text:
# GROUND-STATE CORRELATIONS AND FINAL STATE INTERACTIONS IN THE PROCESS ³𝐻𝑒(𝑒,𝑒'𝑝𝑝)𝑛

## I Introduction

The investigation of Ground-State Correlations (GSC) in nuclei, in particular those which originate from the most peculiar features of the Nucleon-Nucleon (NN) interaction, i.e. its strong short range repulsion and complex state dependence (spin, isospin, tensor, etc), is one of the most challenging aspects of experimental and theoretical nuclear physics and, more generally, of hadronic physics. The results of sophisticated few- and many-body calculations in terms of realistic models of the NN interaction (manybody1 ; manybody2 ; pieper ), show that the complex structure of the latter generates a rich correlation structure of the nuclear ground-state wave function. The experimental investigation of the nuclear wave function or, better, of various density matrices, $`\rho (1),\rho (1,1^{}),\rho (1,2),etc`$, is therefore necessary in order to ascertain whether the prediction of the Standard Model of nuclei (structureless non- relativistic nucleons interacting via the known NN forces ) is indeed justified in practice, or other phenomena, e.g., relativistic effects, many-body forces, medium modification of nucleon properties, and explicit sub-nucleonic degrees of freedom (quark and gluons), have to be advocated in order to describe ground-state properties of nuclei at normal density and temperature.

Unfortunately, whereas the one-body density matrix (charge density) is experimentally well known since many years from elastic electron scattering (see e.g.report ), the present knowledge of those quantities which are more sensitive to GSC, e.g. the non-diagonal one-body and two-body density matrices, which could in principle be investigated by nucleon ($`N`$) emission processes like, e.g., the $`A(e,e^{}N)X`$ and $`A(e,e^{}NN)X`$ reactions, is still too scarce. The reasons is that the effects from Final State Interactions (FSI), Meson Exchange Currents (MEC) and Isobar Configuration (IC) creation, may mask the effects generated by GSC. In our view, the present situation is such that the longstanding question whether FSI and other concurrent processes hinder the investigation of GSC, has not yet been clearly answered. Moreover, due to the difficulty to treat consistently GSC, FSI, MEC, etc within the full complexity of the nuclear many-body approach, the answer was in the past merely dictated by philosophical taste rather than by the results of solid calculations and unambiguous experimental data. A clear cut answer to the above question would require, from one side, realistic many-body calculations of bound and continuum nuclear states, and, from the other side, a wise choice of the kinematics and of the type of process to be investigated, so as to possibly minimize all those effects which compete with GSC. In this respect, of particular usefulness is the two-proton emission process $`A(e,e^{}pp)X`$, where MEC play a minor role (with respect to the proton-neutron emission $`A(e,e^{}pn)X`$), since the virtual photon does not couple to the exchanged neutral meson, and IC production is also suppressed thanks to angular momentum and parity conservation selection rules (see e.g. giusti , emura ).

The investigation of the two-nucleon emission processes has considerably progressed during the last few years, both in the few-body systems and the complex nuclei domains. In the latter case, extensive theoretical studies on the $`A(e,e^{}pp)X`$ process have been performed (see e.g. grab ; GP ; ryck  and References therein quoted), aimed at developing various theoretical frameworks to treat GSC and FSI, together with competing effects, such as MEC, and, at the same time, experimental data have been obtained (see e.g.starink , starink1 ), which provided non trivial evidence of GSC effects. The treatment of the two-nucleon emission process from few-body systems, which represents the object of the present investigation, has the non trivial theoretical advantage that exact ground-state wave functions from variational or Faddeev-type calculations (see e.g. manybody1 ; ishi ; pisa  and References therein quoted) can be used in the calculations, thus exploiting the whole realistic picture of GSC; moreover, provided the final three-nucleon invariant mass, $`\sqrt{s}`$, is below the pion production threshold ($`\sqrt{s}2.95GeV`$), accurate continuum wave functions are also available GLOCK , so that a fully consistent treatment of both GSC and FSI effects in the process $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{}pp)n`$ at low four-momentum transfer has been recently developed manybody1 ; GLOCK  111From now-on, for low (high) momentum transfer we will mean $`\sqrt{s}`$ below (above) the pion threshold.. Moreover, experimental data at low momentum transfer ( $`Q^20.1GeV/c^2,Q^2=𝐪^2\nu ^2,\nu 0.2GeV`$) became available from NIKHEF groep , which made it possible to produce a significant comparison between theoretical predictions and experimental data.

In this paper we are interested in medium and high momentum transfer regions; the reason is twofold: $`i)`$ by increasing the momentum transfer, one might be able to investigate the momentum space wave function in a broader kinematical region; $`ii)`$ processes at high momentum transfer could provide crucial information on the origin and the very mechanism of hadronic rescattering in the medium tras , which has so far been investigated with simple three-body wave functions. Realistic calculations at intermediate and high values of $`Q^2`$ are therefore timely, also in view of running experiments at TJLab covering a region of intermediate values of $`Q^2`$ ($`\nu 0.41GeV,Q^20.52GeV/c^2`$) CEBAF  . It should be reminded, at this point, that when the momentum transfer is such that the three-nucleon invariant mass is higher than the pion production threshold, Faddeev-like calculations in the continuum cannot be performed, and the necessity arises of developing a proper treatment of elastic rescattering effects, in presence of inelastic channels. It is precisely the aim of this paper to present such a treatment, and to thoroughly analyze the possibility that by a proper choice of the kinematics, the effects of FSI in the process $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{}pp)n`$ could be minimized. We would like to stress that our aim is not that of a direct comparison with (still lacking) experimental data in this region of momentum transfer, since, as previously stated, that would require a proper consideration of effects competing with GSC, but rather to try to understand whether particular kinematical conditions exist which could minimize the effects from FSI, a necessary condition for a meaningful investigation of GSC. Preliminary results of our calculations have already been presented in Ref. preliminary . Through this paper we shall be using the three-body wave functions obtained by the Pisa Group pisa ; rosati .

Our paper is organized as follows: in Section II some general concepts concerning the Kinematics of the process and the Cross Section will be recalled; our approach to the treatment of FSI is illustrated in Section III, together with the results of calculations; the Summary and Conclusions are given in Section IV. Some useful formulae concerning two-nucleon correlations in nuclei are given in the Appendix.

## II  Kinematics and cross section

We will consider the absorption of a virtual photon $`\gamma ^{}`$ by a nucleon bound in $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$, followed by two-nucleon emission, i.e. the process $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{}N_1N_2)N_3`$, where $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ denote the nucleons which are detected. In the rest of this paper the photon four momentum transfer will be denoted by

$`Q^2=q^2=(k_ek_e^{})^2=𝐪^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}}\nu ^2=4ϵ_eϵ_e^{}sin^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _e}{2}}`$ (1)
where $`k(ϵ,𝐤)`$ is the four momentum of the electron, $`𝐪=𝐤_e𝐤_e^{}`$, $`\nu =ϵ_eϵ_e^{^{}}`$ and $`\theta _e\theta _{\widehat{𝐤_e𝐤_e^{}}}`$.

