Nuclear Transparency in the lightest nuclear interactions

M. Ajaz1, 2, M. K. Suleymanov1, 3, K. H. Khan1, A. Zaman1

1
Department of Physics, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad
2
Department of Physics, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan
3
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research Dubna

Abstract
Some experimental results on nuclear transparency effect in pC- and dC-interaction at 4.2 A GeV/c
(JINR Dubna) are presented. The half angle () technique was used and the particles with emission
angle greater and less than are considered separately. The results of the experimental study have
been compared with the simulation data coming from the Dubna Cascade model. The values of average
multiplicity, average momentum, and average transverse momentum of charged pions and protons are
analyzed as a function of the number of identified protons in an event. We observed some behaviors for
the data which could be considered as some nuclear transparency effects. The lasts have been divided
into three main groups depending on their probable behavior: leading effect; cascade effect; medium
effect.

Introduction:-
Nuclear Transparency (NT) effect considered as an important phenomenon is connected with dynamics
of hadron-nuclear and nuclearnuclear interactions which could reflect some particular properties of
the medium. Different mechanisms might lead to the appearance of the NT. Usually in an experiment
the NT is defined as:
1. the ratio of nuclear cross section () per nucleon to that on a free nucleon [1]

d/dt is the differential cross section of the process and Z is the charge of the nucleus.
2. the ratio of cross section for scattering measured in nuclear target to the cross section for
scattering in (model) plane wave impulse approximation (PWIA) [2]. Numerically the ratio was
given using the following expression.

1
Where the integral is over the phase space V defined by the cuts Em < 80 MeV, threshold energy and
|pm| < 300 MeV/c, threshold 3-momentum. Whereas Yexp(Em, pm) and YPWIA(Em, pm) are the
corresponding experimental and simulation yields.
3. The ratio of experimental charged normalized yield (Y bar) divided by the charge normalized
Mote Carlo equivalent yield (YSIMC bar) for a target with nucleon number A to the same division
that for hydrogen (H) target. [3]

4. Some behavior of the average values of secondary particles produced in hadron-nucleus (hA)
and nucleus-nucleus (AA) collisions as a function of the number of g-particles [4, 5] or
identified protons (Np) [6] using the half angle () technique.
5. Some behavior of the nuclear modification factor (RAA) as a functions of a number of
participants nucleons (Npart) [7] RAA is considered as a best parameter to study the Color
Transparency (CT), which was introduced for the first time by Brodsky and Mueller [8, 9] in
1982. CT is the prediction that hadrons produced in exclusive reactions with high four
momentum transfers squared (Q2) can pass through nuclear matter with reduced interactions [2,
10-12]. According to Quantum Chromo Dynamics (QCD) [13], hard exclusive processes
select special configurations of the hadron wave function where all quarks are close together,
forming a color neutral small size configuration (SSC) with transverse size r ~ 1/Q. The
external color field in these SSCs vanishes because their color fields cancel each other as the
distance between quarks diminishes. Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) [14] is one of the main
concern of the todays heavy ion colliders. The CT effect is considered as a signal on Quark
Gluon Plasma (QGP) formation [15-17]

It is clear that all the aforementioned definitions of NT are very close to each other.

The idea of nuclear transparency at low energy based on the parameterization of Bethe [18] is
given by the following expression [19].
R = (roA1/3+ )2 [1-Zze2/(R+)Eo][1-T]
Where ro is the effective reduced nuclear radius, is the reduced wavelength of the incident particle, z
and Z the charge of the incident particle and the target nucleus respectively and T is the transparency.
The expression given above is valid for protons in the energy range from 200 to 800 MeV.

2
 NT in Quasi-elastic A(p, 2p) reaction was performed at Brookhaven National Laboratory
(BNL) [1, 20, 21]. Results obtained at BNL are inconsistent with CT and can be explained in terms of
nuclear filtering or charm resonance states [22-25]. The onset of Nuclear Transparency is Quasi-elastic
A(e,ep) reaction were carried out at SLAC [26, 27] and Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
Facility (Jlab) [28] the A-dependence of the above mentioned reaction has been studied with deuteron,
carbon, iron, and Gold as target nuclei at momentum transfers ranging from Q2 = 1 to 6.8 (GeV/c)2.
They found no substantial rise in the nuclear transparency within errors in any of the nuclei studied. D.
Abbott et al.,[29], studied the A(e, ep) reaction using Carbon, Iron and Gold as targets at momentum
transferred squared varied from 0.6 to 3.3 GeV2. They observed that the results on carbon as a target do
not reveal any significant increase in the nuclear reduction in the energy range where the nucleon-
nucleon total cross sections increase significantly as pion production begins to dominate.
All experiments, as described above (SLAC [26, 27], JLab [28]) were unsuccessful to produce
evidence of CT even for high values of Q2.
The disintegration of polarized and un polarized 2H targets by electron d(e, ep)n at high
momentum transfer were studied by L. L. Frankfurt et al., [30], but no conclusive model independent
evidence for CT has been observed for qqq system --baryons. An earlier onset of CT for mesons
production than that for hadrons was suggested [31], as it is most probable to produce a small
transverse size in a two quark (qq) system than in a three quark (qqq) system. D. Dutta et al.,[32]
measured the nuclear transparency of 4He(np-) and concluded that the nuclear transparency results
from this study deviated from the traditional nuclear physics picture. Furthermore the nuclear
transparency effect measured form the study as a function of momentum transfer is in good agreement
with Glauber calculations which include the QCD phenomenon of CT. B. Clasie et. al., [3] measured
the cross section and hence the NT of the pion electro production from hydrogen, deuteron, carbon,
copper and gold targets and compared his results with Glauber and Glauber+CT calculations [33] and
Glauber+SRC+CT [34]. They found that the Q2 and atomic number (A) dependence of the nuclear
transparency show deviations from traditional Glauber calculations, and are consistent with
calculations of CT. M. R. Adams et al. [35] measured the NT in exclusive incoherent production
from different nuclear targets and observed an increase in the NT. K. Ackerstaff et al. Hermes
Collaboration [36] measured the exclusive incoherent electro production cross section of the 0 (770)
meson and hence the transparency from Hydrogen, deuteron, Helium (3He), and Nitrogen targets as a
function of coherent length (lc) of the interaction of qq fluctuation with the nuclear medium. they
compared their study with some of the previous experiments, such as with [37] where they measured

