1: \documentclass[twocolumn,prc,aps,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
2: %\usepackage{showkeys}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4:
5: \def\im{{\rm Im}}
6: \def\Pom{{ I\!\!P}}
7: \def\Reg{{ I\!\!R}}
8: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
9: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}
10: \renewcommand{\topfraction} {0.8}
11: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction} {1}
12: \renewcommand{\textfraction} {0}
13: \renewcommand{\floatsep} {-3cm}
14: \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction} {1}
15: \newcommand\la{\langle}
16: \newcommand\ra{\rangle}
17: \newcommand\beq{\begin{equation}}
18: \newcommand\noi{\noindent}
19: \newcommand\eeq{\end{equation}}
20: \newcommand\beqn{\begin{eqnarray}}
21: \newcommand\eeqn{\end{eqnarray}}
22: \def\mb{\,\mbox{mb}}
23: \def\fm{\,\mbox{fm}}
24: \def\GeV{\,\mbox{GeV}}
25: \def\TeV{\,\mbox{TeV}}
26: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
27: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}} %less than or approx. symbol
28: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
29: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}} %greater than or approx. symbol
30: %\newcommand{\doublespace} {
31: \def\Re{\,{\rm Re}\,}
32: \def\Im{\,{\rm Im}\,}
33: \def\mb{\,\mbox{mb}}
34: \def\fm{\,\mbox{fm}}
35: \def\GeV{\,\mbox{GeV}}
36: \def\MeV{\,\mbox{MeV}}
37: \def\Caption#1{
38: \normalspace
39: \begin{quotation}\caption{\sl #1}\end{quotation}
40: \doublespace
41: }
42: \begin{document}
43: \date{}
44:
45: \title{\bf Damping of forward neutrons in \boldmath$pp$ collisions}
46:
47: \author{B.Z.~Kopeliovich$^{a,b}$}
48: \author{I.K.~Potashnikova$^{a}$}
49: \author{Ivan~Schmidt$^a$}
50: \author{J.~Soffer$^{c}$}
51:
52: \affiliation{$^a$Departamento de F\'\i sica
53: y Centro de Estudios
54: Subat\'omicos,\\ Universidad T\'ecnica
55: Federico Santa Mar\'\i a, Casilla 110-V, Valpara\'\i so, Chile\\
56: $^b$Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia\\
57: $^c$Department of Physics, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122-6082,
58: USA}
59:
60: \date{\today}
61:
62:
63: \begin{abstract}
64:
65: We calculate absorptive corrections to single pion exchange in the
66: production of leading neutrons in $pp$ collisions. Contrary to the
67: usual procedure of convolving the survival probability with the
68: cross section, we apply corrections to the spin amplitudes. The
69: non-flip amplitude turns out to be much more suppressed by
70: absorption than the spin-flip one. We identify the projectile proton
71: Fock state responsible for the absorptive corrections as a color
72: octet-octet 5-quarks configuration. Calculations within two very
73: different models, color-dipole light-cone description, and in
74: hadronic representation, lead to rather similar absorptive
75: corrections. We found a much stronger damping of leading neutrons
76: than in some of previous estimates. Correspondingly, the cross section is
77: considerably smaller than was measured at ISR. However, comparison
78: with recent measurements by the ZEUS collaboration of neutron
79: production in deep-inelastic scattering provides a strong motivation
80: for challenging the normalization of the ISR data. This conjecture is
81: also supported by preliminary data from the NA49 experiment for
82: neutron production in $pp$ collisions at SPS.
83:
84: \end{abstract}
85:
86: \pacs{13.85.Ni, 11.80.Gw, 12.40.Nn, 11.80.Cr}
87:
88: \maketitle
89:
90: \section{Introduction}\label{intro}
91:
92: The pion is known to have a large coupling to nucleons, therefore
93: pion exchange is important in processes with isospin one in the
94: cross channel (e.g. $p+n\to n+p$). However, the pion Regge
95: trajectory has a low intercept $\alpha_\pi(0)\approx 0$, and this is
96: why it ceases to be important at high energies in binary reactions,
97: while other mesons, $\rho,\ a_2$, etc. take over.
98:
99: Quite a different situation occurs in inclusive reactions of leading
100: neutron production. Inclusive reactions in general are known to have
101: (approximate) Feynman scaling, and as a consequence the pion
102: contribution to neutron production remains nearly unchanged with
103: energy. This can be seen from the graphical representation of the
104: cross section of the inclusive reaction $h+p\to X+n$, depicted in
105: Fig.~\ref{3r-pion}.
