text:
# Negative Group Delay and Superluminal Propagation: An Electronic Circuit Approach

## I Introduction

Brillouin and Sommerfeld showed that in the region of anomalous dispersion, which is inside of the absorption band, the group velocity can exceed $`c`$, the light speed in a vacuum, or even be negative . Recently, it was shown that for a gain medium, superluminal propagation is possible at the outside of the gain resonance. Superluminal effects are also predicted in terms of quantum tunneling or evanescent waves . Superluminal group velocities have been confirmed experimentally in various systems, and most controversies over this counterintuitive phenomenon have settled down. However, there seem a several questions remain open; for example, “How far we can speed up the wave packets,” “Is it really nothing to do with information transmission,” “What kind of applications are possible,” and so on. In this paper we will try to solve some of these problems by utilizing a simple circuit model for negative group delays.

Negative delay in lumped systems such as electronic circuits is very helpful to understand various aspects of superluminal group velocity. Mitchell and Chiao  constructed a bandpass amplifier with an $`LC`$ resonator and an operational amplifier. An arbitrary waveform generator is used to generate a gaussian pulse by which a carrier is modulated. The circuit basically emulates an optical gain medium which shows anomalous dispersion in off-resonant region. Wang et al.  extended this circuit by using two $`LC`$ resonators which correspond to the two Raman gain lines . At the middle of two gain peaks the frequency dependence of amplitude response is compensated and the pulse distortion can be minimized.

The present authors  used an operational amplifier with an $`RC`$ feedback circuit. It provides negative delays for baseband pulses. In previous experiments, optical or electronic, a carrier frequency ($`\omega _0`$) is modulated by a pulse which varies slowly compared with the carrier oscillation and the displacement of the envelopes is measured. Without carriers ($`\omega _0=0`$), the system becomes much more simple. The amplitude response symmetric with respect to zero frequency is helpful to reduce the distortion. The baseband pulse is simply derived from a rectangular pulse generator and a series of lowpass filters.

The time constants can easily be set at the order of seconds and we can actually observe that the output LED (light-emitting diode) is lit earlier than the input LED. In addition to the usefulness as a demonstration tool, this circuit turned out to be very convenient to look into the essentials of negative group delays and superluminal propagation because of its simplicity.

In this paper we exploit the circuit model in order to investigate some of the fundamental problems. First we discuss the relation between negative group delay and superluminarity, and then the approximate realization of (positive and negative) delays by lumped systems. Then we consider the spectral condition imposed on input pulses and describe the design of lowpass filters for pulse preparation. Next in order to increase the advancement, a number of negative delay circuits are cascaded. We find that an advancement as large as the pulse width is possible but the slow increase of the advancement and the exponential increase of out-of-band gain almost prohibit the achievement of further advancements. Finally by regarding our system as a communication channel, we discuss the causality in lumped systems.

## II Negative delay and superluminal propagation

The group velocity $`v_\text{g}`$ in a dispersive medium is defined as

$$v_\text{g}^1=\frac{\mathrm{d}k}{\mathrm{d}\omega }|_{\omega _0},$$
(1)
where the wavenumber $`k(\omega )`$ is a function of frequency $`\omega `$. It corresponds to the propagation speed of an envelope of signal whose spectrum is limited within a short interval containing $`\omega _0`$.

Similarly the group delay is defined as

$$t_\text{d}=\frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi }{\mathrm{d}\omega }|_{\omega _0},$$
(2)
where $`\varphi (\omega )`$ represents the frequency-dependent phase shift. It corresponds to the temporal shift of the envelope of the band-limited signal passing through a system. For a medium with length $`L`$, the phase shift is given by $`\varphi (\omega )=k(\omega )L`$ and we have

$$t_\text{d}=\frac{\mathrm{d}(kL)}{\mathrm{d}\omega }=\frac{\mathrm{d}k}{\mathrm{d}\omega }L=v_\text{g}^1L.$$
(3)
These two quantities seem almost identical, but the group delay is a more general concept because it can be defined even for a lumped system. The lumped system is a system whose size $`L`$ is much smaller than the wavelength $`2\pi /k`$ of interest. Neglecting the propagation effects, the behavior of the system can be described by a set of ordinary differential equations with respect to time. For distributed systems, on the other hand, the spatio-temporal partial differential equation must be used.

The relation between negative group delays and superluminality can easily be understood when we consider a system consisting with a vacuum path (length $`L`$) and a lumped system (delay $`t_\text{d}`$) which is located at the end of the path. The total time $`t_{\text{total}}`$ required for a pulse to pass through the system is

$$t_{\text{total}}=\frac{L}{c}+t_\text{d}.$$
(4)
The corresponding velocity $`v_\text{g}=L/t_{\text{total}}`$ satisfies the relation:

$$\frac{1}{v_\text{g}}=\frac{1}{c}+\frac{t_\text{d}}{L}.$$
(5)
For $`t_\text{d}>0`$ (positive delay), $`v_\text{g}`$ is smaller than $`c`$. For $`t_\text{d}<0`$ (negative delay), there are two cases. In the case $`(t_\text{d})<L/c`$, $`v_\text{g}`$ is larger than $`c`$ (superluminal in a narrow sense), while in the case $`(t_\text{d})>L/c`$, $`v_\text{g}`$ becomes negative (negative group velocity). In the latter case the contribution of the lumped part dominates that of the free propagation path.

Normally the superluminality has been considered as a propagation effect. But in many cases, it seems more appropriate to discuss in term of the negative group delay for a lumped system. Let us take experimental parameters from , in which the negative delay of $`t_\text{d}=60\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{ns}`$ was observed. We note that the pulse length $`cT_\text{w}=c\times 2\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{us}=600\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{m}`$ is much longer than the cell length $`L=6\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$. Therefore we can safely use the lumped approximation. Since we can eliminate the carrier frequency by the slowly-varying envelope approximation, the wavelength of light ($`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{um}`$) will not come into play any more.

It should be stressed that the cases where the second term in Eqs. (4) or (5), which is positive or negative, dominates the first term are very likely. For typical atomic experiments, the bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$, which is of the order of MHz to GHz, roughly determines advancement as $`|t_\text{d}|\mathrm{\Delta }nk_0L/\mathrm{\Delta }\omega 1/\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$, $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{us}`$ to $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{ns}`$, while the passage time $`L/c`$ is less than the order of$`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{ns}`$. Forcible assignment of a velocity to such cases, $`v_\text{g}=(1/300)c`$ in the above example, would have caused some confusions.

## III Group delays – ideal and approximate

### III-A Mathematical representation

A mathematical representation for ideal delays can be written as

$$v_{\text{out}}(t)=(hv_{\text{in}})(t)=v_{\text{in}}(tt_\text{d}),$$
(6)
where $`h(t)=\delta (tt_\text{d})`$ is the impulse response of the system and $`t_\text{d}`$ is the delay time. Its Fourier transform is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_{\text{out}}(\omega )=H_\text{D}(\omega )\stackrel{~}{V}_{\text{in}}(\omega ),$$
(7)
with

$$H_\text{D}(\omega )_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dth(t)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega t}=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\omega t_\text{d}).$$
(8)
For $`t_\text{d}>0`$ (positive delay), the impulse response $`h(t)`$ is causal, i.e., it is zero for $`t<0`$. The positive delay can be realized easily, if you have an appropriate space ($`L=ct_\text{d}`$). But there is no way to make ideal, unconditional negative delays, because $`h(t)`$ is non-causal in this case.

### III-B Building blocks

It should be noted that no lumped systems ($`L=0`$) can produce ideal positive or negative delays. From now on let us consider how to make approximate delays with lumped systems. The amplitude and the phase of the ideal response function $`H_\text{D}(\omega )`$ are

$`A_\text{D}(\omega )`$ $``$ $`|H_\text{D}(\omega )|=1,`$ (9)
$`\varphi _\text{D}(\omega )`$ $``$ $`\text{arg}H_\text{D}(\omega )=t_\text{d}\omega .`$ (10)
In , we used a circuit having a transfer function

$$H(\omega )=1+\mathrm{i}\omega T,$$
(11)
by which negative delay is provided for baseband pulses ($`\omega _0=0`$). Here we will examine several transfer functions which can be realized with an operational amplifier and a few passive components.

First, we consider a function with a single pole:

$`H_\text{L}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{i}\omega T}},`$ (12)
$`A_\text{L}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`1/\sqrt{1+(\omega T)^2}1{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega T)^2}{2}},`$ (13)
$`\varphi _\text{L}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}^1\omega TT\omega .`$ (14)
The stability condition that all the poles reside in the upper half plane requires $`T>0`$, therefore, only positive delays $`t_\text{d}=T>0`$ can be achieved with this type of transfer function. An example of circuit is shown in Fig. 1(a). Only in the region $`|\omega |<1/T`$, the amplitude response is flat and the phase response is linear. The circuit works only for band-limited signals.

Secondly, we will check a function with a single zero:

$`H(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`1+\mathrm{i}\omega T,`$ (15)
$`A(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1+(\omega T)^2}1+{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega T)^2}{2}},`$ (16)
$`\varphi (\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}^1\omega TT\omega .`$ (17)
In this case, no sign restrictions are imposed on $`T`$, therefore, both positive and negative delays can be realized; $`t_\text{d}=T`$. A circuit for $`H(\omega )`$ ($`T>0`$) is shown in Fig. 1(b). Perhaps this is the most simple circuit which provides negative delay. Again it works only in the region $`|\omega |<1/T`$. Even worse is the rising of gain $`A(\omega )`$ at the outside of the band. We can also construct a positive delay circuit utilizing the relation $`2H(\omega )=1+\mathrm{i}\omega (T)`$.

By observing the sign restrictions for $`H_\text{L}(\omega )`$ and $`H(\omega )`$, we notice that an asymmetry between the positive and negative delays exists even in lumped systems.

Another interesting transfer function is

$`H_\text{A}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{i}\omega T}{1+\mathrm{i}\omega T}},`$ (18)
$`A_\text{A}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (19)
$`\varphi _\text{A}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{tan}^1\omega T2T\omega ,`$ (20)
which can be realized by the circuit shown in Fig. 1(c). This circuit is called the all-pass filter. The phase function is the same as the above cases aside from the factor 2, but the amplitude response in independent of the frequency as in the case of ideal delay. The stability condition implies $`T>0`$, therefore, only positive delays are possible.

## IV Bandwidth and distortion

### IV-A Bandwidth of negative delay circuit

It turned out that lumped circuits can provide a delay, positive or negative, only for a band-limited signal. From the approximate transfer function, $`H(\omega )=1+\mathrm{i}\omega T`$, for negative delays, we have the imperfect amplitude and phase functions:

$`A(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`1+O(\omega ^2T^2),`$ (21)
$`\varphi (\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\omega T+O(\omega ^3T^3),`$ (22)
which are plotted in Fig. 2. We see that the inputs must satisfy the spectral condition:

$$|\omega |<\frac{1}{T}.$$
(23)
Otherwise the output waveform will be distorted due to the higher order terms in Eqs. (21) and (22). In electronic circuits, a rectangular pulse is most easily generated. But its spectrum has a long tail; $`1/|\omega |`$. The tail must be suppressed with lowpass filters. The cutoff frequency $`1/T_\text{L}`$ must be smaller than $`1/T`$.

