text:
# Low-energy scattering and photoproduction of 𝜂-mesons on three-body nuclei

## I Introduction

During the last 10 years much effort has been devoted to the study of the interaction of an $`\eta `$-meson with very light nuclei. The attention to this area, called primarily by the pioneering work of Ued91 ; Wilk93 , arises from the distinctive features of the $`\eta `$-nuclear system at low energies. In more detail:

(i) The $`\eta N`$ interaction is characterized by the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance located near zero $`\eta N`$ kinetic energy. As a consequence, the $`s`$-wave part of the $`\eta N`$ interaction is attractive and rather large near threshold. This considerable attraction which is assumed to be coherently enhanced in nuclei has led to speculations about the existence of $`\eta `$-nuclear bound states which may be formed already in $`A=3`$ nuclei. Although a calculation using an energy independent $`\eta A`$ potential has confirmed this hypothesis Wilk93 , more sophisticated investigations Wyc95 ; FiAr02  have shown that the $`\eta N`$ interaction is unlikely to yield a bound $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ system even with a relatively large real part of the scattering length $`ea_{\eta N}`$ = 0.75 fm. The pole of the scattering amplitude ”recedes” to the nonphysical sheet generating an $`s`$-wave virtual state. It is important that apparently the pole is located close to the scattering threshold, resulting in a strong influence on low-energy scattering and production processes with $`\eta `$-mesons.

(ii) Concerning the formal aspects, the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance, dominating the low-energy $`\eta N`$ interaction, must distort the transparent connection between the $`\eta N`$ and $`\eta A`$ scattering amplitudes. This connection is well established in the pion-nuclear case within the local-density limit where the equivalent optical potential is related in a simple fashion to the elementary $`\pi N`$ amplitude ErEr66  (except for real absorption of pions on few-nucleon clusters). The physical basis of this fact, giving rise to the so-called impulse approximation of the optical potential, is a large internucleon separation distance compared to the range of the $`\pi N`$ interaction. On the contrary, due to the resonance pole in the $`\eta N`$ interaction, the latter must be sizably influenced by the nuclear environment. Indeed, using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=75`$ MeV for the $`S_{11}`$(1535) width near the $`\eta N`$ threshold, we obtain for the collision time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=2\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }1.710^{23}s`$ which exceeds the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\mathrm{}/m_\pi 510^{24}s`$ associated with the pion-exchange $`NN`$ interaction. Therefore, the validity of the simplest optical potential for the $`\eta A`$ interaction is expected to be doubtful, and more rigorous models have to be used.

The purpose of the present paper is to explore the interaction of $`\eta `$-mesons with three-body nuclei, a problem which can be solved exactly using methods developed within four-body scattering theory. At the same time, the generalization of the results obtained in this way to heavier nuclei seems to be more justifiable than in the deuteron case, where the two nucleons are strongly kinematically correlated and very weakly bound. Our intention is to analyze the quality of the first-order optical potential for the $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ interaction using as a reference the exact four-body calculation. Since we have no way of direct fitting $`\eta `$-nuclear scattering cross sections using a phenomenological potential model, the information on the low-energy $`\eta `$-nuclear interaction stems entirely from the assumed properties of the $`\eta N`$ interaction and depends strongly on the model linking these two processes. For this reason, a thorough microscopic approach to the $`\eta `$-nuclear dynamics becomes particularly important. On the other hand, rather complex mathematical infrastructure of the four-body scattering theory prevents to some extent a simple interpretation of the results. Therefore, we first will clarify the question, whether the $`\eta `$-nuclear interaction can be adequately described in terms of the simplest optical potential. Furthermore, the comparison of the four-body results with those obtained using less rigorous but very tractable approaches, such as the lowest-order optical potential, may be very fruitful in understanding the $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ interaction mechanism.

Several aspects concerning the accuracy of the simplest optical model for the scattering of $`\eta `$ mesons on $`s`$-shell nuclei were already discussed in Ref. Wyc95 . In particular, it was shown that the behavior of the $`\eta N`$ scattering matrix below the free threshold has a crucial influence on the results. Here we address other questions related to the optical potential approach for $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ scattering, namely:
(i) What is the influence of binding of the participating nucleon on the elementary scattering process?
(ii) What is the relative importance of target excitations in between two successive scatterings on different nucleons?
(iii) What is the importance of the short-range behavior of the nucleon-nucleon potential?

The second part of the paper is devoted to coherent $`\eta `$-photoproduction on three-body nuclei

$$\gamma +^3\text{H}/^3\text{He}\eta +^3\text{H}/^3\text{He}.$$
(1)
These reactions are of special importance in $`\eta `$-nuclear physics. Firstly, the main driving mechanism of $`\eta `$-photoproduction, the photoexcitation of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$-resonance, is well established. This is in contrast to reactions with nucleons as incident particles, where the main mechanism connected with the short-range part of the $`NN`$ interaction is presumably much more complex and as of yet not well understood. Secondly, the energy gap between the coherent and incoherent thresholds, where the $`\eta `$-yield is free from the strong incoherent background is about $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\gamma `$ = 7 MeV, which is appreciably larger than the one on the deuteron (about 3 MeV). This advantage has been partially used in a recent 3He$`(\gamma ,\eta )^3`$He experiment carried out with the TAPS facility operating at MAMI Pfeif02 . Thirdly, the $`\eta `$-nuclear interaction, which is most important in the $`s`$-wave, must be particularly significant in reactions involving nuclei with nonzero spin. As a counter example, the reaction 4He$`(\gamma ,\eta )^4`$He, where the $`s`$-wave in the final state is totally suppressed, does not show any strong influence of the final state interaction (FSI). Finally, the dynamics of the reactions (1) may be treated within a few-body scattering theory, i.e., formally exactly. Though the near-threshold $`\eta `$-photoproduction on three-body nuclei was already considered in Ref. Shev02  within the so-called finite-rank-approximation (FRA), we reexamine it primarily in order to show the results of the four-body approach for the $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ interaction in the final state.

The outline of the paper is as follows. First, we briefly review in Sect. II the four-body formalism which is relevant for the present consideration. For the separable representation of the kernels we use the energy dependent pole expansion (EDPE) method of Ref. Sof82 . In Sect. III, after a short summary of the Kerman-McManus-Thaler (KMT) theory, we discuss the ”standard” optical model for the $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ elastic scattering with particular emphasis on the role of the higher-order corrections like nucleon-core interaction and virtual target excitations. The $`\eta `$-photoproduction on three-body nuclei is presented in Sect. IV where we illustrate the strong effect of the $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ interaction in the final state. In this section we also compare our predictions with those given in Shev02 . The main results are reviewed in the conclusions.

## II The four-body approach to $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ scattering

We begin the formal part with a brief review of the four-body scattering formalism applied to $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ scattering. Our basic tool for solving the four-body equations is the quasiparticle method, reduced to a purely separable representation for the driving two-body potentials and also for the subamplitudes in the (3+1) and (2+2) partitions. The main features of the method were widely presented in the literature (see e.g. Ref. Fons86  and references therein). In applying this approach to the $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ problem, the relevant formalism is considered in FiAr02 . Within the quasiparticle method, the whole dynamics is described in terms of the amplitudes $`X_{\alpha 1}`$ ($`\alpha `$=1,2,3) connecting the three quasi-two-body channels characterized by the following partitions

$$\alpha =1:\eta +(3N),\alpha =2:N+(\eta NN),\alpha =3:(\eta N)+(NN)$$
(2)
with the initial channel $`\alpha `$=1. To be specific, we consider the triton as target. Because we neglect coulomb forces and thus isospin invariance holds, the channels with 3H and 3He are identical. Since only the energies up to the three-body threshold will be considered, we treat the pion energy relativistically but use nonrelativistic kinematics for nucleons and the $`\eta `$-meson. Furthermore, due to strong dominance of $`s`$-waves in $`NN`$ and $`\eta N`$ scattering, we assume that in the low-energy region only the lowest partial wave ($`L=0`$) in the $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ system has to be taken into account.

The essence of the calculational scheme is the solution of the scattering problem for the two- and three-body subsystems specified in the partitions (2). For $`\alpha =1`$ and 2 we deal with interacting three-body systems. Using separable representations for the $`NN`$ and $`\eta N`$ potentials, the corresponding scattering amplitudes can be expressed in terms of effective quasi-two-body amplitudes $`U_{\alpha ;ij}(q,q^{};)`$ which describe the scattering of a particle on a two-body cluster (quasiparticle). The corresponding states are specified by the indices $`i,j`$ marking the quasiparticles, e.g., $`i,j\{d,N^{}\}`$ for $`\alpha =2`$ where the $`(NN)`$ and $`(\eta N)`$ systems are denoted as $`d`$ and $`N^{}`$, respectively. The notation $`N^{}`$ is associated with the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance which dominates the low energy $`\eta N`$ interaction. For $`\alpha =3`$ we have two independent two-particle subsystems. The relevant amplitudes are also represented in the quasi-two-body form $`U_{3;ij}(q,q^{};)`$ with $`i,j\{d,N^{}\}`$ FiAr02 .

The reduction of the four-body equations to a numerically manageable form is achieved by expanding the amplitudes $`U_{\alpha ;ij}`$ into separable series of finite rank $`N_\alpha `$

$`U_{1;dd}^{(ss^{})}(q,q^{};)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l,m=1}{\overset{N_1}{}}}v_{d;l}^{1(s)}(q;)\mathrm{\Theta }_{1;lm}()v_{d;m}^{1(s^{})}(q^{};),`$ (3)
$`U_{\alpha ;ij}^{(s)}(q,q^{};)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l,m=1}{\overset{N_\alpha }{}}}v_{i;l}^{\alpha (s)}(q;)\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ;lm}^{(s)}()v_{j;m}^{\alpha (s)}(q^{};),\alpha =2,3.`$ (4)
To condense the formulas to follow, we use here a unified notation for the vertex functions or form factors $`v^\alpha `$ in all three channels. They are related to the ones introduced in FiAr02  as: $`v_{d;n}^1=u_n`$, $`v_{i;n}^2=v_{i;n}`$, $`v_{i;n}^3=w_{i;n}`$, $`i\{d,N^{}\}`$. For the sake of clarity, we note that the amplitude $`U_1`$ of the $`(NN)+N`$ scattering is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix according to the spin index $`s=0,1`$ (we need only spin-doublet $`3N`$ states). Here the values $`s=0,1`$ denote the total spin of the ($`NN`$) $`s`$-wave cluster with isospin $`t=1s`$. At the same time, in the partitions $`\alpha =2,3`$, we have two one-dimensional amplitudes $`U_\alpha ^{(s)}`$. For instance, in the channel $`\alpha =2`$ the index $`s`$ numerates two independent $`\eta NN`$ states with $`J^\pi =0^{}`$ ($`s`$=0) and $`J^\pi =1^{}`$ ($`s`$=1), respectively.

