text:
# Basic considerations on broken-symmetry states of organic superconductors

## I Introduction

The discovery of superconductivity twenty years ago by Jérome et al., in the charge transfer salt (TMTSF)2PF6 was not only remarkable for superconductivity itself, but also showed that superconductivity in a quasi-one-dimensional electronic material could emerge from a competition with antiferromagnetism under pressure. This unusual interplay between magnetism and superconductivity turned out to be a commom characteristic of other members of the Bechgaard salts series (TMTSF)2X and their sulfur analogs: the Fabre salts (TMTTF)2X . Similar competition of ground states was also found in other low-dimensional many-electron systems such as the layered organic superconductors and high-Tc cuprates .

Antiferromagnetism and superconductivity are therefore closely related in these systems and can no longer be considered as completely blind to each other. In spite of the considerable interest bestowed on this issue over the last twenty years, their connection remains so far largely unexplained and stands as one of the most important challenges of the physics of low-dimensional organic superconductors.

## II Antiferromagnetism

By sharing a common boundary with superconductivity and being present in a relatively large domain of the normal phase in the form of short range correlations, antiferromagnetism has become a dominant feature of the whole phase diagram of (TM)2X (Figure 1). Thus attempts to unravel the origin of superconductivity in the Bechgaard salts and their sulfur analogs must inevitably go through a proper understanding of the mechanisms leading to magnetism in these electronic materials.

### A The nesting mechanism: success and limitations

The observation of itinerant antiferromagnetism in (TMTSF)2X indicated from the outset that electron-electron Coulomb repulsion, not electron-phonon interaction, would play a more important part in the instability of the metallic state. However, it should be stressed that repulsive interactions alone, only lead in a metal to uniform, (i.e., ferromagnetic) spin correlations. These enhance the magnetic spin susceptibility with respect to the Pauli or noninteracting band limit $``$ an effect that is confirmed by experiments . Adopting a weak coupling picture for electrons, the mechanism of density-wave formation, called nesting, originates from an instability of the Fermi surface. For a quasi-one-dimensional metal, constant energy electron and hole states located on opposite sides ($`\pm 𝐤_F`$) of the open Fermi surface can be connected or nested on one another. This is expressed by the following relation for the energy of one-electron states

$$ϵ_\pm (𝐤)=ϵ_{}(𝐤+𝐐_0)+\delta ϵ_0,$$
(1)
where $`𝐐_0=(2k_F^0,𝐪_{}^0)`$ is called the nesting vector of the Fermi surface, with $`2k_F^0`$ corresponding to the nesting vector of the single chain. Here, $`\delta ϵ_0`$ stands as corrections that parametrize deviations from perfect nesting.

For perfect nesting, the electron gas develops a singular logarithmic response to density-wave formation at wavevector $`𝐐_0`$, as shown by the expression of the free electron gas susceptibility at $`𝐐_0`$:

$`\chi _0(𝐐_0,\omega )=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{LN_{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n[ϵ_+(𝐤)]n[ϵ_{}(𝐤+𝐐_0)]}{ϵ_+(𝐤)ϵ_{}(𝐤+𝐐_0)\omega +i0^+}}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`N(E_F)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{T}}(\delta ϵ_0=0,\omega =0),`$ (3)
where the last expression follows in the satic limit. Here, $`E_0`$ is a cut-off energy and $`N(E_F)`$ is the noninteracting electron density of states at the Fermi level. Repulsive interaction that scatters two electrons at $`\pm 𝐤_F`$ gives rise to an attraction between electron and hole separated by $`𝐐_0`$, which according to (3) will be magnified as function of temperature and can become singular. In leading (ladder) order, this is well known to yield the simple pole singularity of the total forward scattering amplitude, namely

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐐_0,\omega )=\frac{g^{}}{1g^{}\chi _0(𝐐_0,\omega )},$$
(4)
where $`g^{}`$ is an effective coupling defined at the scale $`E_0`$ (for simplicity, we have dropped the contribution of umklapp scattering). The characteristic temperature $`T_{SDW}`$ signaling an SDW instability of the normal state then follows the pattern of the BCS mechanism for superconductivity. The temperature at which bound electron-hole pairs condense is determined by the condition $`1=g^{}\chi _0(𝐐_0,T_{SDW})`$, corresponding to the simple pole singularity of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the static limit, and this yields

$$T_{SDW}t_{}^{}e^{1/N(E_F)g^{}}.$$
(5)
Within this weak-coupling picture of the SDW transition, the identification of the cut-off $`E_0`$ in (3) with an effective $``$ renormalized $``$ value of the interchain hopping amplitude $`t_{}^{}(<t_{})`$ takes on particular significance in quasi-one-dimensional systems. It stands as the temperature for crossover towards the one-dimensional metallic state. It imposes a mechanical limitation of the above approach to the temperature domain $`T<t_{}^{}`$, where the curvature of the Fermi surface and in turn the transverse momentum of electrons is coherent in the quantum-mechanical sense. Otherwise, for $`T>t_{}^{}`$, thermal fluctuations reduce nesting properties to be essentially longitudinal or one-dimensional in character, a configuration that introduces interference between electron-hole and electron-electron (Cooper) pairings. An immediate outcome of this interference is to invalidate the ladder summation in (4), which assumes that electron-hole pairing can be singled out in perturbation theory. The metallic state then turns out to be no longer a Fermi liquid but rather a Luttinger liquid. For repulsive interactions, however, SDW correlations are singular over the whole 1D temperature domain. According to the one-dimensional theory, their amplitude is governed by a power law increase of the susceptibility at wavevector $`2k_F^0`$:

$$\chi _0(2k_F^0,T)T^\gamma ,$$
(6)
where $`\gamma `$ is an exponent that depends on the strength of electron-electron interaction.

The application of pressure modifies electron band energy in such a way that nesting deviations ($`\delta ϵ_0`$) increase and cut off the logarithmic singularity following the approximate expression

$$\chi (𝐐_0,T)N(E_F)\mathrm{ln}\frac{t_{}^{}}{\sqrt{\delta ϵ_0^2+T^2}}.$$
(7)
As pressure increases, the SDW critical temperature derived from (4) is then progressively shifted down to lower temperature and ultimately vanishes whenever $`\delta ϵ_0(P)`$ exceeds a certain threshold ($`T_{SDW}`$) . The rapid suppression of $`T_{SDW}`$ thus obtained under pressure squares relatively well with observation made close to $`P_{c2}`$ (Figure 1). The involvement of nesting as a mechanism of stability of itinerant antiferromagnetism is however most substantiated by its remarkable ability to account for the restoration of a cascade of SDW states induced by a magnetic field above $`P_{c2}`$ . When a magnetic field is applied along the less conducting axis, open orbits are produced which confine electron motion preferentially along the chains where full, but quantized, nesting properties are found to be restored. In this way, the logarithmic singularity in $`\chi _0(𝐐_N,T,H)`$ is recovered for a given set of discrete nesting wavevectors $`𝐐_N`$ and shows a particular variation with field. Following (4), a characteristic hierarchy or cascade of $`T_{SDW}(N)`$ is found with quite remarkable consequences on physical properties. For example, the quantization of Hall resistance has received sound experimental support  .

In spite of this apparent success of the BCS mechanism to explain long-range SDW order, difficulties arise when one tries to tackle from the same standpoint the properties of the metallic state. One of the main defects of the approach, as it is formulated, lies in the assumption that all electron excitations of the normal state can be described within the Fermi liquid framework, which is not corroborated by most experiments. In a Fermi liquid for example, electron correlation effects are essentially absent of the scene from $`Tt_{}^{}`$ down to the close vicinity of $`T_{SDW}`$, where the onset of critical fluctuations ultimately limits the validity of the quasi-particle picture. Thus in the BCS description, the temperature interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{fl}`$ for SDW fluctuation effects, albeit increased by spatial anisotropy, is small compared to $`T_{SDW}`$ and a reduction of $`T_{SDW}`$ is concomitant to a reduction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{fl}`$, which vanishes with $`T_{SDW}`$.

The NMR spin-lattice relaxation rate $`T_1^1`$ was among the first properties to show the existence in the Bechgaard salts of spin correlations whose amplitude did not agree with the Fermi liquid prediction . In this matter, the temperature dependent $`T_1^1`$ data of Figure 2 obtained for (TMTSF)2PF6 are particularly revealing of the importance of antiferromagnetic spin correlations in the normal state near $`P_c`$. For pressures above $`P_c`$, where the system is no longer in a SDW state but is expected to be a superconductor, a huge enhancement of the relaxation rate persists over a large temperature interval. Given the extent in temperature of the enhancement and its non critical character, it contrasts with the Korringa law behavior $`(T_1T)^1`$ constant, that should be found for a weakly interacting Fermi liquid. In view of quite similar effects reported for other members of the series, as well as other experimental signs of correlation effects , all this goes to show that antiferromagnetic spin correlations of the normal state of (TMTSF)2X differ from those found in a conventional metal.

On the theoretical side, it is worthy of note that it was at first proposed that these non Fermi liquid effects are attributable to a sizeable reduction $``$ or renormalization $``$ of the one-dimensional temperature scale $`t_{}^{}`$ as a self-consistent effect of correlations themselves . According to this scheme, a reduction of $`t_{}^{}`$ would widen the temperature domain in which low-dimensional spin correlations lead to a power law increase of enhancement for the relaxation rate $`(T_1T)^1T^\gamma `$. This renormalization effect on the kinetics of electrons does solve a number of problems about the normal state but is not beyond creating new paradoxes  $``$ in particular concerning the transport properties and field-induced SDW states . A central point at issue is the determination of the actual value taken by this temperature scale and if $`t_{}^{}`$ rather corresponds to a smooth crossover between the Luttinger and Fermi liquids (Figure 1).

### B The sulfur series and the Mott insulating picture

It is instructive to compare the Bechgaard salts with the (TMTTF)2X series of Fabre salts. The members of this series are located on the left of the phase diagram in Figure 1; their study has provided extremely valuable and rather well understood pieces of information about both the nature of correlations and the mechanisms of long-range order in a sector of the phase diagram that stands only few kilobars apart from the Bechgaard salts. At low pressure, the nature of the transition in (TMTTF)2X shows qualitative differences with respect to the Bechgaard salts: antiferromagnetism is stabilized from a paramagnetic state that is insulating. The metal to insulator ‘transition’ occurs at a characteristic temperature usually denoted as $`T_\rho 10^2`$ K (Figure 1), below which electrical transport develops a thermally activated behavior . Since spin degrees of freedom remain unaffected at $`T_\rho `$ $``$ as shown by the absence of anomaly in the spin susceptibility at that temperature  $``$ (TMTTF)2X are good examples of Mott insulators below $`T_\rho `$ . The measured amplitude of the Mott insulating gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho 3T_\rho `$ even exceeds the transverse bare hopping amplitude $`t_{}`$ obtained from band calculations . The carriers can then be considered as confined on organic stacks, while spin excitations are gapless and dominated by one-dimensional physics. The one-dimensional nature of spin correlations associated to the Mott insulating state in (TMTTF)2X has received several experimental confirmations . As regards to NMR for example, the one-dimensional theory predicts a power law enhancement of $`(T_1T)^1T^\gamma `$ at $`2k_F^0`$ with the exponent $`\gamma =1`$ for a 1D Mott system , a behavior that has indeed been found in the paramagnetic phase of all sulfur compounds studied down to the vicinity of their critical point .

