text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently there has been much attention to the string theories in the pp wave background, which may be obtained from the Penrose limit of $`AdS_p\times S^q`$ geometries. Remarkably the string spectrum in this background arises from a certain subsector of $`N=4`$ super Yang-Mills theories extending the usual AdS/CFT dualities.

The matrix model of the pp wave background is also constructed in Ref. . The related pp wave metric may be obtained from the Penrose limit of $`AdS_7\times S^4`$, which arises as a near horizon limit of M5 branes. Compared to the usual matrix model, the matrix model in the pp wave background includes mass terms and couplings to the background four form field strength. All the degrees become massive and the flat directions of the usual matrix model completely disappear, which makes the theory more accessible than the usual matrix model. Despite the presence of the mass term and couplings, the model in the pp wave background still possesses real 32 supersymmetries.

Due to the Myers effect induced by the background four form field strength, the matrix theory allows 1/2 BPS fuzzy sphere solutions. The fuzzy membrane corresponds to the giant graviton wrapping two sphere of $`S^4`$ expanded by the effect of the four form flux. Other simple time dependent 1/4 BPS configurations are constructed there, which may be interpreted as a collection of D0 branes rotating around a fixed axis with an angular frequency corresponding to the natural frequency provided by the harmonic potentials of mass term. These are nothing to do with the expanded brane-like configurations.

In this note, we study more general BPS brane solutions in the matrix model. For the related discussions on the D branes in pp wave background, see Refs. . The usual flat D2 branes cannot be supported in this model because all the coordinates acquire mass terms. Instead we find two branches of membrane solutions. The first describes rotating ellipsoidal branes preserving 8 real supersymmetries. By the effect of the rotation, the fuzzy sphere gets deformed to the ellipsoidal shape. Contrary to our expectation, the lengths of three axes of the ellipsoid become all different and $`SO(3)`$ invariance is broken down to $`Z_2`$. Within this branch, if one increases the angular momentum further, the shape of brane becomes hyperbolic. The relevant BPS equations may be viewed as a deformation of the BPS equations arising in the matrix model description of the supersymmetric tubes.

The other branch in general describes a rotating hyperbolic membrane preserving 1/8 supersymmetries. The configuration is embedded in the three space formed by the two coordinates from $`AdS_7`$ and the remaining one along $`S^4`$ direction. When the angular momentum vanishes in this branch, the configuration becomes 1/4 BPS. The brane takes the shape of hyperboloid. It could either take the shape of upper/lower part of two-sheet hyperboloid or one-sheet hyperboloid ($`dS_2`$) embedded in the flat three space. We study the detailed solutions of the static hyperbolic branes. The relevant solutions are provided by the unitary representation of the $`SO(2,1)`$ algebra. There are five class of unitary representation of $`SO(2,1)`$ and one may find the corresponding brane interpretation for all of the classes.

We further study the spectrum of the transverse scalar fields on the hyperbolic branes. The supersymmetric noncommutative solitons on the branes describe D0 branes located at the origin. The translational moduli are completely lifted by the mass terms. Using these solutions, we compute the spectrum of 0-2 strings connecting D0 branes to the hyperbolic branes.

In Section 2, we introduce the matrix model in the pp wave background and review the fuzzy membrane solutions and the collectively rotating D0 brane solutions. In Sections 3 and 4, we study the supersymmetry conditions introducing relevant projection operators. In particular, we study the two classes of BPS states. We present the corresponding solutions including rotating ellipsoidal membrane, the static hyperbolic branes and the rotating hyperbolic branes. In Section 5, we discuss the detailed solutions of static hyperbolic branes using the unitary representation of SO(2,1) algebra and give the interpretation in terms of brane configurations. We study the spectrum of the scalar field on the worldvolume of hyperbolic brane. Using the noncommutative solitons on this brane, we investigate the spectrum of 0-2 strings.

## 2 Matrix theory and Spherical membrane

The matrix model in the pp-wave is constructed in Ref. . The related geometry is $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ and, in the Penrose limit, the metric and the four form fields become

$`ds^2=4dx^{}dx^+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}\right)^2\left(4(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2)+(x_4^2+\mathrm{}+x_9^2)\right)(dx^+)^2+dx^idx^i`$
$`F_{+123}=\mu `$ (1)
where $`1,2,3`$ directions were coordinates of $`S^4`$ and the remaining six directions are related to the spatial directions of the $`AdS_7`$. One of the angular directions in $`S^4`$ is used in the light cone coordinate. The matrix model Lagrangian in this background becomes

$$L=L_0+L_\mu $$
(2)
with

$`L_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R}}\mathrm{tr}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(D_0X_i)^2+R^2{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}[X_i,X_j]^2\right)+\mathrm{tr}\left(\psi ^TD0\psi +i{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}R\psi ^T\gamma _i[\psi ,X_i]\right)`$
$`L_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}\right)^2\mathrm{tr}\left(4{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}X_i^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=4}{\overset{9}{}}}X_i^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{4}}\mathrm{tr}\psi ^T\gamma _{123}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}i{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{tr}X_iX_jX_kϵ_{ijk},`$ (3)
where we set the eleven dimensional Planck length $`l_{11}=1`$. $`R=g_s\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$ is the radius of the direction $`2x^{}`$ and $`l_{11}`$ is related to the string scale by $`l_{11}=(2\pi \alpha ^{}R)^{\frac{1}{3}}`$. The 16 dimensional Majonara spinors are used for the fermionic part and the gamma matrices are taken to be real. The scale $`R`$ (together with $`l_{11}`$) will be omitted below by setting them unity. The Lagrangian $`L_0`$ is the same as the usual matrix model in . $`L_\mu `$ includes mass terms and the coupling to the four form field background.

The system possesses 32 real supersymmetries in total. The fields transform under the supersymmetry as

$`\delta X=2\psi ^T\gamma _iϵ(t),\delta A_0=2\psi ^Tϵ(t)`$
$`\delta \psi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\left(D_0X_i\gamma _i+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}X_i\gamma _i\gamma _{123}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=4}{\overset{9}{}}}X_i\gamma _i\gamma _{123}+{\displaystyle \frac{iR}{2}}[X_i,X_j]\gamma _{ij}\right)ϵ(t)`$ (4)
with

$$ϵ(t)=e^{\frac{\mu }{12}\gamma _{123}t}ϵ_0.$$
(5)
For the remaining 16 supersymmetries, only fermions transform as $`\delta \psi =e^{\frac{\mu }{4}\gamma _{123}t}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_0`$ while all the bosonic coordinates do not change. Like the usual matrix model, this part of the supersymmetries are realized nonlinearly due to the presence of N D0 particles.

Because of the mass terms, the flat directions of the usual matrix model completely disappear. Further the coupling term to the four form field strength may induce the dielectric effect.

In this note we shall focus on the nonperturbative states in the matrix model of the pp wave background. As found in Ref. , there are solutions preserving 1/2 supersymmetries. We briefly review this fuzzy sphere configuration for the later comparison. From the supersymmetric transformation of the fermionic coordinate, the BPS equation becomes

$$[X_i,X_j]=i\frac{\mu }{3}ϵ_{ijk}X_k$$
(6)
for $`i,j,k=1,2,3`$, $`D_0X_i=0`$ for all $`i`$ and $`X_4=\mathrm{}=X_9=0`$. The solutions are given by fuzzy sphere; writing $`X_i=\frac{\mu }{3}L_i`$, one sees that

$$[L_i,L_j]=iϵ_{ijk}L_k$$
(7)
and solutions are given by a unitary representation of $`SU(2)`$. For the $`n=2j+1`$ dimensional representation with Casimir $`j(j+1)`$, the fuzzy sphere is described by

$$X_1^2+X_2^2+X_3^2=\left(\frac{\mu }{3}\right)^2j(j+1)=\left(\frac{\mu }{6}\right)^2(n^21).$$
(8)
The translations do not give new solutions and the related moduli are lifted completely. Since $`1,2,3`$ coordinates are related to $`S^4`$, it is clear that above configuration wraps a sphere in $`S^4`$ and may be identified a giant graviton in the pp-wave background.

In Ref. , solutions preserving 1/4 of supersymmetries were found. An example is

$`(X_4+iX_5)(t)=e^{\pm i\frac{\mu }{6}t}(X_4+iX_5)(0),[X_4,X_5]=0.`$ (9)
In the basis diagonalizing $`X_4`$ and $`X_5`$ simultaneously, D0 branes taking definite time dependent positions rotate around the origin at the same angular frequency as their natural frequency $`\mu /6`$ of the harmonic potential. Hence we see that the motion of D0 branes are the usual particle motion in the harmonic potential, which is nothing to do with the formation of expanded higher dimensional branes.

Of course, similar solutions may be obtained by replacing (4,5) by any other pairs. In addition, there is a similar 1/4 BPS solution by taking pair of indices from 1,2,3 with time dependence $`e^{\pm i\frac{\mu }{3}t}`$. Again the angular frequency and the natural frequency agree to each other.

## 3 Rotating Ellipsoidal Branes

In this section we shall investigate more closely the case where only the first three components of $`X_i`$ are turned on. The resulting configuration in general preserves 1/4 supersymmetries restoring 1/2 supersymmetry in the static limit. As we will see, the configuration corresponds to a deformation of the spherical membrane to a time dependent ellipsoidal one. There is at least one parameter family of solutions describing the deformation. If this parameter approaches a certain critical value, the ellipsoid collapses in two directions. Beyond the critical value, the membrane surface takes a shape of hyperboloid.

From the combination of $`\gamma _i(i=1,2,3)`$, the only real projection operator is of the type

$`P_\pm ^1={\displaystyle \frac{1\pm \widehat{n}_i\gamma _i}{2}},`$ (10)
where $`\widehat{n}_i`$ is a real vector of unit size. Without loss of generality, we shall choose $`\widehat{n}_i`$ to the $`3`$ direction using the global $`SO(3)`$ symmetry.

The supersymmetry condition, $`\delta \psi =0`$, then leads to BPS equations,

$`i[X_1,X_2]+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}X_3=0,D_0X_3=0`$
$`i[X_1,X_3](\pm ){\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}X_2(\pm )+D_0X_1=0`$
$`i[X_2,X_3](\pm )+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}X_1(\pm )+D_0X_2=0,`$ (11)
by setting the coefficient of $`P_\pm ^1ϵ_0`$. For the remaining supersymmetries, we shall satisfy the equations for just one choice of the sign. In addition, there is the Gauss law constraint,

$`[X_1,D_0X_1]+[X_2,D_0X_2]=0.`$ (12)
For definiteness, we shall choose $`+`$ sign projection corresponding to the remaining supersymmetries satisfying $`ϵ_0=\gamma _3ϵ_0`$. Working in a gauge $`A_0=X_3`$, the last two equations reduce to

$`\dot{X}_1+i\dot{X}_2={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}i(X_1+iX_2),`$ (13)
whose solution reads

$`X_1+iX_2=e^{\frac{\mu }{3}it}(X_0+iY_0)`$ (14)
with constant Hermitian matrices $`X_0`$ and $`Y_0`$. The second equation in (11) implies that $`X_3Z`$ is constant in time. Using this solution, the full set of BPS equations are reduced to

$`[X_0,[X_0,Z]]+[Y_0,[Y_0,Z]]2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}\right)^2Z=0,[X_0,Y_0]=i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}Z.`$ (15)
These generalize the BPS equations associated with the supersymmetric tubular branes by a mass parameter. The general solutions of these coupled equations are not known.

When $`Z=0`$, the above equations may be trivially satisfied and the solutions in (14) with commuting $`X_0`$ and $`Y_0`$ describe the rotating 1/4 BPS D0 branes discussed in the last section.