Considering the identity of the nucleons, the $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ problem is reduced to a $`3\times 3`$ set of integral equations in one scalar variable. For the transition amplitudes $`X_{\alpha 1}`$ connecting the channel 1 to the channels $`\alpha =2`$ and 3 we arrive at a coupled set of equations

$`X_{\alpha 1;nn^{}}^{(ss^{})}(p,p^{};E)=Z_{\alpha 1;nn^{}}^{(ss^{})}(p,p^{};E)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =2,3}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l,m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =0,1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\stackrel{~}{Z}_{\alpha \beta ;nl}^{(s\sigma )}(p,p^{\prime \prime };E)\mathrm{\Theta }_{\beta ;lm}^{(\sigma )}\left(E{\displaystyle \frac{p_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}}{2M_\beta }}\right)X_{\beta 1;mn^{}}^{(\sigma s^{})}(p^{\prime \prime },p^{};E){\displaystyle \frac{p^{\prime \prime 2}dp}{2\pi ^2}},\alpha =2,3,`$ (5)
where $`Z_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_{\alpha \beta }`$ are the effective potentials realized through particle exchange between the quasiparticles in the channels $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. The arguments of the effective propagators $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha `$ are the internal energies of the corresponding clusters, given in (2). In the case $`\alpha =3`$ it is equal to the sum of the c.m. kinetic energies in the $`\eta N`$ and $`NN`$ subsystems. The reduced masses in the three channels read

$$M_1=\frac{3M_Nm_\eta }{3M_N+m_\eta },M_2=\frac{M_N(2M_N+m_\eta )}{3M_N+m_\eta },M_3=\frac{2M_N(M_N+m_\eta )}{3M_N+m_\eta }.$$
(6)
The equations (II) are illustrated in Fig. 1, where also the structure of the potentials $`Z_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_{\alpha \beta }`$ is schematically explained. The former are expressed in terms of the form factors $`v_{i;n}^\alpha `$ as

$$Z_{\alpha \beta ;nn^{}}^{(ss^{})}(p,p^{};E)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{ss^{}}}{2}\underset{j}{}\underset{1}{\overset{+1}{}}v_{j;n}^{\alpha (s)}(q,E\frac{p^2}{2M_\alpha })\tau _j^{(s)}\left(E\frac{p^2}{2M_\alpha }\frac{q^2}{2\mu _j^\alpha }\right)v_{j;n^{}}^{\beta (s^{})}(q^{},E\frac{p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2M_\beta })d(\widehat{p}\widehat{p}^{}).$$
(7)
Here, the functions $`\tau _j(z)`$ are the familiar quasiparticle propagators appearing in the separable model for $`NN(j=d)`$ and $`\eta N(j=N^{})`$ scattering which depend on the two-body c.m. kinetic energies. The corresponding reduced masses $`\mu _j^\alpha `$ read

$$\mu _d^1=\frac{3}{2}M_N,\mu _d^2=\frac{2M_Nm_\eta }{2M_N+m_\eta },\mu _N^{}^2=\frac{M_N(M_N+m_\eta )}{2M_N+m_\eta },\mu _d^3=\frac{M_Nm_\eta }{M_N+m_\eta },\mu _N^{}^3=\frac{M_N}{2}.$$
(8)
The spin-isospin coefficients are denoted by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ss^{}}`$. Clearly, due to the pseudoscalar-isoscalar nature of the $`\eta `$ meson the spin $`s`$ of the $`NN`$-cluster fixes uniquely the order of the spin-isospin coupling of the whole $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ configuration. The momenta $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$ in (7) are functions of the variables $`\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{}`$ and $`E`$ as given in FiAr02 . The overall c.m. energy $`E`$ is counted from the four-body threshold, i.e. $`E=W3M_Nm_\eta `$ with $`W`$ being the $`\eta ^3`$H invariant mass. Below the first inelastic threshold the obvious relation $`E\epsilon _d`$ holds, where $`\epsilon _d`$ denotes the deuteron binding energy. For more details concerning the structure of the potentials $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`Z_{\alpha \beta }`$ we refer to Ref. FiAr02 .

Elastic $`\eta ^3`$H scattering is described by the amplitude $`X_{11}`$, which is determined by the amplitudes $`X_{\alpha 1}`$ ($`\alpha =2,3`$) as

$`X_{11;nn^{}}^{(ss^{})}(p,p^{};E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =2,3}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l,m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =0,1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}Z_{1\alpha ;nl}^{(s\sigma )}(p,p^{\prime \prime };E)\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ;lm}^{(\sigma )}\left(E{\displaystyle \frac{p_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}}{2M_\beta }}\right)X_{\alpha 1;mn^{}}^{(\sigma s^{})}(p^{\prime \prime },p^{};E){\displaystyle \frac{p^{\prime \prime 2}dp}{2\pi ^2}}.`$ (9)
As was already mentioned, the key point of the reduction procedure, leading to numerically manageable equations (II), is the separable expansion of the subamplitudes (3) and (4). In the present paper we use for this purpose the method of the energy dependent pole expansion (EDPE), presented in detail in Sof82 . The starting point is the eigenvalue equation for the vertex functions $`v_{i;n}^\alpha (q,)`$

$`v_{d;n}^{1(s)}(q,B_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _n^1}}{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}=0,1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}V_{1;dd}^{(ss^{})}(q,q^{};B_1)\tau _d^{(s^{})}\left(B_1{\displaystyle \frac{q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\mu _d^1}}\right)v_{d;n}^{1(s^{})}(q^{},B_1){\displaystyle \frac{q^2dq^{}}{2\pi ^2}},`$ (10)
$`v_{i;n}^{\alpha (s)}(q,B_\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _n^{\alpha (s)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=d,N^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}V_{\alpha ;ij}^{(s)}(q,q^{};B_\alpha )\tau _j^{(s)}\left(B_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\mu _j^\alpha }}\right)v_{j;n}^{\alpha (s)}(q^{},B_\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{q^2dq^{}}{2\pi ^2}},\alpha =2,3.`$ (11)
The explicit expressions for the effective potentials $`V_{\alpha ;ij}(q,q^{};)`$ are given in Ref. FiAr02 . The equations (10) are solved for an arbitrarily fixed energy $`=B_\alpha `$. In the actual calculation we have taken $`B_1=\epsilon _{{}_{}{}^{3}H}`$ (the triton binding energy) and $`B_\alpha =\epsilon _d`$ in the other two channels $`\alpha =2,3`$.

The extrapolation of the vertices $`v_{i;n}^\alpha `$ onto the whole energy axes is carried out according to the expressions

$`v_{d;n}^{1(s)}(q,)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}=0,1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}V_{1;dd}^{(ss^{})}(q,q^{};)\tau _d^{(s^{})}\left(B_1{\displaystyle \frac{q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\mu _d^1}}\right)v_{d;n}^{(s^{})}(q^{},B_1){\displaystyle \frac{q^2dq^{}}{2\pi ^2}},`$ (12)
$`v_{i;n}^{\alpha (s)}(q,)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=d,N^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}V_{\alpha ;ij}^{(s)}(q,q^{};)\tau _j^{(s)}\left(B_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\mu _j^\alpha }}\right)v_{j;n}^{\alpha (s)}(q^{},B_\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{q^2dq^{}}{2\pi ^2}},\alpha =2,3.`$ (13)
The effective EDPE propagators $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha `$ in (3) and (4) are defined by

$`\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_1^1()\right)_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=0,1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[v_{d;m}^{1(s)}(q,B_1)\tau _d^{(s)}\left(B_1{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2\mu _d^1}}\right)v_{d;m}^{1(s)}(q,)\tau _d^{(s)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2\mu _d^1}}\right)\right]v_{d;n}^{1(s)}(q,){\displaystyle \frac{q^2dq}{2\pi ^2}},`$ (14)
$`\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ^{(s)1}()\right)_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=d,N^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[v_{j;m}^{\alpha (s)}(q,B_\alpha )\tau _j^{(s)}\left(B_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2\mu _j^\alpha }}\right)v_{j;m}^{\alpha (s)}(q,)\tau _j^{(s)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2\mu _j^\alpha }}\right)\right]v_{j;n}^{\alpha (s)}(q,){\displaystyle \frac{q^2dq}{2\pi ^2}},\alpha =2,3.`$ (15)
In the calculation, we use a $`6\times 6`$ separable representation (3) and (4) in each partition (2) which yields accurate solutions up to the first inelastic threshold.

Due to the strong coupling between the $`\eta N`$ and $`\pi N`$ channels in the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ region, the transitions $`\eta N\pi N`$ must in general be taken into account. Clearly, the most straightforward way to introduce the pion degrees of freedom would be to generalize the $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ four-body equations to include the coupled channels $`(\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N)(\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N)`$. But in practice, the four-body treatment of the $`\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ states turns out to be very complicated. The reason for this is the appearance of moving singularities arising near the physical region for the $`\pi NN`$ amplitudes above the three-body threshold. As a result, the separable representation of the four-body kernels converges very poorly footn1 . Therefore, we neglect the channel $`\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ keeping only the intermediate $`\pi N`$-”bubbles” in the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ propagator. The validity of this neglect seems to be doubtful, since the $`\pi N`$ interaction in the second resonance region is visibly stronger than the $`\eta N`$ one. The crucial point, however, is that the two-step process $`\eta N\pi N\eta N`$, favoring large momenta of the intermediate pion $`k_\pi 400`$ MeV/c, needs two nucleons to be within the range $`R=\mathrm{}/k_\pi `$ 0.5 fm. Adopting a simple geometric interpretation, the corresponding mechanism is associated with a small probability

$$P=\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3\rho _{{}_{}{}^{3}H}(0)\frac{1}{10},$$
(16)
where $`\rho _{{}_{}{}^{3}H}(r)`$ is the 3H nucleon density, and thus is not expected to be effective for low-energy $`\eta ^3`$H scattering.