The momenta of the bound nucleons, before $`\gamma ^{}`$ absorption, will be denoted by $`𝐤_i`$, and after $`\gamma ^{}`$ absorption, by $`𝐩_i`$. Momentum conservation requires that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝐤_i=0\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝐩_i=𝐪$$
(2)
and energy conservation that

$$\nu +M_3=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(M_N^2+𝐩_i^2)^{1/2}$$
(3)
where $`M_N`$ and $`M_3`$ are the masses of the nucleon and the three-nucleon system, respectively.

In one-photon exchange approximation, depicted in Fig. 1, the cross section of the process, reads as follows

$$\frac{d^{12}\sigma }{dϵ_e^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{}d𝐩_1d𝐩_2d𝐩_3}=\sigma _{Mott}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{6}{}}v_\alpha W_\alpha \delta (𝐪\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝐩_i)\delta (\nu +M_3\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(M_N^2+𝐩_i^2)^{1/2})$$
(4)
where $`v_\alpha `$ are well known kinematical factors, and $`W_\alpha `$ the response functions, which have the following general form

$`W_\alpha =\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{()}(𝐩_1,𝐩_2,𝐩_3)|\widehat{𝒪}_\alpha (𝐪)|\mathrm{\Psi }_i(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_3)\right|^2`$ (5)
In Eq.(5) $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{()}(𝐩_1,𝐩_2,𝐩_3)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_3)`$ are the continuum and ground-state wave functions of the three-body system, respectively, and $`\widehat{𝒪}_\alpha (𝐪)`$ is a quantity depending on proper combinations of the components of the nucleon current operator $`\widehat{j^\mu }`$ (see e.g. report ). Two nucleon emission originated by $`NN`$ correlations can occur because of two different processes:

1. in the initial state $`\mathrm{"}1\mathrm{"}`$ and $`\mathrm{"}2\mathrm{"}`$ are correlated and $`\mathrm{"}3\mathrm{"}`$ is far apart; $`\gamma ^{}`$ is absorbed either by $`\mathrm{"}1\mathrm{"}`$ or $`\mathrm{"}2\mathrm{"}`$ and all of the three-nucleons are emitted in the continuum; if nucleon $`\mathrm{"}3\mathrm{"}`$ was at rest in the initial state, one has $`𝐤_1=𝐤_2`$ and, if FSI is disregarded, $`𝐩_{1(2)}`$=$`𝐤_{1(2)}+𝐪`$, $`𝐩_{2(1)}`$=$`𝐤_{2(1)}`$ in the final state;
2. in the initial state nucleons $`\mathrm{"}1\mathrm{"}`$ and $`\mathrm{"}2\mathrm{"}`$ are correlated and $`\mathrm{"}3\mathrm{"}`$ is far apart; $`\gamma ^{}`$ is absorbed by $`N_3`$ and all of the three-nucleons are emitted in the continuum. If $`N_3`$ was at rest before interaction, and FSI is disregarded, $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ are emitted back-to-back with momenta $`𝐤_1=𝐤_2`$ and $`𝐩_3`$=$`𝐪`$.

The above picture is distorted by $`FSI`$. The aim of this paper is precisely to investigate the relevance of $`FSI`$ effects in both processes.

## III The Final State Interaction in the two-nucleon emission process

We will now assume that $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$, the two detected nucleons, are the two protons and $`N_3`$ the neutron ($`n`$). The two-nucleon emission process will thus be $`{}_{}{}^{3}H(e,e^{}p_1p_2)n`$ which, as explained, can originate from the two mechanisms described above.

### III.1 Process $`1`$: absorption of $`\gamma ^{}`$ by the correlated $`pp`$ pair.

In this process $`\gamma ^{}`$ is absorbed by proton ”1” (”2”) correlated with proton ”2”(”1”), and the neutron is the ”spectator”.

The various diagrams, in order of increasing complexity, which contribute to the process, are depicted in Fig. 2.

Let us introduce the following quantities:

1. the relative momentum of the detected proton pair

$`𝐩_{rel}={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_1𝐩_2}{2}}𝐭`$ (6)
2. the Center-of-Mass momentum of the pair

$`𝐏=𝐩_1+𝐩_2`$ (7)

In what follows, for ease of presentation, and also in order to make the comparison with previous calculations more transparent, we will consider the effects of the FSI on the longitudinal response only. Let us first consider diagrams $`a)`$ and $`b)`$, i.e. the Plane Wave Approximation plus the $`pp`$ rescattering in the final state. By changing the momentum variables from $`𝐩_1`$ and $`𝐩_2`$ to $`𝐏`$ and $`𝐩_{rel}`$, and integrating the cross section (Eq. (4)) over $`𝐏`$ and the kinetic energy of the neutron, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^8\sigma }{dϵ_e^{^{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{^{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p_n}dp_{rel}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p_{rel}}}}=𝒦(Q^2,\nu ,𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel})R_L(\nu ,Q^2,𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel})`$ (8)
with

$`R_L(\nu ,Q^2,𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel})=G_E^p(Q^2)^2M^{(pp)}(𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel},𝐪)`$ (9)
where $`G_E^p(Q^2)`$ is the proton electric form factor, $`𝒦`$ incorporates all kinematical variables, and $`M^{(pp)}(𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel},𝐪)`$ is the transition nuclear form factor which includes the $`pp`$ rescattering, viz

$`M^{(pp)}(𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel},𝐪)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _n}{}}|T^{(pp)}(,\sigma _n,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp},𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel},𝐪)|^2`$ (10)
The scattering matrix $`T^{(pp)}(,\sigma _n,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp},𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel},𝐪)`$ has the following form

$`T^{(pp)}(,\sigma _n,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp},𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel},𝐪)=`$
$`{\displaystyle d^3rd^3\rho \mathrm{\Psi }_{\frac{1}{2}}(𝐫,𝝆)\chi _{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _n}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐩_n𝝆)\psi _{S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}^{𝐭()}(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}/2)},`$ (11)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\frac{1}{2}}(𝐫,𝝆)`$ is the three-nucleon wave function, $`\psi _{S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}^𝐭(𝐫)`$ the continuum two-proton wave function, and $`\chi _{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _n}`$ the neutron spinor. In the above and the following equations, $`𝐫`$ and $`𝝆`$ are the Jacobi coordinates

$`𝐫=𝐫_1𝐫_2𝝆=𝐫_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐫_1+𝐫_2)`$ (12)
When $`pp`$ rescattering is disregarded, i.e. only diagram $`a)`$ is considered, one has

$`𝐩_1=𝐤_1+𝐪𝐩_2=𝐤_2𝐩_n=𝐤_n`$ (13)
$`𝐩_{rel}=𝐤_{rel}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐪}{2}}𝐏=𝐊+𝐪`$ (14)
where

$`𝐤_{rel}={\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_1𝐤_2}{2}}𝐊=𝐤_1+𝐤_2=𝐤_n`$ (15)
are the relative and $`CM`$ momenta of the $`pp`$ pair before interaction. The two-proton continuum wave function is simply $`\psi _{S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}^𝐭(𝐫)=\chi _{S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐩_{rel}𝐫)`$ and the scattering amplitude becomes

$`T^{(pp)}(,\sigma _n,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp},𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel},𝐪)T^{(PWA)}(,\sigma _n,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp},𝐤_n,𝐤_{rel})=`$
$`{\displaystyle d^3rd^3\rho \mathrm{\Psi }_{\frac{1}{2}}(𝐫,𝝆)\chi _{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _n}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤_n𝝆)\chi _{S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤_{rel}𝐫)},`$
(16)
which is nothing but the three-body wave function in momentum space.

