text:
# Bell’s inequality without alternative settings

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 EPR’s elements of reality with projective measurements

Bell  discovered that some predictions of quantum mechanics contradict Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen’s (EPR’s) “elements of reality” , defined as those satisfying the following criterion: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity” . In Bohm’s version of the EPR’s experiment , when two space-like separated projective measurements  of the spin along the same direction $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ are performed on both spin-1/2 particles prepared in the singlet state

$$|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|n=+1,n=1|n=1,n=+1),$$
(1)
quantum theory predicts that the results ($`+1`$ or $`1`$) will be opposite for any $`\stackrel{}{n}`$. Therefore, there is an element of reality corresponding to every spin component of either of the two particles, since an observer performing a measurement of the spin along $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ on particle 1 can predict with certainty the result of a measurement of the spin along $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ on particle 2 without disturbing it (since the particles are distant enough to exclude communication at the speed of light or lower). In other words, according to EPR, each particle must contain a set of instructions  which determines the result of any spin measurement.

### 1.2 Bell’s inequality with projective measurements

In the most common Bell’s inequality, the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality , two alternative dichotomic (i.e., with possible results $`+1`$ or $`1`$) observables $`A`$ or $`a`$ are measured on particle 1, and other two, $`B`$ or $`b`$, on particle 2. For instance, these observables could be the spin along $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ or $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ on particle 1 and along $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ or $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ on particle 2. If the results of $`A`$, $`a`$, $`B`$, $`b`$ are predefined for all pairs of particles, these results must satisfy the CHSH inequality:

$$|ABAbaBab|2,$$
(2)
where $``$ means average over all pairs. However, in quantum mechanics two spin components of the same spin-1/2 particle, like $`A`$ and $`a`$ (or $`B`$ and $`b`$), cannot be measured in the same experiment. Thus the quantum equivalent of the left-hand side in inequality (2) is usually expressed as

$$\widehat{B}=|AB_\psi Ab_\psi aB_\psi ab_\psi |,$$
(3)
where $`AB_\psi `$ is the mean value of the product of the results of measuring $`A`$ on particle 1 and $`B`$ on particle 2. It is a common assumption that any test of the CHSH inequality requires two local observers who have free-will to choose between two possible settings during the flight of the particles and thus performing four different experiments ($`AB`$, $`Ab`$, $`aB`$, $`ab`$) on four different subensembles of pairs (Fig. 1). Quantum mechanics predict that, for pairs prepared in the singlet state (1), for certain choices of $`\stackrel{}{A}`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}`$, $`\stackrel{}{B}`$, and $`\stackrel{}{b}`$, we will obtain $`\widehat{B}>2`$, which violates the CHSH inequality (2). A widely extended belief is that a setup with fixed local measurements cannot be used to test the CHSH inequality.

In Sec. 2, I will show that a suitable generalized measurement is, from EPR’s criterion of elements of reality, equivalent to a random selection between two alternative projective measurements. In Sec. 3, I will show that a violation of the CHSH inequality (2) can be obtained without requiring local observers to choose between alternative projective measurements.

### 1.3 The locality and detection loopholes

Experiments to test Bell’s inequality  have agreed with quantum predictions and seem to exclude elements of reality. However, up until now, all performed experiments are subject to at least one of two loopholes.

The locality loophole  arises whenever measurements performed on two spatially separated particles are not space-like separated and thus the possibility of communication at the speed of light between the two parts cannot be excluded. The detection loophole  arises from the fact that in most experiments only a small subset of all the created pairs are actually detected. It is therefore necessary to assume that the registered pairs are a fair sample of all the emitted pairs (fair sampling assumption). In practice, both loopholes are not independent . These loopholes are natural from the local hidden variables’ point of view, in which particles have additional hidden variables that enable them to give results for certain experiments and not for others (for instance, to pass an analyzer for certain settings and not for others). If the actual setting does not correspond to the hidden variables of the particle, then, according to the detection loophole, the particle is not detected. Whereas, according to the locality loophole, this situation never happens because the particle knows the setting in advance.

The experiment in  with polarization-entangled photons and a $`400`$ m separation between the particles (which gives the observer $`1.3`$ $`\mu `$s to make the selection-measurement process, defined in  “to last from the first point in time which can influence the choice of the analyzer setting until the final registration of the photon”) is not subject to the locality loophole, but the detection efficiency ($`5\%`$) is not high enough to close the detection loophole ($`82.8\%`$ would be required ).

On the other hand, the experiment in  with trapped beryllium ions has nearly perfect detection efficiency and thereby is not subject to the detection loophole, but the distance between the ions ($`3\mu `$m), although large enough that no known interaction could affect the results, is not large enough to close the locality loophole, because the selection-measurement requires two steps: a selection (equivalent to rotating a wave-plate in the case of experiments with polarized photons) applying Raman beams for a pulse of a duration of $`400`$ ns, and a measurement probing the ion with circularly polarized light from a “detector” laser beam during this detection pulse; if the ion is in one state, it scatters many photons; if it is in the orthogonal state, it scatters very few photons.

It was first thought that improving the detection efficiency in experiments with pairs of entangled photons would avoid both loopholes, but this proved more difficult than expected and, despite several proposals , no conclusive experiment has been achieved. Another approach based on pairs of atoms produced through a photodissociation process , or pairs of Rydberg atoms , is not easy to implement and no conclusive test of Bell’s inequality has been carried out in these systems .

Summing up, although the recent experiments  have meant a significant advance, they still have not settled the debate . A loophole-free experiment is still demanded .

In Sec. 4 we will show that the approach to test Bell’s inequality introduced in Secs. 2 and 3 could be useful to reduce the distance requirements to close the locality loophole in experiments with a high enough detection efficiency.

## 2 EPR’s elements of reality with POVMs

Motivated by the quantum information approach to quantum mechanics and by the fact that current technology allows an exquisite level of control over the measurements that can be performed, recent formulations of the principles of quantum mechanics  stress that the measurements correspond to positive operator-valued measures (POVMs) , extending the notion of von Neumann’s projection-valued measures. The main difference between POVMs and von Neumann’s projection-valued measures is that for POVMs the number of available outcomes of a measurement may be higher than the dimensionality of the Hilbert space. An $`N`$-outcome generalized measurement is represented by an $`N`$-element POVM which consists of $`N`$ positive-semidefinite operators $`\{E_d\}`$ that sum the identity (i.e., $`_dE_d=1\mathrm{I}`$). Neumark’s theorem  guarantees that there always exists a realizable experimental procedure to generate any desired POVM. Any generalized measurement represented by a POVM can be seen as a von Neumann’s measurement on a larger Hilbert space. Therefore, any generalized measurement on a single qubit can be seen as a von Neumann’s joint measurement on a system composed by the qubit plus an auxiliary quantum system (ancilla).

A natural question is what POVMs means from the point of view of EPR’s elements of reality. To answer that, let us go back to the EPR-Bohm experiment. Let us suppose that, instead of the same projective measurement on both particles, a projective measurement $`A`$ is performed on particle 1 and a 4-outcome generalized measurement is performed on particle 2 (Fig. 2). Specifically, let us consider the generalized measurement represented by the following 4-element POVM:

$`E_{A+}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P_{\neg |A=1}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\mathrm{I}P_{|A=1}\right),`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|A=+1A=+1|,`$
$`E_A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P_{\neg |A=+1}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\mathrm{I}P_{|A=+1}\right),`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|A=1A=1|,`$
$`E_{a+}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P_{\neg |a=1}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\mathrm{I}P_{|a=1}\right),`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|a=+1a=+1|,`$
$`E_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P_{\neg |a=+1}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\mathrm{I}P_{|a=+1}\right),`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|a=1a=1|,`$
where $`P_{\neg |A=1}`$ is the projection on states orthogonal to $`|A=1`$. If the result of the POVM is that corresponding to $`E_{A+}`$, this means that the initial state was not $`|A=1`$ . From the point of view of EPR’s criterion of elements of reality, both $`A`$ and $`a`$ must have predefined values $`+1`$ or $`1`$; thus any measurement which reveals that $`A`$ was not $`1`$ also reveals that $`A`$ was $`+1`$. Therefore, following EPR’s point of view, we can label the corresponding output of the POVM as $`A=+1`$, and likewise for the other three possible outcomes, as in Fig. 2.

However, not only $`A`$ but also $`a`$ must have elements of reality. Why then do we obtain only one of them after a POVM? To answer this question, it is useful to keep in mind the fact that any desired POVM with a finite number of elements can be converted into a projective measurement by introducing an auxiliary, independently prepared, quantum system (ancilla) . The POVM can then be seen as a projective measurement on the system composed by the original particle and the ancilla. One way of implementing the POVM given by (4)-(7) is by measuring the observable

$`\widehat{O}`$ $`=`$ $`r_{A+}P_{|A=+1,z=+1}+r_AP_{|A=1,z=+1}`$ (8)
$`+r_{a+}P_{|a=+1,z=1}+r_aP_{|a=1,z=1},`$
where $`P_{|A=+1,z=+1}`$ is the projector onto state $`|A=+1`$ of the particle and state $`|z=+1`$ of the ancilla, and $`r_{A+}`$ is the corresponding result. One of the possible ways to measure $`\widehat{O}`$ is by preparing the ancilla in the maximally mixed state $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}1\mathrm{I}`$, then measuring $`z`$ on the ancilla and then measuring $`A`$ (if the result of the previous measurement is $`z=+1`$) or $`a`$ (if the result is $`z=1`$) on the particle. Such a procedure is analogous to the one followed in a standard test of Bell’s inequality with alternative projective measurements. The result of the first measurement acts as a random generator (the two possible outcomes are unpredictable and have the same probability of occurring) which determines the projective measurement that is finally chosen. Therefore, a measurement of $`\widehat{O}`$ is equivalent to a selection between $`A`$ and $`a`$ using the result of a projective measurement on the ancilla, followed by a projective measurement of either $`A`$ or $`a`$ on the particle. The randomness is provided by a quantum measurement on the ancilla. The result of this measurement selects one experiment or other on the particle. Therefore, we conclude that the described implementation of the POVM (4)-(7) on particle 1 of a two-qubit system in the singlet state is, from the point of view of EPR’s criterion of elements of reality, equivalent to two alternative dichotomic projective measurements $`A`$ or $`a`$ preceded by a device to randomly choose between them.

Let us assume that every implementation of a projective measurement is equivalent. Then, the POVM (4)-(7) can be equivalently measured by a single projective measurement of the observable $`\widehat{O}`$ on the particle-ancilla system. In this case, the usual selection-measurement process in each of the wings of a test of Bell’s inequality is replaced with a single measurement on a particle-ancilla system.

