text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent years much attention has been paied to theories where the weakness of the gravitational coupling is explained by the presence of large compact extra spatial dimensions, as shown in . In such theories, while standard model (SM) fields are confined in the usual 4-dimensional space, the gravity can propagate in the full high dimensional space, and its intensity is diluted in the large volume of the extra dimensions.

The Newton’s constant $`G_N`$ in the 3+1 dimensional space is then related to the corresponding Planck scale $`M_D`$ in the $`D=4+\delta `$ dimensional space by

$$G_N^1=8\pi R^\delta M_D^{2+\delta }$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the radius of a compact manifold assumed to be on a torus. According to the present limits on Newton’s law , one could have $`M_D1`$ TeV if the number of extra dimensions is $`\delta 2`$.

A crucial consequence of this framework is that quantum gravity effects could become strong at the TeV scale and measurable at future high-energy colliders. After integrating out the compact extra dimensions, the effective Einstein theory in 3+1 dimensions reliably describes the interactions of the extra-dimensional gravitons with gauge and matter fields . An essentially continuum spectrum of massive Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of the standard graviton field arises, for $`\delta `$ not larger than about 6. When summing over the allowed spectrum of KK states either in the inclusive production or in the exchange of virtual KK gravitons, the small coupling $`(E/M_P)^2`$ associated to a single graviton production/exchange (where $`E`$ is the typical energy of the process and $`M_P`$ is the Plank mass) is replaced by the quantity $`(E/M_D)^{2+\delta }`$. Then, for $`M_D1`$ TeV, processes involving gravitons could well be detected at present and future high-energy colliders. This possibility has been quite thoroughly explored in a number of papers -.

Regarding processes with virtual KK graviton exchange, it is well known that in general the corresponding amplitude is divergent and not computable in the effective theory . In particular, the real part of the amplitude, $`Re[𝒜]`$, needs an ultraviolet cut-off. This means that in general the theory is not predictive in the sector of virtual KK graviton exchange. On the other hand, the imaginary part of the amplitude, $`Im[𝒜]`$, is finite and cutoff independent, being connected to the branch-cut singularity of real graviton emission . In a recent paper , we stressed that this can have important consequences, when considering standard model (SM) resonant processes interfering with virtual KK graviton exchange graphs. In fact, the corresponding interference, that is dominated by $`Im[𝒜]`$, turns out to be finite, and predictable in terms of the fundamental Plank scale $`M_D`$ and the number of extra dimensions $`\delta `$.

In , we applied this observation to LEP physics, and computed the effects on the $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$ physical observables of the interference of the virtual KK graviton-exchange amplitude with the resonant SM amplitude at the $`Z`$ boson pole. We found that, although the corresponding impact on total cross-sections vanishes, there are finite modifications of different asymmetries, whose relative effect amounts, in the most favorable cases, to about $`10^4`$.

In the present paper, we want to extend this approach to the case of a heavy Higgs boson ($`H`$) production at future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders and $`\mu \mu `$ colliders. By heavy, we will imply $`m_H200`$ GeV. Graviton interference effects on cross-sections turns out to be proportional to the ratio of the total width over the mass of the resonance state, due to the imaginary part of the SM amplitude . Then, one expects to find remarkably more conspicuous graviton interference effects in a heavy Higgs boson production than in the $`Z^0`$ boson pole physics, due to the rapidly growing Higgs width with the Higgs mass. One can compare , e.g., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z/M_Z0.027`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H/m_H0.072,0.29`$ for $`m_H=400,700`$ GeV, respectively. Moreover, the imaginary part of the graviton amplitude grows quite rapidly with the process c.o.m. energy.

At linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders , we consider the Higgs production via vector boson fusion with the subsequent $`H`$ decay into pairs of heavy particles

$$e^+e^{}(WW)\nu \overline{\nu }H\nu \overline{\nu }WW,\nu \overline{\nu }ZZ,\nu \overline{\nu }t\overline{t}.$$
(2)
Feynman diagrams for these processes are presented in Figure 1. This process is one of the dominant $`H`$ production mechanism at linear colliders, and becomes the main one at $`\sqrt{S}`$ 500 GeV . The same initial and final states can be mediated by a continuous spectrum of KK spin-2 gravitons, $`G_n`$, and spin-0 graviscalars, $`S_n`$, in the $`s`$ channel ***We neglect here possible $`t`$ channel amplitudes, that give subdominant contributions in the following.

$$\underset{n}{}\left\{e^+e^{}(WW)\nu \overline{\nu }G_n^{},\nu \overline{\nu }S_n^{}\nu \overline{\nu }WW,\nu \overline{\nu }ZZ,\nu \overline{\nu }t\overline{t}\right\}.$$
(3)
These processes at energies $`\sqrt{S}M_W`$ can be reliably treated in the effective-$`W`$ approximations , by convoluting the cross-sections for the subprocesses

$$WWHWW,ZZ,t\overline{t},$$
(4)
and

$$\underset{n}{}\left\{WWG_n^{},S_n^{}WW,ZZ,t\overline{t}\right\}$$
(5)
with the appropriate $`W`$ distributions in the electron beam (same for $`ZZ`$ initiated processes).

On the Higgs boson resonance, the interference of the processes eqs.(4) and (5) will be dominated by the imaginary part of the graviton/graviscalar amplitude, that, as discussed above, is finite and predictable in terms of $`M_D`$ and $`\delta `$.

The aim of the present paper is to determine the amount by which the Higgs production cross-sections and distributions can be affected by the interference with the KK graviton/graviscalar amplitude. We then discuss the possibility to measure such an effect (and, hence, to find a footprint of a large extra dimension theory) at realistic linear collider machines.

In the last part of the paper we also analyze KK graviton/graviscalar interference effects in Higgs production at a possible $`\mu \mu `$ collider acting as a Higgs boson factory , through the channels

$$\mu ^+\mu ^{}HWW,ZZ,t\overline{t},$$
(6)
and

$$\underset{n}{}\left\{\mu ^+\mu ^{}G_n^{},S_n^{}WW,ZZ,t\overline{t}\right\}.$$
(7)
This process would presumably be affected by smaller theoretical uncertainty, and could provide an even more sensitive probe to large extra dimension effects.

## 2 The virtual-graviton exchange amplitude

We are interested in computing the interference of the exchange of a virtual KK spin-2 graviton and a virtual KK spin-0 graviscalar with a resonant SM scattering amplitude. Hence, we will analyze in particular an $`s`$-channel KK exchange amplitude. We will follow in this section the approach of .

The graviton-mediated scattering amplitude in the momentum space is obtained by summing over all KK modes

$$𝒜=\frac{1}{\overline{M}_P^2}\underset{n}{}\left\{T_{\mu \nu }\frac{P^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }}{sm_n^2}T_{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{\delta 1}{\delta +2}\right)\frac{T_\mu ^\mu T_\nu ^\nu }{sm_n^2}\right\},$$
(8)
where $`\overline{M}_P`$ is the reduced Plank mass ($`\overline{M}_P=M_P/\sqrt{8\pi }`$), and $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the scattering fields. The first and second terms in Eq. (8) corresponds to graviton and graviscalar exchanges respectively (here $`m_n`$ represents both the graviton and graviscalar masses without loss of any generality). In the unitary gauge, the projector of the graviton propagator, $`P^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$, is given by

$$P^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\eta ^{\mu \alpha }\eta ^{\nu \beta }+\eta ^{\mu \beta }\eta ^{\nu \alpha }\right)\frac{1}{3}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\eta ^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{}$$
(9)
where $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is the Minkowski metric. Dots represent terms proportional to the graviton momentum $`q_\mu `$, that, being $`q^\mu T_{\mu \nu }=0`$, give a vanishing contribution to the amplitude. The trace of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is nonvanishing only for massive initial and final states.

Since the energy-momentum tensors do not depend on KK indices, one can perform the sum (over $`n`$) irrespective of the scattering process, and Eq. (8) becomes

$$𝒜=𝒮(s)𝒯,𝒮(s)=\frac{1}{\overline{M}_P^2}\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{sm_n^2},𝒯=T_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{\delta +2}T_\mu ^\mu T_\nu ^\nu $$
(10)
In the continuum approximation for the KK graviton spectrum, one then obtains

$$𝒮(s)=\frac{1}{M_D^{2+\delta }}d^\delta q_T\frac{1}{sq_T^2}=\frac{\pi ^{\frac{\delta }{2}}}{M_D^4}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{\delta }{2})\left(\frac{s}{M_D^2}\right)^{\frac{\delta }{2}1}$$
(11)
where we assumed $`m_n^2=q_T^2`$, with $`q_T`$ the graviton momentum orthogonal to the brane.

In the interference with a resonant amplitude, only $`Im[𝒮(s)]`$ will contribute, with

$$Im[𝒮(s)]=\frac{\pi }{M_D^{2+\delta }}\frac{S_{\delta 1}}{2}s^{\frac{\delta 2}{2}}$$
(12)
where $`S_{\delta 1}`$ is the area of the $`\delta `$ sphere. For $`\delta =2n`$, $`S_{\delta 1}=2\pi ^n/(n1)!`$ and, for $`\delta =2n+1`$, $`S_{\delta 1}=2\pi ^n/_{k=0}^{n1}(k+\frac{1}{2})`$, with $`n`$ integer. Hence, imaginary part of the amplitude is finite and predictable, only depending on the D-dimensional Plank scale $`M_D`$ and on the number of extra dimensions $`\delta `$. It also grows quite rapidly with $`\sqrt{s}`$ for $`\delta >2`$.

On the other hand, as discussed in the previous section, divergences in general arise in the real part of $`𝒮`$. They can be regularized by introducing an external cut off that spoils the predictivity of the theory, parametrizing unknown new-physics contributions in the ultraviolet region. This feature makes virtual graviton exchange processes phenomenologically less interesting than the real graviton production processes, unless the imaginary part of the amplitude can be separated. This is exactly what happens when considering the graviton interferences with resonant SM scattering amplitudes. The latter case is indeed the subject of our previous work in  and of the present paper.

## 3 Interference effects in the $`WW`$ partonic cross-sections

In this section, we determine the effects on the angular distributions and cross-sections of the $`WW`$ fusion Higgs production processes in Eq. (2) arising from their interferences with the corresponding KK graviton/graviscalar exchange processes in Eq. (3). We start from the partonic $`WW`$ initiated amplitude for the processes

$$WWHWW,ZZ,t\overline{t},$$
(13)
and

$$\underset{n}{}\left\{WWG_n^{},S_n^{}WW,ZZ,t\overline{t}\right\},$$
(14)
we compute their interferences, and then convolute them (along with the corresponding SM cross sections as in Eq. (13) with the effective-$`W`$ distributions in the initial electron/positron beams.

