text:
# Total Hadron-Hadron Cross Sections at High Energies

## I Introduction

Hadron-hadron total cross sections are important characteristics of the dynamics of hadronic systems. Theoretical descriptions of the reaction process, however, remain incomplete as the mechanism of how hadrons interact contains important aspects of non-perturbative QCD. A phenomenological description of Donnachie and Landshoff Don92  gives the total cross section in terms of the exchange of a Pomeron and a Reggeon. The exchange of a Pomeron dominates the cross section at high energies. It corresponds to the exchange of a tower of fictitious particles on a Regge trajectory with a Regge intercept of approximately 1. The exchange of a Reggeon dominates the cross section at low energies. It corresponds to the exchange of $`\rho ,\omega ,f_2,a_2\mathrm{}`$ on the Regge trajectory with a Regge intercept of approximately 0.5.

It is desirable to study microscopic models of total hadron-hadron cross sections at high energies. The total cross sections provide useful information on the sizes of hadrons and the dynamics between them. Furthermore, they are important input data for the investigation of other reaction processes. For example, in high-energy heavy-ion collisions, the suppression of $`J/\psi `$ production has been proposed as a signature for the production of the quark-gluon plasma Mat86 . However, the suppression of $`J/\psi `$ production can also arise from the collision of $`J/\psi `$ with hadrons at high energies. It is necessary to understand the absorption of $`J/\psi `$ by hadrons before one can unambiguously identify the quark-gluon plasma as the source of $`J/\psi `$ suppression Ger88 ; Won96 ; Won98a ; Kha96 ; Bla96 ; Cap97 ; Cas97 ; Vog98 ; Nar98 ; Zha00 ; Bla00 ; Mar95 ; Won00a ; Won00b ; Bar00 ; Won01 ; Bar03 ; Xu03 . While the systematic studies of Donnachie and Landshoff provide very valuable information on the total cross section of many hadron-hadron systems, there are reactions (involving, for example, $`J/\psi `$) for which data are not available. They can only be evaluated theoretically Bar92 ; Kha94 ; Mat98 ; Hag00 ; Lin00 ; Won2002 ; Won2000 . It is therefore useful to develop a microscopic theory of hadron-hadron collisions at high energies.

As the Pomeron exchange is the dominant process in high-energy hadron-hadron reactions, it is useful to model the exchange of a Pomeron explicitly in microscopic terms. Previously, the Pomeron exchange in a hadron-hadron reaction was studied in terms of the exchange of two gluons. The two-gluon model of the Pomeron (TGMP), first proposed by Low Low75  and Nussinov Nus75 , was further investigated by Gunion and Soper Gun77  who introduced an effective gluon mass to mimic the confinement of the colored gluon. They examined the effects of the size of the bound-state hadrons and the number of quarks they contain. Landshoff and Nachtmann generalized the concept of the gluon condensate to the correlation length of the gluon field in the vacuum and discussed the short-range nature of the effective gluon exchange between quarks in hadron-hadron scattering Lan87 . The dependence of the cross sections on the sizes and the color states of the colliding hadrons was considered by Dolejši and Hüfner Dol92 . They obtained useful analytical and numerical results for the total cross sections of many hadron-hadron systems. The effects of channel coupling for the propagation of a radially-excited hadron Huf96  was investigated in the two-gluon model of the Pomeron by Wong Woncw96  who also evaluated many meson-nucleon total cross sections.

We shall follow the approach of Gunion, Soper, Landshoff, Nachtmann, Dolejši, Hüfner, and Wong to study the hadron-hadron total cross section, with the following refinements. We shall use a set of meson wave functions obtained from meson mass calculations Won01  to replace the simple form factors used in earlier studies. This allows a more detailed and systematic study of the hadron-hadron scattering processes involving a much large set of hadrons than those investigated previously. Gunion and Soper Gun77 , Dolejši and Hüfner Dol92 , and Wong Woncw96  made use of only a single screened color-Coulomb potential to represent the non-perturbative gluon exchange. We shall instead represent the gluon exchange between the constituents of one hadron and constituents of the other hadron by a phenomenological potential containing screened color-Coulomb, screened color-confining, and spin-spin interactions Kar88 ; Won99 ; Won01 ; Won02 . Screening arises when the interaction between a constituent of one hadron and a constituent of another hadron occurs at large distances for which the production of dynamical quarks screens the interaction. The use of a more complicated potential allows a greater degree of flexibility, which provides a better description of non-perturbative effects in scattering. It also enables one to use reasonable strong interaction coupling constants, as the constraint of using a single screened color-Coulomb interaction may sometimes lead to values of $`\alpha _s`$ larger than unity Dol92 . In addition, the spin-spin interaction is known to be important in non-relativistic quark models. Its phenomenological incorporation here will allow us to evaluate the variation of the total cross section in reactions of mesons with different total spin quantum numbers and quarks of different flavors.

Similar to earlier works of Dolejši and Hüfner Dol92 , and Wong Woncw96 , we shall first obtain the the screening mass and the strength of the interaction to reproduce the experimental $`pp`$, $`\pi p`$, and $`Kp`$ cross sections at $`\sqrt{s}=20`$ GeV. We then use the theoretical meson wave functions to calculate other cross sections. Based on the energy dependence of the phenomenological description of total hadron-hadron cross sections found by Donnachie and Landshoff Don92 , we shall then extend our results to higher energies.

In reactions involving heavy quarkonium production in nuclear collisions, the initial heavy quark pair produced as a result of a parton-parton collision is a coherent state of a color admixture and different projections of this state will lead to different final heavy quarkonia Bod95 ; Won96 ; Won97 ; Won98 ; Won99a ; Huf01 ; Huf00 . We will also examine the color dependence of the cross section, in order to understand how a colored heavy quark pair propagates in a hadronic medium Dol92 ; Won96 ; Won97 ; Won98 ; Won99a ; Huf01 ; Huf00 . The nucleons with which the produced charmonium collide can also acquire a color as a result of prior collisions and may collide with a color-singlet charmonium Huf01 ; Huf00 . In this paper, we shall limit our discussion to the problem of the interaction of a colored charmonium state with a color-singlet hadron.

Our approach to study the total cross section in the TGMP differs from that of the additive quark model Lev65  and the dipole model of photoproduction Huf00a . The total cross sections obtained in different models can naturally be different. Careful comparison of these different results with experimental data will be useful to determine the importance of various scattering mechanisms that are present in the interaction of hadrons.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we describe the model used to calculate the hadron-hadron elastic scattering amplitude at high energies. In Sec. III we evaluate the spin matrix element for meson-meson, meson-proton, and proton-proton scattering. The calculation of the spatial matrix element is discussed in Sec. IV. In Sec. V we present results for total hadron-hadron cross sections and the energy dependence of the total hadron-hadron cross sections. In Sec. VI we evaluate the total cross sections of a mixed-color charmonium state scattering on a pion or a proton. The dependences of the total cross sections on the size and the color of the initial charmonium state are investigated. Finally, we present our summary and conclusions in Sec. VII.

## II Two-Gluon Model of the Pomeron

To calculate the total cross section in a hadron-hadron collision, we consider the hadron-hadron elastic scattering amplitude $`𝒜`$. According to the optical theorem, the imaginary part of the elastic scattering amplitude at zero momentum transfer gives the total hadron-hadron cross section.

The elastic scattering process between two hadrons at high energies is dominated by the exchange of a Pomeron, as evidenced by the slow variation of the total cross section with energy, the property of having an approximately purely imaginary forward scattering amplitude, and the dominance of no quantum number flow in the fragmentation region in forward inelastic processes. The phenomenological treatment of the total cross section as arising from the exchange of a Pomeron with a Regge trajectory intercept of 1.0808, and the exchange of a Reggeon from the trajectory of $`\rho ,\omega ,f_2,a_2\mathrm{}`$ with an intercept of 0.5475, gives an excellent representation of many hadron-hadron total cross sections Don92 . The small deviations of these Regge trajectory intercepts from the lowest-order expectations of 1.0 and 0.5 respectively have been attributed to higher-order effects Don92 .

In this work, we shall model the exchange of a Pomeron in terms of the exchange of gluons. As the exchange of a single gluon would lead to an exchange of color, the lowest number of gluon exchanges with no net color flow is the exchange of two gluons, proposed first by Low Low75  and Nussinov Nus75  and studied by Gunion, Soper, Landshoff, Nachtmann, Dolejši, Hüfner, and Wong Gun77 ; Lan87 ; Dol92 ; Woncw96 .

Accordingly, we express the total hadron-hadron cross section in terms of the hadron-hadron elastic scattering amplitude at zero four-momentum transfer squared $`t`$

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{1}{s}\mathrm{Im}𝒜(s,t=0).$$
(1)
Following Gunion and Soper Gun77  and Dolejši and Hüfner Dol92 , we obtain the forward scattering amplitude $`𝒜`$ by including diagrams of the type shown in Fig. 1. As the elastic scattering process does not change the hadron internal structure, the initial and final hadron states are identical. In Fig. 1, constituents $`i`$ or $`j`$ in hadron I interact with constituents $`k`$ and $`l`$ in hadron II by exchanging two gluons. As the elastic process involves important aspects of non-perturbative QCD, it is reasonable to represent the corresponding gluon exchange between constituents $`i`$ and $`k`$ in terms of a phenomenological potential $`V(ik)`$ possessing non-perturbative elements of color-Coulomb, confinement, and spin-spin interactions. The complete amplitude is obtained by summing over all possible diagrams representing the exchange of two gluons between all constituents $`\{i,j\}`$ of hadron I with all constituents $`\{k,l\}`$ of hadron II Dol92 :

$`𝒜(s,t)={\displaystyle \frac{is}{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l}{}}`$ $`\{`$ $`{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^2𝐛e^{i𝐐𝐛}[C_\mathrm{I}C_{\mathrm{II}}\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{II}}|V_\mathrm{T}(ik)`$ (2)
$`\times V_\mathrm{T}(jl)|C_\mathrm{I}C_{\mathrm{II}}\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi __\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{II}}]\},`$
where $`𝐛`$ is the impact parameter, $`𝐐^2=t`$, $`C_\mathrm{I}`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{II}}`$ are the color wave functions, $`\chi __\mathrm{I}`$ and $`\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}}`$ are the spin wave functions, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{I}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{II}}`$ are the spatial wave functions of hadron I and hadron II, respectively. The square brackets represent the averaging over the color, spin, and internal spatial degrees of freedom of hadrons I and II. The sum $`_{i,j,k,l}`$ is over all two-gluon exchange diagrams.

