the reaction $`pppp\omega `$ it is the nucleonic current that provides the dominant contribution for the parameter sets 2 and 4. Still, in all cases, the nucleonic current is large enough to introduce sizable interference effects. Consequently, we obtain a much stronger variation of the predicted total cross sections for $`pnd\omega `$ than for $`pnd\varphi `$. The results vary by a factor of roughly 3, as can be seen from Fig. 4 and also from Table II. Note that there are particularly strong interference effects in case of parameter set 2 (Fig. 4b), where the resulting total cross section is significantly smaller than the individual contributions. As we shall discuss later, the stronger variations in the $`\omega `$ production cross section have also consequences for the cross section ratio $`R_{\varphi /\omega }\sigma _{pnd\varphi }/\sigma _{pnd\omega }`$ relevant for the comparison with the corresponding ratio that follows from the OZI rule.

We observe that for $`Q`$ 20 MeV, effects from the finite width of the $`\omega `$ meson become important. These effects are included in our calculation by folding the calculated cross section with the Breit-Wigner mass distribution of the $`\omega `$ meson and can be seen in Fig. 4.

Predictions for the angular distribution of the $`\omega `$ meson are displayed in Fig. 5. Naturally, here we see also larger variations between the predictions for the different parameter sets. But, since the meson exchange current is the dominant production mechanism for all sets, all the angular distributions show qualitatively a similar structure, i.e. they are rather flat at the lower energy ($`Q`$ = 30 MeV) and exhibit a more-or-less strong downward bending at forward and backward angles at the higher energy ($`Q`$ = 100 MeV). We would like to emphasize, however, that this behavior differs from the one in the reaction $`pppp\omega `$. In the latter reaction a clear enhancement of the angular distribution in forward and backward direction was seen in the DISTO experiment  (at $`T_{lab}`$ = 2.85 MeV), and such an enhancement for the reaction $`pppp\omega `$ is also predicted by our model (parameter sets 2 and 4) - even for energies closer to the $`\omega `$ production threshold.

As a general feature, let us also mention that the cross sections for the reactions $`pndv`$ are significantly larger than the ones for $`ppppv`$ near threshold. Apart from the isospin factors involved, such a behavior can be understood in terms of phase space arguments (the two body phase space opens up more rapidly close to threshold) and is well-known from other meson production reactions (see, e.g., Refs. ).

We now turn our attention to the cross section ratio $`R_{\varphi /\omega }=\sigma _{pnd\varphi }/\sigma _{pnd\omega }`$ for a comparison with the prediction that follows from the naive application of the OZI rule . The adjective “naive” refers to the fact that the cross section ratio is simply equated to the square of the ratio of the relevant coupling constants at the $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega `$ production vertices. The OZI rule plus SU(3) imply that these coupling constants are proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha _v`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _v`$, respectively, where $`\alpha _v`$ stands for the deviation of the $`\varphi `$-$`\omega `$ mixing angle from its ideal mixing value of $`\theta _{(ideal)}=35.3^o`$. Thus the OZI estimate for the cross section ratio is simply given by $`R_{\varphi /\omega }=\mathrm{tan}^2\alpha _v`$ . With $`\alpha _v=3.7^o`$ as extracted from the quadratic mass formula, this yields a value of $`R_{\varphi /\omega }=4.2\times 10^3`$.

Our results for $`R_{\varphi /\omega }`$ are presented in Fig. 6. The cross sections are evaluated at the same excess energy in order to minimize effects from differences in the phase space. We see that the largest values are predicted for excess energies close to threshold. E.g., at $`Q`$ 10 MeV we get values between $`32\times 10^3`$ (set 2) and $`9\times 10^3`$ (set 3). Thus, compared to the ratio that follows from the naive OZI rule, $`R_{\varphi /\omega }=4.2\times 10^3`$, our models yield a moderate deviation of at most a factor of 8. At higher energies, $`Q`$ = 80 $``$ 100 MeV, the enhancement over the OZI estimate decreases to a factor of around 3 or so.

So, what is the origin of this enhancement over the OZI estimate as predicted by our model? As already mentioned in the Introduction, our model involves an explicit violation of the OZI rule at the $`\pi \rho \varphi `$ vertex in the meson exchange current. As discussed in detail in Ref. , it had to be introduced in order to achieve a simultaneous and consistent description within our model of the available data on the reactions $`pppp\omega `$ and $`pppp\varphi `$, particularly of the energy dependence of the total $`\omega `$ production cross section and the angular distribution of the $`\varphi `$ meson. This explicit OZI violation, in terms of the $`\pi \rho \varphi `$ and $`\pi \rho \omega `$ coupling constants used, suggests an enhancement of around 3 in the cross section ratio. With regard to the nucleonic current, the employed $`NN\omega `$ and $`NN\varphi `$ coupling constants lead to results that exceed the OZI value only in one case, namely for parameter set 3, cf. Table I. The corresponding enhancement factor for the cross section ratio amounts to around 2.