## 3 Violating Bell’s inequality with POVMs

The next step is to show that the predictions of quantum mechanics for a singlet state violate the CHSH inequality (2) when each local observer measures a POVM of the type (4)-(7). Let us suppose that the POVM $`\alpha `$ defined in (4)-(7) is measured on particle 1, and a similar POVM $`\beta `$, defined as in (4)-(7) just by changing $`A`$ by $`B`$ and $`a`$ by $`b`$, is measured on particle 2 (Fig. 3). The average $`AB`$ (and similarly the other three) appearing in the CHSH inequality (2) can be calculated as follows:

$`AB_\psi `$ $`=`$ $`[P_\psi (E_{A+},E_{B+})P_\psi (E_{A+},E_B)`$ (9)
$`P_\psi (E_A,E_{B+})+P_\psi (E_A,E_B)]/`$
$`[P_\psi (E_{A+},E_{B+})+P_\psi (E_{A+},E_B)`$
$`+P_\psi (E_A,E_{B+})+P_\psi (E_A,E_B)],`$
where $`P_\psi (E_{A+},E_{B+})`$ is the probability of the observer of particle 1 obtaining $`A=+1`$, and the observer of particle 2 obtaining $`B=+1`$. The denominator is the probability of the result of the POVM on particle 1 giving a result belonging to $`\{E_{A+},E_A\}`$, and the result of the POVM on particle 2 giving a result belonging to $`\{E_{B+},E_B\}`$. Probabilities for the outcomes obey the Born rule for POVMs:

$$P_\psi (E_{A+},E_{B+})=\psi |E_{A+}E_{B+}|\psi .$$
(10)
Therefore, it is easy to see that, for the singlet state (1),

$$AB_\psi =\mathrm{cos}\theta _{AB},$$
(11)
where $`\theta _{AB}`$ is the angle between $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$. Choosing $`\stackrel{}{A}=(1,0,0)`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}=(0,0,1)`$, $`\stackrel{}{B}=(1,0,1)/\sqrt{2}`$, and $`\stackrel{}{b}=(1,0,1)/\sqrt{2}`$, we obtain $`\widehat{B}=2\sqrt{2}`$, which violates the CHSH inequality (2). Thus, we conclude that the predictions of quantum mechanics for the singlet state violate the CHSH inequality, even if local observers do not have to choose or switch between alternative projective measurements; a suitable POVM implements such a selection-measurement process in a single step.

## 4 POVMs and loophole-free tests

### 4.1 Assumption on the ability of local “hidden” variables

To avoid the locality loophole, Bell stressed the importance of experiments “in which the settings are changed during the flight of the particles” . Contrary to what happens in experiments with passive switches , in the POVM approach one could not reasonably argue that any particle of the pair could guess the “settings”. One might think that particle 1 could know the hidden-variable state of the ancilla associated to particle 2 and that this state could determine the “setting” on particle 2. However, a similar complaint might be applied to any standard test of the CHSH inequality, only changing “hidden-variable state of the ancilla” to “hidden-variable state of the acousto-optical switch” (or any other supposedly “random” method for switching). In any test of Bell’s inequality we have to assume that there are some limits to the ability of the hidden variables of particle 2 to ascertain what is going to be done to particle 1; otherwise the locality loophole could not be avoided by any conceivable setup.

Explicitly, our approach hinges on an additional assumption: $`(h)`$ The particle on which POVM $`\alpha `$ is going to be measured has no ability to ascertain or dictate whether the element of reality, $`A`$ or $`a`$, is going to be revealed. Such assumption is equivalent to the following usual assumption in the standard approach: $`(h^{})`$ The local hidden variables have no capability to ascertain or dictate in advance the final setting of the random mechanism.

Supporting the equivalence of assumptions $`(h)`$ and $`(h^{})`$ is the following argument: The POVM can be implemented as a single and projective measurement on the particle-ancilla system. This implies an interaction between a measurement apparatus (of which the ancilla is a part) and the particle. From the perspective of the elements of reality, the result of this interaction has two meanings: on one hand, it reveals a pre-existent value; on the other, it entails a choice. Following EPR, the former can be regarded as an element of reality. However, nothing in the EPR criterion authorizes us to suppose that this “choice” is somehow pre-existent neither in the particle nor in the apparatus-ancilla system. The “choice” is not an EPR element of reality. It is the result of an essentially uncontrollable, intrinsically unrepeatable, and basically unpredictable phenomenon which involves interactions between the particle, the apparatus, the ancilla, and the environment in a particular region of space-time. A phenomenon which, to our present knowledge, can be used as a source of randomness  which offers the advantage over conventional randomness sources (like electronic noise) of being robust and invulnerable to environmental perturbations. Why then not judge assumption $`(h)`$ to be at least as limiting, if not less, than the usual assumption $`(h^{})`$?

### 4.2 Practical advantages

At first sight, the standard approach, based on a random selection between two alternative projective measurements, and the approach introduced here, based on single POVM implemented by a single projective measurement on the particle-ancilla system, might be considered to be physically equivalent. However, the equivalence is not complete. The difference could be useful (or at least must be taken into account) in designing loophole-free tests of Bell’s inequality.

Detection efficiencies that are high enough to avoid the detection loophole are usually associated to entangled pairs of massive particles. However, preparing and preserving entanglement between two distant massive particles is a difficult task. Therefore, an interesting question is: which is the minimum distance between the local measurements on the particles necessary to avoid the locality loophole? This distance is $`ct`$, where $`c`$ is the speed of light in a vacuum. In the standard approach, $`t=t_S+t_M`$, where $`t_S`$ is the time which elapses since the moment in which the final setting of the selector can be ascertained until the particle enters the measurement device, and $`t_M`$ is the time that the projective measurement lasts. In the POVM approach, it is just $`t=t_M`$.

Moreover, while $`t_S`$ cannot be neglected because it involves a sequence of physical processes (it requires, among other things, connecting a mechanism to generate random results with another which fixes the selector), $`t_M`$ is, in principle, comparatively smaller. The behavior of a quantum system subject to a projective measurement is described by von Neumann’s reduction postulate . In this description, measurement is instantaneous. However, real measurements require interactions between the system being measured and the environment, interactions which are not actually instantaneous. However, for our discussion, the important point is that there is no fundamental limit to the minimum time required for a measurement. Therefore, in the POVM approach to test Bell’s inequality, in principle, there would be no limit to the minimum spatial distance between local measurements. In practice, this means that, in the POVM approach, this distance is only restricted by the duration of a single projective measurement .

## 5 Conclusions

I have proposed a different approach to test the Bell-CHSH inequality. It basically consists in replacing each of the usual pairs of alternative projective measurements preceded by a random mechanism to select between them, by a single fixed POVM. The basic assumption tested by the proposed experiment is the existence of elements of reality as defined by EPR. In Sec. 2, it has been shown that the POVM $`\alpha `$ reveals the value of an EPR element of reality, either $`A`$ or $`a`$. Since the CHSH inequality is derived from the assumption of the existence of EPR elements of reality, the violation of the CHSH inequality showed in Sec. 3 can be interpreted as a test of the nonexistence of EPR elements of reality.

However, the argument hinges on an additional assumption: $`(h)`$ the particle on which the POVM $`\alpha `$ is going to be measured has no capability to ascertain or dictate which of the element of reality, $`A`$ or $`a`$, is going to be revealed. In Sec. 4, it is argued that such an assumption is equivalent to the usual assumption in the standard approach: $`(h^{})`$ the local hidden variables have no capability to ascertain or dictate in advance the final setting of the random mechanism. Any test of Bell’s inequality requires an assumption of this kind. It is stressed that $`(h)`$ imposes the same or fewer restrictions than $`(h^{})`$.

Finally, the advantages of this approach are twofold: (a) it does not require us to assume observers having “free-will”, and (b) it can potentially be used to improve the perspectives of success in the race for a loophole-free test of Bell’s inequality. This is because the new approach eliminates the requirement of a “random” external mechanism before a projective measurement and replaces both the random mechanism and the projective measurement itself with a single projective measurement. For some physical systems, at least, this implies a reduction of the spatial length between the local measurements needed to avoid the locality loophole. Such a reduction is of practical interest, since the typical physical systems which allow us to avoid the detection loophole (namely, entangled massive particles) do not allow a significant separation among parts.

## Acknowledgments

I thank J. Calsamiglia, J. L. Cereceda, J. I. Cirac, J. Finkelstein, L. Masanes, E. Santos, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter for illuminating discussions, J. Calsamiglia for his hospitality at Harvard University, H. Weinfurter for his hospitality at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, and Max-Planck-Institut für Quantenoptik, Garching, and the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología grants BFM2001-3943 and BFM2002-02815, the Junta de Andalucía grant FQM-239, and the Max-Planck-Institut für Quantenoptik for support.


format: text

text:
# New Evidence for Proton Cyclotron Resonance in a Magnetar Strength Field from SGR 1806-20

## 1 Introduction

Soft Gamma Repeaters (SGRs) are a rare, enigmatic type of pulsars that are distinguished by the hallmark of episodic emission of short ($`0.1`$ s), hyper-luminous ($`10^{39}10^{42}`$ erg$`\mathrm{s}^1`$) bursts of soft $`\gamma `$-rays (see e.g. Hurley 2000 for reviews). Less frequently, SGRs also emit giant flares that last for hundreds of seconds, exhibit remarkable pulsations, and even have measurable effects on the earth’s outer atmosphere (Mazets et al. 1979; Hurley et al. 1999; Ibrahim et al. 2001; Inan et al. 1999). The high flux, short burst durations and lack of evidence for either a binary companion or an accretion disk inspired appeal to unusual energy sources for SGRs, including objects with ultra-strong magnetic fields (Duncan & Thompson 1992), accretion onto neutron stars from a fossil disk (Marsden et al. 2001), and emission from strange quark stars (Zhang et al. 2000).

SGR 1806-20 underwent two major bursting episodes since its discovery in 1979, the latest of which occurred in 1996, when Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) observations revealed a 7.47 s pulsar associated with the source that spins down at a relatively fast rate of $`10^{11}`$ s/s (Kouveliotou et al. 1998). The detection of pulsations and high spin-down rates in the quiescent emission of SGR 1806-20 and SGR 1900+14 (Kouveliotou et al. 1998; 1999), when interpreted within the magnetic dipole model, gave strong indication that these sources are endowed with ultra-strong magnetic fields ($`B>10^{14}`$ G) for which the name magnetars was coined. However, the lack of independent spectral confirmation of the magnetic field strength and the irregularities in the spin-down rates allowed for alternative models (Marsden et al. 1999).

Recently, a 5 keV absorption feature was detected in a burst from SGR 1806-20, providing evidence for proton cyclotron resonance in an ultra-strong magnetic field ($`B10^{15}`$ G) (Ibrahim et al. 2002). Here we present a comprehensive study of a large number of bursts from the source observed with RXTE during its last active phase in November 1996. We detect the 5 keV feature with high confidence in the overall data set. In light of the feature’s characteristics and the source’s observational properties, proton cyclotron resonance is the plausible interpretation, providing the first confirmed evidence of proton/ion spectral signature from a cosmic source. We use the feature together with the spin-down rate to further constrain the magnetic field and to obtain estimates on the gravitational redshift, mass and radius of the SGR.