The scattering amplitude which include the $`pp`$ rescattering has been calculated using the continuum wave function for two interacting protons

$`\psi _{S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}^𝐭(𝐫)=4\pi {\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}S^{}J_f}{}}lmS_{pp}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}|J_fM_Ji^l^{}\mathrm{Y}_{lm}^{}(\widehat{𝐩}_{rel})\mathrm{R}_{lSl^{}S^{}}^{J_f}(r)\mathrm{Y}_{l^{}S^{}}^{J_fM_J}(\widehat{𝐫}),`$ (17)
where $`\mathrm{Y}_{lm}(\widehat{𝐩}_{rel})\left(\mathrm{Y}_{l^{}S^{}}^{J_fM_J}(\widehat{𝐫})\right)`$ denotes the spherical (spin-angular) harmonics, and $`\mathrm{R}_{lSl^{}S^{}}^{J_f}(r)`$ is the scattering radial wave function, solution of the Schrödinger equation in the continuum, with asymptotic behaviour

$`\mathrm{R}_{lSl^{}S^{}}^{J_f}(r)|_r\mathrm{}\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{SS^{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\delta _l\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}[tr(l\pi /2)+\delta _l]}{tr}}`$ (18)
where $`t|𝐭||𝐩_{rel}|`$. In the presence of a tensor interaction the asymptotic of $`\mathrm{R}_{lSl^{}S^{}}^{J_f}(r)`$ is more complicated but, by a unitary transformation, other radial wave functions may be introduced with asymptotic similar to Eq. (18) (see e.g. Ref. sitenko ).

Inserting (17) into (11), and using the completeness of the scattering wave functions, the amplitude $`T^{pp}`$ in Eq. (10) can be expressed in the following way

$`T^{(pp)}(,\sigma _n,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp},𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel},𝐪)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{t}^2𝑑\stackrel{~}{t}d^3\rho d^3r\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐩_n𝝆\right)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{\alpha \}}{}}XM_XL_\rho M_\rho |{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}j_{12}M_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _3|XM_X`$
$`l_{12}m_{12}S_{pp}\nu |j_{12}M_{12}l_fm_fS_{pp}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}|j_fM_fl_f\stackrel{~}{m}_fS_{pp}\nu |j_fM_f`$
$`\mathrm{Y}_{l_fm_f}(\widehat{𝐩}_{rel})\mathrm{Y}_{l_{12}m_{12}}(\widehat{𝐫})\mathrm{Y}_{l_f\stackrel{~}{m}_f}^{}(\widehat{𝐫})`$
$`\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}/2)\mathrm{R}_{l_{12}S_{pp}}^{j_{12},\stackrel{~}{t}}(r)\mathrm{R}_{l_fS_{pp}}^{j_f,t}(r)(i)^{l_f}I_{\{\alpha \}}^{|\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_{rel}|}(|𝝆|),`$ (19)
where $`\{\alpha \}`$ denotes the full set of quantum numbers characterizing the ground-state partial configurations in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ wave function, and $`I_{\{\alpha \}}^{|\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_{rel}|}(|𝝆|)`$ are the corresponding overlaps with the scattering state wave functions.

In what follows the so-called symmetric (sym) kinematics Laget

$`𝐩_n=0;𝐩_1+𝐩_2=𝐪`$
will be considered, which corresponds, in $`PWA`$, to a ground-state configuration characterized by the two protons with equal and opposite momenta and the neutron with zero momentum. In the sym kinematics, the transition form factor $`M^{(pp)}(𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel},𝐪)`$, when $`\gamma ^{}`$ interacts with proton $`\mathrm{"}1\mathrm{"}(\mathrm{"}2\mathrm{"})`$, will only depend upon $`𝐩_{rel}=𝐪/2𝐩_{2(1)}`$, i.e., for a fixed value of $`|𝐪|`$, will only depend upon $`|𝐩_{2(1)}|`$ and the angle between $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐩_{2(1)}`$. In PWA, when the angular momentum of the neutron is zero, also the $`pp`$ pair has relative angular momentum zero, so that the cross section is almost entirely determined by the square of the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ component of the three-body wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐤_{rel},𝐤_n=0)`$, which is shown in Fig. 3.

The calculated transition form factor is shown in Fig.4. Calculations have been performed with three-body wave function obtained in ref. rosati  using the AV18 interaction AV14 . Our results, which are in agreement with the ones of Ref. Laget  (where a different ground-state wave functions has been used), show that the $`pp`$ rescattering is very large and completely distorts the $`PWA`$ results.

In order to investigate to what extent $`FSI`$ depend upon the kinematics of the process, we have also considered the super-parallel (s.p.) kinematics, according to which one still has $`𝐩_n=0`$, $`𝐩_1+𝐩_2=𝐪`$, but all momenta are collinear, i.e.( $`𝐪z`$)

$`𝐩_1=𝐩_2=0p_{1z}+p_{2z}=|𝐪|`$ (20)
The results of calculations, which are presented in Fig.5, look very different from the ones shown in Fig. 4. Concerning these differences, the following remarks are in order:

1. as far as the $`PWA`$ results are concerned, it can be seen that the transition matrix elements differ, at the same value of $`\nu `$ , by more than one order of magnitude; the reason is that the relative momentum $`|𝐤_{rel}|`$, at a given value of $`\nu `$, is very different in the two kinematics, with $`|𝐤_{rel}^{(sym)}||𝐤_{rel}^{(s.p.)}|`$ (e.g, at $`\nu `$ = $`0.2GeV`$ one has $`|𝐤_{rel}^{(s.p.)}|0.45fm^1`$, whereas $`|𝐤_{rel}^{(sym)}|2.2fm^1`$). Since in both kinematics $`M^{PWA}(𝐤_n,𝐤_{rel})`$ is entirely determined by the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ three-body wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(|𝐤_{rel}|,𝐤_n=0,)`$, the value of $`\nu `$ at which this exhibits its minimum is different in the two cases;
2. in Fig. 4 the $`pp`$ rescattering effects depend upon the value of the relative momentum of the two protons in the final state $`|𝐩_{rel}|`$ = $`|𝐩_1|\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{12}}{2}}|𝐤_{rel}|`$. Unlike the $`PWA`$ case, one has $`|𝐩_{rel}^{(\mathrm{𝑠𝑦𝑚})}||𝐩_{rel}^{(s.p)}|`$ (e.g. at $`\nu =0.2GeV`$ one has $`|𝐪|535MeV/c`$, $`|𝐩_2|0.45fm^1`$ and $`|𝐩_{rel}|1.8fm^1`$, in the s.p. kinematics, and $`|𝐩_1|=|𝐩_2|2.2fm^1`$, $`\theta _{12}105^0`$ and $`|𝐩_{rel}|=|𝐩_1|\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{12}}{2}}1.7fm^1`$ in the sym kinematics). Thus, the two-proton relative energy in the final state is larger in the s.p. kinematics, which explains the apparent smaller effects of $`FSI`$ in Fig. 5. In this respect, it should however be pointed out that at values of $`\nu >0.70.8GeV`$, i.e. at large values of $`p_{2z}1fm^1`$, where correlation effects are more relevant, the momentum transfer $`|𝐪|`$ and the relative momentum of the proton pair become very large, and the Schrödinger equation can not in principle be applied to describe the $`pp`$-interaction in the continuum (e.g. in the s.p. kinematics, when $`|𝐪|1GeV/c`$, $`|𝐩_2|0.5GeV/c`$, $`|𝐩_1|1.5GeV/c`$, $`|𝐩_{rel}|1GeV/c`$). To treat the case of high energies, a Glauber-type calculation is in progress and will be reported elsewhere ckm . Thus, it appears that in the s.p. kinematics considered in Fig. 5, there exists only a small bin of $`\nu 0.40.5GeV`$ where two-nucleon correlations could be investigated treating the $`pp`$ rescattering within the Schrödinger equation;

The next contribution to be considered is the proton-neutron rescattering (diagram (c) in Fig. 2). This has been found in Ref. Laget  to provide very small effects, as also recently found in Ref. preliminary . This point will be discussed in details in the next Section.