It is evident from Fig. 6 that the cross section ratios resulting from the full model calculation differ significantly from those values implied by the employed coupling constants. Obviously dynamical effects such as interferences, energy dependence of the production amplitudes, etc. play a rather important role here. For example, parameter set 3 - which is the only model where the $`NN\varphi `$ coupling exceeds the OZI value - yields the smallest enhancement over the naive OZI estimate among all models considered, cf. the dash-dotted curve in Fig. 6. Furthermore, the particularly large enhancement over the OZI estimate found for parameter set 2 (especially at small excess energies) is, in fact, due to a suppression of the $`\omega `$ production cross section (resulting from strong interference effects as pointed out above) and not caused by an enhancement in the $`\varphi `$ production, cf. Table II. Apparently fairly large deviations from the naive OZI prediction can be generated by dynamical effects within the conventional picture: i.e., without introducing any ”exotic“ mechanisms. Consequently, one should be very cautious in drawing direct conclusions on the strangeness content in the nucleon from such cross section ratios. The behavior of the cross section ratio as the excess energy approaches zero is due to the finite width of the $`\omega `$-meson which prevents the $`\omega `$-meson production cross section from decreasing rapidly as it does in the case of $`\varphi `$-meson, cf. Figs. 2,4.

Evidently, the enhancement of a factor of 3 or so over the OZI estimate at higher excess energies in Fig. 6 is much smaller than the enhancement over the OZI estimate of about a factor 10 found for $`\sigma _{pppp\varphi }/\sigma _{pppp\omega }`$ by the DISTO collaboration  at an excess energy $`Q`$ 80 MeV of the $`\varphi `$. However it is important to realize that their measurement was done at a fixed incident beam energy ($`T_{lab}`$ = 2.85 GeV); therefore the corresponding excess energy of the produced $`\omega `$ is already 319 MeV. Although corrections for the differences in the available phase space were obviously applied when extracting the above result, there are other effects that influence the ratio such as the energy dependence of the production amplitude, the onset of higher partial waves, etc., which one cannot correct for easily. Therefore it is possible that the actual deviation from the naive OZI rule in the reactions $`ppppv`$ is also smaller. Indeed our results for $`\sigma _{pppp\varphi }/\sigma _{pppp\omega }`$, shown in Fig. 7, support this conjecture. We see here that the results are very similar to the ones for $`\sigma _{pnd\varphi }/\sigma _{pnd\omega }`$. Specifically, at the excess energy of $`Q`$ = 80 MeV the enhancement over the OZI estimate is also only around a factor 3. Thus it would be interesting to perform a measurement of the ratio $`\sigma _{pppp\varphi }/\sigma _{pppp\omega }`$ at the same (or at least similar) excess energies.

Finally, let us comment on a recent work by Ellis et al. . This work builds upon the assumption that the nucleon wave function contains an admixture of negatively polarized $`\overline{s}s`$ quark pairs and allows one to deduce some qualitative predictions for the state dependence of $`\varphi `$ production in $`\overline{N}N`$, but also in $`NN`$ collisions too. Specifically, this picture has been used to explain the observed differences in the branching ratios for $`\overline{p}p\varphi \pi ^0`$ at rest - which is rather large and OZI violating when the initial $`\overline{p}p`$ system is in a $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ state, but small and consistent with the OZI rule for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ initial state. With regard to $`\varphi `$ production in $`NN`$ collisions, it is argued that $`\varphi `$ production should be likewise much larger from initial spin-triplet states . Specifically, this means that the $`\varphi `$ production cross section in the $`pp`$ induced reaction is expected to be enhanced over the OZI rule because, close to threshold, it will proceed predominantly via the transition $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}^1S_0s`$. (We use here the standard nomenclature for labeling the partial waves of the $`NN`$ states and the angular orbital momentum of the $`\varphi `$ relative to the final $`NN`$ system.) On the other hand, for $`pn`$ induced reactions like $`pnd\varphi `$, the production amplitude is given by the transition $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}^3S_1s`$ and should therefore be OZI suppressed. In contrast, our dynamical model predicts cross section ratios of comparable magnitude for the $`ppppv`$ and $`pndv`$ reactions, as can be seen from a comparison of Figs. 6 and 7. Clearly, experimental information on these ratios would be very useful.

## IV Summary

We have investigated the reactions $`pnd\varphi `$ and $`pnd\omega `$ near threshold in a relativistic meson-exchange model. The elementary vector-meson production mechanism is provided by the nucleonic and the $`\varphi \rho \pi `$ (and $`\omega \rho \pi `$, respectively) meson-exchange currents. The presented results for total cross sections and for the angular distributions of the vector mesons are true predictions. All model parameters have been taken from a previous study of the reactions $`pppp\varphi `$ and $`pppp\omega `$ .

A clear consequence of the model is that the reaction $`pnd\varphi `$ is almost completely dominated by the meson exchange current. The contributions from the nucleonic current, which were found to be already small for $`pppp\varphi `$, are now even less significant - especially for the total cross section. The angular distribution of the $`\varphi `$ meson, however, still reflects some influence of the nucleonic current through interference effects. It is predicted to be rather flat for excess energies $`Q\text{ }<`$ 30 MeV but to show an increasing suppression of very forward and backward angles for higher energies.