In spite of charge confinement along the chains, spin degrees of freedom ultimately deconfine and lead to antiferromagnetic long-range order which is found in the range 5-25 K for (TMTTF)2X. However, the mechanism by which antiferromagnetic correlations propagate in the transverse direction is here not connected with the Fermi surface. Owing to charge localization, the system is clearly not a Fermi liquid so that the antiferromagnetic transition cannot be drived from Fermi surface effects but rather from the interchain kinetic exchange (superexchange) coupling $`J_{}`$ . This coupling between spins is in effect not present in the Hamiltonian in the high-energy limit; it is generated through virtual interchain hopping of electrons confined within the coherence length $`\xi _\rho v_F/\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho `$ induced by the Mott gap (Figure 3). The explicit expression for the effective interchain exchange Hamiltonian at the scale $`T_\rho `$ is known and can be determined by the renomalization group method :

$$H_{}𝑑x\underset{i,j}{}J_{}𝐒_i(x)𝐒_j(x),$$
(8)
where

$$J_{}\frac{\xi _\rho }{a}\frac{t_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho }.$$
(9)
Here $`t_{}^{}`$ stands as the effective interchain hopping taking place at the energy scale $`T_\rho `$. $`J_{}`$ couples to singular antiferromagnetic correlations along the chains and induces a true transition at finite temperature (in three dimensions). In a very good approximation, the transverse part $`H_{}`$ can be treated in molecular-field approximation and 1D correlations exactly, so that the singular part of the total antiferromagnetic susceptibility at the $`(2k_F^0,\pi )`$ reads

$$\chi (𝐐_0,T)=\frac{\chi (2k_F^0,T)}{1J_{}\chi (2k_F^0,T)},$$
(10)
where $`\chi (2k_F^0,T)`$ is given by the one-dimensional form (6) with $`\gamma =1`$. The Néel transition then takes place at

$$T_N\frac{t_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho }.$$
(11)
It follows from this result a characteristic increase of $`T_N`$ as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho `$ or $`T_\rho `$ decreases under pressure. This feature which comes from a magnification of $`J_{}`$ due to the progressive deconfinement of carriers, agrees with observations (cf. Figure 1) . In the case of (TMTTF)2Br for example, a relation of the form $`T_\rho T_N`$ constant under pressure has been shown to be well satisfied by the data .

The drop of $`T_\rho `$ carries on under pressure until it merges with the critical domain associated with the transition. This pressure scale, which is denoted as $`P_m`$ in Figure 1, signals a change of regime of the normal state, which becomes metallic. The insulator to metal crossover marks the onset of charge deconfinement and weaker coupling conditions for the carriers. This is exemplified by a reduction of the enhancement in NMR $`(T_1T)^1`$ , and the restoration of a transverse plasma edge in optical experiments. Such a change in the strength of electron correlations has a characteristic impact on the pressure profile of $`T_N`$ under pressure, which presents a maximum at $`P_m`$. This feature, which is predicted by microscopic calculations , comes essentially from the pressure variation of $`J_{}`$ whose magnification in (9), as a result of the increase of $`\xi _\rho `$, levels off at the boundary and finally decreases above $`P_m`$. It turns out that even in the absence of an insulating behavior, $`J_{}`$ remains the main driving mechanism of the transition close to $`P_m`$. Its influence grows less and less as one moves away from $`P_m`$ to finally become coupled to the nesting mechanism whose importance follows the growth of the Fermi liquid component under pressure. As one can see, the question that was previously raised about both the degree of renormalization of $`t_{}^{}`$ and correlation effects in the normal phase of the Bechgaard salts, is closely related to the extent to which antiferromagnetic exchange is still active for magnetic ordering on the right-hand side of the diagram of Figure 1.

On the theoretical side, this important question has not received a clear answer so far. Nonetheless, it is instructive in this matter to look at experiments giving relevant information about the spectral response of these materials. For example, the optical conductivity obtained by Vescoli et al. from infrared reflectivity data, are shown in Figure 4 for members of both series in their normal phase. The results show that the Mott gap, which is the dominant structure in the sulfur compound, remains clearly visible in the Bechgaard salts, yet metallic . The gap structure captures 99% of the spectral weight, whereas the large metallic DC conductivity provided by a narrow frequency mode carries the remaining 1%. These results clearly indicate that the build-up of short-range correlations along the stacks is achieved for strongly coupled electrons. This implies in turn that interchain exchange is likely to be well developed in (TMTSF)2X.

## III Organic superconductivity

We now examine the impact spin correlations can have on the nature of organic superconductivity. We ground the analysis on the following experimental information: i) as shown by NMR, the normal phase is dominated by antiferromagnetic correlations (Figure 2); ii) the superconducting $`T_c`$ and $`T_{SDW}`$ join at $`P_c`$, where $`T_c`$ presents a maximum (Figure 1); iii) there is no lattice softening at $`2𝐤_F`$. What should be established at the very outset is that spin correlations in the normal phase lead to an enhancement of electron-electron repulsion. This immediately follows from the expression of the vertex part in (4) close to $`T_{SDW}`$. A large increase of the forward scattering between carriers that move in opposite directions yields quite unfavorable conditions for conventional BCS superconductivity . These conditions become even worst when the influence of interchain exchange $`J_{}`$ is included in the analysis .

In the traditional BCS scheme for superconductivity, the repulsion between electrons must be completely screened by the attraction produced the exchange of virtual phonons $``$ a screening made possible only below the Debye temperature $`\theta _D`$ due to retardation. For narrow tight-binding bands in the organics , the attraction is strongest for backscattering processes in which $`2𝐤_F`$ phonons are exchanged. According to the results of X-ray experiments performed on (TMTSF)2X, however, the electron-phonon vertex part at this wavevector does not undergo any significant increase in the normal state . As it is indeed seen in the upper-half of Figure 5 for (TMTSF)2PF6, the amplitude of the $`2k_F^0`$ lattice suceptibility $``$ which is directly involved in the strength of the phonon exchange $``$ is weak (a result also found for (TMTSF)2ClO4 ). On this matter, it is instructive to compare with the sulfur analog compound (TMTTF)2PF6 (Figure 5, bottom), for which the electron-phonon vertex part at $`2k_F^0`$ becomes singular, signaling a lattice instability towards a spin-Peierls distortion (left-hand side of Fig. 1). This instability produces a spin gap that is clearly visible in the temperature dependence of magnetic susceptibility and nuclear relaxation rate ; these effects are not seen in (TMTSF)2X close to $`P_c`$. The persistent enhancement of these quantities indicates that interactions are dominantly repulsive, making the traditional phonon-mediated source of pairing essentially inoperant in (TM)2X. Added to that, it should be stressed that the restoration of the SDW states under magnetic field above $`P_c`$ gives an additional support of a positive value for $`g^{}`$ in this pressure range.

The above discussion naturally brings us to the question of the nature of pairing mechanism when electrons move in the presence of antiferromagnetic spin correlations. As suggested by Emery , long-lived antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations of wavevector Q0 give rise to an oscillating potential in real space at the corresponding periodicity, to which electrons are coupled. Electrons moving in opposite directions can thus avoid local repulsion and even be attracted to each other if they move on different chains. The attraction being strongest for neighboring chains produces a gap with nodes on the Fermi surface. This mechanism can be seen as the spin-analog of the so-called Kohn-Luttinger mechanism proposed for superconductivity induced by electrons exchanging charge-density excitations $``$ as produced by Friedel oscillations .

By virtue of the rather large temperature domain where spin correlations are present (Figure 2), one can expect that the K-L mechanism can emerge relatively deep in the normal phase giving in turn rise to interchain pairing correlations . Given the inability of the BCS nesting mechanism to produce spin correlations over a large temperature domain, it cannot alone account for pairing fluctuations far from $`T_c`$. But interchain superexchange does. Following the analysis of Ref., singlet interchain pairing correlations dominate when intrachain SDW correlations couple through the interchain superexchange. This is shown for instance by the following expression for the pairing susceptibility in the normal state:

$$\chi _{i,j}^{}(T)[1J_{}(T)\chi (T)]^{3/2},$$
(12)
where $`J_{}(T)`$ stands for an effective temperature dependent transverse superexchange. It is worth noting here that no (antisymmetric) interchain triplet pairing correlations are found to be induced by SDW fluctuations.

As regards to the critical temperature $`T_c`$, some interesting features can be drawn in the framework of the spin-fluctuations exchange mechanism. Adopting the simple picture where a Fermi liquid component exists near $`P_c`$ $``$ consistently with the suppression of $`T_{SDW}`$ due to nesting deviations $``$, the ‘propagator’ of spin fluctuations involved in pairing attraction reads:

$$V(𝐐,\omega )=\frac{V_0}{r+_i\xi _{0,i}^2(Q_iQ_0)^2i\omega /\omega _0},$$
(13)
where $`r=[TT_{SDW}(P)]/T_{SDW}(P)`$, $`\xi _{0,i}`$ is the SDW coherence length in the $`i=x,y,z`$ directions, and $`\omega _0T_{SDW}`$ is a characteristic frequency scale for spin fluctuations. The critical temperature for superconductivity can be calculated within a standard BCS procedure. The result for $`T_c`$ can be written in the familiar form:

$$T_c\omega _0e^{1/\lambda ^{}},$$
(14)
where in the usal way, $`\omega _0`$ enters as a cut-off for $`T_c`$ due to retardation. The effective coupling constant $`\lambda ^{}1/\kappa `$ involves a ‘stiffness’ constant $`\kappa `$ ($`\kappa 0`$ as $`r0`$) of the SDW fluctuations. Therefore as one approaches $`P_c`$, $`r`$ becomes small so that $`\lambda ^{}`$ reaches strong coupling but $`\omega _0`$ remains small. In these conditions, the growth of $`T_c`$ levels off and reaches a maximum in agreement with the maximum commonly seen at $`P_c`$ (Figure 1). This can be seen as a limitation of $`T_c`$ in (TM)2X, a situation that, bears an obvious ressemblance with the limitation of $`T_c`$ in conventional superconductors, where the increase of $`T_c`$ reaches a maximum when the elasticity of the lattice becomes too soft and the coupling becomes strong. In the present spin-fluctuation scheme, the maximum $`T_c`$ would therefore scale with $`\omega _0`$. Above $`P_c`$, the amplitude of fluctuations decreases (Figure 2), so that $`T_c`$ is dominated by a reduction of $`\lambda ^{}`$ and therefore becomes a decreasing function of pressure .