We notice that due to the different spin properties of the Higgs ($`s=0`$), graviton ($`s=2`$) and graviscalar ($`s=0`$) intermediate states, only the graviton will have a nontrivial impact on the angular distribution. On the other hand, the latter effect will vanish in the total cross section, since different spin amplitudes turn out to be orthogonal. An analogous effect can be observed in the $`Z`$ boson - graviton interference in .

The initial $`W`$ polarizations that are relevant for Higgs production are the ones where both the $`W`$’s are either transverse (with opposite polarization projection) or longitudinal. We call the two combinations, $`\lambda =T`$ and $`\lambda =L`$, respectively.

If $`P`$ stands for one of the possible final particles $`W`$, $`Z`$ and $`t`$ in Eq. (13), the polarization dependent angular distribution for the process $`W^+W^{}P\overline{P}`$ via Higgs exchange plus interference effects with the graviton/graviscalar mediated scattering reads, near the Higgs boson pole (i.e., for $`|\sqrt{\widehat{s}}m_H|<\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$) Contributions coming from the real part of the amplitudes are suppressed by terms of order $`|\widehat{s}m_H^2|/m_H^2`$ in this case. is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _\lambda ^P}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }_\lambda ^P}{2}}\left\{1+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P+\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,\lambda }^P(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )\right\},`$ (15)
where $`\theta `$ is the polar angle of one of the final particle with respect to the beam in the c.o.m. frame. Nonvanishing coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,\lambda }^P`$ arise from the interference of the Higgs exchange amplitude with the graviscalar and graviton exchange amplitudes, respectively. In particular, a nonvanishing graviton contribution alters the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ independent distribution predicted by the SM Higgs exchange. $`\overline{\sigma }_\lambda ^P`$ stands for the SM Higgs-exchange total cross section for the process $`W^+W^{}P\overline{P}`$,

$$\overline{\sigma }_\lambda ^P=\frac{1}{16\pi \widehat{s}}\frac{g^4m_W^4\xi _P}{(\widehat{s}m_H^2)^2+m_H^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_H^2}\sqrt{\frac{\widehat{s}4m_P^2}{\widehat{s}4m_W^2}}\rho _\lambda ^P\left(\frac{\widehat{s}}{m_W^2}\right).$$
(16)
In the last equation, $`g`$ is the electroweak $`SU(2)`$ coupling, $`m_P`$, $`m_W`$, and $`m_H`$ stand for the $`P`$, $`W`$, and $`H`$ masses, respectively, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ is the total Higgs width, $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ is the total energy of the initial $`W`$’s in their c.o.m. frame, and $`\xi _P`$ are numerical coefficients ($`\xi _t=\xi _W=1`$, and $`\xi _Z=\frac{1}{2}`$). The functions $`\rho _\lambda ^P(x)`$ are given by

$`\rho _L^t(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(x2)^2}{4}}\rho _T^t(x),\rho _T^t(x)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}r_t(x4r_t)`$
$`\rho _L^V(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(x2)^2}{4}}\rho _T^V(x),\rho _T^V(x)={\displaystyle \frac{(x^24xr_V+12r_V^2)}{4}}`$
where, $`V=(W,Z)`$, $`r_t=m_t^2/m_W^2`$, $`r_W=1`$, and $`r_Z=m_Z^2/m_W^2`$.

Finally, we present the expressions of the coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,\lambda }^P`$ in Eq. (15), arising from the interference of the SM Higgs exchange amplitude near the Higgs pole with the imaginary part \[cf. Eq. (12)\] of the graviscalar/graviton exchange amplitude

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P`$ $`=`$ $`R_\delta c_P\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta 1}{\delta +2}}\right),\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,\lambda }^P=R_\delta f_\lambda ^P\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{m_W^2}}\right)`$
$`R_\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S_{\delta 1}\pi }{4\sqrt{2}G_FM_D^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}{M_D}}\right)^\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_H\mathrm{\Gamma }_H}{\widehat{s}}}\right)`$ (17)
where $`c_P`$ are numerical coefficients ($`c_W=\frac{4}{3}`$, $`c_Z=\frac{2}{3}`$, and $`c_t=\frac{4}{3}`$), and the functions $`f_\lambda ^P(x)`$s are defined as

$`f_L^t(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x+4}{x2}}\right)f_T^t(x),f_T^t(x)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}`$
$`f_L^V(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x+4}{x2}}\right)f_T^V(x),f_T^V(x)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(x4r_V)(x+6r_V)}{(x^24xr_V+12r_V^2)}}.`$
We recall that interference effects arising from the real part of the amplitudes (that we are neglecting) are suppressed by terms of order $`|\widehat{s}m_H^2|/m_H^2`$ on the Breit-Wigner resonance.

When convoluting the partonic $`WW`$ cross sections with the $`W`$’s effective fluxes in the collider beams, it will be useful to approximate the Breit-Wigner propagator in Eq. (16) by a Dirac delta function

$$\frac{1}{(\widehat{s}m_H^2)^2+m_H^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_H^2}\frac{\pi }{m_H\mathrm{\Gamma }_H}\delta (\widehat{s}m_H^2).$$
(19)
A few basic features of the distribution in Eq. (15) can be discussed even before making the convolution with the $`W`$’s fluxes. First of all, as anticipated, the spin structure of the intermediate states determine a flat (Higgs-like) angular distribution for the graviscalar interference contribution, affecting the total cross section by an amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P\times \sigma _{SM}`$. On the other hand, the spin-2 gravitons give rise to a $`(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )`$ angular distribution in the $`WW`$ c.o.m frame, that gives a vanishing result on the total cross section. Nevertheless, an angular analysis of the final state will reflect the nontrivial impact of the $`(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )`$ distribution in the $`WW`$ c.o.m system on the laboratory-frame angular characteristics. For instance, some angular cut on the directions of the final states $`P`$ with respect to the electron/positron beams will originate a non null effect (weighted by the coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,L}^P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,T}^P`$) in the integrated cross sections.

In order to establish the general relevance of the present effects, it is of course crucial to analyze the numerical values of the coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,\lambda }^P`$ for interesting cases of the model parameters. In Tables 1 and 2 the most favorable (experimentally allowed) case of $`M_D=1`$ TeV with $`\delta =2`$ is presented for the processes $`W^+W^{}W^+W^{}`$ and $`W^+W^{}t\overline{t}`$, respectively. The coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,\lambda }^P`$ have been evaluated at $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}=m_H`$, and are presented for different Higgs masses (with $`m_H800`$ GeV) and corresponding total widths. The values of relevant SM parameters in the computation are set as in . The case $`W^+W^{}ZZ`$ can be easily inferred from Table 1, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^Z=\mathrm{\Delta }_0^W/2`$ and, apart from $`o(M_Z^2/M_W^21)`$ effects, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,\lambda }^Z=\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,\lambda }^W`$.

The leading dependence on the Higgs mass of the coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,\lambda }^P`$ arises from the $`R_\delta `$ behavior as a function of $`m_H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$. In general, from Eq. (17), on the Higgs peak, one has

$$R_\delta \frac{S_{\delta 1}}{G_FM_D^2}\left(\frac{m_H}{M_D}\right)^\delta \left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_H}{m_H}\right).$$
(20)
At $`\delta =2`$, $`R_2m_H\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$, and this largely explains the increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,\lambda }^P`$ with $`m_H`$ observed in Tables 1 and 2. One can note that for $`m_H>500`$ GeV most of the coefficients are quite large, and could have an impact on the measurable cross-sections. At $`m_H=800`$ GeV, all the coefficients amount to a few percent. The most striking one seems to be the graviton-interference case in the top quark channel, that gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,T}^t0.1`$ at $`m_H800`$ GeV.

On the other hand, increasing the Planck scale $`M_D`$ can quite affect the coefficient values considered above. From Eq. (20), one has $`R_\delta 1/M_D^{2+\delta }`$. Increasing $`M_D`$ by a factor 2 would imply, for instance, a reduction by a factor about 1/16 on the coefficients values shown in Tables 1 and 2.

## 4 Interference effects in the $`e^+e^{}`$ cross-sections

In the previous section, we have shown that, after integrating over the full range of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ the $`W^+W^{}P\overline{P}`$ angular distribution, the graviton interference, weighted by the function $`(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )`$, vanishes. Only graviscalar-interference effects survive, affecting the total cross sections by a factor $`(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P)`$. The latter will modify the corresponding total cross-sections in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions. In order to pin down the graviton-interference coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,\lambda }^P`$, one should instead optimize the angular analysis of the process by defining proper strategies (like angular cuts or new asymmetries) that can enhance the graviton contribution (cf. ). To this end, it is crucial to consider the laboratory-frame angular distribution for the complete process $`e^+e^{}(WW)\nu \overline{\nu }P\overline{P}`$, that can be obtained by properly boosting the subprocess $`W^+W^{}P\overline{P}`$ according to the initial $`WW`$ fluxes in the electron/positron beams.

In a laboratory frame where the initial $`WW`$ systems moves with velocity $`\beta `$, the $`W^+W^{}P\overline{P}`$ angular distribution in Eq. (15) becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _\lambda ^P}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _L}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }_\lambda ^P}{2}}\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P+\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,\lambda }^P(\theta _L,\beta )\right]𝒥(\theta _L,\beta ),`$ (21)
where

$$(\theta _L,\beta )13\left(\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _L\beta }{1\mathrm{cos}\theta _L\beta }\right)^2;𝒥(\theta _L,\beta )\frac{1\beta ^2}{(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _L)^2},$$
(22)
and $`\theta _L`$ is the $`P`$ scattering angle in laboratory frame. Above, we have neglected terms of order $`m_W^2/E_e^2`$.