For more general solutions, we try the following ansatz,

$`[Z,X_0]=i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}(1+a)Y_0,[Y_0,Z]=i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}(1b)X_0.`$ (16)
The first equation in (15) then implies that $`a=b`$. The momentum becomes

$`D_0X_1+iD_0X_2=i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu a}{3}}e^{\frac{\mu }{3}it}(X_0iY_0),`$ (17)
When $`|a|1`$, the solution may be presented as

$`X_0={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}\sqrt{1+a}L_1,Y_0={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}\sqrt{1a}L_2,Z={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}\sqrt{1a^2}L_3`$ (18)
with the generators of the SO(3) algebra $`[L_i,L_j]=iϵ_{ijk}L_k`$. The shape is determined by the Casimir of the SO(3) representation and given by

$$\frac{X_0^2}{1+a}+\frac{Y_0^2}{1a}+\frac{X_3^2}{1a^2}=\left(\frac{\mu }{3}\right)^2j(j+1).$$
(19)
When $`a=0`$, the solution becomes spherical and $`D_0X_1=D_0X_2=0`$. Though we are using here a different gauge, this corresponds to the 1/2 BPS spherical membrane described in the previous section. Otherwise the solutions describe rotating ellipsoidal branes, which is 1/4 BPS. The total energy for this configuration and the angular momentum are evaluated as

$`H=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu a}{3}}\right)^2\mathrm{tr}(X_0^2+Y_0^2)={\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}\right)^4n(n^21),`$
$`J_{12}=\mathrm{tr}(X_1D_0X_2X_2D_0X_1)={\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}\right)^3n(n^21)`$ (20)
for the $`n`$ dimensional representation of the SO(3) algebra. As we see from (19), the rotation in the 12 plane makes the shape of the brane elliptical. However the deformation is more than expected. The lengths of three axes become all different and $`SO(3)`$ R-symmetry of the model is broken down to at most discrete subgroups.

For $`|a|>1`$, the rotating membrane takes the shape of hyperboloid. Specifically for $`a>1`$, the solution may be presented as

$`X_0={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}\sqrt{1+a}K_1,Y_0={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}\sqrt{a1}K_2,Z={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}\sqrt{a^21}K_3`$ (21)
with the generators of the SO(2,1) algebra $`[K_1,K_2]=iK_3`$, $`[K_3,K_1]=iK_2`$ and $`[K_2,K_3]=iK_1`$. The Casimir operator in this case is $`K=K_2^2+K_3^2K_1^2`$ and the shape is described by

$$\frac{X_0^2}{1+a}\frac{Y_0^2}{a1}\frac{X_3^2}{a^21}=\left(\frac{\mu }{3}\right)^2K.$$
(22)
There is a nonvanishing angular momentum in the $`12`$ plane. The detailed representation of the SO(2,1) algebra will be presented in the next section where we discuss the static hyperboloid.

## 4 Rotating 1/8 BPS Hyperbolic Branes

To look for the other BPS configurations, let us turn on one component out of 1,2,3 and two components out of the remaining 6 directions. Specifically we turn on $`X_3`$, $`X_4`$ and $`X_5`$. The unbroken supersymmetry condition, $`\delta \psi =0`$, may be written as

$`M_+\left(D_0X_4\gamma _4+D_0X_5\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}(X_4\gamma _4+X_5\gamma _5)\gamma _{123}+i[X_4,X_3]\gamma _{43}+i[X_5,X_3]\gamma _{53}\right)ϵ_0`$
$`+M_{}\left(D_0X_3\gamma _3+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}X_3\gamma _3\gamma _{123}+i[X_4,X_5]\gamma _{45}\right)ϵ_0=0,`$ (23)
where $`M_\pm e^{\pm \frac{\mu }{12}\gamma _{123}t}`$. We now introduce real projection operators

$`P_\pm ^1={\displaystyle \frac{1\pm \gamma _3}{2}},P_\pm ^5={\displaystyle \frac{1\pm \gamma _{12345}}{2}}`$ (24)
and it is straightforward to see that the above equation reduces to

$`i[X_4,X_5](+)(\pm )={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}X_3(\pm )(+),D_0X_3=0`$
$`i[X_4,X_3](\pm )(+)={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}X_5(+)(\pm )D_0X_4`$
$`i[X_5,X_3](\pm )(+)={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}X_4(+)(\pm )D_0X_5`$ (25)
by setting coefficients of $`P_\pm ^1P_\pm ^5ϵ_0`$ to zero. Here the signatures in the first parenthesis of each term represent that of the projection operator $`P_\pm ^1`$ whereas the second signatures for $`P_\pm ^5`$. $`(+)`$ represents that the projection operators are not involved. The configuration should satisfy the Gauss law,

$`[X_4,D_0X_4]+[X_5,D_0X_5]=0.`$ (26)
For the remaining supersymmetries, the above equations should be satisfied at least one set of the choice of the signatures. Let us choose the $`P_+^1P_{}^5`$ case. The other choices can be treated similarly. When $`Z=0`$, $`[X_4,X_5]=0`$ follows from the first equation of (25). The remaining equation reduce to the 1/4 BPS equation (9) discussed in the last section with the remaining supersymmetries given by $`P_\pm ^5ϵ_0`$.

Non rotating solutions are given only if $`D_0X_4=D_0X_5=0`$. The corresponding BPS equations become

$`[X_4,X_5]=+i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}X_3,[X_5,X_3]=i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}X_4,[X_3,X_4]=i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}X_5.`$ (27)
The configuration is 1/4 BPS and the remaining supersymmetries are given by the projection $`(P_+^1P_{}^5+P_{}^1P_+^5)ϵ_0`$. This projection is equivalent to a single projection operator $`P_{}^4`$ defined by

$`P_\pm ^4{\displaystyle \frac{1\pm \gamma _{1245}}{2}}.`$ (28)
One could use $`P_+^1P_+^5+P_{}^1P_{}^5=P_+^4`$ by which again we get SO(2,1) algebra corresponding to parity operation of (27). Later we shall analyze details of this static case.

For a more general case, again we choose a gauge $`A_0=X_3`$ and the projection $`P_+^1P_{}^5`$. The last two BPS equations then become

$`\dot{X}_4+i\dot{X}_5={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}i(X_4+iX_5),`$ (29)
whose solution reads

$`X_4+iX_5=e^{\frac{\mu }{6}it}(X_0+iY_0)`$ (30)
with constant Hermitian matrices $`X_0`$ and $`Y_0`$. The second equation in (11) imply that $`X_3Z`$ is constant in time. Using this solution, the BPS equations are reduced to

$`[X_0,[X_0,Z]]+[Y_0,[Y_0,Z]]+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}\right)^2Z=0,[X_0,Y_0]=i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}Z.`$ (31)
The essential difference from (15) is the signature in front of the mass square term. These equations in general describe 1/8 BPS configurations preserving 4 real supersymmetries. Again we do not know how to solve the equation in general. Taking the ansatz,

$`[Z,X_0]=i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}(1+a)Y_0,[Y_0,Z]=i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}(1b)X_0,`$ (32)
one finds $`a=b`$ from (31). The momentum in 45 directions then becomes

$`D_0X_4+iD_0X_5=i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu a}{6}}(X_0iY_0)e^{\frac{\mu }{6}it}.`$ (33)
The $`a=0`$ case corresponds to the 1/4 BPS configuration with vanishing momentum. For general $`a`$, the configuration takes a shape

$$\frac{X_0^2}{2(1+a)}+\frac{Y_0^2}{2(1a)}\frac{X_3^2}{1a^2}=\left(\frac{\mu }{6}\right)^2\mathrm{Casimir},$$
(34)
rotating in 45 plane.

The total energy and the angular momentum for this 1/8 BPS configuration are evaluated as

$`H=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}\right)^2\mathrm{tr}\left((a^2a+1)X_0^2+(a^2+a+1)Y_0^2+4Z^2\right),`$
$`J_{45}=\mathrm{tr}(X_4D_0X_5X_5D_0X_4)={\displaystyle \frac{a\mu }{6}}\mathrm{tr}(X_0^2Y_0^2).`$ (35)
As $`|a|`$ grows, the angular momentum in general increases and the shape changes accordingly. But in this 1/8 BPS branch, the instant shape of the brane configuration takes always the form of hyperboloid as we seen in (34).

## 5 Static Hyperbolic Branes and Their Fluctuation Spectrum

In the last section, we have obtained a static 1/4 BPS configurations. With definitions

$`X_4={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3\sqrt{2}}}K_1,X_5={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3\sqrt{2}}}K_2,Z={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}K_3,`$ (36)
the BPS equations in (27) implies that $`K_i`$ satisfies the SO(2,1) algebra. Namely, $`[K_1,K_2]=iK_3`$, $`[K_3,K_1]=iK_2`$ and $`[K_2,K_3]=iK_1`$, which we write as $`[K_i,K_j]=if_{ij}^kK_k`$ using a SO(2,1) structure constant $`f_{ij}^k`$. The Casimir operator in this case is $`K=K_1^2+K_2^2K_3^2`$ and the shape of the configuration is described by

$$\frac{1}{2}(X_4^2+X_5^2)X_3^2=\left(\frac{\mu }{6}\right)^2K.$$
(37)
The BPS branes are classified by all possible unitary representations of $`SO(2,1)`$ algebra, which have been already worked out in literatures. The basic idea is to introduce the step operators by

$$K_\pm =K_1iK_2,$$
(38)
which satisfy the commutation relations

$$[K_3,K_\pm ]=\pm K_\pm ,[K_{},K_+]=2K_3.$$
(39)
Let us work in a basis diagonalizing $`K`$ and $`K_3`$, the eigenvalues of which are denoted respectively by $`k`$ and $`m`$. Using $`K_{}=K_+^{}`$ in the unitary representation, the relation

$$K_{}K_\pm =K+K_3(K_3\pm 1).$$
(40)
gives a requirement

$$k+m(m\pm 1)0,$$
(41)
for all $`m`$. Then there are basically the following five class of unitary representations parametrized by $`j`$ with $`k=j(j1)`$.

(1) Discrete representations $`𝒟_j^+`$

The representation is realized in the Hilbert space

$$𝒟_j^+=\{|jm;m=j,j+1,j+2,j+3\mathrm{}\}.$$
(42)
where $`|jj`$ is annihilated by $`K_{}`$. $`j`$ is real and positive for the unitary representation.

(2) Discrete representations $`𝒟_j^{}`$

The Hilbert space is

$$𝒟_j^{}=\{|jm;m=j,j1,j2,\mathrm{}\}.$$
(43)
where $`|jj`$ is annihilated by $`K_+`$. $`j`$ is real and positive for the unitary representation.

(3) Continuous representations $`𝒞_j^\alpha `$

The Hilbert space is

$$𝒞_j^\alpha =\{|\alpha ;jm;m=\alpha ,\alpha \pm 1,\alpha \pm 2,\mathrm{}\},$$
(44)
and $`0\alpha <1`$ without loss of generality. The representation is unitary if $`j=1/2+is`$ with real $`s`$.

(4) Complementary continuous representations $`_j^\alpha `$

The Hilbert space is

$$_j^\alpha =\{|\alpha ;jm;m=\alpha ,\alpha \pm 1,\alpha \pm 2,\mathrm{}\},$$
(45)
and $`0\alpha <1`$ without loss of generality. For $`1/2<j<1`$ with $`j1/2<|\alpha 1/2|`$, the representation becomes unitary.

(5) Identity representation

This is trivial representation with $`j=m=0`$.

All of the nontrivial unitary representations are solutions describing 1/4 BPS configurations. The case $`𝒟_j^+`$ describes a hyperbolic plane corresponding to the upper plane of two-sheet hyperboloid as depicted in Fig. 1. There is a rotational symmetry in $`45`$ plane. In this case, the Casimir operator takes a value $`k=1/4(j1/2)^2`$ with $`j>0`$. For $`j1`$, the upper part of plane defined by (37) precisely agrees to the one in Figure 1. When $`0<j<1`$, the plane defined by (37) takes a shape of $`dS_2`$. Because the eigenvalue of $`X_3`$ is bounded below in this case, we view that the brane still takes the shape of the upper plane of two-sheet hyperboloid in the figure even for $`0<j1`$. Presumably the effect of noncommutativity on the brane induces this kind of correction and makes the tip closed off.

