text:
# Probing coherent charmonium photoproduction off light nuclei at medium energies

## I Introduction

First measurements of quasielastic photoproduction of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ mesons off nucleon and nucleus targets at moderate energies were performed in the seventies at SLAC and Cornell . The measurement of the A-dependence of $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction  was used by the authors to extract the $`J/\psi `$ \- nucleon absorption cross section $`\sigma (J/\psi N)=3.5\pm 0.8`$ mb, using a semi-classical model for $`J/\psi `$ \- nucleus interactions. At the same time the estimates of $`\sigma (J/\psi N)`$ based on the Vector Dominance Model and the optical theorem yield $`\sigma (J/\psi N)=1.3\pm 0.3`$ mb and $`\sigma (\psi ^{}N)0.7\sigma (J/\psi N)`$ . This small value of the $`J/\psi N`$ cross section comparing to that for $`\pi N`$ interaction is in variance with the preQCD ideas on universal hadron-hadron interaction. On the contrary, these observations can be considered  as evidence for the previously predicted  genuine QCD effect of the dependence of the cross section on the size of the region occupied by color within a hadron. Besides, QCD predicts that $`\sigma _{\psi ^{}N}`$ should be significantly larger then $`\sigma _{J/\psi N}`$ because the radius of the $`\psi ^{}`$ is two times larger than the radius of the $`J/\psi `$. Recently first data on the hadroproduction of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ in pA collisions confirmed these QCD predictions but large experimental errors and the complicated theoretical analysis preclude an unambiguous extraction of the charmonium-nucleon cross sections from the data. As a result the general situation with the extraction of these cross sections is still unsatisfactory - the determined values of $`\sigma _{J/\psi N}`$ range from 2 mb to 6 mb and, correspondingly, the range of $`\sigma _{\psi ^{}N}`$ is from 8 mb to almost 20 mb . On the other hand the precise values of these cross sections are urgently needed for the unambiguous interpretation of the yield of particles with hidden charm produced in the ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions (for the review and references see e.g. ).

Since direct measurements of the charmonium-nucleon cross sections are impossible, the photoproduction of the $`J/\psi `$ and the $`\psi ^{}`$ off nuclei at coherent moderate energies appears to be one of the most promising tool to measure these quantities. Really, in the moderate energy domain both the coherence length and the formation length are smaller or comparable to the radii of nuclei. So, a photon produces a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair which transforms to a charmonium state inside the nucleus with a noticeable probability and this meson can interact with the surrounding nucleons. However, it appears that the standard analysis of the data within the Glauber based Vector Dominance Model (VDM) which provides a more or less reasonable treatment of the light vector meson photoproduction at low and moderate photon energies fails in the case of the charmonium photoproduction. It was understood that according to the charmonium models the very small size of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair which is controlled in the production point by the mass of the $`c`$-quark leads to the radical change of the predictions based on the VDM .

The aim of this paper is to suggest a new option for the extraction of charmonium-nucleon amplitudes from measurements of the coherent charmonium photoproduction off light nuclei at moderate photon energies. In a recent paper  we demonstrated that large masses of the charmonium states ($`m_V`$) and the fluctuations of the strength of the interaction of different charmonium states with nucleons inside the nuclear medium expected in QCD lead to significant cross section oscillations in this process. We are interested in the photon energy range 15 GeV $`E_\gamma `$ 40 GeV relevant for the planned SLAC experiment . In this case the minimal momenta $`q_L\frac{m_V^2}{2\omega }`$ transferred to nucleus are $`0.35\text{ GeV}q_L0.15\text{ GeV}`$ and the significant oscillations due to the oscillating nuclear form factor are spectacularly revealed  in the energy dependence of the coherent charmonium photoproduction cross sections. Another source of oscillations predicted by the QCD color screening phenomenon is the significant difference of the amplitudes of $`J/\psi NJ/\psi N`$, $`\psi ^{}N\psi ^{}N`$, and $`J/\psi N\psi ^{}N`$ which leads to oscillations of the rescattering strengths and noticeably modifies the energy dependence of the cross sections. We suggest to explore these oscillations as a new method of determining the elementary photoproduction amplitudes and the amplitudes of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ interactions with nucleons.

Experimentally the suggested approach can be realized at SLAC where measuring of the charmonium photoproduction at low energies (15 - 35 GeV) is planned .

## II Description of the model

The key feature of the charmonium photoproduction is that the $`c\overline{c}`$ configuration of the photon wave function is spatially small in the production point because its transverse size is controlled by the large mass of the $`c`$-quark. However, at the photon energies of $`15÷40`$ GeV we are interested in, the charmonium formation length, $`l_f\omega [2m_c(m_\psi ^{}m_{J/\psi })]^1`$, is still comparable to the internucleon distance and the nucleus radius. Hence, the noticeable probability exists that at these moderate energies a spatially small configuration would transform to hadron states before a collision with a second nucleon. In this case using a hadronic basis which properly takes into account nonperturbative QCD effects seems to be relevant for the calculation of the photoproduction cross section

$`\sigma _{\gamma A\mathrm{\Psi }A}(\omega )=\pi {\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{t_{min}}{}}}dt\left|F_{\gamma A\mathrm{\Psi }A}(t)\right|^2.`$ (1)
Here $`\mathrm{\Psi }=J/\psi `$ resp. $`\psi ^{}`$, $`t_{min}=\frac{M_\mathrm{\Psi }^4}{4\omega ^2}`$ is the longitudinal momentum transfer in the $`\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }`$ transition. The photoproduction amplitude $`F_{\gamma A\mathrm{\Psi }A}(t)`$ is normalized so that $`\sigma _{\gamma A\mathrm{\Psi }A}(\omega )`$ is in $`\mu b`$. To calculate this amplitude the multistep production Glauber approach formulae  were combined with the GVDM  which we adjusted for the charmonium case in order to for account the color screening effects. A more detailed description of this Generalized Glauber Model (GGM) (which we successfully tested  in the case of the $`\rho `$-meson coherent photoproduction) is given in ref. . Here we briefly summarize several essential points. Since the coherent production of heavy charmonium states off nuclei at low and moderate energies is suppressed by the target form factor it is legitimate to build the GVD model restricted to two states \- $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$:

$`f_{\gamma NJ/\psi N}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{f_{J/\psi }}}f_{J/\psi NJ/\psi N}+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{f_\psi ^{}}}f_{\psi ^{}NJ/\psi N},`$ (2)
$`f_{\gamma N\psi ^{}N}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{f_\psi ^{}}}f_{\psi ^{}N\psi ^{}N}+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{f_{J/\psi }}}f_{J/\psi N\psi ^{}N}.`$ (3)
The charmonium-nucleon coupling constants $`\frac{f_{J/\psi }^2}{4\pi }=10.5\pm 0.7`$, and $`\frac{f_\psi ^{}^2}{4\pi }=30.9\pm 2.6`$ are determined from the widths of the vector meson decays $`\mathrm{\Psi }e\overline{e}`$. Since in the photoproduction processes $`c\overline{c}`$ pair is produced within spatially small configuration one can neglect for a moment the direct photoproduction amplitude and obtain from eqs. (2,3) the approximative relations between amplitudes