We then fold the above partonic cross sections with the probabilities $`P_\lambda ^W(x)`$ of emitting from an $`e^+(e^{})`$ beam a real $`W`$ with polarization $`\lambda `$ and fraction of the beam momentum $`x`$. The $`e^+e^{}(WW)\nu \overline{\nu }P\overline{P}`$ differential cross-section can be written as

$$\frac{d\sigma _{ee}^P(S)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _L}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\lambda =L,T}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\left\{P_\lambda ^W(x_1)P_\lambda ^W(x_2)\frac{d\sigma _\lambda ^P(\widehat{s})}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _L}\right\}$$
(23)
where $`\widehat{s}=x_1x_2S`$ and $`\sqrt{S}=2E_e`$, with $`E_e`$ the energy of the beam in the laboratory c.o.m. system. For the $`W`$-fluxes, we assume the expressions

$`P_T^W(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{64\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^2+2(1x)}{x}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{m_W^2}}\right)`$
$`P_L^W(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{32\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1x}{x}}\right).`$ (24)
We now can have the laboratory-frame angular distribution for the complete process $`e^+e^{}(WW)\nu \overline{\nu }P\overline{P}`$, by convoluting Eq. (21) with the $`W`$-fluxes. By introducing the variables

$$\tau =\frac{m_H^2}{S},\beta =\frac{x^2\tau }{x^2+\tau },r_H=\frac{m_H^2}{m_W^2},$$
(25)
and the definition

$$N_P=\frac{g^4m_W^4\xi _P}{32Sm_H^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_h}\sqrt{\frac{r_H4r_P}{r_H4}}\rho _T^P(r_H),$$
(26)
and, by making use of Eq. (19), one has from Eqs. (21) and (23)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{ee}^P}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _L}}`$ $`=`$ $`N_P\left\{(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P)\left[I_0^L(\theta _L)+I_0^T(\theta _L)\right]+\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,L}^PI_2^L(\theta _L)+\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,T}^PI_2^T(\theta _L)\right\},`$ (27)
where the functions $`I_{0,2}^\lambda (\theta _L)`$ include the integration of the $`W`$ distributions. In particular,

$`I_0^T(\theta _L)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _\tau ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}P_T^W(x)P_T^W\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{x}}\right)𝒥(\theta _L,\beta )`$ (28)
$`I_0^L(\theta _L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(r_H2)^2}{4}}{\displaystyle _\tau ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}P_L^W(x)P_L^W\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{x}}\right)𝒥(\theta _L,\beta )`$ (29)
$`I_2^T(\theta _L)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _\tau ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}P_T^W(x)P_T^W\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{x}}\right)𝒥(\theta _L,\beta )(\theta _L,\beta )`$ (30)
$`I_2^L(\theta _L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(r_H2)^2}{4}}{\displaystyle _\tau ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}P_L^W(x)P_L^W\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{x}}\right)𝒥(\theta _L,\beta )(\theta _L,\beta ),`$ (31)
where the factor 2 in the transverse functions $`I_{0,2}^T(\theta _L)`$ comes from the two different initial $`W`$ polarization transverse projections that contribute to a spin-0 state.

For the graviton component, the zeros of the $`(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )`$ distribution in the $`WW`$ c.o.m. frame are in general shifted by the $`WW`$ boosts to higher values of $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |`$.

In Figure 2a, we show (by the symbol $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$) the graviscalar contribution and (by the symbol $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$) the graviton contribution (including both the longitudinal and the transverse part) to the total interference with the SM amplitude in the angular distribution in Eq. (27), at $`\sqrt{S}=500`$ GeV and $`m_H=300`$ GeV.

In order to pin down the graviton contribution in Eq. (27), one can then measure the angular distribution integrated over a selected $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _L`$ range, where the corresponding distribution keeps, for instance, a positive (or a negative) value. The corresponding cross section measured with an angular cut $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _L|<ϵ`$ (where $`\pm ϵ`$ could be the zeros of the distribution) will be given by

$$\sigma _{ee}^{P,ϵ}=\overline{\sigma }_{ee}^{P,ϵ}\left(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P+\alpha _L^ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,L}^P+\alpha _T^ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,T}^P\right),$$
(32)
with

$`\overline{\sigma }_{ee}^{P,ϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`N_P{\displaystyle _ϵ^ϵ}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _L\left[I_0^L(\theta _L)+I_0^T(\theta _L)\right],`$
$`\alpha _\lambda ^ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_ϵ^ϵd\mathrm{cos}\theta _LI_2^\lambda (\theta _L)}{_ϵ^ϵd\mathrm{cos}\theta _L\left[I_0^L(\theta _L)+I_0^T(\theta _L)\right]}},`$ (33)
where $`\overline{\sigma }_{ee}^{P,ϵ}`$ is the SM cross section restricted to the angular range $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _L|<ϵ`$ , and $`\alpha _\lambda ^ϵ`$ are angular weights for the graviton interference effect on the cross section. Note that, due to Lorentz invariance, one must find $`\alpha _\lambda ^1=0`$. Keeping $`ϵ<1`$, on the other hand, will give rise in general to nonvanishing graviton contributions to the cross sections.

From Figure 2a, by choosing an angular cut equal to the zeros of the corresponding angular distribution (that is $`ϵ0.66`$), one can optimize the total graviton contribution. Correspondingly, one gets the following weights for the transverse and longitudinal graviton components : $`\alpha _T0.36`$ and $`\alpha _L0.16`$.

Applying a similar strategy to the $`\sqrt{S}=1`$ TeV case (cf. Figure 2b), one has, for $`m_H=300`$ GeV, $`ϵ0.86`$ with $`\alpha _T0.18`$ and $`\alpha _L0.09`$. For $`m_H=500`$ GeV, one can selects the central range where the graviton distribution keeps negative values, and set $`ϵ0.60`$. Correspondingly, one has $`\alpha _T0.13`$ and $`\alpha _L0.43`$.

Hence, one in general expects that the graviton coefficients in Table 1 will contribute to the measured cross section with reduction factors of a few tens percent according to Eq. (32). At the same time, the graviscalar contribution, having the same flat distribution as the SM signal, will always contribute by the total relative amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ to both the total and the cut cross section.

## 5 Gravity interference effects at $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ colliders

A cleaner framework where to study gravity interference effects on the Higgs boson pole is clearly given by a Higgs boson factory. Although presently challenging from a technological point of view, a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider with c.o.m. energies around $`m_H`$ is the natural place where to realize a Higgs boson factory .

One then should consider the gravity interference with the Higgs exchange diagram for the process

$$\mu ^+\mu ^{}P\overline{P},$$
(34)
with $`P=t,W,Z`$.

For unpolarized initial states, the cross section for the latter process, including interference contributions with the graviscalar and graviton exchange graphs, can be expressed near the Higgs pole as:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^P}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }^P}{2}}\left\{1+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P+\mathrm{\Delta }_2^P(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )\right\},`$ (35)
where

$$\overline{\sigma }^P=\frac{d_P}{8\pi s}\frac{G_F^2m_\mu ^2m_P^4}{(sm_H^2)^2+m_H^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^2}\sqrt{\frac{s4m_P^2}{s4m_\mu ^2}}(s4m_\mu ^2)\rho _P\left(\frac{s}{m_P^2}\right),$$
(36)
with

$$\rho _t(x)=(x4),\rho _{W,Z}(x)=\frac{1}{2}(x^24x+12),$$
(37)
is the SM total cross section for the process in Eq. (34). Here, $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the total collision energy in the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ c.o.m. frame, and the coefficients $`d_P`$ for the different final states have the following values: $`d_t=3`$, $`d_W=1`$ and $`d_Z=\frac{1}{2}`$.

The coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P`$ are the same as in Eq. (17)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0^P=R_\delta c_P\left(\frac{\delta 1}{\delta +2}\right),$$
(38)
with $`c_t=c_W=\frac{4}{3}`$ and $`c_Z=\frac{2}{3}`$, and $`R_\delta `$ as in Eq. (17). For the coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^P`$ , one has instead

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_2^t=\frac{4}{3}R_\delta ,\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{W,Z}=R_\delta \frac{2}{3}\frac{(x4)(x+6)}{x^24x+12},$$
(39)
with $`x=s/m_{W,Z}^2`$.

Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{t,W}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,T}^{t,W}`$, with coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,T}^{t,W}`$ defined as in Eq. (17). As a consequence of the above identities, a few numerical interesting values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{t,W}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{t,W}`$, for $`M_D=1`$ TeV and $`\delta =2`$, can be found back in the Tables 1 and 2.

Even in the process $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}P\overline{P}`$ the gravity interference effects can be quite large for high Higgs boson masses. Also in this case, in order to enhance the graviton contribution (that vanishes in the total cross section) it would be sufficient to properly exclude in the measured cross-section the forward-backward direction. This can be straightforwardly done in this case by properly cutting the $`\theta `$ range in Eq. (34).

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper, we computed gravity interference effects in Higgs boson production at future colliders in the framework of the models based on large compact extra dimensions proposed in . In particular, we considered the Higgs production channel via $`WW`$ fusion at linear colliders (that we treat in the effective $`W`$ approximation) with a subsequent Higgs decay into pairs of heavy particles ($`WW,ZZ,t\overline{t}`$). We also analyzed Higgs production and decay channels at $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ Higgs factories. The interference of graviton/graviscalar exchange diagrams with resonant Higgs production and decay channels has the advantage with respect to usual virtual graviton/graviscalar exchange channels to lead to a completely predictive determination in terms of the Planck scale $`M_D`$ and number of extra dimensions $`\delta `$. The effect on the SM angular distribution in general increases with the Higgs boson mass (for $`\delta =2`$, the effect is proportional to $`m_H\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$). The graviscalar interference, that does not alter the shape of the distributions, changes its normalization by a few percent for $`m_H>500`$ GeV, if $`M_D1`$ TeV and $`\delta =2`$.

On the other hand, due to the different spin properties of the graviton and Higgs boson amplitude, the graviton interference alters the angular shape by a universal $`(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )`$ distribution (in the $`W^+W^{}`$ or $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ c.o.m. frame) with a coefficient that is again of the order of a few percent for $`m_H>500`$ GeV. The latter distribution is averaged to zero in the total cross section. Hence, in order to select a graviton effect, we suggest angular-cut strategies that enhance the graviton interference contribution in the measured cross section.

In order to detect such indirect graviton effects in Higgs cross section measurements, it is crucial that the actual experimental set up will be able to reach the required sensitivity. While assessing the final precision of muon colliders is premature at the moment, quite a few studies on this subject have been carried out for the linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders . In particular, the precision expected on the measurement of the cross section for Higgs boson production via $`WW`$ fusion has been considered in  (see also ) for a light Higgs decaying predominantly into $`b`$ quark pairs, and is of the order of a few percent. A detailed study for heavier Higgs bosons (that are the relevant ones for our study) is presently missing, to our knowledge. Anyhow, a percent precision in the cross section measurements should allow to detect some effect at least in the most favorable case of $`M_D1`$ TeV and $`\delta =2`$ at both linear colliders and Higgs factories. The effect scales as $`1/M_D^{2+\delta }`$ with the Planck mass scale.

A complete treatment (i.e., beyond the effective $`W`$ approximation) of the cross-section in the $`WW`$ fusion process at linear colliders is not expected to alter our conclusions.