106: \begin{figure}[htb]
107: \centerline{
108: \scalebox{0.41}{\includegraphics{3r-pion.eps}}}
109: \caption{\label{3r-pion} Graphical representation of the cross
110: section of inclusive neutron production in hadron-proton collisions,
111: in the fragmentation region of the proton. }
112: \end{figure}
113: Summing up all final states $X$ at a fixed invariant mass $M_X$ and
114: relying on the optical theorem, one arrives at the total hadron-pion
115: cross section at c.m. energy $M_X$. This cross section is a slowly
116: varying function of $M_X$ (restricted by the Froissart bound), and
117: this is the source for Feynman scaling. At the same time, the
118: effective interval of energy squared for pion exchange is less than
119: $s$, which is the c.m. energy squared for $hp$ collisions. Indeed,
120: the effective energy squared interval $s'$ is given by the
121: multi-peripheral kinematics of particle production as,
122: \beq
123: {s'\over s_0}={s\over M_X^2}\approx {1\over 1-z}\,,
124: \label{50}
125: \eeq
126: where $s_0$ is the scale factor, usually fixed at $1\GeV^2$; and
127: $z=p_n^+/p_p^+$ is the fraction of the proton light-cone momentum
128: carried by the neutron, which is close to Feynman $x_F$ at large
129: $z\to1$.
130:
131: In fact, the pion exchange brings in a factor $(1-z)^{-2\alpha_\pi}$
132: ($\alpha_\pi(t)$ is the pion Regge trajectory) to the cross section,
133: which is independent of the collision energy $s$, if $z$ is fixed.
134: Thus, the pion exchange contribution does not vanish with energy,
135: and this is in more detail the origin of the Feynman scaling. From
136: the point of view of dispersion relations, the smaller the
137: 4-momentum transfer squared $t$, the closer we approach the pion
138: pole, and the more important is its contribution. The smallest
139: values of $t$ are reached in the forward direction and at $z\to1$.
140: The latter condition, however, leads to the dominance of other
141: Reggeons which have higher intercepts. Indeed, the corresponding
142: Regge factor $(1-z)^{-2\alpha_{\footnotesize\Reg}}$ for $\rho$ and
143: $a_2$ Reggeons is about $1/(1-z)$ times larger than the one for
144: pion. Although in general these Reggeons are suppressed by an order
145: of magnitude compared to the pion \cite{k2p}, they become equally
146: important and start taking over at $z\gsim0.9$.
147:
148: Another important correction, which is the main focus of this paper,
149: is the effect of absorption, or initial/final state interactions.
150: The active projectile partons participating in the reaction, as well
151: as the spectator ones, can interact with the proton target or with
152: the recoil neutron, and initiate particle production, which usually
153: leads to a substantial reduction of the neutron momentum. The
154: probability that this does not happen, called sometimes survival
155: probability of a large rapidity gap, leads to a suppression of
156: leading neutrons produced at large $z$. There are controversies
157: regarding the magnitude of this suppression. Some calculations
158: predict quite a mild effect, of about $10\%$
159: \cite{boreskov1,boreskov2,3n,ap}, while others
160: \cite{strong1,strong2,ryskin} expect a strong reduction by about a
161: factor of 2. See \cite{ryskin} for a discussion of the current
162: controversies in data and theory, for leading neutron production.
163:
164: Usually absorptive corrections are calculated in a probabilistic
165: way, convolving the gap survival probability with the cross
166: section. We found, however, that the spin amplitudes of neutron
167: production acquire quite different suppression factors, and one
168: should work with amplitudes, rather than with probabilities.
169:
170: In Sect.~\ref{pion.pole} we introduce the spin amplitudes for
171: inclusive production of neutrons and calculate the cross section in
172: Born approximation of single pion exchange. Contrary to the usual
173: case in binary reactions, the spin non-flip term is large and rises
174: towards small $z$. Comparison with ISR measurements \cite{isr} shows
175: that the calculation overshoots somewhat the data, albeit only by
176: about $10\%$. Calculations also result in a substantial rise of the
177: cross section with energy.
178:
179: In Sect.~\ref{absorptive.corrections} the absorptive corrections are
180: introduced. Assuming that the corrections factorize in impact
181: parameter space, the spin amplitudes are transformed to this
182: representation, and the general expression for the gap survival
183: amplitude is derived. We found that the main Fock component of the
184: incoming proton, which is responsible for the absorptive
185: corrections, is a 5-quark color octet-octet state. Therefore it is
186: not a surprise that the resulting neutron damping at which we arrive
187: is quite strong. In order to figure out what was missed in previous
188: calculations which led to a weak absorption damping, in
189: Sect.~\ref{sub-reggeons} we reformulated the current mechanism in
190: terms of Reggeon calculus.
191:
192: We calculate the gap survival amplitude within two quite different
193: models. In Sect.~\ref{dipole} we employ the well developed
194: phenomenology of light-cone color dipoles fitted to photoproduction
195: and deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) data. We use the saturated model
196: for the dipole cross section, generalized recently to a partial
197: dipole-proton amplitude.
