text:
# Multicomponent stellar winds of He chemically peculiar stars

## 1 Introduction

Radiative force may have important influence on the structure of stellar atmospheres. Although there is not known any significant direct influence of the radiative force on the atmospheres of most cool stars, the radiative force may be dominant in the atmospheres of hot stars. The consequences of this influence are different. Mainly for A stars and white dwarfs the radiative force may cause the radiative diffusion and subsequent elemental abundance anomalies (see Alecian 1995 or Vauclair 2003 for a review). On the other hand, the radiative force may accelerate a stellar wind mainly for O stars and WR stars (Kudritzki & Puls 2000). However, there exists a group of B stars, for which both effects of stellar wind and elemental diffusion in the stellar atmosphere are important. It is generally believed that in order to explain the elemental abundances of helium and some other elements in the atmospheres of He-rich stars at least three different ingredients are necessary. These ingredients are stellar wind, elemental diffusion and magnetic field (e.g. Michaud et al. 1987).

However, alternative explanation of chemical peculiarity of He-rich and He-week stars exists. It was proposed by Hunger & Groote (1999, hereafter HG). They showed that for stars with effective temperatures $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}<\mathrm{25\hspace{0.17em}000}\mathrm{K}`$ helium may decouple from the stellar wind, fall back onto the stellar surface and create regions with enhanced abundance of helium if magnetic fields are present. Similarly, for stars with effective temperatures $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}<\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}000}\mathrm{K}`$ even hydrogen may decouple from the stellar wind, fall back onto the stellar surface and cause helium underabundance if magnetic fields are present. We decided to test this explanation of chemical peculiarity of He-rich and He-week stars using our multicomponent wind models. First preliminary calculations have already been performed by Krtička & Kubát (2001a), however with artificially low helium charge and without ionization balance calculation.

## 2 Multicomponent stellar wind models

Stellar winds of hot stars are accelerated mainly by the absorption of radiation in the resonance lines of such elements like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, or iron. However, these wind components have much lower density than the rest of the stellar wind, which is composed mainly of hydrogen and helium. Thus, the process of acceleration of a stellar wind of hot stars has two different physical steps. In the first step, radiation is absorbed by low-density metals like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, or it is scattered by free electrons, and these wind components obtain momentum from stellar radiation field. In the second step, momentum obtained by these low-density components is transferred to high-density wind components via the Coulomb collisions between charged particles. Thus, stellar winds of hot stars have a multicomponent nature. For stars with relatively high wind density (e.g. galactic O stars or WR stars) this multicomponent wind nature does not influence wind structure, as has been discussed by Castor et al. (1976). However, for stars with a relatively low wind density (i.e. main-sequence B stars or stars with extremely low metallicity, see Krtička et al. 2003) the multicomponent wind nature becomes important for the wind structure itself because new effects occur, for example frictional heating or decoupling of wind components (Springmann & Pauldrach 1992, Babel 1995, Krtička & Kubát 2001b, hereafter KKII).

### 2.1 Model equations

Equations used here for the calculation of four-component wind models are nearly the same as those of KKII. We assume stationary and spherically symmetric stellar wind, which is composed of four components, namely absorbing metallic ions, hydrogen, helium, and free electrons. For the calculation of wind models we solve the continuity equation, momentum equation, and energy equation for each component of the flow. The continuity equation has the form

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}r}\left(r^2\rho _av_{r}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}\right)=0,$$
(1)
where $`\rho _a`$ is the density, $`r`$ is the radius, and $`v_{r}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}`$ is the velocity of a component $`a`$. The momentum equation is

$$v_{r}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}v_{r}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}}{\mathrm{d}r}=g_a^{\mathrm{rad}}g\frac{1}{\rho _a}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}r}\left(a_a^2\rho _a\right)+\frac{q_a}{m_a}E+\underset{ba}{}g_{ab}^{\mathrm{fric}},$$
(2)
where $`g_a^{\mathrm{rad}}`$ is the radiative force, $`E`$ is electric polarisation field, and $`g_{ab}^{\mathrm{fric}}`$ is the frictional force (Burgers 1969)