$`f_{\psi ^{}N\psi ^{}N}{\displaystyle \frac{f_\psi ^{}}{f_{J/\psi }}}f_{\psi ^{}NJ/\psi N}{\displaystyle \frac{f_\psi ^{}^2}{f_{J/\psi }^2}}f_{J/\psi NJ/\psi N}.`$ (4)
Note that a comparatively large absolute value of the nondiagonal amplitude and the negative value of the ratio of nondiagonal and diagonal amplitudes follow from the presence of the color screening in the charmonium photoproduction as dictated by QCD. For a more accurate determination of the elementary $`\psi ^{}N\psi ^{}N`$ and $`J/\psi N\psi ^{}N`$ amplitudes within GVDM (for the details see ) we use as an input in eqs. (2,3) the absolute values of the forward $`\gamma NJ/\psi N`$ cross section, the relation $`\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\gamma N\psi ^{}N}(t_{min})/\mathrm{d}t=0.15\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\gamma NJ/\psi N}(t_{min})/\mathrm{d}t`$ and the $`J/\psi N`$ cross section $`\sigma _{J/\psi N}(3.5\pm 0.8)`$ mb found at moderate energies at SLAC . To show explicitly how uncertainty in the value of $`\sigma _{J/\psi N}`$ influences on the photoproduction cross section we used estimates of amplitudes determined within the corridor of the experimental errors. This is shown by the filled area in all results of calculations.

We performed calculations within the Generalized Glauber Model (GGM). Note however, that in the case of coherent photoproduction of charmonium off light nuclei at moderate energies, the parameter $`\rho \sigma _{\psi N}R_A`$ is small and one can simplify calculations by taking into account only one rescattering of the produced heavy meson. Then only two forward amplitudes provide the dominating contribution and the coherent charmonium photoproduction is described by the sum of the diagrams in fig. 1. The first graph is the direct photoproduction amplitude while the second one accounts for one rescattering of the produced charmonium states within the nuclear medium.

Since $`V,V^{}=J/\psi ,\psi ^{}`$ the second diagram includes the diagonal as well as nondiagonal rescatterings. We want to emphasize that in the case of nondiagonal transition the effect of charmonium absorption enters in the next to leading order.

## III Results and discussion

Within the Generalized Glauber Model we performed calculations for a wide range of nuclei trying to choose the optimal nuclei for determining the elementary amplitudes from measurements of the coherent photoproduction of the $`J/\psi `$ and the $`\psi ^{}`$. The rates are small for the lightest nuclei while for sufficiently heavy nuclei multiple rescattering effects become noticeable. Hence we found that nuclei with $`A=20÷40`$ are optimal for our purposes. Thus in the following we will present the results for silicon nuclei. The silicon target is also of interest since one could envision an active silicon target which would allow to select the coherent events in a cleaner way.

The energy dependence of the $`J/\psi `$ cross section is compared (fig. 2) to that obtained within the Impulse Approximation where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\gamma A\mathrm{\Psi }A}(t_{min})}{\mathrm{d}t}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\gamma N\mathrm{\Psi }N}(t_{min})}{\mathrm{d}t}}\left|F_{\gamma A\mathrm{\Psi }A}^{IA}(t_{min})\right|^2.`$ (5)
The nuclear density $`\rho (\stackrel{}{b},z)`$ is normalized by the condition $`d\stackrel{}{b}dz\rho (\stackrel{}{b},z)=A`$. We calculated $`\rho (\stackrel{}{b},z)`$ in the Hartree-Fock-Skyrme (HFS) model which provided a very good (with an accuracy $`2\%`$) description of the global nuclear properties of spherical nuclei along the periodical table from carbon to uranium  and the shell momentum distributions in the high energy (p,2p)  and (e,e’p)  reactions.

The distinctive feature of the coherent charmonium photoproduction cross sections in the kinematics we are interested in is that the dependence of the cross section on the photon energy is governed by the longitudinal nuclear form factor at a relatively large value of $`t_{min}`$ which becomes more important with a decrease of the photon energy. We want to emphasize that the use of a realistic nuclear density in our calculations ensures a reasonable description of the nuclear form factor in the relevant momentum transfer range. One can infer from fig. 3 that the cross section of the $`J/\psi `$ production off the silicon calculated in GGM practically coincides with the Impulse Approximation result. The deviation does not exceed $`4÷5\%`$ and it varies weakly when the rescattering amplitudes are changed within region allowed by the uncertainties of the input values of the $`J/\psi N`$ cross section as determined at SLAC . This implies that one should have an unprecedented accuracy both in the measurements and in the theoretical analysis in order to extract the $`J/\psi N`$ elementary cross section from such measurements. However these measurements can be used to determine precisely the elementary forward photoproduction cross section. Really, the contribution of the diagonal $`J/\psi N`$ rescattering can be neglected. Then the comparison of the data with the cross section calculated in the Impulse Approximation (eq. 5) with the nuclear form factor which is well determined from the high energy electron-nucleus elastic scattering immediately provides us with the forward elementary $`\gamma NJ/\psi N`$ cross section. As it is seen from fig. 2, the low $`t`$ cross section of $`J/\psi `$ production off the silicon in spite of the strong suppression by the nuclear form factor is considerably larger than the $`\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\gamma NJ/\psi N}(t_{min})/\mathrm{d}t`$ (dashed line in fig. 2). Hence, one may significantly improve the accuracy of the determination of $`\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\gamma NJ/\psi N}(t_{min})/\mathrm{d}t`$.

The situation is qualitatively different for the coherent $`\psi ^{}`$ photoproduction off silicon (fig. 4). The cross section calculated within GGM significantly exceeds the Impulse Approximation cross section. This is because the suppression due to the diagonal rescatterings is negligible as compared to the enhancement due to the contribution of the two-step nondiagonal $`\gamma AJ/\psi A\psi ^{}A`$ process. The range of energy in the vicinity of the form factor minimum for the forward $`\psi ^{}`$ production is especially interesting. In this case the main contribution to the cross section (fig. 5) originates from the nondiagonal rescattering. In particular, at $`\omega 0.13R_Am_\psi ^{}^2`$ one can extract from the data the nondiagonal elementary $`J/\psi N\psi ^{}N`$ amplitude by measuring the forward relative $`\psi ^{}`$ -to-$`J/\psi `$ yield. In such a ratio all other inputs, namely, the nuclear density and the elementary $`\gamma NJ/\psi N`$ amplitude are already fixed. Moreover, since they enter both in the numerator and denominator, the major uncertainties are canceled out.