In case of the reaction $`pnd\omega `$ the contributions from the nucleonic current are somewhat larger. Thus, stronger interference effects between this current and the meson-exchange current are possible. As a consequence, the predictions for $`pnd\omega `$ based on the four parameter sets of Ref.  differ much more than those for $`pnd\varphi `$, showing variations by up to a factor 3 in the total cross sections. This also implies greater variations in the cross section ratio $`\sigma _{pnd\varphi }/\sigma _{pnd\omega }`$, for which our model yields values that exceed the estimate based on the naive OZI rule by factors of up to 8.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank J. Durso for a careful reading of the manuscript.
Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7


text:
# ALGEBRAIC MODEL OF BARYON STRUCTURE

## 1 Introduction

The development of dedicated experimental facilities to probe the structure of hadrons in the nonperturbative region of QCD with far greater precision than before has stimulated us to reexamine hadron spectroscopy in a novel approach in which both internal (spin-flavor-color) and space degrees of freedom of hadrons are treated algebraically. The new ingredient is the introduction of a space symmetry or spectrum generating algebra for the radial excitations which for baryons was taken as $`U(7)`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The algebraic approach unifies the harmonic oscillator quark model with collective string-like models of baryons.

In this contribution we present an analysis of the mass spectrum and strong couplings of both nonstrange and strange baryon resonances in the framework of a collective string-like $`qqq`$ model in which the radial excitations are treated as rotations and vibrations of the strings. The algebraic structure of the model enables us to obtain transparent results (mass formula, selection rules and decay widths) that can be used to analyze and interpret the experimental data, and look for evidence of the existence of unconventional (i.e. non $`qqq`$) configurations of quarks and gluons, such as hybrid quark-gluon states $`qqq`$-$`g`$ or multiquark meson-baryon bound states $`qqq`$-$`q\overline{q}`$.

## 2 Mass spectrum

We consider baryons to be built of three constituent parts which are characterized by both internal and radial (or spatial) degrees of freedom. The internal degrees of freedom are described by the usual spin-flavor ($`\mathrm{sf}`$) and color ($`\mathrm{c}`$) algebras $`SU_{\mathrm{sf}}(6)SU_\mathrm{c}(3)`$. The radial degrees of freedom for the relative motion of the three constituent parts are taken as the Jacobi coordinates, which are treated algebraically in terms of the spectrum generating algebra of $`U(7)`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The full algebraic structure is obtained by combining the radial part with the internal spin-flavor-color part

$`𝒢=U(7)SU_{\mathrm{sf}}(6)SU_\mathrm{c}(3),`$ (1)
in such a way that the total baryon wave function is antisymmetric.

For the radial part we consider a collective (string-like) model of the nucleon in which the baryons are interpreted as rotational and vibrational excitations of an oblate symmetric top $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The spectrum consists of a series of vibrational excitations labeled by $`(v_1,v_2)`$, and a tower of rotational excitations built on top of each vibration. The occurrence of linear Regge trajectories suggests to add, in addition to the vibrational frequencies $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$, a term linear in $`L`$. The slope of these trajectories is given by $`\alpha `$. For the spin-flavor part of the mass operator we use a Gürsey-Radicati form $`^\mathrm{?}`$. These considerations lead to a mass formula for nonstrange and strange baryons of the form $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$`M^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_0^2+\kappa _1v_1+\kappa _2v_2+\alpha L+a\left[\widehat{C}_2(SU_{\mathrm{sf}}(6))45\right]`$ (2)
$`+b\left[\widehat{C}_2(SU_\mathrm{f}(3))9\right]+c\left[S(S+1){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\right]`$
$`+d\left[Y1\right]+e\left[Y^21\right]+f\left[I(I+1){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\right].`$
The coefficient $`M_0^2`$ is determined by the nucleon mass $`M_0^2=0.882`$ GeV2. The remaining nine coefficients are obtained in a simultaneous fit to 48 three and four star resonances which have been assigned as octet and decuplet states. We find a good overall description of both positive and negative baryon resonances of the $`N`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ families with an r.m.s. deviation of $`\delta =33`$ MeV $`^\mathrm{?}`$ to be compared with $`\delta =39`$ MeV in a fit to 25 $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances $`^\mathrm{?}`$. There is no need for an additional energy shift for the positive parity states and another one for the negative parity states, as in the relativized quark model $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

The three resonances that were assigned as singlet states (and were not included in the fitting procedure) show a deviation of about 100 MeV or more from the data: the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1405)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1520)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(2100)`$ resonances are overpredicted by 236, 121 and 97 MeV, respectively. An additional energy shift for the singlet states (without effecting the masses of the octet and decuplet states) can be obtained by adding to the mass formula of Eq. (2) a term $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^2`$ that only acts on the singlet states. However, since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1405)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1520)`$ are spin-orbit partners, their mass splitting of 115 MeV cannot be reproduced by such a mechanism. In principle, this splitting can be obtained from a spin-orbit interaction, but the rest of the baryon spectra shows no evidence for such a large spin-orbit coupling. A more likely explanation is the proximity of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1405)`$ resonance to the $`N\overline{K}`$ threshold (see next section).

A common feature to all $`q^3`$ quark models is the occurrence of missing resonances. In a recent three-channel analysis by the Zagreb group evidence was found for the existence of a third $`P_{11}`$ nucleon resonance at $`1740\pm 11`$ MeV $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The first two $`P_{11}`$ states at $`1439\pm 19`$ MeV and $`1729\pm 16`$ MeV correspond to the $`N(1440)`$ and $`N(1710)`$ resonances of the PDG $`^\mathrm{?}`$. It is tempting to assign the extra resonance as one of the missing resonances $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In the present calculation it is associated with the $`{}_{}{}^{2}8_{1/2}^{}[20,1^+]`$ configuration and appears at 1713 MeV, compared to 1880 MeV in the relativized quark model (RQM) $`^\mathrm{?}`$ (see Table 1).