In conclusion, the existence of spin correlations in (TM)2X near the critical pressure for superconductivity indicates that the normal phase precursor to this broken-symmetry state is strongly correlated and would make the conventional electron-phonon mechanism inoperant for the origin of this phase. Interchain superexchange is set to play an important role in these systems not only in the stabilization of long-range magnetic ordering but also as a mechanism that magnifies pairing induced by spin-fluctuation exchange.

Acknowledgements The author thanks D. Jérome, L. G. Caron, B. Guay and R. Duprat for valuable discussions on several aspects of this brief review. The author would also like to thank D. Sénéchal for very useful comments. This work is supported by NSERC of Canada and the Superconductivity program of the Canadian Institute of Advanced Research (CIAR).


format: text

text:
# FIRST RESULTS OF THE ROSEBUD DARK MATTER EXPERIMENT

## 1 Introduction

Among the particle candidates to the non-baryonic dark matter of the universe, the neutral, weak interacting massive particles (WIMPs)—supposedly forming a significant part of the galactic haloes—enjoy a prominent position. A distinguished WIMP is the neutralino, the lightest stable particle of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model . Accelerator results settle a lower bound of 20–30 GeV to the neutralino mass in most of the models, but in unconstrained SUSY models masses as low as 2 GeV could be allowed . WIMPs of m $`11000`$ GeV with non-relativistic velocity, can interact with the nuclei of a detector target producing a nuclear recoil of a few keV, a fraction of which is visible in the detector (depending on the nuclear target, the detector and the mechanism of energy deposition). Because of the low interaction rate and small energy deposition the WIMP detectors require very low backgrounds and energy thresholds . A further contribution to the direct detection rate—in the very low energy region $`1`$ keV— could be provided by a non-thermal, low velocity WIMP population recently proposed  and discussed .

Thermal detectors , which measure the temperature increase produced by the WIMP interaction in an absorber crystal, use more efficiently the energy deposition of WIMPs than the conventional ionization detectors because most of the nuclear recoil energy in WIMP scattering goes to heat. They are true low energy detectors, where the visible energy is practically the whole recoil energy (quenching factor close to one). Moreover, the mechanisms and quanta involved in the physics of the detection imply that they should have better energy threshold and energy resolution than the conventional ionization detectors. In particular, the energy resolution on nuclear recoils achieved by the sapphire bolometers of the experiment reported in this paper is significantly better than that obtained with HPGe diodes, like COSME  (which features a full width at half maximum (FWHM) energy resolution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(10\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})=0.4\mathrm{keV}`$). In much the same way the energy threshold of the sapphire bolometers of this work is also lower than that obtained in Ge-diodes looking for dark matter . Such low energy thresholds, hopefully achieved by thermal detectors, make them valuable tools in the search for phenomena  leaving very small energy in the absorbers. So the cryogenic detectors are very well suited to explore either low mass WIMPs or low velocity WIMPs . They offer moreover the possibility of using different targets to tune up the sensitivity for different WIMP masses. Finally, they can discriminate the background (electron recoils) from nuclear recoils by collecting not only the phonon energy but also the charge (or light) produced by the ionizing component of the deposited energy (hybrid detection) . The resulting background reduction permits to increase significantly the sensitivity of WIMP searches allowing to explore regions below $`\sigma ^p10^8`$ nbarn for medium mass ($`50`$ GeV) WIMPs—where the neutralino configuration  relevant to interpret an annual modulation effect  is located. Although the radioactivity content of bolometers and their environment is still higher than that of HPGe, significant progresses are being accomplished.

A WIMP search with small sapphire bolometers, ROSEBUD (Rare Objects Search with Bolometers Underground), is being carried out in the Canfranc Underground Laboratory (at 2450 m.w.e.)  with the purpose of exploring the WIMPs scattering off Al and O nuclei. It features three small sapphire bolometers (with Ge thermistors) placed in a small, mobile dilution refrigerator in the ultralow radioactivity environment of the Canfranc underground site.

## 2 Experimental set-up and performances

The first phase of the experiment consists of two 25g (B175 and B200) and one 50g (B213) selected sapphire bolometers operating inside a small refrigerator (stick type, 6cm diameter, 100cm long) at 20 mK. One of the 25g sapphire crystals (B200), mounted on top of the set is part of a composite bolometer (2g of LiF enriched at 96% in 6Li are glued to it) to monitor the thermal and fast neutron background of the laboratory. A cylinder (34.5 mm diameter and 30.8 mm high) in Roman lead is placed below B200 to screen the two lower sapphire absorbers (see Fig. 1) from radioactivity in the components of the dilution unit.

The shielding of the ROSEBUD experimental box has an inner part inside the dilution unit at helium bath temperature, consisting of a liner of Roman lead, 4 mm thick, surrounding the bolometers (to shield the intrinsic radioactivity of the 0.5 mm thick stainless steel walls of the inner vacuum chamber) and of a 14.4 mm thick high purity copper (to shield the radioactivity of the outer dewar). The ancient (2000 yr) Roman lead of the shielding has very low contamination ($`<9`$ mBq/kg on 210Pb and $`<0.2`$ mBq/kg on 238U and $`<0.3`$ mBq/kg on 232Th). The external part of the shielding (at room temperature) consists of 10 cm of Roman lead bricks, 15 cm of low-activity lead (of about 100 yr old and of 30 Bq/kg of 210Pb), then a 1-mm Cadmium foil and a mu-metal screen plus a plastic box which close tightly the enceinte. A diagrammatic view of the experimental box within the ROSEBUD dilution refrigerator and the shielding set-up are depicted in Figure 1 a) and b) respectively. The experimental setup is installed within a Faraday cage in an acoustic isolation cabin, supported by an antivibration platform, as required to reach low thresholds. Slight modification of the experimental set-up have been done along the successive runs for improving the background and the energy threshold.

Power supply inside the cabin is provided by batteries and data transmission from the cabin through convenient filters is based on optical fibers. Pumps have vibration-decoupled connections.

Infrared (IR) pulses are periodically sent to the bolometers through optical fibers in order to monitor the stability of the experiment. The resulting heat pulses are useful to correct any sensitivity drift of the bolometers during the experiment. The corresponding pulses are quite similar in shape to the background or 57Co source events, but slightly faster because they are mainly produced in the thermistor, the sapphire being quite transparent to infrared photons. This is illustrated in Fig. 2 where IR pulses ($`4.4`$ V) are clearly distinguished from background events in the sapphire.

For absolute energy calibration of the two bolometers placed at the bottom of the cryostat during the background tests, external 57Co and 241Am sources are used (See Fig. 3). The three lines (59.54, 122 and 136 keV) allow to extrapolate (assuming linear response) the calibration to lower energies. For the upper one (B200), an internal 241Am source (of 3 Bq of activity) has been used. The alpha emission (5.5 MeV) has been degraded to 3 MeV by mylar foils in order to leave clean the region where the neutron signal (above the Q-value of the 6Li(n,$`\alpha `$) reaction, 4.78 MeV) should be found.

The bolometers are suspended inside an OFHC copper frame (coupled to the mixing chamber of the dilution refrigerator) by Kevlar wires tensioned to drive the mechanical resonant frequency to the highest possible value (above 400 Hz). The refrigerator operating point was just below 20 mK (mixing chamber temperature) and the bolometers were working at 28 mK with a bias of 100-150mV on 40M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ load resistors. The first tests in Canfranc have shown that microphonic and electronic noise level is quite good, about 2nV/Hz1/2 at low frequency (30Hz) on bolometer B175.

The bolometers were tested previously in Paris (IAS) showing very good performances . (FWHM energy resolution of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1.5\mathrm{keV})=120\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ and energy threshold around 300 eV). Typical sensitivities obtained (in Canfranc) are in the range of 0.3-1 $`\mu `$V/keV. Overall resolutions of 3.2 and 6.5 keV FWHM were typically obtained with B213 and B175, respectively, at 122 keV. With B175, 2.8 keV FWHM was obtained at 59.5 keV. Typical pulses have decay and rise times between 2-4 ms and 600-1300 $`\mu `$s, respectively. A low energy background pulse in bolometer B213 can be seen in Fig. 4. It corresponds to an energy of about 2 keV.

Radiopurity measurements of some of the ROSEBUD internal components (NTD sensors, sapphire crystals, copper frames…) were carried out at the underground laboratories of Modane (LSM) and Canfranc using ultralow background germanium detectors and the results reported in Ref. . The substitution of the set-up components with radioactive impurities by other cleaner components would likely make them decrease down to levels acceptable for the first phase of the experiment, as it has actually happened in the runnings reported in the next paragraph. The upper limit on the total background produded by those impurities was estimated  to be about 5 counts.keV-1.kg-1.day-1 at 10 keV. This rate is still one to two orders of magnitude worse than that obtained in good germanium detectors .

## 3 Results and prospects

ROSEBUD has performed a series of short runnings in different conditions (of a duration of a few days each) to optimize the background, minimize microphonics and improve the performances of the bolometers, before going to larger running time.

In a first testing measurement in the shielding configuration described above a background as large as 120 counts/keV/kg/day around 100 keV was obtained (Run 1). To understand and reduce this background, several components of the cryostat were measured in the ultralow background HPGe testing bench at Canfranc. After subsequent modifications in the cryostat, like the replacement of the old multilayer glass fiber insulation and the reduction of the charcoal mass, a background level of about 30 counts/keV/kg/day around 100 keV was obtained in bolometers B175 and B213 (Run 2). Further reduction of the internal background was achieved by replacing some other internal pieces of the cryostat and removing completely the coconut charcoal, which was replaced by artificial carbon tissue (Actitex), and adding a further inner lead shielding (15 cm high, 15 cm external diameter and 5 mm thick) . The resulting background was 15 counts/(keV kg day) around 100 keV (Run 3). The next efforts were focused in eliminating possible radon contaminations inside the nitrogen reservoir of the cryostat as well as in changes in the inner configuration, in particular, removing the bottom bolometer B175 and putting instead an additional archaeological lead cylinder 4 cm thick. A short running to test the progress of this reduction shows a background of $`18`$ counts/(keV kg day) in the region from 25 to 50 keV, of $`11`$ counts/(keV kg day) between 50 and 100 keV and $`7`$ counts/(keV kg day) between 100 and 150 keV (Run 4). The four successive background spectra obtained in the corresponding set-up configurations enumerated above are shown in Fig. 5. A rise time cut has been applied to eliminate background interactions in the NTD thermistor (see Fig. 2). By taking the spectrum of Run 4 (see Fig. 6) —corresponding to an exposure of 2.1 days with bolometer B213 of 50 g of Al2O3— obtained with a conservative rise time cut —applied only down to 25 keV— a 90% C.L. exclusion plot $`\sigma `$(m) has been derived for spin-independent interaction with the conservative assumption of a 2-keV low energy resolution and a 2-keV threshold. The exclusion plots have been derived by requiring the predicted WIMP signal in the 2-keV energy bin from 2 to 100 keV to be less than or equal to the 90% C.L. upper limit of the (Poisson) background counts recorded there. The derivation of the interaction rate signal supposes that the WIMPs form an isotropic, isothermal, non-rotating halo of density $`\rho =0.3`$ GeV/cm3, have a Maxwellian velocity distribution with $`\mathrm{v}_{\mathrm{rms}}=270`$ km/s (with an upper cut corresponding to an escape velocity of 650 km/s), and have a relative Earth-halo velocity of $`\mathrm{v}_\mathrm{r}=230`$ km/s. The quenching factor (nuclear versus electron recoil efficiency) has been taken unity ($`0.98\pm 0.05`$ for sapphire bolometers measured at 100 keV recoil energy ). A Fermi nuclear form factor has been used. Fig. 7 shows the contour line of this exclusion compared with that obtained with Ge (Ge-combined from published data  and the more recent COSME-2  and IGEX ) and NaI (DAMA-0) detectors . The region singled out by the DAMA modulation effect is also shown .