### IV-B Lowpass filter for pulse preparation

A simple method is to cascade suitable numbers of first-order lowpass filters, whose transfer function is represented by Eq. (14), as

$$H_\text{L}^{(m)}(\omega )=\frac{1}{(1+\mathrm{i}\omega \alpha _mT_\text{L})^m}.$$
(24)
where $`\alpha _m=\sqrt{2^{1/m}1}`$ is a normalization parameter to keep the $`3\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{dB}`$ cutoff frequency constant. It is reduced as $`m`$ is increased. Otherwise, due to the decrease of bandwidth, the pulse width is broadened and the pulse height is reduced. For better low-pass characteristics, we can use Bessel filters , whose transfer function is given by

$$H_\text{B}^{(m)}(\omega )=\frac{1}{y_m(\mathrm{i}\omega \alpha _mT_\text{L})}$$
(25)
where $`y_m(x)`$ is the $`m`$-th Bessel polynomials and the parameter $`\alpha _m`$ is determined so that $`H_\text{B}^{(m)}(T_\text{L}^1)=1/\sqrt{2}`$.

The effect of filtering is shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. The initial, rectangular pulse $`U(t)U(tT_\text{W})`$ is send to a series of filters, where $`U(t)`$ represent the unit step function. As the order $`m`$ of the filter is increased, the high frequency tails are more suppressed and accordingly the waveform becomes smoother. Exceeding a few stages, the waveforms look very similar to each other. But the leading edge scales $`t^m`$ and the peak position is delayed. The delay, which is due to the phase transfer function of the lowpass filters, is unavoidable. We will see in Section VI that $`m`$ must be increased in order to attain large advancement. The pulse width approaches a value determined by the cutoff frequency $`T_\text{L}^1`$, if the initial pulse width is smaller than $`T_\text{L}`$.

From the way of preparation of input pulse with lowpass filters, we can interpret that the leading edge is shaped so as to be more predictable. The future can well be predicted, if enough restrictions are imposed on the pulse.

### IV-C Gaussian pulse

The guassian pulse is widely used in negative delay or superluminal propagation experiments. It is because of the rapid tail-off of the spectrum and its mathematical simplicity. But there seems no natural implementation which generates a gaussian pulse. It is usually synthesized numerically and the calculated data is fed to a digital-to-analog converter. It should be noted that the ideal guassian pulse has a infinitely long leading edge. What we can generate practically is a truncated gaussian pulse:

$$v_\text{I}(t)=u(t)g(tt_0),$$
(26)
where $`g(t)=\mathrm{exp}(t^2/2T_\text{w}^2)`$. A causal function $`u(t)`$ is a unit step function or a smoothed version of it. This trancation necessarily introduces discontinuities for $`\mathrm{d}^kv_\text{I}/\mathrm{d}t^k`$ $`(k=0,1,\mathrm{})`$ at $`t=0`$ and associates high frequency components. However small they may look like, eventually, they will be revealed by a negative delay circuit with advancement larger than $`t_0`$. In order to reduce the effect of truncation, $`t_0`$ must be increased, which corresponds to the increase of $`m`$ in the pulse preparation with lowpass filters.

## V Experiment

### V-A Practical design

Figure 5(a) shows a practical circuit for negative delays . The components $`C^{}`$ are $`R^{}`$ are added to the circuit of Fig. 1(b) in order to suppress the gain for higher frequency. Its transfer function can easily be derived. First, we see that

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_{}=\frac{Z_C}{Z_C+Z_R}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\text{out}},$$
(27)
where $`Z_C=R^{}+1/\mathrm{i}\omega C`$, $`Z_R=(R^1+\mathrm{i}\omega C^{})^1`$. If we assume a large gain of the operational amplifier, the virtual short condition, $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\text{in}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{}`$, holds and we have

$`H_\text{N}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\text{out}}/\stackrel{~}{V}_{\text{in}}`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`(1+Z_R/Z_C)`$
$`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}\omega T}{(1+\mathrm{i}\omega aT)(1+\mathrm{i}\omega bT)}},`$
where $`T=CR`$. If $`aC^{}/C1`$ and $`bR^{}/R1`$ are satisfied, then the transfer function is approximated as $`H_\text{N}(\omega )1+\mathrm{i}\omega T`$ near the origin ($`|\omega |<1/T`$). Thanks to $`a`$ or $`b`$, the maximum gain is limited by $`1/(a+b)`$. The response functions for $`a=0.2`$, $`b=0.05`$ are plotted in Figs. 5(b) and (c). The phase slope at the origin is almost conserved but the usable bandwidth is reduced.

Second-order Bessel filters are used in the experiment, because the second-order filter can be realized with an operational amplifier . The circuit diagram is shown in Fig. 6. The frequency response is

$$H_\text{B}^{(2)}(\omega )=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{i}\omega \alpha _2T_\text{L}+(\mathrm{i}\omega \alpha _2T_\text{L})^2/3},$$
(29)
where $`T_\text{L}=1.272R_1C_1`$ is the inverse of cutoff frequency and $`R_3/R_2=0.268`$.

### V-B Experimental result

In Fig. 7, we show the overall block diagram for the negative delay experiment. The complete circuit diagram is presented in . The pulse generator on the top is composed of a single-shot pulser and two 2nd-order Bessel filters. Triggered by the switch, a timer IC (ICM7555) generates a rectangular pulse with duration $`1.5\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{s}`$. The pulse is shaped by the filters. The cut-off frequency is chosen as $`\omega _\text{c}=1/T_\text{L}=0.35/T`$, so that $`A(\omega )`$ and $`\varphi (\omega )`$ can be considered to be constant and linear, respectively. $`T=CR`$ is the time constant of the negative delay circuits.

Two negative delay circuits are cascaded for larger advancement. The circuit parameters are $`R=1\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{MO}`$, $`C=0.22\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{uF}`$, $`a=0.1`$, $`b=0.01`$.

The input and output terminals are monitored by LEDs. Their turn-on voltage is about $`1.1\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{V}`$.

The experimental result is shown in Fig. 8. The input and output waveforms are recorded with an oscilloscope. The time origin ($`t=0`$) is the moment when the switch is turned on or the rising edge of the initial rectangular pulse.

We see that the output pulse precedes the input pulse considerably (more than 20% of the pulse width). The slight distortion of the output waveform is caused by the non-ideal frequency dependence of $`A(\omega )`$ and $`\varphi (\omega )`$.

The observed advancement of $`0.5\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{s}`$ agrees well with the expected value $`2T=2CR=0.44\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{s}`$.

General purpose operational amplifiers (TL082) are used for low-pass filters and negative delay circuits. The time scale has been chosen so that we can directly observe the negative delay with two LEDs connected at the input and the output terminals. The whole experimental setup can be battery-operated and self-contained. If we want to observe the waveform, in stead of oscilloscopes, we can use two analog voltmeters (or circuit testers) to monitor the waveforms.

## VI Cascading — for larger advancement

### VI-A Normalized advancement

We have seen that in typical situations the advancement $`(t_\text{d})`$ is fairly smaller than the pulse width $`T_\text{w}`$. Typically the relative advancement $`r|t_\text{d}|/T_\text{w}`$ only reaches to a few percents.

To see the reason, we consider a gaussian pulse $`v(t)=V_0\mathrm{exp}(t^2/2T_\text{w}^2)`$ and its Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\omega )=\sqrt{2\pi }T_\text{w}\mathrm{exp}(\omega ^2T_\text{w}^2/2)`$. When it is passed through the negative delay circuit, the power is amplified owing to the rising amplitude response (16). We define the excess power gain $`\eta `$ as

$$1+\eta =\frac{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}|H(\omega )\stackrel{~}{V}(\omega )|^2d\omega }{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}|\stackrel{~}{V}(\omega )|^2d\omega },$$
(30)
which can be used as a measure of distortion. Now we have a relation between $`\eta `$ and the relative advancement $`r`$;

$$\eta =\frac{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\omega ^2T^2e^{\omega ^2T_\text{w}^2/2}d\omega }{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\omega ^2T_\text{w}^2/2}d\omega }=2\left(\frac{T}{T_\text{w}}\right)^2=2r^2.$$
(31)
For example, if we allow $`\eta =5\%`$, then the relative advancement is $`r=15\%`$ at most.

If we want to increase the advancement $`|t_\text{d}|`$, for a given system, the bandwidth must be reduced, which results in the increase of pulse width $`T_\text{w}`$ and $`r`$ does not increase.

### VI-B Degression of time constant

We will try to increase the relative advancement by cascading the negative group delay circuits in series. The transfer function for $`n`$ stages:

$`H^{(n)}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`(1+\mathrm{i}\omega T)^n,`$ (32)
$`A^{(n)}(\omega )`$ $``$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{n}\omega T)^2}{2}},`$ (33)
$`\varphi ^{(n)}(\omega )`$ $``$ $`n\omega T.`$ (34)
At first, we may expect that the total advancement increases in proportional to $`n`$ because the slope of $`\varphi ^{(n)}(\omega )`$ at the origin increases as $`nT`$. But we should notice by looking at $`A^{(n)}(\omega )`$ that the usable bandwidth is reduced as $`n`$ increased for $`T`$ fixed. In other words, for a given input pulse width $`T_\text{w}`$, $`T`$ must be reduced as $`T_\text{w}/\sqrt{n}`$. Thus the total advancement scales as

$$(t_\text{d})n\times (T_\text{w}/\sqrt{n})=\sqrt{n}T_\text{w}.$$
(35)
It should be noted that the gain outside of the band is increases very rapidly. Spectral tails of the input pulse must be suppressed enough. Otherwise they could be amplified to distort the pulse shape. From the asymptotic forms of $`H^{(n)}(\omega )`$ and $`H_\text{L}^{(m)}(\omega )`$, we see that the condition $`m>n`$ must be satisfied. Order $`m`$ of lowpass filters must be increased cooperatively. It is possible to increase the advancement as large as the pulse width or more, but the advancement increases very slowly; $`1/\sqrt{n}`$.

Fig. 9(a) represents a example of simple-minded cascading, where $`T`$ is kept constant. The waveforms are rapidly distorted as $`n`$ increased.

Fig. 9(b) shows the $`1/\sqrt{n}`$ cascading, where $`T`$ is reduced as $`T/\sqrt{n}`$. The pulse shape is preserved fairly well. The input pulse is filtered with five 10-th order Bessel filters ($`m=50`$).

Figure 10 shows the case of $`n>m`$. The input rectangular pulse is filtered by a 4-th order Bessel filter ($`m=4`$). For $`n=4`$ cascading, scars of the initial pulse appear at $`t=0`$ and $`t=T_\text{w}`$, and they become more prominent as $`n`$ increases.

### VI-C Out-of-band gain

As we have seen, the out-of-band gain is the primary obstacle toward large advancement. In order to estimate how the gain increases we use a realistic transfer function (28), which has a finite maximum gain $`A_{\text{max}}1+(a+b)^1`$. For $`a=0.2`$, $`ba`$, $`n=50`$, we have

$$A_{\text{max}}^n=6^{50}10^{40}.$$
(36)
Such a huge gain will certainly induce instabilities. The noise level must also be suppressed. If we increase $`a`$ or $`b`$ to reduce $`A_{\text{max}}`$, then the bandwidth is significantly reduced as seen in Fig. 5. For the reduced bandwidth, we have to increase the pulse width $`T_\text{w}`$, which diminishes the relative advancement $`|t_\text{d}|/T_\text{w}`$.