At high energies when the average intrinsic quark momentum inside a hadron is small compared to the center-of-mass energy, the case of a small momentum transfer in a two-gluon exchange diagram can be approximated as a loop diagram in which the quark lines on the loop can be treated as on the mass shell and represented by two delta functions (as in Eq. (A.11) of Ref. Lan87 ). After integrating over the time-like and the longitudinal loop momenta using these two delta functions, the resultant effective gluon propagators involve only transverse momenta (or equivalently only transverse coordinates) Gun77 ; Lan87 ; Dol92 . When we represent the effective gluon propagator phenomenologically by an interaction, the interaction $`V_\mathrm{T}(ik)`$ in transverse coordinates, written explicitly as $`V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_\mathrm{T})`$, can be obtained by integrating the interaction $`V(𝐫)`$ over the longitudinal coordinate $`z`$,

$`V_\mathrm{T}(ik)=V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_\mathrm{T})={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑zV(𝐫),`$ (3)
where $`𝐫`$ is the three-dimensional relative coordinate between the interacting particles $`i`$ and $`k`$ and $`𝐫_\mathrm{T}`$ its transverse component. Defining the Fourier transform of $`V(𝐫)`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐤)`$ by

$`V(𝐫)={\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i𝐤𝐫}\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐤)},`$ (4)
we can obtain from Eqs. (3) and (4)

$`V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_\mathrm{T})={\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤_\mathrm{T}}{(2\pi )^2}e^{i𝐤_\mathrm{T}𝐫_\mathrm{T}}\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐤)}|_{k_z=0}.`$ (5)
Thus, $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{T}(𝐤_\mathrm{T})`$, the 2-dimensional Fourier transform of $`V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_\mathrm{T})`$, is just the 3-dimensional Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐤)`$ evaluated at $`k_z=0`$.

As the interaction between the constituents takes place at large distances, we are well advised to use a screened potential to represent the effects of dynamical quarks. As pointed out by Landshoff and Nachtmann Lan87 , two quarks in two hadrons can exchange a nonperturbative gluon only if they pass within a short distance of each other. This short correlation length of the gluon field is another manifestation of the screening phenomenon. We employ screened color-Coulomb (Yukawa) and screened confining (exponential) potentials Kar88 ; Won99 ; Won02  and a spin-spin interaction Won01 ; Won02  for our interaction $`V(𝐫)`$. The interaction between quark $`i`$ in hadron I and quark $`k`$ in hadron II in three-dimensional relative coordinate $`𝐫`$ can be written as

$`V(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝝀_i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝀_k}{2}}\left\{V_{\mathrm{Yukawa}}(𝐫)+V_{\mathrm{exponential}}(𝐫)+V_{\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{spin}}(𝐫)\right\}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝝀_i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝀_k}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _se^{\mu r}}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3b_0}{4\mu }}e^{\mu r}{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi \alpha _s}{3m_im_k}}(𝐬_i𝐬_k)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^3}{\pi ^{3/2}}}\right)e^{d^2r^2}\right\},`$
where $`𝝀_i`$ is the Gell-Mann matrix, and $`𝝀_i`$ is replaced by $`𝝀_i^\mathrm{T}`$ for an antiquark $`i`$. The quantities $`\alpha _s`$, $`\mu `$, $`b_0`$, and $`d`$ are the strong coupling constant, the effective screening parameter, the effective string-tension, and the spin-spin potential width parameter. The Fourier transform of the spatial and spin part of the potential is

$`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐤)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha _s}{𝐤^2+\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6\pi b_0}{(𝐤^2+\mu ^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi \alpha _s}{3m_im_k}}𝐬_i𝐬_ke^{𝐤^2/4d^2}\right].`$ (7)
We have used an exponential interaction in Eq. (6) to represent the screened confining interaction as it contains the appropriate properties. At short distances for which screening effect is small, the exponential interaction gives the linear interaction $`b_0r`$, and at large distances for which the confining interaction is screened by the production of dynamical quarks, it approaches zero. In terms of the Fourier transform, screening is represented by a non-vanishing value of the screening mass $`\mu `$ is Eq. (7). The use of a screened confining interaction is necessary here. If we assume an unscreened linear-confining interaction, corresponding to taking $`\mu =0`$ in the $`6\pi b_0/(𝐤_\mathrm{T}+\mu ^2)^2`$ term in Eq. (7)), we shall see in Section V that the total hadron-hadron cross section will be singular.

The square brackets in Eq. (2) can be written as

$`\left[C_\mathrm{I}C_{\mathrm{II}}\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{II}}|V_\mathrm{T}(ik)V_\mathrm{T}(jl)|C_\mathrm{I}C_{\mathrm{II}}\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi __\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{II}}\right]`$
$`=\left\{C_{ijkl}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{8}{}}}C_\mathrm{I}|\lambda _i^a\lambda _j^b|C_\mathrm{I}C_{\mathrm{II}}|\lambda _k^a\lambda _l^b|C_{\mathrm{II}}\right\}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_\chi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\chi _{_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II}}}}{}}`$
$`\times \chi __\mathrm{I}\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{I}(𝐫_\mathrm{I})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{II}}(𝐫_{\mathrm{II}})|V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{ik\mathrm{T}})V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{jl\mathrm{T}})|\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{I}(𝐫_\mathrm{I})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{II}}(𝐫_{\mathrm{II}})\},`$ (8)
where the first pair of curly brackets is the sum of color matrix elements, $`C_{ijkl}`$ is the product of the four factors $`C_i`$, $`C_j`$, $`C_k`$, and $`C_l`$, each of which is 1 for a quark and $`1`$ for an antiquark, and $`a`$ and $`b`$ are gluon color component labels. In the second pair of curly brackets, the sum is over all spin states of hadrons I and II (total number $`N_\chi `$).

The color wave function for a color-singlet meson is

$$|C^1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3}{}}|\alpha \overline{\alpha },$$
(9)
where $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =1,2,3`$) is the quark color label and $`\overline{\alpha }`$ is the corresponding antiquark color label. The color matrix element is

$$C^1|\lambda _m^a\lambda _n^b|C^1=\frac{2}{3}\delta ^{ab}.$$
(10)
For a color-singlet nucleon we have

$$|C^1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma =1}{\overset{3}{}}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma }|\alpha \beta \gamma ,$$
(11)
and

$`C^1|\lambda _m^a\lambda _n^b|C^1=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2}{3}\delta ^{ab},\hfill & \mathrm{for}m=n,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{3}\delta ^{ab},\hfill & \mathrm{for}mn.\hfill \end{array}`$ (12)
## III Spin matrix elements

From Eqs. (2) and (6), the matrix element for the spatial and spin part can be separated into a sum of products of spin matrix elements and spatial matrix elements. The first-order spin-spin matrix elements and the second-order spin-spin matrix elements are

$$s_{ik}^{(1)}=\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}}|(𝐬_i𝐬_k)|\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}},$$
(13)
$$s_{ikjl}^{(2)}=\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}}|(𝐬_i𝐬_k)(𝐬_j𝐬_l)|\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}}.$$
(14)
We shall give results for these quantities for meson-meson, meson-proton, and proton-proton collisions separately.

### III.1 The meson$``$meson case

Consider meson I with constituents $`i`$ and $`j`$ coupled to total spin $`S_\mathrm{I}`$, and meson II with constituents $`k`$ and $`l`$ coupled to total spin $`S_{\mathrm{II}}`$. We would like to recouple the constituents so that the operators $`(𝐬_i𝐬_k)`$ and $`(𝐬_j𝐬_l)`$ have simple eigenvalues. We have

$`|\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}}=|(ij)_{S_{\mathrm{Iz}}}^{S_\mathrm{I}}(kl)_{S_{\mathrm{IIz}}}^{S_{\mathrm{II}}}={\displaystyle \underset{S,S_z}{}}(SS_z|S_\mathrm{I}S_{\mathrm{Iz}}S_{\mathrm{II}}S_{\mathrm{IIz}})|[(ij)^{S_\mathrm{I}}(kl)^{S_{\mathrm{II}}}]_{S_z}^S`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{S,S_z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{S_{ik},S_{jl}}{}}(SS_z|S_\mathrm{I}S_{\mathrm{Iz}}S_{\mathrm{II}}S_{\mathrm{IIz}})\widehat{S}_\mathrm{I}\widehat{S}_{\mathrm{II}}\widehat{S}_{ik}\widehat{S}_{jl}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}s_i& s_j& S_\mathrm{I}\\ s_k& s_l& S_{\mathrm{II}}\\ S_{ik}& S_{jl}& S\end{array}\right\}|[(ik)^{S_{ik}}(jl)^{S_{jl}}]_{S_z}^S`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{S,S_z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{S_{il},S_{jk}}{}}(SS_z|S_\mathrm{I}S_{\mathrm{Iz}}S_{\mathrm{II}}S_{\mathrm{IIz}})(1)^{S_{\mathrm{II}}s_ks_l}\widehat{S}_\mathrm{I}\widehat{S}_{\mathrm{II}}\widehat{S}_{il}\widehat{S}_{jk}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}s_i& s_j& S_\mathrm{I}\\ s_l& s_k& S_{\mathrm{II}}\\ S_{il}& S_{jk}& S\end{array}\right\}`$
$`\times |[(il)^{S_{il}}(jk)^{S_{jk}}]_{S_z}^S,`$ (15)
where $`\widehat{S}=\sqrt{2S+1}`$. From the above equation, the matrix element $`s_{ik}^{(1)}=\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}}|(𝐬_i𝐬_k)|\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}}`$ is

$`s_{ik}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \underset{S,S_z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{S_{ik},S_{jl}}{}}|(SS_z|S_\mathrm{I}S_{\mathrm{Iz}}S_{\mathrm{II}}S_{\mathrm{IIz}})|^2\widehat{S}_\mathrm{I}^2\widehat{S}_{\mathrm{II}}^2\widehat{S}_{ik}^2\widehat{S}_{jl}^2\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}s_i& s_j& S_\mathrm{I}\\ s_k& s_l& S_{\mathrm{II}}\\ S_{ik}& S_{jl}& S\end{array}\right\}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[S_{ik}(S_{ik}+1){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}],`$ (16)
and the matrix element $`s_{ikjl}^{(2)}=\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}}|(𝐬_i𝐬_k)(𝐬_j𝐬_l)|\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}}`$ are

$`s_{ikik}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{S,S_z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{S_{ik},S_{jl}}{}}|(SS_z|S_\mathrm{I}S_{\mathrm{Iz}}S_{\mathrm{II}}S_{\mathrm{IIz}})|^2\widehat{S}_\mathrm{I}^2\widehat{S}_{\mathrm{II}}^2\widehat{S}_{ik}^2\widehat{S}_{jl}^2\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}s_i& s_j& S_\mathrm{I}\\ s_k& s_l& S_{\mathrm{II}}\\ S_{ik}& S_{jl}& S\end{array}\right\}^2\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[S_{ik}(S_{ik}+1){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}]\right\}^2,`$ (17)
$`s_{ikil}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{S,S_z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{S_{ik},S_{jl}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{S_{il},S_{jk}}{}}|(SS_z|S_\mathrm{I}S_{\mathrm{Iz}}S_{\mathrm{II}}S_{\mathrm{IIz}})|^2(1)^{S_{\mathrm{II}}s_ks_l}(1)^{S_{jl}s_js_l}(1)^{S_{jk}s_js_k}`$ (18)
$`\times \widehat{S}_\mathrm{I}^2\widehat{S}_{\mathrm{II}}^2\widehat{S}_{ik}^2\widehat{S}_{jl}^2\widehat{S}_{il}^2\widehat{S}_{jk}^2\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}s_i& s_j& S_\mathrm{I}\\ s_k& s_l& S_{\mathrm{II}}\\ S_{ik}& S_{jl}& S\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}s_i& s_k& S_{ik}\\ s_l& s_j& S_{jl}\\ S_{il}& S_{jk}& S\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}s_i& s_j& S_\mathrm{I}\\ s_l& s_k& S_{\mathrm{II}}\\ S_{il}& S_{jk}& S\end{array}\right\}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[S_{ik}(S_{ik}+1){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}]\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[S_{il}(S_{il}+1){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}],\mathrm{for}kl,`$
$`s_{ikjl}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{S,S_z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{S_{ik},S_{jl}}{}}|(SS_z|S_\mathrm{I}S_{\mathrm{Iz}}S_{\mathrm{II}}S_{\mathrm{IIz}})|^2\widehat{S}_\mathrm{I}^2\widehat{S}_{\mathrm{II}}^2\widehat{S}_{ik}^2\widehat{S}_{jl}^2\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}s_i& s_j& S_\mathrm{I}\\ s_k& s_l& S_{\mathrm{II}}\\ S_{ik}& S_{jl}& S\end{array}\right\}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[S_{ik}(S_{ik}+1){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}]`$ (19)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[S_{jl}(S_{jl}+1){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}],\mathrm{for}ij\mathrm{and}kl,`$
where $`i,j=1,2;k,l=3,4`$.