One may understand the configuration as follows. Without the pp wave background, there is a usual M2 brane in 45-plane that shares one direction with M5 branes. Now consider the situation where one holds the circular boundary of large M2 brane at fixed $`X_3`$ location. The mass term in presence of the pp wave corresponds harmonic confining potentials in the target space. Since the region at the origin has a lower potential, the M2 brane gets deformed toward the origin in order to take advantage of the lower potential. Of course, there is a cost of energy by the increase of area together with curving of the brane. These contributions are balanced in the above configurations.

The other discrete representation $`𝒟_j^{}`$ corresponds to the lower part of two-sheet hyperboloid. From $`𝒟_j^+`$, one may obtain $`𝒟_j^{}`$ by the transformation $`X_3X_3`$.

The continuous representation corresponds to a brane of the shape $`dS_2`$. Namely the upper and lower parts of two-sheet hyperboloid are connected by a tubular throat. The tube, in genral, does not close off along the throat. Also the D0 branes are located along the $`X_3`$ direction with equal spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mu /6`$, which one can read off from the eigenvalues of $`X_3`$. For $`𝒞_j^\alpha `$, $`k=1/4+s^2`$, which determines the classical shape. Especially, the fatness of the throat is determined by the Casimir. Unlike the case of the discrete representations, there is an extra parameter $`\alpha `$ for a given $`k`$. Since $`D0`$ branes in the $`X_3`$ directions are located with the equal spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the configuration has a periodicity $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ along $`X_3`$ directions about the locations of $`D0^{}s`$. Hence the parameter $`\mu \alpha /6`$ $`(0\alpha <1)`$ precisely describes the locations of a D0 within $`0x_3<\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

For $`_j^\alpha `$, $`k=1/4(j1/2)^2(0,1/4)`$ with $`1/2<j<1`$ and the throat becomes narrower as $`j`$ approaches $`1`$. The effect of the noncommutativity along the throat becomes crucial in this case. In particular, the freedom of locationg $`D0`$ brane in the unit interval gets lifted due to the too narrow throat. And the lattice translational freedom of $`D0`$ brane location breaks down partially. By this one may understand the ristriction of the locational parameter $`\alpha `$ given by $`j1/2<|\alpha 1/2|`$. The detailed dynamical investigation of the $`k`$ dependence of the D0 brane location will be quite interesting.

Finally we like to discuss the spectrum of the fluctuation around the hyperbolic brane background. For simplicity, we like to take the case of the upper part of two-sheet hyperboloid of the representation $`𝒟_j^+`$. Among the degrees, we like to concentrate on the transverse fluctuation along $`6,7,8,9`$. Let us call them $`\varphi `$. Then the effective Lagrangian governing the quadratic fluctuation becomes

$$L_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}\left(\dot{\varphi }^2\left(\frac{\mu }{6}\right)^2\varphi ^2\underset{i=3,4,5}{}\varphi [\overline{X}_i,[\overline{X}_i,\varphi ]]\right),$$
(46)
where $`\overline{X}_i`$ denotes the brane solution. Here we choose a gauge $`A_0=0`$. In order to find the spectrum, one has to diagonalize the above effective action, for which we proceed as follows. The scalar field in general may be written in components as

$$\varphi =\underset{nm}{}\varphi _{nm}|jnjm|.$$
(47)
We now define

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_i\varphi \varphi K_i,$$
(48)
which acts on $`jm|`$. Then it is simple to show that they satisfy the SO(2,1) algebra, i.e. $`[\stackrel{~}{K}_i,\stackrel{~}{K}_j]=if_{ij}^k\stackrel{~}{K}_k`$. Hence,

$$[K_i,\varphi ]=(K_i+\stackrel{~}{K}_i)\varphi =J_i\varphi $$
(49)
with the total generator $`J_i=K_i+\stackrel{~}{K}_i`$. Also note that the bases $`jm|`$ form the representation $`𝒟_j^{}`$ with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{K}_i`$. The problem is then reduced to the decomposition of the product representation of $`𝒟_j^+𝒟_j^{}`$ into sum of irreducible representation of the $`SO(2,1)`$ algebra. They are given by

$$𝒟_j^+𝒟_j^{}=_{s=0}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞_{1/2+is}^{\alpha =0}.$$
(50)
Hence in these bases denoted by $`\varphi _{(s,n)}`$ with nonnegative $`s`$ and integer $`n`$, one has

$$\underset{i=3,4,5}{}[\overline{X}_i,[\overline{X}_i,\varphi _{(s,n)}]]=\left(\frac{\mu }{6}\right)^2\left(\frac{1}{2}+2s^2+3n^2\right)\varphi _{(s,n)}$$
(51)
By adding the contribution from the original mass term in (46) which is already diagonal in the basis $`\varphi _{(s,n)}`$, the total mass squared is

$$M_{s,n}^2=\left(\frac{\mu }{6}\right)^2\left(\frac{3}{2}+2s^2+3n^2\right).$$
(52)
Similarly one may compute the mass spectrum of the scalar in (1,2) directions and they are

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_{s,n}^2=\left(\frac{\mu }{6}\right)^2\left(\frac{9}{2}+2s^2+3n^2\right).$$
(53)
From the expressions, it is clear that there are no massless modes and there are no moduli related to the brane position in the transverse space.

Finally we like to mention the spectrum of 0-2 strings connecting the upper brane of two-sheet hyperboloid and D0 branes sitting at the origin. The D0 branes may be given as a localized noncommutative soliton solution from the view point of the worldvolume theory of the brane. For simplicity, we consider the representation $`𝒟_j^+`$. It is straightforward to check the following solution satisfy the BPS algebra (27);

$`X_4={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3\sqrt{2}}}SK_1S^{},X_5={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3\sqrt{2}}}SK_2S^{},Z={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}SK_3S^{},`$ (54)
where we define a shift operator $`S`$ such that

$`S^{}S=I,SS^{}=IP`$ (55)
with $`l`$ dimensional projection operator $`P`$. The solution describes $`l`$ D0 branes sitting at the origin. Again due to the mass terms in the model, the translational moduli of D0 branes completely disappear. In this BPS configuration, they are located at the origin, which is the minimum point of the potential. More explicitly, for the projection operator $`P=|jjjj|`$, the corresponding shift operator may be constructed as

$`S={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|j,j+n+1j,j+n|.`$ (56)
In the background of this solution, one may compute the spectrum related to the 0-2 string. In particular $`\varphi `$ in the transverse directions decomposed as $`\varphi =P\varphi P+P\varphi \overline{P}+\overline{P}\varphi P+\overline{P}\varphi \overline{P}`$ with $`\overline{P}=IP`$. The quadratic part of each term contributes to the action independently. One may then explicitly check that $`P\varphi P`$ describes the fluctuation of D0’s while $`\overline{P}\varphi \overline{P}`$ part describes the fluctuation of the original hyperbolic brane. The remaining part is to do with the 0-2 strings. Namely they describe the interaction between the D0 branes and the hyperbolic brane. In the transverse direction, the spectrum may be evaluated straightforwardly. (See Refs.  for the detailed methods.) The resulting spectrum for $`P\varphi \overline{P}`$ in the 6,7,8,9 directions reads

$`M_{na}^2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}\right)^2\left(1+2j(1j)+3(j+n)^2\right),`$ (57)
where $`a`$ labels the a-th D particle and $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. For 1,2 direction, the mass spectrum is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{M}_{na}^2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}\right)^2\left(4+2j(1j)+3(j+n)^2\right).`$ (58)
In these expressions, the constant parts , $`1\times (\mu /6)^2`$ or $`4\times (\mu /6)^2`$, come from the original mass terms of the Lagrangian (3). The remaining parts take the same form and may be interpreted as the distance squared between D0’s at the origin and the n-th D0 brane on the hyperbolic brane. More explicitly, the distance may be measured as $`d_n^2=jj+n|(X_4^2+X_5^2+X_3^2)|jj+n`$ on the solution, which agrees with the remaining parts of the masses squared.

## 6 Conclusion

In this note, we study the generic two brane solutions arising in the matrix model of the pp wave background. There are two branches we have identified. One is the 1/4 BPS branch where the rotating branes take an ellipsoidal shape. The others include 1/4 BPS static hyperbolic branes and rotating hyperbolic branes preserving 1/8 of the supersymmetries. We focus on the static branes of the hyperbolic shape and find all possible solutions classified by the unitary representation of the SO(2,1) algebra. We have computed the spectrum of the transverse fluctuation as well as 0-2 strings.

In the Matrix model of the pp wave background, it is clear that the static flat branes are not supported because of mass terms. Also, the supersymmetric charges in this system are time dependent and do not commute with the Hamiltonian, which makes it difficult to apply the conventional methods of finding BPS equations. In this respect, we do not know the whole classifications of possible BPS equations in the system. Also for the BPS equations identified in this note, the general solutions are not known and our solutions are obtained by taking specific ansatz. A more systematic understanding of the BPS states in this massive matrix model is necessary.

The detailed dynamical understanding of the formation or deformation of the branes are still lacking. For the rotating ellipsoidal shape of branes, the lengths of all the axes becomes different. If one increase the angular velocity, the ellipsoidal brane opens up and becomes hyperbolic. Why these are so dynamically is not clear to us. The further investigation is necessary.

We have computed the spectrums of the 0-2 string connecting D0 to the static hyperbolic brane. This may be directly compared with those of string theory in the pp wave background.

Acknowledgment We would like to thank Kimyeong Lee for enlightening discussions and Nobuyoshi Ohta for comments.. This work is supported in part by KOSEF 1998 Interdisciplinary Research Grant 98-07-02-07-01-5.


format: text

text:
# The Phoenix galaxy: UGC 4203 re-birth from its ashes?

## 1 Introduction

X-ray spectra of Seyfert 2 galaxies are always significantly absorbed by line–of–sight cold matter (Awaki et al. (1991), Turner et al. (1997), Risaliti et al. (2001)). The X-ray absorber is usually associated with the “torus”, responsible - in Seyfert unification models (Antonucci & Miller (1985), Antonucci (1993)) - for the occultation of the Broad Line Regions (BLR).

This scenario may be oversimplified. Keel proposed as early as 1980 that the deficiency of nearly edge-on Seyfert 1 galaxies may be due to dust obscuration, associated with the host galaxy. Maiolino & Rieke (1995) suggested that intermediate Seyferts are seen through a 100 pc-scale, Compton–thin absorber coplanar with the disk of the host galaxy, whereas only “strict” Seyfert 2s are obscured by the inner torus. Expanding this line of thought, Matt (2000) has recently proposed an extension of the unification models, where Compton-thick Seyfert 2s ($`N_\mathrm{H}\text{ }>10^{24}`$ cm-2) are seen through compact, thick matter with a large covering fraction (to be identified with the “torus”), a few tens of parsecs at most far from the nucleus, whereas Compton-thin Seyfert 2s ($`N_\mathrm{H}\text{ }<10^{24}`$ cm-2) are absorbed by matter located at larger distances. The discovery, with HST high-resolution images, that dust lanes on scales from tens to hundred parsecs are common in nearby Seyferts suggests a possible “optical” counterpart for the Compton–thin, X-ray absorbing matter (Malkan et al. (1998); see also Antonucci & Barvainis (1990) for similar, earlier results on narrow line radio galaxies). Later on, Guainazzi et al. (2001) studied the correlation between the morphology of the circumnuclear dust and the properties of X-ray absorption. Their study indicate that Compton-thin objects prefer dust-rich nuclear environments, whereas the presence of Compton-thick material does not appear to be correlated with the overall dust content.