### III.2 Process 2: absorption of $`\gamma ^{}`$ by the neutron.

#### III.2.1 The Plane Wave Approximation and the $`pp`$ rescattering

We will now consider the process $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{}p_1p_2)n`$ , in which $`\gamma ^{}`$ interacts with the neutron and the two protons are emitted and detected. We will consider two extreme cases of this process, viz : i) in the initial state the neutron is a partner of a correlated proton-neutron pair, with the second proton far apart from the pair; ii) in the initial state the neutron is at rest, far apart from the two correlated protons. Process ii) has been considered in Ref. GLOCK  for the case of both a neutron and a proton at rest in the initial state. We will compare our results with the ones of Ref. GLOCK , considering only the case of the neutron at rest. The various mechanisms, in order of increasing complexity, which contribute to the above process, are depicted in Fig. 6.

When the final state rescattering between the two protons is taken into account (processes $`a)`$ plus process $`b)`$), but the interaction of the hit neutron with the emitted proton-proton pair is disregarded, one has $`𝐩_n=𝐤_n+𝐪`$, and the cross section (Eq. (4)) integrated over $`𝐏`$ and the kinetic energy of the neutron exhibits the same structure of Eq. (8), with $`R_L`$ given by

$`R_L(\nu ,Q^2,𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel})=G_E^n(Q^2)^2M^{(pp)}(𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel},𝐪)`$ (21)
which differs from Eq. (9) in two respects: i) the proton electric form factor is replaced by the neutron one $`G_E^n(Q^2)`$; ii) $`M^{(pp)}(𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel},𝐪)`$ includes the rescattering between the two spectator protons and not between the active and recoiling protons; this means that $`T^{pp}`$ has the following form

$`T^{pp}(,\sigma _n,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp},𝐤_n,𝐩_{rel})={\displaystyle d^3\rho \mathrm{exp}(i𝐤_n𝝆)\chi _{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _n}I_{,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}^{𝐭,pp}(𝝆)}`$ (22)
where $`𝐤_n=𝐩_n𝐪=(𝐩_1+𝐩_2)`$, and $`I^𝐭`$ is the overlap integral between the three-nucleon ground-state wave function and the two-proton continuum state, i.e.

$`I_{,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}^{𝐭,pp}(𝝆)={\displaystyle \psi _{S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}^{𝐭()}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\frac{1}{2}}(𝐫,𝝆)d^3r}`$ (23)
We reiterate that in the process analyzed in the previous Section, the $`pp`$ rescattering occurred between the protons of the active pair which absorbed the virtual photon, whereas in this case $`\gamma ^{}`$ is absorbed by the neutron and the $`pp`$ rescattering involves the two spectator protons. Within the PWA, i.e. when only process $`a)`$ contributes to the reaction, one has

$`\psi _{S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}^𝐭(𝐫)=\chi _{S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐭𝐫})`$

so that

$`I_{N_2N_3}^{𝐭,PWA}(𝝆)={\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }_{\frac{1}{2}}(𝐫,𝝆)\chi _{S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐭𝐫})d^3r}`$ (24)
and

$`T^{PWA}(,\sigma _n,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp},𝐤_n,𝐤_{rel})=`$
$`{\displaystyle d^3rd^3\rho \mathrm{\Psi }_{\frac{1}{2}}(𝐫,𝝆)\chi _{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _n}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤_n𝝆)\chi _{S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤_{rel}𝐫)},`$ (25)
which, as in $`Process1)`$, is nothing but the three-nucleon wave function in momentum space.

It is interesting to point out that the integral of the transition form factor (22) over the direction of $`𝐩_{rel}`$, is related to the neutron Spectral Function $`P_1(k_n,E^{})`$ CPS

$`P_1(k_n,E^{})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩_{rel}|M_N}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp},\sigma _n}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_t\left|d^3rd^3\rho \mathrm{exp}(i𝐤_n𝝆)\chi _{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _n}\psi _{S_{pp}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}^{𝐭()}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\frac{1}{2}}(𝐫,𝝆)\right|^2}`$ (26)
by the following relation

$`{\displaystyle 𝒫_1(𝐤_n,𝐩_{rel})𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐩_{rel}}}=P_1(k_n,E^{})`$ (27)
where

$`𝒫_1(𝐤_n,𝐩_{rel})={\displaystyle \frac{M_N|𝐩_{rel}|}{2}}M^{pp}(𝐤_n,𝐩_{rel})`$ (28)
will be called here the Vector Spectral Function, and

$`E^{}={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_{rel}^2}{M}}={\displaystyle \frac{(𝐩_1𝐩_2)^2}{4M}}`$ (29)
is the ”excitation energy” of the spectator $`pp`$ pair , which is related to the neutron removal energy $`E`$ by the relation $`E=E_3+E^{}`$, where $`E_3`$ is the (positive) binding energy of the three-nucleon system (cf. Ref. CPS ).

The cross section for the two-proton emission process can then be written in the following form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^8\sigma }{dϵ_e^{^{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{^{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p_n}dp_{rel}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p_{rel}}}}=𝒦(Q^2,\nu ,𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel})2{\displaystyle \frac{G_E^n(Q^2)}{M_N|𝐩_{rel}|}}𝒫_1(𝐤_n,𝐩_{rel})`$ (30)
By integrating over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{p_{rel}}`$, one obtains the cross section for the semi-inclusive process $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{}n)pp`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^6\sigma }{dϵ_e^{^{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{^{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_ndp_{rel}}}=𝒦G_E^n(Q^2)^2P_1(k_n,E^{})`$ (31)
The neutron Spectral Function calculated with and without the $`pp`$ rescattering CPS  is shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen that at $`k_n1.5fm^1`$ there are regions, peaked at $`E^{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4M}}`$, where the $`pp`$ rescattering does not play any role; since $`E^{}={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_{rel}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M}}`$, at the peaks we have the following relation between $`|𝐤_n|`$ and $`|𝐩_{rel}|`$

$`|𝐤_n|2|𝐩_{rel}|`$ (32)
The positions of the peaks have been originally interpreted as arising from a two-nucleon correlation $`(2NC)`$ configuration, where proton $`\mathrm{"}1(2)\mathrm{"}`$ is correlated with the neutron with momenta satisfying the following relations: $`𝐤_{2(1)}=0`$, $`𝐤_{1(2)}𝐤_n`$ FS ; moreover, the energy dependence around the peaks can be related to the motion of the third particle $`𝐤_{2(1)}0`$, or, equivalently, to the Center-of-Mass motion of the correlated pair 2NC . The existence of the region where $`pp`$ rescattering is vanishing, is a general feature of any Spectral Function, independently of the two-nucleon interaction and of the method to generate the wave function. This is illustrated in Fig. 4, where the Spectral Function corresponding to the variational three-body wave function of Ref. rosati  obtained with the $`AV18`$ interaction AV14 , is shown for several values of $`k|𝐤_n|`$. It can be seen that for values of $`k_n`$ which satisfy relation (32), FSI effects generated by $`pp`$ rescattering are negligible.

