text:
# Polarization observables in (𝛾⃗,𝑁⃗𝑁) reactions

## I Introduction

For a long time electromagnetically induced two-nucleon knockout has been considered the most direct tool for exploring the properties of nucleon pairs within nuclei and their interaction at short distance . The cross section of an exclusive reaction contains the two-hole spectral function, which gives information on nuclear structure and correlations.

Two nucleons can be naturally ejected by two-body currents, which effectively take into account the influence of subnuclear degrees of freedom like mesons and isobars. Direct insight into dynamical short-range correlations (SRC) can be obtained from the process where the real or virtual photon hits, through a one-body current, either nucleon of a correlated pair and both nucleons are then ejected from the nucleus. A reliable and consistent treatment of these two competing processes, both produced by the exchange of mesons between nucleons, is needed. Their role and relevance, however, can be different in different reactions and kinematics. It is thus possible to envisage situations where either process is dominant and various specific effects can be disentangled and separately investigated.

First pioneering ($`\gamma ,NN`$) experiments were performed in Bonn  and Tokio  with poor statistical accuracy and energy resolution. Further experiments carried out at MAMI achieved much better results . These experiments, with an energy resolution of about 6-9 MeV, were able to resolve the major shells from which the two nucleons are emitted. The first high-resolution 16O($`\gamma ,np`$)14N experiment able to separate final states was performed at MAXlab in Lund . A high-resolution experiment for the 16O($`\gamma ,np`$)14 and 16O($`\gamma ,pp`$)14C reactions in the photon-energy range between 90 and 270 MeV, aiming not only at separating final states but also at determining the momentum distributions of each state, has been recently approved in Mainz . Results for a first test and feasibility study are presented in ref. .

Reaction calculations performed with different microscopic models based on a two-nucleon knockout framework  confirm that ($`\gamma ,np`$) and ($`\gamma ,pp`$) reactions are generally dominated by two-body currents. Thus, they are useful to study the nuclear current, whose various components can be emphasized or suppressed in different conditions and kinematics. However, they are also sensitive to the other theoretical ingredients and represent a suitable tool to study the conditions of nucleon pairs within a nucleus. In fact, the angular distributions of the 16O($`\gamma ,np`$)14N and 16O($`\gamma ,pp`$)14C cross sections for transitions to different final states have a different shape, essentially determined by the components of the center-of-mass (c.m.) orbital angular momentum of the initial pair , which can be explored by comparing the theoretical predictions with the experimental data.

Interesting and complementary information is available from ($`e,e^{}NN`$) and ($`\gamma ,NN`$) reactions. First measurements of the exclusive 16O($`e,e^{}pp`$)14C reaction have been performed at NIKHEF in Amsterdam  and MAMI in Mainz . Investigations on these data  indicate that resolution of discrete final states provides an interesting tool to disentangle the two reaction mechanisms due to one-body currents, and thus to SRC, and to two-body currents.

Recent calculations  have shown that also the cross sections of the exclusive 16O($`e,e^{}np`$)14N reaction are sensitive to details of the nuclear correlations and in particular to the presence of the tensor component.

It is clear, however, that ($`e,e^{}np`$) experiments are more difficult, as they require a triple coincidence measurement with the detection of a neutron. Thus, no data are available at present, but a proposal for the experimental study of the exclusive 16O($`e,e^{}np`$)14N reaction has been approved in Mainz .

Good opportunities for a more complete investigation of the properties of different pairs of nucleons in nuclei and of their interaction at short distance are offered by polarization measurements. Reactions with polarized particles give access to a larger number of observables, hidden in the unpolarized case and whose determination can impose more severe constraints to theoretical models. Some of these observables are expected to be sensitive to the small components of the transition amplitudes, which are generally masked by the dominant ones in the unpolarized cross section and that often contain interesting information on subtle effects. In photoreactions, and in particular in ($`\gamma ,np`$) reactions, the two-body contributions are always dominant in the cross section with respect to one-body ones. In order to study correlations, the polarization measurements are therefore necessary.

The asymmetry of the cross section for linearly polarized photons in ($`\gamma ,pp`$) and ($`\gamma ,np`$) reactions was studied in refs. . Numerical results for exclusive $`pp`$ and $`np`$ knockout from 16O can be found in ref. . First measurements with polarized photon beams have been performed at LEGS on 3He  and 16O  and at MAMI on 12C . In these first experiments, however, the energy resolution was not enough to separate specific discrete final states of the residual nucleus.

The nucleon recoil polarization in photon-induced and electron-induced two-nucleon knockout has been considered in refs.  and , respectively. The general formalism of the ($`\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{N}N`$) reaction and some theoretical predictions for the exclusive 16O($`\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{p}p`$)14C knockout reaction are given in ref. . The results of these investigations indicate that a combined measurement of cross sections and polarization components would provide an interesting tool to disentangle the different reaction mechanisms and clarify the behaviour of nucleon pairs in the nuclear medium. No data are available at present, but a measurement of the nucleon recoil polarization seems reasonably within reach of available experimental facilities.

The general case of ($`\stackrel{}{\gamma },\stackrel{}{N}N`$) reactions, where the incident photon is linearly or circularly polarized and/or the outgoing nucleon polarization is detected is considered in this paper. Besides the cross section, 15 new observables are obtained in the most general kinematics. The formalism and the polarization observables are given in sect. II. Some numerical results for the exclusive 16O($`\stackrel{}{\gamma },\stackrel{}{n}p`$)14Ng.s. and 16O($`\stackrel{}{\gamma },\stackrel{}{p}p`$)14Cg.s. reactions are presented and discussed in sects. III and IV, respectively. Conclusions are drawn in sect. V.

## II Polarization observables in ($`\stackrel{}{\gamma },\stackrel{}{𝑵}𝑵`$) reactions

The cross section of a reaction, where an incident photon, with momentum $`𝒒`$ and energy $`E_\gamma `$, is absorbed by the nucleus and two nucleons are emitted, with momenta $`𝒑_1^{}`$ and $`𝒑_2^{}`$ and energies $`E_1^{}`$ and $`E_2^{}`$, can be written in terms of four structure functions $`f_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3\sigma }{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_2\mathrm{d}E_2^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2\alpha }{E_\gamma }}K[`$ $`f_{11}`$ $`+\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{c}f_{11}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{t}(f_{11}\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _\gamma `$ (1)
$``$ $`\overline{f}_{11}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _\gamma )],`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{t}`$ are the degrees of circular and linear polarization of the photon, $`\varphi _\gamma `$ is the angle of the photon polarization vector relative to the scattering plane, i.e. the ($`𝒒,𝒑_1^{}`$) plane, and

$$K=|𝒑_1^{}|E_1^{}|𝒑_2^{}|E_2^{}f_{\mathrm{rec}},$$
(3)
with

$$f_{\mathrm{rec}}^1=1\frac{E_2^{}}{E_\mathrm{r}}\frac{𝒑_2^{}𝒑_\mathrm{r}}{|𝒑_2^{}|^2},$$
(4)
where $`𝒑_\mathrm{r}`$ and $`E_\mathrm{r}`$ are the momentum and energy of the residual nucleus. In our reference frame the $`𝒛`$ axis is taken parallel to $`𝒒`$ and the momentum $`𝒑_1^{}`$ lies in the ($`𝒙,𝒛`$) plane.

The structure functions $`f_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$ are obtained from the components of the hadron tensor $`W^{ij}`$, with $`i,j=x,y`$, and are given by all the symmetrical and antisymmetrical independent combinations of these components, i.e.

$`f_{11}=W^{xx}+W^{yy},`$ $`f_{11}^{}=i(W^{xy}W^{yx}),`$ (5)
$`f_{11}=W^{yy}W^{xx},`$ $`\overline{f}_{11}=W^{xy}+W^{yx}.`$ (6)
If the polarization of the nucleon 1 outgoing in the scattering plane is detected, the structure functions can in general be written as

$`f_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^u+\widehat{𝒔}𝒉_{\lambda \lambda ^{}},`$ (7)
$`f_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^u+\widehat{𝒔}𝒉_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{}`$ (8)
where $`\widehat{𝒔}`$ is the unit vector in the spin direction of the recoil nucleon. Thus, when the polarization of the outgoing nucleon is considered, 16 structure functions appear: 4 spin independent, $`h_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^\mathrm{u}`$ and $`h_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^\mathrm{u}`$, and 12 spin dependent, $`h_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^k`$ and $`h_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^k`$, 4 for each one of the 3 components of $`𝒉_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$ and $`𝒉_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{}`$.