### III.2 The meson$``$proton and proton$``$proton cases

The spin and flavor wave function for a proton in the $`S_z=1/2`$ state is

$`|p_{1/2}^{1/2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}}}`$ $`(`$ $`2|u_+u_+d_{}|u_+u_{}d_+|u_{}u_+d_+`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`2|u_+d_{}u_+|u_+d_+u_{}|u_{}d_+u_+`$
$`+`$ $`2|d_{}u_+u_+|d_+u_+u_{}|d_+d_{}u_+).`$
Denoting the two $`u`$-quarks by 3 and 4, the $`d`$-quark by 5, and the spinor of quark $`i`$ as $`i_{s_z}^s`$, we have

$`|p_{1/2}^{1/2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}}}`$ $`(`$ $`2|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}_{1/2}^{1/2}4_{1/2}^{1/2}5_{1/2}^{1/2}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}_{1/2}^{1/2}4_{1/2}^{1/2}5_{1/2}^{1/2}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}_{1/2}^{1/2}4_{1/2}^{1/2}5_{1/2}^{1/2}`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`2|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}_{1/2}^{1/2}5_{1/2}^{1/2}4_{1/2}^{1/2}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}_{1/2}^{1/2}5_{1/2}^{1/2}4_{1/2}^{1/2}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}_{1/2}^{1/2}5_{1/2}^{1/2}4_{1/2}^{1/2}`$
$`+`$ $`2|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}_{1/2}^{1/2}3_{1/2}^{1/2}4_{1/2}^{1/2}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}_{1/2}^{1/2}3_{1/2}^{1/2}4_{1/2}^{1/2}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}_{1/2}^{1/2}3_{1/2}^{1/2}4_{1/2}^{1/2}).`$
We can couple the spin of any two of 3, 4, and 5. For example, coupling 3 and 4, we have

$`|p_{1/2}^{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}}}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right|11)\left(\right|(34)_1^15_{1/2}^{1/2}_{(1)}+|(34)_1^15_{1/2}^{1/2}_{(4)}+|(34)_1^15_{1/2}^{1/2}_{(7)})`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{S_{34},S_{34z}}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|S_{34}S_{34z})(|(34)_{S_{34z}}^{S_{34}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}_{1/2}^{1/2}_{(2)}|(34)_{S_{34z}}^{S_{34}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}_{1/2}^{1/2}_{(5)}`$
$`|(34)_{S_{34z}}^{S_{34}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}_{1/2}^{1/2}_{(8)})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{S_{34},S_{34z}}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|S_{34}S_{34z})(|(34)_{S_{34z}}^{S_{34}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}_{1/2}^{1/2}_{(3)}|(34)_{S_{34z}}^{S_{34}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}_{1/2}^{1/2}_{(6)}`$
$`|(34)_{S_{34z}}^{S_{34}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}_{1/2}^{1/2}_{(9)})]`$
$``$ $`|(34)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},`$
where the subscript $`(n)`$ labels the flavor component in the $`n`$-th term in Eq. (21) (i.e., $`{}_{(n)}{}^{}(kl)_{S_{klz}}^{S_{kl}}l^{}|(kl)_{S_{klz}^{}}^{S_{kl}^{}}l^{}_{(n^{})}^{}=\delta (S_{klz}S_{klz}^{})\delta (S_{kl}S_{kl}^{})\delta (nn^{}))`$. We can also write out the other coupling expressions of $`|p_{1/2}^{1/2}`$, for example, $`|(35)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ and $`|(45)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$. One can obtain a similar decomposition for $`|p_{1/2}^{1/2}`$.

Thus, the first-order and second-order spin-spin matrix elements for a meson-proton scattering can be expressed as

$`s_{ik}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`(ij)_{S_z}^{S_\mathrm{I}}[(kl)l^{}]|(s_is_k)|(ij)_{S_z}^{S_\mathrm{I}}[(kl)l^{}]`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`(ij)_{S_z}^{S_\mathrm{I}}(kl)|(s_is_k)|(ij)_{S_z}^{S_\mathrm{I}}(kl),`$
$`s_{ikjl}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(ij)_{S_z}^{S_\mathrm{I}}[(kl)l^{}]|(s_is_k)(s_js_l)|(ij)_{S_z}^{S_\mathrm{I}}[(kl)l^{}]`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`(ij)_{S_z}^{S_\mathrm{I}}(kl)|(s_is_k)(s_js_l)|(ij)_{S_z}^{S_\mathrm{I}}(kl),`$
where $`l^{}`$ is a spectator, $`i,j=1,2`$, and $`k,l=3,4,5`$. Each term in Eqs. (23) and (24) can be calculated in the same way as in the meson-meson case. For a proton-proton scattering, we have

$`s_{ik}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`[(ij)j^{}][(kl)l^{}]|(s_is_k)|[(ij)j^{}][(kl)l^{}]`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`(ij)(kl)|(s_is_k)|(ij)(kl),`$
$`s_{ikjl}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`[(ij)j^{}][(kl)l^{}]|(s_is_k)(s_js_l)|[(ij)j^{}][(kl)l^{}]`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`(ij)(kl)|(s_is_k)(s_js_l)|(ij)(kl),`$
where $`j^{}`$ and $`l^{}`$ are spectators, $`i,j=1,2,3`$, and $`k,l=4,5,6`$. Each term in Eqs. (25) and (26) can be calculated similar to the meson-meson case.

## IV Spatial Matrix Elements

### IV.1 The meson$``$meson case

Using a set of Gaussian basis states with different widths, Wong $`etal.`$ previously obtained bound-state meson wave functions from a non-relativistic quark model Won01 . The model assumes color-Coulomb, linear-confining, and spin-spin interactions. It gives meson masses in reasonable agreement with experimental data. The meson wave functions are tabulated in Table IV of Ref. Won01 . We shall use these meson wave functions in our calculations. They are represented by a nonorthogonal sum of Gaussian basis functions of different widths,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{6}{}}}a_n\varphi _n(𝐫)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{6}{}}}a_n\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\beta ^2}{\pi }}\right)^{3/4}e^{\frac{n\beta ^2}{2}r^2},`$ (27)
where $`𝐫=(𝐫_\mathrm{T},z)`$ is the three-dimensional coordinate, $`a_n`$ is the coefficient of the $`n`$-th component, and $`\beta `$ is a parameter characterizing the width of the basis functions in momentum space.

The transverse coordinates of the quarks and antiquarks in meson I and II can be expressed as

$$𝐫_{1\mathrm{T},2\mathrm{T}}=\frac{𝐛}{2}\pm \frac{𝐫_{\mathrm{IT}}}{2},𝐫_{3\mathrm{T},4\mathrm{T}}=\frac{𝐛}{2}\pm \frac{𝐫_{\mathrm{IIT}}}{2},$$
(28)
where $`𝐫_{\mathrm{IT}}`$ or $`𝐫_{\mathrm{IIT}}`$ is the relative transverse coordinate of the quark and antiquark in meson I or II respectively. The relative transverse coordinate of quark (or antiquark) $`i`$ in meson I and quark (or antiquark) $`k`$ in meson II can be expressed as

$`𝐫_{ik\mathrm{T}}=𝐫_{i\mathrm{T}}𝐫_{k\mathrm{T}}=𝐛+{\displaystyle \frac{C_{\mathrm{I}i}}{2}}𝐫_{\mathrm{IT}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_{\mathrm{II}k}}{2}}𝐫_{\mathrm{IIT}},`$
$`(i=1,2,k=3,4,C_{\mathrm{I1}}=1,C_{\mathrm{I2}}=1,C_{\mathrm{II3}}=1,C_{\mathrm{II4}}=1.)`$ (29)
From Eqs. (2), (5), (II), (27), and (IV.1), the spatial matrix element for a meson-meson scattering is

$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2𝐛e^{i𝐐𝐛}d𝐫_\mathrm{I}d𝐫_{\mathrm{II}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{f}}^{}(𝐫_\mathrm{I})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{II},\mathrm{f}}^{}(𝐫_{\mathrm{II}})V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{ik\mathrm{T}})V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{jl\mathrm{T}})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{i}}(𝐫_\mathrm{I})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{II},\mathrm{i}}(𝐫_{\mathrm{II}})}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^2𝐤_\mathrm{T}\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{T}(𝐤_\mathrm{T})\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{T}(𝐤_\mathrm{T}𝐐)F_{ij}^\mathrm{M}(𝐐,𝐤_\mathrm{T})F_{kl}^\mathrm{M}(𝐐,𝐤_\mathrm{T}),(i,j=1,2;k,l=3,4),`$ (30)
where the superscript in $`F_{kl}^\mathrm{M}(𝐐)`$ labels the colliding hadron as a meson M or proton P, and

$`F_{ij}^\mathrm{M}(𝐐,𝐤_\mathrm{T})={\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{}}{}}a_na_n^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{nn^{}}}{n+n^{}}}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{[𝐤_\mathrm{T}+C_{\mathrm{I}i}C_{\mathrm{I}j}(𝐐𝐤_\mathrm{T})]^2}{8(n+n^{})\beta _\mathrm{I}^2}}\right\},`$ (31)
$`F_{kl}^\mathrm{M}(𝐐,𝐤_\mathrm{T})={\displaystyle \underset{m,m^{}}{}}a_ma_m^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{mm^{}}}{m+m^{}}}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{[𝐤_\mathrm{T}+C_{\mathrm{II}k}C_{\mathrm{II}l}(𝐐𝐤_\mathrm{T})]^2}{8(m+m^{})\beta _{\mathrm{II}}^2}}\right\}.`$ (32)
### IV.2 The meson$``$proton and proton$``$proton case