Note that, by the time experiments at linear colliders should be operating, the LHC will have presumably observed the direct production of gravitons in the range of parameters that could be relevant for our precision measurements. In particular, a direct graviton signal is expected, for $`\delta =2,3,4`$, for $`M_D`$ up to a few TeV’s . The information derived from the direct graviton production and observation at LHC will definitely help in disentangling the deviations in the Higgs cross sections and distributions analyzed in the present paper.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank M. Giovannini, M. Porrati, and M. Testa for useful discussions. E.G. and A.D. would also like to thank the Physics Department of University of Roma “La Sapienza”, while E.G. thanks also the CERN Theory Division, for their kind of hospitality during the preparation of this work. A.D. and E.G. also thank Academy of Finland (project number 48787) for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Photoproduction of 𝜂'-mesons from the Proton

## I Introduction

The investigation of the production of $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons in hadron and photon induced reactions provides direct access to low energy QCD dynamics. The intrinsic properties of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson are dominated by the gluonic degrees of freedom and continue to attract theoretical and experimental interest since the first observation of $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons  in the reaction $`K^{}p\mathrm{\Lambda }\eta ^{}`$ at LBL and BNL in 1964.

The mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson is substantially larger than the ones of the other mesons from the pseudoscalar meson nonet. Therefore, the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson could not be considered as pure pseudoscalar Goldstone boson with a mass generated by spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. However, the strong chiral $`U_A(1)`$ anomaly in QCD allows the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson to gain additional mass by different mechanisms . The large mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson can be viewed as being generated essentially by non-perturbative gluon dynamics and the $`U_A(1)`$ axial anomaly.

Furthermore, an anomalous gluon not only generates a large $`\eta ^{}`$ meson mass, but also affects the dynamics of the $`\eta ^{}`$-nucleon interaction. The flavor singlet Goldberger-Treiman relation correlates  the $`\eta ^{}`$-nucleon coupling constant, $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}`$, and the flavor singlet axial charge of the nucleon, $`g_A^0`$, and in the chiral limit  one has

$$g_A^0=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\frac{F_0}{m_N}(g_{\eta ^{}NN}g_{GNN}).$$
(1)
Here $`m_N`$ is the nucleon mass, $`F_0=0.1`$ GeV renormalizes the flavor singlet decay constant , and $`g_{GNN}`$ is the gluon-nucleon coupling . Moreover, $`g_A^0`$ can be decomposed in terms of the quark and gluon spin components of the proton .

Unexpectedly, a very small value of $`g_A^0=0.2÷0.35`$ was extracted from EMC measurements  of the polarized proton structure function. In a naive parton interpretation, i.e. neglecting the gluonic degrees of freedom by taking $`g_{GNN}=0`$, the EMC result indicates that the quark contribution to the proton spin, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=\sqrt{3/2}g_{\eta ^{}NN}F_0/m_N`$, is compatible with zero. This interpretation has supported speculations either about the validity of experimental results and data analysis or the applicability of perturbative QCD. Alternatively, the spin crisis can be resolved by substituting a large positive value, $`g_{GNN}2.45`$, and substantial cancellation between the quark and gluon spin components. It was suggested , that instead of the gluon component the contribution from the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson is canceled by the higher mass states, which are either radial excitations of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson or glueball states.

At present, the two component interpretation of the axial charge is generally accepted. However, both $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}`$ and $`g_{GNN}`$ coupling constants are not known individually. The origin of the proton spin and its decomposition in terms of quark and gluon degrees of freedom still remain controversial. However, it is believed that the coupling constant $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}`$ defines up to large extent the total spin of the nucleon carried by its constituents.

It is important to note that the coupling constant $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}`$ may experimentally be accessible in nuclear reactions involving the coupling between the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson and the nucleon.

The reaction $`pppp\eta ^{}`$ was intensively studied at COSY  and SATURNE . Theoretical calculations  allow a description of the data entirely by the meson exchange currents. It was found that the contribution of the nucleon current to the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson production in proton-proton collisions is small. Thus the reaction $`pppp\eta ^{}`$ is not well suited for the direct evaluation of the coupling constant $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}`$. Additional measurements of differential cross sections and more detailed theoretical studies are necessary to determine under what conditions the nucleon exchange current may dominate the meson exchange or may be at least partially isolated.

Experimental information  about the reactions $`\pi ^{}p\eta ^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+n\eta ^{}p`$ is insensitive to the contribution from the nucleon exchange, although in principle these reactions would be well suited for the determination of the coupling constant $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}`$. Here the situation may be substantially improved with new and precise data for $`\eta ^{}`$ meson production at large angles, where the nucleon current dominates.

The reaction $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$ was studied by a number of collaborations, namely ABBHHM , AHHM  and SAPHIR . While ABBHHM and AHHM measured only the total cross section for the photoproduction of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson at photon energies $`1.67E_\gamma 5`$ GeV, the SAPHIR collaboration at ELSA studied the angular spectra of the $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons produced at photon energies $`0.9E_\gamma 2.6`$ GeV. In addition, the photoproduction of $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons from the nucleon is presently experimentally investigated by the CLAS Collaboration at TJNAF  and by the Crystal Barrel Collaboration at ELSA.

Currently experimental and theoretical  studies of the reaction $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$ are motivated by the possibility to investigate excited baryons coupled to the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson. Assuming that the resonance production is the dominant contribution, an isobar analysis  of the SAPHIR data shows that the $`\eta ^{}`$-photoproduction at photon energies $`0.9E_\gamma 2.6`$ GeV can be described by the coherent excitation of two resonances, $`S_{11}(1897)`$ and $`P_{11}(1986)`$. However, the presently available data  for the $`\eta ^{}`$-photoproduction are quite limited. Thus, an evaluation of resonance properties from these data should be considered with caution. It is also clear that the contribution from the meson exchange current to the reaction $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$ can not be completely neglected, as was shown in the analysis of the reaction $`pppp\eta ^{}`$.

Here we investigate up to what extent present data for the reaction $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$ can be described by the exchange of vector mesons in the $`t`$ channel and the nucleon exchange in the $`s`$ and $`u`$ channels. We do not consider contributions from baryonic resonances with masses above the production threshold. If possible resonances will significantly contribute to the production mechanism, then a discrepancy between our calculation and data should indicate this.

In addition, we aim to investigate the conditions under which the nucleon exchange current can be well controlled, and whether the reaction $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$ may be used to better determine the coupling constant $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}`$.

## II Vector Meson exchange as production mechanism

One of the well established results in particle physics is that for very high energies, i.e. $`E_\gamma >`$5 GeV, Regge trajectories provide the dominant processes for peripheral reactions. At energies well below 5 GeV, but still clearly above the resonance region the photoproduction of mesons can be described the $`t`$ channel meson exchanges. In our case the photoproduction of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson is dominated by the exchanges of the $`\rho `$ and the $`\omega `$ meson. The relevant Feynman diagrams are shown in Fig. 1. The four momenta of the initial nucleon and photon and the final nucleon and $`\eta ^{}`$ meson are denoted as $`p_i`$, $`k`$, $`p_f`$ and $`q`$, respectively.

We use the Mandelstam invariants to define the reaction kinematics and invariant reaction amplitudes, namely

$`s`$ $`=`$ $`(p_i+k)^2=(p_f+q)^2=m_N^2+2m_NE_\gamma `$ (2)
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`(p_ip_f)^2=(kq)^2`$ (3)
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`(kp_f)^2=(p_iq)^2=2m_N^2+m_\eta ^{}^2ts.`$ (4)
The relation between the four momentum transfer squared and the scattering polar angle $`\theta `$ is given as

$$t=m_\eta ^{}^22q^0k^0+2|𝐪||𝐤|\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(5)
Thus, $`\eta ^{}`$ meson photoproduction at backward angles, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =`$1, corresponds to the maximal four momentum transfer squared, -$`t`$, and increases with increasing the photon energy $`E_\gamma `$. Moreover the maximal –$`t`$ corresponds to the minimal value of $`|u|`$. At the production threshold for $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons the squared invariant collision energy is given by $`s=(m_N+m_\eta ^{})^2`$, and the invariant $`t`$ takes the form

$$t=\frac{m_Nm_\eta ^{}^2}{m_N+m_\eta ^{}}=0.45\text{G}eV^2.$$
(6)
From Eq. (6) it is obvious, that already at the reaction threshold the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson photoproduction probes large $`|t|`$. Thus, the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ meson exchanges should be very sensitive  to the choice of the form factors at the nonlocal interaction vertices. The shaded area in Fig. 2 shows the range of the four momenta transfer squared $`t`$ accessible in the reaction $`\gamma N\eta ^{}N`$ at a given photon energy $`E_\gamma `$, or at a given squared invariant collision energy $`s`$. The figure shows clearly that for the energies available at ELSA and TJNAF, namely $`E_\gamma <2.5`$ GeV, the photoproduction of $`\eta ^{}`$\- mesons probes large $`|t|`$ up to $``$-3 GeV2.

Furthermore, it is important to notice that uncertainties in the $`t`$-channel contributions due to unknown coupling constants and form factors can be eliminated through data collected at energies slightly beyond the resonance region. Here the $`t`$-channel contributions dominate at the low four momentum transfer squared. We also note that at high energies, $`E_\gamma >`$5 GeV, the elementary particle exchange should be generalized to the correct expression for the exchange of a Regge trajectory with physical coupling constants comprising the residue . Thus, the availability of precision data at photon energies $`2<E_\gamma <5`$ GeV is very crucial for the theoretical analysis of $`t`$-channel exchanges.

The effective Lagrangian densities used for the evaluation of the vector meson ($`V`$) exchange amplitudes are given as

$`_{VNN}`$ $`=`$ $`g_V\overline{N}\gamma _\mu NV^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{g_T}{2m_N}}\overline{N}\sigma _{\mu \nu }NV^{\mu \nu }`$ (7)
$`_{V\eta ^{}\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eg_{V\eta ^{}\gamma }}{m_\eta ^{}}}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F^{\mu \nu }V^{\alpha \beta }\eta ^{}.`$ (8)
Here $`m_\eta ^{}`$ stands for the mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson, $`m_N`$ for the mass of the nucleon. The vector meson field tensor is given by $`V_{\mu \nu }=_\nu V_\mu _\mu V_\nu `$, and $`F^{\mu \nu }=_\nu A_\mu _\mu A_\nu `$ with $`A^\mu `$ being the photon field.

The vector ($`g_V`$) and tensor ($`g_T`$) coupling constants at the $`\omega NN`$ and $`\rho NN`$ vertices are adopted from the Bonn potential model . As in the NN potential model, we dress the vertices with monopole form factors,

$$F_{VNN}(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{VNN}^2m_V^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{VNN}^2t},$$
(9)
with $`m_V`$ being the mass of the vector meson. We adopt the cut-off parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{VNN}`$=1.5 GeV from the Bonn model, as well as the coupling contants $`g_{\rho NN}`$=3.9 and $`g_{\omega NN}`$=10.6. The ratio of the tensor to vector coupling is 6.1 for the $`\rho `$ meson and zero for the $`\omega `$ meson.