## 2 Observation and Data Analysis

We obtained the RXTE Proportional Counter Array (PCA) data from the HEASARC archives and used the event-mode and good-xenon data to construct the burst light curves and spectra. We detected over 100 bursts with a variety of strengths that range from faint bursts, which do not have enough counts to accumulate a meaningful spectrum, to very bright bursts, which have large dead-time and pile-up effects and in some cases saturated the PCA. For cogent spectral analysis, we considered moderately bright bursts which gave enough counts for accurate spectral fitting but at the same time have count rate not exceeding 90,000 counts/s so that dead-time and pile-up effects would not be significant (Ibrahim et al. 2001). Although such instrumental effects are not known to produce artificial spectral features but would rather harden the overall spectral continuum and modify the widths and depths of real features, this careful selection ensures results that are intrinsic to the source.

We classified the bursts according to their temporal profiles into single-peak and multi-peak bursts and fitted each emission peak separately. This resulted in a total of 56 spectra111All burst observations have the same pointing coordinates and PCA EDS configuration and were analyzed identically.. For background subtraction, we used quiescent pre-burst data segments. We found qualitative characterization of the spectral continua with an absorbed power-law model, which provided slightly better fits than an absorbed bremsstrahlung model for the overall data set. The fits showed a number of spectra with relatively large $`\chi ^2`$ and narrow absorption dips in the vicinity of 5 keV. To assess the significance of the dip, we added Gaussian absorption lines to the fit models and evaluated the change in $`\chi ^2`$ using the F-test. The fits improved considerably, giving rise to a highly significant ($`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\sigma `$) 5 keV absorption feature in some bursts while others showed only modest improvement ($`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\sigma `$). Replacing the Gaussian line with an absorption edge was less significant by an order of magnitude.

Fig. 1 shows examples of the bursts with strong evidence of the feature. The spectral characteristics of the burst continua and the line features are shown in Table 1. All features are narrow; 90% confidence upper limit on the line widths range from 0.45 keV to 0.95 keV. The features are fairly strong with equivalent widths (EW) varying from 400 eV to 850 eV.

In Fig. 2 we show one of the bursts that did not show the feature significantly, for which we place a 90% confidence upper limit on the equivalent width of 200 eV. The fact that these bursts have similar temporal profiles and count rates comparable to those in Fig. 1, yet show no features argues against instrumental effects. In fact, the equivalent widths of the features shown in Fig. 1 exceed by an order of magnitude those of possible artificial features that could be due to imperfections in the detector response matrix. As an additional verification, we analyzed Crab pulsar spectra of similar counts using an observation that took place just a few hours before those of SGR 1806-20. The spectrum is well represented by an absorbed power-law and the fit is not improved by adding an absorption line near 5 keV. The 90% upper limit on the equivalent width is 40 eV.

No evidence is found for a correlation between the appearance of the feature and spectral hardness, burst duration, counts, or peak count rate. Interestingly, most of the spectra that showed the feature significantly were associated with average 2–50 keV flux in a rather narrow range of $`(6.349.66)\times 10^8`$ erg cm-2 s-1 (the flux varied among all spectra between $`(4200)\times 10^9`$ erg cm-2 s-1).

To estimate the overall significance of the 5 keV feature in the entire data set, we individually fitted each burst spectrum with an absorbed power-law and obtained the cumulative $`\chi _1^2`$ and degrees of freedom $`\nu _1`$. Next, we added a narrow Gaussian line whose energy is allowed to vary around 5 keV only within 1 keV, as implied by the 90% confidence level on the features in Table 1, and fitted the data again and obtained the new cumulative $`\chi _2^2`$ and $`\nu _2`$. We then performed the F-test on the two $`\chi ^2`$ distributions. With ($`\chi _1^2=2630.3`$, $`\nu _1=2176`$) and ($`\chi _2^2=2302.3`$, $`\nu _2=2063`$), we get an overall chance probability $`p=2\times 10^{16}`$. If we exclude the five bursts shown in Fig. 1, we still detect the feature significantly with a chance probability of $`2\times 10^5`$.

Alternatively, if we assess the overall significance of the feature from the 5 bursts in Fig. 1 using 222$`N`$ is the total number of spectra inspected (56), $`n=5`$, $`p_1\mathrm{}p_5`$ are the chance probabilities given in Table 1, and $`p_{min.}`$ is the least significant $`p`$. $`p=\frac{N!}{n!(Nn)!}p_1p_2p_3\mathrm{}p_n(1p_{min})^{(Nn)}`$, we get $`p=5\times 10^{14}`$. This is a conservative estimate, not accounting for the presence of the feature in other bursts.

## 3 Discussion

With the growing evidence of ultra-strong magnetic fields in SGRs (Kouveliotou et al. 1998; 1999) and AXPs (Hulleman et al. 2000; Kern & Martin 2002), several models have recently been developed for proton and ion cyclotron features (Bezchastnov et al. 1996; Zane et al. 2001; Ho & Lai 2001; Özel 2002; Thompson 2002a). Recent high-resolution observations of SGRs and AXPs quiescent emission revealed no evidence for spectral features (Kouveliotou et al. 2001; Fox et al. 2001; Patel et al. 2001; Juett et al. 2002; Tiengo et al. 2002). However, two spectral lines at 6.4 keV and 5.0 keV have recently been detected in two bursts from SGR 1900+14 and SGR 1806-20, respectively, suggesting that spectral features could be a property of the bursts alone (Strohmayer & Ibrahim 2000; Ibrahim et al. 2002). While the 6.4 keV feature did not provide conclusive evidence on the magnetic field strength of SGR 1900+14, the 5.0 keV feature gave evidence for proton cyclotron resonance with an implied magnetic field of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{15}`$ G for SGR 1806-20. Our new results reported here confirm the 5 keV feature in SGR 1806-20 burst spectra.

The possibility that the 5 keV feature is due to electron cyclotron resonance in a typical neutron star magnetic field ($`B10^{12}`$ G) is discussed in Ibrahim et al. 2002. That the line width upper limits are up to an order of magnitude smaller than both observed and expected widths of electron cyclotron features argues against this interpretation. Moreover, an electron resonance at 5 keV would give a field of $`6\times 10^{11}`$ G, three orders of magnitude less than that derived from the spin-down rate estimate ($`8\times 10^{14}`$ G). The possibility that the line could be formed at several neutron star radii from the surface is unlikely due to the presence of a range of field strengths that would not generate a narrow feature. The splitting of Landau levels in $`B6\times 10^{11}`$ G (Pavlov et al., 1991), which seems potentially promising to distinguish an electron feature from an ion signature if observed with a high resolution spectrometer, might be overwhelmed by Doppler broadening. Actual measurement of a narrow width would argue for the ion cyclotron interpretation.

On the other hand, the observed line width, energy, and equivalent width are consistent with model predictions for proton cyclotron resonance proposed by Zane et al. 2001 and Ho & Lai 2001 for fully ionized Hydrogen atmospheres. The magnetic field implied from the proton interpretation ($`1\times 10^{15}`$ G) is in good agreement with the independent estimate ($`8\times 10^{14}`$ G) obtained from the spin-down rate during the same observations (Kouveliotou et al. 1998). Lai & Ho (2002) and Özel (2002) pointed out that vacuum polarization effects would reduce the equivalent width of the proton feature in quiescent emission. Bulik and Miller (1997) studied the effect of vacuum polarization on the burst spectra, but not in connection with the proton resonance. Appropriate models for burst spectra that include both effects have not been worked out as yet. In conclusion, on observational grounds, a cyclotron resonance at 5 keV together with the observed period and spin-down rate of the neutron-star source are consistent only if the star’s magnetic field is greater than $`10^{14}`$ G.

In addition to the proton resonance at $`E_p`$ in $`B>10^{14}`$ G, $`\alpha `$–particles and ions with $`Z/A=1/2`$ would resonate in the same field at $`E_p/2`$. However, the significant increase in the binding energy of atoms in a strong magnetic field ($`_o(Z)Z^3[\mathrm{ln}(B/Z^3)+\mathrm{const}.]^2`$, Duncan 1999; Lai 2001) would likely suppress the ion features. If the 5 keV feature arises from ion and $`\alpha `$–particle resonance in $`B2\times 10^{15}`$ G, one would expect a similarly strong feature at $`10`$ keV due to proton fundamental and $`\alpha `$–particle/ion first harmonics. This is not seen. There is a hint of a feature near 10 keV in some bursts, but it is more consistent with being a 5 keV second harmonic. Evidence of higher harmonics was seen in the first burst that showed the feature (Ibrahim et al. 2002).

Using the proton fundamental resonance formula $`E_p=6.3(1+z)^1(B/10^{15}\mathrm{G})`$ keV 333Here $`z`$ is the gravitational redshift and $`(1+z)^1=(12GM/Rc^2)^{1/2}`$, and $`M`$ and $`R`$ are the mass and radius of the star, respectively., and the observed resonance values, the magnetic field in SGR 1806-20 is directly determined by $`B=(7.79.4)(1+z)\times 10^{14}`$ G. For a given $`E_p`$ and $`B`$, the resonance relation gives a locus of $`M`$ and $`R`$. Similarly, the magnetic field–spin-down relation 444$`P`$ and $`\dot{P}`$ are the period and spin-down rate, $`\theta `$ is the angle between magnetic dipole and rotation axis, and $`\xi `$ is the neutron star’s moment of inertia in units of $`MR^2`$., $`B^2=\frac{3c^3\xi P\dot{P}}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\frac{M}{R^4}`$, gives another locus of $`M`$ and $`R`$ for a particular $`B`$. The intersection of the two relations constrains the mass and radius of the SGR as illustrated in Fig. 3. While the dipole model comes from an idealized case, it provides adequate order of magnitude estimate for the magnetic field. Also, since the connection of SGR 1806-20 and SNR G10.0-0.3 is now uncertain (Gaensler et al. 2001), there is no longer a requirement that it has a large wind of particles to fill a plerionic nebula. It is then possible for the magnetic dipole radiation to be the dominant source of spin-down.

Assuming an oblique rotator and the average value (0.5) of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, the $`M`$-$`R`$ constraints above, along with the equations of state, would limit the radius and mass of SGR 1806-20 to $`R=(10.512.3)`$ km and $`M=(1.31.8)M_{}`$ if the neutron star were composed of nucleons and hyperons. The corresponding gravitational redshift and mass-radius ratio are $`z=0.260.33`$ and $`M/R=(0.120.15)M_{}`$/km, which yield a surface magnetic field $`B=(0.971.3)\times 10^{15}`$ G. We note that our estimates of $`z`$ and $`M/R`$ are close to those recently reported from an isolated neutron star that showed 0.7 and 1.4 keV absorption features (Sanwal et al. 2002). For $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =1`$, the $`M`$-$`R`$ locus moves to values of $`R<10`$ km, too small for equations of state that do not have quarks or other ‘exotic’ particles. A quark star would give $`R=(810)`$km and $`M=(1.31.95)M_{}`$.