In the discussed energy range the soft $`\mathrm{\Psi }N`$ rescattering processes within the nuclear medium are characterized by a rather weak energy dependence, like $`s^{0.08}`$, which can be neglected to a very good accuracy in the ratio of the forward $`\psi ^{}`$ and $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction cross sections. Hence the energy dependence of this ratio (fig. 5) should originate primarily due to the contribution of the direct $`\psi ^{}`$ production. Thus one would be able to determine the $`\gamma N\psi ^{}N`$ amplitude by measuring the relative $`\psi ^{}`$-to-$`J/\psi `$ yield.

We want to emphasize that the suggested procedure for extracting the nondiagonal amplitude and amplitudes of direct $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ photoproduction from the nuclear measurements is practically model independent.

The task of determining the diagonal $`J/\psi NJ/\psi N`$ and $`\psi ^{}N\psi ^{}N`$ amplitudes which are relevant for the suppression of the charmonium yield in heavy ion collisions is much more complicated.

If one would naively use the VDM, neglecting nondiagonal transitions and using values of $`\sigma _{tot}(J/\psi N)`$ based on the SLAC data  one would predict a rather significant suppression of the $`J/\psi `$ yield: $`10\%÷15\%`$ for light nuclei, and $`30\%÷40\%`$ for heavy nuclei. However, we find  a strong compensation of the suppression due to the contribution of the nondiagonal transitions. As a result we find that overall the suppression does not exceed $`5\%÷10\%`$ for all nuclei along the periodical table. Hence, an extraction of the diagonal amplitudes from the measured cross sections would require a comparison of high precision data with very accurate theoretical calculations including the nondiagonal transitions. Thus one may try another strategy. If the elementary $`\gamma NJ/\psi N`$, and $`\gamma N\psi ^{}N`$ photoproduction amplitudes, as well as the nondiagonal amplitude $`J/\psi N\psi ^{}N`$ would be reliably determined from moderate energy data it would be possible to determine the imaginary parts of the forward diagonal amplitudes from the GVDM equations (2,3) reversing the procedure which we used in section 2, namely

$`\mathrm{}f_{J/\psi NJ/\psi N}={\displaystyle \frac{f_{J/\psi }}{e}}\mathrm{}f_{\gamma NJ/\psi N}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{J/\psi }}{f_\psi ^{}}}\mathrm{}f_{\psi ^{}NJ/\psi N},`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{}f_{\psi ^{}N\psi ^{}N}={\displaystyle \frac{f_\psi ^{}}{e}}\mathrm{}f_{\gamma N\psi ^{}N}{\displaystyle \frac{f_\psi ^{}}{f_{J/\psi }}}\mathrm{}f_{J/\psi N\psi ^{}N}.`$ (7)
The main limitation of the suggested procedure is the restriction of the hadronic basis to the two lowest 1S, 2S charmonium states with the photon quantum numbers: $`J/\psi `$ , $`\psi ^{}`$. This question was discussed in . The disregard by the closest higher charmonium state $`\psi (3770)`$ can change the estimate of the $`J/\psi `$ N amplitude by $`10\%`$. Influence of the higher mass resonances is expected to be even weaker - the constants $`1/f_V`$ relevant for the transition of a photon to a charmonium state $`V`$ rapidly decrease with the resonance mass. This is because the radius of a bound state, $`r_V`$, is increasing with the mass of the resonance and therefore the probability of the small size configuration being $`1/r_V^3`$ is decreasing with an increase of mass (for fixed S,L). Besides, the asymptotical freedom in QCD dictates decreasing of the coupling constant relevant for the behavior of the charmonium wave function at small relative distances. Experimentally one finds from the data on the leptonic decay widths that $`1/f_V`$ drops by a large factor with increasing mass. An additional suppression arises due to the weakening of the soft exclusive nondiagonal $`VNV^{}N`$ amplitudes between states with the different number of nodes. Hence, determining the imaginary parts of diagonal rescattering amplitudes from the GVDM equations seems to be possible. Since in the medium energy domain the energy dependence of soft rescattering amplitudes is well reproduced by a factor $`s^{0.08}`$ the real parts can be found using the well known Gribov-Migdal relation

$$\mathrm{}f_{\mathrm{\Psi }N\mathrm{\Psi }N}=\frac{s\pi }{2}\frac{}{\mathrm{ln}s}\frac{\mathrm{}f_{\mathrm{\Psi }N\mathrm{\Psi }N}}{s}.$$
(8)
Using the suggested procedure one will be able to determine all elementary amplitudes with a reasonable precision by measuring the photoproduction of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ off the light nucleus at the medium photon energies. The cross check of this approach would be a comparison of the cross sections calculated within GGM with parameters fixed in the analysis of the light nuclei with the experimental cross sections measured in photoproduction of charmonium off heavy nuclei as well as in the quasielastic processes.

## IV Conclusions

We used the Generalized Glauber Model which combines the multistep Glauber approach and the Generalized Vector Dominance Model to calculate the coherent charmonia photoproduction off light nuclei at medium energies corresponding to the kinematics of the planned E160 SLAC experiment. We demonstrate that the nondiagonal amplitudes which follow from the significant QCD color fluctuations within hadrons give a significant contribution to the coherent cross section of the $`\psi ^{}`$ photoproduction off light nuclei in this energy domain via the two step production mechanism, while the production of the $`J/\psi `$ is well described by the Impulse Approximation. We show how one can determine the elementary amplitudes of the charmonia photoproduction as well as the genuine $`J/\psi N`$, $`\psi ^{}N`$ cross sections and the nondiagonal amplitude from measurements in this domain.

Acknowledgement:
This work was supported in part by GIF, DOE. L.G. thanks the Minerva Foundation for support.


format: text

text:
# Introduction: GDH and related topics

## 1 Introduction

This Conference is the second of the series, following the Mainz edition of two years ago , testifying the growing interest of the hadronic physics community. Actually, the GDH sum rule is considered an important test of our knowledge of the electromagnetic excitation of the nucleon, since it is based on very general (and accepted) principles. On the other hand, the interest in the GDH has also been the starting point for a large variety of activity, both experimental and theoretical, concerning, among others, the electromagnetic production of meson, the excitation of baryon resonances, the spin structure of the nucleon and of various nuclear targets. In the last Conference, we have seen many interesting results, some of them, specially the experimental ones, still at a preliminary level. In particular a big effort is devoted to the experimental verification of the saturation of the GDH, work which is now feasible thanks to the modern facilities. We all expect that on these (and many other) topics, the Conference will produce exciting results.

