Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
www.elsevier.com/locate/nuclphysa
Abstract
Hadron electromagnetic form factor in the time-like region at the boundary of the physical region is con-
sidered. The energy behavior of the form factor is shown to be determined by the strong hadron–antihadron
interaction. We propose a simple phenomenological model of the hh̄ interaction that describes the form fac-
tor behaviour in the region where scattering length approximation fails and estimate on its basis imaginary
part of the scattering lengths (volumes) for ΛΛ̄, ΛΣ̄ 0 (Λ̄Σ 0 ), Σ 0 Σ̄ 0 and D ∗ D¯∗ from present experimental
data. The developed approach enables us to analyze the existence of baryon–antibaryon (B B̄) near thresh-
old resonances. The experiments to extract detailed information on the near threshold B B̄ interaction from
hadron form factor energy behavior are suggested.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The main goal of hadron electromagnetic form factor studies is to obtain information about
hadron structure. The most complete data on the behavior of the form factor as a function of
four-momentum transferred is obtained for pion and nucleon. To investigate form factor of
hadron (h) two reactions are used: the reaction of elastic scattering of electrons by hadron
eh → eh (so-called space-like region of the four-momentum transferred) and the reaction of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alexei.voronin@excite.com (A.Yu. Voronin).
0375-9474/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2009.11.015
O.D. Dalkarov et al. / Nuclear Physics A 833 (2010) 104–118 105
In this section we investigate general properties of the hadron form factor in the time-like
region near the boundary of the physical region. For different hadrons we can have different
number of form factors, depending on hadron spin. We will formulate the main results for a
proton and neutron, the generalization for other hadrons will be done in Section 4.
106 O.D. Dalkarov et al. / Nuclear Physics A 833 (2010) 104–118
Fig. 1. The diagram corresponding to electron–positron annihilation into the nucleon–antinucleon system.
The form factor of the nucleon (N ) in the time-like region is determined from the reaction
of e+ e− -annihilation into nucleon–antinucleon pair e+ e− → N N̄ or vice versa (the so-called
s-channel). The nucleon form factor in the space-like region is given by the t-channel corre-
sponding to eN → eN scattering.
The differential cross-section dσ/dΩ of the reaction p p̄ → e+ e− is connected with the form
factor of the proton by the following expression [30]:
dσ αfs2 4Mp 2
= |GM |2 1 + cos2 θ + |GE |2 sin2 θ , (1)
dΩ 16kE s
here k and E are center-of-mass (c.m.) momentum and energy in the p p̄ system, θ is angle in c.m.
system, αfs is the fine structure constant, Mp is the proton mass, s = −q 2 , q is four-momentum
transferred GE and GM are electric and magnetic form factors of the proton correspondingly.
They are connected to Pauli form factors F1 and F2 :
q2
GM = F1 + F2 , GE = F1 − F2 . (2)
4Mp 2
At the p p̄ threshold GE and GM are equal and for simplicity hereafter they are taken to be
equal in the kinetic energy region of few tens of MeV near the threshold.
Before doing any calculations we can make some conclusions about nucleon form factor near
threshold. Let’s consider a diagram corresponding to the process e+ e− → N N̄ (Fig. 1). Grey
block in this diagram presents the strong final state interaction in the system N N̄ . This interaction
is responsible for the near threshold N N̄ resonances [14–18,26]. The diagram corresponds to
the transition amplitude from e+ e− pair into N N̄ pair. Black circle in this transition amplitude
denotes a connection between a photon and N N̄ pair, which can be realized, for example, by
vector mesons (ρ or ω).
Since N N̄ annihilation is short-ranged the form factor can be factorized as follows:
G = G0 Al (k). (3)
Here Al (k) is connected to the amplitude of the normalized wave-function near origin (r = 0):
Ψl (r) ∼ Al (k)(kr)l . (4)
The factor G0 corresponds to singularities far from N N̄ threshold (for instance, to a connec-
tion of the photon to the nucleon through ρ- or ω-exchanges, as it can be written in usual vector
dominance models) and is practically constant in the kinetic energy region of few tens of MeV in
the N N̄ center of mass system. The factor Al (k) reflects the influence of strong final state inter-
action and contains main energy dependence of the form factor (3) in the near threshold region.