With our present knowledge, there are several mechanisms that could explain the observed features in light of the magnetar model (Thompson & Duncan 1995). SGR bursts have been identified with photon-pair plasma that is created and trapped in the magnetosphere as a result of magnetically driven crust-quake. The plasma dissipates its energy by X-ray emission; part is radiated away as the burst and part is radiated back to the exposed surface of the neutron star. In this framework, proton cyclotron resonance could arise in several scenarios.

First, it could originate near the surface of the neutron star, in the local region of the crust-quake, where hydrogen in the atmosphere is being irradiated by the plasma photons. Secondly, the cooling phase of the burst emission is expected to involve an ablation process that blows off baryons and ions from the surface of the star to its atmosphere. If this occurs in the first peak of a multi-peak burst (or in a single-peak burst), the optical depth during a subsequent peak (or a later burst) is likely to be larger, thus augmenting resonance features.

Features produced by these mechanisms come from near the surface and thus can be obscured by the rotational orientation of the star if the emission region is not along our line of sight. Note that the durations of the absorption line episodes are much smaller ($`<0.01P`$) than the pulsar rotational period. It was recently pointed out that emission from near the equatorial plane will be pronounced at the cyclotron resonance, in contrast with that from the poles (Thompson et al. 2002b).

A third origin of proton resonance is from the baryon-loaded sheath, which constitutes the plasma outer shell. The resonance could occur in that region as protons in the baryon sheath are illuminated from within by the hard burst photons.

In all the scenarios above the burst is essential, giving rise to optical depths and fluxes of high energy photons far exceeding those in quiescence, which may explain the absence of the feature from SGR and AXP persistent emissions. The effect of vacuum polarization, together with the correlation with the flux, the rotational and latitude constraints mentioned above, and the fact that the optical depth to resonant cyclotron scattering is proportional to the local density of protons could in principle account for the transient nature of the feature and its absence or weak presence in some bursts.

In summary, the discovery of the 5 keV absorption feature provides a unique opportunity not only to diagnose SGR 1806-20 magnetic field but also to reveal insight on the gravitational field strength, mass and radius of SGRs. This is an important step toward understanding a mysterious constituent of the Universe. Further observations and careful analysis could allow unprecedented studies of physical phenomena in the extreme limits of gravitation and magnetic field, uniquely found in magnetars.

We are grateful to R. Duncan, C. Markwardt, K. Hurley, S. Safi-Harb, S. Zane, R. Turolla, F. Özel, G. Pavlov, C. Miller, K. Jahoda and A. Harding for useful discussions and insightful comments. A.I.I. acknowledges support from NASA grant No. NAG5-11951 and The George Washington University.


text:
# Photoproduction of ϕ mesons from nuclei

## I Introduction

Medium modifications of hadrons result on the one hand from standard hadronic many–body effects, which first of all appear to be completely independent of the partonic sub–structure of these particles. In particular the determination of the $`\rho `$ meson spectral function has attracted much theoretical interest in recent years asakawa ; rapp ; post . On the other hand, it is expected, that the properties of hadrons are influenced by the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry brown . The authors of hatsuda ; kampfer ; Leupold:zh  calculated within a QCD sum rule approach, that the masses of the light vector mesons drop in nuclear matter due to a partial restoration of chiral symmetry and the lowering of the chiral condensate. Up to now it is completely unknown, in which manner the mentioned many-body effects are connected with chiral symmetry restoration koch .

In this respect also the in–medium properties of the $`\varphi `$ meson have been a subject to several theoretical studies weise ; klingl ; ramos . The predictions of these works have in common a quite small mass shift at normal nuclear matter density but a sizeable enhancement of the $`\varphi `$ width up to one order of magnitude above its free width of 4.4 MeV. The investigation of the $`\varphi `$ in–medium properties is of great interest due to various reasons: On the one hand the $`\varphi `$ is neither in the dilepton nor in the $`K\overline{K}`$ invariant mass spectrum concealed by other resonances. On the other hand the $`\varphi `$ properties are of fundamental interest for basic features of QCD, since one expects to gain not only information about chiral symmetry restoration but also about the strangeness admixture in the nucleon oh  and the appearance of the quark–gluon plasma in heavy–ion collisions shor ; chung .

Furthermore, there has been the experimental effort to look for the existence of a small, but significant decrease in the peak mass of the invariant mass spectrum of the $`\varphi `$ meson, occuring for central heavy ion collisions. However, these measurements found that the actual $`\varphi `$ mass distribution was consistent with that of the free $`\varphi `$ meson akiba .

The purpose of the present paper is to analyse in detail the feasibility of an experiment running soon at Spring8/Osaka osaka . The considered reaction is inclusive photoproduction of $`\varphi `$ mesons from nuclei, looking at the $`K^+K^{}`$ invariant mass spectrum, which contains both information about the mass and the width of the produced $`\varphi `$ mesons. The experiment will be performed with a photon beam of 2.4 GeV maximum energy, which is produced by backward Compton scattering of laser photons from an 8 GeV electron beam. As pointed out in osaka , the estimated mass resolution of the detector is 600 keV, which is much smaller than the free $`\varphi `$ width. Thus, the observables could be highly sensitive to small deviations of the mass distribution compared to the situation in free space.

Already the authors of oset  performed a many–body calculation with a similar purpose as in the present paper. In this study the photon self–energy diagram for a $`\varphi `$ and a particle–hole in the intermediate state was calculated. They used the results for the $`\varphi `$ width obtained in ramos , which contains ’elastic’ contributions ($`\varphi K\overline{K}`$) due to the renormalization of the kaons and ’inelastic’ contributions due to $`\varphi N`$ absorption reactions ($`\varphi NK\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, etc.). The final state interactions (FSI) were taken into account by a Glauber–type geometrical damping factor for outgoing anti–kaons. As a final result the authors of oset  found an observable enhancement of the width of the invariant $`K^+K^{}`$ mass distribution by a factor of about two.

At first sight, the observation of medium properties of the $`\varphi `$ through the $`K\overline{K}`$ invariant mass spectrum seems rather unlikely due to two reasons: First, most of the $`\varphi `$ mesons will decay outside the nucleus due to the small width of the $`\varphi `$ resonance. As will be discussed below, this problem can be avoided by restricting the three momenta of the observed kaon–anti–kaon pairs to about 150 MeV as already proposed in oset . Second, the invariant mass spectrum might be strongly distorted by $`KN`$ and $`\overline{K}N`$ reactions, for which the cross sections are quite large. The influence of these effects on the shape of the mass spectrum will be discussed in detail in the section concerning the results of our calculations.

For the description of the photonuclear reaction we make use of a semi–classical BUU transport model. Our model allows the calculation of inclusive particle production in heavy ion collisions from 200 AMeV to 200 AGeV teis  and in pion brat , photon effe96 ; effe00  and electron lehr  induced reactions with just the same physical input. Already in effe99  observable consequences of medium modifications of the light vectormesons $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ through their dileptonic decay in photon–nucleus reactions were investigated. A presentation of the model in full detail was given in effe96 .

In the BUU model the photon–nucleus reaction is described as a two–step process. In the first step the incoming photon reacts with a single nucleon (impulse approximation). Since for the considered photon energy the effect of nuclear shadowing has an observable impact on the cross sections falter\_schatt , the shadowing effect is taken into account as explained in falter\_form . In the second step the produced particles are propagated explicitly through the nucleus allowing for all kinds of final state interaction. This part of our model is governed by the semi–classical transport equations.

We take into account elastic $`\varphi `$ photoproduction as well as inelastic $`\varphi `$ production as elementary $`\gamma N`$ processes. An important ingredient to our model is the elastic $`\varphi `$ photoproduction cross section, for which various models are available landshoff ; laget ; titov ; kochelev . Moreover, inelastic $`\varphi `$ photoproduction, i. e. processes of the type $`\gamma N\varphi \pi N`$ and $`\gamma N\varphi K\overline{K}N`$, turns out to play the dominant role in the regime of $`\varphi `$ momenta below a few hundred MeV and therefore has to be included in order to allow calculations yielding absolute numbers to be compared to experiment. Since for these processes neither experimental data nor microscopic models are available, we simulate these events using the Lund model FRITIOF fritiof .

The inelastic $`\varphi `$ photoproduction processes have not been included in oset . Furthermore, compared to the purely absorptive FSI of oset  our model allows for a more realistic description of the FSI, taking into account also regeneration, side–feeding and inelastic scattering of the considered mesons. Inelastic $`\varphi N`$ scattering, i. e. $`\varphi N\varphi X`$, yields a slowing down of $`\varphi `$ mesons, which is particularly important when the above mentioned momentum cuts are applied. As in the case of inelastic $`\varphi `$ photoproduction, we use the FRITIOF routine to model these reactions. Also the distortion of the mass spectrum by elastic FSI can be investigated directly in our approach due to the explicit inclusion of elastic scattering processes.

Our paper is organized as follows: In section II we discuss briefly the elementary cross sections for $`\varphi `$ photoproduction from the nucleon. In section III we describe the BUU equation and the cross sections concerning the FSI. Some details of our calculations and the final results, studying thoroughly the visibility of medium modifications of the $`\varphi `$, are presented in section IV. We close with a summary in section V.

## II Elementary $`\varphi `$ photoproduction cross sections

### II.1 Inelastic $`\varphi `$ photoproduction

For the simulation of high energy photoproduction processes we use the Lund model FRITIOF fritiof . In the FRITIOF model particle production occurs as a two step process. First, two excited states with the quantum numbers of the incoming hadrons are produced (string excitation). In the second step these strings fragment into observable hadrons (fragmentation).

Since the FRITIOF model does not accept photons in the entrance channel, we use the vector meson dominance model to replace the photon by a massless $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$ or $`\varphi `$ meson. The relative probability $`p_V`$ to initialize a particular vector meson $`V`$, i. e. the hadronic content of the incoming photon, is given by the strength of the coupling of the vector meson to the photon times its nucleonic cross section $`\sigma _{VN}`$:

$`p_V=\left({\displaystyle \frac{e}{g_V}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{VN}}{\sigma _{\gamma N}}},`$ (1)
where $`\sigma _{\gamma N}`$ is the total photon nucleon cross section. For a detailed review of this method we refer to falter\_form .

In geiss  it has been checked, that the FRITIOF model gives a good description of inclusive particle production for elementary hadronic reactions. However, one cannot expect to get an equally good description of elastic processes. Therefore elastic vector meson production as well as exclusive strangeness production effe00  are treated independent of the FRITIOF model, if explicit cross sections are available.

The only nucleonic resonance that FRITIOF produces as a product of the fragmentation process is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$. As a consequence of the missing higher nucleon resonances there might be too much strength in outgoing channels including the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance. This can be seen in the angular differential cross section for the reaction $`\gamma N\varphi X`$, which due to the particular process $`\gamma N\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ exhibits an unphysical peak in forward direction.