In this introductory talk, I will briefly review the derivation of the GDH sum rule and point out some of the results presented two years ago for which some improvements and developments are expected.

## 2 An introduction to GDH

Here the main assumptions leading to the GDH sum rule are briefly reported .

The starting point is the consideration of the nucleon Compton scattering amplitude $`T(\nu ,\theta )`$, where $`\nu `$ is the photon energy and $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle. In the forward direction, the amplitude $`T(\nu ,0)=T(\nu )`$ can be written as

$$T(\nu )=\stackrel{}{ϵ}_f^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}_if(\nu )+i(\stackrel{}{ϵ}_f^{}\times \stackrel{}{ϵ}_i)\stackrel{}{\sigma }g(\nu ),$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_f`$ and $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_i`$ are respectively the final and initial photon polarisation vectors, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ is the nucleon spin and $`f(\nu )`$ and $`g(\nu )`$ the non-spin-flip and the spin-flip amplitudes, respectively. According to crossing symmetry

$$T(\nu ,\gamma _f,\gamma _i)=T(\nu ,\gamma _i,\gamma _f).$$
(2)
This means that $`f(\nu )`$ ($`g(\nu )`$) is even (odd) in $`\nu `$.

For small values of the photon energy, the amplitudes can be expanded in a power series. The first terms are fixed by the Low Energy Theorem (LET), which is a consequence of Lorentz and gauge invariance . For the even amplitude $`f(\nu )`$ we have:

$$4\pi f(\nu )=\frac{e^2}{m}+4\pi (\alpha +\beta )\nu ^2+O(\nu ^4),$$
(3)
here $`\frac{e^2}{m}`$, $`e`$ and $`m`$ being respectively the proton charge and mass, is the Thomson scattering amplitude; $`\alpha `$ is the electric and $`\beta `$ the magnetic polarisability of the nucleon. The odd amplitude $`g(\nu )`$ is written as

$$4\pi g(\nu )=\frac{e^2\kappa ^2}{2m^2}\nu +4\pi \gamma \nu ^3+O(\nu ^5),$$
(4)
where $`\kappa `$ is the anomalous magnetic moment of the nucleon and $`\gamma `$ the forward polarisability.

The next step is made by invoking causality, which, in a time dependent description of scattering, states that any amplitude $`a(t)`$ is equal to zero for $`t<0`$, that is the scattering wave vanishes before that the incoming particle collides with the target. This obvious statement has important consequences on the properties of the scattering amplitudes. In fact, according to the Titchmarsch theorem , the following three statements are equivalent:

1. $`a(t)=0`$ for $`t<0`$,

2. the Fourier transform $`a(\nu )`$ is an analytic function,

3. $`Rea(\nu )`$ and $`Ima(\nu )`$ satisfy the dispersion relations (”Hilbert transforms”):

$$Rea(\nu )=\frac{1}{\pi }P_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{Ima(\nu )}{(\nu ^{}\nu )}𝑑\nu ^{},$$
(5)
$$Ima(\nu )=\frac{1}{\pi }P_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{Rea(\nu )}{(\nu ^{}\nu )}𝑑\nu ^{},$$
(6)
Before applying Eq. (5), we have to remind the Optical theorem, a direct consequence of unitarity, which, in terms of the two amplitudes $`f(\nu )`$ and $`g(\nu )`$ is written as

$$4\pi Imf(\nu )=\frac{\nu }{2}(\sigma _{1/2}+\sigma _{3/2})=\nu \sigma _{tot},$$
(7)
$$4\pi Img(\nu )=\frac{\nu }{2}(\sigma _{1/2}\sigma _{3/2})=\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{tot},$$
(8)
where $`\sigma _h`$, with $`h=1/2,3/2`$, are the helicity dependent cross sections: $`h=1/2`$ ($`h=3/2`$) means that the incident photon and the target nucleon have antiparallel (parallel) spins.

Now, recalling that $`Ref(\nu )`$ is even in $`\nu `$, while $`Imf(\nu )`$ is odd and vanishes below the pion threshold $`\nu _0`$, we can write, for $`\nu <\nu _0`$

$$4\pi f(\nu )=\frac{2}{\pi }_{\nu _0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu ^{}\frac{\nu ^2\sigma _{tot}(\nu ^{})}{(\nu ^2\nu ^2)}.$$
(9)
The high energy behaviour of the total cross section poses a problem of convergence of the integral in Eq. (9), therefore it is convenient to adopt a subtraction technique

$$4\pi [f(\nu )f(0)]=\frac{2}{\pi }\nu ^2_{\nu _0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu ^{}\frac{\sigma _{tot}(\nu ^{})}{(\nu ^2\nu ^2)}.$$
(10)
A similar procedure for the amplitude $`g(\nu )`$ leads to the unsubtracted dispersion relation

$$4\pi g(\nu )=\frac{2}{\pi }\nu _{\nu _0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu ^{}\frac{\nu ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (\nu ^{})}{(\nu ^2\nu ^2)}.$$
(11)
Finally, using the LET and the Taylor expansion of the dispersion integrals, comparing terms of the same order in $`\nu `$, we arrive at the Baldin sum rule

$$\alpha +\beta =\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_{\nu _0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu ^{}\frac{\sigma _{tot}(\nu ^{})}{\nu ^2},$$
(12)
the Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn sum rule

$$\frac{e^2\kappa ^2}{2m^2}=\frac{1}{\pi }_{\nu _0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu ^{}\frac{\sigma _{1/2}(\nu ^{})\sigma _{3/2}(\nu ^{})}{\nu ^{}},$$
(13)
and the Gell-Mann-Goldberger-Thirring  formula for the spin polarisability

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}_{\nu _0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu ^{}\frac{\sigma _{1/2}(\nu ^{})\sigma _{3/2}(\nu ^{})}{\nu ^3},$$
(14)
## 3 The $`Q^2`$-behaviour

The GDH integral can be generalised to virtual photon absorption, that is to electron scattering, by introducing an explicit $`Q^2`$ dependence. In this way, it can be put in relation  with the spin structure function of the nucleon. Let us introduce the definition

$$I_1(Q^2)=\frac{2m^2}{Q^2}_0^1g_1(x,Q^2)𝑑x,$$
(15)
where $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ is the spin structure function of the nucleon, $`Q^2`$ the momentum transfer and $`x=\frac{Q^2}{2m\nu }`$ is the Bjorken variable. Then Eq. (13) can be rewritten

$$\frac{2\pi ^2\alpha }{m^2}\kappa ^2=_{\nu _0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu ^{}\frac{\sigma _{1/2}(\nu ^{})\sigma _{3/2}(\nu ^{})}{\nu ^{}}=\frac{8\pi ^2\alpha }{m^2}I_1(0),$$
(16)
in this way at the photon point we have

$$I_1(0)=\frac{\kappa ^2}{4}.$$
(17)
The extension to non zero $`Q^2`$ allows in particular a connection of the GDH field to the sum rules involving the spin structure functions of the nucleon. As examples one can quote the Ellis-Jaffe sum rule for the proton spin structure

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^p(Q^2)=_0^1g_1^p(x,Q^2)𝑑x=0.185,$$
(18)
whose value turns out to be different from the experimental results. For instance ,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1exp}^p=0.141\pm 0.011atQ^2=5(GeV/c)^2,$$
(19)
as it is well known, this kind of discrepancy has triggered the so call ”spin crisis”.