Fully understanding and significantly improving the background is the current objective of ROSEBUD. With such purpose, measurements of the radiopurity of individual components proceed and their removal done when needed. Assuming a flat background of 1 count keV-1 kg-1 day-1, a threshold energy of 300 eV and a FWHM energy resolution of 100 eV in the low energy region (nominal values obtained for the bolometer B213 in the Paris tests ), a projection of the ROSEBUD sensitivity is shown in Fig. 8 in terms of the WIMP-nucleon spin-independent interaction exclusion plot. To derive such plot, the chosen energy bin has been from 300 to 800 eV. Projected exclusion contours $`\sigma `$(m) are shown for two typical cases: 50 g of Al2O3 operating 30 days and operating along one year. The area enclosed by the dotted line represents the region for the neutralino-nucleon cross section versus mass allowed by an unconstrained Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) where usual GUT relations among gaugino masses are relaxed . The exclusion plots have been renormalized to the neutralino-nucleon cross section and, for comparison, the most recent  Ge combined bound is also shown. Assuming the mentioned projected performances, ROSEBUD will allow to explore neutralino configurations corresponding to masses well below 10 GeV.

The second phase of the ROSEBUD program will deal with three different bolometers: the current B213 sapphire bolometer of 50 g, a new 50 g sapphire with cleaner components, and a germanium bolometer of 67 g, operating together to investigate the target dependence of the WIMP rate, provided that a reliable understanding of their background peculiarities be achieved. As a further step in this line of research, the use of two medium-size bolometers, one of 200 g of Al2O3 and the other a double luminiscent bolometer (BGO or CaWO4) is envisaged. Comparison of the spectra of these different mass number bolometers will help to understand the background and hopefully explore (within the same provisions) the mass number dependence of the signal rate as a genuine characteristic of WIMPs.

## Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the Spanish CICYT (contract AEN99-1033), the French CNRS/INSU (MANOLIA program) and by the EU Network Contract ERB-FMRX-CT-98-0167. We greatly acknowledge the help of J.P. Moalic, P. Pari and O. Testard for the cryogenics design. We are also endebted to C.Goldbach and G. Nollez for their contribution to the radioassays of various materials in the Modane Underground Laboratory (Frejus), as well as for fruitful discussions. We also thank J.L. Picolo, P. Cassette (LNHB) and P. Bouisset (LMRE) for their radioactive measurements of some inner components. N.Coron, G.Dambier and P. de Marcillac acknowledge financial support of the DGA-CAI Europa Program.

## References


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In works \[1-3\] the question on interpretation of the results of measurements of the radiation spectrum of the gravitational field  was discussed. From the general point of view shift of the radiation spectrum can be caused by:

a) With changing of the radiating spectrum because of influence of the gravitational field on the characteristics of the radiating particle;

b) With changing of the photons (or $`\gamma `$ \- quanta) spectrum while their passing through the gravitational field for their interactions;

c) With the contribution of these both cases.

## 2 Defect of Mass and Red Shift of Spectrum Radiations in Gravitational Field

Influence of the gravitational field on atomic radiations can occur:

1) Because of influence of the gravitational field on the radiating electron, rotating around a nucleus. In this case we must take into account the contribution of the change gravitational field $`\phi \left(r\right)`$ on atomic distances $`a`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi \left(r\right)=\phi \left(r+a\right)\phi \left(r\right)a\frac{\phi }{r}_r.$$
$`\left(1\right)`$
It is obvious, that in weak gravitational fields this contribution can be neglected.

2) Because of the change of effective mass of radiating electron (or nucleon) in the gravitational field $`\phi \left(r\right)`$ in point $`r`$. A free electron (or nucleon) has mass $`m`$.

It is well known, that electron connected in atom loses a part of mass $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ which is equal to the energy of connection $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ (defect of masses). The same situation takes place, in much more degree, in strong interactions, i.e. nucleus with nuclear number $`A`$ consisting of $`Z`$ protons and $`N`$ neutrons has defect of mass $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$, which is equal to the energy of connection of protons and neutrons $`E_{int}`$: $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=E_{int}`$.

Similarly to electromagnetic and strong interactions the gravitational interaction, which is an attracted one, will cause a defect of masses, determined by the gravitational potential $`\phi \left(r\right)`$ in the point $`r`$ where the particle (electron or nucleon) is located:

$$E_{int}=m\phi \left(r\right),\phi \left(r\right)=\frac{MG}{r},$$
$`\left(2\right)`$
where $`G`$\- gravitational constant, $`M`$ \- weight of the attracting system (Earth), and then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m=E_{int}=m\frac{\phi \left(r\right)}{c^2}.$$

The difference of the gravitational interaction from electromagnetic and strong ones consists in the absence of discrete states and also in impossibility of energy loss while formation of the connected states through this interaction (in electromagnetic interactions it occurs through radiation of photons and in strong interactions - through radiation of hadrons). While formation of the connected states in the gravitational interactions there is a mechanical loss of energy (i.e. through strokes, and in terrestrial experiments with the help of an expense of energy, which compensates this defect mass).

So, in gravitational field $`\phi \left(r\right)`$ the electron ( or nucleon) effective mass $`m_{eff}`$ is

$$m_{eff}=m\left(1+\frac{\phi \left(r\right)}{c^2}\right),$$
$`\left(3\right)`$
i.e. it decreases by value $`m\frac{\phi \left(r\right)}{c^2}`$. Then a spectrum of electron radiation  in the gravitational field has the following form:

$$E=\frac{\alpha ^2m_{eff}c^2}{2}\frac{Z^2}{n^2}\left[1+\frac{\alpha ^2Z^2}{n}\left[\frac{1}{\left(j+1/2\right)}\frac{3}{4n}\right]+\mathrm{}\right],$$
$`\left(4\right)`$
where

$$\alpha =\frac{e^2}{4\pi \mathrm{}c};n^{}=0,1,2\mathrm{};$$

$$j=\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},\frac{5}{2}\mathrm{};n=n^{}+j+\frac{1}{2}=1,2,3\mathrm{},$$

and is displaced in the red side on the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ (we suppose, that in $`E`$ all thin effects connected to the other interactions, except for gravitational ones are taken into account):

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}=\frac{\phi \left(r\right)}{c^2},$$
$`\left(5\right)`$
Or

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }{\nu }=\frac{\phi \left(r\right)}{c^2}.$$
$`\left(5^{}\right)`$
In work  the red shift caused by the difference of gravitational potentials on the surface of the Sun and the Earth was measured:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }{\nu }=\frac{\phi _{sun}\phi _{earth}}{c^2},$$

and there was obtained

$$\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \right)_{exp}}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \right)_{theor}}=1,01\pm 0,06.$$

Energy levels of nuclei , as well as of atoms, probably, proportional to the mass of radiating nucleon, therefore nuclear levels also will be displaced in the gravitational field according to the formulae (3) and (5) (it is interesting to note, that if the energy levels of nuclei were back proportional to masses, the violet shift would occur).

From (5) we see, that in point $`r_1`$ in terrestrial gravitational potential $`\phi \left(r_1\right)`$ the level schift is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1E}{E}=\frac{\phi \left(r_1\right)}{c^2},$$
$`\left(6\right)`$
And in point $`r_2`$ in the terrestrial gravitational potential $`\phi \left(r_2\right)`$ the level shift is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_2E}{E}=\frac{\phi \left(r_2\right)}{c^2},$$
$`\left(7\right)`$
then the difference of levels in these two points is ($`E=h\nu `$)

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}E}{E}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}\nu }{\nu }=\frac{\left(\phi \left(r_1\right)\phi \left(r_2\right)\right)}{c^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\phi }{c^2}.$$
$`\left(8\right)`$
The experimental results obtained in  have shown that in the gravitational field there is a red displacement, by the same value $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, determined by expression (8):

$$\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \right)_{exp}}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \right)_{theor}}=1,05\pm 0,10$$

And

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }V}{2c}=(0,9990\pm 0,0076)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\phi }{c^2}.$$

Then, obviously, there does not remain any contribution, which is possible due to the photon (or $`\gamma `$ \- quantum) interaction with the gravitational field. We shall discuss the influence of the gravitational fields on photon (or $`\gamma `$ \- quanta) spectra because of their importance for the general relativity theory. Indeed, if photons (or $`\gamma `$ \- quanta) pass through the gravitational field without any interaction, in analogy with photon in the electrical field, then the deflection of the light beam passing near the Sun is possible to explain only its refraction in the Sun atmosphere. Let us consider this question.

## 3 Change of the Spectrum of Photons (or $`\gamma `$ \- Quanta) due to Their Interaction with the Gravitational field

If the photon mass (further, in this section, we shall mention only photons having in view that $`\gamma `$ \- quanta behave similarly) is determined by the following expression  (see also references in \[1-3\]):

$$m_{ph}=\frac{E_{ph}}{c^2}$$
$`\left(9\right)`$
(it is necessary to note, that the massive particles interact in the gravitational fields through rest masses $`m`$ but not through $`m^{}=\frac{E}{c^2}=m\gamma `$), then while its movement in the gravitational field because of the variable of this field, there should be an interaction. In early interpretation (see references in ) it was supposed that the red shift of the photon spectrum occurs in the gravitational field because of such interaction. Then the photon mass will vary according to the standard formula:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ph}^{}=m_{ph}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\phi }{c^2}.$$
$`\left(10\right)`$
It is obvious that light velocity $`c`$ will depend on the gravitational field and $`c^{}\left(r\right)`$ will have the following form:

$$c^{}\left(r\right)=\frac{c}{\left(1\frac{\phi \left(r\right)}{c^2}\right)}c\left(1+\frac{\phi \left(r\right)}{c^2}\right),$$
$`\left(11\right)`$
i.e. in the gravitational field the photon velocity will decrease and the stronger is the field in point $`r`$ the less is the photon velocity.

If the photon is moving from the point $`r_1`$ to the point $`r_2`$, the velocity of the light will vary and, accordingly, the spectrum will also vary. Then the frequency of photons changes according to the following expression:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }{\nu }=\frac{\left(\phi \left(r_1\right)\phi \left(r_2\right)\right)}{c^2}$$
$`\left(12\right)`$
(we suppose that in the given point the standard ratio is fulfilled between the photon characteristics, taking into account the variating of the light velocity).