The general form of the energy behavior is given by the following expression (see Appendix A):
exp(− Im δ(k))
G = G0 . (5)
τ (k 2 )
O.D. Dalkarov et al. / Nuclear Physics A 833 (2010) 104–118 107
The benefit of such a model is due to the possibility to get the s-wave form factor expression
in the closed form (see Appendix B for the details):
A0 (k) = const sinh(2πkρ) 1
. (12)
2πkρ | cos(Φ + iπkρ)|
Here we introduced phase parameter Φ ≡ Φ0 + z(Rc ) − π/4. The above expression is justified
when z(Rc ) 1 and |U0 | k 2 /(2M).
Let us consider the main properties of the above introduced model. The model includes five
parameters, namely the potential depth U0 , matching distance Rc , the potential tail diffuseness ρ,
real and imaginary parts of the complex phase Φ. However, the expression for the form factor
slope equation (12) is described only by ρ and the complex phase Φ. (One of five model param-
eters is absorbed in the constant in front of right-hand side of Eq. (12), another disappears due to
the fact that Eq. (12) gives the absolute value only.) In the limit of small k we return to Eq. (6)
with the imaginary part of the scattering length given by the following expression:
Im α0 = −πρ Im tan(Φ). (13)
In case Im Φ 1 (strong absorption by the inner part of N N̄ interaction) the form factor
becomes insensitive to parameter Φ. In such a case the imaginary part of the scattering length
turns to be:
Im α0 = −πρ (14)
while the form factor slope is determined by only one parameter:
A0 (k) = const sinh(2πkρ) exp(−πkρ). (15)
πkρ
In the opposite case of weak absorption Im Φ 1 the form factor is sensitive to the phase Φ,
especially when Re Φ → π/2. This corresponds to the appearance of a quasi-bound N N̄ state
close to the threshold. In such a resonant case the value of the imaginary part of the scattering
length can be much greater than the diffuseness of potential tail:
1
Im α0 ≈ −πρ .
Im Φ
The form factor in the resonant case turns to be:
A0 (k) = const sinh(2πkρ) 1
.
2πkρ sinh(Im Φ + πkρ)
The important property of suggested model is the ability to describe the form factor energy
behavior beyond the scattering length and effective range approximations i.e. for kα0 1. In the
limit 1 kρ z(Rc ) the form factor behaves like:
A0 (k) = const √ 1 .
πkρ
Fig. 2. Proton electromagnetic form factor in the time-like region. Experimental data are taken from [1,2]. Solid and
dotted lines are calculations using optical model [26] with and without Coulomb corrections. Dash-dotted line represents
the data fit by the model equation (12).
part of the scattering length and so far the phase parameter Φ. This property of the model gives an
opportunity to distinguish the near threshold resonance in the form factor behavior, characterized
by the imaginary part of the scattering length much larger than the potential tail diffuseness
| Im α0 | πρ. However, unique determination of the model parameters is possible only in case
of highly accurate experimental data.
We demonstrate the applicability of this model to the case of p p̄ s-wave form factor. As far
as the properties of low energy p p̄ interaction are rather well established p p̄ case could be used
as a benchmark. Precise experimental data on the proton form factor near the threshold were
obtained in the LEAR [1] and BaBar experiment [2]. These data are presented in Fig. 2. We
note the decrease of the form factor in two times with increase of relative momenta from zero
to 100 MeV/c. We perform comparison between the numerical solution of the Schröedinger
equation with recent modification of N N̄ Paris potential [26] and the model form factor given
by Eq. (12) with parameters fitted from the LEAR [1] experimental data.
The p p̄ scattering length extracted from the fit of LEAR experimental data using Eq. (12)
after taking into account Coulomb correction is Im α = −(0.61 ± 0.07) fm. This value is in
agreement with the value obtained within N N̄ potential model [26]. The BaBar data show very
similar form factor energy slope and can be reproduced by the same model with normalization
constant multiplied by 1.2 factor.
One can see that the model form factor (12) reproduces the experimental data up to k =
300 MeV/c, where both the scattering length and effective range approximation fails. However,
the accuracy of the present data does not allow to determine uniquely the set of model parameters
ρ and Φ. We found, in particular, that the diffuseness parameter ρ extracted from the data fit can
have values in the range 0.1 fm ρ 0.45 fm. We note that realistic OBE p p̄ potential is a
superposition of Yukawa-type potentials with different diffuseness and depth. One can check
that the potential tail, important for the observables low energy behavior, can be satisfactory
110 O.D. Dalkarov et al. / Nuclear Physics A 833 (2010) 104–118
Fig. 3. Paris potential 3 S1 T = 0 state compared to model potential with ρ = 0.31 fm, Rc = 1.2 fm, U0 = 84 MeV.
approximated by the effective exponential tail with ρ ≈ 0.3 fm [25]. In Fig. 3 we show the
version of Paris potential [26] for T = 0 3 S1 state compared to model potential with diffuseness
ρ = 0.31 fm, Rc = 1.2 fm, U0 = 84 MeV. The corresponding phase parameter for ρ = 0.31 fm
is Φ = 0.6 + i0.5.