3
the transparency to incoherent 0 production with 4 and 8 GeV photons and the E665 collaboration at
FNAL measured with 470 GeV muons [35] beams and with Glauber calculation of Hufner et al. for 3He
14
and N [38]. The nuclear transparency was found to decrease with increasing coherence length of
quark antiquark fluctuations of the virtual photon. The transparencies extracted from the data agree
well with the previous measurements and models including high energy ISI and FSI. Hermes
Collaboration [39] also studied the exclusive coherent and incoherent electro production of the 0
meson from hydrogen (1H) and nitrogen (14N) targets as a function of lc and Q2. The NT was found to
increase (decrease) with increasing coherence length for coherent (incoherent) 0 electro production.
They observed a rise of NT with Q2 for fixed coherence length, which is in agreement with theoretical
calculations of CT. The CLASS collaboration [40] in search for the medium modification through the
properties including mass and width of meson produced the light vector mesons (, , and ) in 2H,
3 12 56
H, C and Fe at normal nuclear densities and zero temperature. The results obtained by CLASS
collaboration were found to be different from the KEK proton synchrotron measurement [41], where
they detected , , and mesons from the same decay channel but was produced with 12 GeV energy
proton beam.
CT is considered as an important effect to get the information on particular properties of the Quark
Gluon Plasma (QGP)[15, 16]. Different mechanisms for the apparent transparency of the sQGP at LHC
are discussed in [42]. Theoretical possibilities are discussed that could contribute to the apparent
transparency (decreased opacity) of the sQGP relative to the WHDG/DGLV
(radiative+elastic+geometric fluctuation) jet energy loss model extrapolation from RHIC to LHC
include: Baryon anomaly [43-45]; Gluon feedback [46]; Gluon to quark jet conversion [47]; Gluon
self-energy [48, 49]; Is the jet-medium coupling reduced at LHC: s(LHC) < s(RHIC) ?
At high energies the study of nuclear transparency effect in hadron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus
collision for the first time was carried out using half angle () technique by [4, 5] . The value of the
was defined as an angle which divides the particle multiplicity into two equal parts in nucleon-
nucleon (NN) interaction. They studied the behavior of s-particles ( the particles with >0.7 in the
emulsion experiments (in the papers [4, 5] ) and a number of pions ( in the paper [6]) as a function of
g-particles (the particles with 0.23 <0.7 (in the paper [4, 5]) and a number of identified protons (Np)
(in the paper [6]). They observed that with increasing the number of g-particles (or Np) the values of
the average multiplicity of the inner cone s-particles [4, 5] or multiplicity of identified pions [6] did not
change being approximately equal to the multiplicity of these particles for the pp-collisions. So it was
claimed to be the observed transparency. Thought the values of the average multiplicity of the out

4
cone s-particles (or pions) decreased linearly with a number of the g-partivcles (or Np). The g (or Np)-
dependences for the values of the average pseudorapidity (<>)[4, 5] of inner cone s-particles or the
values of the average momentum (<p>) for inner cone pions [6] demonstrated that the values of the
<> (or <p>) decreases linearly with g (or Np). So the observed transparency in the case of multiplicity
could not be confirmed as total transparency. It means different mechanisms could be the reason of the
nuclear transparency effect. Y. Afek et, al., [50] has broadly divided the various models that have been
suggested so far for high energy particle-nucleus collisions and for high energy nucleus-nucleus
collisions into two categories. The first category include all models which assume that particle-nucleus
collisions is a multistep process which consist of independent collisions which nucleons encountered
when propagating through a target nucleus. This category include Intra-nuclear Cascade Models [51],
Leading particle Cascade Models [52-55], Energy Flux Cascade Models [56], Multiperipheral Regge
Type Models [57, 58] and various types of Statistical and Hydrodynamical Models [59]. The second
category included all models that assume that particle-nucleus collisions in a single step process where
a few nucleons (or partons) in the nucleus interact collectively with the incident particle [60-65]. For
first category of models as per definition given above transparency could appear as a result of
simultaneous action of different effect which will not carry any information about particular properties
of matter. For the second category of the models the collective response of the nucleons provides the
information about some specific property of the medium.
That is why the main goal of the paper is to look for the transparency effect of nuclear matter
and to understand whether the effect connects with the first category of models or does with second
ones.
To reach the goal we applied half angle technique [4-6]. We defined half angle () to be
the angle which equally divides the multiplicity of secondary charged particles produced in NN-
collisions. The values of the was determined as = 25o. Beside 25o we used 5o, 10o, 15o, and 20o.
Half angle divides the particles into the inner and outercone. So the particles with < are named
as inner cone particles and the one with > are termed as outer cone particles. We defined the NT as
an effect at which the characteristics of hadron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions do not depend
on a number of identified protons (Np), because the last connects with baryon density of matter. Finally
the results are compared with the data coming from Dubna version of cascade model. For this study we
used lightest nuclear interaction starting like pC- and dC-interaction at 4.2 A GeV/c because of the
following reasons. Lightest nuclear systems are important link between nucleon-nucleon and nucleus-
nucleus collisions. Comparing the results coming from the nucleon-nucleon, nucleus-nucleus and
5
lightest nuclei, reactions at high energies are necessary to understand how nuclear transparency effect
appears and how they depend on the characteristics of the medium.
As we have mentioned above different mechanisms could be reason of the NT. To separate the
influences of the models which assume that particle-nucleus collisions is a multistep process and to get
the information on transparency as some particular property of the medium we have compared the
experimental data with one coming from the Dubna version of Cascade model[66-68].

Experimental procedure and equipment

The experimental data have been obtained from the 2-m propane bubble chamber of LHE, JINR. The
chamber was placed in a 1.5 T magnetic field, and was exposed to beams of light relativistic nuclei at
the Dubna Synchrophasotron. Practically all secondaries emitted at a 4 total solid angle were detected
in the chamber. All negative particles, except identified electrons, were considered as - mesons. And
this is justified as the contaminations by misidentified electrons and negative strange particles do not
exceed 5% and 1%, respectively. The average minimum momentum for pion registration was set to
about 70 MeV/c. The protons were selected by the statistical method applied to all positive particles
with momentum of p ~150 MeV/c (we identified slow protons with p700 Mev/c by ionization in the
chamber). In this experiment, we used 12757 pC , 9016 dC , interactions at a momentum of 4.2 A
GeV/c ( for methodical details see[69]). In the case of cascade code we used 50000 pC-interactions at
the same energy.
Results
A. Average characteristics of inner cone protons in pC and dC interactions.
The values of inner cone protons average multiplicity <ninp>pC, average momentum <pinp>pC, and
average transverse momentum <pTinp>pC from experimental data in pC collision at 4.2A GeV/c (left
hand side from top to bottom respectively) and from Cascade model (right hand side from top to
bottom respectively) as a function of number of identified protons are shown in figure 1. The behavior
is given for values of = 5o, 10o, 15o, 20oand 25o.