Therefore we treat not only the elastic $`\varphi `$ production process but also the process $`\gamma N\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ independent of FRITIOF. We parameterize the total cross section with the following ansatz:

$`\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_is}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }S_\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu _\mathrm{\Delta })||^2p_f(\mu _\mathrm{\Delta })},`$ (2)
where $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denotes the spectral function of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For the angular distribution we use an exponential form factor times a propagator, assuming a dominant contribution from $`t`$–channel exchange:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dt}}\mathrm{exp}(Bt)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_\pi ^2}}\right)^2`$ (3)
For the parameter $`B`$ we take a value of $`B=6.5`$ GeV<sup>-2</sup> from a fit to inelastic $`\varphi `$ photoproduction data in the mass region of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance in ref. desy . We adjust the constant matrix element for the total cross section in order to describe the experimental data points for inelastic $`\varphi `$ photoproduction in the mass range $`1.2\mathrm{GeV}M_X<2.1\mathrm{GeV}`$, measured at photon energies between 4.85 GeV and 5.85 GeV desy . We find a value of $`=0.0866`$. In figure 1 we show the resulting inelastic $`\varphi `$ photoproduction cross section in comparison with experimental data at different energies. The agreement is quite good at low energies, whereas the data are less well reproduced at higher energies.

### II.2 Elastic $`\varphi `$ photoproduction

For the elastic $`\varphi `$ photoproduction process we use model A from ref. titov . In this model the $`\varphi `$ photoproduction amplitude is given as a coherent sum over the pomeron–, $`\pi `$–, $`\eta `$– and $`s`$– and $`u`$–channel exchange diagrams.

In principle the $`\varphi NN`$ coupling in the Born diagrams should be dressed by a cutoff form factor for off–shell nucleons. Using a $`s`$–dependent form factor for the $`s`$–channel and a $`u`$–dependent form factor for the $`u`$–channel would result in a violation of gauge invariance with respect to the photon and $`\varphi `$ meson fields alike. Hence in titov  a constant form factor $`F=F_s=F_u=1`$ was used. This leads to an overestimation of the angular differential cross section for high momentum transfers, where the $`s`$– and $`u`$–channel contributions become dominant.

Following the model of ref. haberzettl  we therefore introduce an overall form factor, which keeps the gauge invariance of the amplitude as well:

$`\left(_s+_u\right)^{}=F(s,u)\left(_s+_u\right).`$ (4)
This form factor is composed as follows:

$`F(s,u)=a_sF(s)+a_uF(u)\mathrm{with}F(x)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4/(\mathrm{\Lambda }^4+(xm_N^2)^2),`$ (5)
where the prefactors $`a_s`$ and $`a_u`$ have to fulfill the constraint $`a_s+a_u1`$. We fit the parameters of the model in order to describe the data at a photon energy of 2 GeV be74  as well as the data at 3.6 GeV ac00 . Excellent agreement can be achieved with a cutoff of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.87`$ GeV and factors $`a_s=0.9`$ and $`a_u=0.1`$. The main effect of this form factor then is the supression of the $`s`$– and $`u`$–channel contributions at large values of the invariant energy $`s`$. The resulting cross section is shown in figure 2 in comparison with the experimental data.

As already mentioned in the introduction one has to apply severe momentum cuts to the $`K^+K^{}`$ three momentum in the $`\gamma A`$ reaction in order to guarantee that a considerable fraction of events stems from $`\varphi `$ decays inside the nucleus. In figure 3 we compare the momentum spectrum of exclusive (=elastic) and inclusive (=elastic+inelastic) produced $`\varphi `$ mesons. One can see that in the region of low $`\varphi `$ momenta the cross section is dominated by the inelastic $`\varphi `$ photoproduction processes by about one order of magnitude. Therefore it is essential to take the inelastic processes into account in order to investigate the sensitivity of observables on the in–medium properties of the $`\varphi `$.

## III The transport model

Since our model was presented extensively in teis ; brat ; effe96 ; effe00 ; lehr ; effe99  and references therein, we restrict ourselves to a brief description of some essential features of the model, which are of immediate interest to the present work.

### III.1 The BUU equation

The BUU equation describes the time evolution of the one–particle phase–space density $`f(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ under influence of an effective mean field potential $`U(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},f)`$ and a collision term taking account of the Pauli principle. For the description of a system of particles with continous mass spectra the classical equation is extended by defining the spectral phase–space density as the product of the ordinary phase–space density $`f`$ and the particle spectral function $`S`$ effe99 ; um :

$`F(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},\mu ,t)=f(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},t)S(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},\mu ,t),`$ (6)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ are the spatial and momentum coordinates of the particle and $`\mu `$ denotes its invariant mass. The set of transport equations for a system of $`N`$ particle species then is given by

$`(_t+_\stackrel{}{p}_i_\stackrel{}{r}_\stackrel{}{r}_i_\stackrel{}{p})F_i=I_i[F_1,\mathrm{},F_N]i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ (7)
where $`I_i[F_1,\mathrm{},F_N]`$ denotes the collision term, which now also contains the spectral information of the particle. $`_i=_i(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},\mu ,F_1,\mathrm{},F_N)`$ is the single–particle mean field Hamilton function, which in our model is given by the relativistic expression for the single–particle energy

$`_i=\sqrt{(\mu _i+U_i)^2+\stackrel{}{p}_i^2},`$ (8)
with the effective scalar mean field potential $`U_i=U_i(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},\mu ,F_1,\mathrm{},F_N).`$

### III.2 The collision term

The collision term can be decomposed in a gain and a loss term. In an obvious notation the collision term then reads:

$`I_i(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},\mu ,F_1,\mathrm{},F_N)=G_iS_i(1\pm f_i)L_iF_i,`$ (9)
where the upper sign holds for bosons and the lower sign for fermions, in the latter case accounting for the Pauli principle.

The gain term accounts for the creation of particles of the type $`i`$ in the phase–space element with coordinates $`(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},\mu )`$ due to all kinds of collisions with particles of type $`i`$ in the final state. Rewriting the general expression for $`G_i`$ in terms of cross sections for these processes, neglecting $`n`$–body collisions, $`n3`$, one obtains

$`G_i=(2\pi )^3{\displaystyle \underset{1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_1d\mu _1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3p_2d\mu _2}{(2\pi )^3}v_{12}F_1F_2\left(\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp_i^3}\right)_{12iX}(1\pm f_3)\mathrm{}(1\pm f_m)}`$ (10)
where $`v_{12}`$ is the relative velocity of the incoming particles 1 and 2 and $`X`$ denotes a final state consisting of the particles $`3,\mathrm{},m`$.

The loss term accounts for the annihilation of particles of type $`i`$ and can be written in the following way:

$`L_i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{iX}^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{2}{}}\rho _2{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}v_{i2}\sigma _{i2X}(1\pm f_3)\mathrm{}(1\pm f_m),`$ (11)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{iX}^{}`$ denotes the total decay width of the particle species $`i`$ including medium corrections, i. e. Pauli blocking / Bose enhancement of the final state. $`\rho _2`$ is the spatial density of the particle species 2 and $`v_{i2}`$ is again the relative velocity of the incoming particles. The square brackets have to be understood as an average over the momentum distribution of particle species 2. Note that the second term of expression (11) has the general form of a collision width, arising from two–body collisions of particle species $`i`$ and 2.

#### III.2.1 $`\varphi N`$–collisions

For invariant energies below $`\sqrt{s}=2.2`$ GeV we include the following processes for $`\varphi `$–nucleon collisions:

$`\varphi N`$ $``$ $`\varphi N`$
$`\varphi N`$ $``$ $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`\varphi N`$ $``$ $`\pi N`$
$`\varphi N`$ $``$ $`\varphi \mathrm{\Delta },\eta N,\eta \mathrm{\Delta },\eta ^{}N,\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Delta },K\overline{K}N,\pi \pi N`$
For the elastic scattering process we exploit the vector meson dominance model (VMD). We take the model for elastic $`\varphi `$ photoproduction, which we discussed in the previous section II.2, and replace in the appropriate diagrams the incoming photon by an incoming $`\varphi `$, using a coupling constant $`g_\varphi ^2/4\pi =13.2`$ from emc . The $`\pi `$–exchange diagram does not contribute to elastic $`\varphi N`$ scattering, since there is no $`\varphi \varphi \pi `$–coupling due to isospin conservation. This method also delivers the angular distribution for elastic $`\varphi N`$–scattering. We use this cross section also for invariant energies above 2.2 GeV.

For the process $`\varphi NK\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we adopt the cross section of ref. ko , which has been calculated based on a kaon exchange model. The cross section for the process $`\varphi N\pi N`$ we obtain via the detailed balance relation

$`\sigma _{\varphi N\pi N}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_f}{p_i}}\right)^2\sigma _{\pi N\varphi N},`$ (12)
where $`p_f`$ is the momentum of the $`\pi N`$ system and $`p_i`$ the momentum of the $`\varphi N`$ system. The cross section $`\sigma _{\pi N\varphi N}`$ we take from sibirtsev , where a resonance parameterization was fitted to experimental data.

For the cross sections of the remaining processes we make a simple phase–space model. The cross sections of processes involving a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance in the final state are parametrized by an ansatz similar to equation (2). For the processes $`\varphi N\eta N`$ and $`\varphi N\eta ^{}N`$ we assume the final state particles to be sharp states. Hence we have

$`\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{p_f}{p_is}}||^2.`$ (13)
Finally we take the cross sections for processes with three particles in the final state as constant for simplicity. The matrix elements of all these cross sections are fitted in order to allow for a smooth transition to the high energy cross sections provided by the FRITIOF model, which we exploit for energies above $`\sqrt{s}=2.2`$ GeV, see section III.2.3. The cross sections discussed above are displayed in figure 4. We also note that all these cross sections are not accessible by experiment and therefore a considerable uncertainty arises. We will come back to this point when discussing the results of our calculations.

#### III.2.2 $`KN`$– and $`\overline{K}N`$–collisions

For collisions of kaons and nucleons at energies below $`\sqrt{s}=2.2`$ GeV we include the following processes:

$`KN`$ $``$ $`KN`$
$`KN`$ $``$ $`K\pi N.`$
For anti–kaon–nucleon collisions we have the following processes:

$`\overline{K}N`$ $``$ $`\overline{K}N`$
$`\overline{K}N`$ $``$ $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`\overline{K}N`$ $``$ $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$
$`\overline{K}N`$ $``$ $`\pi Y^{}.`$
The cross sections for these processes are discussed in detail in reference effe00 , appendix A. In contrast to the $`\varphi N`$ cross sections the cross sections for $`KN`$ and $`\overline{K}N`$ collisions are well confirmed by experimental data effe00 .