Another example of related sum rule is the Bjorken one

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^p\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n=\frac{1}{6}\frac{g_A}{g_V}[1\frac{\alpha _S(Q^2)}{\pi }]=0.191\pm 0.002,$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n`$ denotes the integral of the neutron spin structure, $`g_A`$ and $`g_V`$ are the axial-vector and vector constants, respectively, and $`\alpha _S(Q^2)`$ is the strong coupling constant. The Bjorken sum rule is in good agreement with the experimental value of about $`0.20`$ .

There are many ways of generalising the GDH sum rule , that is of obtaining a $`Q^2`$-dependent equation which, at the photon point, reproduces the original Eq. (13). One of them uses the integral defined in Eq. (15)

$$I_1(Q^2)=\frac{2m^2}{Q^2}_0^1g_1(x,Q^2)𝑑x$$

$$=\frac{m^2}{8\pi ^2\alpha }_{\nu _0}^i\frac{1x}{1+y^2}(\sigma _{1/2}\sigma _{3/2}2y\sigma _{LT^{}})\frac{d\nu }{\nu }.$$
(21)
Another one introduces the second spin structure function of the nucleon

$$I_2(Q^2)=\frac{2m^2}{Q^2}_0^1g_2(x,Q^2)𝑑x$$

$$=\frac{m^2}{8\pi ^2\alpha }_{\nu _0}^i\frac{1x}{1+y^2}(\sigma _{3/2}\sigma _{1/2}\frac{2}{\gamma }\sigma _{LT^{}})\frac{d\nu }{\nu }.$$
(22)
In both Eqs. (21) and (22) $`y=Q/\nu `$ and $`\sigma _{LT^{}}`$ is the longitudinal-transverse cross section.

As already mentioned, the integral $`I_1(Q^2)`$ enters into the Ellis-Jaffe sum rule, while $`I_2(Q^2)`$ is involved in the Burkhardt-Cottingham sum rule

$$I_2(Q^2)=\frac{1}{4}\frac{G_M(Q^2)G_E(Q^2)}{1+\frac{Q^2}{4m^2}}$$
(23)
There are further generalisations, which make use of integrals involving different combinations of the cross sections, namely

$$\frac{\sigma _{1/2}\sigma _{3/2}}{\nu },\frac{\sigma _{1/2}\sigma _{3/2}}{\nu }\frac{1x}{\sqrt{1+y^2}},\frac{\sigma _{1/2}\sigma _{3/2}}{\nu }(1x).$$
(24)
## 4 The saturation of the GDH sum rule for the nucleon

The l.h. side of Eq.(13) is known, since it is determined by the experimental value of the anomalous magnetic moment of the nucleon; in order to verify that the r.h. side has the same value one needs a complete knowledge of the total photoabsorption cross section as a function of the photon energy. Here arises the problem of its saturation, since such knowledge is limited by the availability of experimental data.

Many analyses have been performed in the past, based on the older data. The results are reported in Table 1 , where the various evaluations of the GDH-integral (r.h.side of Eq. (13)) are given separately for the proton and the neutron, together with their differences, and compared with the experimental value given by the anomalous magnetic moment.

All the analyses, except the one by Bianchi and Thomas, overestimate the proton integral and underestimate the neutron one, leading to wrong (positive) values of the differences.

The recent measurements of the total photoabsorption cross section of the proton at MAMI allow the evaluation of the integral directly from the data . The resulting value, integrating the experimental data in the interval $`200800`$ MeV is $`216\pm 6\pm 13`$  and seems to be somewhat higher than the expected sum rule. Further information on this point will be provided by the new data at higher energy from ELSA (see ).

The energy range spanned by the present data covers for the major part the proton resonance region. It is therefore meaningful to try to analyse the GDH sum rule by means of the Constituent Quark Model, which gives a fairly consistent description of all resonances. In a simplified, unretarded approach to the photo-excitation of baryon resonances , the saturation is substantially provided by the excitation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance, as it can be seen in Table 2 , where the multipole contributions relevant for the considered energy interval are reported. In fact, summing up all the multipoles, one is left with the operator $`e_3^2\sigma _0(3)`$ coming from the $`M1`$-multipole, which is mainly due to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-excitation.

The sum rule can be explicitely verified using the Isgur-Karl model . The anomalous magnetic moment term in the r.h. side of Eq. (13) can be evaluated giving

$$\frac{e^2\kappa ^2}{2m^2}=48a_M^210a_D^22\tau _0a_D^2,$$
(25)
where $`a_M`$ and $`a_D`$ are the mixing amplitudes of, respectively, the mixed symmetry and D-wave states.

If the r.h. side is calculated by averaging the operator $`e_3^2\sigma _0(3)`$ in the nucleon state as given by the Isgur-Karl model one gets a slightly different result. The equality is recovered  if relativistic corrections are taken into account, which affect the electric dipole contribution only.

## 5 GDH sum rule with nuclear targets

The GDH sum rule can be generalized to the case of a nuclear target with mass $`M_i`$, charge $`Q`$, spin $`I`$ and anomalous magnetic moment $`\kappa `$ in the following way

$$4\pi ^2\frac{e^2\kappa ^2}{M_i^2}I=_{\nu _0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu \frac{\sigma ^P(\nu )\sigma ^A(\nu )}{\nu }=I_{GDH},$$
(26)
where $`\sigma ^P`$ and $`\sigma ^A`$ are the photoabsorption cross sections for parallel or antiparallel spins, respectively. The phenomenological value of the r.h. side of Eq. (26) is $`0.65\mu b`$. The theoretical contributions, up to $`550MeV`$, of the three channels $`\gamma dnp`$, $`\gamma dd\pi 0`$, $`\gamma dNN\pi `$ are, respectively, $`413\mu b`$, $`63\mu b`$, $`167\mu b`$, which sum up to $`I_{GDH}(550)=183\mu b`$. If, instead of the theoretical value $`167\mu b`$ for the $`\gamma dNN\pi `$ channel, one uses the sum of the corresponding proton and neutron quantities evaluated by means of a multipole analysis of experimental data, $`331\mu b`$, one gets $`I_{GDH}(550)=19\mu b`$, showing in any case that the higher energy contributions should be positive and of about the same size .