6
 1(a) 1(b)

Average multiplicity of proton (CASCADE)

1 1
Average multiplicity of proton

0.36788 0.36788

0.13534 0.13534

0.04979 pCin25 0.04979 pCn25

pCin20 pCn20
pCin15 pCn15
pCin10
0.01832 pCin05
0.01832 pCn10
pCn05

0.00674 0.00674
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Np Np

4.0 3.5 1(d)

Average momentum of protons (CASCADE)

1(c) pCn25
3.5 3.0 pCn20
pCin25
pCn15
Average moomentum of protons

pCin20
pCn10
3.0 pCin15 2.5 pCn05
pCin10
pCin05
2.5
2.0

2.0
1.5

1.5
1.0

1.0
0.5

0.5
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10

Np Np

0.45 Figure 1(f)

1(e)
pCn25
0.40 pCn20
0.40
pCin25 pCn15
Average pT of protons (CASCADE)

0.35
pCIn20 0.35 pCn10
pCin15 pCn05
pCin10 0.30
0.30 pCin05
Average pT of protons

0.25
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.15

0.15 0.10

0.05
0.10

0.00
0.05
0 2 4 6 8 10
0 2 4 6 8
Np Np

Figure 1 The average multiplicity, average momentum and average transverse momentum for the inner cone protons emitted
in the pC-interactions at 4.2A GeV/c (left hand side from top to bottom) and simulated by the Cascade model (right hand
side from top to bottom) as a function of number of identified protons with =25(red square), =20(open square),
=15(Blue triangles), =10(open triangles) and =05(Green stars).

Figure 1(a) demonstrates the Np-dependence of the <ninp>pC at different values of the for
experimental data. The behavior of <ninp>pC at half angle =250 doesnt depend on Np in the region
7
of Np=2-9 having a very slight positive slope indicated from the fitting data using linear function (see
table 1). The Np-dependence demonstrates clearly a transparency for these protons. Same behavior can
be observed for the values of the =15 and = 200, but the values of <ninp>pC become less than 1.
The values of <ninp>pC strongly depend on the Np at the values of =100 and 50. So the transparency
disappears below 15o. Fig1(b) demonstrated behavior for the values of the <ninp>pC at different
coming from the Dubna Cascade code [66-68]. One can see that the values of the <ninp>pC are
systematically and essentially less than 1 and less than the values for the data coming from the
experiment. There are two regions for the Np-dependences of the <ninp>pC. In first region - Np=1-3 the
values of the <ninp>pC decrease with Np. In the second region the values of the <ninp>pC dont depend on
the values of the Np and demonstrates transparency.
So we could say that the experimental data demonstrate clearly transparency for the protons with less
than 250: the <ninp>pC 1; <ninp>Np/ <n in
p>21 and dont depend on the values of Np. The two lasts
were observed for the protons with less than 200 and 150. The Cascade code simulation could not
describe completely the experimental result: the <ninp>pC < 1; the values of the <ninp>pC dont depend
on the Np in the region of Np> 3. (The results of the presented data in Fig.1(a) and 1(b) are
approximated by linear function y=A+B*Np, (here A and B are free parameters) conformed the
conclusions, see Table 1).
The Fig.1(c) and 1(d) demonstrate the values of the <pinp>pC as a function of the Np for the
experimental and code data respectively. There are two regions for the behaviors of the <pinp>pC. In the
first region (Np=1-3) the values of <pinp>pC decreases sharply and in the second one the values of
<pinp>pC decreases gradually with Np. No transparency is observed in this case and the code data gives
about the same behavior as the experimental one.
The values for the <pTinp>pC as a function of the Np for the experimental and code data are given in
Fig.1(e) & 1(f) respectively. One can see some oscillations for the behaviors of the experimental values
of the <pTinp>pC which get became weaker with decrease in . Looking at the slope of the graphs (see
Table 1) it is clear that the slope of the graphs increases with increasing half angle. The slope is the
least for 5o. So we could say that there are two regions for the behaviors of the <pTinp>pC for the data
coming from the code. In the first region (Np=1-3) the values of <pTinp>pC decrease sharply and in the
second one the values of <pTinp>pC decrease slowly with Np.
Our claim of the observed transparency for the inner cone protons average multiplicity could be
explained in terms of leading effect. Leading particles are projectiles which could give some part of
their energy during interaction [70]. The particles will have maximum energy in an event and would be
identified in an experiment as inner cone particles due to their high energy /low angle. Having high
8
energy they are able to pass by the medium very fast and save the large fraction of their initial energy.
That is why medium seems transparent to them. This explanation is based on the fact that although the
values of average multiplicity of the particles remain the same but their average momentum and
average transverse momentum have been decreased.

Table1. The values of the parameter B (slope of the line) for inner cone protons in pC-interactions

<n> <p> <pT>

Experiment cascade Experiment cascade Experiment Cascade

5 -0.0270.004 0.0040.001 -0.20.1 0.150.07 -0.0120.005 0.006030.001

10 -0.0530.008 0.0080.004 -0.180.0 -0.140.03 -0.0270.006 -0.014410.004
15 -0.0290.007 0.0070.003 -0.200.01 -0.140.02 -0.0290.005 -0.022390.004
20 -0.0160.005 0.0050.002 -0.170.01 -0.120.02 -0.030.003 -0.019240.006
25 0.040.06 0.060.01 -0.1680.008 -0.100.02 -0.0260.004 -0.023660.005

Figure 2 given below shows the average values of inner cone protons multiplicity <ninp>dC,
momentum <pinp>dC, and transverse momentum <pTinp>dC from the experimental data in dC -
interactions at 4.2A GeV/c (left hand side from top to bottom respectively) and from the Cascade
model (right hand side from top to bottom respectively) as a function of Np. The behavior is studied for
different values of the including = 5o, 10o, 15o, 20oand 25o as are given in the figures below.
Figure 2(a) demonstrates the Np-dependence of <ninp>dC at different values of the for experimental
data. The behavior of <ninp>dC at =250 is having a slight positive slope as was the case in pC-
interactions (see Table 2 which demonstrates the result of fitting for parameter B the data presented in
Figure 2 by linear function A+B*Np). The Np-dependence demonstrates some transparency for these
protons in the region of Np 3 and having values greater than 1 as in comparison with 1(a) where the
values were equal to 1. Same behavior can be observed for the values of the =15 and = 200 i.e. no
dependence on Np, but here the values of <ninp>dC for = 200 are still greater than 1 and for =15 the
values are equal to 1. The values of <ninp>dC strongly depend on the Np at the values of =100 and 50
as was the case in pC data in figure 1. So the transparency disappears below 15o. Fig 2(b) demonstrates
behavior for the values of the <ninp>dC at different half angles coming from the Dubna Cascade code
in
[66-68]. One can see that the values of the <n p> are less than 1 as was observed in the previous case
of figure 1(b) and less than the values for the data coming from the experiment. There are again two
regions for the Np-dependences of the <ninp>dC . In first region - Np=1-2 the values of the <n in
p>

increases with Np. In the second region the values of the <ninp>dC dont depend on the values of the Np
9
and demonstrates transparency.