With the physical point of view obviously that – if the photon interacts in the gravitational field then its velocity, frequency change and it is deflected and if the photon does not interact in the gravitational field then its velocity, frequency does not change and it is not deflected.

As it is already mentioned above, the experimental results obtained in  have shown that only the gravitational effect caused by the defect of mass in gravitational field is observed, and the effect caused by the photon interactions in the gravitational field is not observed (in case if the photon interacts with the gravitational field, the double effect should be observed in the experiments). It is clear, that this question requires to be studied.

It is well known, that only massive bodies and particles participate in the Newton theory of gravitation (i.e. body and particle having rest mass). Since the photons have no rest mass, the usage of the mass $`m_{ph}`$ obtained in the formula (9) is a hypothesis to be check of. The check has shown (see above) that, probably, there are no photons (or $`\gamma `$ \- quanta) red shift when they are passing through the gravitational field. It is clear since they have no rest masses. In this case there is a question: How there can the deflection of photons appear in the gravitational field, if they do not participate in these interactions? It is clear, that this problem requires a solution in the experimental aspect. Let’s note, that the given question was discussed in work  (see also references in ).

## 4 Conclusion

It was shown, that radiation spectrum of atoms (or nuclei) in the gravitational field has a red shift since the effective mass of radiating electrons (or nucleons) changes in this field. This red shift is equal to the red shift of radiation spectrum in the gravitational field measured in existence experiments. The same shift must arise when the photon (or $`\gamma `$ quantum) is passing through the gravitational field if it participates in gravitational interactions (photon has no rest mass). The absence of the double effect in the experiments, probably, means that photons (or $`\gamma `$ quanta) are passing through the gravitational field without interactions.

References

1. V.N. Strelt’sov, JINR Communic. P2-96-435, Dubna, 1996;

JINR Communic. P2-98-435, Dubna, 1998.

2. V.V. Okorokov, ITEP preprint N 27, Moscow, 1998.

3. L.B. Okun, K.G. Selivanov, V.L. Telegdi, UFN (Russian Journ.), 1999, v.69,

p.1140.

4. R.V. Pound, G.A. Repka, Phys. Rev. Let., 1960, v.4, p.337;

R.V. Pound, J.L. Snider, Phys. Rev., 1965, v.140, p.788.

5. S.S. Schweber, An Introduction to Relat. Quantum Field Theory,

Row-Peterson and Co., N. Y., 1961.

6. J.L. Snider, Phys. Rev. Let., 1972, v.28, p.853.

7. M. Preston, Physics of Nuclei, M., Mir, 1961;

O. Bohr and B. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, v.1, M.,

Mir, 1971.

8. A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 1916, v.49, p.769;

L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshits, Field Theory, M., Nauka, 1988,

p.324.

9. P. Marmet and C. Couture, Physics Essays, 1999, v.12, p.162.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Small angle elastic scattering of hadrons has always been a crucial source of information for the dynamics of strong interaction. As a rule, these processes, being outside the realm of applications of the theory of the strong interactions (QCD), are described in approaches based on the $`S`$-matrix theory. In particular, the various Regge models are very successful in this direction. However, in the framework of a Regge approach it is impossible to calculate all the ingredients needed in the amplitudes and some additional arguments are used to construct main objects such as Regge trajectories and residue functions. Sometimes they are derived from the fundamental theory, but usually they are based on an intuitive physical picture and on the analysis of the available experimental data.

The additive quark model (AQM)  is an example of such a line of arguments. An amplitude of composite particle interaction is constructed as a sum of the elementary amplitudes of the interaction among the constituent quarks. This leads to remarkable relations (counting rules) between various hadronic cross-sections in rather good agreement with the experimental data.

In a recent paper , the standard AQM (which we abbreviate in this old version as SAQM) and the ensuing counting rules are modified to take into account not only the quark-gluonic content of the Pomeron but also of the secondary Reggeons, as well as the fact that the soft Pomeron is not just a gluonic ladder. The new model, which we call Modified Additive Quark Model (MAQM), is successfully applied to describe various total cross-sections (nucleon-nucleon, $`\pi `$ meson-nucleon, $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$) and the $`\rho `$ratio of the real to the imaginary part of the forward $`pp,p\overline{p}`$ scattering amplitudes. The next step : to consider the differential cross-sections is the object of this paper, i.e. we extend and further test the model for $`t0`$. Let remind that there are two couplings of Pomeron with quarks in MAQM: the first one corresponds to the ordinary vertex quark-Pomeron-quark, another one is new and describes a ”simultaneous” interaction of Pomeron with two quarks in hadron. It was found from the fit to cross-sections in  that the corresponding term in amplitudes is negative. At some $`t0`$ an interference of the ordinary and new term can produce a zero in the elastic amplitude and consequently a dip structure in the differential cross-section. This argument was one of reasons to extend MAQM for $`t0`$. We deal only with $`pp`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ elastic scattering because, for these processes, are available the richest and most precise experimental data in a wide region of energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ and momentum transfer $`t`$. Many models (for instance ) of $`pp`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ elastic scattering amplitudes describe quite well the available data (see also the reviews  and references therein). A supercritical Pomeron with the intercept $`\alpha _𝒫(0)>1`$ is used at the Born level for most of them . Such a Pomeron must then be unitarized because it does not satisfy the unitarity constraints. Usually a method of eikonalization  is used to this aim. A method for reproducing $`t0`$ data, based on the model of stochastic vacuum, (attractive by its success) consists in parametrizing each angular distribution in the $`s,t`$ space (see for example ), the energy dependence of the amplitude being absorbed in the parameters. The price to pay is of course the multiplication of the number of free parameters. An alternative way is to construct a model that from the beginning does not violate the requirements for the analyticity and unitarity of the scattering amplitude 444We mean only that the model should not violate grossly and explicitly the constraints of unitarity. This, unfortunately, does not guarantee that unitarity is satisfied.. An example of such a model is the model of the so called maximal Pomeron and maximal Odderon . However, serious arguments against the maximal Odderon exist . In , we stick to the last kind of approach and we use an extended AQM which can be applied not only to nucleon-nucleon scattering. As an explicit choice, for the Pomeron contribution we choose a simple model, namely a special case of the soft Dipole Pomeron, with a unit intercept  which leads to a high quality description of the experimental data, both at $`t=0`$  as well as at $`t0`$ (we show it in Sect. 4).

In the present paper we will not consider any eikonalization and work with the Born amplitudes since in the MAQM they do not violate unitarity (although with the restricted sense set above). However, it is not obvious that eikonalization should not be carried out since it corresponds to take into account the physical processes of rescattering corrections. We will not discuss this point here. The present work may be used as a guide for further investigations. It should be stressed that the task of reproducing well the entire set of high energy data (at all values of the momentum transfer $`t`$), though far from simple, as a long (and direct) experience teaches us may seem to have a poor theoretical content . This is indeed the truth in the sense that we have not yet any means of determining the soft amplitudes from first principles. However, we believe that it is important to explore all the approaches yielding a good agreement with the existing data. To the extent that they may lead to different extrapolations which, hopefully and foreseeably, will be checked in future experiments, we shall have a posteriori the means of establishing a hierarchy among them.

In Section 2, we recall the main assumptions of , focalizing on a few arguments in favor of the chosen Pomeron used in the MAQM at $`t=0`$. In Section 3, we formulate our MAQM extension for $`t0`$. The results of the fit of the MAQM to the experimental data are presented and discussed in Section 4. We examine also if the amplitude that fits very well the data exhibits automatically a zero in the real part of its even component as required by a general theorem due to A. Martin . Some items are also discussed in this Section (concerning in particular the Odderon and the logarithmic trajectories).

## 2 The modified additive quark model at $`t=0`$

Let us review the main properties of the MAQM, formulated for the forward scattering amplitudes (for details see ).

### 2.1 Pomeron

The Pomeron contribution to the $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ scattering amplitude at $`t=0`$ is written as 555The Pomeron contributions to the $`\pi p,\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ amplitudes are given in .

$$A_𝒫^{(pp)}(s,0)=9P_p^2\left[A_𝒫^{(1)}(s/9,0)+2A_𝒫^{(2)}(2s/9,0)+A_𝒫^{(3)}(4s/9,0)\right].$$
(1)
The choice of the elementary Pomeron quark-quark amplitudes $`A_𝒫^{(i=13)}`$ is very important from a phenomenological point of view. It is known from a comparison of various Pomeron models  that equivalent good fits to the $`t=0`$ data on the $`\rho `$ratios of the real to imaginary parts of the forward amplitude $`\rho =\mathrm{}eA(s,0)/\mathrm{}mA(s,0)`$ and on the total elastic cross sections $`\sigma _{tot}`$ for meson-nucleon and nucleon-nucleon interactions are achieved, at $`s\mathrm{}`$, either if $`\sigma _{tot}\mathrm{}n(s/s_0)`$, or $`\mathrm{}n^2(s/s_0)`$ or $`(s/s_0)^ϵ`$. Unfortunately, as far as only $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ are concerned, existing data do not allow to discriminate unambiguously  between these three behaviors. Nevertheless, as was noted in , the model with $`\sigma _{tot}\mathrm{}n(s/s_0)`$ is the most ”stable” in the sense that the fitted parameters and $`\chi ^2/d.o.f.`$ do not changed in practice under variation of $`s_{min}`$ in the energy range 5 - 10 GeV (the models were fitted to the data at $`ss_{min}`$). Hence, among the possible Pomerons, we select a ”Dipole Pomeron” with an intercept equal to one, $`\alpha _𝒫(0)=1`$, i.e. corresponding to a double pole of the amplitude in the complex angular momenta plane $`j`$ and yieding an asymptotic behavior $`\sigma _{tot}\mathrm{}n(s/s_0)`$ with an economy of parameters . It is interesting to note that such a Dipole Pomeron is a singularity of the partial amplitude, $`\varphi (j,t)(j\alpha _𝒫(t))^\gamma `$, with the maximal hardness that does not violate the evident inequality $`\sigma _{elastic}(s)\sigma _{tot}(s)`$. The inequality $`\gamma 2`$ must be satisfied if the Pomeron trajectory at small $`t`$ is linear, $`\alpha _𝒫(t)1+\alpha _𝒫^{}t`$, and $`\gamma =2`$ corresponds to the Dipole Pomeron. The contribution of the Dipole Pomeron to the forward hadron-hadron elastic scattering amplitude is written

$$A_𝒫^{hh}(s,0)=C_1+C_2\mathrm{}n(is/s_0),$$

where $`C_1`$, as it follows from the fit, is a negative constant (we take consistently $`s_0=1`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}^2`$). This may be surprising because at small energies the contribution of Dipole Pomeron to $`\sigma _{tot}`$ would be negative 666It is noted also in . However this term can be treated  as an effective contribution of the Pomeron rescatterings and it is straightforward to demonstrate that its sign may be negative. The above arguments and those given in  suggest that we may choose to write the Pomeron amplitudes in MAQM at $`t=0`$ as follows