A recent analysis of new data on kaon photoproduction $`^\mathrm{?}`$ has shown evidence for a $`D_{13}`$ resonance at 1895 MeV $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In the present calculation, there are several possible assignments $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The lowest state that can be assigned to this new resonance is a vibrational excitation $`(v_1,v_2)=(0,1)`$ with $`{}_{}{}^{2}8_{3/2}^{}[56,1^{}]`$ at 1847 MeV. This state belongs to the same vibrational band as the $`N(1710)`$ resonance. In the relativized quark model a $`D_{13}`$ state has been predicted at 1960 MeV $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

## 3 Strong couplings

Decay processes are far more sensitive to details in the baryon wave functions than are masses. Here we consider strong decays of baryons by the emission of a pseudoscalar meson

$`BB^{}+M,`$ (3)
in an elementary emission model $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The calculation of the strong decay widths involves a phase space factor, a spin-flavor matrix element and a spatial matrix element which is obtained in the collective model by folding with a distribution function over the volume of the nucleon. The calculations are carried out in the rest frame of the decaying resonance. The transition operator that induces the strong decay is determined in a fit to the $`N\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ channels which are relatively well known $`^\mathrm{?}`$. It is important to stress that in the present analysis the same transition operator is used for all resonances and all decay channels.

The calculated decay widths are primarily due to spin-flavor symmetry and phase space. $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances decay predominantly into the $`\pi `$ channel, and strange resonances mainly into the $`\pi `$ and $`\overline{K}`$ channel. Phase space factors suppress the $`\eta `$ and $`K`$ decays. The use of the collective form factors introduces a power-law dependence on the meson momentum, compared to an exponential for harmonic oscillator form factors. In general, our results for the strong decay widths are in fair overall agreement with the available data, which shows that the combination of a collective string-like $`qqq`$ model of baryons and an elementary emission model for the decays can account for the main features of the data. As an example, in Table 2 we present the strong decays of three and four star $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances.

There are, however, a few exceptions which could indicate evidence for the importance of degrees of freedom which are outside the present $`qqq`$ model of baryons. The $`\eta `$ decays of octet baryons show an unusual behavior: the $`S`$-wave states $`N(1535)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1750)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1670)`$ are found experimentally to have a large branching ratio to the $`\eta `$ channel with partial decay widths of $`74\pm 39`$, $`39\pm 28`$ and $`9\pm 5`$ MeV, respectively $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In our calculation these resonances are assigned as octet partners and only differ in their flavor content. The smallness of the calculated $`\eta `$ widths ($`<0.5`$ MeV) is mainly due to the available phase space. The results of this analysis suggest that the observed $`\eta `$ widths are not due to a conventional $`qqq`$ state, but may rather indicate evidence for the presence of a state in the same mass region of a more exotic nature, such as a quasi-molecular $`S`$-wave resonance $`qqq`$-$`q\overline{q}`$ just below or above threshold, bound by Van der Waals type forces $`^\mathrm{?}`$ (for example $`N\eta `$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\eta `$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\eta `$).

The decay of $`{}_{}{}^{4}8[70,L^P]`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ states into the $`N\overline{K}`$ channel is forbidden by a spin-flavor selection rule $`^\mathrm{?}`$ which is similar to the Moorhouse selection rule in electromagnetic couplings. Therefore, the calculated $`N\overline{K}`$ widths of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1800)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1830)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(2110)`$ vanish, whereas all of them have been observed experimentally $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1800)S_{01}`$ state has large decay width into $`N\overline{K}^{}(892)`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Since the mass of the resonance is just around the threshold of this channel, this could indicate a coupling with a quasi-molecular $`S`$ wave. The $`N\overline{K}`$ width of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1830)`$ is relatively small ($`6\pm 3`$ MeV), and hence in qualitative agreement with the selection rule. The situation for the the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(2110)`$ resonance is unclear.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1405)`$ resonance has a anomalously large decay width ($`50\pm 2`$ MeV) into $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi `$. This feature emphasizes its quasi-molecular nature due to the proximity of the $`N\overline{K}`$ threshold. It has been shown $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that the inclusion of the coupling to the $`N\overline{K}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi `$ decay channels produces a downward shift of the $`qqq`$ state toward or even below the $`N\overline{K}`$ threshold. In a chiral meson-baryon Lagrangian approach with an effective coupled-channel potential the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1405)`$ resonance emerges as a quasi-bound state of $`N\overline{K}`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

## 4 Summary and conclusions

In this contribution we have analyzed the mass spectrum and the strong couplings of both strange and nonstrange baryons. The combination of a collective string-like $`qqq`$ model of baryons in which the orbitally excited baryons are interpreted as collective rotations and vibrations of the strings, and a simple elementary emission model for the strong decays can account for the main features of the data.

The main discrepancies are found for the low-lying $`S`$-wave states, specifically $`N(1535)`$, $`N(1650)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1750)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1405)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1670)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1800)`$. All of these resonances have masses which are close to the threshold of a meson-baryon decay channel, and hence they could mix with a quasi-molecular $`S`$ wave resonance of the form $`qqqq\overline{q}`$. In contrary, decuplet baryons have no low-lying $`S`$ states with masses close to the threshold of a particular decay channel, and their spectroscopy is described very well.