The explicit expressions of these structure functions in terms of the components of the hadron tensor $`W_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ are the eigenvalues of the spin of the nucleon whose polarization is considered, can be easily obtained from eq. (6), by simply substituting the quantities $`W^{\mu \nu }`$, wherever they appear, with the following expressions :

$`W_{++}^{\mu \nu }+W_{}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`\mathrm{for}`$ $`k=u,`$ (9)
$`W_+^{\mu \nu }+W_+^{\mu \nu }`$ $`\mathrm{for}`$ $`k=x,`$ (10)
$`i(W_+^{\mu \nu }W_+^{\mu \nu })`$ $`\mathrm{for}`$ $`k=y,`$ (11)
$`W_{++}^{\mu \nu }W_{}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`\mathrm{for}`$ $`k=z.`$ (12)
Note that in ref.  there is a misprint in the case $`k=y`$.

Usually, the quantities $`𝒉_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$ and $`𝒉_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{}`$ are projected onto the basis of unit vectors given by $`\widehat{𝑳}`$ (parallel to $`𝒑_1^{}`$), $`\widehat{𝑵}`$ (in the direction of $`𝒒\times 𝒑_1^{}`$) and $`\widehat{𝑺}=\widehat{𝑵}\times \widehat{𝑳}`$, and the structure functions are thus given for the components $`k=N,L,S`$.

When the outgoing nucleon polarization is not detected, the cross section is summed over the spin quantum numbers of the outgoing nucleon and the spin independent structure functions $`h_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^\mathrm{u}`$ go over to the structure functions $`f_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$ of the unpolarized case . Thus, in this case only four structure functions are obtained, $`f_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}=2h_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^\mathrm{u}`$, and four independent quantities can be measured: the unpolarized cross section

$$\sigma _0=\frac{2\pi ^2\alpha }{E_\gamma }K\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}h_{11}^u,$$
(13)
the circular asymmetry

$$A_\mathrm{c}=\frac{\sigma (+)\sigma ()}{\sigma (+)+\sigma ()}=\frac{h_{11}^u}{h_{11}^u},$$
(14)
where $`\sigma (+)`$ and $`\sigma ()`$ are the cross sections for a circularly polarized photon and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{t}`$ = 0, and the two independent linear asymmetries,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}=\frac{\sigma (0)\sigma (\frac{\pi }{2})}{\sigma (0)+\sigma (\frac{\pi }{2})}=\frac{h_{11}^u}{h_{11}^u}$$
(15)
and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{4}}=\frac{\sigma (\frac{\pi }{4})\sigma (\frac{\pi }{4})}{\sigma (\frac{\pi }{4})+\sigma (\frac{\pi }{4})}=\frac{\overline{h}_{11}^u}{h_{11}^u},$$
(16)
where $`\sigma (0)`$, $`\sigma (\frac{\pi }{2})`$ and $`\sigma (\frac{\pi }{4})`$ are the cross sections for a linearly polarized photon in the directions $`\varphi _\gamma =0,\frac{\pi }{2}`$, and $`\frac{\pi }{4}`$, respectively, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{c}`$ = 0.

When the polarization of the outgoing nucleon is detected, the 12 new structure functions $`h_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^k`$ and 12 corresponding polarization observables, 4 for each direction $`N`$, $`L`$, and $`S`$, are produced. For an unpolarized photon, we have the components of the polarization

$$P^k=\frac{\sigma (+1)\sigma (1)}{\sigma (+1)+\sigma (1)}=\frac{h_{11}^k}{h_{11}^u},$$
(17)
where $`\sigma (+1)`$ ($`\sigma (1)`$) are the cross sections with a nucleon polarized parallel (antiparallel) to the component $`\widehat{s}^k`$ of the spin direction given in eq. (8).

If the photon is circularly polarized and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{t}`$ = 0, we have the components of the polarization transfer coefficient

$`P_\mathrm{c}^k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (+,+1)\sigma (+,1)\sigma (,+1)+\sigma (,1)}{\sigma (+,+1)+\sigma (+,1)+\sigma (,+1)+\sigma (,1)}}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{11}^k}{h_{11}^u}},`$ (19)
where, here and in the following, the first argument in $`\sigma `$ refers to the photon polarization and the second to the nucleon polarization in the direction $`\widehat{s}^k`$.

For a linearly polarized photon and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{c}`$ = 0, we have the components of the two polarization asymmetries

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (0,+1)\sigma (0,1)\sigma (\frac{\pi }{2},+1)+\sigma (\frac{\pi }{2},1)}{\sigma (0,+1)+\sigma (0,1)+\sigma (\frac{\pi }{2},+1)+\sigma (\frac{\pi }{2},1)}}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{11}^k}{h_{11}^u}}`$ (21)
and

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{4}}^k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\frac{\pi }{4},+1)\sigma (\frac{\pi }{4},1)\sigma (\frac{\pi }{4},+1)+\sigma (\frac{\pi }{4},1)}{\sigma (\frac{\pi }{4},+1)+\sigma (\frac{\pi }{4},1)+\sigma (\frac{\pi }{4},+1)+\sigma (\frac{\pi }{4},1)}}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{h}_{11}^k}{h_{11}^u}},`$ (23)
where the first argument in $`\sigma `$ refers to the value of the angle $`\varphi _\gamma `$.

In the case of a coplanar kinematics, where both the emitted nucleons and the photon lie in the same plane, owing to parity conservation combined with the general properties of the hadron tensor, several structure functions vanish and only 8 of them survive: $`h_{11}^u`$, $`h_{11}^\mathrm{N}`$, $`h_{11}^u`$, $`h_{11}^\mathrm{N}`$, $`h_{11}^{\mathrm{L},S}`$ and $`\overline{h}_{11}^{\mathrm{L},S}`$ and thus the quantities $`\sigma _0`$, $`P^\mathrm{N}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^\mathrm{N}`$, $`P_\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{S}}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{4}}^{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{S}}`$ can be measured. This result can be derived along the same lines as the one obtained in ref.  in the more general case of the ($`\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{N}N`$) reaction, and is similar to the result obtained for the ($`\stackrel{}{\gamma },\stackrel{}{N}`$) reaction .

When the nucleon spin is not detected, in coplanar kinematics the only dynamical variable with a nonvanishing component in the $`y`$ direction is the pseudovector $`𝒒\times 𝒑_1^{}`$. As no pseudovectors are available with a component along $`x`$, the matrix elements of the hadron tensor $`W^{xy}`$ and $`W^{yx}`$ must vanish. Therefore, $`h_{11}^u`$ = $`\overline{h}_{11}^u`$ = 0 and, consequently, $`A_\mathrm{c}`$ = $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{4}}`$ = 0, and only $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}`$ survives.

When the nucleon spin is detected, owing to the properties of the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ matrix, only a linear dependence of the structure functions on the spin is allowed \[see eq. (8)\]. As the spin is a pseudovector and in order to fulfill parity conservation, it must be coupled in the hadron tensor with the only available pseudovector independent of the spin, i.e. with $`𝒒\times 𝒑_1^{}`$, which in coplanar kinematics is directed along $`y`$. Therefore, we have: $`W^{xx}`$ = 0, $`W^{yy}`$ dependent on $`s^\mathrm{N}`$, and $`W^{xy}`$ independent of $`s^\mathrm{N}`$. As a consequence, one has: $`h_{11}^\mathrm{N}`$ = $`\overline{h}_{11}^\mathrm{N}`$ = $`h_{11}^{\mathrm{L},S}`$ = $`h_{11}^{\mathrm{L},S}`$ = 0. Thus, $`P^{\mathrm{L},S}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{L},S}`$, $`P_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{N}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{4}}^\mathrm{N}`$ vanish and only $`P^\mathrm{N}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^\mathrm{N}`$, $`P_\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{L},S}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{4}}^{\mathrm{L},S}`$ survive.