The couplings for the $`\rho \eta ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\omega \eta ^{}\gamma `$ vertices can be evaluated from the partial decay widths of the reactions $`\eta ^{}\gamma \rho `$ and $`\eta ^{}\omega \rho `$. The two quantities are related by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta ^{}\gamma V}=\frac{e^2g_{V\eta ^{}\gamma }^2}{32\pi }\frac{(m_\eta ^{}^2m_V^2)^3}{m_\eta ^{}^5},$$
(10)
where $`e^2=4\pi \alpha `$, with $`\alpha `$ being the electromagnetic coupling. With $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \gamma \eta ^{}}=60\pm 5`$ keV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \gamma \eta ^{}}=6.1\pm 0.8`$ keV we obtain $`g_{\rho \eta ^{}\gamma }`$=1.36, and $`g_{\omega \eta ^{}\gamma }`$=0.4.

The form factors at the $`\rho \eta ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\omega \eta ^{}\gamma `$ vertices are not fixed by the model. As shown in Fig. 2(a), the $`\eta ^{}`$\- meson photoproduction probes a large region of $`|t|`$. Thus we expect that our calculations may be very sensitive to the choice of the unknown form factor at the $`V\eta ^{}\gamma `$ vertex. Moreover, because of an anomalous gluon component, the structure function of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson is different from the one for mesons which are built up from quark-antiquark configurations. In a meson exchange model the intrinsic structure of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson enters effectively through the form factors at the $`\rho \eta ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\omega \eta ^{}\gamma `$ vertices, which do not necessarily have to be of the standard monopole or dipole type . In principle, the form factor at large $`|t|`$ is given by the meson structure function at short distances and in case of $`\eta ^{}`$ meson might be defined through its gluon component.

For our calculations we adopt an exponential form factor

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{V\eta ^{}\gamma }(t)=\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{V\eta ^{}\gamma }t),$$
(11)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{V\eta ^{}\gamma }=1.2`$ GeV-2 being our best choice value obtained by adjusting to the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson photoproduction data. Its behavior as function of the four momentum squared, $`t`$, is shown by the solid line in Fig. 2(b). As comparison we show in the same figure as dashed line the monopole form factor of Eq. (9) with the standard  cut-off parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{VNN}`$=1 GeV. For this comparison, the exponential form factor is renormalized to $`F_{VNN}(t)=1`$ at $`t=m_\rho ^2`$, where $`m_\rho `$ being the $`\rho `$ meson mass. While the exponential and monopole form factors are almost identical for small $`|t|`$, i.e. $`|t|<0.8`$ GeV2, the difference at large –$`t`$ is quite obvious.

Finally, the four Lorentz and gauge invariant amplitudes  for the reaction $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$ due to the vector meson exchanges are given as

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eg_{V\eta ^{}\gamma }}{m_\eta ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_T}{2m_N}}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{tm_V^2}}`$ (12)
$`A_1+tA_2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (13)
$`A_3`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (14)
$`A_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eg_{V\eta ^{}\gamma }g_V}{m_\eta ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_V^2}}.`$ (15)
It is understood that each amplitude contains in addition the product of the form factors at the $`VNN`$ and $`V\eta ^{}\gamma `$ vertices.

The differential cross section for the photoproduction of $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons due to the vector meson exchange is obtained from

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}=\frac{F_{VNN}^2(t)F_{V\eta ^{}\gamma }^2(t)}{16\pi (sm_N^2)^2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}Q_{i,j}\underset{\rho ,\omega }{}A_i\underset{\rho ,\omega }{}A_j^{},$$
(16)
where $`Q_{ij}`$ are the well known  hermitian matrix elements given in terms of Mandelstam invariants.

In Figs. 3 and 4 we display the differential cross sections for the reaction $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$ measured by the SAPHIR collaboration at ELSA . We choose to plot the cross section $`d\sigma /dt`$ instead of the angular spectra , since in this case the slope with respect to $`t`$ explicitly indicates the strength of the form factor. Thus, the $`t`$ scale provides an appropriate representation of the data collected at large four momentum transfer squared.

The solid lines in Figs. 3 and 4 represents our results obtained with an exponential form factor $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{V\eta ^{}\gamma }(t)`$ at the $`\omega \eta ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\rho \eta ^{}\gamma `$ vertices with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{V\eta ^{}\gamma }=`$1.2 GeV-2, and they reproduce for photon energies $`E_\gamma 1.9`$ GeV quite reasonably.

As a motivation of the form factor at the $`\rho \eta ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\omega \eta ^{}\gamma `$ vertices we analyze the experimental differential cross sections in a parameterized form as

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}=A\mathrm{exp}(bt).$$
(17)
The slope $`b`$ and the constant $`A`$ are shown in ig. 5 as function of the invariant collision energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. It should be noted that $`A`$ here does not represent the magnitude of the differential cross section at $`t=0`$, as can be well understood from Fig.2, but an extrapolated value.

Within experimental uncertainties the slope $`b`$ does not depend on the energy and can be well fitted by a constant value $`b=1.8\pm 0.2`$ GeV-2, as is shown by the solid line in Fig.5(b). The $`t`$ dependence at low four momentum transfer squared beyond the resonance region is dominated by the vector exchange contribution. Therefore, the slope $`b=1.8`$ GeV-2 at $`\sqrt{s}>`$2 GeV can be linked to the form factor at the $`\rho \eta ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\omega \eta ^{}\gamma `$ vertices.

Possible contribution from other $`\eta ^{}`$ meson photoproduction mechanisms might change the slope $`b`$ at lower energies. If the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson couples to additional resonances, the exponential slope of $`t`$ dependence may increase or decrease in the resonance region, depending whether an interference between the resonant and vector meson exchange contributions is destructive or constructive. The size of the change of the slope with the photon energy will depend on the strength of the resonance coupling to $`\eta ^{}`$ meson. However, as we found the uncertainties of the data are still too large to clarify this feature.

Finally, since both, the slope of the $`t`$ dependence of $`\eta ^{}`$ meson photoproduction cross section and the constant $`A`$ do not depend on the energy at $`\sqrt{s}>`$2.0 GeV, we adjust the cut off parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{V\eta ^{}\gamma }`$=1.2 GeV-2 at these energies through  the logarithmic derivative of the differential cross section. The solid line in Fig. 5 shows the local slope at $`t`$=–0.6 GeV2 evaluated as

$$b(t,\sqrt{s})=\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{d\sigma }{dt}\right],$$
(18)
with the differential cross section for the reaction $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$ given by Eq. (16).

We also want to compare our calculation based on an exponential form factor $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{V\eta ^{}\gamma }`$ to a calculation, where we employ a standard monopole form factor at the $`\omega \eta ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\rho \eta ^{}\gamma `$ vertices. The dashed lines in Figs. 3 and 4 show such a calculation with a cut-off parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{V\eta ^{}\gamma }=`$1.5 GeV at the $`\omega \eta ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\rho \eta ^{}\gamma `$ vertices. This value is identical to the one at the $`\omega NN`$ and $`\rho NN`$ vertices. We see that a calculation with a monopole form factor at the electro-magnetic vertices can not reproduce the $`t`$ dependence of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson photoproduction data especially at photon energies above 1.7 GeV. It should not be surprising, that form factors as the vertices with the vector mesons coupling to the nucleon are different from the ones where the vector mesons couple to the photon, since the internal structure of those vertices is different.

The comparison between the SAPHIR data  and our calculations based on vector meson exchange as sole production mechanism leads to the following conclusions. First, a comparison of the calculations to the data for small photon energies, $`E_\gamma 1.6`$ GeV, shows some room for a possible contributions from $`s`$ wave resonances. However, we do not see much room for the contribution from the $`p`$ wave resonance, which must introduce an additional $`t`$ dependence. Second, the differential cross section at $`E_\gamma =2.1`$ GeV seems to indicates some enhancement at maximal –$`t`$ or small $`|u|`$, which can not be explained by considering vector meson exchange alone. Indeed, this enhancement may point to the importance of considering the nucleon exchange as part of the production mechanism.

## III Contributions from Baryon Resonances

The possibility of studying excited baryons which couple to the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson in the in the reaction $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$ initiated considerable theoretical activity , in which contributions from a number of resonances were introduced. For example, the approach of Refs. , based on effective Lagrangians, considers nine baryonic resonances in different partial waves. These are two $`S_{11}`$ resonances as $`N^{}(2030)`$ and $`N^{}(2090)`$, three $`D_{13}`$ resonances as $`N^{}(2055)`$, $`N^{}(2080)`$ and $`N^{}(2095)`$, two $`D_{15}`$ resonances, $`N^{}(2080)`$ and $`N^{}(2200)`$ and one $`F_{17}`$ resonance, $`N^{}(1990)`$. Contributions from only the $`S_{11}(2090)`$, $`P_{11}(2100)`$ and $`P_{13}(1900)`$ resonances are discussed in the Regge model calculation of Ref. . In contrast, the quark model calculation of Ref.  considers only a $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance.

Because of the large uncertainties in the experimental results and the very limited number of experimental points  presently available for the reaction $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$, we prefer to introduce as few resonances into our calculation as possible. It is also clear, that large uncertainties in the selection of the parameters of potential resonances, i.e. mass and width, the coupling to the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson as well as our lack of knowledge about relevant form factors at the resonance vertices might provide quite a large freedom in describing the present data by isobar contributions. Having this in mind, and considering our results from Figs. 3 and 4, we see that we mostly underpredict the present data close to the reaction threshold. Overall, we find that the data can be reasonably well described by a single production mechanism, namely the exchange of vector mesons. It is also clear that this exchange of vector mesons can be reggeized , providing it is applicable at the very high energies. Thus, concluding from Fig. 5 we only have room for additional contributions at photon energies $`E_\gamma <1.7`$ GeV, or at invariant collision energies below 2 GeV. Furthermore, since the slope $`b`$ of the $`t`$ dependence does not change at $`E_\gamma <1.7`$ GeV, we also do not see room for the contribution from any $`p`$ wave (or higher partial wave) resonances.

A closer look at Fig.5(a) reveals, that this possible additional contribution dominates already at the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson photoproduction threshold, $`\sqrt{s}1896`$ MeV, decreases with increasing photon energy and almost vanishes for $`\sqrt{s}2010`$ MeV. Since the differential cross section, $`d\sigma /dt`$, given in Eq.(16) does not contain a final phase space factor, the constants $`A`$ can be considered as being proportional to the squared averaged reaction matrix element, which has a maximum value at threshold and saturates with increasing the photon energy. Thus we guess that energies with $`1896\sqrt{s}2010`$ MeV (see Fig.2(a)) are influenced by the tale of a resonance which has a pole at or below the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson photoproduction threshold.