We conclude that the suggested model reproduces the form factor slope up to k = 300 MeV/c
and enables us to extract the scattering length using the experimental data set away from the
threshold.
By using experimental data on the proton form factor we can predict a value of the neutron
form factor near the threshold. The definition of the nucleon form factor in terms of the isoscalar
(isospin is equal to 0) G(0) and isovector G(1) (isospin 1) form factors is:
Gp = G(0) + G(1), Gn = G(0) − G(1). (16)
We can use this decomposition and express Gp and Gn in terms of input form factors G0 and
wave-functions of final state in pure isospin states:
Gp = G0 (0)Ψ0 (0) + G0 (1)Ψ1 (0), (17)
Gn = G0 (0)Ψ0 (0) − G0 (1)Ψ1 (0). (18)
Depending on the relative values of G0 (0) and G0 (1) there are two possible cases.
First, G0 (0) ≈ G0 (1), i.e. there is no sufficient difference between isoscalar and isovector
input form factors. In this case in the previous formulas we can take out of brackets the common
factor G0 . We see immediately that neutron form factor Gn is equal to or less than proton one.
Note that in this case the energy behavior of the neutron form factor can be different from the
proton one. Just near threshold it can be practically constant or even decreasing function of the
energy. The calculations of the neutron form factor using optical model [26] in this case are
presented in Fig. 4. Note that the close predictions were done in coupled channels model in
Refs. [11–13]. Experimental data [19–21,24] indicates on realization of this possibility.
O.D. Dalkarov et al. / Nuclear Physics A 833 (2010) 104–118 111
Fig. 4. Neutron form factor in the time-like region. Experimental data from [19]. Solid line is our calculation using optical
model [26] with normalization at k = 200 MeV/c.
Second, one of the input form factors is dominant, for instance, G0 (1) G0 (0). This is
possible if the form factors are determined by ρ- and ω-mesons correspondingly. In this case
G0 (1) dominates because ρ-meson has a product of coupling constants with nucleon and photon
larger than that for ω-meson. So one can neglect G0 (0) contributions to the nucleon form factor
and get that proton and neutron form factors are approximately equal.
Therefore, in our model the neutron form factor does not exceed proton one in any case. The
obtained result differs from predictions of early VDM models which give neutron form factor
sufficiently larger than that of the proton.
The consideration presented above can be directly applied to investigation of the form factor
of any hadron in time-like region.
The closest threshold to the N N̄ one is a threshold of ΛΛ̄ production in e+ e− -annihilation.
Let’s estimate the value of the lambda form factor near ΛΛ̄ threshold under the following
assumptions. We consider the ΛΛ̄ pair production mechanism via a vector meson (with dominant
contribution of ρ-meson). The value of G0 for lambda is proportional to the coupling constants of
ρ meson with photon and ρ-meson with lambda. The former is known from the experiment. The
latter can be estimated from the SU(3)-relations. Both are of the same order as for a nucleon.
Final state interaction in ΛΛ̄ system (in pure isospin (I = 0) state) according to the existing
approaches is approximately the same as in case of N N̄ . So we expect lambda and nucleon form
factors have the same order of magnitude. Interpretation of the above relations on the quark level
can be found in [31].
Latest data on ΛΛ̄, Σ 0 Σ̄ 0 and ΛΣ̄ 0 form factors became available in experiments of BaBar
group [3]. (Note, that in cited paper the form factor is denoted by |F |.) In Fig. 5 we present a
112 O.D. Dalkarov et al. / Nuclear Physics A 833 (2010) 104–118
Fig. 5. Λ form factor near ΛΛ̄ threshold. Experimental points are taken from [3]. Solid line corresponds to the fit by
model equation (12), dashed line corresponds to the exponential extrapolation of the near threshold form factor behavior
∼ exp(Im α0 k).
typical fit of experimental data by model equation (12) (model parameters are Φ = 1.7 + i0.4
and ρ = 0.25) and by exponential extrapolation of the near threshold form factor behavior
∼ exp(Im α0 k). One can see that the model equation (12) curve and “scattering length” extrapo-
lation differ significantly for k 100 MeV.