The results of our analysis suggest that in future experiments particular attention be paid to the resonances mentioned above in order to elucidate their structure, and to look for evidence of the existence of exotic (non $`qqq`$) configurations of quarks and gluons.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by DGAPA-UNAM under project IN101997 and by CONACyT under project 32416-E.

## References


text:
# References

## Figure Captions

Figure 1:
KARMEN data of Ref. fitted with the function y(t) = $`Ae^{t/2.2\mu s}+B`$. The smooth line represents the fitting function. The dashed line is an exponential with $`\tau _\mu =2.2\mu `$s, and the dotted line represents an additional background. The values of the fitted parameters are $`A=(271\pm 16`$) events/$`0.5\mu `$s, $`B=(7.2\pm 3.0`$) events/$`0.5\mu `$s; the $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit is 16.4 for 17 DOF.
Figure 2:
KARMEN data of Ref. fitted with the function y(t) = $`Ae^{t/2.2\mu s}+Bt/\tau _c`$ for $`t\tau _c`$ and y(t) = $`Ae^{t/2.2\mu s}+B`$ for $`t>\tau _c`$. The smooth line represents the fitting function. The dashed line is an exponential with $`\tau _\mu =2.2\mu `$s, and the dotted line represents the time dependence of our estimate of neutron capture in the KARMEN scintillator from reaction (3). The values of the fitted parameters are $`A=(277\pm 14`$) events/$`\mu `$s, $`B=(7.3\pm 2.8`$) events/$`\mu `$s, and $`\tau _c=(3.4\pm 0.5)\mu `$s; the $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit is 15.5 for 16 DOF.


text:
# The Spallagenic Production Rates of Lithium, Beryllium and Boron

## I Introduction

The spallation production rates of the isotopes of Lithium, Beryllium and Boron (LiBeB) are a necessary component in any calculation of the evolution of these nuclei in the Galaxy. In particular, $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{9}\mathrm{Be}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{10}\mathrm{B}`$ are thought to be produced solely by spallation and thus give clues to the contribution of spallagenic $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{11}\mathrm{B}`$ to the total abundance of these nuclei. For example it is the comparison of the observed solar $`{}_{}{}^{11}\mathrm{B}`$/$`{}_{}{}^{10}\mathrm{B}`$ isotopic ratio of 4.05  to the spallagenic prediction of $``$2.5  that has led many authors to include the production of $`{}_{}{}^{11}\mathrm{B}`$ by supernova into their models of Galactic chemical evolution . LiBeB have also been observed in many metal poor halo stars  and the data indicates that the abundances of these light nuclei are linearly (or almost linearly) proportional to the abundance of Iron in these stars and contrary to the standard model prediction of a quadratic proportion that would be expected if the light nuclei were a secondary product . This would seem to indicate either a primary origin by some other mechanism or a production rate dominated by spallation of CRs enriched in CNO on interstellar p and $`\alpha `$. It is the purpose of this paper to compute the spallagenic rates of production of these light nuclei with inclusion of new $`\alpha \alpha `$ cross section data and to examine the details of these calculations: in particular, to test the ‘straight ahead’ approximation to the fragment energy distribution. In the last section we use our new production rates and rederive the elemental ratios for the Population I and the scaling relations for the Population II environments previously derived in Steigman & Walker .

## II The Straight Ahead Calculation

The production rates $`J^{PTF}`$ for the reaction $`\mathrm{P}+\mathrm{T}\mathrm{F}+\mathrm{}`$ are formally calculated from the equation

$$J^{PTF}=𝑑E_P\frac{d\varphi _P(E_P)}{dE_P}\sigma ^{P+TF}(E_P)\left\{𝑑E_F\rho (E_F[E_P])S_F(E_F)\right\},$$
(1)
where P labels the incident CR projectile, T the ISM target and F the fragment produced. $`d\varphi _P(E_P)/dE_P`$ is the interstellar cosmic ray spectrum, $`\sigma ^{P+TF}(E_P)`$ the relevant cross section for the process, $`\rho (E_F[E_P])`$ is the fragment energy distribution function and $`S_F(E_F)`$ is a factor that accounts for the successful trapping of the fragment F in the Galaxy. Here, and in the remainder of this paper, all energies/momenta are in per nucleon units. At present there is no accepted standard form for the CR spectrum since the interstellar cosmic ray spectrum below $`5\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{nucleon}`$ cannot be measured directly . The cosmic ray spectrum as measured by balloon borne experiments at the top of the atmosphere , by satellites or instruments carried into orbit  or by interplanetary spacecraft  has been modulated by the geomagnetic effects of the sun. Theoretical descriptions of this modulation use these observations as tests for the models and all require the interstellar cosmic ray spectrum as input . Many studies of chemical evolution ) employ a technique where the interstellar cosmic ray spectrum is formed from propagating a *source* spectrum through the ISM. For the present we choose a CR spectrum of the form

$$\frac{d\varphi _P(E_P)}{dE_P}=\frac{1.6E_0^{1.6}}{(E_P+E_0)^{2.6}}/(\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{nucleon})/(\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{s})$$
(2)
which was presented by Gloeckler & Jokipii  and used by Walker, Matthews & Viola , Steigman & Walker  and Urch & Gleeson . The parameter $`E_0`$ is the nucleon mass. We shall consider modifications of this form in section IV.