The behaviour of the hadron tensor under time reversal and parity transformation has the property

$$W^{\mu \nu }(𝒔,())=W^{\nu \mu }(𝒔,(+)),$$
(24)
where $`𝒔`$ is the spin vector in the ejectile rest frame, and the dependence on the final state boundary condition for incoming $`()`$ and outgoing $`(+)`$ scattered waves is shown. For nucleon knockout, the $`()`$ condition is appropriate. When the boundary conditions can be ignored, as in the plane-wave (PW) approximation, eq. (24) states that the symmetric part of $`W^{\mu \nu }`$ is independent of $`𝒔`$ and the antisymmetric part is proportional to $`𝒔`$. Therefore, when the hadron tensor is spin independent its antisymmetric part vanishes, while its symmetric part vanishes when it is spin dependent. Thus, in PW only $`h_{11}^u`$, $`h_{11}^u`$, $`\overline{h}_{11}^u`$, and $`h_{11}^{\mathrm{N},L,S}`$ survive and therefore $`\sigma _0`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{4}}`$, and $`P_\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{N},L,S}`$, while $`A_\mathrm{c}`$ = $`P^{\mathrm{N},L,S}`$ = $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\mathrm{N},L,S}`$ = $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{4}}^{\mathrm{N},L,S}`$ = 0.

If both coplanar kinematics and the PW approximation are considered, only $`\sigma _0`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}`$ and $`P_\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{L},S}`$ survive. The results are summarized in table 1.

## III The 16O($`\stackrel{}{\gamma },\stackrel{}{𝒏}𝒑`$)14N reaction

In this section numerical results are presented for the 16O($`\gamma ,np`$)14N reaction. Calculations have been performed within the theoretical framework of ref. . In this model it is possible to consider transitions to different low-lying discrete states of the residual nucleus, that are expected to be strongly populated by direct knockout. Here, we present numerical examples for the transition to the 1+ ground state of 14N, with $`T=0`$. This is the first state that can be experimentally separated with an energy resolution of a few MeV and is therefore of particular interest.

The results are very sensitive to the theoretical treatment of the two-nucleon overlap between the ground state of the target and the final state of the residual nucleus. An example is shown in fig. 1, where the calculated differential cross sections of the 16O($`\gamma ,np`$) reaction are displayed in a coplanar and symmetrical kinematics at the incident photon energies of $`E_\gamma =100`$ MeV and 400 MeV. In this kinematics the two nucleons are emitted in the scattering plane at equal energies and equal but opposite angles with respect to the beam direction. Then, for a fixed value of $`E_\gamma `$ and changing the value of the scattering angle it is possible to explore all values of the recoil ($`p_\mathrm{r}`$) or missing momentum ($`p_{2\mathrm{m}}`$) distribution. One has

$$𝒑_{2\mathrm{m}}=𝒑_\mathrm{r}=𝒒𝒑_1^{}𝒑_2^{},$$
(25)
where $`𝒒`$, $`𝒑_1^{}`$, and $`𝒑_2^{}`$ are the momenta of the incident photon and of the two outgoing nucleons, respectively.

If relative and c.m. motions are factorized and final-state interactions are neglected , $`𝒑_\mathrm{r}`$ is opposite to the total momentum $`𝑷`$ of the nucleon pair in the target. Thus, the shape of the momentum distribution is driven by the c.m. orbital angular momentum of the knocked-out pair. As this feature is not spoiled in an unfactorized approach, the symmetrical kinematics here considered is well suited to give information on the motion of the pair in different c.m. angular momentum states.

Calculations have been performed within the direct knockout framework of refs. , where the final-state wave function includes the interaction of each one of the two outgoing nucleons with the residual nucleus by means of a phenomenological optical potential. The nuclear current is the sum of a one-body part, including convective and spin currents, and of a two-body part, including terms corresponding to the lowest order diagrams with one-pion exchange, namely seagull, pion-in-flight and those with intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar configurations.

The results given by two different treatments of the two-nucleon overlap are compared in the left and right panels of fig. 1. The cross sections displayed in the left panels are obtained with the overlap integral used in  for the 16O($`e,e^{}np`$)14N reaction. It includes the effects of short-range as well as tensor correlations, which are calculated within the framework of the coupled cluster method and with a correlation operator restricted to $`1p1h`$ and $`2p2h`$ excitations. The Argonne V14 potential  is employed as a model for a realistic nucleon-nucleon interaction. The explicit expression of the two-nucleon overlap is given by an expansion over relative and c.m. wave functions. The expansion coefficients, accounting for the global or long-range structure of the specific nuclear states, are determined from a configuration mixing calculation of the two-hole states in 16O, which can be coupled to the angular momentum and parity of the requested final state and are renormalized to account for the spectroscopic factors of the s.p. states. This is the best model which can be applied at present, as it contains all the complications of a many-body calculation and the effects of a realistic interaction.

The results in the right panels are calculated with the simpler prescription used in ref. , i.e. by the product of the pair function of the shell model, described for the $`1^+`$ ground state of 14N as a pure ($`p_{1/2}`$)-2 hole, and of a Jastrow type central and state independent correlation function . With this simpler prescription the contribution of the one-body currents and thus of correlations is much lower than with the more refined model, where also tensor correlations are included. In both cases, however, and for both values of the photon energy, the calculated cross sections are dominated by two-body currents, i.e. by the seagull current at 100 MeV and by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current at 400 MeV. The differences between the results shown in the left and right panels of the figure are anyhow large. They are in particular due to the presence in the model of ref. , together with the ($`p_{1/2}`$)-2 component, with a strength 0.60, of an interference component ($`p_{1/2}p_{3/2}`$)-1 equal to $`0.45`$ . These differences, which are due only to the treatment of the two-nucleon overlap, clearly show that the shape and the size of the cross section are very sensitive to this treatment and that an accurate description of both aspects related to nuclear structure and correlations is needed to produce reliable numerical predictions. This result, that is well established for ($`e,e^{}NN`$) reactions , is therefore confirmed also for two-nucleon knockout induced by real photons.

The linear asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}`$, calculated with the two different prescriptions for the overlap integral and in the same conditions and kinematics as in fig. 1, is shown in fig. 2. Large differences are given also in this case by the two models, both at $`E_\gamma =`$ 100 and 400 MeV. The contribution of the one-body current is generally small. This confirms that even when two-body currents are dominant the results can be very sensitive to nuclear structure and correlation effects. Moreover, as it was already observed in previous investigations , the asymmetry appears particularly affected by the different terms of the two-body current and by their interference, in particular by the interference between the pion-in-flight and seagull currents. This contribution is dominant on the asymmetry at $`E_\gamma =`$ 100 MeV, while the role of pion-in-flight on the cross section is generally small. At $`E_\gamma =`$ 400 MeV the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current gives the main contribution, which, however, is not as dominant as in the cross section. Nonnegligible effects are given also by the other components of the two-body current.

For the following calculations we have chosen a coplanar kinematics at $`E_\gamma =`$ 120 MeV. At this value of the photon energy, far from the peak of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance, the contribution of the two-body $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current, that is an important but difficult ingredient  of the theoretical model, is drastically reduced. However, the photon energy is large enough to obtain outgoing nucleons with a reduced final state interaction. The contribution of meson exchange currents cannot be eliminated and the chosen energy is a compromise between the different contributions. The energy and the scattering angle of the outgoing neutron are fixed at 45 MeV and $`45^\mathrm{o}`$, respectively. This value of the scattering angle is taken in order to minimise the mutual interaction between the outgoing nucleons. Different values of the recoil momentum can be obtained by varying the scattering angle of the outgoing proton. This kinematics appears within reach of available experimental facilities.

The calculated differential cross section is displayed in fig. 3. In the left panel the results given by the one-body current and by the addition of the different terms of the two-body current are shown. At the considered value of the photon energy the pion seagull current gives the dominant contribution to the cross section. Only a minor role is played by the one-body current and by the pion-in flight and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ currents. The shape of the angular distribution, however, is practically the same as the one given by the one-body current.