The present data (though insufficient) does not exclude the possibility of ΛΛ̄ resonance. Such
resonances are found in our model as complex k poles of expression (33). The approximative
solution of Eq. (33) results in a simple expression for S-matrix near threshold poles:
π/2 − Φ
k . (19)
iπρ
As soon as the model parameters Φ and ρ are established from experimental data fit the above
equation enables us to determine the position of the nearest to the threshold S-matrix pole. We
found, that the narrow quasi-bound near threshold state [28] is consistent with present ΛΛ̄ data.
In particular, the fit with Φ = 1.7 + i0.4 and ρ = 0.25 (shown in Fig. 5) gives Im α = −1.9 fm
and quasi-bound state with energy E = 8 − i6 MeV. However, more precise experimental data
are required for determination of the scattering properties and resonance position with much
higher significance.
Experimental data for Σ Σ̄ and ΛΣ̄ and their typical fits by expression (12) as well as by
exponential curves |F | ≈ C exp(Im αk) are presented in Fig. 6.
The extracted scattering lengths values are presented in Table 1.
Let us turn to the case of the D ∗ D¯ ∗ system. We apply the same ideas in order to estimate
the corresponding scattering volume. Experimental data became available due to experiments by
O.D. Dalkarov et al. / Nuclear Physics A 833 (2010) 104–118 113
Fig. 6. Baryon effective form factors. Experimental data are taken from BaBar experiment [3]. Solid and dotted curves
are ΛΣ̄ 0 (Λ̄Σ 0 ) and Σ 0 Σ̄ 0 experimental data fits by Eq. (12) correspondingly. Dash-dotted curves are the extrapolation
of near threshold form factor behavior by means of exponential curves ∼ exp(Im α0 k).
Table 1
Scattering lengths in B B̄ system.
Im α, fm ρ, fm Im Φ
ΛΛ̄ −1.3 ± 0.6 0.4 ± 0.3 0.7 ± 0.3
ΛΣ̄ 0 (Λ̄Σ 0 ) −2.4 ± 0.7 0.7 ± 0.2 1.0 ± 0.1
Σ 0 Σ̄ 0 −2.5 ± 0.8 0.6 ± 0.2 0.8 ± 0.2
14παfs2
σ= 3
vD ∗ R4 . (20)
3m2
The value R4 is proportional to the form factor squared. We apply the model equations (10),
(11) and obtain the corresponding form factor numerically. Fit results are presented in Fig. 7. We
have found the best fit with ρ = 0.4 fm, Im α1 = −0.44 fm3 . In spite of rather good agreement
between theoretical fit and experimental data the obtained value of imaginary part of scattering
volume should be treated only as an estimation due to the lack of CLEO-c data in the near
threshold region. More detailed data are required to distinguish possible resonance behavior of
the mentioned form factor.
It follows from our consideration that fast decrease of the hadron form factor with increasing
momentum from the threshold is the consequence of the absorption in the final state interaction.
Let us mention, that such a decay can not be seen in the pion form factor, because π + π − system
has only elastic scattering and has no absorbtion at the threshold.
114 O.D. Dalkarov et al. / Nuclear Physics A 833 (2010) 104–118
Fig. 7. Function R4 [27] fit by numerical solution of the Schrödinger equation within model equations (10), (11).
4. Conclusion
The analysis of the experimental data shows that the near threshold behavior of the elec-
tromagnetic form factor of a hadron is mostly determined by the interaction of the hadron–
antihadron in the final state. Therefore the measurements of the form factor properties can serve
as a fruitful source of information about hadron–antihadron interaction, especially in situation
when direct investigation of this interaction is unavailable. We suggested the phenomenological
model which is based on the account of asymptotic properties of hadron–antihadron final state
interaction. Such a model reproduces typical form factor energy behavior in the range of relative
hh̄ momenta, where the scattering length and effective range approximations fail. This property
enables us to extract the scattering lengths and characteristic diffuseness radius of hh̄ potentials
from existing experimental data. Moreover, one can establish the existence of the near thresh-
old resonances in the mentioned systems. However, more accurate near threshold form factor
experimental data are required to significantly improve the significance of the obtained results.