We see from this example, a large negative delay comparable to the pulse width is very hard to achieve or almost prohibitive. The allowable gain would be limited by system-dependent factors such as a performance of active devices, a threshold for instabilities, fluctuation due to quantum noise, and so on.

Again we notice the asymmetry between the negative and the positive delays. For positive delays, gain problem does not occur. In fact, the cascading of lowpass filters yields a large amount of delay without difficulty.

## VII Discussion

### VII-A Interference in the time domain

From the minimal transfer function, $`H(\omega )=1+\mathrm{i}\omega T`$, for the negative delay, we see that in time domain the input-output relation can be written as

$$v_{\text{out}}(t)=\left(1+T\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\right)v_{\text{in}}(t)=v_{\text{in}}(t)+T\frac{\mathrm{d}v_{\text{in}}}{\mathrm{d}t}(t).$$
(37)
Here the two terms interfere constructively at the leading edge and destructively at the trailing edge. The addition of the time derivative to the original pulse results in the pulse forwarding.

This time domain picture is useful to devise a new system which shows negative delays. The Mach-Zehnder interferometer shown in Fig. 11 is such an example. First we assume $`R=1/2`$ for the reflectivity of the beam splitters. The path difference $`L`$ is chosen so as to satisfy the condition $`\lambda L=c\tau cT_\text{w}`$, where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength, $`T_\text{w}`$ is the pulse width, and $`\tau =L/c`$ is the delay time due to the path difference. We can tune the path length so that the transmission for one port is unity. Then for the steady state, there appears no output at the other port (dark port) owing to the destructive interference.

For time dependent inputs, however, the cancellation is incomplete and the output corresponding to the time derivative of the amplitude appears at the dark port (see Fig. 12). If we superpose this output with the original waveform, we will have the advancement as shown in Eq. (37). The superposition can easily be provided by unbalancing the amplitude of each path. We set the reflectivity of the two beam splitters is slightly smaller than 50% : $`R=1/2ϵ`$. Then the output of the dark port becomes

$`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\text{dark}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(1R)\stackrel{~}{E}_{\text{in}}(t)R\stackrel{~}{E}_{\text{in}}(t\tau )`$ (38)
$``$ $`2ϵ\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{4ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}\right)\stackrel{~}{E}_{\text{in}}(t),`$
and the advancement of $`\tau /4ϵ`$ is achieved. $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\text{in}}(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\text{dark}}(t)`$ are the envelope of the input field and the dark port field, respectively. The usable bandwidth of the system is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega 1/\tau `$, for which the darkness of the dark port is ensured.

This is an example of all-passive systems with negative delay. It should be noted that when we increase the advancement by decreasing $`ϵ`$, the transmission is decreased accordingly. It is also true for the superluminal propagation of evanescent waves and tunneling waves .

This model convinces us that the negative group delay and the superluminal group velocity are the simple consequence of wave interference.

### VII-B Causality and negative delay

It has been well recognized and confirmed in many ways that the front velocity is connected with the causality, and the causality has no direct connection with the group velocity. But one is still apt to connect the group velocity with the causality because many practical communication systems utilize pulse modulation to send information.

Let us examine our system shown in Fig. 13 in terms of causality. By pushing the switch (O), a rectangular pulse (A) is generated. Feeding it into the lowpass filter, a band-limited pulse (B) is prepared. Finally sending it through the negative delay circuit, an advanced pulse (C) is created. This would be a cause-effect chain in a casual sense. However the reversal of the chronological order between (B) and (C) causes the trouble for the naive picture. One may think that making use of this twist it is possible to send information to the past despite of the causality. Of course this is wrong.

First we should realize that in a strict sense all the pulses (A), (B), and (C) are causal to each other because they are the signals in a single lumped system. When an impulse is applied to a quiescent lumped system, then all parts respond instantaneously. Some of them look delayed, but they just started smoothly as $`t^k`$ ($`k>1`$). All the pulse fronts share the time $`t=0`$, when the switch is turned on (O). Therefore the above discussion on the order is totally pointless.

But one may still shelve the theory, which deals with the almost unseen signals just after $`t=0`$, considering practical situation where the information is related to the peak position or the rising edge where a half of the pulse peak is reached. However, in order to generate a smooth pulse (B) which is acceptable to the negative delay circuit, we have to make a decision well in advance (before $`t=0`$ in this case) because of the delay caused by the lowpass filter. Once we miss the timing, the number $`m`$ of the lowpass filters must be reduced in order to catch up. But breaking the condition $`m>n`$, the pulse cannot be forwarded any more and is distorted badly.

Let us regard the negative delay circuit of Fig. 13 as a communication channel. We assign three people, Alice, Bob, and Clare, on the sites (A), (B), and (C), respectively. Clare always finds a pulse before Bob does, i.e., she can always predict Bob’s pulse. But Bob has no control over his pulses; he cannot cancel a pulse initiated by Alice. The real sender of the pulse is not Bob, but Alice. Bob is just an observer standing at the sending site. This scenario tells us that comparing the input and the output pulses of superluminal channel is somewhat nonsense and that the real start point of the input pulse should be considered (See Sec. IV-C).

## VIII Concluding remarks

The negative group delay is already utilized in many practical applications implicitly. Signals from slow sensors, such as a hotwire anemometer, are compensated by a differentiator with a transfer function $`1+\mathrm{i}\omega T`$. In PID (Proportional, Integral, and Derivative) controllers the derivative element (D) is used to predict the behavior of the system and to improve the dynamical response. When a capacitive load is connected to the output of an operational amplifier, an additional feedback loop with derivative element is used, which is called lead compensations. All these efforts are to compensate delays in a system as far as possible but the excessive use will result in instabilities or noise problems.

We have explored many aspects of negative delays and superluminality utilizing circuit models. The use of circuit model is very helpful because the choice of parameters are very flexible and many handy circuit-simulation softwares are available. Extension to nonlinear cases and to distributed systems  will be very interesting.

## acknowledgments

One of the authors (MK) greatly appreciates stimulating and inspiring discussions with R. Chiao and all the participants of the mini program on Quantum Optics at the Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of California Santa Barbara. He also thanks K. Shimoda for informing about practical use of negative delay circuits.


format: text

text:
# 𝜋𝜋 scattering 𝑆 wave from the data on the reaction 𝜋⁻𝑝→𝜋⁰𝜋⁰𝑛

## Abstract

The results of the recent experiments on the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ performed at KEK, BNL, IHEP, and CERN are analyzed in detail. For the $`I=0`$ $`\pi \pi `$ $`S`$ wave phase shift $`\delta _0^0`$ and inelasticity $`\eta _0^0`$ a new set of data is obtained. Difficulties emerging when using the physical solutions for the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ $`S`$ and $`D`$ wave amplitudes extracted with the partial wave analyses are discussed. Attention is drawn to the fact that, for the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ invariant mass, $`m`$, above 1 GeV, the other solutions, in principle, are found to be more preferred. For clarifying the situation and further studying the $`f_0(980)`$ resonance thorough experimental investigations of the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ in the $`m`$ region near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold are required.

I. INTRODUCTION

The reactions $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ so far are a major source of information on the processes $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$. At high energies and small values of the momentum-transfer-squared from the incident $`\pi `$ to the outgoing $`\pi \pi `$ system, $`0<t<0.2`$ GeV2, the reactions $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ are dominated by the one-pion exchange (OPE) mechanism. In treating the data on these reactions the partial wave analysis method is used. As a rule, a few possible solutions for the partial wave amplitudes of the final $`\pi \pi `$ system are obtained. In some cases, the preferred solution is selected from the additional physical arguments. Generally, to obtain the reliable and unambiguous results in a wide region of $`m`$, high statistics, polarized targets, and precise measurements of the $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ reaction cross section at different energies are needed. The detailed reviews and comprehensive discussions of the experimental results on the reactions $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ and $`\pi \pi `$ scattering in the region $`2m_\pi <m<2`$ GeV available by the early 1999 have been presented in Refs. .

In this work we analyze the recent data on the intensities and relative phase of the $`S`$ and $`D`$ partial waves of the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ system produced in the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$. The data have been obtained in the experiments with incident $`\pi ^{}`$ energies of 8.9, 18.3, 38, and 100 GeV performed at KEK , BNL , IHEP , and CERN , respectively. Our main goal is to obtain information on the $`\pi \pi `$ $`S`$ wave phase shift $`\delta _0^0`$ and inelasticity $`\eta _0^0`$ in the channel with isospin $`I=0`$ that would be complementary to the previous “canonical” data extracted from the 17.2 GeV experiments on the reactions $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^+\pi ^{}n`$ \[7-12\]. We especially emphasize a strong likeness of the physical solutions selected in all four experiments on $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ production and also the common difficulties that emerge when interpreting these solutions and in their comparison with the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ data. It turns out, in particular, that some of the physical solutions found lead to considerable violations of the unitarity condition for the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering amplitude in question. In addition, we conclude that the data on $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ production are indicative of a noticeably smaller value of the $`f_2(1270)\pi \pi `$ decay branching ratio in comparison with the Particle Data Group (PDG) data . In connection with a considerable interest in the light scalar meson sector (see for reviews Refs. \[1,2,13-15\]), we suggest to perform especially careful measurements of the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ in the $`m`$ region from 0.9 to 1.1 GeV, i.e., near $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. This would allow the $`f_0(980)`$ coupling constant to the $`K\overline{K}`$ channel to be determined more reliably and also to resolve the long-standing question  of a possible ambiguity in the behavior of the phase shift $`\delta _0^0`$ above the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, the KEK results  are analyzed. In Ref.  the data on the phase shift $`\delta _0^0`$ have been obtained in the $`m`$ region from 0.36 to 1 GeV. The $`\delta _0^0`$ values found by us in other way in the interval $`0.68m1`$ GeV agree with the KEK data  within experimental uncertainties. We also present new results for $`\delta _0^0`$ and $`\eta _0^0`$ in the region $`1<m<1.64`$ GeV. In Sec. III, the extrapolation of the $`S`$ and $`D`$ wave mass distributions obtained in the BNL experiment  from the physical region of the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ to the pion pole ($`t=m_\pi ^2`$) is performed. Considering the different solutions found in Ref.  for these distributions we obtain a few sets of the values of $`\delta _0^0`$ and $`\eta _0^0`$ in the $`m`$ region from 0.32 to 1.52 GeV. The GAMS results on the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$  are discussed in Sec. IV. Here we also summarize all difficulties encountered while analyzing the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ data \[3-6\]. In Sec. V, we formulate briefly a few concrete suggestions for further studying the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ which, as one can hope, will be used to clarify the experimental situation.