In the considered kinematics and in the calculated angular range, the recoil momentum varies between $`90`$ and 290 MeV/$`c`$, on both sides of the distribution. The shape of the distribution is driven by the c.m. orbital angular momentum $`L`$ of the knocked-out pair. In our model the two-nucleon overlap function contains different components of relative and c.m. motion . For the transition to the $`1^+`$ ground state the relative waves are: $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ (the notation $`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}l_{j}^{}`$, for $`l=S,P,D,`$ is used here for the relative states), combined with a c.m. $`L=0`$ and $`L=2`$, $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$, combined with $`L=1`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$. For this relative wave we have separated the component already present in the uncorrelated wave function, which is combined with $`L=0`$, and the one produced by tensor correlations and not present in the uncorrelated wave function, which is combined with $`L=0`$ and $`L=2`$. As in ref.  we call these two terms $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{\mathrm{T}}`$, respectively. The contribution of $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{\mathrm{T}}`$ emphasizes the role played in the calculations by tensor correlations, which are anyhow present also in the other components.

The separate contributions of the different waves of relative motion are shown in the right panel of fig. 3. The shape of the different curves is determined by the corresponding values of $`L`$. The shape of the final cross section is driven by the component which gives the major contribution, i.e. by $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ in the considered case. Only small effects are given by the other partial waves. The component $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{\mathrm{T}}`$, in particular its part with $`L=2`$, is nonnegligible at low values of the scattering angle, which correspond to larger values of the momentum. The cross section is thus basically a combination of states with $`L=0`$ and $`L=2`$. The contribution of the state with $`L=1`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ is very small. The main role is played by the state with $`L=0`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$, which gives the $`s`$-wave shape in the figure. The contribution of states with $`L=2`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{\mathrm{T}}`$ becomes important at large values of the recoil momentum, where the contribution of the state with $`L=0`$ becomes much lower.

It has been shown in sect. II that when the incident photon is polarized and/or the polarization of the outgoing nucleon is detected, 7 polarization observables survive in coplanar kinematics: the asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}`$, that can be measured in a reaction with a linearly polarized photon and where the nucleon recoil polarization is not detected, the component $`P^\mathrm{N}`$ of the outgoing nucleon polarization, that can be measured in a reaction with an unpolarized incident photon, the components $`P_\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{S}}`$ of the polarization transfer coefficient, that can be measured in a reaction with a circularly polarized photon, and the components $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^\mathrm{N}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{4}}^{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{S}}`$ of the polarization asymmetries, that can be measured in a reaction with a linearly polarized incident photon.

The polarization observables calculated with our model and in the coplanar kinematics of fig. 3 are shown in figs. 4 and 5. The results indicate that all the observables are sizable. They are sensitive to all the different terms of the nuclear current and also to their interference. The main contribution is generally given by the seagull current, which, however, is not as dominant as in the cross section. A large effect is given by the interference between the seagull and pion-in-flight terms, in particular for the asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}`$, where this effect gives the main contribution. The role of the one-body current is not very important in general, but it can be meaningful in particular situations, for instance on $`P^\mathrm{N}`$. At the considered value of the photon energy, $`E_\gamma =120`$ MeV, a small although nonnegligible effect is generally given by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current.

We note that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^\mathrm{N}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{4}}^{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{S}}`$ vanish in the PW approximation, when final-state interactions (FSI) are neglected. Indeed in fig. 5 these quantities turn out to be smaller than the other observables which are present also in PW. Since they are produced by FSI, one might expect that they are sensitive to their treatment.

The results depend on kinematics and on the final state that is considered. The numerical example in figs. 3-5 indicates that cross sections and polarization observables show a different sensitivity to the different terms of the nuclear current. This can be understood if one considers that different structure functions contribute to the different quantities. Moreover, since the polarization observables can be expressed in terms of ratios between the various structure functions and $`h_{11}^u`$, that gives the unpolarized cross section, one can expect that they are able to emphasize specific effects that can be smoothed out in the cross section. Thus, a combined experimental determination of cross sections and polarization observables would give a complete information on the reaction process. It would impose constraints to the different theoretical ingredients and result in a stringent test of theoretical models. In figs. 3-5 we have shown the sensitivity to the different terms of the nuclear current. In figs. 1 and 2, in different kinematics, it has been shown that the cross section and the photon asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}`$ exhibit a strong and different sensitivity to the theoretical treatment of the two-nucleon overlap.

A complete study of all the 16 observables defined in sect. II requires an out-of-plane kinematics. A numerical example is shown in figs. 6-9 in a situation where the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ of the outgoing nucleon whose polarization is not considered (the proton in our case) is $`30^\mathrm{o}`$. The other kinematical variables are taken as in the coplanar kinematics of fig. 3.

The differential cross section in fig. 6 confirms the dominant role of the seagull current and of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ component. The size, however, is an order of magnitude lower than in the peak region of the coplanar kinematics, while the shape indicates a less pronounced peak and a larger contribution of the components with $`L=2`$. The main reason of the differences can be attributed to a kinematic effect. Different values of the recoil momentum are obtained for the same angle $`\gamma _2`$ in the two kinematics. When the outgoing nucleon is taken out of the plane, values lower than $`160`$ MeV/$`c`$ are forbidden and the region between 90 and 160 MeV/$`c`$, where the cross section in the coplanar kinematics has the maximum, is cut. This explains the different size and shape of the results in figs. 3 and 6. This kinematic effect gives also the main difference between the calculated polarization observables which are present both in coplanar and out-of-plane kinematics. The other observables, which are nonvanishing only in out-of-plane kinematics, are sizable. In the considered situation the main contribution is generally given by the seagull current, but also the other terms, in particular the interference between seagull and pion-in-flight, can be meaningful in some observables.

## IV The 16O($`\stackrel{}{\gamma },\stackrel{}{𝒑}𝒑`$)14C reaction

In this section numerical results are presented for the 16O($`\gamma ,pp`$)14C reaction. Calculations have been performed within the theoretical framework of ref. . The model is basically the same used for the 16O($`\gamma ,np`$)14N reaction where the nuclear current is adapted to a $`pp`$ pair. Thus, in the two-body current the charge-exchange terms vanish and only a part of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current contributes. However, a different treatment of the two-nucleon overlap function is used, based on the results of the calculation of the two-proton spectral function of 16O . The two-nucleon overlaps for transitions to the lowest-lying discrete final states of the residual nucleus are obtained from a two-step procedure, where long-range and short-range correlations are treated in a separate but consistent way. The calculation of long-range correlations is performed in a shell-model space large enough to incorporate the corresponding collective features which influence the pair removal amplitudes. The single-particle propagators used for this dressed Random Phase Approximation description of the two-particle propagator also include the effect of both long-range and short-range correlations. In the second step that part of the pair removal amplitudes which describes the relative motion of the pair is supplemented by defect functions, accounting for SRC and obtained from the same G-matrix which is also used as the effective interaction in the RPA calculation. The explicit expression of the overlap function is given in terms of a sum of products of relative and c.m. wave functions. Different components contribute to different transitions. Here, we present numerical results for the transition to the 0+ ground state of 14C, where the components are: $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$, which is combined with $`L=0`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$, which is combined with $`L=1`$. The ground state has been already separated in recent high-resolution experiments for the 16O($`e,e^{}pp`$)14C reaction . The experimental cross sections are well reproduced by the results of our model and clear evidence for SRC has been obtained in the comparison. Thus, it seems interesting to investigate the same final state also for the ($`\gamma ,pp`$) reaction.

The differential cross section of the 16O($`\gamma ,pp`$)14C reaction, calculated in the same coplanar kinematics considered in sect. III, is displayed in fig. 10. The shape of the distribution is determined by the combination of the two components with $`L=0`$ and $`L=1`$. It is clearly shown in the right panel of the figure that $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ with its $`s`$-wave c.m. component prevails for angles corresponding to low values of the recoil momentum, where the $`p`$-wave has the minimum, while the contribution of $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ knockout becomes important al large values of $`p_\mathrm{r}`$, where the $`s`$-wave decreases.