$$\begin{array}{ccc}A_𝒫^{(1)}(s,0)=\hfill & ig_1^2\left[\zeta _𝒫+L(s)\right],\hfill & \\ A_𝒫^{(2)}(s,0)=\hfill & ig_1g_2\left[\zeta _𝒫+L(s)\right],\hfill & \\ A_𝒫^{(3)}(s,0)=\hfill & ig_2^2\left[\zeta _𝒫+L(s)\right],\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2)
where

$$L(s)=\mathrm{}n(is/s_0).$$

### 2.2 Secondary Reggeons

In $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ scattering, the secondary Reggeons are numerous, however, for the energy range involved here we can choose to keep only $`f`$and $`\omega `$Reggeons, two non degenerate C=+1 and C=-1 meson trajectories. As it is argued in  instead of nine identical diagrams for the $`f`$Reggeon in the SAQM, leading to the factor 9, one obtains

$$A_f^{(pp)}(s,0)=P_p^2(5+4\lambda _f)A_f^{(qq)}(s/9,0),$$
(3)
where

$$A_f^{(qq)}(s,0)=ig_f^2\left(is/s_0\right)^{\alpha _f(0)1}$$
(4)
and $`\lambda _f`$ is a constant taking into account a mixing of $`u\overline{u}`$ and $`d\overline{d}`$ quark states in $`f`$Reggeon. Similarly, for $`\omega `$Reggeon we set

$$A_\omega ^{(pp)}(s,0)=P_p^2(5+4\lambda _\omega )A_\omega ^{(qq)}(s/9,0),$$
(5)
$$A_\omega ^{(qq)}(s,0)=g_\omega ^2\left(is/s_0\right)^{\alpha _\omega (0)1}.$$
(6)
An important property of the Dipole Pomeron model is that all fits give a high value of the $`f`$Reggeon intercept, $`\alpha _f(0)0.80÷0.82`$ . Does such an intercept contradict the data on the $`f`$trajectory known from the resonance region? The answer is ”yes” if the trajectory is assumed to be linear. However, aside from general theoretical arguments against linear trajectories, the experimental data on the resonances lying on the $`f`$trajectory indicate its nonlinearity (see Fig.1).

The following parabola passes exactly through the three known resonances : $`\alpha _f(t)=\alpha _f(0)+\alpha _f^{}t+\beta _ft^2`$ with $`\alpha _f(0)=0.96`$, $`\alpha _f^{}=0.59`$ GeV-2, $`\beta _f=0.03`$ GeV-4. This leads to a too high intercept and can cause problems in the fit to differential cross-sections at large $`|t|`$. A more realistic trajectory such as $`\alpha _f(t)=\alpha _f(0)+\gamma _1(\sqrt{4m_\pi ^2}\sqrt{4m_\pi ^2t})+\gamma _2(\sqrt{t_1}\sqrt{t_1t}),`$ gives $`0.77<\alpha _f(0)<0.87`$.

Generally, there is an evident correlation between the intercept of the $`f`$Reggeon and the model for the Pomeron. This is due to the fact that in all known processes, Pomeron and $`f`$Reggeon contribute additively. As a rule, a higher $`f`$intercept is associated with a slower growth with energy due to Pomeron contribution (as an example see also ). In Fig.2, we illustrate this observation and show how $`\alpha _f(0)`$ is correlated with a power of $`\mathrm{}ns`$ in the behaviour of the total cross-section, if the forward scattering amplitudes are parameterized in the form.

$$A^{hh}(s,0)=i\left[C_1+C_2\mathrm{}n^\gamma (is/s_0)\right]+R(s,0),$$

where the explicit form of secondary Reggeons contribution $`R(s,0)`$, depends on the nature of interacting hadrons (see  for details). In our opinion, a good way to fix the intercepts of $`f`$ and $`\omega `$Reggeons is after fitting the total cross-sections. Doing so and avoiding an extra number of parameters, we choose the following form of $`f`$trajectory

$$\alpha _f(t)=\alpha _f(0)+\gamma _f(\sqrt{t_f}\sqrt{t_ft}),$$

where the intercept $`\alpha _f(0)=0.810`$ is fixed from the fit  to the total cross-sections, the effective threshold $`t_f=14.964`$ GeV2 and the parameter $`\gamma _f=5.504`$ GeV-1 are determined from the fit to the positions of the three known resonances. For $`\omega `$trajectory (with only two known resonances and absence of information on possible higher resonances) we use a linear form

$$\alpha _\omega (t)=\alpha _\omega (0)+\alpha _\omega ^{}t,$$

with the intercept $`\alpha _\omega (0)=0.422`$ from  and with the slope $`\alpha _\omega ^{}=0.946`$ GeV-2 determined in a fit to resonances.

## 3 The modified additive quark model at $`t0`$

The amplitudes under interest are written

$$A_{pp}^{\overline{p}p}(s,t)=A_𝒫(s,t)+A_f(s,t)\pm \left[A_𝒪(s,t)+A_\omega (s,t)\right].$$
(7)
The normalization is

$$\sigma _{tot}(s)=8\pi \mathrm{}mA(s,t=0),\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(s,t)=4\pi \left|A(s,t)\right|^2.$$
(8)
The starting points for a parameterization of all terms in (7) at $`t0`$ are the corresponding partial amplitudes defined at $`t=0`$ in  and rewritten in detail in (1-6). A special discussion will be devoted to the Odderon amplitude $`a_𝒪(s,t)`$ which is out of he game at $`t=0`$. Let us recall that, in accordance with the main assumption of additive quark model (as well as of MAQM ), there is an interaction of two (in fact of $`3\times 3`$) constituent quarks (or lines in terms of diagram), each of them carrying only a part of the momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$. Therefore we must define $`s_q=(p_1+p_2)^2=s/9`$, for protons assuming that the whole momentum is distributed equally between all quarks in each of them. As concerns the $`t`$ channel, we consider for Pomeron and $`f`$Reggeon a single exchange (one line in $`t`$ channel in terms of diagram); our Odderon also is supposed to behave as a one Reggeon-exchange. Consequently, we have no reason to divide $`t`$ in the final amplitude by any number 777 Such a division, e.g. by 9, occurs when three gluon- or three Pomeron- exchanges (three lines in $`t`$ channel) are considered (as in ), implying a distribution of the momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ along three lines, each of them being assumed to carry an averaged momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}/3`$..

### 3.1 Pomeron

Starting from (1), the Pomeron contribution at $`t0`$ will have the form

$$A_𝒫(s,t)=9\left[A_𝒫^{(1)}(s/9,t)+2A_𝒫^{(2)}(2s/9,t)+A_𝒫^{(3)}(4s/9,t)\right].$$
(9)
The most direct generalization of $`A_𝒫^{(i=13)}(s,0)`$ (in (2)) is to consider all ”coupling constants” $`g_1,g_2,\zeta _𝒫`$ as functions of $`t`$ and to multiply each $`A_𝒫^i(s,0)`$ by the usual Regge factor $`\left(is/s_0\right)^{\alpha _𝒫(t)1}`$. Namely, we write

$$\begin{array}{ccc}A_𝒫^{(1)}(s,t)=\hfill & ig_1^2(t)\left[\zeta _𝒫(t)+L(s)\right]\left(is/s_0\right)^{\alpha _𝒫(t)1},\hfill & \\ A_𝒫^{(2)}(s,t)=\hfill & ig_1(t)g_2(t)\left[\zeta _𝒫(t)+L(s)\right]\left(is/s_0\right)^{\alpha _𝒫(t)1},\hfill & \\ A_𝒫^{(3)}(s,t)=\hfill & ig_2^2(t)\left[\zeta _𝒫(t)+L(s)\right]\left(is/s_0\right)^{\alpha _𝒫(t)1}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(10)
As the simplest variant we choose the linear Pomeron trajectory (again with an intercept equal 1)

$$\alpha _P(t)=1+\alpha _P^{}t;$$
(11)
we considere also the case of a logarithmic trajectory which is discussed in details in Section 4. Of course, more sophisticated Pomeron models can be proposed but they lead to an extra number of parameters and we will not consider them. Finally, to avoid proliferation of parameters, we will assume simple exponential ”residue functions” $`g_{i=1,2}`$ and $`\zeta _𝒫`$

$$g_1(t)=g_1\mathrm{exp}(b_1t),g_2(t)=g_2\mathrm{exp}(b_2t),\zeta _𝒫(t)=\zeta _𝒫\mathrm{exp}(b_{\zeta _𝒫}t).$$
(12)
Thus there are seven ($`g_1,g_2,\zeta _𝒫,b_1,b_2,b_{\zeta _𝒫},`$ $`\alpha _𝒫^{}`$) parameters for the Pomeron term of amplitude. With this Pomeron model the Froissart-Martin bound is not violated and the total cross-section behaves as $`\mathrm{}ns`$ when $`s\mathrm{}`$.

### 3.2 Secondary Reggeons

Generalizing , the $`f`$Reggeon amplitude in the MAQM is written as

$$A_f(s,t)=(5+4\lambda _f)A_f^{(qq)}(s/9,t),$$
(13)
where

$$A_f^{(qq)}(s,t)=ig_f^2\left(i\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha _f(t)1}e^{b_ft},\alpha _f(t)=\alpha _f(0)+\gamma _f(\sqrt{t_f}\sqrt{t_ft}).$$
(14)
As already noted above, for that $`f`$Reggeon trajectory we choose a square-root dependence on $`t`$, which is more suitable than a linear one, and fix its parameters from the fits to cross-sections and resonances (see Subsection 2.2). The value of $`\lambda _f`$ is unimportant if only $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ processes are considered (it is equivalent to redefine the coupling $`g_f`$). Nevertheless, for the present work we keep $`\lambda _f=0.439`$ which was obtained from the fit at $`t=0`$ (see ). The number of free parameters for a fixed trajectory is then only two ($`g_f,b_f`$). Following the previous considerations, we write for the $`\omega `$-Reggeon

$$A_\omega (s,t)=(5+4\lambda _\omega )A_\omega ^{(qq)}(s/9,t),$$
(15)
where

$$A_\omega ^{(qq)}(s,t)=g_\omega ^2\left(i\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha _\omega (t)1}e^{b_\omega t},\alpha _\omega (t)=\alpha _\omega (0)+\alpha _\omega ^{}t.$$
(16)
For the $`\omega `$Reggeon trajectory, we recall that we choose a linear dependence on $`t`$, with the parameters given in Subsection 2.2. In  a multiplicative factor $`r_\omega (s,t)`$ was introduced in $`A_\omega ^{(qq)}(s,t)`$ to describe a so called ”cross-over phenomenon”, namely, a zero at small $`t`$ in the difference of the $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`pp`$ differential cross-sections. Here, we extend the kinematic region under consideration up to $`|t|14`$ GeV2 and also include Odderon contributions. An interference of various odd terms in amplitude could produce now the mentioned zero automatically and thus we set $`r_\omega (s,t)=1`$. Again, repeating the arguments given above for the $`f`$Reggeon, we put $`\lambda _\omega =1.`$ When the trajectory is fixed, we are left with only two free parameters ($`g_\omega ,b_\omega `$).