If the Galaxy trapped every fragment produced by the reaction $`\mathrm{P}+\mathrm{T}\mathrm{F}+\mathrm{}`$ then $`S_F(E_F)=1`$ and the integral over the fragment energy $`E_F`$ is trivial. This is true in the cases of p and $`\alpha `$ as projectiles, however this is not the case when the projectile is CNO. The fragment energy distribution $`\rho (E_F[E_P])`$ and S-factor are usually taken to be

$$\rho (E_F[E_P])=\delta (E_PE_F),$$
(3)
and

$$S_F(E_F)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}1& \hfill \mathrm{P}\{\mathrm{H},\mathrm{He}\}\\ \mathrm{exp}\left[R_F(E_F)/\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]& \hfill \mathrm{P}\{\mathrm{C},\mathrm{N},\mathrm{O}\}\end{array}\right\},$$
(4)
where $`R_F(E_F)`$ is the range of F and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the stopping power of the ISM. The $`\delta `$ function form for $`\rho (E_F[E_P)]`$ is known as the ‘straight ahead’ approximation and the form of $`S_F(E_F)`$ is often called the ‘leaky-box’ model . The range $`R_F(E_F)`$ is tabulated up to 12 MeV/nucleon for each fragment by Northcliffe & Schilling . Above this energy we use the range for protons as tabulated by Janni  and rescale in exactly the same manner as Fields, Olive & Schramm . We assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is independent of energy although Fields, Olive & Schramm  introduced an energy dependent form while Tsao, Silberberg, Barghouty & Sihver  use a rigidity dependent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ introduced by Gupta & Webber .

The cross sections needed to create LiBeB were tabulated by Read & Viola  and we have included the recent measurements of the $`\alpha \alpha `$ fusion reaction cross sections by Mercer et al  and the reanalysis by Mercer, Glagola and Austin . The new measurements show that both these cross sections fall approximately exponentially with projectile energy and have reduced the uncertainty in these rates due to the necessity of extrapolation to higher energies.

There are some complications in these computations that are frequently left unstated in the literature: the cross sections in Read & Viola  are for the isobars, in the case of $`\mathrm{A}=7`$ this is a $``$ 50:50 mixture of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ and 7Be and likewise for $`\mathrm{A}=11`$ which contains both $`{}_{}{}^{11}\mathrm{B}`$ and 11C. These other nuclei will eventually decay to $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{11}\mathrm{B}`$ respectively and even though the half-lives are normally short at 53.28 days and 20.3 minutes respectively  this cannot occur until they have been trapped by the Galaxy since the decay mode is inner orbital electron capture. Thus, for $`R_{{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}}`$ and $`R_{{}_{}{}^{11}\mathrm{B}}`$ we average the trapping factors of these products. In a similar manner the $`\mathrm{A}=6`$ isobaric cross section includes the production of 6He but in this case the decay mode is $`\beta `$ decay with a half-life of 0.807 s  and so any 6He produced will quickly decay to $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ and no averaging is required.

In table I: columns a) and b) we present the rates as calculated by equation (1) using the forms for the various terms as listed in equations (2) through (4) using two different values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. An initial examination of the results shows that fragment loss for the reactions with $`\mathrm{P}\{\mathrm{C},\mathrm{N},\mathrm{O}\}`$ reduces the production rate by a factor $`10`$ relative to the rate when the projectile and target are interchanged. While this may appear to render these reactions unimportant it must be remembered that, at the present time, the abundances of CNO in the CR are enhanced relative to their ISM values by approximately equivalent factors. We also find that the new $`\alpha \alpha `$ rates are smaller than those calculated by Walker, Matthews & Viola : the rate for $`\alpha +\alpha ^6\mathrm{Li}`$ decreases by a factor of 1.52 while the rate for production of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ decreased by a factor of 1.70. Thus for fixed projectile fluxes and target densities, the production of Li (that includes an $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ contribution) relative to that of Be and B (that does not include $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$) decreases.

## III Testing The ‘Straight Ahead’ Approximation

In section II we used the ‘straight ahead’ approximation to calculate $`J^{PTF}`$ and it is this that we now wish to test in the same manner as Tsao, Silberberg, Barghouty & Sihver . The momentum distributions of the isotopes produced by fragmentation of various projectile and target nuclei are discussed by Morrissey  and Hufner . They are found to be Gaussian distributed in the rest frame of the spalled nucleus with narrow dispersions and a small mean momentum in the direction parallel to the incident projectile. In particular the momentum distributions of the fragments from 12C and 16O projectiles upon various targets ranging in mass from Be to Pb were measured by Greiner et al  who found that their results had no significant correlation with target mass or beam energy. Goldhaber  and more recently Bauer  explain these results in terms of a nuclear model with minimal correlations between the nucleon momenta and predict the dependence of the momentum per nucleon distribution $`\rho (𝐏_F)`$ on fragment mass AF as