2(b)
1
2.71828 2(a) dCn25
dCn20

Average multiplicity of protons (CASCADE)

dCin25 dCn15
dCn10
dCin20 0.36788 dCn05
dCin15
Averge multiplicity of protons

1
dCin10
dCin05
0.13534

0.36788

0.04979

0.13534

0.01832

0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Np Np

4.5 3.5
2(c) 2(d)
dCin25
dCn25

Average momentum of protons (CASCADE)

dCin20
4.0
3.0
dCn20
dCin15
dCn15
dCin10
Average momnetum of protons

dCn10
3.5 dCin05
2.5
dCn05

3.0
2.0
2.5

1.5
2.0

1.0
1.5

1.0 0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Np Np

0.45
2(e)
0.45
2(f) dCn25
dCin25 0.40
dCn20
dCin20
dCn15
Average pT of protons (CASCADE)

0.40 dCin15
dCin10
0.35 dCn10
dCn05
dCin05
0.35 0.30
Average pT of protons

0.25
0.30

0.20
0.25
0.15
0.20
0.10

0.15 0.05

0.10 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10

Np Np

Figure 2 The average multiplicity, average momentum and average transverse momentum from experimental data in dC
collision at 4.2A GeV/c (left hand side from top to bottom) and from the Cascade model in dC-interactions at 4.2A GeV/c
(right hand side from top to bottom) as a function of number of identified protons with with =25(red square), =20(open
square), =15(Blue triangles), =10(open triangles) and =05(Green stars) as indicated in the figures.
So we could say that for inner cone protons emitted in dC-interactions the transparency
10
observed too but compared with pC-interactions it start from the values of Np=3. The last could be
considered as some confirmation that the source of the transparency for inner cone protons could be the
leading effect.
The Fig.2(c) & 2(d) demonstrate the values for <pinp>dC as a function of the Np for the experimental and
code data. The values of <pinp>dC decreases in both cases with Np.
Fig.2(e) & 2(f) demonstrate the values for the <pTinp>dC as a function of the Np for the experimental
and code data respectively. The value of average pT decreases with Np in the two cases as was the case
in pC data of figure1.
Table 2. The values of the parameter B for inner cone protons emitted in dC-interactions at 4.2 AGeV/c

<n> <p> <pT>

experiment cascade experiment cascade experiment cascade
5 -0.022 0.005 -0.0220.003 -0.130.01 -0.200.01 -0.0090.002 -0.0090.001
10 -0.039 0.01 -0.040.003 -0.150.01 -0.190.02 -0.0100.002 -0.0160.003
15 0.00249 0.02 -0.0340.003 -0.170.01 -0.170.01 -0.0130.001 -0.0150.001
20 0.010.01 -0.0350.003 -0.130.02 -0.150.02 -0.0140.002 -0.0120.001
25 0.090.02 -0.0290.003 -0.130.02 -0.150.01 -0.0120.001 -0.0140.001

B. Average characteristics of inner cone --mesons' in pC- and dC- interactions.

The average values of the inner cone --mesons' multiplicity, momentum and average transverse
momentum are given in figure 3(a-f) as a function of Np (the designations are same with figures 1 and
2). The behavior is studied at different values of the as given below. The values of <nin->pC at
different as a function of the Np are shown in Fig.3(a) for experimental data and 3(b) for the data
coming from the Cascade code. The <n in->pC as a function of the Np for both experimental and code
data has about the same linear behavior. The slope of the graphs decreases with decreasing and
seems to saturate at 5o (showing some transparency) but there is still some positive slope in the case of
model results. The degree of transparency increases with decreasing the value of . The above
qualitative description is justified by the fitting of the two graphs. The data were fitted by linear
function y = A+B*Np. The results for the values of parameter B demonstrate (see Table 3) that the
model could describe satisfactorily the experimental data. This shows that the behavior in the two cases
is the same within the errors.

11
 0.40
0.40
2(b)
0.35
0.35
2(a)
pCin25 pCn25

Average multiplicity of (CASCADE)

0.30 pCin20 pCn20
0.30
pCin15 pCn15
-
Average multiplicity of

0.25 pCn10
pCin10 0.25 pCn05
pCin05

-
0.20 0.20

0.15 0.15

0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05

0.00
0.00
0 2 4 6 8
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Np
Np

3(d)
3(c) 1.4
1.4

1.2
1.2
-
-

Average momentum of
Average momentum of

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6
pCin25
pCin20 0.6
pCn25
pCin15
0.4 pCin10 pCn20
pCin05 0.4 pCn15
pCn10
0.2
pCn05
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Np Np

0.24 3(e) pCin25 0.24 3(f)

pCin20 pCn25
0.22 0.22
pCin15 pCn20
0.20 pCin10 0.20 pCn15
pCin05 pCn10
0.18 0.18
Average pT of - (CASCADE)

pCn05
0.16 0.16
Average pT of -

0.14 0.14

0.12 0.12

0.10 0.10

0.08 0.08

0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Np Np

Figure 3 the average multiplicity, average momentum and average transverse momentum of -- meson innercone from
experimental data in pC collision at 4.2A GeV/c (left hand side from top to bottom) and from Cascade model in pC collision
at 4.2A GeV/c (right hand side from top to bottom) as a function of number of identified protons with with =25(red
square), =20(open square), =15(Blue triangles), =10(open triangles) and =05(Green stars) as indicated in the
figures.