### 3.3 Odderon

This crossing-odd contribution (added to the $`\omega `$Reggeon ) is a quite delicate and ambiguous point, lacking sufficiently precise and numerous data. A widespread consensus , however, is that an Odderon contribution while insignificant at $`t=0`$ is very relevant in the large $`|t|`$ domain.

As compared with the previous contributions, it is important to notice that it is impossible to apply to the Odderon any additive quark model rule. Odderon, in contrast with Pomeron and secondary Reggeons, interacts with the whole proton rather than with separate quarks since three gluons (or the Odderon by Donnachie and Landshoff ) couple simultaneously with three quarks in each $`p`$ or $`\overline{p}`$.

As repeatedly mentioned, in this paper we stick to the Born approximation and rescattering corrections are not taken into account. This is known to be inadequate from the conceptual point of view and not just for practical reasons of restoring unitarity when the Born approximation yields its violation. The point is particularly delicate concerning the Odderon which, by universal consensus, should be important at large $`|t|`$. For this reason, we parameterize the Odderon, somewhat artificially, as the sum of two contributions which we denote as ”soft” and ”hard”

$$A_𝒪(s,t)=A_𝒪^{(s)}(s,t)+A_𝒪^{(h)}(s,t).$$
(17)
As it is known, the contribution of Odderon at $`t=0`$ is negligible. We take into account this fact multiplying both components by a factor vanishing at $`t=0`$. For the soft Odderon we assume like for the Pomeron a dipole form, suitably damped 888 Strictly speaking it has dipole form only if $`\mu =0`$.

$$A_𝒪^{(s)}(s,t)=g_{𝒪s}(t)\left[(1e^{\beta _st})\mathrm{}n(is/s_0)\right]^\mu \left[\zeta _{𝒪s}(t)+\mathrm{}n(is/s_0)\right]\left(i\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha _𝒪(t)1},$$
(18)
while for the hard one, we choose

$$A_𝒪^{(h)}(s,t)=g_{𝒪h}(1e^{\beta _ht})[\mathrm{}n(is/s_0)]^\nu \frac{1}{(1t/t_{𝒪h})^4}.$$
(19)
We should give here a few comments concerning the choice of the Odderon amplitude defined by the above equations.

1) The contribution of the soft Odderon to $`\sigma _{elastic}`$ is dominated by the region where $`|t|`$ is small. In this domain the factor $`(1e^{\beta _st})\mathrm{}n(is/s_0)`$ is nearly constant. It means that the soft Odderon does not violate the evident inequality $`\sigma _{elastic}\sigma _{tot}`$ at any value of $`\mu `$.

2) At the same time the amplitude should not have a singularity at $`t=0`$, therefore $`\mu `$ must be an integer. In the fits we have considered $`\mu =1`$ and $`\mu =2`$.

3) The hard Odderon does not exponentially decrease with $`|t|`$, therefore it does not violate the restriction $`\sigma _{elastic}\sigma _{tot}`$ at any $`s`$ only if $`\nu 1/2`$.

4) We consider a linear Odderon trajectory but with a non unit intercept, only constrained by unitarity 999 For a discussion of a possible intercept less than one for the Odderon, see for example  and references therein.

$$\alpha _𝒪(t)=1+\delta _𝒪+\alpha _𝒪^{}t,\delta _𝒪0.$$
(20)
In fact, as it will be emphasized below, only the upper bound of the intercept may be kept. 5) As for the Pomeron, the soft residue functions are taken in an ordinary exponential form

$$g_{𝒪s}(t)=g_{𝒪s}e^{b_𝒪t},\zeta _{𝒪s}(t)=\zeta _𝒪e^{b_{\zeta _𝒪}t}.$$
(21)
The case of a logarithmic trajectory is reserved for discussion. Thus the Odderon contribution is controlled by a maximum of ten additional parameters : $`g_{𝒪s},\zeta _𝒪,\beta _s,`$ $`b_𝒪,b_{\zeta _𝒪},\delta _𝒪,\alpha _𝒪^{}`$, $`g_{𝒪h},t_{𝒪h},\beta _h`$.

The grand total number of free parameters for MAQM is twenty six, however, this number will be reduced by fixing some of them by virtue of special arguments. For example, this paper being devoted to $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ angular distributions, all coupling constants and intercepts are fixed from the fit to $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and $`\rho `$ at $`t=0`$ as reported in ; furthermore, the remaining parameters of Reggeons trajectories are fixed here from the resonances; not excluding simplifications in the chosen form for the Odderon.

## 4  Results and discussion

### 4.1 Previous results at $`t=0`$

It is our choice to extract from , the useful information concerning $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ at $`t=0`$. Of course, we do not claim that better fits are not possible for forward scattering ; many very good ancient and recent parametrizations, that it is not our scope to discuss here, are available for $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ processes. Thus, as a first step, we refer to the results found in , where 217 $`t=0`$ data (for $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$) with 4 GeV$`\sqrt{s}`$1800. GeV () have been taken into account, within combined fits of $`pp,\overline{p}p,\pi ^{}p,\pi ^+p,\gamma \gamma ,\gamma p`$ total cross-sections and $`\rho `$ ratios. The selected results under interest here are given in the Table 1 which exhibits the improvement brought to the old AQM by the modifications called in the revisited AQM.

| Observable | $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}`$ | $`\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}`$ | $`\rho ^{pp}`$ | $`\rho ^{\overline{p}p}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Number of points | 85 | 51 | 64 | 17 |
| $`\chi ^2`$ SAQM | 220 | 240 | 157 | 17 |
| $`\chi ^2`$ MAQM | 53 | 59 | 147 | 18 |

Table 1. The partial $`\chi ^2`$-s obtained by fitting at $`t=0`$  in the SAQM (old) and the MAQM (modified).

The $`\chi ^2/d.o.f.`$ (for the all processes) was 1.78 in the MAQM (remind that we fitted our model to the data at $`\sqrt{s}4`$ GeV instead of $`\sqrt{s}5`$ GeV in ). The recalculated $`\chi ^2/d.o.f.`$ (specifically for $`pp`$, $`\overline{p}p`$ processes) is 1.32 in the MAQM. The corresponding behavior of $`\sigma _{tot}(s)`$ and of $`\rho (s)=\mathrm{}eA(s,0)/\mathrm{}mA(s,0)`$ are plotted in . To complete, we give in Table 2 the parameters issued from the combined fits in , used here for the $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ processes.

| Parameter | $`g_1`$(GeV-1) | $`g_2`$(GeV-1) | $`\zeta _P`$ | $`g_f`$(GeV-1) | $`\alpha _f\left(0\right)`$ | $`g_\omega `$(GeV-1) | $`\alpha _\omega \left(0\right)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Value in |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| MAQM | 0.3166 | $``$ 0.0239 | 3.396 | 1.112 | 0.8100 | 0.3948 | 0.4217 |

Table 2. Values of the parameters controlling the MAQM amplitudes at $`t=0`$ . Recall the Pomeron intercept equals 1. and the values quoted for $`g_f`$ and $`g_\omega `$ are coupled to $`\lambda _f=0.439`$ and $`\lambda _\omega =1.`$ respectively.

### 4.2 MAQM results at $`t0`$

The previous seven parameters are kept fixed to their values determined by the $`t=0`$ combined fits. In addition, we fixed from fits to the resonances those parameters of the Reggeon trajectories relevant at $`t0`$. Their determination in the present work are recalled in Table 3 (see also Subsection 2.2).

| Reggeon | ”f” | | $`\omega `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| trajectory | square-root (14) | | linear (16) |
| number of data | 3 resonances | | 2 resonances |
| parameter | $`\gamma _f`$ | $`t_f`$ | $`\alpha _\omega ^{}`$ |
|  | 5.504 GeV-1 | 14.964 GeV2 | 0.9459 GeV-2 |

Table 3. Values of the parameters driving the Reggeon trajectories at $`t0`$, determined by fitting the resonances.

Only the remaining parameters are fitted in isolation from the angular distributions. Of course, the final $`\chi ^2`$ could be improved by refitting the complete set of parameters for the $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ processes alone but we decide against doing so. In this second step, we account for 959 $`t0`$ data  with 0.1$`<|t|`$(GeV2)$`14.2`$; 19.4$`\sqrt{s}`$(GeV)$``$630. The selection $`|t|>0.1`$ GeV2 is used in order to exclude the Coulomb-nuclear interference region. It could be included as a refinement. After preliminary trials, we select the following conditions for the current parameterization : (i) $`\mu =2`$ is chosen here because it gives a slightly better $`\chi ^2`$, but, taking $`\mu =1`$ does not influence significantly the quality of the fit: once more the data do not seem precise enough to select a specific form of the Odderon

(ii) $`\nu =1/2`$: for this (maximal) value, the Odderon does not violate unitarity, the results at high energy (LHC) do not seem abnormal and the Odderon can be considered as an effective phenomenological contribution

(iii) one may fix without damaging the results a unit intercept for the Odderon ($`\delta _𝒪=0`$) as for our Pomeron and in agreement with  (iv) linear trajectories are used throughout (except for the $`f`$), which represents the more economic (if not the more efficient) solution

(v) furthermore, as unitarity requires , we constrained $`\alpha _{od}^{}\alpha _p^{}`$.

We found the results distributed according to Table 4.

| Observable | $`(d\sigma /dt)^{pp}`$ | $`(d\sigma /dt)^{\overline{p}p}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Number of points | 758 | 201 |
| $`\chi ^2`$ | 1636 | 616 |

Table 4. Resulting partial $`\chi ^2`$-s obtained by fitting the angular distributions in the MAQM with the parameters in Table 5.

The corresponding $`\chi ^2/d.o.f.`$ (for $`t0`$) is 2.38 (for 959 data and 15 parameters listed in Table 5) and recalculated with the $`t=0`$ and $`t0`$ data together (with the couplings and intercepts given in Table 2) is 2.19 (for 1176 data and 22 parameters).

| Pomeron | $`b_1`$, GeV-2 | .1975E+01 |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`b_2`$, GeV-2 | $``$.2121E+00 |
|  | $`b_{\zeta _𝒫}`$, GeV-2 | .1227E+01 |
|  | $`\alpha _𝒫^{}`$, GeV-2 | .3308E+00 |
| $`f`$Reggeon | $`b_f`$, GeV-2 | .4094E+01 |
| $`\omega `$Reggeon | $`b_\omega `$, GeV-2 | $``$ 0.0 |
| Odderon | $`g_{𝒪s}`$, GeV-2 | $``$.1305E$``$02 |
| (soft) | $`\zeta _𝒪`$ | .2234E+02 |
|  | $`\beta _s`$, GeV-2 | .5023E+01 |
|  | $`b_𝒪`$, GeV-2 | $``$.1693E+00 |
|  | $`b_{\zeta _𝒪}`$, GeV-2 | .1417E+01 |
|  | $`\alpha _𝒪^{}`$, GeV-2 | .3208E+00 |
| Odderon | $`g_{𝒪h}`$, GeV-2 | .2434E+01 |
| (hard) | $`t_{𝒪h}`$, GeV2 | .4137E+00 |
|  | $`\beta _h`$, GeV-2 | .1197E+01 |

Table 5. Parameters of MAQM obtained in fitting the angular distributions.