#### III.2.3 FRITIOF

For meson–baryon collisions at invariant energies above $`\sqrt{s}=2.2`$ GeV we use the Lund model FRITIOF fritiof , which we sketched already in the section dealing with the inelastic photoproduction channels. In the FRITIOF model hadrons are described in the simple valence–quark picture, i. e. baryons consist of three quarks whereas mesons are build of a quark and an antiquark. Since FRITIOF does not take into account quark exchange between the two initial hadrons, some processes are not possible, for instance the process $`\pi N\mathrm{\Lambda }K`$ (cf. ref. geiss ). Such flavor exchange processes are important primarily at low energies.

As already mentioned earlier, one cannot expect to get a good description of elastic scattering processes by the FRITIOF model. Therefore, we treat elastic vector meson–nucleon scattering for all energies independent of the FRITIOF model.

The FRITIOF model only delivers the relative abundances of the various hadronic final states. In order to obtain cross sections the total cross section for a given initial state has to be put in by hand. For high energy $`\varphi `$–nucleon collisions we use a total cross section of $`\sigma _\varphi =12`$ mb, which is motivated by $`\varphi `$ meson photoproduction at high energies using the vector meson dominance model bauer . In figure 5 we show the resulting high energy $`\varphi `$–nucleon cross sections.

### III.3 The $`\varphi `$ spectral function

The $`\varphi `$ spectral function is in our model parameterized by a relativistic Breit–Wigner distribution

$`S_\varphi (s)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}(s)}{(sm_0^2)^2+s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}^2(s)}},`$ (14)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}(s)`$ denotes the total energy–dependent width and $`m_0`$ the pole mass of the $`\varphi `$ . For the energy dependence of the hadronic decay widths of all baryonic and mesonic resonances we adopt the parameterization of manley , which has also been described in effe99 . For the decay of a $`\varphi `$ meson into a $`K\overline{K}`$–pair at energies around the $`\varphi `$ meson pole mass the general expression for the width can be reduced to

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi K\overline{K}}(\mu )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi K\overline{K}}(m_0){\displaystyle \frac{m_0}{\mu }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p(\mu )}{p(m_0)}}\right)^3,`$ (15)
where $`\mu `$ is the invariant mass of the $`\varphi `$ and $`p(\mu )`$ is the kaon momentum in the $`\varphi `$ rest frame. This expression has exactly the same energy dependence as the $`\varphi `$ width derived by a one–loop calculation in klingl  and ramos .

For the in–medium width of the $`\varphi `$ we make the following ansatz:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{med}}(\stackrel{}{r},|\stackrel{}{p}|,\mu )=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{vac}}(\mu )+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{coll}}(\stackrel{}{r},|\stackrel{}{p}|,\mu )`$ (16)
with the vacuum width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{vac}}`$, which is a sum of the $`K\overline{K}`$ width as discussed above and a rather small contribution from the $`\rho \pi `$–channel, and a collision width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{coll}}`$, which in addition depends on the spatial and momentum coordinates of the $`\varphi `$. According to equation (11) the collision width due to $`\varphi N`$ collisions is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{coll}}(\stackrel{}{r},|\stackrel{}{p}|,\mu )=\gamma \rho v_{\mathrm{rel}}\sigma _{\varphi N}^{\mathrm{tot}},`$ (17)
where $`\gamma `$ denotes the Lorentzfactor for the transformation from the nuclear rest frame to the $`\varphi `$ rest frame. The brackets indicate an average over the Fermi motion of the nucleons, $`v_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ is the relative velocity of nucleon and meson and $`\sigma _{\varphi N}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the total $`\varphi N`$ cross section. At nuclear density $`\rho _0=0.17`$ fm<sup>-3</sup> and vanishing $`\varphi `$ momentum the $`\varphi `$ collision width then amounts to 24 MeV and therefore is comparable to the $`\varphi `$ width obtained by a more involved many–body approach in ramos . We also note that by means of the ansatz (16) the decay width of the $`\varphi `$ into $`K\overline{K}`$–pairs is not modified, since the complete collision width corresponds to other decay channels, for instance $`\varphi NK\mathrm{\Lambda }`$<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1This holds as long as the masses of $`K`$ and $`\overline{K}`$ are not modified in the medium. Including also a $`K/\overline{K}`$ renormalization the modification of the decay width is obviously given by the momentum dependence of expression (15)..

### III.4 Off–shell transport

The transport equations (7) alone do not yield the right asymptotic phase–space densities, since a particle, which is collisional broadened in the medium, will not automatically lose its width as it propagates into the vacuum<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Actually, particles with large width are driven back to their free width by the collision term alone, see effe99 .. Therefore an ad–hoc method was introduced in effe99 ; um  in order to allow for a dynamical treatment of particle mass spectra.

Within this approach the off–shellness of a given particle is absorbed in a scalar potential, which is defined as

$`s_i(\rho _i(t))=(\mu _i^{\mathrm{med}}\mu _i^{\mathrm{vac}}){\displaystyle \frac{\rho _i(t)}{\rho _i(t_{\mathrm{cr}})}},`$ (18)
where $`\mu _i^{\mathrm{med}}`$ denotes the in–medium mass of the particle, choosen according to the in–medium spectral function, and $`\mu _i^{\mathrm{vac}}`$ denotes the particle mass which is choosen according to the vacuum spectral function. $`\rho _i(t)`$ is the baryon density during the propagation at time $`t`$, whereas $`\rho _i(t_{\mathrm{cr}})`$ is the density at the creation point. The effective in–medium mass of the particular particle is given by:

$`\mu _i^{}(\rho _i(t))=\mu _i^{\mathrm{vac}}+s_i(\rho _i(t)).`$ (19)
This description obviously yields an evolution of the particle mass to its correct asymptotic value. At the creation point inside the nucleus the particle mass is equal to the in–medium mass $`\mu _i^{}(\rho (t_{\mathrm{cr}}))=\mu _i^{\mathrm{med}}`$, whereas as the particle travels outside the nucleus, it propagates back to a mass according to its vacuum spectral function $`\mu _i^{}(\rho =0)=\mu _i^{\mathrm{vac}}`$. To guarantee energy conservation, the potential $`s_i`$ enters as an usual scalar potential into the equations of motion.

This recipe has been justified a posteriori by the works of leupold  and juchem . Their more refined transport equations go over into our off–shell transport description by assuming that the particle width scales linearly with the density, neglecting its momentum dependence, and that the off–shellness (i. e. $`E_iE_0`$, where $`E_i`$ is the particle energy during the propagation and $`E_0`$ is the appropriate on–shell energy) is small. Both constraints are fulfilled quite well by the $`\varphi `$ meson, which gains a collision width in the medium. Since the $`\varphi `$ width is small compared to its mass, the off–shellness indeed should be small. A collision width, which arises from two body collisions of the $`\varphi `$ meson with nucleons in the nuclear environment, has in first order a linear dependence on the nuclear matter density (see equation (17)).

## IV Results

We perform our calculations for a <sup>40</sup>Ca nucleus at a photon energy of 2.4 GeV, which is the maximum beam energy of the Osaka experiment osaka . We initialize the nucleons in $`\stackrel{}{r}`$–space according to the Woods–Saxon density distribution with the parameters given in lehr , whereas the distribution of protons and neutrons is assumed to be the same. For the initialization in momentum space we apply the local density approximation, where the ground state nucleon momenta are distributed homogeneously in the Fermi sphere up to a local Fermi momentum $`p_F(r)`$, given by its nuclear matter value at density $`\rho (r)`$:

$`p_F(\stackrel{}{r})=\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\pi ^2\rho (\stackrel{}{r})\right)^{1/3}.`$ (20)
As mentioned earlier the $`K^+K^{}`$ three momentum has to be restricted to very small values in order to ensure that a sufficient fraction of events stem from $`\varphi `$ decays at finite density. From the life–time and the velocity of a given $`\varphi `$ meson one can easily get an estimate on the distance $`d`$ which the $`\varphi `$ has travelled during its life–time (i. e. the time after which the $`\varphi `$ has decayed with a probability of 63%), which has to be compared to the radii of the considered nuclei. Corresponding to the radius of $`{}_{}{}^{40}Ca`$, $`R4`$ fm, we use three different cutoff values $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for the $`\varphi `$ three–momentum: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=300`$ MeV ($`d=12.8`$ fm), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=150`$ MeV ($`d=6.4`$ fm) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=100`$ MeV ($`d=4.3`$ fm).

The observable of interest, which eventually exhibits modifications due to an in–medium change of the $`\varphi `$ mass and width, is the mass differential cross section for inclusive photoproduction of $`K^+K^{}`$–pairs from nuclei. Within the transport approach we write the mass differential photon–nucleus cross section in the following way:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dM}}\right)_{\gamma AK^+K^{}X}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^3r\stackrel{p_F(\stackrel{}{r})}{}d^3p𝑑\mu \mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }|\stackrel{}{p}_{K^+}+\stackrel{}{p}_K^{}|)\delta (Mm_{K^+K^{}})}`$ (21)
$`\times \left\{\sigma _{\gamma N\varphi X}S_\varphi (\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi K^+K^{}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{\mathrm{tot}}}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mu }}\right)_{\gamma NK^+K^{}X}^{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{res}}\right\}𝒩_{K^+K^{}},`$
where $`\mu `$ is the invariant mass of the primary produced $`\varphi `$ meson or $`K^+K^{}`$–pair and $`m_{K^+K^{}}`$ is the asymptotic invariant mass after the propagation. $`S_\varphi (\mu )`$ denotes the $`\varphi `$ spectral function and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the momentum cutoff parameter. The factor $`𝒩_{K^+K^{}}`$ specifies the asymptotic number of $`K^+K^{}`$–pairs with invariant mass $`m_{K^+K^{}}`$, which is the result of the solution of the coupled system of transport equations.

At photon energies above around one GeV also the effect of nuclear shadowing, which, for simplicity, we did not account for in equation (21), is not neglegible falter\_schatt . The implementation of this coherence effect into a semi–classical transport model is described in detail in falter\_form . In our calculations the effect of nuclear shadowing yields a reduction of the cross sections by about 15%.

### IV.1 Inclusive $`\varphi `$ photoproduction from nuclei

#### IV.1.1 Momentum spectrum

First we consider the momentum differential cross section for $`\varphi `$ photoproduction from <sup>40</sup>Ca, depicted in figure 6. In this plot we show five different curves, corresponding to different scenarios: two curves belong to calculations in which only elastic $`\varphi `$ production is taken into account as elementary $`\gamma N`$–process and two curves correspond to calculations where also inelastic $`\varphi `$ production is taken into account. For both cases we show calculations with and without final state interactions (FSI). Furthermore we also show the momentum spectrum for the total inclusive $`K^+K^{}`$–photoproduction reaction, including also non–resonant background production of $`K^+K^{}`$–pairs (i. e. the reaction $`\gamma NK^+K^{}N`$ which processes not via an intermediate $`\varphi `$ meson).