$$g_{ab}^{\mathrm{fric}}=\frac{1}{\rho _a}K_{ab}G(x_{ab})\frac{v_{r}^{}{}_{b}{}^{}v_{r}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}}{|v_{r}^{}{}_{b}{}^{}v_{r}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}|},$$
(3)
where $`G(x_{ab})`$ is the Chandrasekhar function, and the frictional coefficient is

$$K_{ab}=n_an_b\frac{4\pi q_a^2q_b^2}{kT_{ab}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(4)
where mean temperature $`T_{ab}=\left(m_bT_a+m_aT_b\right)/\left(m_b+m_a\right)`$ is calculated using temperatures $`T_a`$ and $`T_b`$ of individual wind components with atomic masses $`m_a`$ and $`m_b`$. The radiative force in the CAK approximation (Castor et al. 1975, Friend & Abbott 1986, Pauldrach et al. 1986, see also KKII for generalization of CAK force for a multicomponent flow) due to line-absorption acts on metals and radiative force due to the Thomson scattering acts on free electrons.

Energy equation for each component of the flow is

$$\frac{3}{2}v_{r}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}\rho _a\frac{\mathrm{d}a_a^2}{\mathrm{d}r}+\frac{a_a^2\rho _a}{r^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}r}\left(r^2v_{r}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}\right)=Q_a^{\mathrm{rad}}+\underset{ba}{}\left(Q_{ab}^{\mathrm{ex}}+Q_{ab}^{\mathrm{fric}}\right),$$
(5)
where the heat exchange is given by

$$Q_{ab}^{\mathrm{ex}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}K_{ab}\frac{2k\left(T_bT_a\right)}{m_a+m_b}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(x_{ab}^2\right)}{\alpha _{ab}},$$
(6)
frictional heating is

$$Q_{ab}^{\mathrm{fric}}=\frac{m_b}{m_a+m_b}K_{ab}G(x_{ab})|v_{r}^{}{}_{b}{}^{}v_{r}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}|,$$
(7)
and $`Q_a^{\mathrm{rad}}`$ is the radiative heating calculated using the the method of thermal balance of electrons (Kubát et al. 1999). We also take into account the Gayley-Owocki (1994) heating. The base flux, which is necessary for the calculation of the radiative heating term, is taken from H-He spherically symmetric NLTE model atmospheres (Kubát 2003).

System of hydrodynamic equations is closed using equation for electric polarisation field and by equations of ionization equilibrium (we assume nebular approximation after Mihalas, 1978, Eq. 5.46). For a more detailed description of three-component variant of these models see KKII.

### 2.2 The possibility of wind decoupling

The frictional force Eq. (3) between two components depends on the velocity difference between these two components via the so-called Chandrasekhar function,

$$G(x_{ab})=\frac{1}{2x_{ab}^2}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }(x_{ab})x_{ab}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_{ab})}{\mathrm{d}x_{ab}}\right],$$
(8)
where non-dimensional velocity difference $`x_{ab}`$ is given by

$$x_{ab}=\frac{|v_{r}^{}{}_{b}{}^{}v_{r}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}|}{\alpha _{ab}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }v_{ab}}{\alpha _{ab}},$$
(9)
where $`\alpha _{ab}`$ is the mean thermal speed, $`\alpha _{ab}^2=2k\left(m_aT_b+m_bT_a\right)/\left(m_am_b\right)`$. The plot of the Chandrasekhar function is given in Fig.1. For relatively low velocity differences, $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{ab}\alpha _{ab}`$, the Chandrasekhar function is an increasing function of the velocity difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{ab}`$ and components $`a`$ and $`b`$ are well coupled. However, for higher velocity differences, $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{ab}\alpha _{ab}`$, the Chandrasekhar function is a decreasing function of the velocity difference and the decoupling of components may occur.