We found, within the MAQM, a pretty good reproduction of the data (including the dip and the high $`|t|`$ regions), exhibited in Figs. 3-4.

Searching for an improvement of our results (and accepting to ”measure” the quality of a model by the $`\chi ^2/d.o.f.`$ because we have nothing better), as already said, it is possible to get a better agreement with the data when refitting all the parameters together to the forward and non forward observables, for $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ only. In that case, we find only a non significant improvement in the sense that no modifications is seen on the figures. Any significant improvement of the $`\chi ^2`$ is not automatically followed by an improvement visible on the curves. It is of some interest to compare our results with those of other approaches. A strict comparison is not easy because, if many of them are available, they present different objectives, and it is not our aim to discuss the relative virtues and shortcomings of each work. The model of  for example is an eikonalized model, not operating at the Born level like ours, in which the energy dependence of the amplitude is absorbed in the parameters. At the Born level, the nearest models are probably the old models of , based on the Regge theory, furthermore their results are grossly comparable to ours. The first one contains in particular a two-Pomeron exchange and other cuts contributions which are absent in our approach. The second one involves a large number of parameters and the data at high $`|t|`$ are not correctly reproduced.

### 4.3 Unitarity, Odderon and logarithmic trajectories.

-1) As a by-product of the present study, we propose to consider the scattering amplitude obtained in our MAQM from the point of view of unitarity and analyticity. To be specific we want to insure that this amplitude not only respects the Froissart-Martin bound but also exhibits a zero at low $`|t|`$ in $`\mathrm{}eA^+(s,t)`$, real part of its even contribution (with respect to the C-parity), as required by a high energy theorem recently stated by A. Martin .

The situation of the first zero of $`\mathrm{}eA^+(s,t)`$ is shown in Table 6 for some selected high energies. We agree with the theorem, with the results quoted in  and some of the extensive discussion  exhibiting in particular a first zero of the real part at low $`|t|`$, decreasing monotonically with the energy. By also reporting $`\mathrm{}eA_𝒫(s,t)`$ in Table 6, we exhibit a manifestation of the dominance of the Pomeron at high energies, when the $`f`$Reggeon contribution becomes negligible above the ISR energy range.

| Energy | zero of $`\mathrm{}eA^+`$ | zero of $`\mathrm{}eA_𝒫`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (GeV) | $`t`$ (GeV2) | $`t`$ (GeV2) |
| 546 | 0.31 | 0.37 |
| 1800 | 0.27 | 0.29 |
| 10000 | 0.21 | 0.22 |
| 14000 | 0.21 | 0.22 |

Table 6. First values of $`t`$ cancelling $`\mathrm{}eA^+(s,t)`$ and $`\mathrm{}eA_𝒫(s,t)`$, versus the energy, obtained in the MAQM fit.

-2) $`\mathrm{}mA^+(s,t)`$, imaginary part of the even component of the amplitude, has an oscillatory behavior for large $`|t|`$, in spite of lacking any rescatterings corrections in the model. This is a consequence of the negative sign of the new MAQM (comparing with the old SAQM) coupling constant $`g_2`$ (see Table 2). Oscillations, or something appearing as diffraction-like secondary structures are hidden in the differential cross-sections because of the Odderon contribution dominating in this domain. Of course our present MAQM model cannot produce any oscillations at large $`|t|`$, because it is a model at the Born approximation level, in which the Odderon dominates at very high energy and in the high $`|t|`$region with the behavior in $`1/t^4`$ of the amplitude (see (19)). As a next step, it would be interesting to eikonalize the model to see in particular if oscillations in $`d\sigma /dt`$ appear. We believe that rescattering corrections (we plan to calculate them in a near future) may be important at such high energies to be investigated for instance in the TOTEM and PP2PP projects (see for example ) and as a consequence any extrapolation (in particular those of the angular distributions) may be doubtful within the present version of non-eikonalized MAQM model.

-3) As already mentioned above, the ”hard” component of the Odderon with a power behaviour at large $`|t|`$ looks affectedly from the point of view of Regge approach (note here that for the whole set of data, the ratio $`|t|/s`$ is small, we are in a domain of small angle scattering, that, we believe, should be described by Regge theory while the hard Odderon component can be important at larger $`|t|`$).

Taking into account the above argument we have considered the model without its ”hard” Odderon component, but for Pomeron and (soft) Odderon we have tested the nonlinear trajectories with a logarithmic behavior

$$\alpha _i(t)=1+\gamma _i\left[1(1t_i/t)\mathrm{}n(1t/t_i)\right],i=𝒫,𝒪.$$
(22)
The minimal value of the threshold $`t_𝒫`$ (there are many thresholds in $`t`$-channel for $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$) should be given by the $`t`$-channel physical state with the minimal mass (in our case a two-pion state, so $`t_𝒫^{min}=4m_\pi ^2`$). Nevertheless, in order to take into account the influence of other thresholds we consider $`t_𝒫`$ as a free (effective) parameter. A similar argument can be repeated for the Odderon trajectory.

Logarithmic trajectories mimic a power decreasing amplitude with $`|t|\mathrm{}`$. However, in order to give a sense to such a possibility, it is necessary to replace the exponential residue functions by power ones. It leads to an extra number of free parameters. Therefore we used another, probably oversimplified, method. All exponents, $`\mathrm{exp}(b_it)`$ in the Pomeron and in the soft Odderon terms are replaced by $`\mathrm{exp}[(\alpha _{𝒫(𝒪)}(t)1)b_i]`$. Using logarithmic trajectories, we do not aim to obtain the best fit, rather we only want to check our belief (and to demonstrate for a reader) that it is then possible to reproduce large $`|t|`$ data.

Resulting $`\chi ^2/d.o.f=3.39`$ as well as agreement with data is not so bad. The calculated angular distributions are deviated slightly from the data points mainly around the dips for $`pp`$ but, as we expected, are very well reproduced for the large$`|t|`$ domain.

Summarizing, we emphasize that the obtained results confirm and reinforce the conclusion of  as a further test of the model: account of the corrections to a Pomeron-quark interaction and new counting rules for the secondary Reggeons. In other words using the modified additive quark model instead of the standard additive quark model, leads to a good agreement with available experimental data not only at $`t=0`$, but also at $`t0`$. Besides we found that data on the elastic $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ scattering at high energies can be reproduced with a high quality in a model with the Dipole Pomeron, which has a unit intercept, $`\alpha _𝒫(0)=1`$ leading to an intermediate growth of the total cross-sections, $`\sigma _{tot}(s)\mathrm{}ns`$ when $`s\mathrm{}`$. Finally, a zero at small $`|t|`$ reveals in the real part of the even amplitude, in agreement with a high energy theorem by Martin.

Acknowledgements. We are indebted to E. Predazzi for his support and discussions. Two of us (MG and EM) would like to thank the Dipartimento di Fisica Therica of the University of Torino for kind hospitality. EM thanks also the Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon for the hospitality. Financial support by the INFN and the MURST of Italy and from the IN2P3 of France is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# 1 (a) Scaling plot of 𝑃(𝑀,𝐿) versus 𝑀𝐿⁻¹ in 2D for 3≤𝐿≤50. The dashed line has slope 0.72. Inset: scaling plot without the rescaling factor 1-𝑀⁻¹: (b) The same but for 3D and using the data of [] for 4≤𝐿≤12. The dashed line has slope 0.32.

Palassini and Young reply: In recent work, we studied the change in the ground state (GS) configuration of a three-dimensional (3D) spin glass when the boundary conditions (BC) are changed. Our interpretation of the data, which does not require corrections to scaling, is that the surface of the induced domain wall has a fractal dimension, $`d_s`$, less than the space dimension $`d`$. This conclusion has been convincingly demonstrated in two-dimensions (2D)  where a much larger range of sizes can be studied. In 3D, other scenarios such as crossover to a behavior with $`d_s=d`$ on larger length scales cannot be excluded, but these require significant corrections to scaling. In their comment to Ref. , Marinari and Parisi (MP)  claim that the result $`d_s<d`$ is improbable, and that a more likely scenario is $`d_s=d`$. However, we shall see that the additional quantities presented in  are affected by strong finite-size corrections and that our original conclusion still stands: namely $`d_s<d`$ is a natural interpretation because (i) it fits our data without corrections to scaling and (ii) the same result occurs in 2D, but that other scenarios such as $`d_s=d`$ cannot be ruled out.

MP consider the probability $`P(M,L)`$ that the GS configuration in an $`M^d`$ (hyper) cube is changed when the BC are changed from periodic to antiperiodic. They find that in 3D the data for $`P(M,L)`$ versus $`M/L`$ do not collapse onto a single curve, and interpret this as evidence against $`d_s<d`$. However, the scaling in $`M/L`$ is expected to hold only for $`1ML`$, and there are corrections both for $`M1`$ and $`ML`$. Corrections for $`M1`$ arise because the fraction of bonds in the cube is $`(M/L)^d(1M^1)`$, from which it follows that $`P(M,L)(M/L)^{dd_s}(1M^1)`$ in this limit. In Fig. 1a we show that in 2D there is very good scaling for $`M/L0.5`$ when the data are rescaled by the factor $`1M^1`$, but the inset shows that without this factor the data do not scale well. From the slope we estimate $`dd_s=0.72\pm 0.02`$ in agreement with . In the limit $`M/L1`$, there is an additional correction to scaling since the probability that the interface does not intersect the cube is small (presumably exponentially small in $`L`$). This explains the deviation from scaling for $`M/L0.5`$ in Fig. 1a.

In Fig. 1b we show that the 3D data is fairly similar given the much smaller range of sizes. With the rescaling factor the data almost scale for $`M/L0.4`$. The corrections for $`M/L0.4`$ are larger than in 2D, but this is reasonable since $`dd_s`$ is smaller and hence $`P(M,L)`$ is closer to one (compare the insets in the figure).

MP also consider the fraction $`P(L)`$ of planes, parallel to the plane in which the BC are changed, which are not intersected by the domain wall. $`P(L)a`$ (a constant) for large $`L`$ if $`d_s<d`$, while $`P(L)0`$ if $`d_s=d`$. MP show that $`a`$ is zero or very close to zero in 3D. We computed $`P(L)`$ in 2D with $`4L50`$, and found that $`P(L)=a+b/L^c`$ fits well the data with $`a=0.44\pm 0.01`$. Corrections to scaling are strong, the deviation from the asymptotic value being $`43\%`$ for $`L=4`$, so we expect that there are also strong corrections in 3D. Furthermore, the value of $`a`$ is expected to be lower in 3D than in 2D since $`dd_s`$ is smaller and, given our lack of knowledge of $`P(L)`$, may actually be zero even if $`d_s<d`$.

We thank E. Marinari and G. Parisi for a useful correspondence and for sending us the data in Fig. 1b.

Matteo Palassini and A.P. Young,
University of California Santa Cruz