For the target wave function we take only the $`s`$-wave part

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{M_JM_T}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(1P_{12}P_{13}\right)\underset{s=0,1}{}\psi ^{(s)}(q_1,k_{23})\left[\left[\frac{1}{2}\times \frac{1}{2}\right]^{st}\times \frac{1}{2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}M_J\frac{1}{2}M_T},$$
(17)
where the isospin $`t=1s`$ and $`M_J`$ and $`M_T`$ denote total spin and isospin projections, respectively. The spatial functions $`\psi ^{(s)}(q_1,k_{23})`$ are taken symmetric with respect to the nucleons 2 and 3. They are extracted from the bound state pole of the $`3N`$ scattering amplitude, calculated within the three-body model. The corresponding expression in terms of the $`(3N)N+(NN)`$ vertices $`v_{d;1}^{1(s)}`$ reads

$$\psi ^{(s)}(q,k)=Ng_d^{(s)}\tau _d^{(s)}\left(\epsilon _{{}_{}{}^{3}H}\frac{3q^2}{4M_N}\right)\frac{v_{d;1}^{1(s)}(q,\epsilon _{{}_{}{}^{3}H})}{\epsilon _{{}_{}{}^{3}H}+{\displaystyle \frac{3q^2}{4M_N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{M_N}}}.$$
(18)
The normalization factor is obtained from the residue of the scattering matrix

$$N^2=\frac{d\lambda _1^1}{d}|_{=\epsilon _{{}_{}{}^{3}H}},$$
(19)
where $`\lambda _1^1`$ is the first eigenvalue of the kernel $`V_{1;dd}\tau _d`$ (see Eq. (10)). Finally, for the $`\eta ^3`$H scattering amplitude we get

$$F_{\eta ^3H}(k_\eta )=\frac{\mu _{\eta ^3H}}{2\pi }\underset{s,s^{}=0,1}{}X_{11;11}^{(ss^{})}(k_\eta ,k_\eta ,;E),$$
(20)
with the $`\eta ^3`$H reduced mass $`\mu _{\eta ^3H}`$ and the on-shell momentum $`k_\eta =\left[2\mu _{\eta ^3H}(E+\epsilon _{{}_{}{}^{3}H})\right]^{1/2}`$.

As was already noted, we consider the $`NN`$ and $`\eta N`$ interactions only in $`s`$ states. For the $`NN`$ $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ configurations we adopt a rank-one separable parametrization

$$v_{NN}^{(s)}(k,k^{})=g_d^{(s)}(k)g_d^{(s)}(k^{}),\text{with}g_d^{(s)}(k)=\sqrt{2}\pi \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}\frac{C_i^{(s)}}{k^2+\beta _i^{(s)2}},\text{for}s=0,1,$$
(21)
where the parameters $`C_i^{(s)}`$ and $`\beta _i^{(s)}`$ are listed in Ref. Zan83 . The index $`s=0,1`$ refers to the singlet and triplet states, respectively. The separable potential (21) is obtained by fitting the off-shell behavior of the Paris $`NN`$ potential at zero energy and is therefore appropriate for processes without target break-up. The corresponding three-body calculation gives for the triton binding energy a reasonable value $`\epsilon _{{}_{}{}^{3}H}`$ = 8.64 MeV and describes rather well the 3H charge form factor up to $`Q^2`$ = 8 fm-2.

As for the $`\eta N`$ interaction, we use here the simplest separable parametrization with the energy-dependent potential

$$v_{\eta N}(k,k^{};W)=\frac{g_N^{}^{(\eta )}(k)g_N^{}^{(\eta )}(k^{})}{WM_0},\text{with}g_N^{}^{(\eta )}(k)=\frac{g_N^{}^{(\eta )}}{\sqrt{2\omega _\eta }}\frac{\beta _N^{}^{(\eta )2}}{k^2+\beta _N^{}^{(\eta )2}},$$
(22)
which gives the familiar isobar ansatz for the meson-nucleon amplitude with the bare resonance mass $`M_0`$. In the present paper, the excitation of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance is assumed to be the only mechanism for the meson-nucleon interaction. Rather than to investigate the dependence of the results on the $`\eta N`$ scattering length $`a_{\eta N}`$ we preferred to choose the parameters in (22) such that the $`\eta N`$ scattering length

$$a_{\eta N}=(0.50+i0.32)\text{fm}$$
(23)
is reproduced. This value lies approximately ”halfway” in the listing of various $`\eta N`$ scattering lengths which can be found in the literature (see e.g. Hai02 ). It must be noted that the low-energy $`\eta `$-nuclear interaction depends strongly on the continuation of the $`\eta N`$ amplitude to negative kinetic energies and hence must be sensitive to the amplitudes in the channels coupled to the $`\eta N`$ one. Therefore, we use here the unitary model of Ref. BeTa90  where three coupled channels $`\eta N`$, $`\pi N`$ and $`\pi \pi N`$ are considered. In order to reproduce the value (23) we have slightly changed the set of parameters presented in BeTa90  in such a manner that the $`\pi N\pi N`$ and $`\pi N\eta N`$ scattering data are reasonably well described in the region below and just above the $`\eta N`$ threshold. The results shown in Fig. 2 are obtained with the parameter values

$`g_N^{}^{(\pi )}=8.898/\sqrt{12\pi },\beta _N^{}^{(\pi )}=404\text{MeV},`$
$`g_N^{}^{(\eta )}=7.090/\sqrt{4\pi },\beta _N^{}^{(\eta )}=695\text{MeV},`$ (24)
$`M_0=1599\text{MeV}.`$
The additional factors in (II) appear due to different normalizations of the meson-nucleon potentials $`v_{\pi N}`$ and $`v_{\eta N}`$ used in this work and in BeTa90 . The parameters of the two-pion channel $`\pi \pi N`$ were taken unchanged from Ref. BeTa90 .

## III The optical model for $`\eta ^3`$H scattering

We begin the analysis of the optical potential approach by reviewing the corresponding formalism. According to the Watson multiple scattering theory GoWa64 , the $`\eta `$-nuclear interaction may be treated as a series of $`\eta N`$ collisions. In the present discussion we use the version put forward by Kerman-McManus-Thaler (KMT) KMT59 . The corresponding expansion of the scattering operator reads

$$T=\underset{i}{\overset{A}{}}\tau (i)+\underset{ij}{\overset{A}{}}\tau (i)G\tau (j)+\mathrm{}$$
(25)
Here the Green’s function $`G`$ describes the propagation of a free $`\eta `$ and $`A`$ interacting nucleons

$$G=\frac{\widehat{A}}{EH_0V_A},$$
(26)
where the nuclear potential $`V_A`$ describes the interactions of the nucleons, and the free Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ includes only the kinetic energy operator of meson and nucleons. Furthermore, we have included into the Green’s function the projection operator $`\widehat{A}`$ onto the completely antisymmetric nuclear states. The scattering matrix $`\tau `$ in (25) describes the off-shell scattering of an $`\eta `$-meson on a single bound nucleon and obeys the equation

$$\tau =v_{\eta N}+v_{\eta N}G\tau .$$
(27)
Within the KMT theory the nucleons are treated to be identical from the beginning. Therefore we have dropped the nucleon index $`i`$ in (27). The formal reduction of the $`(A+1)`$-body problem (25)-(27) to a two-body scattering problem leads for the $`T`$-matrix to the equation

$$T=U+\frac{A1}{A}UGP_0T,$$
(28)
with $`P_0`$ being the projector onto the nuclear ground state. The operator $`U`$ of the equivalent optical potential obeys the equation

$$U=U^{(1)}+\frac{A1}{A}U^{(1)}G(1P_0)U,$$
(29)
with the driving term $`U^{(1)}=A\tau `$.

The simplest realization of the multiple scattering formalism is mainly based on the following approximations:

(i) Coherent approximation: here one keeps only the leading term in (29). The resulting optical potential is given by the the ground state expectation value of the matrix $`\tau `$ times the number of nucleons in the nucleus

$$U_C(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{};E)=0;\stackrel{}{p}|U^{(1)}(E)|0;\stackrel{}{p}^{}=A0;\stackrel{}{p}|\tau |0;\stackrel{}{p}^{}.$$
(30)
As may be seen, the restriction to the first-order term $`U^{(1)}`$ in the expansion (29) neglects the virtual target excitations in between successive scatterings on different nucleons. Of course, as follows from (27), excitations are allowed for when the $`\eta `$ interacts successively with the same nucleon. One of the points in favor of the coherent approximation is the assumed dominance of the nearest singularity (bound state pole). Probably no less important is the orthogonality of the nuclear ground state wave function to the excited states, which results in a reduction of the matrix element $`0|U^{(1)}|n`$ at least at small momentum transfers. However, in spite of these reasonable arguments the study of $`nd`$ AAY64  and $`\eta d`$ Wyc01  scattering has shown that keeping only the target ground state weakens sizably the overall interaction in the system and is therefore a rather poor approximation.

(ii) Impulse approximation: it is considered as a further simplification of the approximation (i) and consists in the substitution of the operator $`\tau `$ in (30) by the free-space $`\eta N`$ scattering matrix $`t_{\eta N}`$ satisfying the equation

$$t_{\eta N}=v_{\eta N}+v_{\eta N}G_0t_{\eta N},\text{with}G_0=\frac{1}{EH_0}.$$
(31)
The resulting optical potential for the $`\eta ^3`$H scattering is then

$$U_I(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{};E)=A0;\stackrel{}{p}|t_{\eta N}|0;\stackrel{}{p}^{}=A\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}H}^{}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{k})t_{\eta N}\left(w_{\eta N}(\stackrel{}{q})\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}H}(\stackrel{}{q}+\frac{2}{3}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}),\stackrel{}{k})\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3},$$
(32)
where the argument $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ of the ground state wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}H}`$ is the relative momentum of the participating nucleon with respect to the other two nucleons. Thus within this approximation, the struck nucleon is bound only before and after the interaction with the incident meson but is free during the scattering. The role of the surrounding nucleons is to provide only the momentum distribution for the active scatterer. The impulse approximation is more or less successful for low-energy pion-nucleus scattering far away from the resonance region ErEr66 , that is, for light projectiles which interact weakly with the target constituents. But its validity may be marginal in the $`\eta `$-nuclear case. The main reason for this fact is that the impulse approximation breaks down if the projectile is in resonance with the nucleon GoWa64 . As was already noted in the introduction, since the $`\eta N`$-scattering is associated with a nonvanishing time delay due to the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance, the interaction of the struck nucleon with the remaining ones must generally be important.

In order to study the quality of the approximations (i) and (ii) for the $`\eta `$-nuclear interaction we have calculated the $`\eta ^3`$H elastic scattering using the optical potentials $`U_C`$ (30) and $`U_I`$ (32). In each case only the $`s`$-wave part of the scattering amplitude was taken into account. The results are obtained by solving equation (28) in momentum space

$$T(p,p;E)=U(p,p;E)+\frac{2}{3}\frac{\mu _{\eta ^3H}}{\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{U(p,p^{};E)T(p^{},p;E)}{p^2p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+i\epsilon }p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝑑p^{}.$$
(33)
The numerical difficulties caused by the singularity in the integrand at $`p^{}=p`$ were eliminated with the help of the Noyes-Kowalski trick NoKo65 .