The three-dimensional coordinate $`𝐫_k`$ of a quark in a proton can be written in terms of Jacobi coordinates $`𝜼=(𝜼_\mathrm{T},\eta _z)`$ and $`𝝃=(𝝃_\mathrm{T},\xi _z)`$ Dol92 . Its transverse component is given by

$$𝐫_{k\mathrm{T}}=\frac{𝐛}{2}+\frac{\delta _{\mathrm{II}k}}{6}𝜼_\mathrm{T}+\frac{C_{\mathrm{II}k}}{2}𝝃_\mathrm{T},$$
(33)
where

$`\delta _{\mathrm{II}k}=\{\begin{array}{cc}2,\hfill & k=3,\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & k=4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},\hfill \end{array}C_{\mathrm{II}k}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & k=3,\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & k=4,\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & k=5.\hfill \end{array}`$ (34)
The relative transverse coordinate of the quark (or antiquark) $`i`$ in meson I and the quark $`k`$ in proton II is

$`𝐫_{ik\mathrm{T}}=𝐫_{i\mathrm{T}}𝐫_{k\mathrm{T}}=𝐛+{\displaystyle \frac{C_{\mathrm{I}i}}{2}}𝐫_{\mathrm{IT}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{\mathrm{II}k}}{6}}𝜼_\mathrm{T}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{\mathrm{II}k}}{2}}𝝃_\mathrm{T}.`$ (35)
We use a simple Gaussian wave function for a proton. In terms of Jacobi coordinates, it can be expressed as Dol92

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝜼,𝝃)=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}24}\sqrt{3}\pi ^3r_p^2^3)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}[(𝜼^2/12𝝃^2/4)/r_p^2].$$
(36)
From Eqs. (2), (5), (II), (27), and (34) — (36), the spatial matrix element for a meson-proton scattering is

$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2𝐛e^{i𝐐𝐛}}`$ $`{\displaystyle }`$ $`\mathrm{d}𝐫_\mathrm{I}\mathrm{d}𝜼\mathrm{d}𝝃\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{f}}^{}(𝐫_\mathrm{I})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{II},\mathrm{f}}^{}(𝜼,𝝃)V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{ik\mathrm{T}})V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{jl\mathrm{T}})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{i}}(𝐫_\mathrm{I})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{II},\mathrm{i}}(𝜼,𝝃)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2𝐤_\mathrm{T}\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{T}(𝐤_\mathrm{T})\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{T}(𝐤_\mathrm{T}𝐐)F_{ij}^\mathrm{M}(𝐐,𝐤_\mathrm{T})F_{kl}^\mathrm{P}(𝐐,𝐤_\mathrm{T})},`$
$`(i,j=1,2;k,l=3,4,5),`$
where

$`F_{kl}^\mathrm{P}(𝐐,𝐤_\mathrm{T})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{r_p^2}{6}𝐐^2\right),\hfill & k=l,\hfill \\ \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{r_p^2}{6}\left[𝐐^2\frac{3}{2}𝐐(\mathrm{𝟐}𝐤_\mathrm{T})+\frac{3}{4}(2𝐤_\mathrm{T})^2\right]\right\},\hfill & kl.\hfill \end{array}`$ (38)
For a proton-proton scattering, the spatial matrix element is

$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2𝐛e^{i𝐐𝐛}d𝜼_\mathrm{I}d𝝃_\mathrm{I}d𝜼_{\mathrm{II}}d𝝃_{\mathrm{II}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{f}}^{}(𝜼_\mathrm{I},𝝃_\mathrm{I})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{II},\mathrm{f}}^{}(𝜼_{\mathrm{II}},𝝃_{\mathrm{II}})V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{ik\mathrm{T}})V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{jl\mathrm{T}})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{i}}(𝜼_\mathrm{I},𝝃_\mathrm{I})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{II},\mathrm{i}}(𝜼_{\mathrm{II}},𝝃_{\mathrm{II}})}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^2𝐤_\mathrm{T}\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{T}(𝐤_\mathrm{T})\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{T}(𝐤_\mathrm{T}𝐐_\mathrm{T})F_{ij}^\mathrm{P}(𝐐,𝐤_\mathrm{T})F_{kl}^\mathrm{P}(𝐐,𝐤_\mathrm{T}),(i,j=1,2,3;k,l=4,5,6).`$ (39)
## V Total Hadron-Hadron Cross Sections

After we have evaluated the color matrix element, the spin matrix element, and the spatial matrix element, we can now determined the total hadron-hadron cross section as

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l}{}}C_{f,ijkl}I_{ijkl},`$ (40)
where

$`C_{f,ijkl}=C_{ijkl}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{8}{}}}C_\mathrm{I}|\lambda _i^a\lambda _j^b|C_\mathrm{I}C_{\mathrm{II}}|\lambda _k^a\lambda _l^b|C_{\mathrm{II}},`$ (41)
$`I_{ijkl}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2𝐤_\mathrm{T}\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{T}(𝐤_\mathrm{T})\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{T}(𝐤_\mathrm{T})F_{ij}^\mathrm{I}(𝐐=0,𝐤_\mathrm{T})F_{kl}^{\mathrm{II}}(𝐐=0,𝐤_\mathrm{T})}`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^2𝐤_\mathrm{T}\{[{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha _s}{𝐤_\mathrm{T}^2+\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6\pi b_0}{(𝐤_\mathrm{T}^2+\mu ^2)^2}}]^2`$
$`+s_{ikjl}^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{(8\pi \alpha _s)^2}{9m_im_km_jm_l}}e^{𝐤_\mathrm{T}^2/2d^2}\}F_{ij}^\mathrm{I}(𝐐=0,𝐤_\mathrm{T})F_{kl}^{\mathrm{II}}(𝐐=0,𝐤_\mathrm{T}).`$
The superscript $`\mathrm{I}`$ (or $`\mathrm{II}`$) is either $`\mathrm{M}`$ (meson) or $`\mathrm{P}`$ (proton), and $`s_{ikjl}^{(2)}`$ is the second-order spin-spin matrix element averaged over all polarization states of hadrons I and II,

$`s_{ikjl}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_\chi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\chi _{_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II}}}}{}}\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}}|(𝐬_i𝐬_k)(𝐬_j𝐬_l)|\chi __\mathrm{I}\chi _{_{\mathrm{II}}}.`$ (43)
The polarization average of the first-order spin-spin matrix elements $`s_{ik}^{(1)}`$ is zero.

If we assume an unscreened linear-confining interaction for hadron-hadron collision (which corresponds to taking $`\mu =0`$ in the $`6\pi b_0/(𝐤_\mathrm{T}+\mu ^2)^2`$ term in Eq. (42)), the total cross section will be singular, since the integral over $`𝐤_\mathrm{T}`$ in Eq. (42) diverges. From a physical viewpoint, we expect the interaction between constituents in different hadrons to occur at relatively large separations. As a consequence, the interaction will be subject to screening, due to the production of virtual $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs. The linear confining interaction for bound states should thus become a screened confining potential when applied to the interactions of quarks in a diffractive hadron-hadron scattering process. Similarly we expect the color-Coulomb interaction to be screened. The spatial dependence of the interaction in Eq. (6) between quarks and antiquarks of different hadrons should be different from those inside the same hadron.

A simple way to incorporate screening is to replace $`𝐤^2`$ in the Fourier transforms of the color-Coulomb and the linear interactions by $`𝐤^2+\mu ^2`$, which leads respectively to the Yukawa and exponential potentials, as given in Eqs. (6) and (7) and the interaction in Eq. (42) . Previously, in studying the screened potential and its temperature dependence inferred from lattice gauge theory, the effective string tension $`b_0=0.35`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> was found to give good descriptions of meson bound state masses Won02 . We shall use this effective string tension in the present work.

The rms radii of hadrons are model-dependent as the interactions are sometimes implicitly included in the determination of the effective rms radius. We shall use the meson bound state wave functions obtained in the non-relativistic quark model of Ref. Won01 , where the rms radius is 0.256 fm for a pion and 0.261 fm for a kaon. (See Table IV of Ref. Won01 , in which the quantity $`\sqrt{r^2}`$ in the fourth column is the rms $`q`$-$`\overline{q}`$ separation, which is twice the rms meson radius.) In our present model in which a hadron-hadron reaction takes place via a finite-range interaction between constituents in one hadron with constituents of the other hadron, these hadron constituent radii can be considered “core” radii. These pion and kaon rms “core” radii are smaller than the corresponding values of 0.61 fm and 0.54 fm found in the geometrical model of Chou and Yang Cho68 ; Cho79  as well as the values of 0.56 fm and 0.53 fm determined from electromagnetic measurements Dal77 ; Dal80 . These differences arise from the fact that Chou and Yang describe hadrons as a geometrical droplet with an essentially local zero-range interaction between a constituent of one hadron with the constituent of the other hadron. In the electromagnetic measurement, the photon also fluctuates into a $`\rho `$ meson, and the larger electromagnetic rms radii include the additional effects of this fluctuation.

It is reasonable to assume that the hadron radius $`r_{\mathrm{hadron}}(\mathrm{EM})`$, obtained in an electromagnetic measurement, is the sum of the hadron radius used here (the core radius) and an effective rho meson radius (which is of order $`1/m_\rho `$),

$`r_{\mathrm{hadron}}(\mathrm{EM})=(\mathrm{hadron}\mathrm{core}\mathrm{radius})+(\mathrm{effective}\rho \mathrm{meson}\mathrm{radius}).`$ (44)
Based on this assumption, the difference of of the proton and pion rms electromagnetic radii is equal to the difference of their corresponding rms (core) radii,

$`\sqrt{r_p^2(\mathrm{EM})}\sqrt{r_\pi ^2(\mathrm{EM})}=\sqrt{r_p^2}\sqrt{r_\pi ^2}.`$ (45)
The proton and pion rms radius obtained in electromagnetic measurements are 0.81 fm Wal94  and 0.56 fm Dal77  respectively. Using the meson bound states wave functions in Ref. Won01  for which $`\sqrt{r_\pi ^2}=0.256`$ fm, the above relation gives a proton rms radius of $`\sqrt{r_p^2}=0.51`$ fm which we shall adopt in our present analysis. This value of the proton rms radius is close to the value of $`\sqrt{r_p^2}=0.48`$ fm found by Copley, Karl, and Obryk Cop69 , and Koniuk and Isgur Kon80  in their quark-model description of baryon electromagnetic transition amplitudes. We shall use the quark masses and the hyperfine smearing parameter $`d`$ that are employed in the meson bound state wave function calculations in Ref.Won01 : $`m_u=m_d=0.334`$ GeV, $`m_s=0.575`$ GeV, $`m_c=1.776`$ GeV, $`m_b=5.102`$ GeV, and $`d=0.897`$ GeV.