Since there are little constraints on resonances coupled to the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson, different choices of $`s`$ wave resonances having masses below 1896 MeV are in principle possible. In general, the interaction Lagrangians for a $`N(\frac{1}{2}^\pm )`$ nucleon resonances are given as

$`_{\eta ^{}NR}=ig_{\eta ^{}NR}\overline{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }N\eta ^{}+\text{h}.c.,`$ (19)
$`_{\gamma NR}=e\overline{R}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _R^S+\kappa _R^V\tau _3}{2(m_N+m_R)}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\sigma _{\mu \nu }NF^{\mu \nu }+\text{h}.c.,`$ (20)
where $`m_R`$ denotes the resonance mass, $`R`$ the field operator of the resonance, and $`\kappa _R^S`$ and $`\kappa _R^V`$ are the isoscalar and isovector transition magnetic couplings. The vertex functions for nucleon resonances $`R`$ with negative parity are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=1 and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\gamma _5`$, while resonances with positive parity have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _5`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=`$1.

Furthermore, for a proton target $`\kappa _R^p=\kappa _R^S+\kappa _R^V`$ and the relation between the magnetic coupling and the helicity amplitude $`A_{1/2}^p`$ is given by

$$|A_{1/2}^p|^2=\left(\frac{e\kappa _R^p}{m_N+m_R}\right)^2\frac{m_R^2m_N^2}{2m_N}.$$
(21)
For a neutron target one has $`\kappa _R^n=\kappa _R^S\kappa _R^V`$, and the helicity amplitudes $`Rp\gamma `$ and $`Rn\gamma `$ are given by the Particle Data Group . We take $`\kappa _R`$=2.3. The couplings of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson to baryon resonances, $`g_{\eta ^{}NR}`$, are generally unknown and can only be adjusted to data. In our calculation a value $`g_{\eta ^{}RN}`$=3.4 is adopted.

Finally, the invariant amplitudes for $`s`$ and $`u`$-channel nucleon resonance contributions can be written as

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{eg_{\eta ^{}NR}\kappa _R(m_N\pm m_R)}{m_N+m_R}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_R^2}}\right],`$ (22)
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (23)
$`A_3`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{eg_{\eta ^{}NR}\kappa _R}{m_N+m_R}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_R^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_R^2}}\right],`$ (24)
$`A_3`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{eg_{\eta ^{}NR}\kappa _R}{m_N+m_R}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_R^2}}\right],`$ (25)
where the plus sign is assigned to the negative parity excited state, while the minus sign corresponds to positive parity excited state. The coupling $`\kappa _R`$ stands for the magnetic coupling for a proton or a neutron target.

Furthermore, we include form factors at the interaction vertices, because an excited, intermediate baryon resonance is off shell. In our calculations we employ an overall formfactor with the general form

$$F(u,s)=F(u)+F(s)F(u)F(s).$$
(26)
The individual formfactors in the $`u`$ and $`s`$ channels are given by

$$F(r)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R^4}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R^4(rm_R^2)^2}.$$
(27)
Here $`r=s`$ or $`u`$, and the cut off parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_R`$ is adjusted to the data. In our calculations we use $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_R`$=1 GeV, and take the same values for both, the $`u`$ and the $`s`$ channels.

To study the influence of s-wave resonances on the behavior of the differential cross section close to the production threshold, we prefer to select only the well known $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance and investigate, whether its contribution is sufficient to account for the difference between our calculation based on vector meson exchange alone and the data for photon energies $`E_\gamma <`$1.7 GeV.

Our calculations including the contribution of the resonance $`S_{11}(1535)`$ as well as the vector meson exchange is shown as solid line in Fig. 6 in comparison to the data for photon energies $`1.5E_\gamma 2.1`$ GeV. The dashed line represents the calculation with the vector meson exchange alone. The resonant contribution dominates around the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson photoproduction threshold and vanishes with increasing the photon energy.

Concluding this section we want to emphasize that our calculations do not prove that resonant contributions to the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson photoproduction are not necessarily only those from the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance. Large uncertainties in selection of the coupling constants $`g_{\eta ^{}NR}`$ to resonances as well as in cutoff parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_R`$ allow sufficient freedom to consider more resonant contributions. However, in this work, we did not prefer to include any other resonance than $`S_{11}(1535)`$.

## IV Contribution of the Nucleon Exchange

Since the mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson is close to the nucleon mass, the range of the squared four momentum $`u`$ available in the reaction $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$ is almost the same as the range of the variable $`t`$ as is indicated in Fig. 2. As $`u`$ approaches its minimal value, the contribution from the nucleon exchange increases due to the $`u`$ dependence of the squared nucleon propagator, $`(um_N^2)^2`$.

To map out the $`u`$ dependence of the differential cross section, it is worthwhile to perform the measurements at sufficiently large photon energies, which provide access to a wide range of $`u`$. In addition, at large energies the separation between the $`t`$ and the $`u`$ channel becomes more pronounced. At the same time, the $`s`$ channel contribution from the nucleon exchange is small because of the $`s`$ dependence of the squared nucleon propagator, $`(sm_N^2)^2`$.

Obviously, baryon resonances may also contribute at small $`|u|`$. However, they contribute at the same time to the $`s`$ channel and fill the gap between small –$`t`$ and small –$`u`$. Though it may not be possible to evaluate resonance properties unambiguously from the data, the overall resonant contribution can be fitted, as we illustrated in the previous section. Thus the resonant background to the $`u`$ channel nucleon exchange contribution can be well estimated and subtracted.

In general, the contribution from the nucleon exchange current can be measured at small $`u`$ or at backward angles in meson photoproduction reaction. Obviously, the size of the contribution will depend on the strength of the coupling of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson to the nucleon. In fact, such an increase of the differential cross section at small $`u`$ was detected in the photoproduction of $`\pi `$ and $`\omega `$ mesons . Thus, it may also be observed in the photoproduction of $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons.

The effective Langrangians for the $`\gamma NN`$ and $`\eta ^{}NN`$ interaction can be written as

$`_{\gamma NN}`$ $`=`$ $`e\overline{N}\left(\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1+\tau _3}{2}}A^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^S+\kappa ^V\tau _3}{4m_N}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)N`$ (28)
$`_{\eta ^{}NN}`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{\eta ^{}NN}\overline{N}\gamma _5N\eta ^{}.`$ (29)
Here $`\kappa ^S`$ and $`\kappa ^V`$ are the isoscalar and isovector anomalous magnetic moments of the nucleon, $`\kappa _p=\kappa ^S+\kappa ^V=1.79`$ and while $`\kappa _n=\kappa ^S\kappa ^V=1.91`$ stand for the proton and neutron, respectively.

The four invariant amplitudes for the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson photoproduction due to the nucleon exchange current in $`s`$ and $`u`$ channels are given as

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`e_Neg_{\eta ^{}NN}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_N^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_N^2}}\right],`$ (30)
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e_Neg_{\eta ^{}NN}}{(sm_N^2)(um_N^2)}},`$ (31)
$`A_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eg_{\eta ^{}NN}\kappa _N}{2m_N}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_N^2}}\right],`$ (32)
$`A_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eg_{\eta ^{}NN}\kappa _N}{2m_N}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_N^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_N^2}}\right],`$ (33)
where $`e_N=0`$ for a neutron and $`e_N=1`$ for a proton target. In principle, we should consider formfactors at the interaction vertices, since the nucleons are off shell in the intermediate state. However, the introduction of a form factor violates gauge invariance. To prevent this, we use the form factor given by Eqs.(26,27) with a cutoff parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$=800 MeV.

As we discussed in the introduction, the coupling constant $`\eta ^{}NN`$ is unknown and we suggest the possibility to obtain information and constraints on it from the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson photoproduction data at small $`|u|`$. However, within accuracy of the present data shown in Fig. 7, it is quite speculative to discuss additional contributions and any enhancement of the differential cross section for the reaction $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$ at small $`|u|`$. Thus, for the present calculations of the nucleon exchange contribution we only estimate the size of the $`\eta ^{}NN`$ coupling constant.

Because of the $`SU(3)`$ breaking the pseudoscalar octet mixes with the corresponding pseudoscalar singlet to produce the physical $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ meson states. Taking the $`\eta `$-$`\eta ^{}`$ mixing angle $`\theta 20^o`$ and the ratio of the singlet to octet constants $`\sqrt{2}`$ , the $`\eta NN`$ and $`\eta ^{}NN`$ coupling constants can be related as

$$\frac{g_{\eta ^{}NN}}{g_{\eta NN}}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta +\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{cos\theta \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta }.$$
(34)
A theoretical analysis  of the $`\eta `$ meson photoproduction data gives $`2.7g_{\eta NN}8.9`$ and consequently $`1.9g_{\eta ^{}NN}6.1`$. Estimates based on $`SU(6)`$  give $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}=6.5`$.

The $`\eta ^{}NN`$ coupling constant was also extracted from experimental observables. An old analysis  based on $`NN`$ potentials gives $`g_{\eta NN}=6.8`$ and $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}=7.3`$, while nucleon-nucleon forward dispersion relations  yield $`g_{\eta NN}^2+g_{\eta ^{}NN}^212`$. Calculations of the decay $`\eta ^{}\gamma \gamma `$ with baryon triangle contributions  give $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}=6.3`$. Although, the $`\eta ^{}NN`$ constant extracted from different experiments is in a reasonable agreement with the $`SU(3)`$ estimates, the exact value is still considered as being model dependent, since the gluonic component of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson was neglected. For example, in $`NN`$ scattering the gluon-nucleon interaction generates a contact term and may reduce the extracted value of the $`\eta ^{}NN`$ coupling constant.

Neglecting the gluon-nucleon coupling $`g_{GNN}`$ in Eq.(1) one can estimate the $`\eta ^{}NN`$ coupling constant as $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}2.2`$. This value can be considered as quite small, as we discussed in the introduction. On the other hand, the OZI predictions  for the axial charge of the nucleon, neglecting the polarized strange quark and gluon contributions to the internal spin structure of the nucleon, gives $`g_A^00.6`$. Attributing this value to the $`\eta ^{}NN`$ coupling constant one can estimate $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}4.6`$. The more careful analysis  based on the Goldberger-Treiman relation for the axial charge gives $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}=3.4`$

For our calculations we adjust the coupling constant $`\eta ^{}NN`$ within the above listed boundaries to the data and use $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}=2.9`$. The solid lines in Fig. 7 shows our calculations for the $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction cross section based on the contribution from the vector meson exchange, the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance and the nucleon exchange current. As we can see, the quality of the presently available data, especially at large $`|t|`$, is such, that it is not useful to estimate any uncertainty of value of $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}`$. However our calculations presented in Fig. 7 clearly illustrate that the differential cross section for $`\eta ^{}`$ meson photoproduction at small $`|u|`$ or at large scattering angles can be used for a determination of the $`\eta ^{}NN`$ coupling constant.