It is worthwhile to note that since the in-medium $`\eta N`$ scattering matrix $`\tau `$ is an $`(A+1)`$-body operator, its full treatment is in general possible only with certain approximations. However, in the case of $`A=3`$, the equation (27) can be solved exactly using the four-body formalism. Indeed, this equation represents the reduced problem where the $`\eta `$-meson is scattered off only one of the nucleons which in turn interacts with the other two nucleons. Therefore, using the separable representation for the two- and three-body scattering matrices as described in Sect. II, the equation (27) can be transformed into the form presented in (II) and (9) where now we must switch off the $`\eta `$ exchange between the nucleons. In the computation, we simply set the potential $`V_{2;N^{}N^{}}`$ in Eqs. (11) and (13) as well as the term $`Z_{23}^1(Z_{32}^1)`$ in the potential $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_{23}(\stackrel{~}{Z}_{32})`$ (see Fig. 1) equal to zero. The matrix $`X_{11}`$, obtained in this way, yields the $`s`$-wave potential $`U_C`$ (30) for the $`\eta ^3`$H scattering in the form

$$U_C(p,p^{};E)=\underset{ss^{}=0,1}{}X_{11;11}^{(ss^{})}(p,p^{};E).$$
(34)
In Fig. 3 we compare the results of the approximations (30) and (32) with those given by the four-body theory where the $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ multiple scattering series (25) is summed exactly. There are two main conclusion to be drawn from this comparison:

(i) The $`\eta ^3`$H interaction generated by the optical potential $`U_I`$ (32) is relatively weak. It is interesting to compare our result with that obtained within the scattering length approximation $`t_{\eta N}\frac{2\pi }{\mu _{\eta N}}a_{\eta N}`$. The latter predicts a binding of the $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ system already for relatively modest values of $`a_{\eta N}`$ (see e.g. Wilk93 ; HaHi99 ). The trivial source of this discrepancy lies in the strong energy dependence of the $`\eta N`$ amplitude which is ignored by the scattering length approximation. The change of the free $`\eta N`$ energy $`w_{\eta N}^{\text{free}}`$ in the medium is primarily due to the Fermi motion and due to the binding of the nucleons. A rough estimation at zero $`\eta ^3`$H kinetic energy gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =w_{\eta N}w_{\eta N}^{\text{free}}\epsilon _b\frac{q^2}{2M_3},$$
(35)
where $`\epsilon _b6.5`$ MeV is the binding energy of a participating nucleon to the two-nucleon core, while $`q^2`$ stands for the mean squared nucleon momentum inside the nucleus, and the reduced mass $`M_3`$ is given by (6). Taking $`\sqrt{q^2}=120`$ MeV/c we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega 15`$ MeV. In the calculation, the energy at which the $`\eta N`$ amplitude has to be calculated was chosen according to the so-called ”spectator on-shell” prescription. The corresponding energy shift $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\omega |`$ is larger than that given by the estimation (35) where the internal energy of the two-nucleon core is neglected. Taking into account the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ results in decreasing the $`\eta N`$ scattering amplitude and especially its imaginary part, which has a sharp energy dependence around the $`\eta N`$ threshold (see Fig. 2). The crucial importance of this fact was also discussed in Wyc95 ; Hai02 . One sees in Fig. 3 that inclusion of the intermediate nuclear interaction (the dash-dotted curve) accounts for an appreciable portion of the noted disagreement, and it leads to a much better description near zero energy. We consider this fact as evidence that calculations, which investigate the dependence of the $`\eta A`$-dynamics on the elementary amplitude $`t_{\eta N}`$ but disregard the interaction of the participating nucleon with the surrounding nucleons, are of little significance.

(ii) Comparison of the results obtained within the coherent approximation (30) with the four-body treatment shows the role of higher order terms in the expansion (29). As was already noted, their contribution is associated with virtual target excitations in between scatterings. As one sees, this effect is significant and increases as the energy approaches the inelastic threshold (analogous conclusions with respect to the $`\eta d`$ interaction are given in Wyc01 ). With increasing energy the cross section becomes similar to the one of the impulse approximation but as one sees in Fig. 3 the Argand plots remain very different.

In our opinion, the conclusions above have an important bearing on models of the $`\eta `$-nuclear interaction. In particular, they point to the fact that such models should not be developed as a mere repetition of the first-order $`\pi `$-nuclear scattering formalism.

Returning to Fig. 3 we would like to note a strong enhancement of the cross section close to zero energy as a consequence of the $`\eta ^3`$H virtual state. The scattering length $`a_{\eta ^3H}=(1.82+i2.75)`$ fm locates the position of the pole at $`E_{\eta ^3H}^{pole}1/(a_{\eta ^3H}^2\mu _{\eta ^3H})`$ = (1.53+i3.59) MeV. The pole lies on the first nonphysical sheet ($`m\sqrt{E}<0`$) attached to the physical one through the two-body cut beginning at $`\eta ^3`$H threshold footn2 . The somewhat unusual behavior of the Argand plots near the inelastic threshold supposedly can be ascribed to a cusp-like structure of the amplitude with a rapidly varying real part.

In order to investigate the role of the short-range nucleon-nucleon dynamics we have performed in addition a four-body calculation with a Yamaguchi parametrization of the potential $`v_{NN}`$ Yam54  where the complicated structure of the short-range $`NN`$ interaction is ignored. The respective result is represented by the long-dashed curve in the Fig. 3. As one notes, the difference is insignificant. An obvious conclusion, which follows, is that in the low-energy region only the long range part of the $`NN`$ interaction comes into play, which may be described quite satisfactorily by the Yamaguchi potential. In other words, our results are not sensitive to the $`NN`$ interaction models (which must, of course, be on-shell equivalent at low energy) as long as the momenta in question are essentially smaller than those associated with the short-range part of the $`NN`$ force.

## IV $`\eta `$-photoproduction on A=3 nuclei near threshold

Turning now to $`\eta `$-photoproduction, we treat the electromagnetic interaction as usual up to the first order in the fine structure constant. As a consequence, the photon appears only in the initial state as an incident particle. This scheme is illustrated in Fig. 4 where the electromagnetic vertex functions $`u^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =2,3`$) are of first order in the $`\gamma N`$ coupling. The corresponding expression of the amplitude $`Y_{11}^{(ss^{})}`$ reads

$$Y_{11}^{(ss^{})}(p,k_\gamma ;E)=\underset{\alpha =2,3}{}\underset{l,m}{}\underset{\sigma =0,1}{}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}X_{\alpha 1;l1}^{(s\sigma )}(p,p^{};E)\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ;lm}^{(\sigma )}\left(E\frac{p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2M_\alpha }\right)U_{1\alpha ;1m}^{(\sigma s^{})}(p^{},k_\gamma ;E)\frac{p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}dp^{}}{2\pi ^2},$$
(36)
where the hadronic amplitudes $`X_{\alpha 1}`$ are defined in section II (see Eq. (II)). Here the spin coupling in the initial $`\gamma 3N`$ state is also uniquely determined by the spin $`s`$ of the $`NN`$-pair since the spin of the target is fixed to $`S=1/2`$. The effective potentials, involving the photon-induced excitation of the resonance $`N^{}`$, are defined by

$$U_{1\alpha ;nn^{}}^{(ss^{})}(p,k_\gamma ;E)=\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^{(t_\gamma )}\right)_{ss^{}}}{2}\underset{1}{\overset{+1}{}}v_{d;n}^{1(s)}(q_1,\epsilon _{{}_{}{}^{3}H})\tau _d^{(s)}\left(\epsilon _{{}_{}{}^{3}H}\frac{3q_1^2}{4M_N}\right)u_n^{}^{\alpha (ss^{},t_\gamma )}(q_\alpha )d(\widehat{k}_\gamma \widehat{p}),\alpha =2,3,$$
(37)
with a relative momentum at the $`(3N)N+(NN)`$ vertex $`\stackrel{}{q}_1=\stackrel{}{p}+\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{}{k}_\gamma `$. The form factors $`u_n^{\alpha (ss^{},t_\gamma )}(q_\alpha )`$ are associated with the absorption of a photon having isospin $`t_\gamma `$ by a nucleon or by a nucleon pair (see Fig. 4). For the $`\gamma (NN)`$ and $`\gamma N`$ relative momenta $`q_\alpha `$ $`(\alpha =2,3)`$ we use semirelativistic expressions

$$\stackrel{}{q}_2=\stackrel{}{k}_\gamma +\frac{\omega _\gamma }{\omega _\gamma +2M_N}\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q}_3=\stackrel{}{k}_\gamma +\frac{\omega _\gamma }{\omega _\gamma +M_N}\stackrel{}{p}.$$
(38)
The spin-isospin coefficients, presented in (37) in matrix form by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^{(t_\gamma )}`$, are obtained from standard spin algebra

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{(0)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ & \\ 0& 2\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{(1)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \pm \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\\ & \\ \pm \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Omega }_3^{(0)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{6}& 0\\ & \\ 0& \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Omega }_3^{(1)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}& 0\\ & \\ 0& \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\end{array}\right)$$
(39)
with the upper (lower) sign referring to 3He (3H), respectively.

It should be noted, that going from $`\eta ^3`$H elastic scattering to $`\eta `$-photoproduction we are faced with qualitatively new physics where large momentum transfers dominate. In particular, due to this reason, the contribution of pion exchange between the nucleons to the $`\eta `$ production mechanism must be included in general. This fact is confirmed by several theoretical developments Liu92 ; RiAr00 . However, for reasons of principal numerical difficulties, already noted in Sect. II, we do not include pion rescattering into our calculation and make only several remarks in the conclusion.