12
The values of <pin->pC as a function of the Np for the experimental and code data are given in Fig3(c)
& 3(d) respectively. There are two regions for the behavior of the <pin->pC. In the first region (Np=0-4)
the values of <pin->pC dont depend on the Np (for experimental and model data, showing some
transparency) and in the second one (for the values of Np > 4) the values of <pin->pC decrease with Np.
The data were fitted by linear function y = A+B*Np. The results for the values of parameter B
demonstrate that the model could describe satisfactorily the experimental data (see Table 3). The values
for the <pTin->pC as a function of Np for the experimental and code data are shown in 3(e) & 3(f)
respectively. The behavior of <pTin->pC as a function of Np is the same in the two cases. The
experimental as well as Cascade data demonstrate some oscillations which increase with increasing .
We cannot determine the degree of oscillation but the values of <pTin->pC is higher in case of
experimental data as compared to code data. Both the figure were fitted using linear function (see Table
3 for the results of parameters B) as given above which shows the similarity in the variation of the
<pTin->pC as a function of Np.
in in
Now to summarize the discussion, we can conclude that the behavior of <n ->pC, <p ->pC and
<pTin>pC from experimental data (left panel of the figures) is well verified by the cascade model (right
panel of the figures). As is discussed above Cascade model is one of the models which assume particle
nucleus collision to be a multi-step process, which consists of successive independent collisions with
nucleons encountered when propagating through a target nucleus. Although we have observed some
transparency for lower values of but such transparency do not carry any information on the
particular properties of the medium. This is due to the fact that cascade do not assume any medium
properties. The effect is connected to some mechanism related to cascade model only.

Table 3. The values for the parameter B of inner cone --mesons at different values of the

<n> <p> <pT>

Experiment Cascade Experiment Cascade Experiment Cascade

5 0.00040.0004 0.0050.001 -0.020.04 -0.090.01 0.0040.001 0.00040.0005
10 0.003 0.001 0.0110.001 -0.030.01 -0.0710.004 -0.00610.0009 -0.00080.0005
15 0.005 0.002 0.0160.001 -0.050.02 -0.0740.008 -0.0100.003 -0.0040.001
20 0.0160.003 0.0260.002 -0.040.02 -0.0600.005 -0.0090.005 -0.0050.002
25 0.0200.002 0.0380.003 -0.040.01 -0.0470.005 -0.0060.004 -0.0040.002

The values of the -- mesons inner cone, average multiplicity <n in->dC, average momentum<p in->dC

13
and average transverse momentum <pTin->dC from experimental data in dC collision at 4.2 A GeV/c
(left hand side from top to bottom respectively) and from Cascade model (right hand side from top to
bottom respectively) as a function of Np at different values of the = 5o, 10o, 15o, 20oand 25o are
given in the figures 4.
The values of the <n in->dC at different as a function of Np are shown in Fig. 4(a) for experimental
data and 4(b) for Cascade data. Same is the case with dC as was the case with pC. The <n in->dC as a
function of the Np for both experimental and code data has about the same linear behavior. The slope of
the graphs decreases with decreasing and seems to saturate at 5o (showing some transparency). The
above observations are verified by the fitting of the two graphs.
The data were fitted by linear function y = A+B*Np. The results fot the parameters B demonstrate that
the model could describe satisfactorily the experimental data (see results in Table 4). This shows that
the behavior in the two cases is the same within the errors. Comparing the behavior with figure 3(a)
and 3(b) of pC data it is clear the behavior in the latter case is the same as the former one.
The values for <pin->dC as a function of the Np for the experimental and code data are given in Fig 4(c)
and 4(d) respectively. The data were fitted by linear function y = A+B*Np and the results for the
parameters B demonstrate (see Table 4) that the model could describe satisfactorily the experimental
data. Comparison with pC-interactions data in figure 3(c) and 3(d) one can see that the dC-
interactions data reinstate the previous results.
The Fig 4(e) & 4(f) demonstrate the values for <pTin->dC in dC-collision as a function of Np for the
experimental and code data respectively. One can see that the behavior of <pTin->dC as a function of Np
in case of experimental data has some negative slope while that of the Cascade code has no slope or
very little negative slope. The experimental as well as the Cascade data demonstrate some oscillations
which increase with increasing . The degree of oscillation is not determined but the values of <pTin-
>dC is higher in case of experimental data as compared to code data. Both the figure were fitted using
linear function as before which shows the similarity in the variation of the <pTin->dC as a function of
Np.
Comparing the results of pC data from figures 3 and dC data from figures 4 it is clear that the dC-
interactions data restore the results of pC-interactions data, so we could say the observed transparency
for the inner cone - -mesons in dC-interactions at 4.2 A GeV/c could be a result of some cascade
mechanisms of particle production.

14
 4(a)
0.8 0.8
4(b)

Average multiplicity of - (CASCADE)

dCn25
dCin25 dCn20
0.6
-

0.6 dCin20
Average multiplicity of

dCn15
dCin15
dCn10
dCin10
dCn05
dCin05 0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2

0.0
0.0

0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Np 1.3 Np
2.1 4(d)
1.2
2.0

Average momentum of (CASCADE)

1.9 dCn25
4(c) 1.1
1.8 dCn20
dCin25
1.7 dCin20 dCn15
1.0 dCn10
1.6
Average momentum of -

dCin15
1.5 dCin10 dCn05
-

1.4 dCin05 0.9

1.3
1.2 0.8
1.1
1.0 0.7
0.9
0.8 0.6
0.7
0.6 0.5
0.5
0.4 0.4
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10

Np Np

dCn25
0.30 0.30 dCn20
4(f) dCn15
0.28 4(e) 0.28
dCin25 dCn10
0.26 0.26
dCin20 dCn05
0.24 dCin15 0.24
Average pT of (CASCADE)

0.22 dCin10 0.22

0.20 dCin05 0.20
-

0.18 0.18
Average pT of

0.16 0.16
-

0.14 0.14
0.12 0.12
0.10 0.10
0.08 0.08
0.06 0.06
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10
Np Np

Figure 4 the average multiplicity, average momentum and average transverse momentum from experimental data in dC
collision at 4.2A GeV/c (left hand side from top to bottom) and from Cascade model in dC collision at 4.2A GeV/c (right
hand side from top to bottom) as a function of number of identified protons with =25(red square), =20(open square),
=15(Blue triangles), =10(open triangles) and =05(Green stars) as indicated in the figures.
15
Table 4 the values for the parameter B of inner cone - -mesons in dC-interactions at 4.2 AGeV/c.