Such studies have been hampered so far by the limited number of Seyfert 2 galaxies for which good quality X-ray spectra are available. A program has been therefore started to observe with the X-ray satellite XMM-Newton (Jansen et al. (2001)) a large sample of Seyfert 2s, selected according to their nuclear dust morphology. We present in this paper the results of the observation of the edge-on maser galaxy (Braatz et al. (1994)) UGC 4203 (a.k.a. Mrk 1210; $`z=0.013`$), one of the Seyfert 2s which exhibit broad lines in polarized light (Tran (1995)). This observation reveals an unusual transition between a Compton-thick and -thin state, when compared with ASCA observations performed almost six years earlier.

## 2 Observations and data reduction

XMM-Newton observed UGC 4203 on May 5 2001. The CCD imaging EPIC cameras (Turner et al. (2001). Strüder et al. (2001)) were operated in Full Frame mode, with the THIN optical filter. UGC 4203 was too faint to be detected by the high resolution spectroscopy cameras, whose data will not be discussed in this paper. Data were reduced with SAS v5.1 (Jansen et al. (2001)), using the most updated version of the calibration files available at August 2001. This ensures spectral fitting residuals within $`\pm `$10% for all EPIC cameras, accuracy of the absolute position reconstruction within 4$`\mathrm{}`$, and of the gain reconstruction $``$25 eV at 6 keV. The observation of UGC 4203 was affected by a rather high radiation level. The p-n was flooded with background events, and spent most of the observing time in “counting mode”. In this mode any information about the position or energy of the incoming photons is lost. For this reason, only MOS data will be discussed in this paper. After data screening, the exposure time is about 7.7 ks.

In this paper: errors refer to the 90% confidence level for one interesting parameter; energies are quoted in the source rest frame, unless otherwise specified.

## 3 Spectral analysis

### 3.1 The XMM-Newton observation

In the MOS cameras, a strong source (MOS 2 count rate in the 0.3–10 keV band of $`0.220\pm 0.006`$ s-1) is detected. Its centroid position ($`\alpha _{2000}=08^h04^m05^s.8`$; $`\delta _{2000}=+05^h06^m50^s`$) coincides within 2$`\mathrm{}`$ with the optical nucleus of UGC 4203. The MOS image does not show any evidence of extended emission beyond the instrumental PSF (6$`\mathrm{}`$ correspond to 100 kpc at the UGC 4203 distance). No flux variation is observed during the observation. We will therefore focus on the time-averaged spectrum only in this paper. X-ray events corresponding to patterns 0 to 12 were used. Source spectra were extracted from a circular region around the image centroid, with a radius of 22$`\mathrm{}`$. Spectra were rebinned in order to have at least 50 counts for each spectral bin, to allow a proper use of the $`\chi ^2`$ test, and to oversample the instrumental energy resolution by a factor not higher than 3. Background spectra were extracted from several regions of the central chip, and merged together to increase statistics, once verified that the results were not significantly dependent on the chosen extraction region. A fit to the MOS spectra with a simple, absorbed power-law in the 3–10 keV energy range is acceptable ($`\chi ^2=57.0/52`$ dof). Excess counts at an observed energy of about 6.3 keV can be interpreted as an emission line, as explained in more details later in this Section. The photoelectric column density is $`N_\mathrm{H}=1.8\pm _{0.3}^{0.4}\times 10^{23}`$ cm-2, whereas the spectral index, albeit only loosely constrained, is not dissimilar from that typically observed in Seyfert 2s ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.6\pm _{0.4}^{0.3}`$).

The extrapolation of the best-fit model in the 3–10 keV band lays, however, well below the data (see Fig. 1).

We have therefore added to the hard X-ray absorbed power-law a second unabsorbed power-law, to approximately describe the scattering of the primary nuclear emission by a “warm mirror”. Photoelectric absorption with a column density equal to that of our own Galaxy ($`N_{\mathrm{H},\mathrm{Gal}}=3.7\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2; Dickey & Lockman (1990)) has been added to all models hereinafter. If self-absorption effects are neglected, the scattered soft component has the same spectral index of the primary emission; the data do not actually require different indices. The scattering fraction is $`1.3\pm _{0.7}^{0.3}\%`$. Other descriptions of the soft excess, like e.g. thermal emission from an optically thin collisionally ionized plasma which may be produced in regions of intense star formation, are, however, also consistent with the data. The results on the hard X-ray spectrum are not significantly dependent on the soft excess modeling.

The best-fit parameters and results are summarized in Table 1.

Three narrow (i.e.: intrinsic width $`\sigma =0`$) emission lines are also required to get an acceptable fit ($`\chi ^2=65.1/70`$ dof). One of them ($`E_\mathrm{c}6.41`$ keV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=14.1`$, corresponding to a confidence level $``$99.9%) is consistent with Kα fluorescent emission from neutral iron. The other two lines have $`E_\mathrm{c}0.93`$ keV and $`E_\mathrm{c}1.79`$ keV, respectively. The corresponding improvement in the quality of the fit is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=14.1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=4.2`$, respectively, the latter corresponding to a confidence level of 88.8% only. Their centroid energies are consistent with Kα fluorescent transitions of H-like neon and silicon, probably due to radiative recombination and resonant scattering in a photoionized plasma (Bianchi et al. (2000), Sako et al. (2000), Sambruna et al. (2001)). All the detected lines are unresolved, even if the upper limits to their widths are very large. Spectrum and residuals for the best-fit model are shown in Fig. 2.

The 0.5-2.0 keV (2.0-10 keV) flux measured by XMM-Newton is $`2.6\times 10^{13}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 ($`9.7\times 10^{12}`$ erg cm-2 s-1), corresponding to a rest-frame, absorption-corrected 2–10 keV luminosity of $`1.9\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1 for the transmitted nuclear emission.

### 3.2 ASCA observation

ASCA observed UGC 4203 twice during autumn 1995, approximately three weeks apart (October 18 and November 12). An analysis of the ASCA data is presented by Awaki et al. (2000). We have combined the two observations and reanalyzed the data, obtaining basically their same results. The hard X-ray spectrum during the ASCA observation was significantly fainter than during the XMM-Newton one. The fluxes measured by ASCA are $`2.3\times 10^{13}`$ erg cm-2 s-1, and $`2.1\times 10^{12}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 in the 0.5–2 keV and 2–10 keV energy band, respectively. We have first tried to fit the spectra with the same model adopted to fit the XMM-Newton spectrum (transmission scenario in Table 2). Although the fit is acceptable ($`\chi _\nu ^2=0.89`$) there is no obvious explanation for the huge ($`EW1.2`$ keV) iron emission line (Leahy & Creighton (1993), Matt 2002). This feature is instead naturally explained in the reflection-dominated scenario, appropriate for nuclei either absorbed by Compton–thick matter (Matt et al. (1996)) or switched–off (Guainazzi et al. (1998)), where emission lines are observed against the reflection continuum only (Matt et al. (1996)). We have therefore substituted the absorbed hard X-ray power-law with an unabsorbed Compton-reflection component (model pexrav in Xspec, Magdziarz & Zdziarski (1995); reflection-dominated scenario in Table 2).

We fixed the abundances to their solar values, and assumed reflection from an edge-on plane–parallel slab. This model describes the data equally well ($`\chi _\nu ^2=0.90`$), but it is to be preferred on physical grounds. Even if the fit is already satisfactory, we have later included in the model an additional photoelectric absorption covering the Compton-reflection component, to verify whether the latter is also obscured by a Compton-thin absorber similar to the one found in the XMM-Newton observation. The the quality of the fit slightly improves ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=`$5.8, corresponding to the 98.8% confidence level according to the F-test). This remains true also if the inclination angle and the abundances are left free to vary in the fit. The best-fit column density value is four times lower than, but still consistent at the 3$`\sigma `$ level (see Fig. 3) with that derived from the XMM-Newton spectrum.

The ASCA spectra do not provide significant constraints on the iron line profile or on the nature of the soft X-ray emission. Despite the remarkable flux change in the 2–10 keV band between the XMM-Newton and the ASCA observations, the intensity of the iron line remained basically unchanged.

## 4 Discussion

The two X-ray observations of UGC 4203 described in this paper caught the source in two remarkably different spectral states. The ASCA spectrum is most-likely dominated by Compton-reflection. We assume in what follows that this component is due to reflection from the far inner side of Compton-thick matter surrounding the nucleus. We are therefore implicitly assuming an axisymmetric distribution of this matter, as in the torus envisaged in the standard unification scenarios (Antonucci & Miller (1985), Antonucci (1993)). In the XMM-Newton observation of UGC 4203, however, the AGN was shining again (albeit through a Compton-thin absorber with $`N_\mathrm{H}2\times 10^{23}`$ cm-2). In Fig. 4 we compare the UGC 4203

X-ray spectral energy distributions measured by ASCA and XMM-Newton. Despite the 2-10 keV flux difference, the intensities of the iron line in the two observations are consistent with each other. It is interesting to note that comparable fluxes are measured also in the soft X-rays, which are likely to be dominated by reprocessing or diffuse emission. The lack of information about the history of the activity in UGC 4203 prevents us from deriving quantitative constraints on the location of the matter, which emits the bulk of the radiation at $`\text{ }<`$2 keV.

In Fig. 5, the transition of UGC 4203 between a “Compton-thick” and a “Compton-thin” state is

put in the context of the diagnostic diagram of Bassani et al. (1999). The iron line EW is plotted against the ratio between the 2–10 keV and the O\[III\] flux corrected for the Balmer-decrement (taken from Ho et al. (1997)). The path followed by UGC 4203 in this diagram is that expected from the above transition. Although variations of the X-ray absorber in Compton-thin objects (rarely larger than a factor of a few) are quite common (Risaliti et al. (2001)), there are only two other convincing cases where a transition between a Compton-thin and -thick state can be claimed: NGC 1365; (Iyomoto et al. (1997), Risaliti et al. (2000)), and NGC 6300 (Guainazzi (2001)), out of about 30 objects for which at least two historical measurements of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ are available.

The transition of UGC 4203 can be due to either: 1) a change in the properties of the absorber(s); 2) or a “switching–off” of the nucleus during the ASCA observation, leaving the Compton-reflection as the only “echo” of its previous higher activity level.

The timescale, on which the transition occurred, rules out an explanation in terms of “disappearance” of a single, homogeneous Compton-thick axis-symmetric system, covering a steady-state active nucleus. The covering fraction of the torus must be $`2\pi `$ to account for the residual flux observed by ASCA. Large torus covering fractions are also suggested by statistical arguments (Maiolino et al. (1995); Risaliti et al. (2000)). If the observed transition is related to the line-of-sight crossing time of a single spherical cloud in Keplerian motion around a $`M_8M/10^8M_{}`$ black hole, the distance from the central engine is $`8\times 10^{16}M_8^{1/3}`$ cm. A rather unlikely geometry of the torus would be necessary to explain the transition in this scenario.

However, an explanation along the same line of thought is viable, if the Compton-thick matter is clumpy. The crossing-time of a Keplerian cloud covering a region of size $`r_{10}=r/10R_\mathrm{S}`$ around the black hole is:

$$t_\mathrm{c}0.13M_8^{1/2}d^{1/2}r_{10}\text{years}$$

where $`d`$ is the cloud distance from the nucleus in parsecs.

Alternatively, ASCA may have observed the AGN in UGC 4203 in a dim state. Compton-reflection would be therefore only the “echo” of its previous activity, later revived, and discovered by the XMM-Newton observation (the “Phoenix galaxy” effect). UGC 4203 would in this case join, e.g., NGC 4051 (Guainazzi et al. (1998); Uttley et al. (1999)) and NGC 2992 (Gilli et al. (2000)), whose dimming and subsequent recovery on timescales of the order of a fraction of year to a few years have been already monitored. In both cases the fainter states correspond to flat X-ray spectra with strong Kα fluorescent iron lines, interpreted as the emerging of reflection from Compton-thick matter at distances $`\text{ }>0.1`$ pc.