As for the electromagnetic vertex functions $`u_n^\alpha `$, it is easy to show that up to the first order in the $`\gamma N`$ interaction they are given by (cf. Eq. (13))

$$u_n^{\alpha (ss^{},t_\gamma )}(q_\alpha )=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\alpha ;dN^{}}^{(s,t_\gamma )}(q_\alpha ,q^{})\tau _N^{}\left(B_\alpha \frac{q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\mu _N^{}^\alpha }\right)v_{N^{};n}^{\alpha (s^{})}(q^{},B_\alpha )\frac{q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}dq^{}}{2\pi ^2},\alpha =2,3,$$
(40)
where the effective potentials $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\alpha ;dN^{}}^{(s,t_\gamma )}`$ are determined analogously to the hadronic potentials $`V_{\alpha ;dN^{}}`$ FiAr02  but with an incident $`\eta `$ replaced by a photon

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{2;dN^{}}^{(s,t_\gamma )}(q_2,q^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_d^{(s)}\left(\left|\stackrel{}{q}^{}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{q}_2\right|\right)\stackrel{~}{g}_N^{}^{(t_\gamma )}(|\stackrel{}{q}_2+\frac{\omega _\gamma }{\omega _\gamma +M_N}\stackrel{}{q}^{}|,\omega _N^{})}{\epsilon _{{}_{}{}^{3}H}+\frac{3}{4M_N}(\stackrel{}{p}+\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{}{k}_\gamma )^2+\frac{1}{M_N}\left(\stackrel{}{q}^{}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{q}_2\right)^2}}d(\widehat{q}\widehat{q}^{}),`$ (41)
$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{3;dN^{}}^{(s,t_\gamma )}(q_3,q^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_d^{(s)}(q^{})\stackrel{~}{g}_N^{}^{(t_\gamma )}(q_3,\omega _N^{})}{\epsilon _{{}_{}{}^{3}H}+\frac{3}{4M_N}(\stackrel{}{p}+\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{}{k}_\gamma )^2+\frac{1}{M_N}q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}},`$ (42)
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}_N^{}^{(t_\gamma )}(k_{\gamma N},\omega _N^{})`$ denotes the $`\gamma NN^{}`$ vertex functions depending on the $`\gamma N`$ c.m. momentum $`k_{\gamma N}`$ and the invariant $`\eta N`$ energy $`\omega _N^{}`$. The denominators in the expressions (41) and (42) are obtained by taking into account the on-shell conditions in the initial $`\gamma ^3`$H state, i.e. $`E=\epsilon _{{}_{}{}^{3}H}+\omega _\gamma m_\eta +k_\gamma ^2/2M_{{}_{}{}^{3}H}`$ as well as the dependence of the momenta $`\stackrel{}{q}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}_3`$ on $`\stackrel{}{k}_\gamma `$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ given by (38). One readily sees that the singularities on the real $`q^{}`$-axis are never reached in $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\alpha ;ij}`$.

In the actual calculation, we treat the vertices $`\stackrel{~}{g}_N^{}^{(t_\gamma )}(k,\omega _N^{})`$ independent of the momentum $`k`$ and parametrize their behavior in the following form

$`\stackrel{~}{g}_N^{}^{(1)}(k,\omega _N^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\sqrt{4\pi }}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{4}{}}}a_n\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_\pi }{m_\pi }}\right)^n,\hfill & \omega _N^{}>M_N+m_\pi ,\hfill \\ & \\ \stackrel{~}{g}_N^{}^{(1)}(k,\omega _N^{})|_{\omega _N^{}=M_N+m_\pi },\hfill & \text{else},\hfill \end{array}`$ (46)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}_N^{}^{(0)}(k,\omega _N^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0.1\stackrel{~}{g}_N^{}^{(1)}(k,\omega _N^{}),`$
where $`k_\pi `$ is the on-shell pion momentum in the $`\pi N`$ c.m. frame corresponding to the total energy $`\omega _N^{}`$. The isospin separation of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ photoexcitation amplitude is chosen such that the relation

$$\frac{\sigma (\gamma p\eta p)}{\sigma (\gamma n\eta n)}=0.67,$$
(47)
is reproduced in accordance with the experimental results for quasifree $`\eta `$-photoproduction on light nuclei Hoff97 ; Hej99 . The coefficients in (46)

$$a_0=5.00710^1,a_1=1.75010^2,a_2=0.92610^1,a_3=2.05210^3,a_4=6.40810^3$$
(48)
were obtained by fitting the $`\gamma p\eta p`$ data Kru95  as shown in Fig. 5. In the same figure we also compare our calculation of the $`\gamma pS_{11}(1535)\pi p`$ amplitude $`{}_{p}{}^{}E_{0+}^{(1/2)}`$ with the results of the MAID parametrization MAID . For definiteness, we present here the elementary photoproduction amplitude for $`\gamma p\pi p`$

$$t_\lambda =_pE_{0+}^{(1/2)}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\epsilon }_\lambda )\text{with}_pE_{0+}^{(1/2)}=[\stackrel{~}{g}_N^{}^{(0)}(k_\gamma ,\omega _N^{})+\stackrel{~}{g}_N^{}^{(1)}(k_\gamma ,\omega _N^{})]\tau _N^{}(\omega _N^{}M_Nm_\eta )g_N^{}^{(\eta )}(k_\eta ).$$
(49)
The c.m. differential cross section then reads

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}(\gamma p\eta p)=\frac{k_\eta }{k_\gamma }\frac{2\omega _\eta E_{N_i}E_{N_f}}{(4\pi \omega _N^{})^2}\left|{}_{p}{}^{}E_{0+}^{(1/2)}\right|^2,$$
(50)
with $`\omega _\eta `$ and $`E_{N_{i(f)}}`$ denoting the energies of the $`\eta `$ meson and the initial (final) nucleon, respectively.

Before completing the formal part, we recall once more that all the expressions above relate only to the $`s`$-wave. With increasing energy, higher partial waves, where however no significant interaction is expected, are needed to fill the available phase space. To take into account their contribution we use here the standard prescription

$$Y=Y_{PW}+\left[YY_{PW}\right]_{L=0},$$
(51)
where $`Y_{PW}`$ is the plane wave approximation to the production amplitude. Assuming that the hadronic interaction in the higher partial waves is insignificant, the difference in the parenthesis is reduced to $`s`$-waves only. The amplitude $`Y_{L=0}`$ is given by (36). The diagrammatic representation of the amplitude $`Y_{PW}`$ is presented in the Fig. 6. The corresponding analytic expression is easily obtained and need not be presented here. We note only that each term in the sum is represented by a 6-dimensional integral, which were calculated numerically without any approximation.

The reaction matrix element for the transition between the nuclear states with spin 1/2 is related to the amplitude (51) by the Wigner-Eckart formula

$$\frac{1}{2}M_f|T_\lambda |\frac{1}{2}M_i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\frac{1}{2}M_i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\lambda |\frac{1}{2}M_f)\underset{ss^{}=0,1}{}Y^{(ss^{})}.$$
(52)
For the unpolarized c.m. cross section, we obtain

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}(\gamma A\eta A)=\frac{k_\eta }{k_\gamma }\frac{2\omega _\eta E_{A_i}E_{A_f}}{(4\pi W)^2}\frac{1}{6}|\underset{ss^{}=0,1}{}Y^{(ss^{})}(\stackrel{}{k}_\gamma ,\stackrel{}{k}_\eta )|^2,$$
(53)
with $`E_{A_{i(f)}}`$ being the total target energy in the initial (final) state.

Our predictions for total as well as differential cross sections are shown in Fig. 7. Firstly we note an approximate equality

$$\frac{\sigma (\gamma n\eta n)}{\sigma (\gamma p\eta p)}\frac{\sigma (\gamma ^3\text{He}\eta ^3\text{He})}{\sigma (\gamma ^3\text{H}\eta ^3\text{H})}0.6.$$
(54)
As was already explained in Shev02 ; TiBe94  this result is a consequence of the spin-flip nature of the $`\eta `$-photoproduction amplitude $`t_\lambda `$ (49). Approximating the spatial part of the target wave function (17) by only the principal, totally symmetric $`s`$-state it is easy to see that the $`\eta `$-meson can only be produced on the neutron in 3He and on the proton in 3H. The remaining two nucleons, coupled to a total spin $`s=0`$, do not participate due to the Pauli principle. The $`\eta `$-rescattering effects, being spin-independent do not distort this relation. A small deviation from the relation (47) is simply due to the presence of the state with mixed permutation symmetry.

As expected, the final state interaction leads to a rather pronounced enhancement of the plane wave result, especially very close to the production threshold. The cross section reaches very fast its characteristic value and has a form of a flat plateau. The angular distribution of $`\eta `$-mesons in both reactions is shown in the upper right panel of the Fig. 7. Within our model only the angular-independent $`s`$-wave part of the $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ wave function undergoes distortion due to the FSI. As a consequence, the differential cross section is much more isotropic as compared with the plane wave calculation.

Comparing our results for 3He$`(\gamma ,\eta )^3`$He reaction with those of Ref. Shev02  obtained within the finite-rank-approximation (FRA), we observe rather well agreement in magnitude of the total cross sections close to the threshold (we take for comparison the results of Shev02  corresponding to the model IIIa for the $`\eta N`$-interaction). However we think, this fact has no physical significance, since there are principal differences in the models. Firstly, we would like to note a disagreement concerning the nature of the final state interaction. Namely, as explained in Ref. Shev02  the strong effect of FSI, found by the authors, is due to the $`s`$-wave $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ resonance, located near zero kinetic energy Belya95 . In our case it is a consequence of the virtual state, as was already discussed in FiAr02 . We do not find any evidence for the resonance behavior of the $`\eta ^3`$H amplitude (see, e.g., the Argand plots in Fig. 3). Furthermore, our calculation does not exhibit a strong slope in the cross section caused by a cusp at the inelastic threshold, which was found to be very pronounced in Shev02 .

In the lower panel of Fig. 7, we also depict the total cross section for the reaction on 3H where the final state is distorted by the first-order optical potential (the approximation denoted as DW). The corresponding photoproduction amplitude is given by (cf. Eq. (33))

$$Y(\stackrel{}{k}_\eta ,\stackrel{}{k}_\gamma ;E)=Y_{PW}(\stackrel{}{k}_\eta ,\stackrel{}{k}_\gamma ;E)+\frac{2}{3}\frac{\mu _{\eta ^3H}}{\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{T(k_\eta ,p;E)[Y_{PW}(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{k}_\gamma ;E)]_{L=0}}{k_\eta ^2p^2+i\epsilon }p^2𝑑p,$$
(55)
where the $`T`$-matrix for the $`\eta ^3`$H scattering $`T(k_\eta ,p;E)`$ was calculated with the potential (32). As one readily notes, the DW approach visibly underestimates the strong FSI effect of the four-body theory.

A comparison of the DW calculation for the reaction 3He$`(\gamma ,\eta )^3`$He with the full model has also been done in Shev02 . In particular, the authors have noted a very large difference between the cross sections obtained within FRA and DW approaches. At the energy $`E_\gamma `$ = 605 MeV the DW results reported in Shev02  underpredict those of the FRA model by about a factor 20. The reason of this disagreement is a very strong suppression of the DW cross section in the near-threshold region. In contrast to this conclusion, our calculation predicts a typical $`s`$-wave energy dependence of the cross section for the coherent reaction of the form

$$\sigma \sqrt{E_\gamma E_\gamma ^{th}},$$
(56)
with $`E_\gamma ^{th}`$ denoting the threshold energy. This form is slightly distorted by the $`\eta `$-nuclear optical potential which tends to increase the cross section value close to the threshold. As a consequence the difference between the DW result and the full four-body calculation turns out to be not so impressive as in Shev02 .