<n> <p> <pT>

experiment cascade experiment cascade experiment cascade

5 0.0010.001 0.0080.002 0.00860.0002 0.0080.002 -0.0110.004 -0.000140.0003
10 0.009 0.002 0.0120.003 0.01680.0006 0.0150.002 -0.0160.002 0.00150.0007
15 0.020 0.003 0.0340.005 0.0270.004 0.0180.002 -0.0100.003 0.00060.0009
20 0.0300.003 0.0470.006 0.0370.006 0.0290.003 -0.0100.002 -0.00160.0008
25 0.0370.005 0.0560.002 0.0490.008 0.0440.006 -0.0100.002 -0.00260.0007

C. Average characteristics of outer cone --mesons' in pC and dC interactions.

Figure 5 given below shows the average values of outer cone - -mesons multiplicity , momentum and
transverse momentum as a function of Np at different values of . The designations are same with
previous figures.
The values of the <nout->pC at different half angle as a function of the Np are shown in Fig.5(a) and
5(b) for experimental data and cascade respectively. The values of <nout->pC increases linearly with Np
in both the cases, but the average multiplicity in case of Cascade model has a steeper slope as
compared to experimental data (see Table 5). Increasing the slope in the two cases decreases.
The values for the <pout->pC as a function of the Np for the experimental and code data is demonstrated
in Fig. 5(c) and 5(d) respectively. There is a big difference between the behavior of the experimental
and the code data. Experimental data decrease linearly with Np and the slope of lines depend on . At
= 250 we could see that the slope of line become minimum transparency (see Table 5).
The increase in the value of transparency with increasing is clearly reflected by the results of
experimental data. The code data demonstrate the existing of two regions for the behaviors of the
<pout->pC. In the first region (Np=0-5) the values of <pout->pC decrease sharply and in the second one
the values decrease slowly with Np.
The Fig. 5(e) and 5(f) demonstrate <pTout->pC as a function of the Np for the experimental and code
data respectively. One can see a drastic differences between experimental and code data. Experimental
data shows some linear behavior with almost zero slopes whereas code data shows two regions. So we
could say that the experimental data indicate some transparency. There is still some oscillation but the
degree of oscillation is small and that is why the behavior could be considered as no dependence on N p.
transparency is observed for all values of in <pTout->pC in case of experimental data. The code data

16
demonstrate two regions: in the first region the <p Tout->pC value decreases sharply whereas in the
second region the values decrease slowly. There is different behavior for different as a function of Np
(see Table 5).

2.5 5(a) 2.5

5(b)
2.0

Average multiplicity of (CASCADE)

2.0
pCout25 pCu25
pCout20 pCu20
pCout15 pCu15
-
Average multiplicity of

1.5 pCout10 1.5 pCu10

pCout05 pCu05

-
1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

0.0
0.0

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Np Np

0.50 5(d)
0.60
5 (e)
pCout25 pCu25
0.55 pCout20 pCu20
pCout15 0.45 pCu15
pCout10
Average momentum of -

0.50 pCu10
pCout05 pCu05
Average momentum of

0.45 0.40

0.40
0.35
0.35

0.30 0.30

0.25

0.25
0 2 4 6 8
Np
pCout25 0 2 4 6 8 10
5(e) pCout20
0.30 pCout15 0.25 5(f) Np pCu25
pCout10 pCu20
0.29 pCout05 0.24 pCu15
pCu10
pCu05
0.28 0.23
Average pT of - (CASCADE)

0.27 0.22
Average pT of -

0.26 0.21

0.25 0.20

0.24 0.19

0.23 0.18

0.22 0.17

0.21 0.16

0.20 0.15
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10
Np Np

Figure 5 The average multiplicity, average momentum and average transverse momentum of -- meson outercone from
experimental data in pC collision at 4.2A GeV/c (left hand side from top to bottom) and from Cascade model in pC collision
at 4.2A GeV/c (right hand side from top to bottom) as a function of number of identified protons with =25(red square),
=20(open square), =15(Blue triangles), =10(open triangles) and =05(Green stars) as indicated in the figures.

17
 So we could say that the experimental data on behavior of the average characteristics of the out cone --
mesons demonstrate some transparency which could not be described by cascade model. This behavior
could not be the reason of leading effect due to the fact that the out cone negative pions are secondary
particles having large value of angle and small value of momentum.

Table 5. The values of the parameter B for out cone - -mesons emitted in the pC-interactions at 4.2 A GeV/c.

<n> <p> <pT>

Exp. cascade Exp. Cas. Np<5 Cas. Np>5 Exp. Cas. Np<5 Cas. Np>5
- - -
5 0.160.02 0.210.01 -0.0040.004 -0.00050.0010 -0.00330.0006
0.0250.003 0.0360.004 0.0070.001
- - -
10 0.160.02 0.210.01 -0.0080.008 -0.001350.001 -0.00060.0004
0.0180.003 0.0320.004 0.0090.001
- - - -
15 0.150.02 0.200.01 -0.0120.003 -0.001980.002
0.0130.003 0.0280.003 0.0090.001 0.00040.0004
- - - -
20 0.140.02 0.1900.009 -0.0070.003 -0.00040.0002
0.0060.004 0.0250.002 0.0005360.002 0.0100.001
- - -
25 0.130.02 0.1800.006 0.00430.0008 -0.00020.0020 -0.00010.0008
0.0050.003 0.0210.001 0.0100.001

The values of outer cone - -mesons average multiplicity , average momentum and average transverse
momentum from experimental data in dC-interactions at 4.2 A GeV/c as a function of Np are shown in
figure 6 (same notations with previous Figures are used). To compare the results with pC-interactions
data of figure 5 the same characteristics are checked at the following values of = 5o, 10o, 15o, 20oand
25o as before. The values of the <nout->dC at different half angle as a function of the Np are shown in
Fig. 6(a) and 6(b) for experimental and code data respectively. The value <nout->dC increase linearly
with Np for both experimental and code data in the dC collision as was the case with the pC collision in
figure 5(a) and 5(b). The average multiplicity in case of the Cascade model again has a steeper slope as
compared to experimental data. Increasing the slope in the two cases decreases.
The Fig. 6(c) and 6(d) demonstrate the values <pout->dC as a function of the Np for the experimental
and code data respectively. There is a big difference between the behavior of the experimental and the
code data. Experimental data decrease linearly with Np and the slope of lines depend on . At = 250
we could see that the slope of line become minimum transparency, as was the case in pC-interactions.
The code data has a steeper slope and is not able to explain the experimental results.

18
 2.5
4.0 dCu25
dCout25 6(a) 6(b)
dCout20 dCu20
3.5

Average multiplicity of (CASCADE)

2.0
dCout15 dCu15
dCout10 dCu10
3.0 dCu05
dCout05
-
Average multiplicity of

1.5
2.5

-
1.0 2.0

1.5
0.5
1.0

0.0 0.5

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Np 0 2 4 6 8 10
0.75 Np
0.60 6(d)
6(c)
dCu25
0.70 dCu20
0.55
dCout25 dCu15

Average momentum of - (CASCADE)

0.65 dCout20 dCu10
dCout15 0.50
Average momentum of -

dCu05
dCout10
0.60 dCout05
0.45

0.55
0.40

0.50
0.35

0.45
0.30

0.40
0.25

0.35
0 2 4 6 8 0.20
0 2 4 6 8 10
Np
Np

0.30
0.35 dCout25
0.34 dCout20 dCu25
6(f) dCu20
dCout15 0.28
0.33
Figure 6(e) dCout10 dCu15
0.32 dCout05 dCu10
Average pT of (CASCADE)

0.26 dCu05
0.31
0.30
0.24
-

0.29
Average pT of

0.28
-

0.27 0.22

0.26
0.25 0.20

0.24
0.23 0.18

0.22
0.21 0.16
0.20
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Np Np

Figure 6 the average multiplicity, average momentum and average transverse momentum of -- meson outercone from
experimental data in dC collision at 4.2A GeV/c (left hand side from top to bottom) and from Cascade model in dC collision
at 4.2A GeV/c (right hand side from top to bottom) as a function of number of identified protons with =25(red square),
=20(open square), =15(Blue triangles), =10(open triangles) and =05(Green stars) as indicated in the figures.