A particular attention is being devoted to the deuterium and $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ targets. Besides being interesting by themselves, such studies are performed with the hope of extracting information on the neutron photoabsorption cross section. Actually in a deuteron with $`J_z=+1`$, both proton and neutron have aligned spins if one neglects the presence of the $`D`$state, which has a probability ranging from $`4`$ to $`7\%`$. In the case of $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$, the $`S`$state, in the currently accepted descriptions of the three-nucleon system, has a probability of about $`90\%`$: in the corresponding configuration the proton pair have antiparallel spins, so that the target polarization is given by the neutron only. Of course, the results have to be corrected in order to take into account the presence of higher waves (at the $`10\%`$ level).


text:
# The effects of rotation on Wolf–Rayet stars and on the production of primary nitrogen by intermediate mass stars

## 1. The Effects of rotation on the evolution into the Wolf–Rayet phase

As is recalled in the paper by P. Eenens in this volume, Wolf–Rayet (WR) stars are the bare cores of initially massive stars, whose H–rich envelope has been removed by strong stellar winds or through Roche lobe overflow in a close binary system. Here we consider the following question: what are the effects of rotation on the evolution of massive single stars into the Wolf–Rayet phase? This subject has been discussed by Maeder (1987), Fliegner and Langer (1995), Maeder & Meynet (2000) and Meynet (2000). We shall briefly summarise the main results presented in those papers and assess their importance in the framework of a new grid of massive star models at solar metallicity (Meynet & Maeder in preparation).

As a preamble, let us reconsider the criteria which have been chosen to decide when a stellar model enters into the WR phase. Ideally, of course, the physics of the models should decide when the star is a WR star. However our poor knowledge of the physics involved, as well as the complexity of models coupling the stellar interiors to the winds, are such that this approach is not yet possible. Instead, it is necessary to adopt some empirical criteria for deciding when a star enters the WR phase. In this work the criteria are the following: the star is considered to be a WR star when its temperature is $`\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}>4.0`$ and the mass fraction of hydrogen at the surface is $`X_S<0.4`$. Reasonable changes to these values (for instance adopting $`X_S<0.3`$ instead of 0.4) do not affect the results significantly.

Figure 1 shows the evolutionary tracks and the evolution of the structure in a non–rotating and a rotating 60 M model. The rotating model has a time–averaged equatorial velocity on the Main Sequence (MS) of about 190 km s-1, not far from the mean equatorial velocity observed for O–type stars. Inspection of Fig. 1, shows the following differences:

* The non–rotating 60 M star goes through an intermediate Luminous Blue Variable (LBV) phase before becoming a WR star, while the rotating model skips the LBV phase and goes directly from the O–type star phase into the WR phase. One notes also that during the O–type star phase, the rotating track is bluer than its non–rotating counterpart. This is due to the diffusion of helium into the outer radiative zone (see Heger & Langer 2000; Meynet & Maeder 2000). On the other hand, the luminosity during the WC phase is not different between the rotating and the non–rotating model. Since these stars follow a mass–luminosity relation (Maeder 1987; Schaerer & Maeder 1992), this implies that the masses of these two stars at this stage are about equal. At first sight this may be surprising. One expects the rotating star to lose more mass than its non–rotating counterpart. However, in this particular case there are some compensating effects. Indeed, the non–rotating model enters into the WR phase later, but becomes redder during the MS phase and then becomes a LBV star. During these two last phases, the star undergoes strong mass loss (see the left panels of Fig. 1). The rotating model, on the other hand, enters the WR phase at an earlier stage, reaching at the end an identical mass to the non–rotating model. In general, however, the final masses obtained from the rotating models are smaller than those obtained from the non–rotating ones, leading to lower luminosities during the WC phase.
* Focusing on the lower panels of Fig. 1, it can be realised that the non–rotating star enters in the WR phase with a mass of about 27 M. Nearly the whole H–rich envelope has been removed by stellar winds during the previous phases (more precisely at the end of the MS and during the LBV phase). In this case, the main mechanism responsible for making the star a WR star is mass loss by stellar winds. For the rotating model, on the other hand, the entrance into the WR phase occurs at an earlier stage (although not at a smaller age!), while the star is still burning hydrogen in its core. The mass of the star at this stage is about 45 M and an important H–rich envelope is still surrounding the convective core. The main effect responsible for making the star a WR star in this second case is rotationally induced mixing (Maeder 1987; Fliegner & Langer 1995, Meynet 2000).

These differences between the behaviours of the rotating and the non–rotating models have important consequences for the duration of the WR phase as a whole and for the lifetimes spent in the different WR subtypes, as can be appreciated from Fig. 2.

* First, the WR lifetimes are enhanced. The typical enhancement for the 60 M model amounts to nearly a factor of 2.
* Second, the WNL phase (the phase during which CNO processed material appears at the surface together with H) is considerably lengthened. This is a natural consequence of the fact that, when the rotating stellar model enters the WR phase, it still has an important H–rich envelope. The WNL phase duration increases with the initial velocity. When the initial velocity passes from 300 to 500 km s-1 (or when the time–averaged equatorial velocity during the O–type phase goes from 190 to 330 km s-1), the WNL phase duration is increased by a factor of about 1.7. The durations of the WNE and WC phases are, on the other hand, affected much less (the WNE phase corresponds to the time when one sees at the stellar surface CNO processed material without hydrogen; during the WC phase, He–burning products such as carbon and oxygen appear at the surface).
* Thirdly, in the rotating stellar model a new phase of modest, but of non–negligible duration, appears: the so–called transitional WN/WC phase. This phase is characterized by the simultaneous presence at the surface of both H– and He–burning products (typically N and C or Ne). The reason for this are the shallower chemical gradients which build up inside the rotating models. These shallower gradients inside the stars also produce a smoother evolution of the surface abundances as a function of time (or as a function of the remaining mass, see Fig. 7 in Maeder & Meynet 2000). For a transitional WN/WC phase to occur, it is necessary to have—for a sufficiently long period—both a He–burning core and a CNO–enriched envelope. In the highest mass stars, mass loss removes too rapidly the CNO–enriched envelope to allow a transitional WN/WC phase to appear. In the low mass range, the time spent in the WR phase is too short and the H–rich envelope too extended to allow He–burning products to diffuse up to the surface. Consequently, the transitional WN/WC phase only appears in the mass range between 30 and 60 M.
* Finally, the minimum mass for a star to become a WR star (through the single star channel) is lowered by rotation. In the present case, the minimum mass is reduced from about 37 M for $`v_{\mathrm{ini}}=0`$ km s-1 to about 22 M for $`v_{\mathrm{ini}}=300`$ km s-1.