We search for the screening mass $`\mu `$ and the strong coupling constant parameter $`\alpha _s`$ by fitting the experimental cross sections of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(p+p)=39.0`$ mb, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\pi +p)=24.0`$ mb, and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(K+p)=20.5`$ mb at $`\sqrt{s}=20`$ GeV Pdg02 . We obtain $`\mu =0.425`$ GeV, and $`\alpha _s=0.495`$ by using the Levenberg-Marquardt method Pre92 .

The screening mass $`\mu =0.425`$ GeV falls in between $`m_\pi `$ and $`m_\rho `$ studied by Dolejši and Hüfner Dol92 . It is interesting to note from Fig. 3 of their work that a screening mass between $`m_\pi `$ and $`m_\rho `$ gives the best correlation between the total cross section and the effective elastic scattering slope parameter $`\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. It is therefore important to extend the present calculations to the analysis of elastic scattering in future work.

The screening length $`1/\mu =0.464`$ fm is the same physical quantity as the correlation length $`a`$ studied by Landshoff and Nachtmann Lan87 . Using a single gluon propagator with a screening mass $`\mu `$, they noted that $`1/\mu `$ must be much smaller than the radius of a hadron, for the additive quark model to be valid. Our numerical analysis, with the full non-perturbative interaction of Eq. (6), leads to a range $`1/\mu `$ that is not small compared to the radius of a hadron; we should not expect our results to coincide completely with those of the additive quark model in all aspects.

The value of $`\alpha _s=0.495`$ is slightly smaller but close to the conventional strong interaction coupling constant of $`\alpha _s=0.6`$ used in non-relativistic quark models for light quarks Bar92 .

We shall first focus our attention on the total hadron-hadron cross sections at $`\sqrt{s}=20`$ GeV in Fig. 2 and then discuss the energy dependence in Eqs. (54)-(56) and Fig. 3. The experimental $`pp`$, $`\pi p`$, and $`Kp`$ total cross sections at $`\sqrt{s}=20`$ GeV can be roughly represented by $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}5.86(\sqrt{r_\mathrm{I}^2}+\sqrt{r_{\mathrm{II}}^2})^2`$. While the theoretical total cross sections obtained in the present TGMP calculations tend to increase with the square of the sum of the rms radii, there are however variations that arise from the spin-spin interaction. The latter quantity depends on the masses of the interacting quarks and the strength of the spin-spin interaction involving strange quarks is smaller than that of light quarks; consequently, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\pi +p)>\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(K+p)`$, as shown in Fig. 2.

Our total cross section for $`\rho +p`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=20`$ GeV is 27.0 mb, which is slightly larger than the total $`\pi +p`$ cross section of 24.5 mb. In the TGMP, the spin-spin interaction affects the $`\rho `$ meson cross sections in two ways. First, as the quark-antiquark potential is weaker for the $`\rho `$ meson than for the pion due to the spin-spin interaction, the $`\rho `$ rms radius is 0.385 fm, which is substantially larger than the pion rms radius of 0.256 fm. Secondly, the spin-spin interaction also affects the interaction strength between a quark or antiquark in the $`\rho `$ meson and a constituent in the other hadron. Hence, the TGMP predicts $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\rho +p)`$ slightly greater than $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\pi +p)`$. This result is slightly greater than the prediction of the additive quark model which gives

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\rho +p)(\mathrm{additive}\mathrm{quark}\mathrm{model})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\pi ^++p)+\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\pi ^{}+p)]24.2\mathrm{mb}.`$ (46)
It is interesting to note that our TGMP total cross sections for $`\pi `$+$`\pi `$, and $`\rho `$+$`\pi `$ are respectively 27.4 and 20.8 mb, which are significantly larger than the predictions of of about $`2\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\pi +N)/316`$ mb from the additive quark model. The large magnitude of the total cross sections in the present calculation arises from the spin-spin interaction, as the cross sections become much smaller if the spin-spin interaction is turned off.

Experimental information of the $`\rho `$+$`p`$ cross section can be inferred from $`\rho `$-meson photoproduction cross sections. The extracted total cross section depends on the coupling constant $`f_\rho ^2/4\pi `$ and the value of $`\eta _\rho `$, which is the ratio of the real and imaginary parts of the scattering amplitude Bau78 . It also depends on the generalizations of the Vector Dominance Model in which one may include higher resonances and off-diagonal matrix elements Pau98 ; Bia99 .

Using the simple VDM with $`\eta _\rho `$ assumed to be zero and $`f_\rho ^2/4\pi `$ set to be 2.20, the ZEUS Collaboration found

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\rho _0+p)=28.0\pm 1.2\mathrm{mb}`$ (47)
for $`\sqrt{s}=70`$ GeV Der95  which is close to the value of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\rho +p)=30.5\mathrm{mb}`$ obtained in the present calculation for $`\sqrt{s}=70`$ GeV (see Fig. 3).

At low energies, the experimental data cannot be compared directly with the present theoretical prediction. One can nevertheless get some idea on the magnitude of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\rho +p)`$. Using photoproduction data from a number of different nuclei, McClellan $`etal.`$ McC69  found earlier

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\rho _0+p)=38.0\pm 3\mathrm{mb}`$ (48)
and $`f_\rho ^2/4\pi =4.40\pm 0.60`$ for photons at 6 GeV ($`\sqrt{s}=3.48`$ GeV). However, from their subsequent extended measurements and refined analysis they obtain

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\rho _0+p)=25.9\pm 1\mathrm{mb}`$ (49)
and $`f_\rho ^2/4\pi =2.52\pm 0.08`$ with $`\eta =0.24`$ Mcc71  for photons at 4.4-8.8 GeV ($`\sqrt{s}=`$ 3.02-4.17 GeV).

From an extensive optical model analysis taking the ratio $`\eta _\rho `$ to be -0.2, Alvensleben $`etal.`$ Alv69  found

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\rho _0+p)=26.7\pm 2\mathrm{mb}`$ (50)
and $`f_\rho ^2/4\pi =4.40\pm 0.60`$ for photons at 4.6-7.2 GeV ($`\sqrt{s}=`$ 3.09-3.87 GeV). Other measurements give

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\rho _0+p)=22.5\pm 2.7\mathrm{mb}`$ (51)
with $`f_\rho ^2/4\pi =2.52\pm 0.08`$ with $`\eta =0.24`$ Cod75  for photons at 2.75-4.35 GeV ($`\sqrt{s}=2.443.01`$ GeV).

An independent determination of the $`\rho N`$ total cross section, using the $`\gamma +d\rho +d`$ differential cross sections, was carried out by Anderson $`etal.`$ who obtained

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\rho _0+p)=27.6\pm 0.6\mathrm{mb}`$ (52)
and $`f_\rho ^2/4\pi =2.80\pm 0.12`$ at a photon energy of 18 GeV ($`\sqrt{s}=`$5.98 GeV) And71 .

In our non-relativistic potential model, the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ have the same spin and spatial wave functions. Consequently, within the two-gluon model of the Pomeron, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\rho +p)=\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\omega +p)`$. The value of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\omega +p)`$ extracted from experimental photoproduction data depends again on the coupling constant $`f_\omega ^2/4\pi `$ and $`\eta _\omega `$. The extracted values of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\omega +p)`$ range from $`33.5\pm 5.5`$ mb Beh70  at 6.8 GeV ($`\sqrt{s}=3.694`$ GeV) to 25.4$`\pm `$2.7 mb at 8.3 GeV Abr76  ($`\sqrt{s}=`$4.06 GeV).

Our examination of the experimental $`\rho +p`$ and $`\omega +p`$ cross sections at low energies indicates that they appear to range from 23 mb to 38 mb and the uncertainties are large. The cross section depends on energy, and the only data point of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\rho +p)`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 70 GeV that can be direct compared with the TGMP model indicates approximate agreement between the theoretical result with experiment. However, much more work needs to be done to confront the predictions of the TGMP and the additive quark model with the results of photoproduction experiments.

For the $`\varphi +p`$ reaction the present results give a theoretical total cross section of 17.1 mb at $`\sqrt{s}=20`$ GeV, which agrees with the naive additive quark model of

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\varphi +p)=\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(K^++p)+\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(K^{}+p)\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\pi ^{}+p)17.0\mathrm{mb}.`$ (53)
The experimental photoproduction data give a $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\varphi +p)`$ which ranges from 9.2 mb to 17.6 mb for photons at 6.4-9.3 GeV ($`\sqrt{s}=3.594.28`$ GeV), depending on the values of $`f_\varphi ^2/4\pi `$ and $`\eta _\varphi `$ assumed.

The TGMP gives a theoretical total cross section of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(J/\psi +p)=`$7.6 mb at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 20 GeV. From the absorption of $`J/\psi `$ in $`p`$$`A`$ collisions, an effective $`J/\psi +p`$ dissociation cross section of about 4-6 mb is used to described the dissociation process Ger88 ; Won96 ; Won98a ; Kha96 ; Bla96 ; Cap97 ; Cas97 ; Vog98 ; Nar98 ; Zha00 . For the above analysis of $`J/\psi `$ production in Pb-Pb collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=17.3`$ GeV, the energy at which the $`J/\psi `$ or its precursor collides with a nucleon is probably about $`\sqrt{s}`$8 GeV, corresponding to the collision of a produced $`J/\psi `$ nearly at rest with an incident nucleon in the nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass system. Thus, a theoretical result of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(J/\psi +p)=`$7.6 mb in which the predominant component may be the dissociation cross section, is approximately consistent with the experimental dissociation cross section of about 4-6 mb. It remains necessary to determined more quantitatively how the $`J/\psi +p`$ cross section depends on energy, how much of the total cross section of $`J/\psi +p`$ can be attributed to dissociation of $`J/\psi `$ into an open-charm pair, and whether the observed absorption of $`J/\psi `$ inside a nucleus may involve an admixture of charmonium states with a color-octet component.

The total $`J/\psi `$+$`p`$ cross section can also be extracted from the dipole model of photoproduction Huf00a . In this model, light cone wave functions for the virtual photon and charmonium are assumed, and a universal dipole cross section is introduced to fit proton structure function at small $`x`$ and a wide range of $`Q^2`$. The dipole model gives $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(J/\psi +p)=4.4`$ mb at $`\sqrt{s}=20`$ GeV, which is lower than the value of 7.6 mb obtained here in the TGMP model.

Experimental data indicate that at high energies total hadron-hadron cross sections increase slowly with energy. This energy dependence is beyond the scope of the present TGMP model. We can include such a dependence phenomenologically, by assuming that the strength parameters of the interaction depend on energy. Specifically, we assume the energy dependence given by Donnachie and Landshoff Don92 , and parametrize the energy dependence of the interaction strengths as

$`\alpha _s(\sqrt{s})=\alpha _s(\sqrt{s}=20\mathrm{GeV})f(\sqrt{s}),`$ (54)
$`b_0(\sqrt{s})=b_0(\sqrt{s}=20\mathrm{GeV})f(\sqrt{s}),`$ (55)
where

$`[f(\sqrt{s})]^2={\displaystyle \frac{Xs^{0.0808}+Ys^{0.4525}}{(Xs^{0.0808}+Ys^{0.4525})|_{\sqrt{s}=20\mathrm{GeV}}}},`$ (56)
$`X=21.70`$ mb, $`Y=56.08`$ mb, and $`s`$ is in GeV<sup>2</sup>. The energy dependence of our parameters has been so chosen that theoretical $`pp`$ cross sections follow the energy dependence of Donnachie and Landshoff’s parametrization of the total $`pp`$ cross section, which represents a very good fit to the experimental $`pp`$ data.