### 2.3 Solution using Newton–Raphson method

Multicomponent wind equations (1,2,5) can be formally written as

$$𝖯𝝍=0,$$
(10)
where the vector describing the solution has the form of

$$𝝍=(𝝍_1,𝝍_2,\mathrm{},𝝍_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{R}})^\mathrm{T},$$
(11)
where

$$𝝍_i=((\rho _{a,i},v_{ra,i},T_{a,i},z_{a,i})_{a=\text{i,\hspace{0.17em}p,\hspace{0.17em}e}},E_i,\mathrm{\Delta }v_{r,i}).$$
(12)
The velocity difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{r,i}`$ was taken as an additional independent variable to improve convergence properties. The solution can be obtained using the iteration scheme

$$𝖩^n\delta 𝝍^{n+1}=𝖯^n𝝍^n,$$
(13)
where the Jacobi-matrix is

$$J_{kl}^n=\frac{P_k}{\psi _l}.$$
(14)
More details about the solution procedure can be found in Krtička (2003).

## 3 Calculated models

We have calculated four-component stellar wind models (i.e. models consisting of absorbing ions, hydrogen, helium, and free electrons) to test the explanation of helium chemically peculiar stars proposed by HG. Here we present two stellar wind models of B3 and B6 main-sequence stars. Spectral type of helium-rich stars is close to B3, for which HG predicted helium decoupling from the stellar wind. On the other hand, spectral type of helium-poor stars is close to B6. For these stars HG predicted hydrogen decoupling from the stellar wind.

### 3.1 Models suitable for He-rich stars

We have selected a main-sequence B3 star as a representative example of He-rich stars. Stellar parameters are taken according to Harmanec (1988) and force multipliers are after Abbott (1982). The plot of velocities, temperatures and charges of individual wind components is given in Fig. 2.

Contrary to the predictions of HG, helium does not decouple from the main wind. The reason for this behaviour is a neglect of helium coupling to hydrogen by HG. They assumed that helium is accelerated mainly due to the collisions with metallic (absorbing) ions. The frictional force $`f_{\mathrm{He},\mathrm{i}}=\rho _{\mathrm{He}}g_{\mathrm{He},\mathrm{i}}`$ is proportional to (see Eqs. (3,4))

$$f_{\mathrm{He},\mathrm{i}}n_{\mathrm{He}}n_\mathrm{i},$$

where $`n_{\mathrm{He}}`$ and $`n_\mathrm{i}`$ are number densities of helium and metallic ions. However, the frictional force due to the collisions between helium and hydrogen atoms is

$$f_{\mathrm{He},\mathrm{H}}n_{\mathrm{He}}n_\mathrm{H},$$

where $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ is the number density of hydrogen atoms. Since $`n_\mathrm{H}n_\mathrm{i}`$, the frictional force due to hydrogen atoms may be important for the acceleration of helium atoms, and, consequently, can not be neglected.

We conclude that helium does not decouple from the stellar wind of He-rich stars. Thus, the explanation of a helium overabundance in chemically peculiar stars by the helium decoupling in their stellar wind is questionable.

### 3.2 Models suitable for He-poor stars

We have selected main-sequence B6 star as a representative for He-poor stars. Again, stellar parameters are taken from Harmanec (1988) and force multipliers are after Abbott (1982). The plot of velocities, temperatures and charges of individual wind components is given in Fig. 3.

Apparently, in the outer model region helium atoms recombine. Because the frictional acceleration depends on the square of helium atomic charge (see Eqs. (3,4)), the frictional acceleration is not able to support helium atoms any more and helium decouples from the flow. The decoupling is accompanied by large frictional heating. The helium velocity is lower than the escape velocity, thus helium may fall back onto the stellar surface and create helium overabundance in the stellar atmosphere. However, this spectral type corresponds to He-poor stars, thus even in this case the four-component models are not able to explain their chemical peculiarity.