It was established in previous investigations that SRC and two-body current play a different role in different relative states . While SRC are quite strong for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state and much weaker for the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{j}^{}`$ states, the contribution of the two-body $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current is strongly reduced in $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ $`pp`$ knockout  and generally dominant in $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{j}^{}`$ knockout. Therefore, $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ $`pp`$ knockout is generally dominated by the contribution of the one-body current, and thus by SRC, while $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{j}^{}`$ $`pp`$ knockout is generally dominated by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current. The selectivity of the reaction to different states was exploited in ($`e,e^{}pp`$), where it was possible to envisage situations where either contribution is dominant and can thus be disentangled. The result, however, depends on kinematics and on the reaction that is considered. Thus, it cannot be directly applied to ($`\gamma ,pp`$) reactions, where only the transverse components of the nuclear current contribute and the longitudinal component, where the effects of SRC show up more strongly, is absent. On the other hand, in the considered kinematics, where $`E_\gamma =120`$ MeV, the contribution of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current should not be emphasized, as it is also demonstrated by the results of sect. III for the ($`\gamma ,np`$) reaction.

In the present calculation the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current gives indeed the major contribution to $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ knockout, but a sizable effect is also given by its interference with the one-body current. The one-body current is dominant in $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ knockout. In the region of the maximum, where $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ has the minimum, the contribution of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current is larger in $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ than in $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$. This explains the result in the left panel of fig. 10. Most of the contribution of the one-body current is given by $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ knockout. This determines the $`s`$-wave shape of the angular distribution. The result for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current is due to the combined effect of $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$, which gives the main contribution at large values of $`p_\mathrm{r}`$, and of $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$, which enhances the cross section with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current at low values of $`p_\mathrm{r}`$. In the final cross section both processes due to SRC and to the two-body current are important: SRC are of particular relevance at larger values of $`\gamma _2`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at lower values of $`\gamma _2`$.

The polarization observables are displayed in figs. 11 and 12. All the calculated quantities are sizable. Both contributions of the one-body and of the two-body current are important, even though the relevance of the two reaction mechanisms can be different for different observables. For instance, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^\mathrm{N}`$ is basically given by the one-body current, while for other observables the final result, given by the sum of the one-body and the two-body current, is very different from the two separate contributions. Thus, a combined measurement of cross sections and polarization observables would be able to disentangle the two reaction processes and to test the ingredients and the approximations of a theoretical model.

The cross section and the polarization observables calculated for the 16O($`\gamma ,pp`$)14C reaction in the out-of-plane kinematics with $`\varphi =30^\mathrm{o}`$ are given in figs. 13-16. In comparison with the result for the coplanar kinematics, the cross section in fig. 13 shows the same kinematic effect found in the 16O($`\gamma ,np`$)14N reaction. Values of $`p_\mathrm{r}`$ between 90 and 160 MeV/$`c`$ are forbidden, and the region that in the coplanar kinematics of fig. 10 corresponds to the maximum of $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and to the minimum of $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ is cut. As a consequence, the contribution of $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ is always larger than the one of $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ all over the angular distribution. The size of the final cross section is reduced in the region of the maximum and a different shape is obtained. The contributions of the one-body and of the two-body current displayed in the left panel are of about the same size and add up in the final cross section. All the polarization observables in figs. 14-16 are sizable. Also in this case both the one-body and the two-body current are important. In some observables either contribution prevails or appears even dominant in the calculation, but both reaction processes are in general important in the final result and their theoretical treatment can be tested in combined measurements of the different observables.

Also the polarization observables which vanish in PW are sizable. Their determination might be of particular interest for the study of FSI, and in particular of the correlations between the two outgoing particles in the final state, that are neglected in the present model. For the kinematics that are usually considered these effects should not be large in the cross section, but might be emphasized in particular polarization observables.

## V Summary and conclusions

Two-nucleon knockout reactions represent the best suited tool for exploring the behaviour of nucleon pairs in nuclei and their mutual interaction. In particular, electromagnetic reactions give a direct access to nuclear structure and correlations. A combined analysis of cross sections and polarization observables is required for this study.

In this paper we have given the general properties of the ($`\stackrel{}{\gamma },\stackrel{}{N}N`$) reaction where the incident photon is linearly or circularly polarized and the polarization of one outgoing nucleon is detected. In the most general situation 16 measurable quantities, including the cross section, are obtained, each one corresponding to one different structure function. These observables allow a complete investigation of all the components and the properties of the hadron tensor.

For a complete determination an out-of-plane kinematics is needed, i.e. a kinematics where one nucleon does not lie on the plane of the photon and of the other nucleon. In the more usual coplanar kinematics a situation similar to the one of the ($`\stackrel{}{\gamma },\stackrel{}{N}`$) reaction is recovered, and only 8 observables are nonvanishing.

Ten structure functions, and therefore the corresponding observables, vanish when the PW approximation is considered for the outgoing nucleons. These quantities appear very well suited to investigate the effect of FSI between the ejected nucleons and the residual nucleus, and, possibly, the mutual interaction between the two outgoing nucleons.

Numerical examples have been presented for the exclusive 16O($`\gamma ,np`$)14N and 16O($`\gamma ,pp`$)14C reactions. 16O is a well suited target for this investigation. From the theoretical point of view, a great deal of work has been done and a large experience has been acquired on this nucleus. From the experimental point of view, precise measurements have been already carried out for these reactions or are planned in different laboratories, aiming at determining cross sections and polarization observables for individual final states. It is of particular interest to consider exclusive reactions. Previous investigations have shown that different final states exhibit a different sensitivity to the theoretical ingredients of the calculations and to the various reaction processes. Thus, the experimental resolution of specific final states may act as a filter to disentangle and separately investigate different reaction processes and, in particular, to study nuclear correlations.

The results are very sensitive to the treatment of the nucleon pair wave function and to different aspects involving nuclear structure and correlations. The comparison of theoretical predictions with experimental data can thus impose severe constraints to the theoretical models. The polarization measurements, which are here particularly addressed, are expected to be sensitive to the small components of the transition amplitudes, which do not show up in the cross sections, where they are generally overwhelmed by the dominant components.

In this paper cross sections and polarization observables of the 16O($`\gamma ,np`$)14N and 16O($`\gamma ,pp`$)14C reactions have been calculated with a similar approach and considering the transitions to the ground state of the residual nucleus. The nuclear current contains a one-body part, which contributes to the transition only through the correlations, and a two-body part, given by the pion seagull, the pion-in-flight and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar contributions for ($`\gamma ,np`$) reactions, and only by the contribution of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ without charge exchange for ($`\gamma ,pp`$) reactions. In the $`np`$ pair wave function the effects of short-range and tensor correlations are taken into account, while the $`pp`$ pair includes a consistent treatment of short-range and long-range correlations.

As an example, a photon energy of 120 MeV, which seems suitable for experiments, has been chosen in the calculations. At this energy value the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ plays only a minor role. Thus, in the 16O($`\gamma ,np`$)14N reaction the seagull current is dominant. The contribution of the one-body current is not very important in general, but can be meaningful in particular situations. The contribution of tensor correlations is significant, particularly at high values of the recoil momentum. Both the one-body and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ current are important in the 16O($`\gamma ,pp`$)14C reaction. The relevance of either contribution can be emphasized in particular kinematic conditions and in different observables.

The polarization observables are always sizable. They are sensitive to all the different terms of the nuclear current and also to their interference. A combined experimental determination of cross sections and polarizations would give a complete information on the reaction process and result in a stringent test of the theoretical models. This would make it possible to disentangle the different contributions to the reactions and shed light on the genuine nature of correlations in nuclei.


format: text

text:
# Form factor of 𝜋⁰→𝛾𝛾^∗

## Abstract

An effective chiral theory of large $`N_C`$ QCD of mesons has been applied to study the form factor of $`\pi \gamma \gamma ^{}`$. Besides the poles of vector mesons an intrinsic form factor is found. The slope of the form factor is predicted. The effect of the current quark masses on the decay rate is calculated. There is no adjustable parameter in this study.

It is well know that the decay amplitude of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ has been predicted by Adler-Bell-Jackiw, the famous triangle anomaly. This decay is a very important process in both particle physics and field theory. The form factor of $`\pi \gamma \gamma ^{}`$ is associated with both anomaly and Vector Meson Dominance(VMD). The measurements of the form factor has lasted for a long time. In the timelike region of the slope of the form factor of $`\pi ^0\gamma e^+e^{}`$

$$F(q^2)=1+a\frac{m_{e^+e^{}}^2}{m_{\pi ^0}^2}$$

has been measured and the value of the slope a is in a wide range

$$0.24a0.12.$$

Recently, the PrimEx Collaboration of JLab proposes to do direct precision measurements of the slope a in a range of $`0.001GeV^2q^20.5GeV^2`$. On the other hand, the form factor of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$ has been studied by various theoretical approaches.