$`\rho (𝐏_F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \alpha _F^2)^{3/2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(𝐏_F<𝐏_F>)^2}{2\alpha _F^2}}\right),`$ (5)
$`\alpha _F^2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _0^2{\displaystyle \frac{A_{CNO}A_F}{A_F(A_{CNO}1)}},`$ (7)
and

$$<𝐏_F>=8\frac{(A_{CNO}A_F)}{A_{CNO}}\frac{\gamma +1}{\beta \gamma }\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{nucleon},$$
(8)
where $`\alpha _0100`$ MeV, $`A_{CNO}`$ is the mass of the nucleus to be spalled while $`\beta =v/c`$ and $`\gamma =(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}`$ are those of the projectile. Equation (5) assumes that the transverse momentum dispersion is equal to the longitudinal and equation (8) is a semi-empirical relation by Morrissey . We also ignore the change in $`\alpha `$ that occurs for values of E$`{}_{P}{}^{}100`$ MeV/nucleon indicated by Stokstad : at such small energies the value of $`S_F`$ is very close to unity and every fragment isotope is captured by the Galaxy rendering the decrease in $`\alpha `$ irrelevant. Thus we can rewrite equation (1) for reactions involving CNO that includes this better approximation to the product fragmentation energy distribution:

$`J^{PTF}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑E_P\frac{1.6E_0^{1.6}}{(E_P+E_0)^{2.6}}\sigma ^{P+TF}(E_P)}`$ (10)
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐏_F^{}}{(2\pi \alpha _F^2)^{3/2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(𝐏_F^{}<𝐏_F^{}>)^\mathrm{𝟐}}{2\alpha _F^2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{R_F(E_F)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)}\right\}.`$
The dependence of $`E_P`$ upon $`E_F`$ is more subtle than before and enters into the integral over momentum per nucleon $`𝐏_F^{}`$ since this is evaluated in the CNO rest frame.

In table I: columns c) and d) we present the rates as calculated by equation (10) again for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=5\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and $`10\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$. A glance at the results shows that indeed the ‘straight ahead’ approximation accurately (within numerical error) predicts the production rate of those reactions with $`\mathrm{P}\{\mathrm{p},\alpha \}`$. This result was to be expected: the spread in fragment momenta $`\alpha _F`$ in equation (10) is only of order $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$ and the central value corresponds to a stopping range much less than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ so all fragments are trapped. For the reactions with $`\mathrm{P}\{\mathrm{C},\mathrm{N},\mathrm{O}\}`$ there appears to be a slight increase in the production rates relative to the ‘straight ahead’ calculations for the smaller value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and a slight decrease for the larger value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ but the differences are small and do not warrant rejection of the approximation. Again, the approximation’s success has a simple explanation: the fragments that escape must have large momenta ($`500\mathrm{MeV}`$) and the small values of $`\alpha _F`$ mean that $`𝐏_F𝐏_P,E_FE_P`$.

## IV Changing The CR Spectrum

The CR spectrum (2) used in sections II and III is by no means the only one that has been used. As previously stated, solar modulation significantly depresses the low energy ($`5\mathrm{GeV}`$) region of the CR spectrum and the extent of this alteration can be mitigated by changing the unmodulated spectrum to yield similar observations. Yet it is exactly this region that dominates the integrands in equation (10) since it corresponds to where $`S_F(E_F)`$ is $`1`$. To address this uncertainty we also calculate the production rates $`J^{PTF}`$ with interstellar spectra that differ from equation (2). More specifically, we rewrite equation (2) as

$$\frac{d\varphi _P(E_P)}{dE}=\frac{E_0^{\nu \mu 1}}{B(\mu +1,\nu \mu 1)}\frac{E_P^\mu }{(E_P+E_0)^\nu }/(\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{nucleon})/(\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{s}),$$
(11)
where $`B(\mu +1,\nu \mu 1)`$ is the Beta function. This functional form is sufficiently flexible to mimic virtually any spectrum desired but, to avoid a plethora of results, we restrict ourselves to considering values of $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ such that $`\nu \mu =2.6,0\mu 1`$ and keep $`E_0`$ at it’s previous value. This family of spectra asymptotically approaches the form of equation (2) at high energies but ‘push’ some of their low energy component to higher values relative to the $`\mu =0`$,$`\nu =2.6`$ standard. Consequently it should be expected that the rates for CR CNO on ISM H,He would be reduced due to a decrease in the fraction of captured fragments. The rates with $`\mathrm{P}\{\mathrm{p},\alpha \}`$ will be affected but only to a slight degree since all fragments are still captured but the cross sections are not constants. The effect of the reduction of the spectrum at lower energies on the $`\alpha +\alpha `$ fusion production rates of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ should be more pronounced because the cross sections for both of these processes are predominant at lower energies. The results of using equation (11) are listed in table II for the values $`\mu \{0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8,1.0\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fixed at 5 g/cm2. As predicted the rates for $`\mathrm{P}\{\mathrm{p},\alpha \}`$ are almost unaltered but the rates for the reactions with $`\mathrm{P}\{\mathrm{C},\mathrm{N},\mathrm{O}\}`$ and $`\alpha +\alpha {}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li},^7\mathrm{Li}`$ are significantly affected by the change in the CR spectra, indeed the rates for $`\mu =1,\nu =3.6`$ are approximately an order of magnitude smaller than the rates for $`\mu =0,\nu =2.6`$. If these hard spectra are indeed indicative of the true interstellar cosmic ray spectrum then even the present CR CNO enrichment mentioned previously cannot bring the ‘inverse’ reactions into competition with their ‘forward’ brethren and the production of the $`{}_{}{}^{9}\mathrm{Be}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{10}\mathrm{B}`$ in the Galaxy by this process has always been dominated by reactions with p and $`\alpha `$ as the projectiles.