To obtain more elaborate information about hadron–antihadron interaction the following ex-
periments could be suggested:
• Precise measurements of the proton and neutron form factors in the time-like region just near
threshold of the reaction e+ e− → N N̄ give us opportunity of high quality determination of
N N̄ scattering parameters.
• Further investigation of the strange and charm particles electromagnetic form factors in the
time-like region in non-relativistic region of relative momentum less than few hundreds of
MeV/c.
• There is a possibility to discover a 3 S1 quasinuclear bound states in the B B̄ system, which
can manifest themselves as a heavy vector meson. To do it, the experiment to measure proton
O.D. Dalkarov et al. / Nuclear Physics A 833 (2010) 104–118 115
form factor near B B̄ threshold is desirable, because these states will manifest themselves as
the bumps in the form factor behavior (e+ e− → B B̄ → p p̄).
• Bound states with photon quantum numbers in hadron–antihadron systems will manifest
themselves also as a deep-bump structure in the electron–positron transition into main an-
nihilation channels of these systems. In particular, it will be interesting to search for phe-
nomena connected with such a vector meson state in the ΛΛ̄ system near threshold in the
reaction e+ e− → K K̄4π by the analogy with deep-bump structure in 6π annihilation chan-
nel near N N̄ threshold. Note that the existence of quasinuclear 3 S1 vector state just near ΛΛ̄
threshold was considered in [28].
• The experiments on precise measurement of the cross-sections e+ e− → K K̄, D D̄, F F̄ ,
b+ b̄+ , b− b̄− etc. near corresponding thresholds can be very informative to determine inter-
action in the systems with hidden new quantum numbers.
We present here the derivation of the form factor in terms of the Jost function. The form factor
is proportional to the Al (k) that is defined from the following relation
ψl (r; k) = Al (k)φl (r; k), (21)
where ψl and φl are solutions of the Shrödinger equation such that
i
ψl (r; k) ∼ ĥ− (kr) − Sl (k)ĥ+
l (kr) , (22)
2 l
as r → ∞,
φl (r; k) ∼ jˆl (kr), (23)
as r → 0. Here Sl is the partial S-matrix element, jˆl (kr), ĥ±
l are Riccati–Bessel and Riccati–
Hankel functions:
ĥ± ˆ
l ≡ n̂l (z) ± i jl (z),
πz
jˆl (z) ≡ Jl+1/2 (z),
2
l πz
n̂l (z) ≡ (−1) J−l−1/2 (z).
2
From the definition of the Jost function fl (k) [29] we obtain:
Al (k) = 1/fl (k). (24)
Now we can use the well-known Jost function expansion near threshold [29] to get the corre-
sponding expansion of Al (k).
Particularly for l = 0
A0 (k) ≈ const · (1 − iα0 k), (25)
and for l = 1
A1 (k) ≈ const · 1 + ck 2 − iα1 k 3 . (26)
Here c is the momentum-independent constant, while α0 and α1 are the scattering length and
scattering volume correspondingly.
116 O.D. Dalkarov et al. / Nuclear Physics A 833 (2010) 104–118
Here we derive the form factor for the following model of N N̄ interaction. We assume that
N N̄ potential V (r) can be approximated above some matching distance Rc by an attractive
exponential potential V (r > Rc ) ≈ −U0 exp(−(r − Rc )/ρ). Below the matching distance r < Rc
the N N̄ interaction has a deep inner-core such that collision energy can be neglected |V (r)|
k 2 /(2M).