The implications of the latter explanation would be far-reaching. In the framework of the Seyfert unification scenario, X-ray reflection-dominated Seyfert 2 galaxies are strictly identified with Compton-thick objects. Recent hard X-ray studies (Salvati et al. (1997), Maiolino et al. (1998), Risaliti et al. (2000)) suggest that they may constitute about half of the Seyfert 2 population, at least in the local Universe. If, on the other hand, reflection-dominated states are due to AGN low-activity phases, their rate of occurrence may be telling us more on the duty-cycle of the AGN phenomenon, rather than on the geometry of the nuclear environment.

It is admittedly difficult to discriminate between the two above scenarios, given the paucity of information on the X-ray history of UGC 4203. In NGC 6300 (Guainazzi (2001)), a similar transition from a reflection- to a transmission- dominated status was observed. However, a remarkably strong residual Compton-reflection component was clearly present in the latter state, a factor of 4 higher than typically observed in unabsorbed Seyfert galaxies. Since in the latter the reflector covers probably a $`\pi `$ solid angle to the black hole, the most straightforward explanation for this finding is to invoke an intrinsic change of the AGN primary emission, probably larger than an order of magnitude. NGC 6300 is the best demonstration to date that the reflection- to transmission-dominated transitions are indeed related to variation of the AGN intrinsic luminosity. Unfortunately, the limited energy band of the EPIC cameras prevents us from verifying this hypothesis in the UGC 4203 case.

### 4.1 Where is/are the absorber/s?

Independently of which of the above explanations is correct, the results presented in this paper have implications on the nature and/or location of the matter responsible for the X-ray photoelectric absorption in Seyfert 2 galaxies.

A “clumpy torus” may explain the observed transition in UGC 4203. We may be observing UGC 4203 through the unstable or uneven torus rim, causing clouds of different column densities to appear along the line-of-sight to the nucleus due to local instabilities or AGN-driven clouds evaporation (Pier & Voit (1995)). Clumpy torii may be thermally and dynamically supported by the AGN radiation field, as shown by Pier & Krolik (1992). Magnetic fields may play a role as well. Although more theoretical work and fully self-consistent calculations are needed, this seems a rather promising possibility to explain our results.

If, on the other hand, the transition is due to a changed AGN activity, it follows that the Compton-thin absorbing matter may be different than the torus, whose presence in UGC 4203 is implied by the reflection-dominated, X-ray dim state observed by ASCA. A possible location of this additional absorber was suggested by Matt (2000). In his extension of the traditional unification scenario, the compact, dusty torus is still responsible for the Compton-thick X-ray nuclear absorption only, whereas the Compton-thin absorbers are located at much larger distances. If this scenario applies to UGC 4203 as well, the Compton spectrum in the reflection-dominated state should be absorbed by Compton-thin matter. The quality of the ASCA spectrum is unfortunately not good enough to give a definitive answer to this question. However, an additional Compton-thin absorber is required at the 98.8% level in the ASCA reflection-dominated state.

Alternatively, BLR clouds are expected to have a column density of $`N_\mathrm{H}10^{23}`$ cm-2 as well. However, the possibility that they are responsible for the X-ray Compton-thin absorption is ruled out by the low covering fraction of the BLR as estimated from the lack of Ly-edge cutoff or carbon dip in the UV spectrum of type 1 AGN (Maiolino et al. (2001)) and the lack of silicate absorption feature in the ISO spectra of AGN (Clavel et al. (2000)).

## 5 Summary

Comparing an autumn 1995 ASCA with a summer 2001 XMM-Newton observation of the Seyfert 2 galaxy UGC 4203 (Mkn 1210), we discovered a rare transition from a Compton reflection- to a transmission-dominated state. This transition can be explained by one of the following scenarios:

* the “disappearance” of a Compton-thick cloud, covering a steady-state active nucleus at the time of the ASCA observation. If this explanation is correct, the outcomes presented in this paper suggest that the compact molecular torus, encompassing the nuclear environment in the Seyfert unification scenarios, has actually a clumpy or patchy structure
* a transition in the activity level of the UGC 4203 AGN. The XMM-Newton would have unveiled its revival after the “silent” phase caught by ASCA (the “Phoenix galaxy” effect)

The latter explanation would imply that, at least in this object \[and probably in the objects where this kind of transitions occurs (Guainazzi (2001))\] the Compton-thin and Compton-thick absorbers are different. This would provide support to models where the standard “torus” intercepts the line of sight to the nucleus in Compton-thick objects only (Matt (2000)), whereas Compton-thin absorbers are located at larger scales, maybe associated with the host galaxy rather then with the nuclear environment.

###### Acknowledgements.

Constructive comments from an anonymous referee, which greatly improved the quality of the presentation, are gratefully acknowledged. The authors acknowledge as well helpful discussions with J.Krolik on the radiation-supported torii models, and stimulating historical remarks by R.R.J.Antonucci. FF, GCP and GM acknowledge financial support from ASI and the Italian Ministry of Research, under grant Cofin-00-02-36.


text:
# Threshold limit-from{𝐽/𝜓}- production in nucleon-nucleon collisions

## I Introduction

It is well known that the $`J/\psi `$meson has been observed in two different reactions: in $`p+Be`$-collisions and $`e^+e^{}`$ .

Since that time experimental and theoretical studies of $`J/\psi `$production have been going on. As a result of high statistics and high resolution experiments a large information on the properties of the $`J/\psi `$meson have been collected, on the production processes and on its numerous decays. From a theoretical point of view, the interpretation of the data, in particular in confinement regime, is very controversial. As an example, the $`c`$quark mass is too large, if compared to predictions from chiral symmetry, but for theories based on expansion of heavy quark mass (Heavy Quark Effective Theory), this mass is too small . In principle all data on $`J/\psi `$ should be explained in the framework of QCD. For example, the typical picture of charm production (open or hidden) should unify the different steps: parton-level hard process with production of $`c\overline{c}`$-pairs, after the step of hadronization of $`c\overline{c}`$\- into $`J/\psi `$ or into charmed hadrons (mesons and baryons) and the final state interaction of the produced charmed hadrons with other particles. The relatively large transferred momenta involved in most processes of $`J/\psi `$production in hadron-hadron collisions allow to treat the first step in framework of perturbative QCD. But the applicability of QCD is not so straightforward for the description of the $`c`$-quark hadronization.

This is correct especially for exclusive reactions, such as, for example, $`J/\psi `$ production in nucleon-nucleon collision: $`N+NN+N+J/\psi `$. Note that the threshold for this reaction is large: $`E_{th}`$=12.24 GeV which corresponds to $`\sqrt{s}=2m+m_{J/\psi }`$ 5 GeV, whereas experimental data about $`p+pJ/\psi +X`$ are available for $`\sqrt{s}`$ 6.7 GeV . therefore the experimental study of $`N+NN+N+J/\psi `$ near threshold is an important part of the program of the future accelerator facility at GSI .

Precise measurements of threshold $`J/\psi `$ production will bring important information with respect to the following issues. First of all the threshold meson production in $`NN`$-collisions gives deeper insight in the reaction mechanisms as it is shown by recent experiments on $`p+pp+p+\omega (\varphi )`$ , $`p+p\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)+K^++p`$ , and $`p+pp+p+\eta (\eta ^{})`$ . In this respect, $`J/\psi `$production has a specific interest: the production and the propagation of charm in ion-ion collisions has been considered as one of the most promising probe of quark-gluon plasma (QGP) formation . The productions of charmonium (hidden strangeness) and $`D`$ $`(D^{})`$ mesons (open charm) are equally important. The suppression of charmonium production in heavy ion collisions has been indicated as a signature of QGP , but in order to state the evidence of a clear signal, it is necessary to analyze in detail all possible mechanisms for $`J/\psi `$production in ion-ion collisions, and also all other processes which are responsible for the dissociation of the produced $`J/\psi `$meson, such as $`J/\psi +N\mathrm{\Lambda }_c+D`$, for example.

The aim of this paper is to study $`J/\psi `$production in the simplest $`NN`$-reactions: $`p+pp+p+J/\psi `$ and $`n+pn+p+J/\psi `$. In the near threshold region there is no experimental information about a possible difference in $`pp`$\- and $`np`$-collisions. There are no theoretical predictions for such exclusive processes, which are very difficult to treat in framework of QCD. It is possible to find some phenomenological parametrizations  of the energy dependence of the total cross section for $`p+NJ/\psi +X`$, without any consideration on possible isotopic effects. However, previous experience with light meson production , $`N+NN+N+\omega (\varphi )`$, showed an essential difference in $`np`$ and $`pp`$cross sections, in particular in the near threshold region, and there is no physical reason for a different behavior in $`J/\psi `$production. It is evident that the knowledge of the elementary process $`p+Np+N+J/\psi `$ is very important for a realistic calculation of $`J/\psi `$production in nucleus-nucleus collisions.

In principle the ’elastic’ $`J/\psi `$production in $`NN`$-collisions can be treated in full analogy with processes of light vector meson production. All symmetry properties of the strong interaction, such as the Pauli principle, the isotopic invariance, the P-invariance, which have been successfully applied to light vector meson production in $`NN`$-collisions , hold for $`J/\psi `$production, too. A formalism can be built, which is particularly simplified in the threshold region, where final particles are produced in $`S`$-state. Simple considerations indicate that this region is quite wide: the effective proton size, which is responsible for charm creation, has to be quite small, $`r_c1/m_c`$, where $`m_c`$ is the $`c`$-quark mass . Therefore the $`S`$-wave picture can be applied for $`qm_c`$, where $`q`$ is the $`J/\psi `$ three-momentum in the reaction center of mass (CMS).

This paper is organized as follows. In the first chapter we establish the spin structure of the threshold matrix for the two $`NN`$-processes:

$$p+pp+p+J/\psi ,$$

$$p+np+n+J/\psi $$

in terms of partial $`S`$wave amplitudes, and calculate the simplest polarization observables in terms of these amplitudes. In Chapter 2 we treat the dynamical issue in terms of $`t`$channel exchange mechanisms by light mesons. We give numerical predictions in framework of a $`\pi +\eta `$-model. The experimental data about different hadronic decays of $`J/\psi `$meson may give constrains on our predictions.

## II Spin structure of threshold matrix elements and polarization phenomena

In the general case the spin structure of the matrix element for the process $`N+NN+N+V`$ is described by a set of 48 independent complex amplitudes, which are functions of five kinematical variables. The same reaction, in coplanar kinematics, is described by 24 amplitudes, functions of four variables. In collinear kinematics the number of independent amplitudes is reduced to 7 and the description of this reaction is further simplified in case of threshold $`V`$-meson production, where all final particles are in $`S`$-state.

Applying the selection rules following from the Pauli principle, the P-invariance and the conservation of the total angular momentum, it is possible to prove that the threshold process $`p+pp+p+V^0`$ is characterized by a single partial transition:

$$S_i=1,\mathrm{}_i=1𝒥^P=1^{}S_f=0,$$
(1)
where $`S_i`$ ($`S_f`$) is the total spin of the two protons in the initial (final) states and $`\mathrm{}_i`$ is the orbital momentum of the colliding protons. In the CMS of the considered reaction, the matrix element corresponding to transition (1) can be written as:

$$(pp)=2f_{10}(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2\sigma _y\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{U}^{}\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\sigma _y\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^{}),$$
(2)
where $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ ( $`\chi _3`$ and $`\chi _4`$) are the two-component spinors of the initial (final) protons; $`\stackrel{}{U}`$ is the three-vector of the $`V`$-meson polarization, $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}`$ is the unit vector along the 3-momentum of the initial proton; $`f_{10}`$ is the S-wave partial amplitude, describing the triplet-singlet transition of the two-proton system in V-meson production.