II. ANALYSIS OF THE KEK DATA

In the KEK experiment , the data on the intensities and the relative phase of the $`S`$ and $`D`$ partial waves for the reaction $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ have been obtained in the $`m`$ interval from 0.36 to 1.64 GeV. They have been extracted from the $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ data by using the linear Chew-Low extrapolation and partial wave analysis. Because the absolute $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ production cross section has not been determined in the experiment, the $`S`$ and $`D`$ wave intensities, $`|A_S|^2`$ and $`|A_D|^2`$, have initially been presented in arbitrary (identical) units . Any alternative solution for $`|A_S|^2`$ and $`|A_D|^2`$ has not been discussed in Ref. . The $`S`$ and $`D`$ wave intensities are related to the phase shifts $`\delta _0^I`$ and $`\delta _2^I`$ and inelasticities $`\eta _0^I`$ and $`\eta _2^I`$ in a conventional way: $`|A_S|^2|a_0^0a_0^2|^2`$, where $`a_0^I=(\eta _0^I\mathrm{exp}(2i\delta _0^I)1)/2i`$, and $`|A_D|^2|a_2^0a_2^2|^2`$, where $`a_2^I=(\eta _2^I\mathrm{exp}(2i\delta _2^I)1)/2i`$. To find $`\delta _0^0`$ below the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold, it was assumed  that in this region $`\eta _0^0=\eta _0^2=1`$, and consequently $`|A_S|^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\delta _0^0\delta _0^2)`$. As is well known from a large number of previous experiments, the phase shift $`\delta _0^0`$ smoothly goes through 90 in the region $`0.7<m<0.9`$ GeV and the phase shift $`\delta _0^2`$ is negative, smooth, and small (see, for example, ). Therefore, to extract the phase shift difference $`\delta _0^0\delta _0^2`$ from the unnormalized data, the following normalization condition was accepted in Ref. : the maximum value of $`|A_S|^2`$ is equal to 1. The KEK data for the $`S`$ and $`D`$ partial wave intensities normalized in this way ara shown in Fig. 1, together with the data on the relative phase $`\delta =\varphi _S\varphi _D`$ between the amplitudes $`A_S=|A_S|\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _S)`$ and $`A_D=|A_D|\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _D)`$. The values of the $`I=2`$ $`\pi \pi `$ $`S`$ wave phase shift $`\delta _0^2`$ used in Ref.  were given by the parametrization $`\delta _0^2=0.87q`$ \[with $`q=(m^2/4m_\pi ^2)^{1/2}`$ in GeV and $`\delta _0^2`$ in radians\], and in such a way the data for $`\delta _0^0`$ were obtained in the $`m`$ region from 0.36 to 1 GeV. In the following, for $`\delta _0^2`$ we shall use the fit to the data from Refs.  which is shown in Fig. 2. 111This fit was obtained with the parametrization $`\delta _0^2=aq/(1+bm^2+cm^4+dm^6)`$, where $`a,b,c`$, and $`d`$ are fitted parameters. In addition, in lacking the reliable data on the deviation of $`\eta _0^2`$ from 1, we set $`\eta _0^2=1`$ for all considered values of $`m`$. When more or less detailed data on $`\eta _0^2`$ are available, it will be interesting to take into account possible inelastic effects. It is not unreasonable to think that such effects may appear in the $`I=2`$ $`\pi \pi `$ channel only above the nominal $`\rho \rho `$ threshold (1.54 GeV), but not above the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold as in the $`I=0`$ $`\pi \pi `$ channel. Using the fit and the data for $`|A_S|^2`$ shown in Fig. 1a we have also determined the values of $`\delta _0^0`$ for $`m<1`$ GeV. They are plotted in Fig. 1d. The resulting values are in excellent agreement with those obtained in Ref. .

We now determine $`\delta _0^0`$ and $`\eta _0^0`$ simultaneously by using the available data on the relative phase $`\delta `$ and the intensity $`|A_S|^2`$ (see Figs. 1c and 1d) in the $`m`$ region from 0.68 to 1.64 GeV. In order to estimate the phase $`\varphi _D`$ we neglect the tiny amplitude $`a_2^2`$  (which is quite reasonable because the experimental errors of $`|A_D|^2`$, as is seen from Fig. 1b, are not too small) and assume that the $`D`$ wave amplitude is dominated by the $`f_2(1270)`$ resonance contribution and can be written in the form

$$A_D=\frac{m_{f_2}B_{f_2\pi \pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }}{m_{f_2}^2m^2im_{f_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(1)
were $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(m_{f_2}/m)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2}(q/q_{f_2})^5D(q_{f_2}R_{f_2})/D(qR_{f_2})`$, $`D(x)=9+3x^2+x^4`$, $`q_{f_2}=(m_{f_2}^2/4m_\pi ^2)^{1/2}`$, $`R_{f_2}`$ is the interaction radius, and $`m_{f_2},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2}`$, and $`B_{f_2\pi \pi }`$ are the mass, width, and $`\pi \pi `$ decay branching ratio of the $`f_2(1270)`$. The fitted curve on Fig. 1b corresponds to the following values of the $`f_2(1270)`$ resonance parameters:

$`m_{f_2}=1.283\pm 0.008\text{GeV},`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2}=0.170\pm 0.014\text{GeV},`$
$`R_{f_2}=3.59\pm 0.71\text{GeV}^1,`$ $`B_{f_2\pi \pi }=0.760\pm 0.034.`$ (2)
Thus, the phase $`\varphi _D`$ is defined by that of the Breit-Wigner amplitude (1). To express the parameters $`\delta _0^0`$ and $`\eta _0^0`$ in terms of the known values $`\delta `$, $`|A_S|^2`$, $`\delta _0^2`$, and $`\varphi _D`$, it is convenient to represent the amplitude $`A_S`$ in the form (see footnote 1)

$$A_S=e^{2i\delta _0^2}\left(\frac{\eta _0^0e^{2i(\delta _0^0\delta _0^2)}1}{2i}\right)=e^{2i\delta _0^2}\stackrel{~}{A}_S=e^{i(2\delta _0^2+\varphi )}|\stackrel{~}{A}_S|,$$
(3)
where $`\varphi `$ is the phase of the amplitude $`\stackrel{~}{A}_S`$. The distinctive feature of the amplitude $`\stackrel{~}{A}_S`$ is that in its Argand diagram the relations between $`\delta _0^0\delta _0^2`$, $`\varphi `$, $`\eta _0^0`$, and $`|\stackrel{~}{A}_S|`$ formally look like the relations between the corresponding parameters of any unitary partial wave amplitude with definite isospin $`I`$; for example, the phase $`\varphi `$ is confined within the range from $`0^{}`$ to $`180^{}`$ because Im($`\stackrel{~}{A}_S)>0`$. Thus, we have

$`\varphi =\delta 2\delta _0^2+\varphi _D,`$ $`\eta _0^0=\sqrt{14|A_S|\mathrm{sin}\varphi +4|A_S|^2},`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{sin}2(\delta _0^0\delta _0^2)={\displaystyle \frac{2|A_S|\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\eta _0^0}},`$ $`\mathrm{cos}2(\delta _0^0\delta _0^2)={\displaystyle \frac{12|A_S|\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\eta _0^0}}.`$ (5)
Since the interference between the $`S`$ and $`D`$ partial waves is defined by the product $`|A_S||A_D|\mathrm{cos}\delta `$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\delta `$ determines $`\delta `$ only up to the sign, two solutions always exist: the solution with $`\delta >0`$ and the other one with $`\delta <0`$. Moreover, if $`\mathrm{cos}\delta `$ is close to 1 (and $`|\delta |0`$) in some region of $`m`$ then in this region a transition from one solution to the other one is possible. The KEK data  presented in Fig. 1c show that the phase $`\delta `$ changes most rapidly near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold (which is one of the evident manifestation of the $`f_0(980)`$ resonance) and that just near 1 GeV $`\mathrm{cos}\delta 1`$. Thus, in principle, we have four possible variants: (i) $`\delta >0`$ for $`m<1`$ GeV and $`\delta <0`$ for $`m>1`$ GeV, (ii) $`\delta >0`$ for all $`m`$, (iii) $`\delta <0`$ for all $`m`$, and (iv) $`\delta <0`$ for $`m<1`$ GeV and $`\delta >0`$ for $`m>1`$ GeV. However, variants (iii) and (iv) with $`\delta <0`$ for $`m<1`$ GeV can be rejected at once. Really, estimating $`\delta `$ for $`m<1`$ GeV by using the relation $`\delta =\delta _0^0+\delta _0^2\varphi _D`$, one can easy verify that $`\delta `$ must be positive in this region with the conventional definition of the signs of the phase shifts $`\delta _0^0`$, $`\delta _0^2`$, and $`\varphi _D`$ \[see Figs. 1d, 2, and Eq. (1)\]. So, we shall consider only variants (i) and (ii).

Figure 3 shows the values of $`\delta _0^0`$ and $`\eta _0^0`$ extracted from the KEK data (see Figs. 1a, 1b, and 1c) in the region $`0.68<m<1.64`$ GeV by using the Eqs. (4) and (5) for the two above mentioned variants of the $`\delta `$ phase behavior. The values of $`\delta _0^0`$ in the region $`0.36<m<1`$ GeV obtained above from the data on $`|A_S|^2`$ with $`\eta _0^0=1`$ (see Fig. 1d) are also shown in Figs. 3a and 3b for comparison and completeness. As is seen, for example, from Fig. 3a, the sets of the $`\delta _0^0`$ values found in the region $`0.68<m<1`$ GeV by two different ways are in quite reasonable agreement with each other. With obtaining $`\delta _0^0`$ and $`\eta _0^0`$ in the general case, the Argand diagram of the amplitude $`\stackrel{~}{A}_S`$ was built for each variant. After this the values of $`2(\delta _0^0\delta _0^2)`$ obtained from Eqs. (4) and (5) were finally defined by the requirement that those of $`\delta _0^0`$ be smoothly connected as a function of $`m`$. That the strong violation of unitarity takes place in variant (ii) for $`m>1.16`$ GeV (see Fig. 3d) can be easily understood from the relation $`\varphi =\delta 2\delta _0^2+\varphi _D`$ \[see Eq. (4)\]. The fact is that the values of $`\varphi `$ in this case fall into the range from $`180^{}`$ to $`360^{}`$, which is forbidden as $`\varphi `$ is the phase of the formally unitary amplitude $`\stackrel{~}{A}_S`$. Furthermore, in variant (ii), the phase sift $`\delta _0^0`$ for $`m>1`$ GeV (see Fig. 3c) is in rather poor agreement with the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ production data \[7-12\] according to which, for example, at $`m1.3`$ GeV $`\delta _0^0`$ has to be close to 270. Thus, variant (ii) with $`\delta >0`$ for all $`m`$ can be rejected. As for variant (i), there are a set of specific features which, to our knowledge, are missing from the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ data \[7-12\]. As is seen from Figs. 3a and 3b, in this case we have noticeable differences of $`\eta _0^0`$ from unity for $`m<1`$ GeV, its approximate equality to 1 for $`1<m<1.12`$ GeV, violation of unitarity near 1.2 GeV, and sharp jumps of $`\delta _0^0`$ and $`\eta _0^0`$ with further increasing $`m`$. There is little doubt that these features are artefacts of the partial wave analysis of the $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ data.