## V Population I Elemental Ratios and Population II Scaling Relations

Finally we have recomputed the scaling relations and elemental ratios previously presented in Steigman&Walker  for our standard case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$5 g/cm2, $`\mu =0`$,$`\nu =2.6`$. The approximate nucleosynthetic yields can be written as

$$y_F\underset{P}{}\underset{T}{}\alpha _Py_TJ^{PTF}\mathrm{\Delta }t=1.18\mathrm{x10}^{12}R_F\mathrm{\Delta }t_{Gyr}.$$
(12)
The uncertainty in the time dependence of the CR spectrum, the S-factor and the abundances of the targets and CRs can be largely removed by considering the ratios of the elements rather than individual yields. The Population I ISM is taken to be
$`y_H`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$    $`y_{He}`$ $`=`$ $`0.1,`$    $`y_C`$ $`=`$ $`4.2\mathrm{x}10^4,`$    $`y_N`$ $`=`$ $`8.7\mathrm{x}10^5,`$    $`y_O`$ $`=`$ $`6.9\mathrm{x}10^4,`$        $`\alpha _p`$ $`=`$ $`8.05,`$    $`\alpha _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _p/10,`$    $`\alpha _C`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _p/310,`$    $`\alpha _N`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _p/5120,`$    $`\alpha _O`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _p/240,`$
and we compute

$`R_7/R_6`$ $`=`$ $`1.49,`$ (13)
$`R_7/R_9=6.22,`$ $`R_{6+7}/R_9=10.39,`$ (14)
$`R_{6+7}/R_{10+11}`$ $`=`$ $`0.62,`$ (15)
$`R_{11}/R_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`2.48,`$ (16)
We find that in comparison with S&W that the our new calculations for the production rates have increased the $`7/6`$ ratio slightly and reduced all the remainder except for the $`11/10`$ ratio which has remained unaltered. The inclusion of the ‘reverse’ reactions and the lower $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ yields have both decreased the denominators and increased the numerators.

In the early Galaxy we adopt the same scaling relations as S&W, namely
$`y_H^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$    $`y_{He}^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`0.08,`$    $`y_C^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`y_C^I\mathrm{x}10^{[Fe/H]},`$    $`y_N^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`y_N^I\mathrm{x}10^{[Fe/H]},`$    $`y_O^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`y_O^I\mathrm{x}10^{[Fe/H]+1/2},`$        $`\alpha _p^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _p^I,`$    $`\alpha _\alpha ^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _p^{II}\mathrm{x}0.08,`$    $`\alpha _C^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _C^I\mathrm{x}10^{[Fe/H]},`$    $`\alpha _N^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _N^I\mathrm{x}10^{[Fe/H]},`$    $`\alpha _O^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _O^I\mathrm{x}10^{[Fe/H]+1/2},`$
and find

$`R_6=1.27(1+16.94\mathrm{x}10^{[Fe/H]})`$ $`R_7=2.09(1+13.95\mathrm{x}10^{[Fe/H]})`$ (17)
$`R_9=5.97\mathrm{x}10^{[Fe/H]}`$ (18)
$`R_{10}=25.98\mathrm{x}10^{[Fe/H]}`$ $`R_{11}=60.74\mathrm{x}10^{[Fe/H]}`$ (19)
Once again, in comparison with S&W: the contribution of the $`\alpha \alpha `$ reactions to the production of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ have almost halved the constant in $`R_6`$ and $`R_7`$ and the CNO terms have doubled. The $`{}_{}{}^{9}\mathrm{Be}`$,$`{}_{}{}^{10}\mathrm{B}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{11}\mathrm{B}`$ yields are approximately doubled too. While the new yields do not alter the basic conclusions of S&W they do make it weaker and the amount of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ that would be inferred by observation of the amount of $`{}_{}{}^{9}\mathrm{Be}`$ in the oldest stars would be reduced. For example: at a metalicity of $`[Fe/H]=3`$ the ratio of Lithium to Beryllium is now only $`550`$ compared to a value of $`2200`$ found in Steigman & Walker, a factor of 4 difference. We also obtain a better agreement with the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ to $`{}_{}{}^{9}\mathrm{Be}`$ ratios observed in metal-poor halo stars: for the star HD84937 Hobbs, Thorburn & Rebull  find the ratio to be $`73\pm 18`$ whereas the prediction is $`37.3`$: for BD$`+`$263578 the observed ratio is $`22\pm 13`$ and the prediction is $`57.0`$.

## VI Conclusions

We have calculated the production rates of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{9}\mathrm{Be}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{10}\mathrm{B}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{11}\mathrm{B}`$ via spallation of Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen nuclei by protons and $`\alpha `$-particles and the production of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ by $`\alpha \alpha `$ fusion reactions. We have found that the new $`\alpha \alpha `$ fusion cross section data produces smaller production rates than previously computed by factors of $``$ 1.5 and 1.7 for $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ respectively. By employing a better description of the fragment energy as a function of the projectile’s energy we relaxed the ‘straight ahead’ approximation and found that the rates were only slightly affected. We also computed the production rates with increasingly harder spectra and found that they decreased by up to an order of magnitude compared to our reference values. We conclude that, if these spectra represent the true interstellar spectrum, the $`{}_{}{}^{9}\mathrm{Be}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{10}\mathrm{B}`$ production in the Galaxy is always dominated by the production from the ‘forward’ reactions of CR p/$`\alpha `$ upon CNO in the ISM.