## V Conclusion

In the present paper we have investigated elastic scattering and photoproduction of $`\eta `$-mesons on three-body nuclei near threshold. The possibility of having the exact solution at hand permits us to investigate unambiguously the corrections to the lowest-order optical potential which are usually neglected within the ”standard” optical model approach. According to the results presented above, we would like to draw the following conclusions:

(i) The $`\eta N`$ scattering amplitude is appreciably modified in the nuclear medium. The contributions beyond the impulse approximation turn out to be very important. It is reasonable to assume that the origin of this fact lies in the resonance nature of the $`\eta N`$ amplitude giving rise to large corrections caused by the binding of the nucleons. One may expect that this effect is even stronger in heavier nuclei.

(ii) The influence of virtual target excitations between successive scatterings is also rather important. Although the three- and four-body thresholds are relatively far from the $`3N`$ binding energy, neglect of the excited states makes the result very different from the exact one. In other words, the contributions of virtual three- and four-body states are also quite important below the corresponding unitary cuts.

(iii) Since in the energy region considered here the incident energy of the $`\eta `$-meson remains small, i.e., its wave-length is large compared to the characteristic internuclear distance, the results for the $`\eta ^3`$H scattering are not visibly sensitive to the details of the short-range $`NN`$-dynamics. This conclusion is confirmed straightforwardly comparing the results of the PEST potential Zan83  with those given by the simplest Yamaguchi form of the $`NN`$ interaction.

(iv) Close to the threshold, the final state interaction enhances the $`\eta `$-yields appreciably, which was already noted in a variety of studies of $`\eta `$-production on lightest nuclei with different entry channels May96 ; Cal97 ; Hej02 . The angular distribution shows pronounced isotropy, associated with the $`s`$-wave dominance of FSI.

In conclusion, we would like to note once more the possible importance of pion exchange in the $`\eta `$-photoproduction on nuclei. One can expect this since the suppression due to the strong momentum transfer which is presumably important for low-energy $`\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}N`$ scattering appears not to be effective here. Furthermore, as was already noted, due to the spin-flip nature of the $`\eta `$-photoproduction mechanism, only $``$ 1/3 of the nucleons are involved in the process. This may further enhance the importance of the $`\pi `$-exchange contribution where the nonvanishing non-spin-flip part gives rise to a coherent enhancement of the reaction strength. A good case in point is the pion production via $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ excitation (the spin-independent part dominates) with subsequent rescattering into $`\eta `$ through the excitation of $`S_{11}(1535)`$ (the spin-flip part is negligible) on the next nucleon. On the other hand, we suppose that due to the short range nature of the pion-rescattering mechanism its contribution does not influence the strong energy dependence of the cross section discussed above but its magnitude can be visibly affected.

###### Acknowledgements.

The work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 443).


format: text

text:
# Pattern Formation in the Inhomogeneous Cooling State of Granular Fluids

## References

Figure Captions

Figure 1: Evolution pictures for the coarse-grained density and velocity fields in the ICS. The upper RHS frame shows the density field at $`\tau =150`$ for $`(n,e)=(0.46,0.85)`$. Regions with density greater than the average are marked in grey. The black circles denote the vortex centers of the velocity field. The upper LHS frame shows the direction vectors of the corresponding velocity field. For clarity, we only show a 322 corner (as depicted in the RHS frame) of the 2562 lattice. The middle frames are the density and velocity fields at $`\tau =150`$ for $`(n,e)=(0.46,0.90)`$. The lower RHS frame shows an evolution picture (at $`t=25`$) for the GC-TDGL equation with $`\psi =0.08`$, corresponding to average density 0.46. The lower LHS frame shows an evolution picture (at $`t=25`$) for the GC-XY model with $`\stackrel{}{\psi }=0`$.
Figure 2: Dependence of $`\tau _c`$ on system parameters. The crossover time is obtained from energy-decay plots (not shown here) as the point of deviation from Haff’s law. The error bars are defined by the symbol sizes. (a) Plot of $`e^{\frac{ϵ}{2}\tau _c}`$ vs. $`\tau _c`$ for $`n0.46`$; and $`e`$ ranging from $`0.80`$ to $`0.95`$. The solid line denotes the best linear fit to the data. (b) Plot of $`\tau _ce^{\frac{ϵ}{2}\tau _c}`$ vs. $`n\chi (n)^2`$ for $`e=0.90`$; and $`n`$ ranging from $`0.08`$ to $`0.53`$.
Figure 3: (a) Scaled structure factors for the coarse-grained density field for $`(n,e)=(0.46,0.85)`$. Data is plotted for $`\tau (\tau _c)=100,150,250`$. (b) Analogous to (a), but for $`(n,e)=(0.46,0.90)`$.
Figure 4: Analogous to Fig. 3, but for the coarse-grained velocity field.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics (SUSY QM) has grown on the factorization and intertwining methods  applied to transform the physical Hamiltonians. It yields new exactly solvable potentials which are either strictly isospectral to the initial one because of broken SUSY, or almost isospectral due to unbroken SUSY (see the recent reviews .) The higher order SUSY QM amended the conviction that the excited states can not be used to generate non–singular susy partners . Some applications deal with singular , soliton–type , periodic  and other potentials . Of special interest is the confluent algorithm  for which the second order procedure is applied to add a single level at an arbitrary point of the energy axis. However, almost all the works on the subject make use of transformation functions with the real factorization constants $`ϵ`$ and with the factor–operators being always mutually adjoint.

The case of complex $`ϵ`$ has not been studied to the desired extent. Exceptional cases seem , where the 2–susy treatment with $`ϵ`$ is formulated to obtain either hermitian or non–hermitian susy partners of a given initial Hamiltonian. Indeed, one of our purposes is to show that the Hamiltonians $`H`$ can be factorized as the product of two not mutually adjoint first order operators $`A`$, $`B`$, plus a complex constant even for self–adjoint $`H`$. The method is not limited to the Hamiltonians possessing the lower spectral bound; it can also yield non–hermitian Hamiltonians with complex potentials. Although the typical Hamiltonians of QM are hermitian, non–hermitian ones appear in Molecular Physics and Quantum Chemistry , Superconductivity , Quantum Field Theory  and other domains . The fact that they admit real eigenvalues for which the associated eigenfunctions are square–integrable  has been the basis of recent studies on PT–symmetry , pseudo–hermiticity  and diverse physical models .

In this paper we illustrate these facts by constructing the hermitian and non–hermitian susy partners of the radial part ($`H_{\mathrm{}}`$) of the hydrogen Hamiltonian. Even though our non–hermitian operators are not PT–invariant, we shall see that a class of them has real eigenvalues identical to the hydrogen energies. The reality of the spectrum in this case is due to the breaking of supersymmetry.

It will be shown that there is another class of non–hermitian operators having an extra square–integrable eigenfunction associated with $`ϵ`$. In this case, the ‘complex energy’ $`ϵ`$ arises from the unbroken supersymmetry and, up to now, does not have a well established physical meaning (but see ). Unlike the phase–equivalent complex potentials , the new ‘bound state’ associated with $`ϵ`$ is nodeless. Moreover, in counterdistinction with the formalism of PT–symmetry and pseudo–hermiticity, where complex energies appear in conjugate pairs, it turns out that $`\overline{ϵ}`$ does not belong to the spectrum of the susy partner of $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ generated through $`ϵ`$.

In general, we shall see that the susy transformation is adequate to analytically determine normalizable eigenfunctions of non–hermitian Hamiltonians, including those with the complex energies. In this sense, our ‘complex susy transformation’ seems an analytical complement of the numerical techniques previously reported (see  and references therein.) The eigenfunction connected with $`ϵ`$ is then removed by iterating the procedure in order to construct hermitian 2–susy partners of $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$.

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the atypical factorizations $`H_{\mathrm{}}=AB+ϵ`$, where $`ϵ`$ and the first order differential operators $`A`$ and $`B`$ are not mutually adjoint. Sections 3 and 4 are devoted to the construction of non–hermitian 1–susy and hermitian 2–susy partners, $`𝖧(\zeta )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ respectively, of $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$. Final remarks and discussion are given in Section 5.

## 2 The complex-type factorization method

Let us consider a single electron in the field produced by a nucleus with $`Z`$ protons. We shall use $`=Z/2r_B`$ and $`r_B=\mathrm{}^2/Ze^2m`$ for the units of energy and coordinates respectively. The corresponding time–independent Schrödinger equation reduces to $`H_{\mathrm{}}\psi _{n,\mathrm{}}(r)=E_n\psi _{n,\mathrm{}}(r)`$, with solutions

$$\psi _{n,\mathrm{}}(r)=C_{n,\mathrm{}}r^{\mathrm{}+1}e^{r/n}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\mathrm{}+1n,2\mathrm{}+2;2r/n),E_n=1/n^2$$
(1)
where $`n=\mathrm{}+s+1`$; $`\mathrm{}=0,1,2,\mathrm{},n1`$; $`s^+`$; $`C_{n,\mathrm{}}`$ is the normalization constant, $`{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,c,z)`$ is the Kummer’s function and $`L^2(^+,4\pi )\psi _{n,\mathrm{}}(r)rR_{n,\mathrm{}}(r)`$, with an inner product defined by $`\psi ,\varphi =4\pi _0^+\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }(r)\varphi (r)𝑑r<\mathrm{}`$ and boundary conditions at $`r=0`$: $`\psi (0)=0`$, $`\psi ^{}(r)=R(0)`$. The effective potential $`V_{\mathrm{}}(r)`$ has the domain $`𝒟_V=[0,\mathrm{})`$ and

$$H_{\mathrm{}}\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+V_{\mathrm{}}(r)=\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{r^2}\frac{2}{r}.$$
(2)
The Hamiltonian (2) is factorized as follows:

$$H_{\mathrm{}}=AB+ϵ$$
(3)
where the factorization constant is a complex number $`ϵ:=ϵ_1+iϵ_2`$; $`ϵ_1,ϵ_20`$ and the first order operators $`A,B`$, are not mutually adjoint (compare ):

$$A:=\frac{d}{dr}+\beta (r),B:=\frac{d}{dr}+\beta (r)$$
(4)
with $`\beta `$ a complex–valued function fulfilling

$$\beta ^{}(r)+\beta ^2(r)+ϵ=V_{\mathrm{}}(r).$$
(5)
The Riccati equation (5) is solved by means of the logarithmic transformation $`\beta (r)=\frac{d}{dr}\mathrm{ln}u(r)`$ for which $`u`$ is the most general eigenfunction of $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ (not necessarily normalizable) belonging to $`ϵk^2`$; $`k=k_1+ik_2`$; $`k_1,k_2`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}u(r)=\hfill & r^{\mathrm{}+1}e^{kr}f(r);\hfill \\ f(r):=\hfill & \alpha {}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\mathrm{}+11/k,2\mathrm{}+2,2kr)+\zeta U(\mathrm{}+11/k,2\mathrm{}+2,2kr)\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\zeta `$ are complex constants and $`U(a,c,z)`$ is the logarithmic hypergeometric function. The global behaviour of these $`u`$-functions is analized in Appendix.