In case of $`np`$-collisions, applying the conservation of isotopic invariance for the strong interaction, two threshold partial transitions are allowed:

$$S_i=1,\mathrm{}_i=1𝒥^P=1^{}S_f=0,$$

$$S_i=0,\mathrm{}_i=1𝒥^P=1^{}S_f=1,$$
(3)
with the following spin structure of the matrix element:

$`(np)=`$ $`f_{10}(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2\sigma _y\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{U}^{}\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\sigma _y\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^{})+`$ (5)
$`f_{01}(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2\sigma _y\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{U}^{}\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\sigma _y\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^{}),`$
where $`f_{01}`$ is the S-wave partial amplitude describing the singlet-triplet transition of the two-nucleon system in V-meson production. In the general case the amplitudes $`f_{10}`$ and $`f_{01}`$ are complex functions, depending on the energies $`E`$, $`E^{}`$ and $`E_V`$, where $`E,(E^{})`$ and $`E_V`$ are the energies of the initial (final) proton and of the produced $`V`$meson, respectively.

Note that $`f_{10}`$ is the common amplitude for $`pp`$\- and $`np`$-collisions, due to the isotopic invariance of the strong interaction. This explains the presence of the coefficient 2 in Eq. (2). The parametrizations (2) and (5) are model independent descriptions of the spin structure for threshold production of any vector meson in $`NN`$-collisions, $`N+NN+N+V`$, from the light $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ to $`J/\psi `$, $`\psi ^{}`$,$`\psi ^{\prime \prime }`$, including the vector bottonium: $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S)`$ and even the hypothetical exotic vector toponium states. All dynamical information is contained in the partial amplitudes $`f_{01}`$ and $`f_{10}`$, which are different for the different vector particles. On the opposite, some polarization phenomena have common characteristics, essentially independent from the type of vector meson. For example, vector mesons produced in $`pp`$\- and $`np`$-threshold collisions are transversally polarized, and the elements of the density matrix $`\rho `$ are independent from the relative values of the amplitudes $`f_{01}`$ and $`f_{10}`$: $`\rho _{xx}=\rho _{yy}=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\rho _{zz}=0`$. Therefore, the angular distribution shows the $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _P`$-dependence for the subsequent decay $`V^0P+P`$ (where $`P`$ is a pseudoscalar meson) and the $`(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )`$-dependence for the decay $`V^0\mu ^++\mu ^{}`$, where $`\theta `$ ($`\theta _P`$) is the angle between $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}`$ and the $`\mu ^{}`$ $`(P)`$ momentum (in the rest system of $`V^0`$). Possible deviations from this behavior have to be considered as an indication of the presence of higher partial waves in the final state.

All other one-spin polarization observables, related to the polarizations of the initial or final nucleons, identically vanish, for any process of $`V`$meson production.

The dependence of the differential cross section for threshold collisions of polarized nucleons (where the polarization of the final particles is not detected) can be parametrized as follows:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\omega }(\stackrel{}{P}_1,\stackrel{}{P}_2)=\left(\frac{d\sigma }{d\omega }\right)_0\left(1+𝒜_1\stackrel{}{P}_1\stackrel{}{P}_2+𝒜_2\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\stackrel{}{P}_1\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\stackrel{}{P}_2\right),$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{}{P}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}_2`$ are the axial vectors of the beam and target nucleon polarizations, $`d\omega `$ is the element of phase-space for the three-particle final state. The spin correlation coefficients $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$ are real and they are different for $`pp`$\- and $`np`$\- collisions:

* $`\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{p}p+p+V^0`$: $`𝒜_1(pp)=0`$, $`𝒜_2(pp)=1`$.
* $`\stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{p}n+p+V^0`$: $`𝒜_1(np)={\displaystyle \frac{|f_{01}|^2}{|f_{01}|^2+|f_{10}|^2}},𝒜_2(np)={\displaystyle \frac{|f_{10}|^2}{|f_{01}|^2+|f_{10}|^2}}`$,

with the following relations $`𝒜_1(np)+𝒜_2(np)=1`$ and $`0𝒜_2(np)1`$.

Defining $``$ as the ratio of the total (unpolarized) cross section for $`np`$\- and $`pp`$\- collisions, taking into account the identity of final particles in $`p+pp+p+V^0`$, we find:

$$=\frac{\sigma (npnpV^0)}{\sigma (ppppV^0)}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{|f_{01}|^2}{|f_{10}|^2}.$$
(7)
So the following relation holds:

$$𝒜_1=1+\frac{1}{2}.$$

The polarization transfer from the initial neutron to the final proton ($`\stackrel{}{n}+pn+\stackrel{}{p}+V`$), can be parameterized as follows:

$$𝒫_f=p_1\stackrel{}{P}_1+p_2\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}(\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\stackrel{}{P}_1),$$
(8)
with a simple expression, which relates the real coefficients $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ to the partial amplitudes $`f_{01}`$ and $`f_{10}`$:

$$p_1(np)=p_2(np)=\frac{2ef_{01}f_{10}^{}}{|f_{01}|^2+|f_{10}|^2}=\mathrm{cos}\delta \frac{\sqrt{21}}{},$$

where $`\delta `$ is the relative phase of $`f_{01}`$ and $`f_{10}`$, which is non zero, in the general case.

For the process $`p+pp+p+V^0`$ the relation $`p_1(pp)=p_2(pp)=0`$ holds, for any vector meson $`V^0`$.

## III The dynamics for the $`t`$-channel

The parameterization of the spin structure of the threshold matrix elements given above, is based on fundamental symmetry properties. It is therefore model independent and can be applied to any reaction mechanism. Following the standard way in describing the nucleon-nucleon interaction, we will apply $`t`$channel $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$, $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho (\omega )`$ meson exchanges to $`J/\psi `$ production, too. Such approach has been used to describe the production of light vector mesons such as $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega `$ . The reaction threshold for $`p+pp+p+J/\psi `$ in the laboratory system (LAB) is quite large. However, the formalism of Pomeron exchange can not be applied here, even at such large energies, because the Regge picture is valid when not only the initial energy is large, but also the excitation energy: the quantity $`(WW_{th})/W_{th}`$ (where $`W`$ is the total energy) has to be essentially larger than unity.

Another important kinematical variable is the momentum transfer squared, $`t=(p_2p_4)^2`$, where $`p_2`$ and $`p_4`$ are the four-momenta of the target and of the scattered nucleon. At threshold, one can find that the variable $`t`$ has only a fixed value, $`t=mm_V`$, where $`m`$ is the nucleon mass and $`m_V`$ is the $`V`$meson mass. So, for $`J/\psi `$-production this momentum is large: $`t`$ -3 GeV2, therefore all the propagators corresponding to the light mesons are of comparable magnitude ($`tm_\pi ^2`$ $``$ $`tm_\eta ^2`$ $``$ $`tm_\sigma ^2`$ $``$ $`tm_\rho ^2`$). In such situation it is not possible to justify the dominance of a particular exchange mechanism, so we have to conclude that threshold heavy $`V`$-meson production in NN-collisions is determined by the exchange of the coherent sum of many different mesons, with different masses.

But what about the quantum numbers, $`𝒥^P`$, of these exchanges ($`𝒥`$ is the spin and $`P`$ is the parity of the corresponding meson)?

We can use the parametrizations (2) and (5), which are exact and model independent results, with definite selection rules, from the point of view of $`s`$-channel for $`N+NN+N+V`$ to understand the $`t`$channel $`𝒥^P`$-picture. Using the Fierz-transformations (in two-component form), let us rewrite the general parametrization of the matrix element, see Eqs. (2) and (5), as a $`t`$-channel parametrization:

$`(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2\sigma _y\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{U}^{}\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\sigma _y\chi _3^{})=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\chi _3^{}\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{U}^{}\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\chi _2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\chi _3^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{U}^{}\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\chi _2)+`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\chi _3^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{U}\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\chi _2)(\chi _3^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{U}^{}\chi _2)\right].`$
Each term in Eq. (10) has a precise dynamical interpretation, as it corresponds to $`t`$channel meson exchange (Fig. 1) with a definite spin and parity, $`𝒥^P`$. The first two terms describe a scalar exchange, where the spin structure $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{U}^{}\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}`$ (in one vertex) corresponds to the matrix element of the process $`\sigma ^{}+NV^0+N`$ ($`\sigma ^{}`$ is a virtual scalar meson) at its threshold. The other vertex, corresponding to the $`\sigma NN`$-interaction has a structure of the type $`\chi ^{}\chi `$. The last two terms describe the exchange by neutral pseudoscalar mesons ($`\pi ^0`$ or $`\eta `$) with the $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{U}}`$-spin structure of the matrix element for the subprocess $`\pi _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}(\eta ^{})+NV^0+N`$ at threshold, and with the $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}`$ structure for the vertex $`NN\pi (\eta )`$. The same considerations hold for the $`f_{10}`$-partial amplitude.

Therefore we can conclude that $`t`$-channel exchanges with $`𝒥^P=0^+`$ (scalar mesons) and $`𝒥^P=0^{}`$ (pseudoscalar meson) can be considered as the most probable mechanisms to describe the threshold dynamics of $`J/\psi `$-production in NN-collisions. Let us consider these mechanisms in detail.

### A $`\sigma `$-exchange

The matrix element $`_\sigma `$, corresponding to the two diagrams of Fig. 1, can be written as:

$$_\sigma =_{1\sigma }+_{2\sigma },$$

with the following expression for the matrix element $`_{1\sigma }`$, corresponding to Fig. 1a:

$$_{1\sigma }=\frac{g_{\sigma NN}}{tm_\sigma ^2}𝒩(\chi _3^{}\chi _1)\left[\chi _4^{}(ih_{1\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\stackrel{}{U}^{}+h_{2\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\times \stackrel{}{U}^{})\chi _2\right],$$
(11)
where $`g_{\sigma NN}`$ is the $`\sigma NN`$ coupling constant, $`𝒩=2m(E+m)=m(m_V+4m)`$ is a normalization factor, which arises from the transformation of the invariant matrix element for the considered process (in terms of the four-component spinors for the initial and final nucleons) to the two-component form, which is better adapted to the description of threshold spin structure in CMS of the considered process. We used the following formula for the threshold energy of the initial nucleons, $`E={\displaystyle \frac{W}{2}}=m+{\displaystyle \frac{m_V}{2}}`$. The complex amplitudes $`h_{1\sigma }`$ and $`h_{2\sigma }`$ describe two possible threshold partial transitions in $`\sigma ^{}+NV+N`$: $`\mathrm{}_\sigma =1𝒥^P=1/2^{}`$ and $`3/2^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{}_\sigma `$ is the orbital momentum of the initial $`\sigma N`$-system. One can find that:

$$h_{1\sigma }=h_{1/2}+2h_{3/2},h_{2\sigma }=h_{1/2}h_{3/2},$$

where $`h_{1/2}`$ and $`h_{3/2}`$ are the partial amplitudes corresponding to the two possible values of the total angular momentum in $`\sigma ^{}+NV+N`$.