The Fig. 6(e) and 6(f) demonstrate the average values for <pTout->dC as a function of the Np for the
experimental and code data respectively. The last graphs in dC collision again restore the previous
19
results. One can see a huge differences between experimental and code data. Experimental data shows
some linear behavior with no dependence on Np. The behavior of <pTout->dC is a clear signature of NT
as was also the case with <pTout->pC. The code data shows strong dependence of <pTout->dC on Np.
Here the <pTout->dC value decreases sharply. There is different behavior for different as a function of
Np.
Concluding the comparison of the pC- and dC-interactions one can see that the results of dC-
interactions data are almost the same as the results of the pC-interactions data (from Figure 5). In both
the pC- and dC-interactions the results of the <nout-> have no transparency. But the values of the
graphs in experimental data have far less slope than the code data. Furthermore we have observed
signal of transparency in the experimental data of <pout-> in both pC and dC at some angles which the
code could not explain. Also the transparency of the <pTout->dC in experimental data could not be
explained by the Cascade model. This type of transparency may be the result of the collective behavior
and may be connected to the medium properties. As this kind of transparency could not be explained as
a result of leading effect because mesons are newly produced particles and the effect also could not be
explained as a result of cascade mechanism because code data could not describe the behaviors of the
distributions.
Table 6. The values of the parameter of the B for out cone - - mesons produced in dC-interactions at
4.2 A GeV/c .

<n> <p> <pT>

experiment cascade experiment cascade Experiment cascade
5 0.180.01 0.320.02 -0.0150.004 -0.0230.003 -0.00240.0009 -0.00470.0006
10 0.180.01 0.31 0.02 -0.0160.003 -0.0210.003 -0.0020.001 -0.00580.0007
15 0.170.01 0.30 0.02 -0.0120.003 -0.0210.002 -0.00200.0008 -0.00640.0007
20 0.160.01 0.290.02 -0.0090.002 -0.0180.002 -0.00150.0008 -0.00650.0007
25 0.150.02 0.260.02 -0.0020.003 -0.0160.001 -0.00030.0015 -0.00650.0008

Before the conclusion we present two tables which give information on appearance of the transparency
in our investigations. Table 7 and 8 given below shows all the results on the study of inner and outer
cone average multiplicity, average momentum and average transverse momentum of protons, --meson
and +- meson from experimental as well as Cascade model in pC and dC collision at 4.2A GeV/c as a
function of number of identified protons with different values of . The different symbols used have
the following meanings.
+L: explanation in terms of leading effect only

20
+C: explanation in terms of Cascade model only
+M explanation in terms of Medium effect only
-: negative sign means no such effect observed
+M+C: effect which could be explained in terms of both Medium and cascade effect
Np>3: means effect if observed only with Np>3

Table 7 Results of inner and outer cone average multiplicity, average momentum and average transverse momentum of
protons, meson and +- meson from experimental as well as Cascade model in pC and dC collision at 4.2A GeV/c as a
function of number of identified protons with different values of .
Inner
proton - +
cone
Coll. <n> <p> <pT> <n> <p> <pT> <n> <p> <pT>
+C
+L - +C +C +C +C +M +C
pC (Np>3)

+L (Np
+L+C +C +C +C - - +C
dC >2) -

Outer
proton - +
cone
Coll. <n> <p> <pT> <n> <p> <pT> <n> <p> <pT>
- +C - - +M +M +M+C +M +M
pC
+M
- +M +M - -
dC - - - >3

Conclusion: -
1. The behaviors of average multiplicity, 3 momentum in lab frame and transvers momentum for
protons and pions were studied as a function of identified protons in pC- and dC-interactions at
4.2 A GeV/c using half angle technique.
2. The identified protons and pions were divided into two groups depending on their angle in lab.
frame and particle with angle: less than half angle were considered as inner cone particles;
greater than half angle were taken as out cone particles.
3. The values of half angles used were 50; 100; 150; 200; 250 (the angle which divides all secondary
particles produced in nucleon-nucleon collisions at 4.2 A GeV/c in two equal parts).

21
 4. The results were approximated using linear function and compared with the data coming from
Dubna Cascade Model.
5. We observed several cases for which behaviors of average multiplicity, 3 momentum in lab
frame and transvers momentum didnt depend on the number of identified protons some
signals on appearance of nuclear transparency effect.
6. The signals were characterized in three groups of transparency:
I. Transparency due to leading effect: projectile gives some part of its energy during interaction
and could save other essential part of its energy. The particle will have maximum energy in an
event, which passes very fast by the medium. Such particle cannot interact more and that is why
medium seems transparent for it.
II. Cascade Transparency because data coming from the code could satisfactorily describe the
effects.
III. Transparency which could not be explained as a result of leading effect and as a result of
cascade mechanism.
7. The investigation is going on; we try to understand if the last effect from 6 reflects really some
particular properties of the strongly interacting medium.