Another difficulty is that the accepted normalization for $`|A_S|^2`$ leads to $`B_{f_2\pi \pi }=0.760\pm 0.034`$ \[see Eq. (2)\], while according the PDG data  $`B_{f_2\pi \pi }=0.847\pm _{0.013}^{0.024}`$. These two values cling to one another only by their double errors. Hence, in principle, one may conclude that the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ data  indicate that the absolute cross section of the $`f_2(1270)`$ resonance formation through the OPE mechanism in the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ can turn out to be approximately 20% smaller, at least at $`mm_{f_2}`$, than that expected from the PDG data . Alternatively, the KEK data  might be normalized with use of the known value $`\mathrm{max}|A_D|^2=(1+\eta _0^0)^2/4=B_{f_2\pi \pi }^2`$ with $`B_{f_2\pi \pi }`$ from Ref. . However, in this case, the resulting values of $`|A_S|^2`$ in the most interesting region of the lightest scalar resonance $`\sigma (600)`$  would be approximately 25% higher than the unitarity limit for $`|A_S|^2`$.

We shall see in the next Sections that the other experimental data on the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ lead to very similar difficulties.

III. ANALYSIS OF THE BNL DATA

In the BNL experiment , the high statistics on the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ (about $`8.5\times 10^5`$ events) has been accumulated and the detailed partial wave analysis of the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ angular distributions has been performed. This analysis has been done for ten sequential intervals in $`t`$ covering the region $`0<t<1.5`$ GeV2 and over the $`m`$ range from 0.32 to 2.2 GeV scanned with the 0.04 GeV -wide step. As a result, two solutions for the unnormalized intensities of the $`S`$ and $`D_0`$ partial waves and four ones (because of a sign ambiguity) for their relative phase have been obtained. The above quantities were denoted in Ref.  by $`|S|^2`$, $`|D_0|^2`$, and $`\phi _{SD_0}`$, respectively; in so doing, $`D_0`$ denotes the $`D`$ wave with $`L_z=0`$, where $`L_z`$ is a projection of the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ relative orbital angular momentum on the $`z`$-axis in the Gottfried-Jackson reference frame . In the following, we shall use these notations, too. One of the solutions for the $`S`$ and $`D_0`$ wave intensities, which is characterized by a large magnitude of $`|S|^2`$ and a small one of $`|D_0|^2`$ for $`m<1`$ GeV, and which is smoothly continued to the higher mass region, where the $`D_0`$ wave is dominated by the $`f_2(1270)`$ resonance contribution, has been selected in Ref.  as the physical solution. Together with the intensities $`|S|^2`$ and $`|D_0|^2`$, the physical solution also includes two corresponding sets of the $`\phi _{SD_0}`$ phase values which differ only in sign. Note that the other solution intersects with the physical one at $`m1`$ GeV. We agree with the physical arguments given in Ref.  based on which the other solution can be rejected in the region $`m<1`$ GeV. However, for $`m>1`$ GeV we shell analyze the two solutions and also the cases with transitions of the phase $`\phi _{SD_0}`$ from one solution to the other one.

For the analysis we take the BNL data  on $`|S|^2`$, $`|D_0|^2`$, and $`\phi _{SD_0}`$ pertaining to five intervals of $`t`$, $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.01}<t<0.03`$ GeV2, $`0.03<t<0.06`$ GeV2, $`0.06<t<0.1`$ GeV2, $`0.1<t<0.15`$ GeV2, and $`0.15<t<0.2`$ GeV2, and to the region $`0.32<m<1.6`$ GeV. Note that the data on $`\phi _{SD_0}`$ are available only for $`m>0.8`$ GeV. To obtain the values of the quantities $`|A_S|^2`$, $`|A_D|^2`$, and $`\delta `$ (see Sec. II) as functions of $`m`$ characterizing the reaction $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ on the mass shell, we parametrize the $`t`$ dependence of $`|S|^2`$, $`|D_0|^2`$, and $`\phi _{SD_0}`$ by means the following expressions

$$|S|^2=\frac{m^2}{q}|A_S|^2\frac{t\mathrm{exp}[b_S(tm_\pi ^2)]}{(tm_\pi ^2)^2},|D_0|^2=5\frac{m^2}{q}|A_D|^2\frac{t\mathrm{exp}[b_{D_0}(tm_\pi ^2)]}{(tm_\pi ^2)^2},$$
(6)
$$\phi _{SD_0}=\delta +\alpha (t/m_\pi ^21)$$
(7)
and, in each 0.04 GeV mass bin, thus determine the unnormalized intensities $`|A_S|^2`$ and $`|A_D|^2`$, the phase $`\delta `$ and also the slopes $`b_S`$, $`b_{D_0}`$, and $`\alpha `$ by fitting to the BNL data on the $`t`$ and $`m`$ distributions by the formulae (6) and (7). 222Such two-parametric fits to the off-shall partial wave intensities were widely used in the literature to obtain the suitably extrapolated data (see, for example, Refs. . However, the determination of the phase $`\delta `$ with use of the direct extrapolation of the data on the phase $`\phi _{SD_0}`$ \[see Eq. (7)\] may provoke a question. If the data on the $`SD_0`$ interference contribution, as such, had been presented in Ref. , the problem would not have arisen. The fit to such data to the function $`2ta\mathrm{exp}[b(tm_\pi ^2)]/(tm_\pi ^2)^2`$ analogous to those in Eq. (6) and the identification of the fitted parameter $`a`$ with $`\sqrt{5}(m^2/q)|A_S||A_D|\mathrm{cos}\delta `$ would allow $`|\delta |`$ to be determined in the proper way. Because such data are not available, the indirect test of the results obtained with Eq. (7) was carried out. Using the data  on $`|S|^2`$, $`|D_0|^2`$, and $`\phi _{SD_0}`$ we constructed the quantity $`2|S||D_0|\mathrm{cos}\phi _{SD_0}`$ and found with the above extrapolation the on-shell $`SD`$ interference contribution. Then, knowing independently $`|A_S|^2`$ and $`|A_D|^2`$, we determined $`\delta `$ as a function of $`m`$. The $`\delta `$ phase values obtained in the two ways are in very close agreement with each other. Certainly, owing to the forced double recounting of the errors of the input data with the indirect test, the errors of $`\delta `$ turn out to be larger then those obtained from the fit by Eq. (7). On the other hand, when the values of $`\delta `$ are determined by using Eq. (7) their errors practically are not differ from the errors of the input data for $`\phi _{SD_0}`$. All the aforesaid allowed us to prefer the determination of the phase $`\delta `$ with use of Eq. (7). In so doing, for $`|S|^2`$, $`|D_0|^2`$, and $`\phi _{SD_0}`$ in each $`t`$ bin we take into account the physical solution for $`m<1`$ GeV and the physical and other ones for $`m>1`$ GeV. Unfortunately, the absolute value of the $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ reaction cross section has not been determined in the BNL experiment . Therefore, to normalize the extrapolated intensities $`|A_S|^2`$ and $`|A_D|^2`$ we proceed in the same way as in Sec. II. The extrapolated and normalized data corresponding to the physical and other solutions are plotted in Figs. 4a, 4c, and 4e with solid and open symbols, respectively. It is interesting to note that as a result of the extrapolation two branches of the $`\phi _{SD_0}`$ phase values for the other solution (i.e., the branch with $`\phi _{SD_0}>0`$ for all $`m`$ and that with $`\phi _{SD_0}<0`$ for all $`m`$) interweave with each other in the region $`m>1.24`$ GeV (see Fig. 4e) in such a way that there arise two new branches of the extrapolated phase $`\delta `$, which are characterized by a smooth dependence on $`m`$ and which, for example, can be considered either intersecting or osculating near 1.26 GeV.

As in Sec. II, we begin with the determination of the phase shift $`\delta _0^0`$ for $`m<1`$ GeV from the data on $`|A_S|^2`$ (see Fig. 4a) assuming that $`\eta _0^0=1`$ in this region. The resulting phase shift values are shown in Fig. 5 by open circles. Note that two points in the region $`mm_K`$ disturbed by the $`K_S^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ events  are omitted. Then, heaving the data on $`|A_S|^2`$, $`|A_D|^2`$, and $`\delta `$ for $`m>0.8`$ GeV (see Fig. 4), we determine the values of $`\delta _0^0`$ and $`\eta _0^0`$ with use of the general formulae (3) and (4), and also Eq. (1). The results for the previously selected solutions among all the possible ones, that are shown in Fig. 4, are plotted in Fig. 5 with solid circles. Strictly speaking, the selection is reduced to rejection of the physical solution with $`\delta <0`$ for $`m<1`$ GeV (see Fig. 4e), since a simple estimate $`\delta _0^0=\delta \delta _0^2+\varphi _D`$ (see Sec. II) yields $`\delta _0^0(25÷40)^{}`$ for this solution in the region of $`0.81`$ GeV, which is, certainly, unsatisfactory. In its turn, Figs. 5a and 5b show that the physical solution with $`\delta >0`$ for all $`m`$ can be also rejected due to strong violation of the unitarity condition for $`m>1.2`$ GeV. Figures 5c and 5d correspond to the physical solution for $`|A_S|^2`$, $`|A_D|^2`$, and $`\delta `$ with the transition of the phase $`\delta `$ at $`m1`$ GeV from the branch with $`\delta >0`$ to that with $`\delta <0`$ (see Fig. 4e). Such a physical solution consists with unitarity but corresponds to the weak coupling between the $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ channels near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. Indeed, for this solution $`\eta _0^0`$ is close to unity in the region $`1<m<1.15`$ GeV. However, the latter disagrees with the data obtained from the reactions $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^+\pi ^{}n`$, $`\pi ^+p\pi ^+\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$, and $`\pi NK\overline{K}(N,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (see, for example, Refs. ). Figures 5e and 5f correspond to the combination of the physical solution with $`\delta >0`$ for $`m<1`$ GeV and the other one for $`m>1`$ GeV with $`\delta >0`$ in the region $`1<m<1.28`$ and $`\delta <0`$ in the region $`1.28<m<1.52`$ GeV (see Figs. 4a and 4e). Finally, Figs. 5g and 5h correspond to the similar combination of the physical solution and the other one for which $`\delta <0`$ for $`m`$ from 1 to 1.52 GeV (see also Fig. 4e). Certainly, there are two more variants which differ from the last two ones only by the sign of $`\delta `$ for $`m>1.28`$ GeV (see Fig. 4e). These variants lead, however, to appreciable violations of the unitarity condition for $`m>1.32`$ GeV, and therefore, are of little interest. Thus, one can conclude that just the variant presented in Figs. 5e and 5f is, in many respects, in qualitative agreement with the results of the previous partial wave analyses of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ data . As indicated above, this variant corresponds to the positive relative phase $`\delta =\varphi _S\varphi _D`$ up to the $`f_2(1270)`$ resonance and the negative one above it. An important point is that such a behavior of $`\delta `$ as a function of $`m`$ is strongly confirmed by the pioneering data from the polarized target experiment on the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^+\pi ^{}n`$ at 17.2 GeV .

Comparing Fig. 5 with Fig. 3 we just note that the BNL data lead to the obviously higher values of the phase shift $`\delta _0^0`$ for $`m<0.5`$ GeV than the KEK data.