Comparing the spin structure of the matrix elements for the processes $`n+pn+p+V^0`$, Eq. (5) and $`\sigma +NN+V^0`$, Eq. (11), one can see that only the amplitude $`h_{2\sigma }`$ has to be kept, because it generates transversally polarized $`V`$mesons. First of all, this means that the cross section of the processes $`n+pn+p+V^0`$ and $`\sigma +NN+V`$ are determined by different contributions to the amplitudes $`h_{1\sigma }`$ and $`h_{2\sigma }`$. This follows from the following formula for the corresponding cross section:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}(\sigma N)|h_{1\sigma }|^2+2|h_{2\sigma }|^2,\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}(npnpV)|h_{2\sigma }|^2.$$

Therefore these cross sections must be independent. Moreover, both amplitudes $`f_{01}`$ and $`f_{10}`$, for $`n+pn+p+V^0`$ in case of $`\sigma `$-exchange, being proportional to $`h_{2\sigma }`$, have to satisfy simple relations. In such case definite numerical values can be derived for the polarization observables in $`V`$meson production for $`np`$collisions. To prove this, let us transform the matrix element (11) into the ”standard” parameterization of Eq. (5), in terms of definite quantum numbers of the $`s`$-channel:

$`(\chi _3^{}\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{A}\chi _2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2\sigma _y\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{A}\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\sigma _y\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^{})+`$ (14)
$`(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2\sigma _y\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{A}\sigma _y\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^{})+`$
$`+iϵ_{ikl}A_i(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2\sigma _y\sigma _{\mathrm{}}\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\sigma _k\sigma _y\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^{})],`$
where $`\stackrel{}{A}=\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\times \stackrel{}{U}^{}`$. From Eq. (14) one can see that $`_{1\sigma }`$ contains not only the structures which are allowed by symmetry selection rules, but also a contribution which corresponds to a triplet-triplet transition in the $`np`$-system (last term in Eq. (14)). Such transition is forbidden by the generalized Pauli principle, following from the isotopic invariance of the strong interaction and should not appear in the total matrix element $`_\sigma `$.

Let us consider in a similar way the matrix element $`_{2\sigma }`$:

$$_{2\sigma }=\frac{g_{\sigma NN}}{tm_\sigma ^2}𝒩\left[\chi _3^{}\left(ih_{1\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\stackrel{}{U}^{}+h_{2\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\times \stackrel{}{U}^{}\right)\chi _1\right]\left(\chi _4^{}\chi _2\right),$$
(15)
where we applied the following relations: $`g_{\sigma pp}=g_{\sigma nn}=g_{\sigma NN},`$ $`h_{i\sigma }(\sigma nnV^0)=h_{i\sigma }(\sigma ppV^0),i=1,2`$, which follow from the isotopic invariance of the strong interaction, in case of isoscalar vector meson. Note that here we use the same propagator as in Eq. (11). this is correct in threshold conditions, because any different propagator will generate higher waves in the initial and final states. Summing the two contributions in the matrix element, $`_\sigma `$, the $`wrong`$ term corresponding to the triplet-triplet transition in $`n+pn+p+V^0`$ is exactly cancelled:

$$_{1\sigma }+_{2\sigma }=(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2\sigma _y\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{A}\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\sigma _y\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^{})+(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2\sigma _y\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{A}\sigma _y\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^{}),$$

Therefore, for $`\sigma `$exchange, one finds:

$$f_{10}^{(\sigma )}=f_{01}^{(\sigma )}=\frac{g_{\sigma NN}}{tm_\sigma ^2}𝒩h_{2\sigma }.$$
(16)
Independently on the numerical values of the coupling constant $`g_{\sigma NN}`$ and of the partial amplitude $`h_{2\sigma }`$ for the process $`\sigma +NN+V^0`$, the polarization observables for the process $`n+pn+p+V^0`$ and the ratio $``$ (see Eq. (7)), take the following values (in framework of $`\sigma `$-exchange):

$$2𝒜_1^{(\sigma )}(np)=P_1^{(\sigma )}(np)=1,\text{and }^{(\sigma )}=1.$$
(17)
Note that introducing phenomenological form factors in the expression for $`_\sigma `$ affects the absolute value of the cross section, but can not change the relation $`f_{10}^{(\sigma )}=f_{01}^{(\sigma )}`$ and therefore the results (17).

### B $`\eta `$-exchange

Similarly to $`\sigma `$-exchange, the $`\eta `$-exchange is characterized by two diagrams (Fig. 1) and the matrix element is the sum of two matrix elements, corresponding to Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b:

$$_\eta =_{1\eta }+_{2\eta },$$

where the matrix element $`_{1\eta }`$ can be written as:

$$_{1\eta }=\frac{g_{\eta NN}}{tm_\eta ^2}\left(\frac{k}{E+m}\right)𝒩\left[\chi _3^{}(h_{1\eta }\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{U}^{}+h_{2\eta }\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\stackrel{}{U}^{})\chi _1\right](\chi _4^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\chi _2),$$
(18)
where $`h_{1\eta }`$ and $`h_{2\eta }`$ are two independent partial amplitudes, which describe the threshold spin structure for the subprocess $`\eta ^{}+NV+N^0`$. These amplitudes correspond to to two allowed threshold partial transitions (in $`\eta ^{}+NV+N^0`$): $`\mathrm{}_i=0𝒥^P=1/2^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_i=2𝒥^P=3/2^{}`$. The factor $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{E+m}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_V}{m_V+4m}}}`$ arises from the transformation from the relativistic expression of the $`\eta NN`$-vertex, $`\overline{u}(p_2)\gamma _5u(p_1)`$, to the two-component form in the CMS of $`n+pn+p+V`$-reaction, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}`$.

Again, one can prove that only the sum $`_{1\eta }+_{2\eta }`$ generates the correct spin structure for threshold matrix element $`_\eta `$ (again taking into account the isotopic invariance for both vertexes of the considered diagrams: $`\eta NN`$ and $`\eta +NN+V^0`$, $`N=p`$ or $`n`$):

$`_{1\eta }+_{2\eta }={\displaystyle \frac{g_{\eta NN}}{tm_\eta ^2}}𝒩\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k}{E+m}}}h_{1\eta }`$ $`[(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2\sigma _y\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{A}\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\sigma _y\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^{})+`$ (20)
$`(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2\sigma _y\chi _1)(\chi _4^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{A}\sigma _y\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^{})],`$
with the following relation for the partial amplitudes for $`n+pn+p+\eta `$:

$$f_{10}^{(\eta )}=f_{01}^{(\eta )}$$
(21)
and definite numerical predictions for the polarization phenomena and for the ratio $``$:

$$𝒜_{1np}^{(\eta )}=\frac{1}{2},𝒫_{1np}^{(\eta )}=1\text{and }^{(\eta )}=1.$$
(22)
So, only the coefficient $`𝒫_{1np}^{(\eta )}`$ can discriminate between $`\eta `$\- and $`\sigma `$\- exchanges.

### C $`\pi `$-exchange

Due to the isotopic invariance of the strong interaction, it is necessary to consider four Feynman diagrams, corresponding to the exchange of neutral and charged pions in $`n+pn+p+V^0`$ (see fig. 2). Taking into account the isotopic relations between different coupling constants in $`NN\pi `$-vertexes and different amplitudes for the processes $`\pi +NN+V^0`$, one can find the following expressions for the amplitudes $`f_{10}^{(\pi )}`$ and $`f_{01}^{(\pi )}`$:

$$f_{10}^{(\pi )}=\frac{g_{\pi NN}}{tm_\pi ^2}h_{1\pi }𝒩\sqrt{\frac{m_V}{4m+m_V}},f_{01}^{(\pi )}=3f_{10}^{(\pi )},$$
(23)
and the single amplitude $`f_{10}^{(\pi )}`$ for the process $`p+pp+p+V^0`$ is equal to 2$`f_{10}^{(\pi )}(npnpV^0)`$. Note that the spin structure for the processes $`\pi +NN+V`$ and $`\eta +NN+V`$ has to be simpler.

Independently from the concrete model for the amplitude $`h_{1\pi }`$ of the process $`\pi +NN+V`$, the relations (23) allow to predict definite values for the polarization observables and for the ratio $``$:

$$𝒜_{1np}^{(\pi )}=\frac{9}{10},𝒫_{1np}^{(\pi )}=\frac{3}{5}\text{and }^{(\pi )}=5.$$
(24)
which are very different from the previous cases of pure $`\sigma `$\- or $`\eta `$-exchanges.

### D ”Realistic model”: $`\pi +\eta `$-exchange

Based on the above mentioned results for the different $`t`$channel exchanges, we can build a more realistic model, combining the contributions of different mesons. As an example, let us consider the case of $`\pi +\eta `$-exchange, with the following expressions for the allowed threshold partial amplitudes $`f_{10}`$ and $`f_{01}`$ of the process $`n+pn+p+V^0`$:

$$f_{10}=𝒜_\pi (1r),f_{01}=𝒜_\pi (3+r),$$
(25)
where the ratio $`r={\displaystyle \frac{g_{\eta NN}}{g_{\pi NN}}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{1\eta }}{h_{1\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tm_\pi ^2}{tm_\eta ^2}}\right)`$ characterizes the relative role of $`\eta `$\- and $`\pi `$-exchanges in $`n+pn+p+V^0`$ and $`𝒜_\pi ={\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi NN}}{tm_\pi ^2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_V}{m_V+4m}}}h_{1\pi }`$. Therefore, we can find the following results for the polarization observables in $`n+pn+p+V^0`$ and for the ratio $``$ of the total cross section for $`n+p`$\- and $`p+p`$-collisions:

$$𝒜_1=\frac{9+6er+|r|^2}{2(5+2er+|r|^2)},𝒫_1=\frac{32er|r|^2}{5+2er+|r|^2},=\frac{5+2er+|r|^2}{|1r|^2},$$
(26)
This primarily means that, in framework of the considered model, two independent parameters $`er`$ and $`|r|^2`$ enter in the definition of three observables. Therefore a simultaneous measurement of $`𝒫_1`$ and $`𝒜_1`$ can determine uniquely $`er`$ and $`|r|^2`$ (with the evident condition $`|er|<|r|`$):

$$er=12\frac{1+2𝒜_1}{1𝒫_1},|r|^2=3+4\frac{3+2𝒜_1}{1𝒫_1}$$
(27)
The situation is simplified if the ratio $`r`$ is a real parameter. This is the case in framework of the effective Lagrangian approach for the processes $`\eta (\pi )+NN+V^0`$, near threshold, where the corresponding pole Feynmann diagrams originate the real amplitudes $`h_{1\eta }`$ and $`h_{1\pi }`$. It is also the case for $`s`$channel $`N^{}`$-contribution, which is common to $`\eta +N`$ and $`\pi +N`$\- interactions. For $`J/\psi `$-production the first case seems as the most probable.

For a real value of $`r`$, the following quadratic relation between polarization observables $`𝒫_1`$ and $`𝒜_1`$ holds:

$$4A_1+4𝒜_1^2+𝒫_1^2=0.$$
(28)
After measuring of the ratio $``$ (of total cross sections for $`np`$ and $`pp`$ interactions) it will be possible to find two different values for $`r`$:

$$r_\pm =\frac{+1}{1}\pm 2\frac{\sqrt{21}}{1}.$$

Knowing $`r`$, it is straightforward to predict any polarization observable for the process $`n+pn+p+V^0`$. The behaviors of $``$, $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒫_1`$ as a function of $`r`$, (when $`r`$ is real) are shown in Figs. 3-5. One can see a strong dependence of the ratio $``$ from $`r`$ in the region $`1r3`$, where $`>1`$, i.e. with strong isotopic effects. Only for $`r<1`$ we have $`<1`$, with a weak dependence on the parameter $`r`$. The coefficients $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒫_1`$ show particular sensitivity to $`r`$.

### E Attempts to estimate $`r`$

The previous analysis is based on the most general properties of threshold vector meson production in $`NN`$-collisions and $`t`$-channel exchanges. In the last case, we used only properties related to the quantum numbers of the corresponding $`t`$-channel mesons: spin, parity and isotopic spin. All previous results are valid for any isoscalar vector meson production, $`\omega `$, $`\varphi `$ or $`J/\psi `$. The properties, which are specific to a definite $`V^0`$-meson reaction, appear first of all in the kinematics, in particular in the different $`V^0`$-meson masses, and in the values of the partial amplitudes for the binary subprocess, $`M^{}+NN+V^0`$, where $`M^{}=\sigma ,\eta ,\pi `$ is a virtual meson (with space-like four-momentum). So, for the considered $`(\eta +\pi )`$-model, all dynamical information, which is necessary for the calculations of such observables as $``$, $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒫_1`$, is contained in one complex parameter $`r`$, which characterizes the ratio of the threshold amplitudes for $`\eta (\pi )+NN+V^0`$-processes. Therefore the identity of $`V^0`$-production is also contained in the ratio $`r`$.