From the above considerations, one can conclude that, compared to non-rotating models, stellar models including rotation will predict higher values of: (a) the numbers of WR stars relative to O–type stars, (b) the relative number of WN to WC stars, and (c) the relative number of transition WN/WC stars to WR stars. Are the observed values of these ratios in better agreement with the predictions of the rotating or non–rotating models? Clearly rotating models are in much better agreement.

However, before discussing further this conclusion, it is worthwhile recalling some of the difficulties faced by non–rotating stellar models. It was shown by Maeder & Meynet (1994) that the relative numbers of WR and O-type stars observed in regions of different metallicities could be well reproduced by the stellar models, provided the mass loss rates were enhanced by about a factor of two during the MS and WNL phases. This is true not only for regions of constant star formation rate, but also for starburst regions (Schaerer et al. 2000). This enhancement appeared to be a reasonable assumption at the time of that study, given the uncertainties in the mass loss rates determinations available then. However, this solution is no long applicable today. Indeed it is now well established that the mass loss rates during the WR phase should be reduced by a factor of 2–3 owing to clumping effects in the wind (Nugis and Lamers 2001; Hamann et al. 1999). Thus we are left with the following problem: how can one account for the observed WR populations without increasing artificially the mass loss rates? The solution presumably lies in some physical process, not accounted for in the models of 1994, which would act as an enhancement of the mass loss rates as far as WR star formation is concerned.

Another difficulty faced by standard non–rotating models is the observed fraction of WR stars in the transition WN/WC phase. Although modest (a few percent), this fraction is much greater than predicted by non–rotating stellar models (with or without enhanced mass loss rates). This last discrepancy clearly points towards the need for an extra–mixing mechanism, as proposed by Langer (1991).

From our discussion above it is evident that rotation may help in solving these problems. Like enhanced mass loss rates, rotation lengthens the WR phase and decreases the minimum mass for a single star to go through a WR phase. Adopting the O and WR lifetimes obtained from the rotating models, the WR/O, WN/WC and (WN/WC)/WR number ratios at solar metallicities are well reproduced (Meynet & Maeder in preparation), while predictions for these same quantities obtained from non–rotating models are in clear disagreement with the observed values. Thus, one mechanism—rotational mixing—helps in solving both the problem of the WR/O number ratio and that of the transition WN/WC phase. It is somewhat encouraging to see that inclusion in stellar models of one observed characteristic of massive stars, namely their fast rotation, improves significantly the match of the models to reality.

We conclude this section on WR stars with a few additional remarks.

* For the moderate velocities considered here ($`v_{\mathrm{ini}}`$ = 300 km s-1 on the ZAMS), the effects of wind anisotropies (Maeder & Desjacques 2001)—which are accounted for in the present models—play a modest role.
* Rotation may help in producing WR stars from single stars in metal poor environments, where the mass loss rates are expected to be much lower than at solar metallicity. This can result for at least two reasons. First, rotational diffusion can deplete the surface hydrogen abundance, making the star enter the WR phase well before mass loss has uncovered the core of the star. Second, since mass loss removes less angular momentum from the surface, the star can reach the break–up limit more easily. In this case, important mass loss rates ensue and this may help the star enter into the WR phase.
* As discussed by P. Eenens, very little is known about the rotation of WR stars. The present models predict that the equatorial velocity is between 40 and 70 km s-1 during the WR phase. This corresponds to rotational periods of about 70 days during the WN phase and of a few days during the WC phase. A more complete discussion of this point will be found in the paper by Meynet & Maeder (in preparation).

## 2. Primary nitrogen production by rotating metal–poor intermediate–mass stars

Primary nitrogen is produced by the transformation, through the CNO cycle in H–burning zones, of carbon and oxygen synthesised by the star itself in He–burning regions. Nitrogen also has a secondary origin when the seed carbon and oxygen were already present in the star at the time of its formation. These two channels result in different behaviours of the abundance of N as a function of metallicity, as measured from a primary element such as oxygen. Primary N production is reflected by a constant N/O ratio whereas, when secondary N takes over, the value of N/O is expected to rise linearly with O/H. The existence of a plateau at $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{N}/\mathrm{O})1.5`$ in H II regions with $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{H})<4.0`$ (that is, O/H $`<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}/5`$ solar) is generally interpreted as evidence for a dominant role of primary production of N at low metallicities (e.g. Edmunds & Pagel 1978; Henry et al. 2000; see also Fig. 3).

There is less agreement, however, as to whether this primary nitrogen is produced by massive or intermediate–mass stars. The problem has attracted considerable attention in the last few years, not only because a knowledge of the yields of stars of different masses is central to chemical evolution models, but also because in principle in may be possible to use the N/O ratio as a ‘clock’ to date the star formation activity in galaxies at different cosmological times (Edmunds & Pagel 1978; Pettini, Lipman, & Hunstead 1995; Pettini et al. 2002). The sensitivity of such a clock depends on the time delay between the release into the interstellar medium (ISM) of freshly synthesised N and O. Consider the limiting (and no doubt oversimplistic) case of a series of bursts of star formation separated by quiescent periods. Under these circumstances, the N/O ratio is at first expected to decrease, as the O produced by the most massive stars which explode as supernovae is mixed with the ISM and the O/H ratio increases accordingly. Only later will the N/O rise back to the primary plateau, as the lower mass stars which are the source of primary N evolve and release the products of their nucleosynthesis.

Clearly, no such behaviour would result if there is significant primary N production by massive stars. Thus, the relative uniformity of the N/O ratios measured in nearby metal-poor galaxies led Izotov & Thuan (1999) to propose that massive stars can perhaps produce significant amounts of primary N. However, this uniformity could also be explained if these galaxies have not experienced much star formation in the recent past, as indicated by analyses of their stellar populations. In contrast, a wide range of values of N/O is found in star–forming galaxies at intermediate redshifts (Contini et al. 2002) and in quasar absorption systems at high redshifts (Pettini et al. 2002; Prochaska et al. 2002). Even here, though, the interpretation is not straightforward. The problem is that the currently accepted value for the time delay in the release of primary N is $`\mathrm{\Delta }t250`$ Myr, an interval which seems too short to explain the high proportion of galaxies and absorption systems with values of N/O below the primary plateau (see Fig. 3), as discussed by Pettini et al. (2002).

The value $`\mathrm{\Delta }t250`$ Myr was deduced by Henry et al. (2000) from chemical evolution models which made use of the yields for primary N through ‘Hot Bottom Burning’ (see below) in intermediate mass stars computed by van den Hoek and Groenewegen (1997). As we now explain, stellar rotation may be the solution—at least in part—to this problem, if it shifts the production of primary N towards lower mass stars, with longer evolutionary times. The nucleosynthesis of N during the core He–burning phase of metal-poor rotating intermediate-mass stars has been studied by Meynet & Maeder (2001, 2002). Summarizing their main results:

1) Rotating stellar models which include the same physics which successfully accounts for: (a) the levels of He and N enrichments measured at the surface of stars in the Galaxy and in the SMC; (b) the relative numbers of blue and red supergiants in the SMC; and (c) the populations of WR stars at solar metallicity, naturally lead to the production of primary N by intermediate mass stars at very low metallicities (the metallicity considered in these models was 1/2000 of solar).