Using such an energy-dependence, we extend our results to energies near $`\sqrt{s}=20`$ GeV and beyond. The lines in Fig. 3 show our results for total cross sections as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$. The symbols of circles, open-triangles, solid-triangles, open-squares, and solid-squares are experimental data for $`pp`$, $`\pi ^{}p`$, $`\pi ^+p`$, $`K^{}p`$, and $`K^+p`$ Pdg02 , respectively. It can be seen that in regions where data are available, our results are consistent with experimental data. Numerical results for total hadron-hadron cross sections are given in Table I.

Recently, from the elastic and proton-dissociative $`\rho ^0`$ photoproduction data obtained by the ZEUS Collaboration at HERA ZEUS98 , the non-resonant contributions were analyzed in terms of the fluctuation of a photon into a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair and their interaction with a nucleon Rys98 . A model-dependent analysis of the non-resonant contribution by Ryskin $`etal.`$ Rys98 , based on the Drell-Söding approach Dre60 ; Sod66 , yields an effective total $`\pi `$$`p`$ cross section of $`\sigma (\pi p)=31\pm 2(\mathrm{stat})\pm 3(\mathrm{syst})`$ for a pion-proton center-of-mass energy of about 50 GeV Arn03 . The data of the ZEUS Collaboration is shown as the solid diamond point in Fig. 3 and is consistent with the present results of Fig. 3.

## VI Total cross sections for mixed-color charmonium on a pion or a proton

A charmonium system that is produced in a parton-parton collision may be in a nontrivial color state, out of which different pure color states may be projected Bod95 ; Won99 . This initial state wave packet may acquire a transverse momentum and will travel through the nuclear medium. It is therefore clearly of interest to study the propagation of a colored $`c\overline{c}`$ in a color-singlet hadronic medium.

The color wave function of a color-octet meson is

$$|C^{8c}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^c|\alpha \overline{\beta },(c=1,2,\mathrm{},8).$$
(57)
For the scattering of a color-octet meson with a color-singlet meson, we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{8}{}}}C_\mathrm{I}^{8c}|\lambda _i^a\lambda _j^b|C_\mathrm{I}^{8d}C_{\mathrm{II}}^1|\lambda _k^a\lambda _l^b|C_{\mathrm{II}}^1=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{32}{9}\delta ^{cd},\hfill & i=j,\hfill \\ \frac{4}{9}\delta ^{cd},\hfill & ij,\hfill \end{array}`$ (58)
and for the scattering of a color-octet meson with a proton we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{8}{}}}C_\mathrm{I}^{8c}|\lambda _i^a\lambda _j^b|C_\mathrm{I}^{8d}C_{\mathrm{II}}^1|\lambda _k^a\lambda _l^b|C_{\mathrm{II}}^1=\{\begin{array}{cc}32/9\delta ^{cd},\hfill & i=j,k=l,\hfill \\ 4/9\delta ^{cd},\hfill & ij,k=l,\hfill \\ 16/9\delta ^{cd},\hfill & i=j,kl,\hfill \\ 2/9\delta ^{cd},\hfill & ij,kl.\hfill \end{array}`$ (59)
The color state of a mixed-color meson can be expressed as

$`|C^{mixedcolor}=\gamma _1|C^1+{\displaystyle \underset{c=1}{\overset{8}{}}}\gamma _{8c}|C^{8c}.`$ (60)
For a mixed-color meson scattering on a hadron, we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{8}{}}}C_\mathrm{I}^{mixedcolor}|\lambda _i^a\lambda _j^b|C_\mathrm{I}^{mixedcolor}C_{\mathrm{II}}^1|\lambda _k^a\lambda _l^b|C_{\mathrm{II}}^1`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{8}{}}}\left[|\gamma _1|^2C_\mathrm{I}^1|\lambda _i^a\lambda _j^b|C_\mathrm{I}^1+{\displaystyle \underset{c=1}{\overset{8}{}}}|\gamma _{8c}|^2C_\mathrm{I}^{8c}|\lambda _i^a\lambda _j^b|C_\mathrm{I}^{8c}\right]`$
$`\times C_{\mathrm{II}}^1|\lambda _k^a\lambda _l^b|C_{\mathrm{II}}^1`$
$`=|\gamma _1|^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{8}{}}}C_\mathrm{I}^1|\lambda _i^a\lambda _j^b|C_\mathrm{I}^1C_{\mathrm{II}}^1|\lambda _k^a\lambda _l^b|C_{\mathrm{II}}^1\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{c=1}{\overset{8}{}}}|\gamma _{8c}|^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{8}{}}}C_\mathrm{I}^{8c}|\lambda _i^a\lambda _j^b|C_\mathrm{I}^{8c}C_{\mathrm{II}}^1|\lambda _k^a\lambda _l^b|C_{\mathrm{II}}^1\right).`$ (61)
From Eqs. (40) — (42) and (VI), the total cross section of a mixed-color meson scattering on a hadron can be expressed as Won97

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}=(1P_8)\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{1+1}+P_8\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{8+1},`$ (62)
where $`P_8=_{c=1}^8|\gamma _{8c}|^2`$ gives the total amount of color-octet mixing.

In Fig. 4(a) and 4(b) we show the total scattering cross sections of a mixed-color charmonium on a pion or on a proton, as a function of the size of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair and the amount of color mixing at $`\sqrt{s}=20`$ GeV. The wave function of the charmonium state is taken to be a single Gaussian wave function characterized by a root-mean square radius. The cross sections are insensitive to the spin state of the $`c\overline{c}`$ system. The results in Fig. 4 are the total cross sections for the collision of a spin-triplet $`S=1`$ $`c\overline{c}`$. It can be seen that the total cross section of a color-octet charmonium ($`P_8=1.0`$) scattering on a hadron remains finite even as the size of the charmonium approaches zero, and they change only weakly with the charmonium size. This is quite different from the case of a color-singlet charmonium ($`P_8=0.0`$) scattering from a color-singlet hadron. For the case of the scattering of two color-singlet mesons, if we turn off the spin-spin interaction, the integrand in Eq. (2) is proportional to

$`[V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{1\mathrm{T}}𝐫_{3\mathrm{T}})+V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{2\mathrm{T}}𝐫_{4\mathrm{T}})V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{1\mathrm{T}}𝐫_{4\mathrm{T}})V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{2\mathrm{T}}𝐫_{3\mathrm{T}})]^2,`$ (63)
and for the case of the scattering of a color-octet meson with a color-singlet meson, the integrand is instead proportional to

$`[V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{1\mathrm{T}}𝐫_{3\mathrm{T}})+V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{2\mathrm{T}}𝐫_{4\mathrm{T}})V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{1\mathrm{T}}𝐫_{4\mathrm{T}})V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{2\mathrm{T}}𝐫_{3\mathrm{T}})]^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}[V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{1\mathrm{T}}𝐫_{3\mathrm{T}})V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{1\mathrm{T}}𝐫_{4\mathrm{T}})][V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{2\mathrm{T}}𝐫_{3\mathrm{T}})V_\mathrm{T}(𝐫_{2\mathrm{T}}𝐫_{4\mathrm{T}})].`$ (64)
We can see that expression (VI) does not approach zero when the size of the color-octet meson approaches zero ($`𝐫_{1\mathrm{T}}𝐫_{2\mathrm{T}}`$), unlike expression (63). There are cancellations in the case of color-singlet hadron-hadron scattering, which are not present in the scattering of a color-octet charmonium state on color-singlet hadrons, as first pointed out by Dolejši and Hüfner Dol92 .

The color-octet cross sections for $`P_8=1.0`$ are approximately the same as those of Dolejši and Hüfner Dol92 , even though the potentials used are quite different. For the collision of the color-singlet charmonium ($`P_8=0.0`$) on $`\pi `$ and $`p`$, the results at $`\sqrt{r_{c\overline{c}}^2}=0.2`$ fm in Fig. 4 are close to the results for $`J/\psi +\pi `$ and $`J/\psi +p`$ in Fig. 2 as the rms radius of $`J/\psi `$ in our calculation is 0.202 fm.

## VII Summary and Conclusions

We have calculated total hadron-hadron cross sections for the collisions of $`\pi `$, $`K`$, $`\rho `$, $`\varphi `$, $`D`$, $`J/\psi `$, $`\psi ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$, and the proton using the Low-Nussinov model of two-gluon exchange, as developed by Gunion, Soper, Landshoff, Nachtmann, Dolejši, Hüfner, and Wong. A set of meson wave functions obtained from a non-relativistic quark potential model is used in our calculations. A phenomenological potential including screened color-Coulomb, screened confining, and spin-spin interactions is employed to describe the gluon exchange between the constituents of the interacting hadrons. The screening mass and the strong coupling constant of the potential are obtained by fitting the total cross sections of $`p`$+$`p`$, $`\pi `$+$`p`$, and $`K`$+$`p`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=20`$ GeV. We extend our results to higher energies using the phenomenological energy dependence obtained by Donnachie and Landshoff Don92 .

We find that the total hadron-hadron cross sections correlate with the size of the scattering hadron system. There are, however, important variations arising from the spin-spin interaction. This leads to $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\pi +p)>\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(K+p)`$, a larger $`\rho `$ rms radius, and consequently a $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\rho +p)`$ that is slightly greater than $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\pi +p)`$. The experimental total $`\pi +p`$ cross section at 50 GeV obtained by the ZEUS Collaboration agrees with the theoretical result of the TGMP and the experimental ZEUS data point of the total $`\rho +p`$ cross section at $`\sqrt{s}=70`$ GeV is close to the theoretical prediction.

While the TGMP and the additive quark model give about the same cross sections in some cases, there are significant deviations because the effective spatial range of the quark-quark interaction in the present analysis, $`1/\mu `$, is not small compared to hadron radii. The total $`\pi `$+$`\pi `$, and $`\pi `$+$`\rho `$ cross sections obtained here differ significantly from those of the additive quark model. Much more work remains to be done to confront the predictions of the TGMP and the additive quark model with experiments. It will be of great interest to obtain quantitative experimental measurements of these cross sections, using for example the production of pions in photon-photon collisions in which each photon fluctuates into a pair of pions, as in the Drell Dre60  and Söding Sod66  approach in photon reaction processes.