It is possible to obtain the energy dependence of the form factor under these conditions
without any further assumptions. For r < Rc the regular wave-function φ(r) satisfies boundary
conditions:
φ(0) = 0 (29)
and
φ (0) = 1 (30)
and its k-dependence can be neglected. It means that at matching distance Rc the continuity
condition for the logarithmic derivative of the wave-function is also energy-independent. We
will parameterize it in the following way:
z(Rc )
φ (r)/φ(r)|r=Rc = cot(Φ0 ). (31)
2ρ
O.D. Dalkarov et al. / Nuclear Physics A 833 (2010) 104–118 117
√
Here z(R) = 2ρ 2MU0 exp(−(R − Rc )/(2ρ)), M is the N N̄ reduced mass, Φ0 is a free pa-
rameter. For r > Rc the wave-function is given by the solution of the Schrödinger equation with
exponential potential V (r) = −U0 exp(−(r − Rc )/ρ):
φ(r; k) = B1 (k)J2ikρ z(r) + B2 (k)J−2ikρ z(r) . (32)
Using continuity of the wave-functions and its derivative at r = Rc we get for the form factor
sinh 2πkρ
A0 (k) = const · (1 + 2ikρ)(zc /2)−2ika
2πkρ
−1
× (zc /2) J−2ikρ (zc ) cos Φ0 + J−2ikρ (zc ) sin Φ0 , (33)
here zc ≡ z(Rc ). If we additionally assume that |zc | 1, which means that the wave-function
can be approximated by it’s WKB form near Rc and taking into account the Bessel function large
argument behavior:
1 π
J2ikρ (2x) ∼ √ cos 2x − iπkρ − , (34)
πx 4
we finally get the simplified expression:
sinh(2πkρ) (1 + 2ikρ)(zc /2)−2ikρ
A0 (k) = const · , (35)
2πkρ cos(Φ0 + zc + iπkρ − π/4)
and its absolute value:
sinh 2πkρ 1
A0 (k) = const · , (36)
2πkρ | cos(Φ + iπkρ)|
where Φ = Φ0 + zc − π/4. One can see that the phase Φ0 has a sense of phase accumulated
in the region r < Rc . This explains our choice of the boundary condition parametrization (31).
Expanding the expression for the form factor in terms of k we get for the scattering length:
α0 = Rc + 2ρ ln(zc /2) + 2γρ − πρ tan(Φ). (37)
Here γ is the Euler constant. The imaginary part of the scattering length turns to be the function
of ρ and Φ only:
Im α0 = −πρ Im tan(Φ). (38)
References
[14] O.D. Dalkarov, V.B. Mandelzveig, I.S. Shapiro, Nucl. Phys. B 21 (1970) 88.
[15] I.S. Shapiro, Phys. Rep. C 35 (1976) 129.
[16] O.D. Dalkarov, K.V. Protasov, I.S. Shapiro, Int. I. Mod. Phys. A 5 (1990) 2155.
[17] O.D. Dalkarov, K.V. Protasov, Phys. Lett. B 280 (1992) 117.
[18] O.D. Dalkarov, F. Myhrer, Nuovo Cimento A 40 (1977) 152.
[19] P. Gauzzi, Frascati Physics Series XV (1997) 449.
[20] A. Antonelli, et al., Phys. Lett. B 365 (1996) 427.
[21] A. Antonelli, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 517 (1998) 3.
[22] O.D. Dalkarov, V.G. Ksenzov, Pis’ma ZhETF 30 (1979) 74.
[23] O.D. Dalkarov, V.G. Ksenzov, Pis’ma ZhETF 31 (1980) 425.
[24] E. Tomasi-Gustafsson, F. Lacroix, C. Duterte, G.I. Gakh, Eur. Phys. J. A 24 (2005) 419.
[25] V. Karmanov, K. Protasov, A. Voronin, Eur. Phys. J. A 8 (2000) 429.
[26] B. El-Bennich, M. Lacombe, B. Loiseau, S. Wycech, Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 054001.
[27] S. Dubynskiy, M.B. Voloshin, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 21 (2006) 2779.
[28] J. Carbonell, O.D. Dalkarov, K.V. Protasov, Phys. Lett. B 306 (1993) 407.
[29] J. Taylor, Scattering Theory, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1972.
[30] A. Zichichi, et al., Nuovo Cimento 24 (1962) 170.
[31] R. Baldini, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 39 (2009) 315.
[32] J. Haidenbauer, H.-W. Hammer, U.-G. Meissner, A. Sibirtsev, Phys. Lett. B 643 (2006) 29.
[33] A. Sibirtsev, J. Haidenbauer, S. Krewald, U.-G. Meissner, A.W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 054010.
[34] B. Loiseau, S. Wycech, Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 011001.
[35] B. Kerbikov, A. Stavinsky, V. Fedotov, Phys. Rev. C 69 (2004) 055205.
[36] D.V. Bugg, Phys. Lett. B 598 (2004) 8.
[37] B.S. Zou, H.C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 034004.
[38] V.F. Dmitriev, A.I. Milstein, nucl-th/0607003.
[39] R. Poling, in: Proceedings of 4th Flavor Physics and CP Violation Conference (FPCP 2006), Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada, 9–12 April 2006, p. 005, arXiv:hep-ex/0606016v2.