## 4 Conclusions and discussion

We have calculated four-component wind models (i.e. models with absorbing ions, hydrogen, helium, and free electrons) applicable to helium chemically peculiar stars. We used our models to test the explanation of helium chemically peculiar stars by helium and hydrogen decoupling in the stellar winds of these stars. For hot B stars (in the parameter range of He-rich stars) helium is coupled not only to metals but also to hydrogen atoms, and it is ionized. Consequently, helium does not decouple from the stellar wind of He-rich stars. We conclude that the explanation of chemical peculiarity of He-rich stars (HG) based on helium decoupling is questionable.

On the other hand, for cool B stars (in the parameter range of He-poor stars) helium may recombine and consequently fall back onto the stellar surface. However, this decoupling can not explain chemical peculiarity of He-poor stars, since it may produce a surface overabundance of helium, not an underabundance, as anticipated by HG.

However, there are two effects which are still unclear. First of all, the mass-loss rates of B stars are highly uncertain. Our test calculations showed that due to lower mass-loss rate both hydrogen and helium may fall back onto the stellar surface in the case of He-rich stars. However, this effect can not help to explain the chemical peculiarity of these stars since hydrogen and helium are well coupled even in this case. Another problem is the calculation of wind ionization structure. From the theoretical point of view, as shown by Krtička & Kubát (2001), the helium decoupling is possible for artificially lowered helium charge. However, our simplified ionization calculations (based on a nebular approximation) do not predict such low helium charge. We think that our calculated ionization structure is roughly correct, but we shall perform tests using more detailed calculations. Both these effects, i.e. correct mass-loss rates and ionization structure, will be incorporated in our NLTE wind code. First results obtained using our code are currently under way (Krtička & Kubát 2003).

We point out that helium diffusion superimposed with the multicomponent stellar wind may explain chemical peculiarity of He-rich stars (Michaud et al. 1987). On the other hand, mechanism of launching of He-free wind proposed by HG may possibly work for some cooler stars, however probably not for He-rich stars (see also Kubát & Krtička 2004).

* This work was supported by grants GA ČR 205/01/0656 and 205/02/0445. The Astronomical Institute Ondřejov is supported by projects K2043105 and Z1003909.


format: text

text:
# Indication of anomalous exchange in exclusive charmonium photoproduction.

## Abstract

We find that available data on $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction at $`|t|`$1 GeV are energy independent over the range $`22\sqrt{s}170`$ GeV and show a very soft $`t`$ dependence. Through a systematic analysis of the data we detect a new trajectory, which manifests itself at threshold and is energy independent. The trajectory couples to the axial form factor of the nucleon and can reproduce the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ exclusive photoproduction data at large -$`t`$.

Since the first measurements by the Cornell  and SLAC  Collaborations charmonium photoproduction has become an effective tool for investigating QCD dynamics. Available data  are generally analysed in terms of the dependence on the invariant collision energy squared, $`s`$, and four momentum transfer squared, $`t`$.

Exclusive $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction can be described in terms of a $`c\overline{c}`$ fluctuation of the photon that interacts with the nucleon by gluon ladder exchange. This interaction probes the gluon density, $`g(x)`$, and therefore experimental results can be used to constrain the gluon parton distribution function (PDF). The more recent DL , MRST2001  and CTEQ6  PDFs come from an analysis of recent data on $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ electroproduction at large $`Q^2`$. Our systematic analysis  shows that the DL and MRST2001 PDFs reproduce available data on forward $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction at $`\sqrt{s}>`$10 GeV.

Within the two-gluon exchange model the $`s`$ dependence of the forward $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction cross section is given as

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}\left[xg(x)\right]^2,$$
(1)
where $`x=m_J^2/s`$ and $`m_J`$ is the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ mass. The $`t`$ dependence results from two-gluon correlation in the proton and is not defined by the model but can be taken  to be proportional to the proton isoscalar EM form factor

$$F(t)=\frac{4m_p^22.8t}{4m_p^2t}\frac{1}{(1t/t_0)^2},$$
(2)
with $`m_p`$ the proton mass and $`t_0`$=0.71 GeV2.