In Ref. we have proposed an effective chiral theory of large $`N_C`$ QCD of pseudoscalar, vector, and axial-vector mesons. This theory is based on t’Hooft’s large $`N_C`$ expansion of QCD. As interpolating fields, meson fields are coupled to quarks and they are not independent degrees of freedom. In the limit $`m_q0`$, the effective theory is chiral symmetric and has dynamical chiral symmetry breaking. The Lagrangian is expressed as

$`=\overline{\psi }(x)(i\gamma +\gamma v+\gamma a\gamma _5+eQ\gamma Amu(x))\psi (x)\overline{\psi (x)}M\psi (x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0^2(\rho _i^\mu \rho _{\mu i}+\omega ^\mu \omega _\mu +a_i^\mu a_{\mu i}+f^\mu f_\mu )`$ (1)
where M is the quark mass matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}m_u0\\ 0m_d\end{array}\right),$$

$`v_\mu =\tau _i\rho _\mu ^i+\omega _\mu `$ , $`a_\mu =\tau _ia_\mu ^i+f_\mu `$ , and $`u=exp\{i\gamma _5(\tau _i\pi _i+\eta )\}`$. The kinetic terms of mesons are generated by quark loops. The Lagrangian of mesons is obtained by integrate the quark fields out. After renormalization physical meson fields, pion decay constant $`f_\pi `$, and a universal coupling constant g are defined. $`f_\pi `$ and g are two inputs. g is determined to be 0.395 by fitting the decay rate of $`\rho ee^+`$. $`N_C`$ expansion is revealed from this theory. The tree diagrams are at leading order of $`N_C`$ expansion and loop diagrams of mesons are at higher orders. Adler-Bell-Jakiw(ABJ) and Wess-Zumino-Witten(WZW) anomaly is the imaginary part of the Lagrangian of mesons. VMD is a natural result of this theory. We have applied this theory to study various meson physics and the theory is phenomenological successful.

The form factors of charged pion and kaons have been studied by this theory. It has found that besides the poles of vector mesons, there are additional form factors which are called intrinsic form factors caused by quark loop effects. For example, the form factor of charged pion is determined to be

$`F_\pi (q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\rho \pi \pi }(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho ^2+i\sqrt{q^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (q^2)}{q^2m_\rho ^2+i\sqrt{q^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (q^2)}},`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (q^2)`$ is the decay width of $`\rho `$. In the space-like region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho =0`$. Besides a $`\rho `$ pole, there is an intrinsic form factor $`f_{\rho \pi \pi }(q^2)`$

$$f_{\rho \pi \pi }(q^2)=1+\frac{q^2}{2\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}\{(1\frac{2c}{g})^24\pi ^2c^2\},$$
(3)
$$c=\frac{f_\pi ^2}{2gm_\rho ^2}.$$

The effects of the intrinsic form factor are: a larger radius of charged pion is revealed from Eq.(2); in timelike region the $`|F_\pi |`$ decreases faster and in spacelike region $`F_\pi `$ decreases slower than the $`\rho `$ pole only. These results agree well with data.

In Ref. we have studied the form factor of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$. However, only the poles of vector mesons are taken into account. In this paper the intrinsic form factor of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$ is studied and the slope is predicted. The effect of current quark mass on the decay rate of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ is investigated too. In these studies there is no adjustable parameter.

There are four processes which contribute to the form factor of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$. The four processes are shown in Fig.1. In these processes there are four vertices: $`^{\pi ^0\omega \rho }`$, $`^{\gamma \rho }`$, $`^{\gamma \omega }`$, and $`^{\pi ^0\gamma \gamma }`$. In Ref. up to the fourth order in derivatives these vertices have been derived from Eq.(1). ABJ anomaly is obtained

$$_{\pi ^0\gamma \gamma }=\frac{\alpha }{\pi f_\pi }\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \beta }\pi ^0_\mu A_\nu _\lambda A_\beta $$
(4)
and it is found that the form factor of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$ is the poles of $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ mesons. However, like the form factor of charged pion(2), because of quark loop effects besides the poles of vector mesons we should expect an additional form factor for $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$ too. In order to investigate this intrinsic form factor we need to derive the four vertices to sixth order in derivatives. From Eq.(1) related interaction Lagrangian is obtained

$$=\overline{\psi }\{\frac{1}{g}\gamma (\tau _3\rho ^0+\omega )i\frac{2m}{f_\pi }\tau _3\gamma _5\pi ^0\frac{2}{f_\pi }\frac{c}{g}\tau _3\gamma _\mu \gamma _5^\mu \pi ^0+eQ\gamma _\mu A^\mu \}\psi .$$
(5)
The term $`\frac{c}{g}_\mu \pi ^0`$ is obtained from the transformation

$$a_\mu ^0a_\mu ^0\frac{2}{f_\pi }\frac{c}{g}_\mu \pi ^0$$

which is used to cancel the mixing between $`a_\mu `$ and $`\pi `$ fields. In Ref. the formalism of the path integral has been used to calculate the quark loop diagrams up to the fourth order in derivatives. In this paper we use the interaction Lagrangian(5) to calculate quark loop diagrams to find the meson vertices up to the sixth order in derivatives. We obtain

$`_{\rho \gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{e}{4}}g(_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10\pi ^2g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{m^2}}\}(^\mu \rho ^{0\nu }_\nu \rho ^{0\mu }),`$ (8)
$`_{\omega \gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{e}{12}}g(_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10\pi ^2g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{m^2}}\}(^\mu \omega ^\nu ^\nu \omega ^\mu ),`$
$`_{\pi ^0\omega \rho }={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\pi ^2g^2f_\pi }}\pi ^0\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \beta }_\mu \rho _\nu ^0_\lambda \omega _\beta \{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12m^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{g}})(k_1^2+k_2^2+p^2)\},`$
where $`k_{1,2}^2`$ and $`p^2`$ are momentum(in fact, it is -$`^2`$) of $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$, and $`\pi ^0`$ mesons respectively. It is interesting to notice that in Eq.(5) there is a coupling between $`_\mu \pi ^0`$ and the axial-vector current $`\overline{\psi }\tau _3\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\psi `$. The term $`\frac{1}{12m^2}(\frac{2c}{g})(k_1^2+k_2^2+p^2)`$ is obtained from this coupling. Because of the strong anomaly this term is not zero in the chiral limit.

In deriving Eqs.(6-8) the equation with a cut off

$$\frac{N_C}{(4\pi )^2}\frac{D}{4}m^2d^Dp\frac{1}{(p^2+m^2)^2}=\frac{F^2}{16}$$
(9)
has been used. Following equations are useful in this paper

$`F^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{g}})=f_\pi ^2,`$ (11)
$`m^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^2}{g^2}}.`$
Using the substitutions

$$\rho _\mu ^0\frac{1}{2}egA_\mu ,\omega _\mu \frac{1}{6}egA_\mu $$
(12)
in Eq.(8), we obtain

$`_{\pi ^0\gamma \gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2f_\pi }}\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2f_\pi ^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{g}})^2(k_1^2+k_2^2+p^2)\}\pi ^0\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \beta }_\mu A_\nu _\lambda A_\beta ,`$ (15)
$`_{\pi ^0\rho \gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2g\pi ^2f_\pi }}\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2f_\pi ^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{g}})^2(k_1^2+k_2^2+p^2)\}\pi ^0\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \beta }_\mu A_\nu _\lambda \rho _\beta ,`$
$`_{\pi ^0\omega \gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{3e}{2g\pi ^2f_\pi }}\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2f_\pi ^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{g}})^2(k_1^2+k_2^2+p^2)\}\pi ^0\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \beta }_\mu A_\nu _\lambda \omega _\beta .`$
Using Eqs.(6-8,13-15), the amplitudes of the processes of Fig.1 are calculated in the chiral limit

$$<\gamma _1\gamma _2|S|\pi ^0>=i(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(pk_1k_2)\frac{1}{\sqrt{8m_\pi \omega _1\omega _2}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \beta }ϵ_\mu (1)ϵ_\nu (2)k_{1\lambda }k_{2\beta }\frac{2\alpha }{\pi f_\pi }F,$$
(16)
where