Hence, for the $`\beta `$–function we have:

$$\beta (r)=\frac{\mathrm{}+1}{r}+k+\mathrm{\Omega }(r);\mathrm{\Omega }(r):=\frac{d}{dr}\mathrm{ln}f(r).$$
(7)
A convenient expression for $`\beta _1(r)`$, $`\beta _2(r)`$, the real and imaginary parts of $`\beta (r)`$ respectively, can be found in Appendix.

## 3 New complex hydrogen-like potentials

Let us consider the value $`ϵ`$ fixed. By convenience we shall make explicit the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`\zeta `$. Now, let us reverse the order of the factors in (3):

$$BA+ϵ=\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+V_{\mathrm{}+1}(r)+2\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(r;\zeta )\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+𝖵(r;\zeta ):=𝖧(\zeta )$$
(8)
where $`𝖧(\zeta )`$ is a non–hermitian second order differential operator and we have used (5) and (7). The next step is to solve the related eigenvalue equation:

$$𝖧(\zeta )\mathrm{\Psi }=\lambda \mathrm{\Psi },\lambda =\lambda _1+i\lambda _2,\lambda _1,\lambda _2.$$
(9)
The dependence of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\lambda `$ on $`\zeta `$ will be dropped for simplicity. Notice that equations (3) and (8) imply an intertwining between the Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the non–hermitian operator $`𝖧(\zeta )`$:

$$𝖧(\zeta )B=BH_{\mathrm{}},H_{\mathrm{}}A=A𝖧(\zeta )$$
(10)
Thereby, one sees that $`\mathrm{\Psi }B\phi `$ is a solution of (9) if $`\phi `$ satisfies $`H_{\mathrm{}}\phi =\lambda \phi `$, while $`A`$ reverses the action of $`B`$. Now, the general form of $`\phi `$ is obtained by taking $`ϵ=k^2`$ for $`\lambda =\kappa ^2`$, and $`u(r)`$ for $`\phi (r)`$ in (6). Hence, we have:

$$\phi (r)=r^{\mathrm{}+1}e^{\kappa r}\{C{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\mathrm{}+11/\kappa ,2\mathrm{}+2,2\kappa r)+DU(\mathrm{}+11/\kappa ,2\mathrm{}+2,2\kappa r)\}$$
(11)
with $`C`$ and $`D`$ arbitrary complex constants. Therefore

$$\mathrm{\Psi }B\phi =\frac{W(u,\phi )}{u}.$$
(12)
We are looking now for the constraints on $`\alpha ,\zeta ,\lambda ,C`$ and $`D`$ leading to square–integrable $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. First, consider $`\lambda ϵ`$ (i.e., $`\kappa k`$); the behaviour of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ near the origin is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r0)\{\begin{array}{cc}D\frac{(2\mathrm{}+1)}{(2\kappa )^{2\mathrm{}+1}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{}+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+11/\kappa )}\frac{1}{r^{\mathrm{}+1}},\hfill & \zeta =0,\alpha 0\hfill \\ D\frac{(k\kappa )}{(2\kappa )^{2\mathrm{}+1}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{}+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+11/\kappa )}\frac{1}{r^{\mathrm{}}}\hfill & \zeta 0,\mathrm{arbitrary}\alpha \hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
Thus, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ becomes divergent at $`r=0`$ except if either (I) $`\lambda =\kappa ^2`$ is real and $`\kappa ^1=\mathrm{}+s+1`$, $`s^+`$, or (II) $`\lambda `$ is complex but $`D=0`$. Let us pay some attention to these conditions

CASE I (real $`\lambda `$): Let us fix $`\kappa ^1=\mathrm{}+s+1=n`$, $`n`$. In this case, in (11) $`{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,c;z)`$ and $`U(a,c;z)`$ are essentially the same function. Therefore, one can take $`D=0`$ and $`C=C_{n,\mathrm{}}`$ (see equation (1)), so $`\phi (r)=\psi _{n,\mathrm{}}(r)`$ and the functions (12) behave asymptotically as $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r)\psi _{n,\mathrm{}}(r)_r\mathrm{}`$. On the other hand, a straightforward calculation shows that these functions obey the following boundary conditions at $`r=0`$: $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0,\zeta )=R(0)`$; $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(0,\zeta =0)=\delta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$; $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(0,\zeta 0)=\mathrm{}(\frac{\delta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}}{r}+\delta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}})`$, with $`\delta _\mathrm{}n`$ the kronecker delta. Thus

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r;\zeta )\left[k\frac{1}{n}+\frac{d}{dr}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\mathrm{}+1n,2\mathrm{}+2;2r/n)}{f(r)}\right)\right]\psi _{n,\mathrm{}}(r)$$
(14)
are square–integrable eigenfunctions of $`𝖧(\zeta )`$ with the real eigenvalues $`\lambda =1/n^2=E_n`$.

CASE II (complex $`\lambda `$): For $`\kappa `$ and $`D=0`$ the function (12) behaves asymptotically as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r)\{\begin{array}{cc}C\frac{(\kappa k)}{(2\kappa )^{\mathrm{}+1+1/\kappa }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{}+2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+11/\kappa )}\frac{e^{\kappa r}}{r^{1/\kappa }}\hfill & \kappa _1>0,\{\begin{array}{c}k_1>0\hfill \\ k_1<0\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ C\frac{(k\pm \kappa )}{(2\kappa )^{\mathrm{}+11/\kappa }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{}+2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+1+1/\kappa )}\frac{e^{\kappa r}}{r^{1/\kappa }}\hfill & \kappa _1<0,\{\begin{array}{c}k_1>0\hfill \\ k_1<0\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
which always diverges for $`r\mathrm{}`$. Hence, there is no function $`\mathrm{\Psi }L^2(^+,4\pi )`$ solving (9) for a complex $`\lambda ϵ`$ (i.e. $`\kappa k`$) and $`D=0`$.

The formula (14) therefore gives all square integrable solutions $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }(r;\zeta )\}`$ of (9) for $`\lambda ϵ`$. Concerning the case $`\lambda =ϵ`$, we see from equation (8) that any $`\mathrm{\Psi }_ϵ(r)`$ in the one–dimensional kernel of $`A`$ is an eigenfunction of $`𝖧(\zeta )`$ belonging to $`ϵ`$. After a simple calculation one gets

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_ϵ(r)\frac{1}{u(r)}.$$
(16)
This function can be in $`L^2(^+,4\pi )`$ for appropriate values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\zeta `$. In such a case, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_ϵ`$ is an extra square-integrable eigenfunction of $`𝖧(\zeta )`$ associated with $`ϵ`$. Finally, a straighforward calculation shows that, although $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }(r;\zeta ),\mathrm{\Psi }_ϵ(r)\}`$ are elements of $`L^2(^+,4\pi )`$, they do not form an orthogonal set. A discussion on this kind of properties of the inner product is given in . The next subsections analize these conditions and classify the resulting potentials according to their spectra.

### 3.1 The real spectrum

From Figure 1a, one sees that the behaviour of the complex function $`𝖵(r;\zeta )`$, for $`\alpha 0`$ and $`\zeta =0`$, is given by

$$𝖵(r;\zeta =0)\{\begin{array}{cc}V_{\mathrm{}+1}(r),\hfill & \text{for}r0,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & r\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Consistently with the case (A) of Appendix, the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_ϵ(r)`$ diverges at $`r=0`$. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_ϵ(r)`$ is not in $`L^2(^+,4\pi )`$ and the discrete spectrum $`\sigma _d(𝖧_{\mathrm{}+1})`$ of $`𝖧(\zeta =0)`$ is exactly the same as that of the hydrogen atom $`\sigma _d(𝖧_{\mathrm{}+1})=\sigma _d(H_{\mathrm{}})`$. Figure 1b depicts the behaviour of $`\psi _{n,\mathrm{}}`$ and the related function (14) for one of the excited states.

Another class of complex potentials $`𝖵(r;\zeta )`$ sharing the same spectrum as $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ is obtained by considering the case (B) of Appendix.

### 3.2 Complex potentials admitting complex ‘energies’

Let us consider $`\zeta 0`$. Then the complex function $`𝖵(r;\zeta )`$ behaves as shown on Figure 2a, i.e.:

$$𝖵(r;\zeta 0)\{\begin{array}{cc}V_\mathrm{}1(r),\hfill & \text{for}r0,\text{arbitrary}\alpha \hfill \\ 0,\hfill & r\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The case (D) of Appendix shows that, for $`(\alpha ,\zeta )_0`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}(k)0`$, the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_ϵ(r)`$ behaves as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_ϵ(r)\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(2k)^{2\mathrm{}+1}}{\zeta }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+11/k)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{}+1)}r^{\mathrm{}}\hfill & r0\hfill \\ \frac{(2k)^{\mathrm{}+1+1/k}}{\alpha }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+11/k)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{}+2)}r^{1/k}e^{kr}\hfill & r\mathrm{},k_1>0\hfill \\ \frac{(2k)^{\mathrm{}+11/k}}{\theta _{\mathrm{}(k)}}r^{1/k}e^{kr}\hfill & r\mathrm{},k_1<0\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
which clearly belongs to $`L^2(^+,4\pi )`$. Figure 2b depicts the global behaviour of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_ϵ|^2`$. Therefore, the discrete spectrum $`\sigma _d(𝖧_\mathrm{}1)`$ of $`𝖧(\zeta 0)`$ is given by $`\sigma _d(𝖧_\mathrm{}1)=\sigma _d(H_{\mathrm{}})\{ϵ\}`$, provided that $`(\alpha ,\zeta )_0,\theta _{\mathrm{}}(k)0`$.

Finally, the case (C) of Appendix, gives another solution in the same class.