Relation (32) does not necessarily imply a $`2NC`$ configuration, i.e. $`𝐤_{2(1)}=0`$, $`𝐤_{1(2)}𝐤_n`$, for it holds also if $`𝐤_{2(1)}0`$, $`𝐤_{1(2)}𝐤_n`$. The analysis of the Vector Spectral Function $`𝒫_1(|𝐤_n|,|𝐩_{rel}|,\theta )`$ should tell us what are the dominant configurations in the three-body wave function. To this end, we have plotted the Vector Spectral Function vs $`\theta `$ in correspondence of two values of $`|𝐩_{rel}|`$: $`|𝐩_{rel}|=0.75fm^1`$ ( $`E^{}=|𝐩_{rel}|^2/M23MeV`$) and $`|𝐩_{rel}|=1.1fm^1`$ ($`E^{}=|𝐩_{rel}|^2/M50MeV`$) and various values of $`k_n`$. The results, which are shown in Fig. 9, deserve the following comments:

1. the constant behaviour of $`𝒫_1`$ at $`k_n`$ =0 can easily be understood by considering that, as previously discussed, only the angle independent $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ $`pp`$ wave function contributes;
2. Eq. (32), i.e. the relation $`|𝐤_n|=2|𝐩_{rel}|`$, would correspond to $`|𝐤_n|1.5,fm^1`$, when $`|𝐩_{rel}|=0.75fm^1`$, and to $`|𝐤_n|2.2fm^1`$, when $`|𝐩_{rel}|=1.1fm^1`$. It can be seen that when $`|𝐤_n|=2|𝐩_{rel}|`$ $`pp`$ rescattering effects almost disappear, but they become extremely large when such a relation is not satisfied, except when $`|𝐤_n|2|𝐩_{rel}|`$ and $`\theta 0^o,180^o`$;
3. when $`|𝐤_n|=2|𝐩_{rel}|`$, the value $`\theta =0^0(180^0)`$ (super-parallel kinematics), corresponds to $`|𝐤_{1(2)}|`$=0, $`𝐤_n=𝐤_{2(1)}`$, i.e. to the $`2NC`$ configuration (see Appendix). The results presented in fig. 9 clearly show that such a configuration is the dominant one; as a matter of fact, far from such a configuration (e.g. at $`\theta =90^0`$, when three-nucleon configurations are important), the Vector Spectral Function is sensibly smaller. Thus, the most probable configuration in the three-nucleon wave function, when $`|𝐤_n|=2|𝐩_{rel}|`$, is indeed the $`2NC`$ configuration, when one nucleon of the $`pp`$ pair is almost at rest and the second one has momentum almost equal and opposite to the momentum of the neutron;
4. when $`|𝐤_n|2|𝐩_{rel}|`$ and $`\theta 0^o,180^o`$, we still stay in the super-parallel kinematics but not in the two-nucleon correlation region, for now $`|𝐤_{2(1)}|0`$, $`𝐤_n𝐤_{1(2)}`$; however, it can be seen that for $`|𝐤_n|>2|𝐩_{rel}|`$ , when the violation of the condition $`|𝐤_n|=2|𝐩_{rel}|`$ is very mild, $`pp`$ rescattering effects are still very small; note, moreover, that if the $`FSI`$ can only be described by the $`pp`$ rescattering, the cross section should be the same at both angles, a behaviour which deserves experimental investigation.

Thus the study of the Vector Spectral Function at $`|𝐤_n|2|𝐩_{rel}|`$, $`\theta 0^o`$ or $`180^o`$, which could be undertaken by measuring the $`(e,e^{}2p)`$ process in the super-parallel kinematics, would allow one to obtain information on the three-nucleon wave function in momentum space, provided the rescattering of the two protons with the outgoing neutron does not appreciably distort the process. The full calculation of the transition matrix element at low momentum transfer, has been undertaken in Ref. GLOCK  within a consistent Faddeev approach to bound and continuum states of the three-nucleon system. The process considered in Ref. GLOCK  is the absorption of $`\gamma ^{}`$ by a neutron (proton) at rest with the two protons (proton-neutron) emitted back-to-back with equal momenta $`𝐩_1=𝐩_2𝐩`$ and the neutron with momentum $`𝐩_n=𝐪`$ emitted in a direction perpendicular to $`𝐩`$. Thanks to the fully consistent treatment of bound and continuum state wave functions, the calculation presented in Ref. GLOCK , represents the status-of-the-art of the description of $`Process\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$ at low momentum transfer. In order to extend the theoretical description of the two-nucleon emission processes to the high momentum transfer region, where three-body continuum Faddeev-like wave functions are not yet available, we have developed an approach to the three-body rescattering, to be presented in the next subsection, based upon the eikonal approximation, which not only allows one to calculate the high momentum transfer processes, but can also easily be extended to complex nuclei.

### III.3 The three-body rescattering

We have considered the three-body rescattering of the neutron with the interacting $`pp`$ pair within an extended Glauber-type approach glauber  based on the following assumption

$`\chi _{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _n}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐩_n𝐫_3)\mathrm{\Psi }_{S_{pp}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}^{𝐩_{rel}}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\widehat{G}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3)\chi _{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _n}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐩_n𝐫_3)\mathrm{\Psi }_{S_{pp}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}^{𝐩_{rel}}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ (33)
where the Glauber operator $`\widehat{G}`$ is nikolaev

$`\widehat{G}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left[1\theta (z_iz_3)\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐛_i𝐛_3)\right],`$ (34)
with $`𝐛_i`$ and $`z_i`$ being the transverse and the longitudinal co-ordinates of the nucleon, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐛)`$ the profile function of the elastic nucleon-nucleon scattering amplitude; for the latter, the standard high-energy parametrization viz,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐛)={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{NN}^{tot}(1i\alpha _{NN})}{4\pi b_0^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{2b_0^2}}\right)`$ (35)
has been used, where $`\sigma _{NN}^{tot}`$ is the total Nucleon-Nucleon ($`NN`$) cross section and $`\alpha _{NN}`$ the ratio of the imaginary to the real part of the $`NN`$ scattering amplitude. Within such an approach, the full distorted transition matrix element assumes the following form

$`M^D(𝐩_m,𝐩_{rel})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _n}{}}|T^D(,\sigma _n,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp},𝐩_m,𝐩_{rel})|^2`$ (36)
where