Let us estimate this ratio in case of $`J/\psi `$\- production. For this aim, we refer to the existing experimental information about the different hadronic decays of the $`J/\psi `$\- meson. For example, the following branching ratios :

$$BR(J/\psi \rho ^0\pi ^0)=(4.2\pm 0.5)10^3,$$

$$BR(J/\psi \omega \eta )=(1.58\pm 0.16)10^3,$$

allow to determine $`r`$ in the framework of a simple vector exchange model for the process $`\eta (\pi )+NN+N+J/\psi `$ (see Fig. 6). The nice property of this model is that all the coupling constants are known. The $`\rho `$exchange mechanism for $`J/\psi `$-production in $`\pi N`$-collisions has been considered earlier . The corresponding matrix element can be written in the following form:

$$=\frac{g_{PVV^{}}}{tm_V^{}^2}\frac{ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }U_\mu k_\nu q_\rho J_\sigma }{m_{J/\psi }},$$
(29)
$`J_\sigma `$ $`=\overline{u}(p_2)\left[\gamma _\sigma F_1{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\sigma \nu }(kq)_\nu }{2m}}F_2\right]u(p_1)`$ (31)
$`=\overline{u}(p_2)\left[\gamma _\sigma (F_1+F_2){\displaystyle \frac{p_{1\sigma }+p_{2\sigma }}{2m}}F_2\right]u(p_1),`$
where $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are the Dirac and Pauli form factors of the $`V^{}NN`$-vertex of the considered diagram. At the reaction threshold the matrix element, Eqs. (29) and (31), can be simplified as:

$$\frac{g_{PVV^{}}}{tm_V^{}^2}(F_1+F_2)\chi _2^{}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{U}^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\stackrel{}{U}^{}\right)\chi _1.$$
(32)
Taking into account VDM-predictions for the $`(F_1+F_2)`$ term, which in case of $`\omega NN(\rho NN)`$-vertex, is proportional to the isoscalar, $`\mu _p+\mu _n`$, (isovector, $`\mu _p\mu _n`$,) magnetic moment of the nucleon, one can find:

$$r=\frac{g_{\eta NN}}{g_{\pi NN}}\frac{(\mu _p+\mu _n)}{(\mu _p\mu _n)}\frac{g(J/\psi \eta \omega )}{g(J/\psi \pi ^0\rho ^0)}\frac{g_{\eta NN}}{g_{\pi NN}}\frac{0.88}{4.8}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(J/\psi \eta \omega )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(J/\psi \pi ^0\rho ^0)}}\frac{1}{7}\left|\frac{g_{\eta NN}}{g_{\pi NN}}\right|,$$

where $`g`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) is the corresponding coupling constant (decay width). All existing analysis of threshold $`\eta `$meson photoproduction on protons  indicate that $`g_{\eta NN}g_{\pi NN}`$. Therefore, in the framework of such model, we have $`|r|1`$. From these considerations we can not determine the sign of the ratio $`r`$, but the small value of $`|r|`$ indicates that the $`np`$-cross section can be essentially larger than $`pp`$-cross section, in case of $`J/\psi `$ production.

However conclusions could be different if one takes another set of experimental data about $`J/\psi `$-decays :

$$BR(J/\psi p\overline{p}\eta )=(2.09\pm 0.18)10^3,$$

$$BR(J/\psi p\overline{n}\pi ^{})=(2.00\pm 0.10)10^3,$$
(33)
Evidently both these decays can be considered as crossed-channels of the processes $`\eta (\pi )+NN+J/\psi `$. Generally, each decay $`J/\psi N+\overline{N}+P`$ ($`P`$ is the pseudoscalar meson, $`P=\pi `$ or $`\eta `$) is characterized by a complicated spin structure - with six independent scalar (and complex) amplitudes, which are functions of two independent kinematical variables. It is not possible to restore the full spin structure, from the knowledge of the branching ratio, alone (with unpolarized particles). Moreover, there is the delicate problem of the extrapolation from the decay region of the kinematical variables (of the process $`J/\psi N+\overline{N}+P`$) to the scattering region (of the process $`P+NN+J/\psi `$). To overcome this problem, let us consider the oversimplified assumption that the two types of processes $`J/\psi N+\overline{N}+P`$ and $`P+NN+J/\psi `$ are driven by an effective contact four-particle interaction, with a single coupling constant. The exact spin structure of this interaction is not important for our considerations. In such approximation the ratio $`r`$ can be estimated from the following formula:

$$r=\frac{g_{\eta NN}}{g_{\pi NN}}\frac{(tm_\pi ^2)}{(tm_\eta ^2)}\left[\frac{BR(J/\psi N\overline{N}\eta )}{BR(J/\psi N\overline{N}\pi ^{})}\right]^{1/2}\frac{g_{\eta NN}}{g_{\pi NN}}<1$$

Again the sign of $`r`$ can not be determined by such considerations, but, again the value of $`r`$ which has been derived is in the range where the ratio $``$ is very sensitive to the value of $`r`$. Note that the dependence of the polarization observables $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒫_1`$ is also quite large, in this region of $`r`$.

In the previous considerations, the effects of the final state interaction in the produced $`NNJ/\psi `$-three particle system were not taken into account. In the near threshold region, the $`NN`$interaction is well known, in terms of the corresponding scattering energies and effective radius. It is not the case for the $`J/\psi N`$-interaction. Note in this connection, that the total $`J/\psi N`$-cross section is not presently well known . For example, photoproduction data give values of 3-4 mb , while the analysis of charmonium absorption on nucleons (at relatively high momentum) in $`p+A`$\- and $`A+A`$-reactions suggests larger values, 6-7 mb . These larger values can be explained in the framework of effective Lagrangian approaches . Different methods have been suggested for a direct measurement of this quantity, through the processes $`\pi +dJ/\psi +p+p`$ , $`\overline{p}+dJ/\psi +n`$ , and charmed meson production in $`\overline{p}+A`$-collisions .

Note, that in the general case, it is necessary to define two different $`J/\psi `$-cross sections corresponding to transversal and longitudinal $`J/\psi `$-polarization. For example, the data about $`\gamma +NJ/\psi +N`$ are sensitive to $`\sigma _T(J/\psi N)`$-cross section, with transversal $`J/\psi `$-polarization, if the VDM hypothesis is correct. Another possible method is to determine the average $`\sigma _{Av}(J/\psi N)`$-cross section, obtained by averaging over the $`J/\psi `$-polarization. In the case of interest here, the near-threshold $`J/\psi `$-production in nucleon-nucleon collisions, $`N+NN+N+J/\psi `$, the possible effects of the $`J/\psi N`$-interaction are given by the $`\sigma _T(J/\psi N)`$-cross section alone, because we showed that the kinematical conditions are such that the $`J/\psi `$ is produced with transversal polarization, only. To avoid double counting in the calculation of the $`J/\psi N`$ final interaction, one has to take into account only the $`J/\psi N`$ interaction with a nucleon spectator, produced in the vertex $`\pi NN`$.

Let us compare the cross sections for the $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\psi `$\- production in $`pp`$-collisions - in the framework of the same approach, namely for $`\pi `$-exchange in $`N+NN+N+V^0`$ and $`\rho `$-exchange for the subprocess $`\pi +NN+V^0`$, with $`V^0=\varphi `$ or $`J/\psi `$. For the same value of $`Q=\sqrt{s}2mm_V`$, we can write (in the near-threshold region):

$$R(J/\psi ,\varphi )=\frac{\sigma (ppppJ/\psi )}{\sigma (pppp\varphi )}\frac{g^2(J/\psi \pi \rho )}{g^2(\varphi \pi \rho )}\left(\frac{t_\varphi m_\pi ^2}{t_{J/\psi }m_\pi ^2}\right)^2\left[\frac{F(t_{J/\psi })}{F(t_\varphi )}\right]^2,$$

where $`g(V\pi \rho )`$ is the coupling constant for the decay $`V\pi \rho `$, $`t_V=mm_V`$ is the threshold value of the momentum transfer squared, $`F(t)`$ is a phenomenological form factor for the vertex $`\pi ^{}\rho ^{}V`$, with virtual $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$. Using the existing experimental data about the decays $`J/\psi \pi +\rho `$ and $`\varphi \pi +\rho `$ , one can find $`g^2(J/\psi \pi \rho )/g^2(\varphi \pi \rho )10^4`$, so that $`R(J/\psi ,\varphi )10^5\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F(t_{J/\psi })}{F(t_\varphi )}}\right]^2`$. Taking into account that $`\sigma (pppp\varphi )`$ 300 nb at $`p_L=3.67`$ GeV , one can find that $`\sigma (ppppJ/\psi )`$ 0.03 nb $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F(t_{J/\psi })}{F(t_\varphi )}}\right]^2`$. This value is too small, when compared with the existing experimental value for the lowest $`\sqrt{s}=6.7`$ GeV, namely  $`\sigma _{exp}(ppppJ/\psi )=0.3\pm 0.09`$ nb.

Note that the $`\rho `$-exchange model for $`\sigma (\pi NJ/\psi )`$ gives a cross section one order of magnitude smaller in comparison with other possible theoretical approaches . It is one possibility to explain the value of $`\sigma _{exp}(ppppJ/\psi )`$. Another possibility is to take $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F(t_{J/\psi })}{F(t\varphi )}}\right]^210`$, which can be plausible, because the $`J/\psi =c\overline{c}`$-system must have a smaller size in comparison with $`\varphi =s\overline{s}`$. This can be realized by the following form factor:

$$F_V(t)=\frac{1}{1{\displaystyle \frac{t}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_V^2}}}$$

with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Vm_V`$.

## IV Conclusions

Let us summarize the main results concerning the theoretical analysis of $`J/\psi `$-production in nucleon-nucleon collisions in threshold regime.

* We established the spin structure of the threshold matrix element in terms of a limited number of partial transitions, corresponding to $`S`$-wave production of final particles in the process $`N+NN+N+J/\psi `$.
* We proved the essential role of isotopic effects for $`J/\psi `$-production in $`pp`$\- and $`np`$-collisions. The two reactions present very different characteristics concerning:

+ the number of independent partial transitions,
    + the spin structure of the threshold matrix elements,
    + the value of the absolute cross sections,
    + the polarization phenomena.

Note that all these differences are generated by a common mechanism: the origin of the essential difference has to be found in the different role of the Pauli principle for $`pp`$\- and $`pn`$-collisions in the near threshold region.
* This model-independent analysis shows the universality of theoretical considerations of threshold production of different vector mesons in nucleon-nucleon collisions, starting from $`light`$ $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$, $`\varphi `$ to charmed mesons.
* Only one polarization observable, the $`J/\psi `$-polarization, is identical for $`pp`$\- and $`pn`$-collisions: the $`J/\psi `$-meson is transversally polarized -even in collisions of unpolarized nucleons. The experimental determination of the ratio of the total cross sections for $`np`$ and $`pp`$collisions is important for the identification of the reaction mechanism. Polarization phenomena, which are trivial for threshold $`pp`$-collisions, will be very useful for $`np`$-collisions. The polarization transfer coefficients show the largest sensitivity to the nature (quantum numbers) of $`t`$channel exchanges.
* The existing experimental data on the specific decays of $`J/\psi `$, such as $`J/\psi \rho \pi `$, $`J/\psi \omega \eta `$, $`J/\psi N\overline{N}\pi `$, $`J/\psi N\overline{N}\eta `$, constrain a possible model for the threshold $`J/\psi `$-production in nucleon-nucleon collisions. These data show, in a transparent way, the link between the possible reaction mechanisms on one side, and the physics of $`J/\psi `$-decays in usual hadrons ($`N`$, $`\overline{N}`$, $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$…), on the other side.