Comparing the curves of the exclusive calculations, which in the case without FSI drop very rapidly to low momenta, we find an appreciable enhancement of the spectrum in the region of low $`\varphi `$ momenta when the FSI are included. This modification arises in the first place from inelastic $`\varphi `$–nucleon reactions, i. e. the processes $`\varphi N\varphi X`$. The final state $`X`$ mainly consists of a nucleon or a nucleon resonance and one or several pions. The inclusive calculations show a similar behavior, albeit it is not as obviously visible as in the mere exclusive case. This is due to the absorption of primarily slow $`\varphi `$ mesons produced by inelastic photoproduction processes, which acts against the production of low–momentum $`\varphi `$ mesons during the FSI. Even though the inclusive and exclusive curves differ at intermediate momenta by up to one order of magnitude in calculations without FSI, the curves with FSI differ in the region of interest at momenta below 300 MeV merely by a factor of about two.

Due to this slowing down we find a strong sensitivity of the calculated observables on the $`\varphi `$–nucleon cross sections. As already mentioned in section III.2.1 these cross sections are not accessible by experiment and therefore a considerable uncertainty arises. Hence we perform two additional calculations where we multiply/divide all cross sections for $`\varphi `$–nucleon processes by a factor of two in order to get an estimate on the systematic uncertainties of our calculations. The results are shown in figure 7. In the region of low $`\varphi `$ momenta we find discrepancies of the cross sections in both directions of up to 30%. Note that an increase of the $`\varphi N`$ cross sections yields a further enhancement of the $`\varphi `$ momentum spectrum at very low momenta, stressing again the more significant influence of the inelastic $`\varphi N`$ scattering processes, which enhance the slow $`\varphi `$ meson yield, compared to the absorption of $`\varphi `$ mesons at low momenta. Since we artificially put in an extreme modification of the $`\varphi `$ in–medium cross sections, which – at least for high $`\varphi `$ energies – can be excluded by the VMD relation to high energy $`\varphi `$ photoproduction, we can be quite confident that the systematic error of our calculations due to the $`\varphi `$–nucleon cross sections is not larger than the estimated value.

The elastic and inelastic $`\varphi `$–nucleon reactions increase the yield of low–momentum $`\varphi `$ mesons by a large factor. Thus, most of the slow $`\varphi `$ mesons, which are responsible for in–medium effects in the observables, are produced by rescattering. For this reason these processes are certainly not negligible. This again underlines the advantage of our model compared to more simple Glauber–type models as oset , which treat the FSI as purely absorptive and, therefore, cannot account for $`\varphi `$ mesons produced during the FSI.

#### IV.1.2 Invariant mass spectrum

In figure 8 we show the mass differential cross section for inclusive $`K^+K^{}`$–photoproduction from <sup>40</sup>Ca. In this calculation the $`\varphi `$ is always produced corresponding to its vacuum spectral function, i. e. no medium–modifications of the $`\varphi `$ were considered. In this figure also the density at which the $`K^+K^{}`$–pair was created, i. e. where the $`\varphi `$ decayed, is indicated (see figure caption for details).

In the upper spectrum we included no momentum cut. The relative amount of events where the $`\varphi `$ decays at finite nuclear matter density is vanishingly small. Introducing a momentum cutoff (lower spectra) we find an increasing contribution of in–medium decays. Despite the rather strong absorption of the final state particles one gets a fair amount of decays also from higher nuclear densities $`\rho >0.5\rho _0`$ when a cutoff for the $`\varphi `$ momentum of 150 MeV is applied. This should lead to observable consequences if the $`\varphi `$ properties in the nuclear environment are indeed modified.

In these spectra one can see very nicely that the mass spectrum will not be distorted by elastic $`K^+`$– and $`K^{}`$–FSI. Even the events stemming from $`\varphi `$ decays at finite densities form a spectrum which is hardly broader than the free $`\varphi `$–width. This is clearly what one expects due to the following reasons: First, these events still stem from the nuclear surface and therefore the kaons travel only a short distance through a region with finite density. Hence the probability to scatter elastically is very small. Second, these kaons have a very low momentum and therefore the momentum transfer from such a kaon to a nucleon would be very small. Hence, any such scattering processes are hindered by Pauli–blocking.

One further important result of this calculation is the signal to background ratio. From the momentum spectrum in figure 6 it is not clear if the $`\varphi `$ signal can easily be distinguished from the non–resonant background if momentum cuts are applied. For small $`K^+K^{}`$–momenta the momentum differential background cross section is much larger than the resonant contribution. Due to the fact that the $`\varphi `$ is a very narrow resonance and we therfore look only on a very limited region in $`M`$ the $`\varphi `$ survives as a clearly visible peak, as can be seen in figure 8, bottom.

#### IV.1.3 Collision broadening

In figure 9 we show our results on the $`K^+K^{}`$ invariant mass distribution now including the collision width of the $`\varphi `$ following equation (17). To compare the width of the obtained spectra with the free spectral function of the $`\varphi `$ we fit a Lorentz–curve to the calculated cross sections and compare the fitted curve to a Lorentzian with the free $`\varphi `$ width of 4.4 MeV. One can see very nicely how the width increases as the momentum cutoff parameter is decreased. At a cutoff of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=100`$ MeV we find a total width of the spectrum of 8.2 MeV, which is nearly twice the free width of the $`\varphi `$, corresponding to an average decay density of only $`\rho _0/7`$. In principle this should be a measurable modification of the spectrum compared to the spectrum obtained from $`\varphi `$ photoproduction off the proton.

These results may now be compared to the results reported in oset . The authors of oset  took only the exclusive $`\varphi `$ photoproduction mechanism into account. In addition, in their model the FSI are treated as purely absorptive by a $`K^{}`$–absorption factor. On the other hand, these authors included an in–medium change of the $`\varphi `$ properties going beyond the collision width, accounting also for a modifcation of the $`K^+/K^{}`$ spectral functions in the nuclear medium. Despite these obvious differences of the two models the results for the width are in quite good agreement. The reason for this is rather obvious: Due to the large absorption cross sections for the final state particles the calculated spectra are merely sensitive to the nuclear surface. Therefore the production mechanism – if of primary or secondary nature – has basically no influence on the observables apart from the overall strength of the cross sections.

#### IV.1.4 Dropping $`\varphi `$ meson mass

According to Brown–Rho scaling brown , the QCD sum rule predictions of Hatsuda and Lee hatsuda  and the model of kampfer  we model the $`\varphi `$ meson mass shift by introducing a scalar potential $`U_S(\stackrel{}{r})`$:

$`U_S(\stackrel{}{r})=\alpha m_0{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (\stackrel{}{r})}{\rho _0}},`$ (22)
where $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the nuclear density, $`\rho _0=0.168\mathrm{fm}^3`$, $`m_0`$ the $`\varphi `$ meson pole mass and $`\alpha =0.03`$. The effective pole mass of a $`\varphi `$ in the nuclear environment then is given by

$`m_0^{}=m_0+U_S(\stackrel{}{r}).`$ (23)
This potential then corresponds to a downward shift of the $`\varphi `$ pole mass of 30 MeV at saturation density.

In figure 10 we compare our results on the $`K^+K^{}`$ mass distribution including the mass shift of the $`\varphi `$ with the results obtained without the $`\varphi `$ mass shift, in both cases including the $`\varphi `$ collision width. Since even applying severe momentum cuts most of the $`\varphi `$’s decay in vacuum, the largest contribution to the invariant mass spectra comes from $`\varphi `$ meson decays around the $`\varphi `$ vacuum pole mass of 1.02 GeV. The contributions from $`\varphi `$ decays at finite densities and therefore around lower pole masses, lead only to a small shift of spectral strength down to lower invariant masses. Hence, concerning the shape and the position of the pole, we find only tiny modifications of the $`K^+K^{}`$ mass spectrum due to the dropping $`\varphi `$ meson mass. Most likely, this effect can experimentally not be distinguished from the mere collision broadening.

On the other hand, the total cross section increases considerably. This increase cannot be explained by the larger phase–space for the production of $`\varphi `$ mesons with lower mass, which gives only a five percent correction to the cross section. Instead this rise is due to the weaker absorption of the $`K^{}`$. At saturation density $`\varphi `$ mesons are produced around a pole mass of 990 MeV, which lies slightly below the two kaon threshold (992 MeV). These $`\varphi `$ mesons are stable with respect to the $`K^+K^{}`$–decay until they travel to the nuclear surface, where their mass again rises due to the smaller nuclear density there. In the nuclear surface the probability of absorption is much smaller and therefore more $`K^+K^{}`$–pairs survive. However, this increase is primarily a theoretical statement and cannot be judged experimentally due to the uncertainties of side–feeding and the cross sections implemented.

### IV.2 Kaon potentials

#### IV.2.1 Electromagnetic potential

So far our calculations have been done without taking the Coulomb potential into account. Because of the much larger range of the Coulomb potential compared to the hadronic potentials, transport calculations including the electromagnetic force are connected with a considerable higher computational effort. Nevertheless the effects of the Coulomb potential on the production of low–momentum $`K^+K^{}`$ pairs in nuclei are in principle not negligible.

Since the single–particle energies are constants of motion, the absolut values of the $`K^+/K^{}`$ three momenta in the vacuum far away from the nucleus are given by

$`|\stackrel{}{p}_\pm |=\sqrt{\left(\sqrt{p_{\pm }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m_K^2}\pm V(\stackrel{}{r}_{\mathrm{cr}})\right)^2m_K^2},`$ (24)
whereas $`p_\pm ^{}`$ are the $`K^+/K^{}`$ three momenta at their creation point $`\stackrel{}{r}_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, $`V(\stackrel{}{r}_{\mathrm{cr}})`$ is the absoult value of the Coulomb potential and $`m_K=0.496`$ GeV is the kaon mass. The modification of the invariant mass of the $`K^+K^{}`$ pair can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mathrm{inv}}=\sqrt{s}\sqrt{s^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{ss^{}}{2M_\varphi }},`$ (25)
where $`\sqrt{s^{}}`$ denotes the invariant mass of the pair at its creation point and $`\sqrt{s}`$ the asymptotic value of the $`K^+K^{}`$ invariant mass in the vacuum. Considering a $`\varphi `$ meson decaying at rest in the center of a <sup>40</sup>Ca nucleus, whose Coulomb potential has a maximum depth of $`V_011`$ MeV, we find

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mathrm{inv}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}_++\stackrel{}{p}_{})^2}{2M_\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{p_0^2}{M_\varphi }}\left(\sqrt{14{\displaystyle \frac{(p_0^2+m^2)V_0^2}{p_0^4}}}1\right),`$ (26)
where $`p_0=119`$ MeV is the kaon three momentum after the $`\varphi `$ decay, yielding a downward shift of the invariant mass of the $`K^+K^{}`$ pair of about 5 MeV. Since this effect is of the same magnitude as the broadening caused by the $`\varphi `$ collision width, the Coulomb potential has in principle to be taken into account in our considerations.