In the Regge model  the $`c\overline{c}`$ fluctuation interacts with the proton by exchange of a pomeron trajectory and

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}s^{2\alpha (t)2}\frac{F(t)^2}{(m_J^2t)^2}\frac{\mu ^4}{(2\mu ^2+m_J^2t)^2},$$
(3)
where the last term is the form factor squared, which accounts for the possibility that the coupling between an off-shell charm quark and the pomeron is not pointlike - we take  $`\mu =\sqrt{1.2}`$ GeV. The soft pomeron trajectory is $`\alpha (t)=1.08+0.25t`$. The $`s`$ dependence of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction at high energies requires  the introduction of an additional hard pomeron  with $`\alpha (t)=1.44+0.1t`$.

The circles in Fig.1 show the results for the forward $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction cross section and slope of $`t`$ dependence evaluated by fitting the data as $`d\sigma /dt=A\mathrm{exp}(bt)`$. The solid line indicates a calculation based on the Regge model with soft and hard pomeron. The dashed line shows the result  from the two-gluon model with the MRST2001 PDF. Both models reproduce the data at $`\sqrt{s}>10`$ GeV reasonably well and clearly indicate room for some other contribution at low energy.

It is important that the slope corresponding to the proton isoscalar EM form factor is

$$b=\frac{5.6}{4m_p^22.8t}+\frac{2}{4m_p^2t}+\frac{4}{t_0t}.$$
(4)
This depends on $`t`$ and can therefore be considered as a local slope. Furthermore $`b4.6`$ at $`t=0`$ and $`b3.7`$ at $`t=1`$ GeV2. Additional contributions from the pomeron trajectory and quark-pomeron form factor add to the total slope shown in Fig.1. It is clear that the minimal slope is dictated by the proton EM form factor and the data at $`\sqrt{s}<20`$ GeV clearly indicate the need for some other mechanism that does not involve the EM form factor of the proton.

Low energy data  on $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction are shown in Fig.2. The solid lines show the calculations  within the Regge model, while the dashed lines illustrate the fit using an exponential function with parameters shown by squares in Fig.1. The Cornell and SLAC measurements at $`\sqrt{s}<`$10 GeV are not reproduced by the pomeron exchange calculations. The data collected at $`\sqrt{s}`$20 GeV by the EMC and E687 Collaborations are well described by pomeron exchange at low $`t`$ and clearly indicate an additional soft contribution at $`|t|`$1 GeV.

Furthermore, we reanalyse the data on $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction at $`30\sqrt{s}170`$ GeV reported  recently by ZEUS Collaboration and shown in Fig.3 by solid circles in order to extract the soft contribution. Rather than readjusting the parameters of soft and hard pomeron exchanges we attribute the discrepancy between the calculations shown in Fig.3 by the solid lines and the data to an additional contribution. The open circles in Fig.3 show the difference between the experimental results and the calculations and the dashed lines show a fit to this difference using an exponential function with parameters shown in Fig.1 with the squares.

Although the above reanalysis of ZEUS data  cannot be considered definitive, because there are only two points at $`|t|`$1 GeV, it is compelling if we compare the data at $`30\sqrt{s}50`$ GeV and $`150\sqrt{s}170`$ GeV. In particular, the data differ substantially at these extreme energies and the calculations reproduce the data well at higher energy while definitely failing to describe the experimental results at $`30\sqrt{s}50`$ GeV. But it is important that the difference between the data and the calculations including both soft and hard pomeron exchanges is almost the same and practically energy independent.

Summarizing the results of our analysis shown by squares in Fig.1, we conclude that there is an indication for a new contribution to $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction in addition to the to soft and hard pomeron exchanges. This contribution does not depend on $`\sqrt{s}`$. It dominates at small energies and can be detected at high energies at $`|t|`$1 GeV2 since it has a $`t`$ dependence different from that of pomeron exchange. Moreover, this new contribution has a slope $`b<`$3 GeV-2, which means that it does not involve the proton EM form factor.