## 4 The new real hydrogen-like potentials

We shall now extend the analysis of the previous section by intertwining $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ with a new (to be determined) Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ as follows

$$\stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{~}{A}=\stackrel{~}{A}H_{\mathrm{}}$$
(18)
where the differential operator $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is of second order

$$\stackrel{~}{A}:=\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\eta (r)\frac{d}{dr}+\gamma (r)$$
(19)
and $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ reads

$$\stackrel{~}{H}:=\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\stackrel{~}{V}(r).$$
(20)
The operators (1920) depend implicitly on the label $`\mathrm{}`$. A straightforward calculation allows to express the functions $`\eta `$ and $`\gamma `$ of (19) in terms of the auto–Bäcklund transformation of the solutions of (5) for $`ϵ_a`$ and $`ϵ_b`$ :

$`\eta (r)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_aϵ_b}{\beta _a(r)\beta _b(r)}}\right),ϵ_aϵ_b,`$ (21)
$`\gamma (r)=\beta _b^{}(r)\beta _b^2(r)+\eta (r)\beta _b(r),ϵ_aϵ_b`$ (22)
Thus, the second order intertwining operator $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ in (19) is expressed by two different solutions of the first order case. Moreover, it factorizes as $`\stackrel{~}{A}=a_2a_1`$, where

$$a_1\frac{d}{dr}+\beta _a=B;a_2\frac{d}{dr}+\eta \beta _a=A+\eta .$$
(23)
Thereby, it is easy to rewrite $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=(A+\eta )B=H_{\mathrm{}}+ϵ+\eta B$$
(24)
and potential (20) is obtained through

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(r)=V_{\mathrm{}}(r)+2\eta ^{}(r)$$
(25)
In order to get a real $`\eta (r)`$ in (21, 25), we consider the solution $`\beta _a(r)`$ of (5) for $`ϵ_a`$ as given and, by taking $`ϵ_b=\overline{ϵ}_a`$ and $`\beta _b(r)=\overline{\beta }_a(r)`$ in (21), one finds

$$\eta (r)=\frac{\mathrm{Im}(ϵ_a)}{\mathrm{Im}(\beta _a)}\frac{ϵ_2}{\beta _2(r)}=\frac{d}{dr}\mathrm{ln}\omega (r)$$
(26)
where $`\omega `$ is defined in (A.2) of Appendix and the labels $`a`$ and $`b`$ have been dropped from $`ϵ_2`$ and $`\beta _2`$. Henceforth, potential (25) is real:

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(r)=V_{\mathrm{}}(r)2\frac{d^2}{dr^2}\mathrm{ln}\omega (r).$$
(27)
We are looking for potentials $`\stackrel{~}{V}(r)`$ defined in the same initial domain $`𝒟_V=[0,\mathrm{})`$ (the situation when the initial domain is changed requires a different treatment, see e.g. Márquez et. al. in .) According to the proposition of Appendix, $`\omega `$ has at most one isolated zero in $`𝒟_V`$. By choosing a proper $`u`$, the function $`\omega `$ can be so constructed that its isolated zero coincides with one of the edges of $`𝒟_V`$ (compare ):

$`\underset{r0}{lim}u(r)=0\underset{r0}{lim}\omega (r)=0`$ (28)
$`\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}u(r)=0\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\omega (r)=0`$ (29)
Let us examine the consequences. First, condition (28) is satisfied if the $`u`$ in (6) is chosen with $`\alpha 0`$ and $`\zeta =0`$, so that the potential (27) behaves as shown on Figure 3, i.e.:

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(r;\alpha 0;\zeta =0)\{\begin{array}{cc}V_{\mathrm{}+2}(r)\hfill & \text{for}r0,\text{arbitrary }k_1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & r\mathrm{},\text{arbitrary }k_1\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
On the other hand, condition (29) can be achieved for $`\alpha =0`$, $`\zeta 0`$ and $`k_1>0`$. In this case the equation (27) leads to

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(r;\alpha =0;\zeta 0)\{\begin{array}{cc}V_{\mathrm{}}(r)\hfill & \text{for }r0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & r\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
The real-valued potentials (3031) resemble the hydrogen one and they could, in principle, represent physical systems as the Hamiltonians (20) are self–adjoint. The next step is to analize the new eigenvalue equation

$$\stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{\psi }$$
(32)
whose solutions, by similar arguments as for the first order case, are now obtained from the linear second order transformation (see equation (18)):

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }(r)\stackrel{~}{A}\psi _{n,\mathrm{}}(r)=(E_n+ϵ)\psi _{n,\mathrm{}}(r)+\eta (r,\zeta )\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\zeta )$$
(33)
where we have used (24) and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\zeta )`$ is given by (14). The corresponding boundary conditions at $`r=0`$ can be obtained from those of $`\psi _{n,\mathrm{}}(r)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\zeta )`$.

It is clear that the first term at the r.h.s. of (33) is in $`L^2(^+,4\pi )`$. The behaviour of the related second term is found by observing that

1) If $`\alpha 0`$ and $`\zeta =0`$ then $`\eta `$ diverges as $`r^1`$ at the origin while it is constant at $`r=\mathrm{}`$. Therefore the product $`\eta (r,0)\mathrm{\Psi }(r,0)`$ is zero at the edges of $`𝒟_V`$ and remains finite in all $`𝒟_V`$.

2) If $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\zeta 0`$ then $`\eta `$ is a constant at both edges of $`𝒟_V`$. Hence, $`\eta (r,\zeta 0)\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\zeta 0)`$ is again well behaved in all $`𝒟_V`$.

Thus, the eigenfunctions $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ given in (33) are in $`L^2(^+,4\pi )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is an exactly solvable Hamiltonian with the same spectrum as the hydrogen atom.

## 5 Summary and Discussion

In this paper we have used a new type of factorization method to analyze a set of non–hermitian susy partners of the radial part of the hydrogen Hamiltonian. In order to generate the corresponding potentials we have used Darboux transformations with complex factorization constants. In contrast with PT–symmetry  and pseudo–supersymmetry , the breaking of supersymmetry leads to purely real spectra. However, while the pseudo–hermiticity and PT–symmetry breaking involve pairs of conjugate complex eigenvalues, the unbroken supersymmetry (for which the non–hermitian 1–susy partners are not strictly isospectral) involves just a single ‘complex energy’. To be more precise, in order to add two extra eigenvalues (real or complex) to a given spectrum one applies either twice the 1–susy procedure or a single 2–susy transformation (both can be made equivalent for the case we are dealing with.) Now, if the two new energies form a complex conjugate pair and if the functions $`\eta (r)`$ and $`\gamma (r)`$ of the non–singular intertwining operator (19) are real, then the final Hamiltonian becomes self-adjoint and does not admit any complex eigenvalue, just as we have shown in Section 4.

The problem of finding normalizable solutions belonging to complex eigenvalues for non–hermitian Schrödinger equations has been solved previously by numerical techniques in  and analized inside a Lie–algebraic framework in . In this paper we performed an analytical study and we expect that our results complement the numerical ones. Similarly as in other non–hermitian cases discussed in the literature, the interpretation of the ‘complex energies’ is an open problem, though notice possible applications to the absorptive (dissipative) systems .

In general, we have shown that, the extension of the SUSY treatment to include complex factorization constants leads to results which are out of the scope of the PT–symmetry and pseudo–hermiticity. Indeed, the reality of the spectrum of the Hamiltonians $`𝖧(\zeta )`$ in Section 3 depends on the parameter $`\zeta `$, as it has been established in Subsections 3.1 and 3.2. As the non–hermitian Hamiltonians $`𝖧(\zeta 0)`$ in Subsection 3.2 do not satisfy the theorems by Mostafazadeh , they are not pseudo–hermitian. On the other hand, it is not yet clear wheter the Hamiltonians $`𝖧(\zeta =0)`$ of Subsection 3.1 could be pseudo–hermitian or not (though a primary impression can be depicted by noticing that the non–hermiticity of $`𝖧(\zeta )`$ depends not on $`\zeta `$ but on the non–trivial imaginary part of the factorization constant $`ϵ`$.) Work in this direction is in progress and will be published elsewhere.

Acknowledgements. The support of CONACyT (México), project 40888-F, is acknowledged.

## Appendix

The global behavour of the eigenfunctions $`u(r)`$ of equation (6) can be described in terms of $`\alpha `$, $`\zeta `$ and the sign of $`k_1`$:

A) If $`\alpha 0`$ and $`\zeta =0`$ then $`u(r)`$ is zero at the origin $`r=0`$ while it diverges at $`r=\mathrm{}`$.

B) If $`\alpha =0`$, $`\zeta 0`$ and $`k_1>0`$, then $`u(r)`$ diverges at the origin and tends to zero for $`r\mathrm{}`$.

C) If $`\alpha =0`$, $`\zeta 0`$ and $`k_1<0`$, then $`u(r)`$ diverges at $`r=0`$ and $`r=\mathrm{}`$.

D) Let $`_0\times `$ be the subset of complex pairs $`\alpha 0`$, $`\zeta 0`$, such that

$$\zeta \alpha \frac{{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\mathrm{}+11/k,2\mathrm{}+2,2kr_0)}{U(\mathrm{}+11/k,2\mathrm{}+2,2kr_0)},r_0(0,\mathrm{}).$$

If

$$\theta _{\mathrm{}}(k):=\zeta +\alpha \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{}+2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+1+1/k)}e^{\pm i(\mathrm{}+11/k)\pi }$$
(A.1)
is different from zero for $`(\alpha ,\zeta )_0`$ , then $`u(r)`$ is free of zeros in all $`𝒟_V`$ and diverges at $`r=0`$ and $`r=\mathrm{}`$.

E) If $`(\alpha ,\zeta )_0`$, $`k_1<0`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}(k)=0`$, then $`u(r)`$ diverges at the origin while $`lim_r\mathrm{}u(r)=0`$ (coinciding indeed with B).

The presence of zeros in these functions has been studied by means of the following

* Proposition: Let $`u(r)C^1(D_v)`$ be solution of the Schrödinger equation $`u^{\prime \prime }(r)=[v(r)ϵ]u(r)`$, where $`v(r)`$ is a real-valued potential with domain $`𝒟_v`$ and $`ϵ`$. Assume that $`𝒟_v`$ is a simply connected region of $``$. If $`\mathrm{Im}(ϵ)0`$, then the complex-valued function $`u(r)`$ admits at most one isolated zero in $`𝒟_v`$.

Proof: Let

$$\omega (r):=\frac{W(u,\overline{u})}{2i\mathrm{Im}(ϵ)}$$
(A.2)
where the bar denotes complex conjugation and $`W(,)`$ corresponds to the Wronskian of the involved functions. Clearly $`\omega `$ is continuous on $`𝒟_v`$ and $`\omega ^{}(r)=|u(r)|^20`$ $`r𝒟_v`$, so $`\omega (r)`$ is always non–decreasing and can have either only one isolated zero or an entire interval of zero points in $`𝒟_v`$. As every zero of $`u(r)`$ is, necessarily, a zero of $`\omega (r)`$ then $`u(r)`$ admits at most one isolated zero there. $``$

The real function $`\omega (r)`$ in (A.2) plays a relevant role in the 2–susy approach of Section 4. A convenient expression for $`\beta (r)`$ in terms of $`\omega `$ is given by

$$\beta (r)=\beta _1(r)+i\beta _2(r)\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dr}\mathrm{ln}\omega ^{}(r)+iϵ_2\left(\frac{d}{dr}\mathrm{ln}\omega (r)\right)^1.$$
(A.3)