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2f_\pi ^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{g}})^2(k_1^2+k_2^2)\}\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2}{k_1^2m_\rho ^2+i\sqrt{k_1^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (k_1^2)}}`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^2}{k_2^2m_\rho ^2+i\sqrt{k_2^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (k_2^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2}{k_1^2m_\omega ^2+i\sqrt{k_1^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega (k_1^2)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^2}{k_2^2m_\omega ^2+i\sqrt{k_2^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega (k_2^2)}}\},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega `$ are the total decay width of $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ meson respectively. The diagram Fig.1(d) is at higher order in derivatives. Therefore, the contribution of this diagram is not included in Eq.(17). In spacelike region they are zero. In timelike region

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(q^2)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho ^0K\overline{K}}(q^2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\rho \pi \pi }^2(q^2)\sqrt{q^2}}{12\pi g^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_{\pi ^+}^2}{q^2}})^{\frac{3}{2}}\theta (q^2>4m_{\pi ^+}^2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho ^0K\overline{K}}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\rho \pi \pi }^2(q^2)\sqrt{q^2}}{48\pi g^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_{K^+}^2}{q^2}})^{\frac{3}{2}}\theta (q^2>4m_{K^+}^2)`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\rho \pi \pi }^2(q^2)\sqrt{q^2}}{48\pi g^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_{K^0}^2}{q^2}})^{\frac{3}{2}}\theta (q^2>4m_{K^0}^2).`$
At $`q^2=m_\rho ^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho =142MeV`$. There are other channels for higher $`q^2`$. In Ref. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega `$ is calculated. Put one of the two photons on mass shell, $`k_2^2=0`$, we obtain the form factor of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$

$`F_\pi (q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\pi \rho \omega }(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho ^2+i\sqrt{q^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (q^2)}{q^2m_\rho ^2+i\sqrt{q^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (q^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\omega ^2+i\sqrt{q^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega (q^2)}{q^2m_\omega ^2+i\sqrt{q^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega (q^2)}}\},`$ (19)
$`f_{\pi \rho \omega }(q^2)=1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2f_\pi ^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{g}})^2q^2.`$
$`f_{\pi \rho \omega }`$ is the intrinsic form factor of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$. For very low momentum we obtain

$`F_\pi (q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`1+a{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_\pi ^2}},`$ (21)
$`a={\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\omega ^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{2f_\pi ^2}}g^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{g}})^2.`$
The first term of Eq.(21) comes from the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ poles and the second term comes from the intrinsic form factor of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$. The numerical value of a is

$$a=0.0303+0.0157=0.046.$$
(22)
The first number of Eq.(22) is from the poles of vector mesons and the second number is from the intrinsic form factor(19). The contribution of the poles of vector mesons is twice of the intrinsic form factor.

The decay amplitude(4) of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ is obtained from ABJ anomaly in the chiral limit. It is interesting to see the effect of the current quark masses, $`m_u`$ and $`m_d`$, on the decay rate. The current quark mass matrix is included in Eq.(1). Taking $`m_{u,d}`$ into the calculation, up to the first order in current quark masses we obtain

$`_{\pi ^0\gamma \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi f_\pi }}f_q\pi ^0\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \beta }_\mu A_\nu _\lambda A_\beta ,`$ (25)
$`f_q=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}(m_u+m_d)+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2f_\pi ^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{g}})^2m_{\pi ^0}^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^0\gamma \gamma )={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2m_\pi ^3}{16\pi ^3f_\pi ^2}}\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}(m_u+m_d)+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2f_\pi ^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{g}})^2m_{\pi ^0}^2\}^2`$
$`\frac{m_u+md}{m}`$ needs to be determined. In Ref. Eq.(1) has used to predict all the 10 Gasser-Leutwyler coefficients of the ChPT. The masses of the octet pseudoscalars have been derived. Up to the second order in current quark masses they are the same as the ones obtained in ChPT. To the first order in $`m_q`$, the pion mass is expressed as

$$m_\pi ^2=\frac{4}{f_\pi ^2}(\frac{1}{3})<\overline{\psi }\psi >(m_u+m_d),$$
(26)
where $`<\overline{\psi }\psi >`$ is the quark condensate of three flavors. In Ref. the quark condensate has been expressed as

$$\frac{1}{3}<\overline{\psi }\psi >=36g^4Qm^3,$$
(27)
and it has been determined

$$Q=4.54.$$

It has been found in Ref. that to the first order in current quark masses $`f_{\pi ^0}=f_{\pi ^+}`$. From Eqs.(26,10,11) it is obtained

$$\frac{m_u+m_d}{m}=\frac{m_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}\frac{1}{4Q}(1\frac{2c}{g})^2.$$
(28)
The quark mass factor(24) is expressed as

$$f_q=1+\frac{m_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}(1\frac{2c}{g})^2\{\frac{1}{4Q}+\frac{g^2}{2}\}=1+4.97\times 10^3.$$
(29)
The decay width of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ is increased by $`1\%`$.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi ^0\gamma \gamma }=7.81\times f_q^2=7.89eV.$$
(30)
The data is $`7.83(1\pm 0.071)eV`$.

To conclude, it is found that in the form factor of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$ besides the vector meson poles an additional intrinsic form factor caused by quark loop is predicted. The slope of the form factor of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$ is predicted. The contribution of the intrinsic form factor is about $`50\%`$ of the vector mesons. For the form factor of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$ at high $`q^2`$ all the derivative should be taken into account. We will present the study later. The effect of current quark masses on the decay rate of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ is investigated. It is found that the rate is increased by $`1\%`$.

The author wish to thank D.Dale and L.P.Gan for discussion. This study is supported by a DOE grant.

Figure Caption
Fig.1 Processes contributing to $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$


text:
# INTEGRAL observations of Galaxy Clusters

## 1 Introduction

Clusters of Galaxies have been thoroughly investigated along the electromagnetic spectrum. Their properties give us valuable hints on the evolution of the Universe and they are one of the best cosmological probes in our possession. Besides the thermal gas which dominates soft X-ray observations, it has long been believed that clusters of galaxies harbor a large populations of non thermal particles. Clusters should be effective traps for cosmic ray particles and the high temperature gas in the IntraCluster Medium (ICM) indicates that strong shock are operating inside it. If diffuse gas undergoes a strong shock, a portion of the shock energy goes into accelerating relativistic particles.

Relativistic electrons emit radiation either directly or by Inverse Compton interaction on the ambient photons. On the other hand relativistic protons collide on the nuclei in the intracluster medium producing radioactive isotopes and nuclear lines. The detection of diffuse radio halos in the cluster cores (see e.g Giovannini et al. 1993) confirms this scenario.

Recently this topic has been revived by the detection of EUV and hard X-ray excesses (Bowyer et al. 1999, Sarazin & Lieu 1998, Fusco-Femiano et al. 1999, Rephaeli et al. 1999, Kaastra et al. 1998, Fusco-Femiano et al. 2000) in three nearby clusters: Coma, A2199 and A2256. The origin of this radiation has been widely discussed but no certain origin can be up to now determined (Sarazin 1999). The debate on the origin of hard X-ray excesses has been up to now hampered by the lack of imaging instruments in this energy domain.

Indeed at the flux level reported in the literature ($``$ few $`\times `$ 10-11 erg cm-2 s-1 in the 20-100 keV energy band, Bassani et al. 1999), there is a non negligible ($``$ 10 $`\%`$) possibility of source confusion (mainly with AGNs) in the relatively large ($``$ 1 degree) field of view of actual instruments. Also the parameters and even the detection of the hard X-ray excess are highly dependent on the parameters of the spectral fit performed on the cluster soft X-ray emission.