As was previously noted by Dolejši and Hüfner Dol92 , we find that the theoretical total cross section for a color-octet meson is quite large. The large cross section arises from the fact that in the interaction of a color-octet meson, the color interactions of both constituents in the meson interfere constructively, while in a color-singlet meson, the interactions interfere destructively. Therefore, a color-octet meson traveling through a color-singlet nuclear medium is expected to suffer frequent collisions and will lose a substantial amount of energy. These results for the color-octet cross sections may be used to place a constraint on the color-octet production amplitude of a heavy-quark pair produced in a nucleon-nucleon collision by studying its propagation in the nuclear medium.

It will be of interest in future work to study the elastic differential cross section based on the TGMP, which can be compared directly with experiment. It would be useful to develop experimental and theoretical techniques to infer cross sections of unstable mesons on various targets, which would be valuable to discriminate between various theoretical models.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank Drs. T. Barnes, H. Crater, and C. W. Wong for helpful discussions. WNZ would also like to thank Dr. Glenn Young for his kind hospitality at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This research was supported in part by the Division of Nuclear Physics, U.S. Department of Energy, under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, and by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Contract No. 10275015.


format: text

text:
# Substructure in dark matter halos: Towards a model of the abundance and spatial distribution of subclumps

## 1 Introduction

In hierarchical clustering models about ten percent of the mass of a dark matter halo is expected to be in the form of subclumps which are the remnants of objects which fell in and were tidally stripped as the halo was assembled. Whereas models of the abundance of halos as a function of mass are quite well developed (Press & Schechter 1974; Sheth & Tormen 1999; Jenkins et al. 2001; Sheth, Mo & Tormen 2001), models of the subclump abundances are not. The main goal of this paper is to derive a model for the distribution of subclump masses. Since it is likely that such subclumps are associated with sites of galaxy formation (White & Rees 1978; Colin et al. 1999) such a model is a useful step towards interpretting galaxy luminosity functions. The model is developed in Sections 2 and 3, and Section 4 illustrates the results. The model presented here may provide a useful framework within which to discuss the luminosity function of galaxies, as well as the formation of massive elliptical galaxies. These possibilities are discussed in Section 5, which also highlights shortcomings of the model, and outlines possible improvements.

## 2 The Poisson model

Sheth & Pitman (1997) described a model in which the number density of clumps containing $`m`$ particles is

$$n(m,b)=(1b)\frac{(mb)^{m1}\mathrm{e}^{mb}}{m!},$$
(1)
where $`b`$ which grows from an initial value of zero towards an upper limit of unity, plays the role of a time variable. They showed that the rate of change of the number density of $`m`$-halos could be thought of as the difference between formation and destruction rates:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}n(m,b)}{\mathrm{d}b}=\frac{\mathrm{d}n_{\mathrm{form}}(b|m)}{\mathrm{d}b}\frac{\mathrm{d}n_{\mathrm{dest}}(b|m)}{\mathrm{d}b}.$$
(2)
where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}n_{\mathrm{form}}(b|m)}{\mathrm{d}b}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(m1)}{b}}n(m,b)`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}n_{\mathrm{dest}}(b|m)}{\mathrm{d}b}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1b}}\right)n(m,b).`$ (4)
In this model, an object of mass $`M`$ at some late time $`b_0`$ was previously (i.e., at some epoch $`b_1b_0`$) made up of many smaller pieces. The number of $`m`$-subclumps of an $`M`$-parent is

$$N(m|M,B)=(1B)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{m}\right)\left(\frac{mB}{M}\right)^{m1}\left(1\frac{mB}{M}\right)^{Mm1}$$
(5)
where $`B=b_1/b_01`$. Extending their model to compute the formation and destruction rates of these $`m`$-subclumps yields:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{form}}(B|m,M)}{\mathrm{d}B}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(m1)}{B}}N(m|M,B)`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{dest}}(B|m,M)}{\mathrm{d}B}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1m/M)}{(1mB/M)}}`$ (8)
$`\times \left(m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1B}}\right)N(m|M,B).`$
Details are in the Appendix. In the limit that $`mM`$, equation (8) reduces to the unconstrained rates. As a consistency check, note that

$$\underset{M=m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{form}}(B|m,M)}{b_0\mathrm{d}B}n(m,b_0)=\frac{\mathrm{d}n_{\mathrm{form}}(b_1|m)}{\mathrm{d}b_1},$$
(9)
where we have used the fact that $`dB=db_1/b_0`$. This shows that the number of $`m`$-subclumps which form within $`M`$-parent halos during the interval $`\mathrm{d}b_1`$ around $`b_1`$, times the density of $`M`$-parents, when summed over all $`M`$ does indeed give the total formation rate density of $`m`$-clumps. A similar expression holds for the destruction rates.

In this model, the total number density of $`m`$ halos which will ever form is

$`n(m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}db{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}n_{\mathrm{form}}(b|m)}{\mathrm{d}b}}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(m1)}{m!}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }(m1,0,m){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m,0,m)}{m}}\right],`$
where the expressions in square brackets denote incomplete gamma functions, with parameters $`m1`$ and $`m`$ respectively. In the limit of large $`m`$, this total number reduces to $`1/\sqrt{2\pi m^3}`$.

Similarly, integrating $`dN_{\mathrm{form}}/dB`$ over $`B`$ gives the total number of $`m`$-subclumps which ever formed within an $`M`$-halo. With suitable choices of $`m`$ and $`M`$, the value of this integral can be used to estimate the typical number of galaxy-sized subclumps which are today within virialized clusters. Notice that this total number is independent of $`b_0`$; i.e., it depends only on the mass $`M`$, and not on the time at which the parent $`M`$-halo formed.

## 3 The continuum limit

Setting $`b=1/(1+\delta _{\mathrm{sc}})`$, and taking $`m1`$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}1`$ makes $`n(m,b)`$ resemble the Press-Schechter (1974) model of the halo mass function. Halo abundances in this model are usually written as

$$\frac{mn(m|t)}{\overline{\rho }}\mathrm{d}m=\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma ^2(m)}{\sigma ^2(m)}\frac{\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}(t)/\sigma (m)}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}^2(t)}{2\sigma ^2(m)}\right)$$
(11)
where $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the comoving mass density, $`\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}(t)`$ is the linear theory overdensity required for spherical collapse at $`t`$ (it is $`1.686(t_0/t)^{2/3}`$ in an Einstein-de Sitter model),

$$\sigma ^2(m)=4\pi \frac{\mathrm{d}k}{k}k^3P(k)|W(kR)|^2$$
(12)
is the linear theory variance of the density field at the present time $`t_0`$ when smoothed with a tophat filter on the scale $`R=(3m/4\pi \overline{\rho })^{1/3}`$, and $`P(k)k^n`$, with $`n=0`$ for the Poisson model. The use of the tophat filter makes $`W(x)=(3/x^3)[\mathrm{sin}(x)x\mathrm{cos}(x)]`$.

The usual Press-Schechter argument is to assume that expressions derived from Poisson or white-noise initial conditions are also valid for arbitrary Gaussian fluctuation fields (i.e., $`P(k)`$ may depend on $`k`$). Therefore, where possible in what follows, we will write all expressions in variables which are independent of the power spectrum.

The continuum limit of equation (5) shows that $`mN(m,t|M,T)\mathrm{d}m/M`$ is given by an expression like the one above, but with the replacements $`\sigma ^2\sigma ^2(m)\sigma ^2(M)`$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}(t)\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}(T)`$. This is the same as the conditional mass function of Bower (1990), Bond et al. (1991) and Lacey & Cole (1993). The continuum limits of the formation time distributions given above are

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}n_{\mathrm{form}}(t|m)}{\mathrm{d}t}\mathrm{d}tmn(m|t)\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}\delta }{\mathrm{d}t}\right|\mathrm{d}t$$
(13)
and

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{form}}(t|m,M,T)}{\mathrm{d}t}\mathrm{d}tmN(m,t|M,T)\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}\delta }{\mathrm{d}t}\right|\mathrm{d}t,$$
(14)
where $`mM`$ and $`tT`$. Furthermore, one can verify that

$$_m^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{form}}(t|m,M,T)}{\mathrm{d}t}n(m,T)dm=\frac{\mathrm{d}n_{\mathrm{form}}(t|m)}{\mathrm{d}t}.$$
(15)
Expressions similar to equations (13) and (14) above for the formation time distribution have been derived by Percival & Miller (1999) from a quite different approach. However, they were only able to describe the shape of the formation time distribution, not the normalization. What we have shown here is that the normalization can be derived from the earlier results of Sheth & Pitman (1997). In hindsight, notice that requiring the identity above (equation 15) to be satisfied also provides a way to determine the normalization factors.

Note that these expressions for the formation times show that subclumps of the same mass form at earlier times in massive halos than in less massive ones. We will return to this shortly.

### 3.1 Subclump abundances

The total number of $`m`$ subclumps which form within an $`M`$-halo is

$$N_{\mathrm{sub}}(m|M,T)=_0^Tdt\frac{\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{form}}(t|m,M,T)}{\mathrm{d}t}.$$
(16)
If these subclumps survive the processes of tidal stripping and dynamical friction as they merge into their parent halo (an unrealistic approximation!), then the total number density of $`m`$-subclumps at time $`T`$ is

$$n_{\mathrm{sub}}(m,T)=_m^{\mathrm{}}dMn(M,T)N_{\mathrm{sub}}(m|M,T).$$
(17)
### 3.2 Large-scale spatial distribution of subclumps

The distribution of $`M`$-halos is biased with respect to the overall distribution of dark matter. On scales which are large compared to the typical diameter of a halo, this bias is factor is approximately independent of scale, and is usually denoted $`b(M,T)`$. If there are $`N_{\mathrm{sub}}(m|M,T)`$ subclumps for each $`M`$-halo, then, on large scales, the bias factor associated with the subclump distribution is given by a simple counting argument:

$$b_{\mathrm{sub}}(m,T)=\frac{_m^{\mathrm{}}dMn(M)N_{\mathrm{sub}}(m|M,T)b(M)}{_m^{\mathrm{}}dMn(M,T)N_{\mathrm{sub}}(m|M,T)}.$$
(18)
The subclump distribution on smaller scales can be estimated if one assumes a model for the density run of subclumps around their parent halos. For instance, one might assume that they trace the density profile of the mass, or that this distribution is a non-singular isothermal sphere. Once this density profile has been specified, the small scale distribution of the subclumps can be described rather compactly using the halo model of large scale structure (see the recent review in Cooray & Sheth 2002).