In extracting the information on $`\delta _0^0`$ and $`\eta _0^0`$, the phase $`\varphi _D`$ has been defined by fitting to the data on $`|A_D|^2`$ (see Fig. 4c) with use of Eq. (1). The parameters of the $`f_2(1270)`$ were found to be (see also the curves on Fig. 4c): for the physical solution,

$`m_{f_2}=1.279\pm 0.002\text{GeV},`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2}=0.205\pm 0.005\text{GeV},`$
$`R_{f_2}=3.96\pm 0.24\text{GeV}^1,`$ $`B_{f_2\pi \pi }=0.697\pm 0.008`$ (8)
and, for the other solution,

$`m_{f_2}=1.281\pm 0.002\text{GeV},`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2}=0.211\pm 0.005\text{GeV},`$
$`R_{f_2}=4.65\pm 0.33\text{GeV}^1,`$ $`B_{f_2\pi \pi }=0.712\pm 0.007.`$ (9)
Thus, the BNL data indicate that the branching ratio $`B_{f_2\pi \pi }`$ can amount to approximately 84% of the PDG value . Possible consequences of a similar discrepancy has been already discussed in connection with the KEK data at the end of Sec. II (recall that the relevant ratio for the KEK data has been found to be approximately 90%).

IV. DISCUSSION OF THE GAMS DATA

The highest statistics on the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ was accumulated by the GAMS Collaboration in two experiments at 38 GeV  and 100 GeV . However, the small $`t`$ region from 0 to 0.2 GeV2 has been examined in the works  very sparingly. But the data averaged over the small $`t`$ region have been presented for $`|S|^2`$ and $`\phi _{SD_0}`$ in Ref.  and for $`|S|^2`$, $`|D_0|^2`$, and $`\phi _{SD_0}`$ in Ref. . Such “global” data, of course, do not permit to perform a proper extrapolation of the mass distributions measured from the physical region to the pion pole. Nevertheless, we discuss some typical features of the GAMS data. The physical solution for $`|S|^2`$ and $`\phi _{SD_0}`$ and the other solution only for $`|S|^2`$ have been presented in Ref.  in the region $`0.8<m<1.6`$ GeV. The $`\phi _{SD_0}`$ phase was found to be positive in the full mass range  (about existing the ambiguous solution with $`\phi _{SD_0}<0`$ the readers, probably, have to guess by themselves). In general, the available GAMS data  are very similar to the corresponding BNL data . For example, in the case of the physical solution, $`|S|^2`$ and $`\phi _{SD_0}`$ from Ref.  behave as functions of $`m`$ in the same way as the extrapolated quantities $`|A_S|^2`$ and $`\delta `$ shown in Figs. 4a and 4e by solid circles. However, it is such a physical solution for $`|A_S|^2`$ and $`\delta `$ (with $`\delta >0`$ for all $`m`$) that leads to strong violation of the unitarity condition for $`m>1.2`$ GeV (see Fig. 5b). In analyzing the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ system produced in the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ at 100 GeV, the only solution for $`|S|^2`$, $`|D_0|^2`$, and $`\phi _{SD_0}`$ has been selected and presented by the GAMS Collaboration in Ref. . Unfortunately, this unique solution is very close to the above physical one obtained in the GAMS 38 GeV $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ experiment .

It is of first importance that the GAMS Collaboration measured the absolute cross section of the $`f_2(1270)`$ resonance formation in the $`D_0`$ wave in the region $`0<t<0.2`$ GeV2. According to Ref. , at 38 GeV, $`\sigma _{D_0}(\pi ^{}pf_2(1270)n\pi ^0\pi ^0n)=2.3\pm 0.2`$ $`\mu `$b. More recently, this value was used, in particular, to normalized the 100 GeV data . Although the cross section value obtained is approximately 1.5–2 times greater than in a set of previous $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ production experiments , nevertheless, it is 1.57 times smaller than the estimate based on the OPE model (it is an old story with the experimental underestimation of the $`\pi ^{}pf_2(1270)n\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ reaction cross section all details of which can be found in Ref. ). By using this model with the PDG values of $`m_{f_2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2}`$, and $`B_{f_2\pi \pi }`$  we estimate

$$\sigma _{D_0}(\pi ^{}pf_2(1270)n\pi ^0\pi ^0n)\sigma ^{OPE}(\pi ^{}pf_2(1270)n\pi ^0\pi ^0n)$$

$$\frac{g_{\pi ^{}pn}^2}{4\pi }\frac{5\pi }{m_p^2P_\pi ^{}^2}m_{f_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2}\frac{2}{9}B_{f_2\pi \pi }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\underset{0.2\text{GeV}^2}{\overset{0}{}}\frac{t\mathrm{exp}[b_{f_2}(tm_\pi ^2)]}{(tm_\pi ^2)^2}𝑑t\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.6}\mu \text{b},$$
(10)
where $`P_\pi ^{}=38`$ GeV, $`g_{\pi ^{}pn}^2/4\pi 2\times 14.3`$, and $`b_{f_2}7.5`$ GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}+2\times 0.8`$ GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{ln}(38/18.3)`$ $`8.68`$ GeV-2 (in estimating the slope $`b_{f_2}`$, its Regge energy dependence and the results for the slope $`b_{D_0}`$ in the $`f_2(1270)`$ mass region presented in Fig. 4d have been taken into account). Note that this estimate is in good agreement with the result of the extrapolation of the available data on the reaction $`\pi ^{}pf_2(1270)n\pi ^+\pi ^{}n`$ at 17.2 GeV , 100 GeV and 175 GeV  to the GAMS energy (see Ref.  for details). Thus, the GAMS data  indicate that the value of $`B_{f_2\pi \pi }`$ can amount to about 80% of that given by the PDG .

We now summarize briefly the common difficulties encountered in analyzing the data obtained in four recent experiments on the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$. First, the physical solutions selected by using the partial wave analyses of the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ production data lead to the values of $`\delta _0^0`$ and $`\eta _0^0`$ which are incompatible with the known results obtained from the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ data, at least for $`m>1`$ GeV. Some of these solution lead to strong violations of the unitarity condition. On the other hand, among the other solutions one can point out, in principle, the more preferred ones. Secondly, it is astonishing that the data of the four recent experiments on $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ production include the indications that the value of $`B_{f_2\pi \pi }`$ can be distinctly smaller than the currently accepted one. This difficulty is rather serious and highly interesting. Let us remind that the $`\pi \pi `$ production experiments on unpolarized targets, in particular, those under discussion here, do not permit the contributions of the $`\pi `$ and $`a_1`$ exchange mechanisms to be separated in principle, even with huge statistics, because these contributions to the unpolarized cross section are incoherent ; in other words, there is no model-independent way to do this. Therefore, by our opinion, the difficulty with $`B_{f_2\pi \pi }`$ may present itself a further evidence that the partial wave analyses of the unpolarized data allow to determine the intensities and the relative phases of the $`S`$, $`D`$, … $`\pi \pi `$ partial waves only approximately, with any extrapolation method. “The degree of proximity” is associated with the relative magnitude of the non-leading $`a_1`$ exchange contribution. With high statistical accuracy of the unpolarized data the presence of the $`a_1`$ exchange mechanism can manifest itself in the events responsible for $`|S|^2`$ just in the form of the above difficulty. In fact, this statement follows naturally from the analysis of the unnormalized KEK and BNL data (see the end of Sec. II and also Sec. V for details). As for the GAMS data , they appear to point merely to the general problem involving the accurate measurement of the $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ reaction cross section. More discussions both of the additional assumptions needed in analyzing the unpolarized data and of the $`a_1`$ exchange contribution can be found in the works \[1,2,11,12,27-29\].

V. CONCLUSION

Using the most simple way we have extracted the values of the $`I=0`$ $`\pi \pi `$ $`S`$ wave phase shift $`\delta _0^0`$ and inelasticity $`\eta _0^0`$ from the current data on the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$. It seems clear that a new set of precise experiments on this reaction is needed both for the more precise definition of the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ production mechanism and for obtaining the more detailed information on $`\pi \pi `$ scattering and light scalar resonances in the $`\pi \pi `$ channel. Let us formulate in this connection several concrete suggestions, leaving aside the general wish to investigate the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ on the polarized target.

1) Detailed data on the $`m`$ and $`t`$ distributions for the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ $`S`$ and $`D_0`$ partial waves, especially in the region $`0<t<0.2`$ GeV2 where the OPE mechanism dominates, and measurements of the absolute value of the $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ reaction cross section at different energies, for example, at KEK, BNL, IHEP, and CERN, would be highly desirable. The relative accuracy of new measurements must be comparable with (or better of) that given by the PDG  for $`B_{f_2\pi \pi }^2`$. This would allow to perform the accurate description of the $`f_2(1270)`$ formation differential cross section within the OPE model and to test how well the $`S`$ wave $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ production cross section at its absolute maximum (which is located in the region $`0.6<m<0.8`$ GeV) agrees with the OPE model prediction under the standard normalization condition according to which $`|A_S|^2=1`$ (i.e., $`\delta _0^0\delta _0^2=90^{}`$ and $`\eta _0^0=\eta _0^2=1`$) at the absolute maximum point. An excess of the experimental values over the model expectations would be a good evidence, obtained from the unpolarized target data, for the presence of the $`a_1`$ exchange contribution to the $`S`$ wave $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ production cross section in the region of its absolute maximum. Alternatively, if the maximal experimental value of the $`S`$ wave cross section turns out to be less than in the OPE model, then it will completely disturb of the existing ideas about the $`\delta _0^0`$ phase shift for $`m<1`$ GeV, which seems to be highly unlikely.

2) We suggest to perform in the low $`t`$ region the especially careful measurements of $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ production in the $`S`$ wave for $`m`$ from 0.9 to 1.1 GeV, i.e., in the region of the well known interference minimum in $`|S|^2`$ located near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. This would allow to obtain the important additional information on the $`f_0(980)`$ resonance coupling constant to the $`K\overline{K}`$ channel, $`g_{f_0K\overline{K}}`$, and to resolve the long-standing question  concerning a possible ambiguity in the behavior of the phase shift $`\delta _0^0`$ above the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold which arises at $`g_{f_0K^+K^{}}^2/4\pi >4\pi m_K^23.1`$ GeV2. Furthermore, the magnitude of the $`S`$ wave intensity in the immediate region of the minimum (if it lies below the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold) can be used to obtain a very strong upper limit on the $`a_1`$ exchange contribution at small $`t`$ in this region of $`m`$.

3) As a rule, the assumption of phase coherence between the $`D_0`$ and $`D_{}`$ amplitudes is one of those using to select the physical solution, see, for example, Refs. . Here $`D_{}`$ denotes the $`D`$ wave with $`|L_z|=1`$, in the Gottfried-Jackson reference frame, which is produced via the unnatural parity exchanges in the $`t`$ channel of the reaction $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$. In this connection we would like to call attention to a new curious circumstance. According to the GAMS measurements , the ratio $`|D_{}|^2/|D_0|^2`$ in the $`f_2(1270)`$ mass region at 100 GeV is half as large as that at 38 GeV. This fact may testify to compensation of the $`\pi P`$ and $`a_2P`$ Regge cut contributions ($`P`$ denotes the Pomeron exchange) to the $`D_{}`$ wave production amplitude with energy increasing, i.e., to violation of phase coherence.