The INTEGRAL satellite, the next ESA hard X-ray/soft $`\gamma `$-ray mission, will be able to advance our knowledge in these topics thanks to its exceptional sensitivity and imaging and spectral capabilities, unprecedented in this energy domain. The imaging capability of the IBIS imager will allow to identify the site of the emission and therefore the distribution of high energy electrons in the cluster. On the other hand the SPI spectrometer will allow to probe the acceleration of nuclei and their subsequent interaction with the ambient medium. We will show in the following the results of simulations of INTEGRAL observations which allow us to evaluate its impact on this problem.

## 2 The INTEGRAL satellite and its instruments

INTEGRAL is a 15 keV-10 MeV $`\gamma `$-ray mission with concurrent source monitoring at X-rays (3-35 keV) and in the optical range (V, 500- 600 nm). All instruments are coaligned and have a large FOV, covering simultaneously a very broad range of sources. The INTEGRAL payload consists of two main $`\gamma `$-ray instruments, the spectrometer SPI and the imager IBIS, and of two monitor instruments, the X-ray monitor JEM-X and the Optical Monitoring Camera OMC.

The Imager on Board Integral Satellite (IBIS) provides diagnostic capabilities of fine imaging (12’ FWHM), source identification and spectral sensitivity to both continuum and broad lines over a broad (15 keV–10 MeV) energy range. It has a continuum sensitivity of 2 10-7 ph cm-2 s-1 at 1 MeV for a 106 seconds observation and a spectral resolution better than 7 $`\%`$ @ 100 keV and of 6 $`\%`$ @ 1 MeV. The imaging capabilities of the IBIS are characterized by the coupling of its source discrimination capability (angular resolution 12’ FWHM) with a field of view (FOV) of 9 $`\times `$ 9 fully coded, 29 $`\times `$ 29 partially coded FOV.

The spectrometer SPI will perform spectral analysis of $`\gamma `$ ray point sources and extended regions with an unprecedented energy resolution of $``$ 2 keV (FWHM) at 1.3 MeV. Its large field of view (16 circular) and limited angular resolution ( 2 FWHM) are best suited for diffuse sources imaging but it retains nonetheless the capability of imaging point sources. It has a continuum sensitivity of 7 $`\times `$ 10-8 ph cm-2 s-1 at 1 MeV and a line sensitivity of 5$`\times `$ 10-6 ph cm-2 s-1 at 1 MeV, both 3$`\sigma `$ for a 106 seconds observation.

The Joint European Monitor JEM-X supplements the main INTEGRAL instruments and provides images with 3’ angular resolution in a 4.8 fully coded FOV in the 3-35 keV energy band. The Optical Monitoring Camera (OMC) will observe the prime targets of INTEGRAL main $`\gamma `$ ray instruments. Its limiting magnitude is MV $``$ 19.7 (3$`\sigma `$, 103 s). The wide band observing opportunity offered by INTEGRAL provide for the first time the opportunity of simultaneous observing over 7 orders of magnitude.

All INTEGRAL instruments will be important in defining the emission from galaxy clusters, however in this paper we will focus on IBIS contribution in defining the cluster shape at $`>`$ 20 keV energies and in identifying the origin of non thermal emission. We will show that IBIS will be able to determine the position of the $`>`$ 20 keV emission inside the cluster and therfore to give precious hints on the acceleration processes in the ICM.

## 3 Simulations

We simulated an IBIS 106 seconds observation of the Coma cluster, the pointings were centered on the cluster with a standard 3 x 3 rectangular dithering pattern. SAX/PDS and RXTE observations of this cluster resulted in a detection of a 20-100 keV flux of about 2.2 mCrab in their 1.3 and 1 FWHM degree fields of view (Fusco-Femiano et al. 1999, Rephaeli et al., 1999). The origin of this emission is however unclear, as this kind of instrument is only capable of recording the total emission in the region without discriminating between the components. The spectral fit performed on the data required a non thermal component in excess of the thermal one. In Figure 1 we show a simulated spectrum of the 0.1-100 keV emission detected in Coma Cluster region by previous observations (Hughes et al. 1993, Rephaeli et al. 1999). The spectrum is the composition of a Raymond-Smith thermal model with kT = 9 keV and a non thermal power law with photon index $`\alpha `$ = 2.35.

Thermal emission clearly dominates the total flux at energies smaller than 50 keV. At higher energies however the emission is fainter and the situation is much less clear. From the plot it is evident that the parameters of the non thermal power law can be strongly influenced by a change in the parameters of the much stronger thermal component. Also a serendipitous AGN in the instrument FOV could substantially contribute to the total flux. The value of this component is difficult to assess as the spectral and temporal properties of AGNs are relatively unknown in this energy range. The strongest AGN in the Coma Cluster region is the Seyfert I galaxy X Comae (Bond & Sargent 1973), located $``$ 30 arcmin from the cluster centre. Extrapolating the ROSAT detection by Dow & White (1995) we have estimated a 20-60 keV X-ray flux of $``$ 0.2 mCrab.

We choose to simulate IBIS images of Coma cluster and X Comae in two energy bands: 20-60 keV (’thermal’) and 40-120 keV (’non thermal’). Using the spectrum shown in Figure 1, the cluster emission in the low energy band is $``$ 1.6 mCrab, while in the high energy band is $``$ 0.4 mCrab. At low energies, we simulated its shape as a symmetric gaussian with 30’ and 60’ diameter FWHM, similar to what found in ROSAT images (see e.g. White et al. 1993). Our simulation assumes an isothermal cluster for simplicity, see Honda et al. 1996 for an analysis of Coma temperature structure. The non thermal emission structure is not determined, it should be linked to clusters’ radio halo whose radius varies with frequency. We consider that its dimensions should be somewhere in between the 30-40 arcmin radius at 150 MHz (Cordey 1985) and the $``$ 10 arcmin radius at 1.4 GHz (Kim et al. 1990). We simulated two nonthermal emission configurations: one gaussian with respectively 30’ and 15’ diameter FWHM. A smaller diameter being not resolvable by IBIS, it would result in a point source for the instrument. In the following we report the results of our simulations, we remark that the confidence level we report for our detections are preliminary.

Figure 2 and 3 show the result of our simulations in the 20-60 keV energy band, the cluster is clearly detected at a significance level of 20 and 60 $`\sigma `$ respectively while X Comae is detected in both cases at $``$ 15 $`\sigma `$ level. The cluster’s extended nature is clearly visible in our images thus demonstrating IBIS’ capabilities. The cluster appear in a much clearer way in Figure 3 due to the much higher surface brightness. A similar image will be the first at such energies and it will help determine the temperature structure of the cluster giving basic information on the distribution of $`>`$20 keV gas in the cluster. Moreover it should be noted that the spectral analysis will not be hampered by the presence of a contaminating source which would be readily identified.

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the result of our simulation in the 40-120 keV energy band in the two cases defined above. In both cases the cluster is detected but at a 5 $`\sigma `$ level in the first case and at a 10 $`\sigma `$ level in the second. Inspection of the image clearly shows that the cluster detection is much more difficult as surface brightness is much smaller in the second case. Background fluctuations could make the detection more difficult in this case, obliging to employ more sophisticated detection methods. As expected X Comae is proportionally stronger at a $``$ 4 $`\sigma `$ level.

## 4 Conclusions

We simulated a 106 seconds observation of the Coma cluster with the IBIS instrument onboard the INTEGRAL satellite. We simulated a configuration comprising an AGN (X comae) in the Fully Coded Field of View of the instrument and we took the cluster emission parameter from Hughes et al. (1993) and Rephaeli et al. (1999). We demonstrated that IBIS is fully able to detect and separate the two components of the emission.

In the two images in the 20-60 keV energy band, the cluster is clearly detected as an extended source at a 20-60$`\sigma `$ level depending on the assumed shape. This will be the first image of the cluster at these energies and in itself will help better define the temperature distribution. Together with JEM-X data this should give a complete picture of the clusters’ thermal emission.

At higher energies, in the 40-120 keV energy band, the results strongly depend from the unknown distribution of the clusters’ non thermal emission. If its dimension is $`<`$ 15 arcminutes FWHM (600 kpc), then it can be detected at $``$ 10 $`\sigma `$ level. However if the emission is truly ”diffuse” greater than IBIS resolving power, then the detection is much more difficult.