## V Summary and Conclusions

Our goal was to describe the reaction $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$ from threshold to photon energies $`E_\gamma `$=2.4 GeV. First we studied the contribution from vector meson exchange in the $`t`$ channel to the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson photoproduction cross section. With this, the presently available data from the SAPHIR collaboration at ELSA  can be well reproduced for photon energies $`E_\gamma 1.8`$ GeV to 2.4 GeV.

The discrepancy between our calculation based on vector meson exchange alone and the data at small photon energies, $`1.5E_\gamma <1.7`$ GeV, may be attributed to contributions of resonances. An analysis of the data in terms of the energy dependence of the extrapolated forward differential cross section $`d\sigma /dt`$ supports the assumption that this additional contribution results from a resonance with a mass below the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson production threshold. Thus we include the well established $`S_{11}(1535)`$ nucleon resonance into our calculation. Finally we can describe the available data for $`1.5E_\gamma 2.4`$ GeV quite well. However we note, that with the presently available data we can not conclude that the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance is the only one that contributes to the reaction $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$.

As last step we investigated the contribution from the nucleon exchange to the reaction $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$. The aim is to see whether this contribution can be detected experimentally. Our calculations show that the nucleon exchange contribution dominates at small $`|u|`$ for photon energies $`E_\gamma 1.8`$ GeV. Our speculation is that an experimental measurement under the above kinematical conditions can be used for a better evaluation of the contribution from the nucleon exchange, which in turn allows to obtain the $`\eta ^{}NN`$ coupling constant. Because of the large uncertainties of available estimates for the $`\eta ^{}NN`$ coupling constant and its importance for the clarification of proton spin crisis problem , a precise measurement of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson photoproduction at large angles is crucial.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was performed in part under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy under contract No. DE-FG02-93ER40756 with the Ohio University. The authors appreciate very useful discussions and communications with M. Dugger, J. Ernst, E. Pasyuk and B.G. Ritchie. A.S would like to acknowledge the warm hospitality of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Ohio University during his visit.


text:
# Field ZAMS stars in the solar neighborhood: Where have they come from ? Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, Chile (ESO No 62.I-0650, 66.D-0159(A), 67.D-0236(A))

## 1 Introduction

We have recently performed an all-sky survey for nearby young stars, the results of which are published in Wichmann et al. . The candidate sample for this survey was obtained by cross-correlating the ROSAT All-Sky Survey (RASS) with the TYCHO catalogue and selecting stars with $`\mathrm{B}\mathrm{V}>0.54`$ (i.e. F8 and later) with (TYCHO) parallax errors better than $`3.5\sigma `$. In addition, stars very far above the the main sequence (giants) and very far below (erroneous parallaxes) were discarded, resulting in a total sample size of 754 stars. Because of these selection procedures, the majority of our candidate stars are located within 60 pc of the Sun.

The spectroscopic follow-up investigations of 748 stars out of this sample resulted in the detection of 10 G-type stars (HD 13183, HD 35850, HD 36869, HD 43989, HD 49855, HD 77407, HD 105070, HD 129333, HD 171488, and HD 202917), which share the following properties: (1) They all have lithium equivalent widths WLi in excess of the Pleiades upper limit of their respective spectral type; (2) They show very high X-ray activity ($`\mathrm{log}L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}=3.49\pm 0.07`$); and (3) They show a very narrow distribution of their galactic velocity components ($`U=1.0\pm 2.5`$, $`V=16\pm 3.4`$, $`W=1.7\pm 3.1`$).

All of these observational indicators strongly suggest that these stars are quite young: The observed excess lithium, the high X-ray activity and the narrow velocity dispersion (cf., Wielen 1977) suggest an age no more than about 50 Myrs for these stars. While the youth of some of these stars has been known prior to our study, the fact that these stars do form a very tight kinematic group, despite their being distributed more or less uniformly over the whole sky with distances of up to about 100 pc from each other, has remained unnoticed so far. For a detailed discussion of our survey and these 10 ZAMS stars in our sample we refer to our main survey paper (Wichmann et al. 2003).

We note specifically that this kinematic group of stars was identified on the basis of their lithium equivalent widths, i.e. without applying any kinematic criteria. In principle these stars – now distributed over the whole sky – could have formed in an unrelated fashion with a chance alignment of their current velocity vectors. However, we feel that a far more natural explanation for this tight kinematic group of 10 ZAMS stars found in our study is to assume that they have some common origin. This begs the question: where do they come from ?

## 2 The origin of the ZAMS sample

Any reasonable candidate for the formation of these stars should be close to the Sun, because the youth of these stars and their small velocities of a few km s-1 w.r.t. the local standard of rest (LSR) shows that they cannot have moved very far from their birthplace(s). At the same time, they must originate from a large star forming region (SFR), since an extrapolation based on a normal initial mass function (IMF; c.f. Kroupa et al 1993) shows that these 10 stars correspond to a total mass of about 120 $`M_{}`$.

Furthermore, the tight velocity distribution of our ten stars shows that they cannot have been ejected by three-body interactions, rather they must have slowly dispersed from their birth regions. Thus, any likely candidate should show similar galactic velocities, and its trajectory should intersect those of the 10 ZAMS stars at some point at most $`50`$ Myr in the past.

We can safely rule out the Taurus-Auriga SFR because of the grossly inconsistent velocity, as well as the Pleiades because they are too old. After reviewing all known star forming regions close to the Sun, we find that the best candidates for the origin of our ten ZAMS stars are the following three associations: Perseus OB3 ($`\alpha `$ Persei), Lower Centaurus Crux (LCC), and Upper Centaurus Lupus (UCL).

## 3 Data

The current position of the centres of the Per OB3, LCC, and UCL associations are based on the membership lists by de Zeeuw et al. . These membership lists were obtained from the HIPPARCOS catalogue by applying a combination of two different methods. The first is a modern implementation of the convergent point method as described by de Bruijne , while the second is a kinematic member selection method developed by Hoogerwerf & Aguilar . This kinematic method also uses the HIPPARCOS parallax information, which is neglected in the convergent point method. Only members confirmed by both methods were retained.

Per OB3 is located at a distance of about 180 pc and comprises 30 OB stars. Its age is estimated to $`50`$ Myr (de Zeeuw et al. 1999). The LCC/UCL associations (together with a third, the Upper Scorpius association) are subgroups of the Sco OB2 association. For this entire complex, Blauuw  estimated an expansion age of $`20`$ Myr. The LCC is at a distance of $`120`$ pc and comprises 36-42 OB stars, while the UCL is $`140`$ pc distant and has 58-66 OB-type members (Maíz-Apellániz 2001, de Zeeuw et al. 1999, Hoogerwerf et al. 2001). From Monte-Carlo simulations, de Zeeuw et al.  estimate that about 10 out of 79 members of Per OB3, some 50 out of 221 members of UCL, and some 30 out of 180 members of LCC might be interlopers, i.e. field stars unrelated to the association.

The most recent determination of the velocities of the Sco-Cen sub-groups, using HIPPARCOS data as well as radial velocities from various sources (listed in Asiain et al. 1999a), has been carried out by Asiain et al. \[1999b\]. The space velocities as listed in their Table 3 were used for this work. The current spatial extent of the LCC and UCL associations can be aproximated by a Gaussian with $`\sigma 2530`$ pc (Benítez et al. 2002). The nuclear ages as deduced by de Mamajek et al.  are 15-17 Myr for the LCC, and 16-18 Myr for the UCL.

The turnoff age of Per OB3 is estimated to about 50 Myr by de Zeeuw et al. , and the spatial extent to about $`3^0\times 3^0`$ (corresponding to a radius of about 4.6 pc), with a halo of 10o (31 pc). The radial velocity of Per OB3 (-1 km s-1) determined by de Zeeuw et al.  is the median velocity compiled from the HIPPARCOS Input Catalogue. Table 1 summarizes the relevant data on the associations considered here.

## 4 Motion backtracking

### 4.1 Epicyclic approximation

We introduce a coordinate system ($`\xi `$, $`\eta `$, $`\zeta `$) centered on the projection of the Sun’s position on the Galactic plane (we use $`\zeta _{}=27`$ pc from Chen et al. 2001) and in a circular orbit around the galactic centre with angular velocity $`\omega _c`$ and radius $`\varpi _0`$. The $`\xi `$-axis points away from the galactic centre, the $`\eta `$-axis points in the direction of rotation, and the $`\zeta `$-axis toward the galactic pole.

In this coordinate system, the equations of motion in the ($`\xi `$, $`\eta `$) plane are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \ddot{\xi }2\omega _c\dot{\eta }4\omega _cA\xi & =& 0,\hfill \\ \hfill \ddot{\eta }+2\omega _c\dot{\xi }& =& 0\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
if the stars move in an axisymmetric central potential and $`\xi \varpi _0`$, $`\eta \varpi _0`$ ($`A`$ is Oorts constant). I.e. Eqn. 1 neglects deviations from an axisymmetric potential due to local density variations, and is valid for small eccentricities only (which is true for our 10 ZAMS stars). The derivation of Eqn. 1 is given in Chapt. 5 of Chandrasekhar , although these equations of motion were already stated – without proof – by Lindblad .

Following Chandrasekhar , the general solution of Eqn. 1 can be written as:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \xi & =& \xi _{11}\mathrm{cos}q_1t+\xi _{21}\mathrm{sin}q_1t+C_1t+C_2,\hfill \\ \hfill \eta & =& \lambda _1(\xi _{11}\mathrm{sin}q_1t\xi _{21}\mathrm{cos}q_1t)+C_3t+C_4,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`t`$ is the time, $`\xi _{11}`$, $`\xi _{12}`$, $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$, $`C_3`$, $`C_4`$ are integration constants to be fixed by the initial conditions, $`q_1=2\sqrt{\omega _c(\omega _cA)},\mathrm{and}\lambda _1=\sqrt{\omega _c/(\omega _cA)}`$ ($`q_1`$ is called the epicyclic frequency, and often also denoted by $`\kappa `$). From Eqn. 1 one can see that $`C_10`$, $`C_3=2AC_2`$, and thus Eqn. 2 can be rewritten as:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \xi & =& \xi _{11}\mathrm{cos}q_1t+\xi _{21}\mathrm{sin}q_1t+\lambda \xi _{12},\hfill \\ \hfill \eta & =& \lambda _1(\xi _{11}\mathrm{sin}q_1t\xi _{21}\mathrm{cos}q_1t)+\lambda _2(\xi _{12}t\xi _{22}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
with integration constants $`\xi _{21}`$, $`\xi _{22}`$, and $`\lambda =1/[2(\omega _cA)],\lambda _2=A/(\omega _cA),`$ which is the solution stated by Lindblad .