4) We also suggest to use in future the more suitable notation for the $`SD_0`$ interference contribution to be extracted in the unpolarized target experiments, instead of the commonly used simplified one of the form $`|S||D_0|\mathrm{cos}\phi _{SD_0}`$. It includes the mention of the coherence factor (see, for example, Ref. ) and is more adequate to the measured quantity. Experimentally, the $`S`$ and $`D_0`$ wave intensities, $`|S|^2`$ and $`|D_0|^2`$, and the $`SD_0`$ interference contribution, $`\xi |S||D_0|\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$, are measured simultaneously. In fact, $`|S|[|S_\pi |^2+|S_{a_1}|^2]^{1/2}`$, $`|D_0|[|D_{0\pi }|^2+|D_{0a_1}|^2]^{1/2}`$, and the coherence factor $`\xi `$ $`(0\xi 1)`$ and the phase $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ have the form

$$\xi =|\underset{i=\pi ,a_1}{}S_iD_{0i}^{}|/[(\underset{i=\pi ,a_1}{}|S_i|^2)(\underset{i=\pi ,a_1}{}|D_{0i}|^2)]^{1/2},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }=\mathrm{arctan}[(\underset{i=\pi ,a_1}{}|S_i||D_{0i}|\mathrm{sin}\phi _i)/(\underset{i=\pi ,a_1}{}|S_i||D_{0i}|\mathrm{cos}\phi _i)],$$

where $`S_\pi (D_{0\pi })`$ and $`S_{a_1}(D_{0a_1})`$ are the $`S(D_0)`$ wave production amplitudes caused by the $`\pi `$ and $`a_1`$ exchange mechanisms, respectively (these amplitudes correspond to two independent configurations of the nucleon helicities in the reaction $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$), and $`\phi _i`$ is the relative phase between the amplitudes $`S_i`$ and $`D_{0i}`$. Let us consider the case when the amplitude $`D_{0a_1}`$ is negligible. Then, denoting $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }=\phi _\pi `$ by $`\phi _{SD_0}`$, one can see that the real interference contribution differs from that presented with the simplified notation, $`|S||D_0|\mathrm{cos}\phi _{SD_0}`$, by the coherence factor $`\xi =1/\sqrt{1+|S_{a_1}|^2/|S_\pi |^2}`$. If we put $`\xi =1`$ for all $`m`$, we shall always deal with the effectively underestimated values of $`|\mathrm{cos}\phi _{SD_0}|`$.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the E852 Collaboration for allowing free access to the detailed BNL data, http://dustbunny, physics.indiana.edu/pi0pi0pwa/. This work was supported in part by the grant INTAS-RFBR No. IR-97-232 and the grant RFBR No. 02-02-16061.


text:
# Polarized Structure Functions in the Valence Quark and Resonance Regions and the GDH Sum.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Technical advances for producing polarized beams and polarized targets in the early 80’s triggered a novel experimental effort at SLAC which provided for the first measurement of the proton spin asymmetry $`A_1^p(x,Q^2`$. The limited $`x`$ range of this measurement led to an interpretation of the results consistent with the predictions of a naive non-relativistic constituent quark model (CQM). However after EMC at CERN  extended the range of the SLAC measurement to significantly lower values of $`x`$, a different and surprising picture of the spin structure of the nucleon emerged. By combining the measured $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=_0^1g_1(x,Q^2)𝑑x`$ with the neutron and hyperons $`\beta `$ decays within the CQM it was found that only a small fraction of the total nucleon spin was accounted for by quarks. Since then, enormous theoretical and experimental progress has been achieved in understanding the nucleon spin structure. The original findings of EMC were confirmed and measurements on the neutron allowed the test of the Bjorken sum rule  to $`<10`$% level. This accurate test was only possible after the sum rule, originally derived at $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ using current algebra, was re-derived using the technique of operator product expansion (OPE) within QCD . This step was essential in order to calculate the corrections necessary to evolve this sum rule to $`Q^2`$ values accessible experimentally. In these studies most of the measurements on the nucleon spin structure functions were performed at large $`Q^2`$ above 1 GeV2. Nevertheless to take full advantage of the OPE and test its applicability in the strong regime of QCD, it was understood that measurements of the nucleon spin structure below $`Q^2`$ = 1 GeV2 and in the resonance region would be important for determining the size of the higher twists corrections. In this connection it was realized that the Bjorken sum rule was only a special case of a more general sum rule known as the ”extended” Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn (GDH) sum rule which coincides with the GDH sum rule at $`Q^2=0`$ and with the Bjorken sum rule at $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$.

Furthermore, higher moments of the spin structure functions are connected with specific twist matrix elements (observables) which can be evaluated using Lattice QCD . The advantage of measuring higher moments of the spin structure functions is twofold, 1) the kinematical region which gives most of the contribution to these moments is experimentally accessible 2) calculations of specific matrix elements related to these moments through OPE are possible using Lattice QCD.

I will present here results of two experiments performed at Jefferson Lab in Hall A that address two areas of the above mentionned concerning the spin structure of the neutron. First we present results of a precision measurement (E99-117) of the neutron asymmetry $`A_1^n`$ in the valence region where the existing world data could not confirm the expected behavior from either the CQM or pQCD due to a poor statistical precision. Second we present results of a measurement of both $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ (E94-010) through the resonance region at a $`Q^2`$ ranging from 1 GeV/c to 0.1 GeV/c and the neutron $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n`$ and $`d_2^n`$ are evaluated in the same range of $`Q^2`$ connecting the perturbative regime to the strong regime of QCD.

## 2 EXPERIMENTAL METHOD AND SETUP

The experiments described in this presentation share the same experimental setup . They were carried out at Jefferson Lab in Hall A using a highly polarized electron beam (70-80%) with an average current up to 15$`\mu A`$ and a high pressure polarized (on average between 30% and 40% in-beam) 3He target with the highest polarized luminosity in the world. The target is based on the spin exchange principle where rubidium atoms are polarized by optical pumping and their polarization is transferred to the 3He atoms via spin exchange collisions . The target was polarized either parallel or perpendicular to the direction of the electron beam and its polarization measured by three independent methods: NMR through the Adiabatic Fast Passage technique, Electron Paramagnetic Resonance technique (EPR) and elastic scattering off 3He. In each case the results of the three methods agreed within systematic errors.

The scattered electrons were detected using two HRS spectrometers which sat symmetrically on each side of the electron beam line to double the count rate. The spectrometers were equipped with standard detector packages which consists of two vertical drift chambers for momentum and scattering angle determination, a CO2 gas Cherenkov counter and a double-layered lead-glass shower counter for particle identification . The electron identification efficiency was 99% and the $`\pi ^{}`$ rejection factor was found to be better than 104 for both spectrometers which was sufficient for all experiments. The momentum of each spectrometer was stepped through the relevant excitation spectrum at each incident energy of a given experiment. In many cases the comparison of the data between the two identical spectrometers at symmetric angles allowed us to minimize many of the systematic uncertainties.

## 3 SPIN AND FLAVOR DECOMPOSITION IN THE VALENCE QUARK REGION

Among the deep inelastic lepton scattering (DIS) spin observables important for understanding the structure of the nucleon at large $`x`$, the virtual photon-nucleon asymmetry $`A_1^n`$ and spin structure function $`g_1^n`$ are the most poorly known. This shortcoming is due to the small scattering cross sections in the large $`x`$ region combined with the lack of high polarized luminosity facilities. In the past experimental effort has gone into measuring $`A_1^n`$ and $`g_1^n`$ at low $`x`$, since it provides for most of the strength to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, resulting in a poor statistical precision in the world data for $`x>0.4`$. This region, however, is clean and unambiguous since it is not polluted by sea quarks and gluons and thus offers a unique opportunity to test predictions that are usually difficult if not impossible at low $`x`$. A very clean contribution of the ”valence quarks” can be expected when $`x>0.5`$. At present at large $`x`$ the world data are still consistent with the most naive of CQM’s which uses a static SU(6) symmetric wave function to describe the ground state of the nucleon. However, we know from the ratio of neutron to proton unpolarized structure functions measurements that this symmetry is broken in nature and thus the prediction is unrealistic.

The set of predictions of $`A_1^n`$ in the valence quark region falls into two categories, those of CQM’s which break SU(6) symmetry in the ground state wave function by hyperfine interaction  which responsible for the N-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ mass splitting, and those of perturbative QCD with a hadron helicity conservation (HHC) constraint  as $`x1`$ which break SU(6) symmetry dynamically. While both classes of models predict that $`A_1^n1`$ when $`x1`$ their $`x`$ dependence is noticeably different, allowing for a softer variation of $`A_1^n`$ towards unity in the case of the CQM’s. In the case where the HHC constraint is not imposed in pQCD calculations the results are rather a fit to the world data . In this case the approach is to perform a pQCD analysis of the proton and neutron world data of the polarized structure functions at next-to-leading-order (NLO) and produce a global fit with a minimal number of parameters . This endeavor has been successful in the calculations by Bourelly, Soffer and Bucella  using a statistical physical picture of the nucleon.

The difference between the approaches described above is more pronounced when the constituents flavor decomposition is performed. In the case where we consider a proton, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }u(x)/u(x)1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }d(x)/d(x)1`$, for the case of pQCD with HHC models, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }u/u1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d2/3`$ for the case of CQM’s. We notice that in the pQCD with HHC models $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d`$ changes sign from negative at low $`x`$ to positive at large $`x`$. This behavior is clearly different in the CQM model based on single flavor dominance where $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d`$ is negative at all $`x`$ values.

Furthermore, we mention exceptions to the models discussed above. A bosonized chiral quark model where the nucleon appears as a soliton in the meson fields was used to calculate $`A_1^n`$ in . In  local quark-hadron duality is used to link the structure functions $`g_1`$ and $`F_1`$ at large $`x`$ with the $`Q^2`$ dependence of the nucleon electromagnetic form factors. A prediction was possible however we do not know how low in $`x`$ will this prediction works. Finally structure functions have been calculated in the bag model and the effect of the pion cloud on these functions was evaluated in .

At Jefferson Lab we are in a unique position to take advantage of the unprecedented polarized luminosity. The experiment was carried the highest available incident energy of 5.7 GeV. Both the $`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}`$ asymmetries for 3He were extracted after correcting the raw asymmetries by the beam and target polarizations and the dilution factor at three kinematics: $`x`$ = 0.331, 0.474 and 0.61, and $`Q^2`$ = 2.738, 3.567 and 4.887 GeV2, with $`W^2`$ = 6.426, 4.846 and 4.023 GeV2 respectively. False asymmetries were checked by measuring asymmetries of the polarized beam scattering off an unpolarized 12C target and found to be negligible. Radiative corrections were applied to obtain the Born asymmetries and then, the asymmetry $`A_1`$ and the ratio of polarized to unpolarized structure functions $`g_1/F_1`$ of 3He were extracted using

$$A_1=\frac{A_{}}{D(1+\eta \xi )}\frac{\eta A_{}}{d(1+\eta \xi )}\mathrm{and}\frac{g_1}{F_1}=\frac{1}{D^{}}\left[A_{}+\mathrm{tan}(\theta /2)A_{}\right],$$
(1)
where $`D`$, $`d`$, $`\eta `$ and $`\xi `$ and $`D^{}`$ are kinematical variables. Finally a 3He model which includes the $`S`$, $`S^{}`$ and $`D`$ states and pre-existing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ components in the 3He ground state wave function was used to extract $`A_1^n`$ and $`g_1/F_1`$of the neutron from that of 3He .