References: -

1. A. Leksanov et al., Phy. Rev. Lett., 2001. 87.

2. S. J. Brodsky and A. H. Mueller, Phys. Lett. 336 B 1988. 206.
3. B. Clasie, Phy. Rev. Lett. , 2007. 99.
4. P.L. Jain, M.Kazuno, G.Thomas, B.Girard., Phys.Rev.Lett. , 1974. 33: p. 660.
5. J.I. Cohen, E.M.F.e.a., Lett.Nuovo Cim., 1974. 9.
6. A. I. Anoshin, Sov. Journal of Nucl. Phys., 1978. 27(5).
7. F. Antinori et al., Central-to-peripheral nuclear modification factors in PbPb collisions at
sqrt(s) = 17.3 GeV. 2005. 623(1-2): p. 9.
8. S. J. Brodsky, Proceeding of the XIII International Symposium on Multiparticle Dynamics,
Volendam, Netherlands, eds, E. W. Kittel, W. Metzger and A. Stergion "Worls Scientific,
Singapor", 1982: p. 963.
9. A. H. Mueller, Proceedins of the XVII rencontre de Moroind, Les Arcs, France, ed. Tran
Than Van (Editions Frontieres, Gif-sur-Yvette),, 1982.
10. G. Bertsch, G. Brodsky, J. Stanley, A. S. Goldhaber and J. F. Gunion, , Phys. Rev. Lett.,
1981. 47.
11. A. B. Zamolodchikov. et al., Sov. Phys. JETP Lett., 1981. 33.
12. Pis'ma Zh., Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 1981. 3.
13. F. Karsch, Nucl. Phys. A, 2002. 698, .
22
14. Bohr, Henrik, H. B. Nielsen, , "Hadron production from a boiling quark soup: A
thermodynamical quark model predicting particle ratios in hadronic collisions". Nuclear
Physics B, 1977. 128(2).
15. M. K. Suleymanov, E. U. Khan, K. Ahmed, M. Q. Haseeb, F. Tahir, Y. H. Huseynaliyev,
Acta Phys.Polon.Supp., 2008. 1.
16. M. K. Suleymanov, E. U. Khan, K. Ahmed, M. Q. Haseeb, F. Tahir, Y. H. Huseynaliyev, M.
Ajaz, K. H. Khan, Z. Wazir, Search for a signal on QCD critical point in central nucleus-
nucleus collisions. Indian J. Phys, 2011. 85(7): p. 4.
17. Tapan K Nayak, Event-by-event fluctuations and the QGP phase transition. J. Phys. G:
Nucl. Part. Phys., 2006. 32: p. 8.
18. H. A. Bethe, A Continuum Theory of the Compound Nucleus. Phy. Rev, 1940. 57.
19. P. U. Renberg, D.F.M., M. Pepin, P. Schwaller, B. Favier, and C. Richard-Serre,, Nucl.
Phys. A, 1972. 193
20. A.S. Carroll et al., Phy. Rev. Lett. , 1988. 61.
21. I. Mardor et al., Phy. Rev. Lett., 1998. 81.
22. S. J. Brodsky and G. F. deTeramond, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1988. 60.
23. P. V. Landshoff, Phys. Rev. D, 1974. 10.
24. P. V. Landshoff and D. J. Pritchard, Z. Phys. C 1980. 6.
25. J. Ralston and B. Pire, Phys. Lett. B, 1982. 117.
26. N.C.R.Makins et al., Phy. Rev. Lett. , 1994. 72.
27. T.G.ONeill et al., Phy. Lett. B, 1995. 351.
28. K. Garrow et al., Phy. Rev. C, 2002. 66.
29. D. Abbott et al., Phy. Rev. Lett. , 1998. 80.
30. L. L. Frankfurt et al., Phys. ReV. C, 1995. 51.
31. B. Blattel et al., Phy.Rev. Lett., 1993. 70.
32. D. Dutta et al., Phy. Rev. C, 2003. 68.
33. A. Larson, G. A. Miller and M. I. Strikman, Phys. Rev C 2006. 74.
34. W. Cosyn, M.C.M., J. Ryckebusch and B. Van Overmeire, Phys. Rev. C 2006. 74.
35. M.R. Adams et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. , 1995. 74: p. 1525.
36. K. Ackerstaff et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. , 1999. 82.
37. G.N. McClellan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. , 1969. 23.
38. J. Hufner et al., Phys. Lett. B 1996. 383.
39. A. Airapetian, e.a., Phys.Rev.Lett. , 2003. 90.
40. M. H. Wood et al., PHYSICAL REVIEW C 2008. 78.
41. M. Naruki et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. , 2006. 96.
42. W. A. Horowitz and Miklos Gyulassy, arXiv:1104.4958v1 [hep-ph] 2011.
43. I. Vitev and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. C, 2002. 65.
44. V. Topor Pop, J.B., C. Gale, S. Jeon, and M. Gyulassy, arXiv:0705.2705, 2007.
45. V. Topor Pop, M.G., J. Barrette, C. Gale, and A. Warburton, , Phys. Rev. C, 2011. 83.
46. I. Vitev, Phys. Lett. B 2006. 639: p. 38.
47. S. Turbide, C.G., S. Jeon, and G. D. Moore, , Phys. Rev. C 2005. 72.
48. M. Djordjevic, Phys. Rev. C, 2006. 73.

23
49. M. Djordjevic and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. C 2003. 68.
50. Y. Afek , G.B., A. Dar and G. Eilam THC11NI0N - PH - 76 87.
51. A. Dar and J. Vary, Phys. Rev. D 1972. 6.
52. E.M. Friedlander, Nuovo Ciraento Lett. , 1974. 9.
53. P.M. Fishbane and J.S. Trefil., Phys. Rev. D 1974. 9.
54. A. Bialas and W. Czyz, Phys. Lett. B, 1974. 51.
55. B. Andersson and I. Otterlund, Nuncl. Phys. B 1975. 88.
56. K. Gottfried, Phys. Rev. Lett. , 1974. 32.
57. J. Koplik and A.H. Mueller, Phys. Rev. D, 1975. 12.
58. L. Bertocci, Proceedings of the VI Int. Conf. on High Energy Physics and Nuclear Structure,
Santa-Fe., 1975
59. B. Andersson, Topical Meeting On Multiparticle Production From Nuclei At Very High
Energies, ICTP, Trieste, , 1976.
60. A.M. Baldin, Proceedings of the VI Int. Conf. on High Energy Physics. A. Dar, MIT
Preprint, 1972.
61. D.S. Narayan and K.V.L. Sarma, Prog, of Theor. Phys. , 1964. 31.
62. F.C. Roesler and C.B.A. McCusker, Nuovo Cimento, 1953. 10.
63. K. Gottfried, "High Energy Physics and Nuclear Structure" North Holland Publ. Com.
(Editor G. Tibell). 1974.
64. S.Z. Belenkij and L.D. Landau, Nuovo Cimento, 1956. 3.
65. W. Heitler and C.H. Terreaux, Proc. Phys. Soc. London A 1953. 66.
66. V. S. Barashenkov, F. Zh. Zheregi, Zh. Zh. Musulmanbekov, JINR preprint, P2-83-117,
Dubna. , 1983.
67. V.D. Toneev and K.K. Gudima, Nucl. Phys. A, 1983. 400.
68. V.S. Barashenkov and V.D. Toneev, "Interaction of high energy particles and atomic nuclei
with nuclei", Moscow, Atomizadt, , 1972.
69. N. Akhababian et al., JINR Preprint 1-12114, 1979.
70. V.S. Barashenkov and N.V. Slavin, ACTA Physics Polonica 1983. B14: p. 8.

24