### 3.3 Dependence on local density

It is sometimes of interest to estimate the distribution of subclumps as a function of local density. We develop two approximations for this quantity. The first is a simple counting argument which exploits the fact that the number of $`m`$-subclumps of an $`M`$-parent does not depend on any quantities other than $`m`$ and $`M`$. If the local overdensity $`\delta `$ is defined on sufficiently large scales that $`M_\delta \overline{\rho }V(1+\delta )`$ is much larger than the mass of any parent halo, then the density of subclumps in such regions is

$$n_{\mathrm{sub}}(m,T|\delta )=_m^{M_\delta }dMn(M,T|\delta )N_{\mathrm{sub}}(m|M,T)$$
(19)
where the density dependent parent halo mass function $`n(M,T|\delta )`$ can be estimated following Mo & White (1996), Kauffmann & Lemson (1999) and Sheth & Tormen (2002). On very large scales, $`M_\delta M`$, the parent halo mass function reduces to $`n(M,T|\delta )[1+b(M)\delta ]n(M,T)`$. Thus, on these scales, $`n_{\mathrm{sub}}(m,T|\delta )[1+b_{\mathrm{sub}}(m,T)\delta ]n_{\mathrm{sub}}(M,T)`$, with $`b_{\mathrm{sub}}(m,T)`$ given by the expression derived in the previous subsection. On intermediate scales, this simple expression for $`n(M,T|\delta )`$ is no longer valid, but equation (19) will remain accurate provided that the full expression for $`n(M,T|\delta )`$ is used.

Equation (19) becomes inaccurate once the cell size $`V`$ on which $`\delta `$ is evaluated is comparable to the diameter of a typical halo. On such small scales, some cells may only contain portions of parent halos, and hence the simple counting argument is no longer accurate. Then it is more accurate to simply compute $`N_{\mathrm{sub}}(m|M_\delta ,T_\delta )`$, where $`T_\delta `$ is obtained by using the spherical collapse relation for the linear and nonlinear overdensities, $`\delta _0(\delta )`$ (Mo & White 1996 give a convenient fitting formula for this relation), and then set $`\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}(T_\delta )=\delta _0(\delta )`$. Note that, in contrast to equation (16), here the upper limit of the integral, $`T`$, is not the same as the time when the parent halo is identified, $`T_\delta `$. This is because not all the subclumps which will form within $`M_\delta `$ by $`T_\delta `$ have formed at $`TT_\delta `$. Thus,

$$N_{\mathrm{sub}}(m|M_\delta ,T_\delta )=_0^Tdt\frac{\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{form}}(t|m,M_\delta ,T_\delta )}{\mathrm{d}t}.$$
(20)
Dividing this quantity by $`n_{\mathrm{sub}}(m,T)V`$ provides an estimate of how biased the subclump distribution in dense cells is relative to the average. Writing the density-dependent abundance this way shows explicitly that subhalos of a given mass in dense regions formed at earlier times than did subhalos of the same mass in less dense regions.

## 4 Explicit results

For the parent halo mass function in equation (11), all the integrals above can be performed analytically:

$$N_{\mathrm{sub}}(m|M,T)\mathrm{d}m=\frac{M}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma ^2(m)}{\sqrt{\sigma ^2(m)\sigma ^2(M)}},$$
(21)
(note that this is independent of $`T`$) and so the abundance of subclumps is

$$\frac{n_{\mathrm{sub}}(m,T)}{\overline{\rho }}\mathrm{d}m=\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma ^2(m)}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma ^2(m)}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}^2(T)}{2\sigma ^2(m)}\right).$$
(22)
The halo bias factor associated with equation (11) is

$$b(M,T)=1+\frac{\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}^2(T)/\sigma ^2(M)1}{\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}(T)}$$
(23)
(Cole & Kaiser 1989; Mo & White 1996; Sheth & Tormen 1999), so the large scale bias factor of the subclumps, computed using the simple counting argument of equation (18) is

$$b_{\mathrm{sub}}(m,T)=1+\frac{\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}^2(T)/\sigma ^2(m)}{\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}(T)}.$$
(24)
Whereas the halo bias factor can be less than unity, the bias factor of the subclumps is always greater than unity. The more accurate model for subclump biasing (equation 20), which should be accurate on smaller scales, can also be solved analytically:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{sub}}(m|M_\delta ,T_\delta )}{n_{\mathrm{sub}}(m,T)V}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\delta )}{\sqrt{1\sigma ^2(M_\delta )/\sigma ^2(m)}}}`$ (25)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}[\nu _\delta ^2/2)}{\mathrm{exp}[\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}(T)^2/2\sigma ^2(m)]}},`$
$$\mathrm{where}\nu _\delta ^2=\frac{\left[\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}(T)\delta _0(\delta )\right]^2}{\sigma ^2(m)\sigma ^2(M_\delta )}.$$

If this ratio is expressed as a Taylor series in $`\delta `$, then the coefficient of the term which is proportional to $`\delta `$ is the same as the linear bias factor derived from the counting argument (equation 24). To see this explicitly, consider the limit of large cells, for which $`M_\delta `$ is large simply because $`V`$ is large. Then $`\sigma (M_\delta )/\sigma (m)0`$ and $`\delta _0(\delta )\delta \delta _{\mathrm{sc}}`$, so that

$$\frac{N_{\mathrm{sub}}(m|M_\delta ,T_\delta )}{n_{\mathrm{sub}}(m,T)V}(1+\delta )\left[1+\delta \frac{\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}^2(T)/\sigma ^2(m)}{\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}(T)}\right].$$
(26)
Numerical simulations show that the spherical collapse based equation (11) is a good but not perfect description of the number density of parent halos. A more accurate formula is

$$\frac{mn(m|t)}{\overline{\rho }}\mathrm{d}m=\frac{\mathrm{d}\nu ^2}{\nu ^2}\sqrt{\frac{a\nu }{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{a\nu ^2}{2}\right)A\left[1+(a\nu )^{2p}\right]$$
(27)
(Sheth & Tormen 1999), where $`\nu =\delta _{\mathrm{sc}}(t)/\sigma (m)`$, $`a0.71`$, $`p=0.3`$ and $`A=0.322`$ insures that the distribution is normalized to unity. Sheth, Mo & Tormen (2001) argue that this expression may be related to models in which halos form from an ellipsoidal collapse. Percival, Miller & Peacock (2000) show that the insertion of equation (27) in equation (13) provides a better description of halo formation in simulations than does equation (11). Therefore, it probably provides a more accurate model of the subclump abundances and bias factors as well. To use this requires a model for the analog of the conditional mass function (equation 5); Sheth & Tormen (2002) argue that simply changing variables in $`n(m,t)`$, as is appropriate when equation (11) is the mass function, while incorrect, is not a bad approximation. In this approximation, the analog of equation (21) is again proportional to $`M/\sqrt{\sigma ^2(m)\sigma ^2(M)}`$, the subclump mass function (integrated over parent masses $`M`$) can be written in terms of hypergeometric functions, as can the large-scale bias factor. The expressions are lengthy, so I haven’t reproduced them here. Figure 1 compares the large-scale bias factor of the parent halos (dashed, from Sheth & Tormen 1999), with that for the subclumps (solid). The lower and upper dotted curves show the parent and subclump bias factors associated with equations (23) and (24).

## 5 Discussion

I derived a model of the subclump distribution under the assumption that there are no processes by which a subclump can lose mass as it falls in to a larger system. Although this idealization is not realistic, it should be thought of as providing the initial conditions for more sophisticated calculations which do incorporate the effects of tidal stripping and dynamical friction. For instance, the cumulative distribution of subclumps in this model is

$$_m^MN_{\mathrm{sub}}(m|M,T)dm=\frac{2M\sigma (m)}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\sqrt{1\frac{\sigma ^2(M)}{\sigma ^2(m)}}.$$

When $`mM`$, this scales as $`M\sigma (m)`$, which is rather different from the $`m^1`$ scaling seen in simulations after tidal stripping. Nevertheless, the model is useful because it provides simple closed-form expressions for how the abundances and spatial distributions of the subclumps differ from those of their parent halos.

If mergers are unimportant, then equation (22) can be turned into an estimate of the luminosity function. This can be done either by assuming a mean mass-to-light ratio, or by assuming some relation for how the light-curve evolves with time, and then convolving with the formation time distributions derived here. I have not pursued this further because this model for the subclump distribution is not sufficiently realistic. For example, $`dmmn_{\mathrm{sub}}(m)/\overline{\rho }`$ is generally greater than unity. This is a consequence of the fact that objects counted as having formed with mass $`m`$ may previously have been counted as having formed with mass $`m^{}<m`$. A more realistic model of the subclump distribution would avoid this double counting: one attractive model in this regard is to study how the mass of the most massive progenitor subclump decreases with lookback time. One then labels as subclumps all the objects which merge with the most massive progenitor. This distribution of subclumps can be described following results in Nusser & Sheth (1999) and is the subject of work in progress.

There is one respect in which the model developed here is realistic: it shows that subclumps of massive parent halos formed at earlier times than subclumps of the same mass in lower mass parents, or equivalently, that halos in dense regions at a given time formed earlier than halos of the same mass in less dense regions. This has an interesting consequence for the following simple model of elliptical galaxies. Suppose that gas can only cool and form stars within halos which are more massive than some minimum mass $`m`$. If this happened at high redshift, then the halos within which the stars formed will have subsequently merged with other halos to make more massive objects. If we treat the separate parcels of stars as representing the subclumps $`m`$, then we have a model in which massive galaxies contain older stars. Moreover, since higher redshifts correspond to smaller intervals of time, the distribution of formation times will be narrower for the stars which form in more massive halos, and broader for the stars which form in lower mass halos; Figure 2 illustrates. This is in qualitative agreement with recent work (Thomas, Maraston & Bender 2002).

## Acknowledgments

Most of the results presented here were obtained while I was a postdoc at Fermilab, supported by the DOE and NASA grant NAG 5-10842. I’d like to thank Scott Dodelson, Josh Frieman, Albert Stebbins and Liz Duty for making Fermilab a rewarding place to work.

## Appendix A The additive coagulation model

In the model discussed in the main text, halos grow by binary mergers with one another. The formation rate of a halo with $`M`$ particles is given by evaluating

$$\frac{M}{2}\underset{m=1}{\overset{M1}{}}n(m,b)n(Mm,b),$$

which expresses the fact that formation in this model happens by binary mergers, with probability of merger proportional to the mass of the merging pair, and the abundance of each type of clump. The associated destruction rate is related to

$$n(M,b)\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(M+m)n(m,b).$$

This system of equations for $`n(M,b)`$ is solved by equation (1); this was one of the results in Sheth & Pitman (1997).

The conditional formation rate of $`m`$-subclumps within an $`M`$-parent, while given by a similar expression, is slightly different. It is

$$\frac{m}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{Mm1}{}}N(j,b_1|M,b_0)N(mj,b_1|Mj,b^{}),$$

where $`1/b^{}=(Mj)/(Mb_0jb_1)`$. The first term is the number of $`j`$-subclumps within the $`M`$-halo, and the second term is the number of subclumps containing $`mj`$ particles, given that there are only $`Mj`$ remaining particles from which they could have been formed (see Sheth & Lemson 1999 for a detailed discussion); this is why the second term is not $`N(mj,b_1|M,b_0)`$. For similar reasons, the destruction rate is obtained from

$$N(m,b_1|M,b_0)\underset{j=1}{\overset{Mm1}{}}(m+j)N(j,b_1|Mm,b^{})$$

rather than $`N(m,b_1|M,b_0)_{j=1}^{Mm1}(m+j)N(j,b_1|M,b_0)`$.