$`𝐩_m=𝐩_n𝐪=(𝐩_1+𝐩_2)`$ (37)
is the missing momentum, which coincides with the neutron momentum before interaction when the three-body rescattering is disregarded. The distorted scattering matrix $`T^D`$ has the form

$`T^D(,\sigma _n,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp},𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel})={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{t}^2𝑑\stackrel{~}{t}d^3\rho d^3r\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐩_m𝝆\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{,\sigma _n,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}^{\stackrel{~}{t},𝐩_{rel}}(𝐫,𝝆)},`$ (38)
with

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{,\sigma _n,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}^{\stackrel{~}{t},𝐭}(𝐫,𝝆)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{\alpha \}}{}}XM_XL_\rho M_\rho |{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}j_{12}M_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _n|XM_Xl_fm_fS_{pp}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}|j_fM_f`$
$`\mathrm{Y}_{l_fm_f}(\widehat{𝐩}_{rel})\mathrm{Y}_{L_\rho M_\rho }(\widehat{𝝆})I_{\{\alpha \}}^{|\stackrel{~}{𝐭}|}(|𝝆|)\left[\mathrm{R}_{l_fS_{pp}}^{j_f,t}(r)\mathrm{R}_{l_{12}S_{pp}}^{j_{12},\stackrel{~}{t}}(r)\right]\left[\mathrm{Y}_{l_{12}S}^{j_{12}M_{12}}(\widehat{𝐫})\mathrm{Y}_{l_fS_f}^{j_fM_f}(\widehat{𝐫})\right]\widehat{G}(𝐫,𝝆),`$ (39)
and the response is given by Eq. 21, with $`M^{pp}(𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel})`$ replaced by $`M^D(𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel})`$ 222The quantity $`𝒫_1^D(𝐤_n,𝐩_{rel})`$= $`M_N|𝐩_{rel}|M^D(𝐤_n,𝐩_{rel})/2`$ can be called the Distorted Vector Spectral Function.

Some details of our numerical calculations of the three-body rescattering transition form factor, Eq.38, are now in order. It can be seen that the dependence of $`T^D(,\sigma _n,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp},𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel})`$ upon $`𝐩_{rel}`$ is entirely governed by the quantity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{,\sigma _n,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}^{\stackrel{~}{t},𝐭}(𝐫,𝝆)`$. Since the main component of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ ground-state wave function corresponds to the relative motion of the $`pp`$ pair in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{o}^{}`$ wave, the two protons in the final state are mostly in states with spin $`S=0`$ and even values of the relative angular momenta; thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{,\sigma _n,S_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}}^{\stackrel{~}{t},𝐭}(𝐫,𝝆)`$ is almost symmetric under the exchange $`𝐭𝐭`$. This symmetry can be slightly violated due to the contribution of the highest partial $`pp`$-waves in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ wave function nikolaev .

The quantities $`\sigma _{NN}^{NN}`$, $`\alpha _{NN}`$ and $`b_0`$ in Eq. (35) depend in principle on the total energy of the interacting nucleons glauber , however at high values of $`|𝐩_n|`$ ($`|𝐩_n|0.7GeV/c`$, which implies high values of the momentum transfer $`|𝐪|`$), they become energy independent and the ”asymptotic” values $`\sigma _{tot}(NN)44mb`$, $`\alpha _{NN}0.4`$ can be used, with $`b_0`$ determined by $`\sigma _{NN}^{NN}`$ and $`\alpha _{NN}`$ from unitarity requirements glauber .

The transition form factor $`M^D(𝐩_n,𝐩_{rel})`$ is shown Figs.10, 11 and 12, where it is compared with $`M^{PWA}`$ and $`M^{pp}`$. The three Figures correspond to three different kinematical conditions, namely:

1. Fig. 10 shows the results obtained in the super-parallel kinematics ($`\theta _1=180^o`$) and $`|𝐩_{rel}|=0.75fm^1`$, vs $`|𝐏|=|𝐩_1+𝐩_2|=|𝐩_n𝐪|`$. Let us, first of all, discuss the results obtained within the $`PWA`$ and the $`PWA`$ plus $`pp`$ rescattering (dashed and dot-dashed curves, respectively), which obviously coincide with the results presented in Fig. 9 (top panel, $`\theta _1=180^o`$), since $`𝐩_n=𝐤_n+𝐪`$ and $`𝐏=𝐩_{mis}=𝐤_n`$. The arrow denotes the $`2NC`$ kinematics, when $`𝐤_1=𝐤_n`$, $`𝐤_2=0`$ ($`𝐩_1+𝐩_n`$=$`𝐪`$, $`𝐩_2=0`$) and $`|𝐤_n|=2|𝐩_{rel}|`$. In agreement with Fig. 9, we see that the $`pp`$ rescattering has large effects at low values of $`|𝐏|=|𝐤_n|`$, but gives negligible contributions when $`|𝐏|=|𝐤_n|2|𝐩_{rel}|=1.5fm^1`$. The full line in Fig. 10 includes the effects from $`npp`$ rescattering (when $`𝐩_m𝐤_n`$); these effects are very large at small values of $`|𝐏|`$, but becomes negligible at $`|𝐏|2|𝐩_{rel}|`$. One could be tempted to compare the results shown in Fig. 10 with the ones presented in Fig. 5. In this respect one should first of all stress that in the sym kinematics used in Fig. 5, the neutron is at rest (both in the initial and final states), which means that the transition matrix element is mainly governed by the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ wave function of the two-proton relative motion. In the process considered in Fig. 10, when $`\gamma ^{}`$ couples to the neutron, none of the nucleons are at rest, except nucleon ”2” in the particular kinematics denoted by the arrow which represents the absorption of $`\gamma ^{}`$ by a neutron of a correlated $`np`$ pair, with the spectator proton at rest both in the initial and the final states. In this case, the transition matrix element gets contributions from higher angular momentum states, whose main effect is to fill in the diffraction minimum, without significantly affecting the regions left and right to it; consequently, in these regions, the value of $`M(𝐏,|𝐩_{rel}|,\theta _1)`$ corresponding to the arrow in Fig. 10 (i.e. to a spectator nucleon at rest), can qualitatively be compared with the results shown in Fig. 5 at $`𝐩_{2z}`$=- $`𝐩_{1z}`$= $`1.5fm^1`$; in this case one finds indeed that the relative momentum of the $`np`$ pair is $`|𝐩_{rel}|0.75fm^1`$. Thus, in Fig. 5 the region where $`FSI`$ effects are small, correspond to the $`2NC`$ region where, moreover, the conditions for the validity of the Schroedinger approach are satisfied. Note, eventually, that, according to our Glauber calculation, as well as to the calculation of Ref. Laget , the curve shown in Fig. 5 are slightly affected by the $`pn`$ rescattering; thus the dashed line in Fig.5 includes effectively both the $`PWA`$ and $`pp`$ rescattering results shown in Fig. 10.
2. Fig. 11 displays the same as in Fig. 10, but for $`\theta _1=90^o`$. The dashed and dot-dashed lines are of course the same as in Fig. 9. In particular, at $`|𝐤_n|=1.5fm^1`$, corresponding to the condition $`|𝐤_n|=2|𝐩_{rel}|`$, the $`npp`$ rescattering is small. Note that in this case, in spite of the fulfillment of the above condition, we are not in the two-nucleon correlation region but rather in the three-nucleon correlation region, for, as shown in the Figure, the momenta of the three-nucleons in the ground-state are of comparable size ( $`|𝐤_1||𝐤_2||𝐤_n|/\sqrt{2}`$, $`\theta _{12}90^o`$). Note that in the $`PWA`$ the transition form factor both in Process 1 (interaction of $`\gamma ^{}`$ with a proton of a correlated $`pp`$ pair shown in Figs. 4 and 5) and Process 2 (the interaction of $`\gamma ^{}`$ with the neutron we are discussing), represent the same quantity, namely the three-body wave function in momentum space (cf. Eqs. 16 and 25); therefore the results presented in Figs. 10 and 11 at $`|𝐏|=|𝐤_n|=0`$ have to coincide with the ones given in Fig. 3 at the corresponding value of $`𝐩_{rel}=𝐤_{rel}`$, as indeed is the case;
3. Fig. 12 refers to the particular case when the neutron is at rest in the ground-state, so that, after absorbing $`\gamma ^{}`$, it leaves the system with momentum $`𝐩_n=𝐪`$, and the two protons are emitted back-to-back in the lab system with $`|𝐩_1|=|𝐩_2|`$ and $`\theta _1=90^o`$. This is the kinematics also considered in Ref. GLOCK . Since, as already pointed out (cf. Section 3.2.1, Eq. (25)), in $`PWA`$ both Process 1 and Process 2 are described by the same transition form factor, which is nothing but the momentum space three-body wave function, the dashed lines in Figs. 4 and 12 represent the same quantity. As a matter of fact, since in Fig. 12 $`|𝐩_{rel}|=|𝐩_2|`$, we see that at the highest values of $`|𝐩_{rel}|`$, the dashed lines in Fig. 4 and 12 are in agreement; note however that, due to the effect of the high angular momentum states, the dashed line in Fig. 12 should not exhibit the diffraction minimum seen in Fig. 4. It can be seen, as expected from the behaviour of the neutron spectral function, that the $`pp`$ rescattering is very large since the ground-state configuration corresponds to zero neutron momentum and large $`pp`$ relative momentum. The fact that the $`pp`$ rescattering is large, would not represent per se a serious obstacle in the investigation of the three-body spectral function, for, as also stressed in Ref. GLOCK , the calculation of the $`pp`$ rescattering is well under control since many years (see e.g. Ref. CPS ); unfortunately, also the full rescattering effects are very large, with the results that this kinematics is not the optimal one to investigate the three-body wave function. The results presented in Fig. 12 can qualitatively be compared with the results of Faddeev-like calculations of Ref. GLOCK , bearing in mind that the latter are restricted to low momentum transfer, i.e. to $`\sqrt{s}3M+m_\pi `$, which means that unlike our case, for a given value of the three-momentum transfer $`|𝐪|`$, there is an upper limit to the value of $`|𝐩_{rel}|`$. As far as the $`PWA`$ and $`pp`$ rescattering results are concerned, there is en excellent agreement between our results and the $`PWIAS`$ and $`\mathrm{"}tG_0\mathrm{"}`$ results of Ref. GLOCK , respectively, which is not surprising in view of the similarity of the wave functions and the treatment of the two-nucleon spectator rescattering adopted in the two calculations; as for the three-body rescattering contribution, there also appear to be a satisfactory agreement between our eikonal-type calculation and the Faddeev results, provided the values of the three-momentum transfer is large enough; at low values of the momentum transfer the eikonal-type approach cannot be applied and a consistent treatment of bound and continuum three-nucleon states within the Schrödinger approach is necessary. It should be stressed that in Ref. GLOCK  the effect of the three-body rescattering on the process in which $`\gamma ^{}`$ is absorbed by a proton at rest and the proton and the neutron are emitted back-to-back with equal momenta $`𝐩_n=𝐩_2𝐩`$, has been found to be very small, so that this process would be well suited for the investigation of the three-nucleon wave function, being the calculation of the $`pn`$ rescattering well under control, as previously pointed out; it should moreover be emphasized, that within such a kinematics the effect of $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ meson exchange contributions on the transverse transition form factor has also found to be very small GLOCK . However, the s.p. kinematics at $`|𝐩_m|2|𝐩_{rel}|`$ we have considered seems to be very promising, in view of the smallness of both the spectator-pair and the three-body rescattering contributions.

## IV Summary and Conclusions

In this paper we have investigated the effects of the Final State Interaction (FSI) in the process $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e.e^{}2p)n`$ using realistic three-nucleon wave functions which, being the exact solution of the Schrödinger equation, incorporate all types of correlations generated by modern NN potentials. We have taken into account FSI effects, treating the three-nucleon rescattering within an improved eikonal approximation, which allows one to consider the two-nucleon emission processes at high momentum transfer, also when $`\sqrt{s}3M+m_\pi `$, i.e. above the kinematical boundary imposed by Faddeev-like calculations. We reiterate once again that our aim was restricted to the development of a theoretical approach for the treatment of FSI effects in two-nucleon emission processes off the three-body system, and to the investigation of the effects produced by FSI in various kinematical regions. We did not discuss, other final state effects, e.g. MEC, which clearly have to be taken into account when theoretical predictions are compared with experimental data. We have been guided by the idea that if a kinematical region could be found, where the effects of FSI are minimized, this would represent a crucial advance towards the investigation of both GSC and current operators. Basically we have considered two different mechanisms leading to the two-proton emission process:

1. Mechanism 1, in which $`\gamma ^{}`$ is absorbed by a correlated $`pp`$ pair. This mechanism, which is the one usually considered in the case of complex nuclei, has been previously analyzed in Ref. Laget  within a particular kinematics, the so called symmetric kinematics, according to which $`𝐩_1+𝐩_2`$= $`𝐪`$, $`𝐩_n=0`$. In $`PWA`$, such a kinematics selects the ground-state wave function configuration in which $`𝐤_1𝐤_2`$, $`𝐤_n=0`$ (the two-nucleon correlation ($`2NC`$) configuration). Our calculations confirm the results of Ref. Laget , namely that the FSI due to the $`n(pp)`$ rescattering is very small, whereas the $`pp`$ rescattering is extremely large, and fully distorts the direct link between the ground-state wave function and the cross section, which holds in $`PWA`$ (cf. Fig. 4). Thus, the symmetric kinematic does not appear extremely useful to investigate the three-nucleon wave function. A more interesting kinematics is the super-parallel kinematics ($`𝐩_1=𝐩_2=0,p_{1z}+p_{2z}=|𝐪|,𝐪z`$) which, as demonstrated in Fig. 5, shows that, particularly at high values of the momenta of the detected protons, the effects from the FSI are strongly reduced;
2. Mechanism 2, in which $`\gamma ^{}`$ is absorbed by the neutron, and the two protons are detected. We have shown that if the $`pp`$ rescattering is taken into account and the one between the neutron and the protons disregarded, the cross section depends upon the Vector Spectral Function $`𝒫_1(𝐤_n,𝐩_{rel})=\frac{M_N|𝐩_{rel}|}{2}M^{pp}(𝐤_n,𝐩_{rel})`$. This Spectral Function, unlike the usual one (see e.g Ref. CPS ), depends not only upon $`|𝐤_n|`$ and $`|𝐩_{rel}|=\sqrt{2ME^{}}`$, but also upon the angle $`\theta `$ between them. By analyzing the behaviour of $`𝒫_1(𝐤_n,𝐩_{rel})`$ (cf. Fig. 9) we have demonstrated that: i) when the relation $`|𝐤_n|2|𝐩_{rel}|`$ holds, the FSI due to $`pp`$ rescattering is very small, and ii) the dominant configuration in the ground-state wave function is the $`2NC`$ one, in which $`𝐤_1𝐤_2`$, $`𝐤_n=0`$ (Eq. 28); we have also found that when $`\theta 0^o(180^o)`$, the smallness of $`pp`$ rescattering actually extends to a wide region characterized by $`|𝐤_n|>2|𝐩_{rel}|`$, where the $`2NC`$ configuration is still the dominant one (cf. Appendix). Such a picture is not in principle withstanding when the three-nucleon $`n(pp)`$ rescattering is taken into account, since in this case the concept of neutron momentum before interaction $`𝐤_n`$ has to be abandoned in favor of the concept of missing momentum $`𝐩_m`$ = $`𝐩_n𝐪`$ = -($`𝐩_1+𝐩_2`$), which equals $`𝐤_n`$ only when the three-body rescattering is disregarded. However, our consideration of the three-body rescattering, clearly show that in the case of the super-parallel kinematics, both the three-body and two-body rescattering are negligible when $`|𝐩_m|2|𝐩_{rel}|`$, which means that in this region $`|𝐩_m||𝐤_n|`$. The three-body rescattering is on the contrary very relevant when $`|𝐩_m|<2|𝐩_{rel}|`$, both in the case of the super-parallel kinematics, and particularly when the two protons are detected with their relative momentum perpendicular to the direction of $`𝐪`$ (cf. Fig. 11). Within Mechanism 2 we have, as in Ref. GLOCK , also considered the process in which $`\gamma ^{}`$ is absorbed by a neutron at rest and the two protons are emitted back-to-back in the direction perpendicular to the direction of the momentum transfer $`𝐪`$, which means $`𝐩_m=0`$. In this case, the effects from the FSI appear to be very different from the ones considered in the two previous cases, namely, unlike the symmetric kinematics (cf. Figs. 4 and 5), where only the FSI between the two active protons played a substantial role, here both the $`pp`$ rescattering and the three-body $`n(pp)`$ rescattering are very large (cf. Fig. 12).

We can summarize the main results we have obtained in the following way:

i) if $`\gamma ^{}`$ is absorbed by a correlated proton pair, with the spectator neutron at rest and the two protons detected with their relative momentum perpendicular to the direction of $`𝐪`$ (symmetric kinematics), the leading FSI is the $`pp`$ rescattering, with the $`n(pp)`$ rescattering playing only a minor role. In such a case, however, the $`pp`$ rescattering fully destroys the direct link between the ground-state wave function and the cross section, occurring in the $`PWA`$; if the protons, on the contrary, are detected with their relative momentum parallel to $`𝐪`$ (super-parallel kinematics), the effects of the $`pp`$ rescattering is appreciably suppressed, particularly at high values of the momenta of the detected protons;

ii) if $`\gamma ^{}`$ is absorbed by an uncorrelated neutron at rest and the two correlated protons are emitted back-to-back with $`𝐩_1`$ = - $`𝐩_2`$, $`𝐩_{rel}=𝐩_1𝐪`$, both the $`pp`$ and the $`n(pp)`$ rescattering are very large;

iii) if $`\gamma ^{}`$ is absorbed by a neutron and the two protons are detected in the super-parallel kinematics, one has the following situation: if $`|𝐩_m|<2|𝐩_{rel}|`$ both the $`pp`$ and the $`n(pp)`$ rescattering are large; if, on the contrary, $`|𝐩_m|2|𝐩_{rel}|`$ they are both small and the cross section can be directly linked to the three-body wave function in momentum space.

In conclusion it appears that the super-parallel kinematics with $`|𝐩_m|2|𝐩_{rel}|`$ could represent a powerful tool to investigate the structure of the three-body wave function in momentum space. Experimental data in this kinematical region would be therefore highly desirable.

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the Ministero dell’Istruzione, Università e Ricerca (MIUR), through the funds COFIN01. We are indebted to A. Kievsky for making available the variational three-body wave functions of the Pisa Group and to W. Glöckle for useful discussions and for supplying the results of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(e,e^{}pp)n`$ calculations prior to publications. We thank L. Weinstein and B. Zhang for the information they provided on the CLAS preliminary results on two-proton emission off $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$. L.P.K. is indebted to the University of Perugia and INFN, Sezione di Perugia, for warm hospitality and financial support.

APPENDIX

THE BASIC CONFIGURATIONS IN THE VECTOR SPECTRAL FUNCTION

Let us investigate the basic configuration in the Vector Spectral Function. To this end, we will first consider the three-body wave function in momentum space or, in other words, the Vector Spectral Function in the Plane Wave Approximation, when the momenta of the three-nucleons satisfy the relation

$`𝐤_1+𝐤_2+𝐤_n=0`$ (40)
i.e.

$`𝐤_{1(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝐤_n\pm 𝐤_{rel}`$ (41)
where $`𝐤_{rel}=\frac{𝐤_1𝐤_2}{2}`$ is the relative momentum. One thus have

$`|𝐤_{1(2)}|=\sqrt{𝐤_{rel}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_n^2}{4}}|𝐤_{rel}||𝐤_n|cos\theta }`$ (42)
The above relation illustrates that:

1. if $`|𝐤_n|=2|𝐤_{rel}|`$, $`|𝐤_1|`$ =0, $`𝐤_n=𝐤_2`$, when $`\theta =0^o`$, and $`|𝐤_2|`$ =0, $`𝐤_n=𝐤_1`$, when $`\theta =180^o`$, which represents the two-nucleon correlation ($`2NC`$) configuration. It should be pointed out that the scalar condition $`|𝐤_n|=2|𝐤_{rel}|`$ alone does not suffice to uniquely specify the ground-state configuration, in particular the $`2NC`$ configuration. As a matter of fact, when $`|𝐤_n|=2|𝐤_{rel}|`$ but $`\theta =90^o`$, one has $`|𝐤_1|=|𝐤_2|=\sqrt{2}|𝐤_{rel}|`$ which represents a typical three-nucleon correlation ($`3NC`$) configuration, for all of the three-nucleons have comparable and high momenta. However, it can be seen from Fig.9 that such a three-nucleon configuration is strongly suppressed, and $`P(k_n,E)`$ is mainly governed by the $`2NC`$ configuration.
2. If $`|𝐤_n|2|𝐤_{rel}|`$, we do not stay in the $`2NC`$ configuration, but it can easily be checked that if $`|𝐤_n|>2|𝐤_{rel}|`$ and $`\theta 0^o(180^0)`$, $`|𝐤_n|`$ is still comparable with $`|𝐤_{2(1)}|>>|𝐤_{1(2)}|`$.

The above picture is distorted by the $`pp`$ rescattering, but, as demonstrated in Fig. 9, only for: i) $`|𝐤_n|<2|𝐤_{rel}|`$ and ii) $`|𝐤_n|>2|𝐤_{rel}|`$, $`\theta 90^o`$.