In Figure 1 (right panel) we show preliminary results of $`A_1^n`$. The first data point at $`x=0.33`$ is in good agreement with previous measurements. The data points show a clear change of sign of $`A_1^n`$ as $`x`$ increases and are compared with theoretical predictions. The total error in each point is dominated by the statistical error. The solid line is a pQCD HHC based on LSS(BBS) parameterization of $`g_1^n/F_1^n`$ , the long-dashed line is a prediction of $`g_1^n/F_1^n`$ from LSS 2001 parametrization at Q2 = 5 GeV2 without HHC constraints . The shaded area is a range of predictions of $`A_1^n`$ from the constituent quark model  while the dot-dashed line is a calculation of the statistical model at Q2 = 4 GeV2 by Bourrely et. al. , and the dotted line is the local duality prediction by Melnitchouk . Finally, the short dashed line is the chiral soliton model prediction at Q2 = 3 GeV2 by Weigel, Gamberg and Reinhardt . Data from Hermes and SLAC are original values without being re-analyzed for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contribution of the nuclear corrections.

Assuming that the strange quark distributions are negligible in the region $`0.3<x<1`$ we used the quark parton model interpretation of $`g_1`$ and $`F_1`$ to perform a flavor decomposition of the spin dependent quark distributions.

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }u}{u}=\frac{4}{15}\frac{g_1^p}{F_1^p}\left(4+\frac{d}{u}\right)\frac{1}{15}\frac{g_1^n}{F_1^n}\left(1+4\frac{d}{u}\right),\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }d}{d}=\frac{4}{15}\frac{g_1^n}{F_1^n}\left(4+\frac{u}{d}\right)\frac{1}{15}\frac{g_1^p}{F_1^p}\left(1+4\frac{u}{d}\right).$$
(2)
Here $`u`$ and $`d`$ represent the sum of quark and antiquark distributions. Using equation (2) and the $`d/u`$ ratio extracted from the proton and deuteron structure functions data  we present in Fig. 1 (left panel) results of the down quark distributions obtained in E99-117 (filled squares) along with preliminary results of the HERMES semi-inclusive measurements (open circles) . The solid line is a pQCD fit to the world data using the HHC constraint as $`x1`$. The dashed line correspond to a non relativistic constituent quark prediction. It is clear that up to $`x=0.6`$ the data favor the CQM and is in violation with the HHC pQCD based calculations. We point out that this is consistent with the interpretation the recent $`Q^2`$ dependence of the proton electromagnetic form factors ratio measured at Jefferson Lab .

## 4 EXTENDED GDH SUM RULE AND TWIST-THREE MATRIX ELEMENT

In its extended form the GDH sum rule spans all range of momentum transfers and reads :

$$4_{Q^2/2M}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{g_1(\nu ,Q^2)}{M\nu ^2}𝑑\nu =S_1(Q^2),$$
(3)
where $`g_1(\nu ,Q^2)`$ is the spin structure function of the nucleon, $`S_1`$ the virtual Compton scattering amplitude, $`\nu `$ the energy transfer and $`M`$ the nucleon mass. Starting the integration in equation (3) from the pion production threshold this sum rule can be expanded around $`Q^2=0`$ using for example the heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory (HB$`\chi `$PT) .

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{8M^2}}\kappa _n^2+{\displaystyle \frac{5.54}{2M^2}}Q^4+\alpha ({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{M^2}})^3+\mathrm{}`$ (4)
where $`\kappa _n`$ is the anomalous magnetic moment of the neutron. The slope of the first term in the right hand side of equation (4) corresponds to the standard GDH sum rule  while the second term on the right hand side has been evaluated using HB$`\chi `$PT. Other evaluations are available  and will be compared to the data below. In the large $`Q^2`$ region Eq. (3) takes another form. If we consider three quarks flavors and three-loop result for the twist-two component $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n(Q^2)`$is given by :

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=2,4\mathrm{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _i(Q^2)}{(Q^2)^{\frac{i2}{2}}}}=\mu _2^n(Q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _4^n(Q^2)}{Q^2}}+\mathrm{}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`\left[1({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }})3.5833({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }})^220.2153({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }})^3\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}g_A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}a_8\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\left[10.3333({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }})0.54959({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }})^24.44725({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }})^3\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}`$
where $`g_a=1.257`$ and $`a_8=0.579`$  are the triplet and octet axial charge, respectively. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ is defined as the renormalization group invariant nucleon matrix element of the singlet axial current . At large enough $`Q^2`$ the $`\mu _4`$ contribution becomes negligible.

Presently, there is a large set of data on the spin structure function at $`Q^2`$ 1 GeV2 used to determine $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\alpha _s`$. However, below $`Q^2=1`$ GeV2 the experimental situation is less than ideal, prompting for the investigation of higher twists as $`Q^2`$ decreases below 1 GeV2. This experimental situation has now changed with the completion of experiment E94-010 which covers a Q2 ranging from 0.1 GeV2 to 1 GeV2. In this experiment we have measured the helicity dependent electron scattering cross sections for excitations energies covering from the quasielastic region up to the deep inelastic region, thus including the resonance region. The longitudinal ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{}`$) and transverse ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{}`$) cross section differences are formed from combining data taken with opposite beam helicity,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{}=\sigma ^{}\sigma ^{},\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{}=\sigma ^{}\sigma ^{},$$
(6)
where $`\sigma ^{()}`$ and $`\sigma ^{()}`$ are spin dependent inclusive differential cross sections with the electron spin helicity anti-parallel (parallel) and anti-perpendicular (perpendicular) to the target spin direction. The 3He spin structure functions $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ and $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$ were extracted from the expression:

$`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{MQ^2\nu }{4\alpha _e^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{E^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E+E^{}}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{}+\mathrm{tan}(\theta /2)\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{}\right]`$ (7)
$`g_2(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{MQ^2\nu ^2}{4\alpha _e^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2E^{}(E+E^{})}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{}+{\displaystyle \frac{E+E^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{E^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{}\right]`$ (8)
where $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$ the incident and the scattered electron energy respectively, $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle, $`M`$ is the nucleon mass and $`\alpha _e`$ is the electromagnetic fine coupling constant.

The integral $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(Q^2)`$ for the neutron is evaluated by first performing the integration of the 3He response at constant $`Q^2`$ from the nucleon single pion production threshold to the lowest $`x`$ measured in the experiment. We then subtracted a small contribution due to the quasielastic tail and applied nuclear corrections to the integral following the procedure described in ref. . We estimated the missing deep inelastic contribution in the range 2 GeV $`<W<`$ 30 GeV according to the parametrization of Thomas and Bianchi parametrization .

In Fig. 2 (left panel), we show $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n(Q^2)`$ at five values of $`Q^2`$ from 0.1 to about 1 GeV2 by step of 0.2 GeV2 (solid circles) compared to the world data (open symbols). The band located around zero represents the size of systematic errors. At low $`Q^2`$ the lines correspond to $`\chi `$PT calculations by Bernard et. al.  (short dashed-dot line) without vector mesons and by Bernard et. al.  (dotted line) with vector mesons, respectively. The long dashed line is a calculation by Ji et. al.  using heavy baryon $`\chi `$PT. The solid black line represents the GDH result. The comparison with our data shows that beyond $`Q^2`$=0.1 GeV2 these calculations do not reproduce the trend of the data because the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ degrees of freedom might become important but are not included in both $`\chi `$PT calculations. At moderate and large $`Q^2`$ two calculations, one by Soffer and Terayev  (short dashed curve), the other by Burkert and Ioffe  (long dash-dot line) are plotted. Soffer and Terayev assume that the integral over $`g_T=g_1+g_2`$ varies smoothly from high $`Q^2`$ where $`g_20`$ down to $`Q^2=0`$. Using their prediction for this integral and subtracting the contribution from $`g_2`$ using the Burkhardt Cottingham sum rule  gives the short dashed curve in Fig. 2, which agree relatively well with the data. Burkert and Ioffe consider the contributions from the resonances using the code AO, and the nonresonant contributions using a simple higher-twist type form fitted to the deep-inelastic data. Their model is constrained to fit both the GDH and the deep-inelastic limits, and it describes the data quite well.

In the high $`Q^2`$ regime, using OPE, the $`d_2`$ matrix element defined as

$$d_2(Q^2)=_0^1x^2[2g_1(x,Q^2)+3g_2(x,Q^2)]𝑑x,$$
(9)
is shown to be a measure of the electric and magnetic polarizabilities of the color field . At small $`Q^2`$, a region covered by our data, its conventional interpretation in terms of higher twist is not obvious. A recent publication  gives a new insight in this regard at low $`Q^2`$ using rather $`\chi `$PT. Thus, the $`Q^2`$ evolution of $`d_2`$ is also a quantity that can shed some light on the strong interaction in the nucleon.

In Fig. 2 (right panel), the $`d_2`$ matrix element is shown at several values of $`Q^2`$ where the integration in equation (9) excludes the elastic peak. The results of this experiment are the solid circles and the grey band represents their corresponding systematic uncertainty. The SLAC E155  proton (open circle) and neutron (open square) results are also shown. The solid line is the MAID calculation while the dashed line is a Heavy Baryon $`\chi `$PT calculation valid only a very low $`Q^2`$. The Lattice prediction  at $`Q^2`$ = 5 GeV2 for the neutron $`d_2`$ matrix element ( not shown here ) is negative but close to zero. We note that all models predict $`d_2^n`$ to be negative or zero at large $`Q^2`$. At moderate $`Q^2`$ the data of E94-010 show a positive $`d_2^n`$ but decreasing perhaps to zero at high $`Q^2`$. The SLAC data also show a positive $`d_2^n`$ value but with a rather large error bar. More measurements are needed to have a complete determination of the transition from low to very high $`Q^2`$ of this important matrix element.

## 5 CONCLUSION

In summary, we presented results of two experiments at Jefferson Lab Hall A which took advantage of the highly polarized beam and high pressure polarized 3He target to investigate the internal spin structure of the neutron in the perturbative and the strong regimes of QCD. In E99-117 we have determined the world most precise spin and flavor dependent distribution in the valence region. The results are more in line with the constituent quark model than with the HHC constrained pQCD prediction. In experiment E94-010 we have measured both $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ in the resonance region allowing for the first time to study the neutron integrals $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n`$ and the twist three matrix element $`d_2^n`$ from the pQCD regime to a regime where chiral perturbation theory might give us more insight into the structure of the nucleon. With time we expect Lattice QCD to make predictions in the intermediate region.

## 6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work presented here was supported in part with funds provided to the Nuclear and Particle Group at Temple University by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under contract number DE-FG02-94ER40844. The Southeastern Universities Research Association operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility for the DOE under contract DE-AC05-84ER40150