Therefore we also have performed full calculations which take account of the Coulomb potential, which is implemented in our model as reported in Teis1997 . In order to limit the computational effort we run our transport code merely for about two times the life–time of the $`\varphi `$. Finally we determine the asymptotic momenta of the kaons using analytical solutions for Coulomb trajectories.

In figure 11 we show the results of such a calculation in which – for further simplification – we included only the exclusive elementary $`\varphi `$ production process, involving no medium modifications of the $`\varphi `$. We find an apparent decrease of the cross section when the Coulomb potential is included. This is due to the fact that the total energy of a $`K^{}`$ can be smaller than the free kaon mass and therefore the expression under the square root of equation (24) becomes negative. Hence, such a $`K^{}`$ cannot escape from the nucleus, finally leading to a reduction of the total number of $`K^+K^{}`$–pairs in the data sample.

In figure 12 we compare the $`K^+K^{}`$ mass spectra obtained with and without the $`\varphi `$ collision width following equation (17), in both cases including the Coulomb potential. Despite the clearly visible effects of the collision width when the Coulomb potential was neglected, we find almost no effect due to the $`\varphi `$ in–medium width when the potential is included. This can be explained by the fact, that exactly these events which yield the broadening of the spectrum, i. e. kaon pairs stemming from $`\varphi `$ decays at finite densities, are reduced by the capture of the negative charged anti–kaons as explained above. Thus, the moderate sensitivity of the mass spectrum to the in–medium width of the $`\varphi `$, which we found in section IV.1, completely vanishes due to the influence of the Coulomb potential.

We, therefore, come to the conclusion, that it is not possible to observe effects of $`\varphi `$ medium modifications through the $`K^+K^{}`$ invariant mass distribution.

#### IV.2.2 Hadronic potentials

In the nuclear environment the kaons are supposed to feel strongly attractive scalar potentials due to the $`KN`$–sigma term kaplan . In addition there exists also a vector–type interaction which acts repulsively for the kaons and further attractively for the anti–kaons. Hence, one is led to the conlusion that anti–kaons should feel a strong attraction whereas the kaons might feel a slight repulsion, resulting in a moderate increase of the $`K`$ mass and a substantial downward shift of the $`\overline{K}`$ mass with increasing baryon density schaffner ; waas ; lutz ; ramosk ; tolos ; schaffnerbielich .

We explore the implications of the $`K^+/K^{}`$ mass shifts on $`\varphi `$ photoproduction from nuclei by introducing the following scalar potentials just in the same way as previously for the $`\varphi `$ meson:

$`U_{K^+}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`+0.08m_{K^+}^0{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (\stackrel{}{r})}{\rho _0}}`$ (27)
$`U_K^{}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`0.22m_K^{}^0{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (\stackrel{}{r})}{\rho _0}},`$ (28)
where $`m_{K^+}^0`$ and $`m_K^{}^0`$ are the vacuum masses of $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$, respectivily, $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the nuclear density and $`\rho _0=0.168\mathrm{fm}^3`$. For the strength of the potentials we use values obtained by a relativistic mean–field approach in schaffner . The effective masses then are given by

$`m_K^{}=m_K^0+U_K(\stackrel{}{r}).`$ (29)
Similar to the effects of the Coulomb potential also the scalar kaon potentials modify the $`K^+K^{}`$ invariant mass distribution in $`\gamma A`$–reactions. Considering, for instance, the momentum of a $`K^{}`$ which is produced inside the nucleus, this momentum has to decrease as this $`K^{}`$ propagates into the vacuum, since the $`K^{}`$ mass increases according to equation (28). The absolut values of the $`K^+/K^{}`$ three momenta in vacuum are given by

$`|\stackrel{}{p}_\pm |=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}_\pm ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_{K^+/K^{}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}m_K^2},`$ (30)
where $`\stackrel{}{p}_\pm ^{}`$ and $`m_{K^+/K^{}}^{}`$ are the momenta and effective masses of $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ in–medium and $`m_K`$ is the kaon vacuum mass.

In figure 13 we show our results including the above introduced kaon potentials in comparison to a calculation without kaon potentials, in both cases including the $`\varphi `$ collision width. The most obvious difference is a considerable decrease of the cross sections when the potentials are included. This decrease is due to the same effect as in the electromagnetic case: The total energy of a $`K^{}`$ which is produced with low momentum inside the nucleus might be smaller than the $`K^{}`$ vacuum mass. Therefore such a $`K^{}`$ cannot escape from the nucleus and finally will be absorbed in channels like $`K^{}N\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The second important observation is the shift of spectral strength to higher invariant masses. This behaviour one can understand as follows: The invariant mass squared of a $`K^+K^{}`$–pair can be expressed in the following way:

$`s=(E_++E_{})^2|\stackrel{}{p}_+|^2|\stackrel{}{p}_{}|^22|\stackrel{}{p}_+||\stackrel{}{p}_{}|\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (31)
where $`E_+,\stackrel{}{p}_+`$ and $`E_{},\stackrel{}{p}_{}`$ are the energies and momenta of the $`K^+`$ and the $`K^{}`$, respectively, and $`\theta `$ is the angle between their three momenta. At this point we consider for simplicity only a mass modification of the $`K^{}`$, whereas the $`K^+`$ properties remain unchanged. Since the absolut value of the $`K^{}`$ three momentum decreases as it propagates from the interior of a nucleus to the vacuum, we can write $`|\stackrel{}{p}_{}|=|\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }p0`$, given by equations (28) to (30). Assuming for simplicity that the directions of the kaon three momenta remain unchanged, the modification of the invariant mass squared of the pair then can be written as

$`ss^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }p\left(|\stackrel{}{p}_{}|+|\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{}|+2(p_\varphi ^2p_{\mathrm{cm}}^2)/|\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{}|\right),`$ (32)
where $`s^{}`$ is the invariant energy squared of the pair at its creation point inside the nucleus and $`s`$ is the invariant energy squared after the propagation to the vacuum. $`p_\varphi `$ denotes the absolute value of the $`\varphi `$ three momentum in the nuclear rest frame and $`p_{\mathrm{cm}}`$ is the absolute value of the kaon three momentum in the $`\varphi `$ rest frame.

If the $`\varphi `$ is at rest inside the nucleus, i. e. $`p_\varphi =0`$, then $`|\stackrel{}{p}_+^{}|=|\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{}|=p_{\mathrm{cm}}`$. We therefore find $`ss^{}=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }p\right)^20`$ and hence the invariant mass after the propagation is lower than the mass of the decaying $`\varphi `$ meson. Considering an increasing momentum of the decaying $`\varphi `$, the expression inside the brackets of equation (32) at some point becomes positive, anyway when $`|\stackrel{}{p}_\varphi |p_{\mathrm{cm}}`$. This means that the invariant mass reconstructed from the $`K^+K^{}`$–pair is larger than the mass of the decayed $`\varphi `$ meson. This is exactly what one can observe in figure 13. Note also that the momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is applied to the three momenta of the $`K^+K^{}`$–pairs and therefore also $`\varphi `$’s with momenta larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ contribute to the spectra due to the decreasing $`K^{}`$ momentum.

Finally, we show in figure 14 the results of a full calculation, taking into account elastic and inelastic photoproduction of $`\varphi `$ mesons as well as non–resonant background production of $`K^+K^{}`$–pairs from the nucleon. We further included the kaon potentials given by equations (27) and (28), the $`\varphi `$ in–medium width following equation (16), also taking care of the modified phase space for the $`K\overline{K}`$–decay, and the Coulomb potential. In this respect figure 14 is our prediction for the experimental cross sections, which will be measured at Spring8 in Osaka osaka . For statistical reasons the spectra are folded with a Gaussian with a width of 2 MeV. The measurement of such a broad spectrum with an asymmetry to higher invariant masses as depicted in figure 14 would give further experimental evidence for the modifications of the masses of kaons and anti–kaons at finite baryon density. On the other hand, these spectra can give no information about the $`\varphi `$ properties in the nuclear medium.

The effect of the kaon potentials on the propagation of kaons and anti–kaons was not taken into account in oset . On the other hand, the $`\varphi `$ width used in the model of oset  respects also a renormalization of the kaon properties in the nuclear medium. Since the authors of oset  neglected also the influence of the Coulomb potential on the invariant mass spectrum, which they estimated to yield a shift of the invariant mass of less than 1 MeV, they found an observable broadening of the $`K^+K^{}`$ mass distribution due to the $`\varphi `$ in–medium width.

## V Summary

We have studied the consequences of medium–modifications of the $`\varphi `$ meson as well as of kaons and anti–kaons on the $`K^+K^{}`$ invariant mass distribution in a photonuclear reaction. To this purpose we have exploited the semi–classical BUU transport model, which allows for a realistic treatment of the FSI. We have included in our calculation the elastic elementary reaction, i. e. $`\gamma N\varphi N`$, as well as inelastic $`\varphi `$ photoproduction channels, i. e. $`\gamma N\varphi X,XN`$. We have shown that the inelastic channels give the dominant contribution in the interesting region of low $`\varphi `$ momenta.

In the FSI we have included all essential $`\varphi N`$ reactions, for which the total cross section was constrained by the VMD relation to high energy $`\varphi `$ photoproduction. Due to inelastic scattering processes $`\varphi N\varphi X`$ we have found an appreciable enhancement of the yield of low–momentum $`\varphi `$ mesons compared to calculations disregarding the FSI.

Applying severe momentum cuts to the $`\varphi `$ three momentum we have found a fair contribution of in–medium decays of the $`\varphi `$ to the $`K^+K^{}`$ invariant mass distribution. In a calculation including the collision width of the $`\varphi `$ meson we have shown that a decreasing momentum cut leads to an enhancement of collision broadened $`\varphi `$’s in the data sample and hence to an increasing width of the obtained spectra. Applying a cut of 100 MeV we found a total width of the $`K^+K^{}`$ mass distribution of 8.2 MeV which is nearly twice the free $`\varphi `$ width. Taking into account also the Coulomb potential we found that the sensitivity of the mass spectrum to the $`\varphi `$ in–medium width completely vanishes. Due to the strong absorption of the final state particles we also found no measurable effect caused by a shift of the $`\varphi `$ meson pole mass.

In contrast to the vanishing sensitivity of the $`K^+K^{}`$ mass spectrum to the in–medium properties of the $`\varphi `$ we have found a rather strong impact of potentials of kaons and anti–kaons on the mass differential cross sections. Due to the propagation of the kaons from their in–medium mass back to their vacuum mass we have obtained an broadened spectrum with an obvious shift of spectral strength to higher invariant masses. This effect definitely should be visible in experiment.

In summary, we state that the $`\varphi `$ in–medium properties – even applying severe momentum cuts – are not visible through the $`K^+K^{}`$ invariant mass distribution. Nevertheless the considered reaction can give further evidence for the modifiction of the masses of kaons and anti–kaons at finite baryon density.