2) The process for this production of primary N is different from, but not incompatible with, the classical scenario invoked up to now for intermediate mass stars, i.e. Hot Bottom Burning (HBB). The mechanism involving rotation produces primary N by diffusion of (primary) C and O from the He–burning core into the hydrogen burning shell. This mechanism occurs not only in intermediate mass stars but also, although with less efficiency, in massive stars 111In massive stars, the distance between the He–core and the H–burning shell is greater than in intermediate mass stars; moreover the lifetimes are shorter thus, for a given initial velocity, the primary N production is much less efficient.. The production of primary N by the HBB process occurs in intermediate mass stars only. After the core He–burning phase, the star evolves along the asymptotic giant branch. There, thermal instabilities drive thermal pulses which, in some circumstances, may inject C from the He–burning shell into the base of the convective envelope where the temperature may be sufficiently high for the CNO cycle to take place (see the review on AGB by Frost & Lattanzio 1995). The quantities of primary nitrogen produced by this process remain difficult to predict (see Marigo 2001; Siess et al. 2002) and seem to depend heavily on the way mass loss and the third dredge–up mechanism are treated. Our models were computed up to the first 3–4 thermal pulses only. Since the HBB process is expected to occur at later stages, this means that in our models we did not account for any contribution from Hot Bottom Burning.

3) For average rotational velocities on the MS of the order of 230 km s-1, it was found that the most important contributors to the production of primary N are stars in the mass range between 3 and 5 M. The massive star contribution is, for this range of velocities, very modest.

4) The contribution of this process to primary N production is sufficiently efficient to explain a significant fraction of the primary N observed in low metallicity environments (Meynet & Maeder 2002; Prantzos 2002; Carigi & Pettini in this volume).

The effects of including stellar rotation in the calculations of the yields of primary N are illustrated in Fig. 4. Two main differences are noteworthy. First, the total quantity of primary N injected into the ISM by the rotating models is two orders of magnitude higher than that obtained with the non–rotating models. Second, 95% of the N is ejected in a little more than 400 Myr by the non–rotating models, whereas the time delay increases to 700 Myr when rotation is taken into account. This larger value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is in good agreement with the empirical estimate derived by Pettini et al. (2002) from consideration of the fraction of damped Lyman alpha systems (DLAs) exhibiting values of (N/O) below the primary plateau at $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{N}/\mathrm{O})1.5`$ in Fig. 3. In the framework of the model described above, these systems are interpreted as being observed in the period between the release of O by massive stars and of primary N by intermediate mass stars. By shifting the production of primary N further down the stellar initial mass function—and therefore increasing the time delay between the O and N enrichment of the ISM following an episode of star formation—stellar rotation naturally accounts for: (a) the otherwise surprisingly high fraction of DLAs with low values of N/O in Fig. 3, and (b) the finding that most DLAs show little or no enhancement of the alpha-capture elements relative to Fe (e.g. Vladilo 2002). Taken together, these two considerations suggest similar timescales for the production of N and Fe; the standard view is that approximately two thirds of the latter originates from Type Ia supernovae.

The agreement between the timescales predicted by the rotating models and those suggested by the DLA data is likely to be fortuitous. Observationally, a larger sample of measurements of N, O and Fe in QSO absorbers is required for trustworthy statistics, while the models need to take into account a distribution of values of stellar rotation, as well as Hot Bottom Burning, in the calculation of the yields of primary N. They also need to be extended to a larger set of metallicities than considered so far. Nevertheless, the preliminary indications from Fig. 4 are that stellar rotation may well provide the ‘missing clue’ for the interpretation of N abundances.

### Acknowledgments.

G.M. expresses his deep gratitude to André Maeder for the very fruitful collaboration during the past years.

## References

Contini, T., Treyer, M.A., Sullivan, M., Ellis, R.S. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 75

Edmunds, M.G., Pagel, B.E.J. 1978, MNRAS, 185, 77

Fliegner, J., Langer, N. 1995. IAU Symp. 163, ed. K. A van der Hucht & P.M. Williams, (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 326

Frost, C.A., Lattanzio, J.C. 1995. In Stellar Evolution: What Should Be Done”, 32nd Liège Int. Astroph. Coll., eds. Noels et al., 307

Hamann, W.R., Koesterke, L. 1999. IAU Coll. 169, ed. B. Wolf, O. Stahl, & A.W. Fullerton, (Berlin: Springer). Also Lecture Notes in Physics, volume 523, 1999, p.239

Heger, A., Langer, N. 2000, ApJ 544, 1016

Henry, R.B.C., Edmunds, M.G., Koeppen, J. 2000, ApJ 541, 660

Holweger, H. 2001, in Solar and Galactic Composition, ed. R.F. Wimmer–Schweingruber (Berlin: Springer), 23

van den Hoek, L.B., Groenewegen, M.A.T. 1997, A&ASS, 123, 305

Izotov, Y.I., Thuan, T.X. 1999, ApJ, 511, 639

Langer, N. 1991, A&A, 248, 531

Maeder, A. 1987, A&A, 178, 159

Maeder, A., Desjacques 2001, A&A 372L, 9

Maeder, A. & Meynet, G. 1994, A&A, 287, 803

Maeder, A. & Meynet, G. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 143

Marigo P. 1998, A&A, 340, 463

Marigo P. 2001, A&A, 370, 194

Meynet, G. 2000. In Massive Stellar Clusters, ASP Conf. Ser. 211,, eds A. Lançon & C. M. Boily, p. 105

Meynet, G., Maeder, A. 2000, A&A 361, 101

Meynet, G., Maeder, A. 2002a, A&A 381L, 25

Meynet, G., Maeder, A. 2002b, A&A 390, 561

Nugis, T., Lamers, H.J.G.L.M. 2002, A&A 389, 162

Pettini, M., Ellison, S.L., Bergeron, J., Petitjean, P. 2002, A&A 391, 21

Pettini, M., Lipman, K., Hunstead, R.W 1995, ApJ, 451, 100

Prochaska, J.X., Henry, R.B.C., O’Meara, J.M. et al. 2002, PASP, 114, 933

Schaerer, D., Maeder, A. 1992, A&A 263, 129

Schaerer, D., Guseva, N.G., Izotov, Y.I., Thuan, T.X. 2000, A&A 362, 53

Siess, L., Livio, M., Lattanzio, J. 2002, ApJ, 570, 329

Vladilo, G. 2002, A&A, 391, 407