Within a Regge model this contribution might come from the exchange of a trajectory, $`\alpha (t)1.0+0t`$, resulting in the differential $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction cross section given as

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}s^{2\alpha (t)2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^8}{(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2t)^4},$$
(5)
with cut off parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1.2`$ GeV. The choice of the form factor is dictated by the data , which requires a sufficiently small local slope parameter at $`|t|`$1 GeV2.

It is clear that the available data are not good enough to draw a more confident conclusion and explicitly fix the parameters of the trajectory. A somewhat more illustrative presentation of the data is given in Fig.4, where the $`\gamma +pJ/\mathrm{\Psi }+p`$ differential cross section is shown as a function of -$`t`$ for different energies, $`\sqrt{s}`$. Above $`|t|`$1 GeV2, which is indicated by an arrow, the data are almost energy independent. The dashed lines in Fig.4 show the contribution from soft and hard pomeron exchanges at $`\sqrt{s}`$=20 GeV and 170 GeV. The solid line indicates the contribution from the exchange of the new trajectory with an absolute normalization $`d\sigma /dt`$=20 nb$``$GeV-2 at $`t`$=0.

Our prediction is that starting from threshold the forward $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction cross section should be of order 20 nb$``$GeV-2 and should not be strongly energy dependent.

Fig.1 shows that in contrast to our expectation few experimental results close to threshold show energy dependence. The measurement at lowest energy was done by the Cornell Collaboration  with photons of energy between 9.0 and 11.8 GeV that interacted with a beryllium target. It was pointed out  that the results were not corrected for fermi motion, which might be important since the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ threshold corresponds to a photon energy of $``$8.15 GeV. Moreover, the sample of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ mesons was taken for the squared dielectron masses within the range $`7.5÷11.0`$ GeV2, that was divided into 10 equal intervals. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }ee}=+5.26\pm 0.37`$ keV the correction from the dielectron mass resolution might be large.

Furthermore, the SLAC measurements at a photon energies of 13 and 15 GeV was done inclusively with a deuteron target only at one value of $`t`$ and were extrapolated to $`t=`$0 under certain assumption. Only the SLAC measurement at a photon energy of 19 GeV shown in Fig.2 was done at three different values of $`t`$. Obviously the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction should be measured at low energies in order to clarify the situation.

The additional trajectory that we propose may correspond to $`f_1`$ exchange with an odd signature, which distinguishes it from pomeron exchange with even signature. We note that unnatural parity $`f_1`$ exchange was proposed in Refs.  as an alternative to a hard pomeron contribution  in order to describe $`\rho `$ photoproduction at large $`|t|`$. It was suggested  that $`f_1`$ couples to an axial form factor of Eq.5 with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=m_{f_1}`$=1.28 GeV, which is slightly different  from that extracted from muon neutrino quasi-elastic scattering with average $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.03\pm 0.04`$ GeV.

However the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction data discarded such an alternative. As is shown in Fig.1 the data on forward photoproduction require strong energy dependence which is driven by hard pomeron exchange. As well the results for the slope at $`|t|<`$1 GeV2 at $`\sqrt{s}>`$10 GeV indicate a coupling to the isoscalar EM form factor of the proton. The new trajectory has different features and should not substitute for hard pomeron exchange.

It is important that the energy independence of the data at large -$`t`$ found in our analysis also leads us to reject various hard processes that are expected to manifest at large -$`t`$ but are energy dependent. The new exchange can be entirely responsible for $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction at $`s10`$ GeV where the pomeron exchange is not applicable.

It would be of great interest to study $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction at low energies, which should be possible with the operation of HALL D at Jefferson Lab and to clarify whether the forward cross section approaches a value of order 20 nb$``$GeV-2 starting from threshold. It will be possible and important to determine quantum numbers of the new trajectory with polarization measurements.

A.S would like to acknowledge the warm hospitality and partial support of the CSSM during his visit. This work was supported by the grant N. 447AUS113/14/0 by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Australian Research Council.