This solution describes an elliptical motion with the centre of the ellipse (of axis ratio 1/$`\lambda _1`$) located at $`\xi =\lambda \xi _{12}`$ and moving parallel to the $`\eta `$-axis with a velocity of $`\lambda _2\xi _{12}`$. For this reason, the approximation presented above is known as epicyclic approximation. If the initial values $`\xi _0`$, $`\eta _0`$, $`\dot{\xi }_0`$, and $`\dot{\eta }_0`$ at $`t=0`$ are known, the integration constants can be evaluated to:

$$\xi _{21}=\frac{\dot{\xi }_0}{q_1},\xi _{22}=\frac{1}{\lambda _2}\left(\frac{\lambda _1\dot{\xi }_0}{q_1}+\eta _0\right),$$

$$\xi _{12}=\dot{\eta }_0\lambda _1q_1\xi _0\lambda ,\xi _{11}=\lambda _2\xi _0\lambda \dot{\eta }_0.$$

### 4.2 Error propagation

Any error in the velocity will lead to increasing position errors with time when tracing the trajectory backwards, and must be accounted for carefully. In our error budget, we include the errors in the proper motions as given in the HIPPARCOS catalogue, as well as errors in the radial velocities measured by us ($`1.5`$ km s-1).

The formalism presented above does not account for local density fluctuations. We treat this effect as an additional error, leading to random velocity variations and accordingly to a diffusion of the orbits. The rms variations of the galactic velocity components as a function of time have been studied empirically by Wielen . Errors in right ascention and declination are small, and thus we neglect them, while errors in the parallax are taken into account. For the constants in Eq. 3, we use $`\omega _c=27.19`$ kpc/Myr and $`A=14.82`$ kpc/Myr (Feast & Whitelock 1997).

We then proceed by performing, individually for each star, a Monte-Carlo simulation to determine an error ellipse for the position at $`t=15`$ Myr (for LCC) and $`t=50`$ Myr for $`\alpha `$ Per. We draw random proper motions and radial velocities from a Gaussian distribution with mean value and dispersion corresponding to the measured values and their errors, compute the galactic UV velocities, and add random Gaussian noise according to Table 2 of Wielen  to account for local density fluctuations. We then compute the backward trajectory for 15 Myr. After 10 000 trials, we finally fit a 2$`\sigma `$ error ellipse around all trial positions (at $`t=15`$ Myr and $`t=50`$ Myr respectively). This error ellipse is computed by the following procedure: first, the centre of the distribution of positions is computed. A straight line is fitted to the distribution and adopted as major axis. The axis ratio is determined by the ratio of the dispersions along the major and minor axes. Finally, the length of the major axis is chosen such that 95 percent of the positions are located within the ellipse.

In Fig. 1,2 we show the resulting error ellipses, as well as the trajectories for the measured velocities. In Fig. 1, we also plot the trajectories for the LCC and UCL associations, and the 2$`\sigma `$ radii of 50 pc (Benítez et al. 2002) for the LCC/UCL associations, centered at the position at $`t=15`$ Myr. In Fig. 2, the trajectory for Per OB3 is shown, along with its position at $`t=50`$ Myr. The radius for Per OB3 corresponds to the 100 (30 pc) halo.

### 4.3 Motion perpendicular to the plane

In the approximation of a flattened, homogeneous mass distribution, the equation of motion in the $`\zeta `$-direction is

$$\ddot{\zeta }+\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{\zeta ^2}\zeta =0,$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the gravitational potential (c.f. Chandrasekhar 1942). This is solved by

$$\zeta =\zeta _1\mathrm{cos}q_3t+\zeta _2\mathrm{sin}q_3tC_5t+C_6,$$
(5)
with $`q_3=\sqrt{4\pi \mathrm{G}\rho _0}`$ and integration constants $`C_5=C_6=0`$, $`\zeta _1=\dot{\zeta }_0`$, and $`\zeta _2=\zeta _0`$. Here, $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, $`\rho _0`$ the volume density in the galactic plane, and $`\zeta _0,\dot{\zeta }_0`$ are the initial conditions at $`t=0`$. We neglect the (small) term $`2(2A\omega _c)\omega _c`$ in the more general expression for $`q_3`$ (c.f. Mihalas & Routy 1968).

## 5 Discussion

We are aware that some of these 10 stars have been assigned to several small star forming regions. In particular, HD 13183 is claimed by Torres et al.  as a probable member of the Horologium association, and HD 35850 by Zuckerman et al.  as a member of the $`\beta `$ Pic association.

However, considering the very small observed velocity dispersion, we consider it unlikely that these stars have formed in different and unrelated star forming regions. We do not think that this is in contradiction to the results of Zuckerman et al.  or Torres et al. , because membership assignment in an association is invariably based on statistical criteria which always have some error of the second kind (i.e. accepting membership for a non-member).

Also, we note that (a) it is not clear whether the Horologium association really forms a tight kinematic group, because Torres et al.  adjusted unknown parallaxes of supposed members in order to minimize the velocity dispersion, and that (b) according to its location in the HR diagram (see Fig. 4 in Wichmann et al. 2003), the age of HD 35850 is in between that of the $`\beta `$ Pic association ($`20\pm 10`$ Myr according to Barrado y Navascués et al. 1999) and Per OB3, and within errors consistent with UCL/LCC, Per OB3, or $`\beta `$ Pic, so its association with $`\beta `$ Pic is no more likely than our proposed ’common origin’ scenario may be.

While we clearly cannot rule out that some of these stars have formed in unrelated SFRs, we wish to explore here the consequences of the assumption of a common origin. From Fig. 1 we can see that at $`t=15`$ Myr, the error ellipses of all of our ZAMS stars except HD 77407 and HD 129333 are located well within the 2$`\sigma `$ radius of UCL in the ($`\xi `$, $`\eta `$) plane. We have checked the consistency of our results by backtracking the motion in the $`\zeta `$-direction. We find that at $`t=15`$ Myr the error ellipses of all our ZAMS stars overlap with both the LCC and UCL associations.

de Zeeuw et al.  have found 66 B-type stars in UCL, and 42 in LCC. Their estimated field star contamination is 5 – 12 (UCL) and 4 – 7 (LCC), respectively. With a normal IMF (e.g. Kroupa et al. 1993), these numbers translate into some 200 (UCL) and 141 (LCC) G-type stars in the mass range of the field ZAMS stars found by us. Clearly, only a tiny fraction of these stars need to escape into the field to explain our results.

For the Per OB3 association, we find that its trajectory crosses those of our 10 ZAMS stars at about $`t=50`$ Myr, i.e. the age of Per OB3. Again, we have checked the $`\zeta `$-motion for consistency. With $`30`$ B-type stars, Per OB3 is also large enough to explain our findings. However, Per OB3 is spatially rather compact, and only 3 – 4 of our stars’ error ellipses overlap with it. Thus, from the point of view of kinematics, we clearly prefer an LCC origin for our lithium excess stars.

The age of the ten field ZAMS stars from our survey can only approximately be determined. From their lithium equivalent widths and X-ray activity, we conclude that they are younger than the Pleiades, i.e, $`<`$ 70 Myrs. In addition, it has been shown by Wielen  that random fluctuations in the local density will increase the velocity distribution with time. From Table 2 in his paper, we can infer an upper limit of of 50 – 100 Myr (Wichmann et al. 2003). From their positions in the HR diagram (see Fig. 4 in Wichmann et al. 2003), we infer a lower limit of about 20 – 30 Myr, while ages of 50 Myrs and somewhat older are preferred. We note that the absolute calibration of the evolutionary tracks may not be without any problems; also, the evolutionary tracks are computed from models without rotation, while our stars are fast rotators (Wichmann et al. 2003). At any rate, from the HR diagram’s point of view Per OB3 would be the preferred parent association.

We thus conclude that we cannot uniquely identify a parent association for our ZAMS stars. From the point of view of the kinematics, the LCC/UCL associations are ideal, but with respect to age they may be too young. On the other hand, the trajectories of Per OB3 and our stars intersect at a more convenient age, but our backtracking shows that our stars are dispersed over a much large area, and only 3 – 4 of them can be reconciled with the location and extent of Per OB3 at $`t=50`$ Myr.

In Fig. 1 – 2 the current extents of the LCC, UCL, and Per OB3 associations have been plotted. Naturally, these need not coincide with the past extents. This problem has been investigated by Asiain et al. \[1999b\], who denote the Sco-Cen association as a moving group B1. Studying a spatially concentrated sub-group of the Sco-Cen association, they find that in $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$, the minimum radius in the past has been about two thirds of the current radius, while in $`\zeta `$ it has been equal to the current radius. If these results are applicable to the individual associations discussed here, our conclusions are not affected.

If one assumes that these associations are surrounded by an isotropic spherical halo of dispersed stars, then from the 10 G-type stars in the solar vicinity we estimate the mass of that halo to about half of the stellar mass of the associations themselves (as derived from the number of B-type stars). However, both from observations and from theory (e.g. Wielen 1977) it is known that isotropic dispersion (in the sense of equipartition of energy) will not lead to an isotropy of the velocity dispersions. In particular, the velocity dispersion in $`W`$ is smallest, because on average half of the energy gained by pertubations is in potential energy. Therefore the shape of such a halo would be flattened along $`\zeta `$, and the amount of mass required in this haloe would be smaller.

The associations considered here (Per OB3, and the LCC/UCL associations) are not gravitationally bound (de Zeeuw et al. 1999), and therefore it is inescapable that stars from these associations will diffuse into the field. We argue that the group of field ZAMS stars we have found in our survey represents the ongoing dissolution of an OB association into the field.

Given the similar trajectories, it may be that some of the 10 stars from our survey originate from Per OB3, and others from the UCL/LCC associations. This may not represent that much of a difference, after all, because the trajectories of Per OB3 and the UCL/LCC complex intersect at $`50`$ Myr – corresponding to the age of Per OB3 –, so we speculate that the Per OB3 and LCC/UCL associations may have formed out of the same molecular cloud.

If the scenario sketched in this paper is correct, there must be many more young low-mass stars and brown dwarfs in the immediate vicinity of the Sun, independent of whether they originated in the Per OB3 or LCC/UCL associations. It is a challenge to find them.

## acknowledgements

This project has been supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG Schwerpunktprogramm ‘Physics of star formation’). We thank the referee, Prof. R. Wielen, for his suggestions to improve the paper. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France