198:
199: Another model for the survival amplitude is presented in
200: Sect.~\ref{hadronic}. Expanding the 5-quark Fock state over the full
201: set of hadronic states, we assumed that the $\pi p$ pair containing
202: the 5 valence quark is the dominant term. The gap survival
203: amplitudes of pion and proton was extracted in a model independent
204: way directly from data for elastic $\pi p$ and $pp$ scattering. We
205: found that the results of the two models, based on dipole and
206: hadronic representations, resulted in rather similar gap survival
207: amplitudes.
208:
209: In Sect.~\ref{xsection} we calculate the spin non-flip and flip
210: contributions to the cross section, and found that the inclusive
211: cross section of neutron production is about twice as small as the
212: original result of the Born approximation. We also conclude that
213: absorptive corrections practically terminate the strong energy
214: dependence that results from the Born approximation. The ISR data
215: support this observation.
216:
217: Although the calculated shape of $z$-distribution is improved by
218: absorption and corresponds to the shape of the ISR data at $q_T=0$,
219: the overall normalization is quite lower than in the data. In
220: Sect.~\ref{sub-isr.data} we compare the ISR data with other
221: measurements, in particular with the recent results of the ZEUS
222: collaboration for inclusive neutron production in the
223: photoabsorption reaction $\gamma p\to Xn$. The two sets of data turn
224: out to be not really consistent, what makes questionable the
225: normalization of the ISR data.
226:
227: We summarize the main results and observations in Sect.~\ref{summary}.
228:
229: \section{Pion pole}\label{pion.pole}
230:
231: The Born approximation pion exchange contribution to the amplitude
232: of neutron production $pp\to nX$, depicted in Fig.~\ref{pion}a, in
233: the leading order in small parameter $m_N/\sqrt{s}$ has the form
234: \beq
235: A^B_{p\to n}(\vec q,z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{z}}\,
236: \bar\xi_n\left[\sigma_3\,\tilde q_L+
237: \vec\sigma\cdot\vec q_T\right]\xi_p\,
238: \phi^B(q_T,z)\,,
239: \label{100}
240: \eeq
241: where $\vec\sigma$ are Pauli matrices; $\xi_{p,n}$ are the proton or
242: neutron spinors; $\vec q_T$ is the transverse component of the momentum transfer;
243: \beq
244: \tilde q_L=(1-z)\,m_N\,.
245: \label{110}
246: \eeq
247:
248: %It is also important to specify in (\ref{100}) that the neutron is
249: %produced in the fragmentation region of the polarized proton.
250: \begin{figure}[htb]
251: \centerline{
252: \scalebox{0.45}{\includegraphics{pion.eps}}
253: }
254: \caption{\label{pion}
255: {\bf a:} Born graph with single pion exchange;
256: {\bf b:} illustration of absorptive corrections.
257: }
258: \end{figure}
259:
260: In the region of small $1-z\ll1$ the pseudoscalar amplitude $\phi^B(q_T,z)$ has
261: the
262: triple-Regge form,
263: \beqn
264: \phi^B(q_T,z)&=&\frac{\alpha_\pi^\prime}{8}\,
265: G_{\pi^+pn}(t)\,\eta_\pi(t)\,
266: (1-z)^{-\alpha_\pi(t)}
267: \nonumber\\ &\times&
268: A_{\pi^+ p\to X}(M_X^2)\,,
269: \label{120}
270: \eeqn
271: where the 4-momentum
272: transfer squared $t$ has the form,
273: \beq
274: t=-\,{1\over z}\,\left(\tilde q_L^2+q_T^2\right)\,,
275: \label{130}
276: \eeq
277: and $\eta_\pi(t)$ is the phase (signature) factor which can be expanded near
278: the pion pole as,
279: \beq
280: \eta_\pi(t)=i-ctg\left[\frac{\pi\alpha_\pi(t)}{2}\right]\approx
281: i+\frac{2}{\pi\alpha_\pi^\prime}\,
282: \frac{1}{m_\pi^2-t}\,.
283: \label{140}
284: \eeq
285: We assume a linear pion Regge trajectory
286: $\alpha_\pi(t)=\alpha_\pi^\prime(t-m_\pi^2)$,
287: where $\alpha_\pi^\prime\approx 0.9\GeV^{-2}$.
288: The imaginary part in (\ref{140}) is neglected in what follows, since its
289: contribution near the pion pole is small.
290:
291: The effective vertex function
292: $G_{\pi^+pn}(t)=g_{\pi^+pn}\exp(R_1^2t)$ includes the pion-nucleon
293: coupling and the form factor which incorporates the $t$-dependence
294: of the coupling and of the $\pi N$ inelastic amplitude. We take the
295: values of the parameters used in \cite{k2p},
296: $g^2_{\pi^+pn}(t)/8\pi=13.85$ and $R_1^2=0.3\GeV^{-2}$.
297: Notice that the choice of $R_1$ does not bring much uncertainty, since we focus here at
298: data for forward production, $q_T=0$, so $t$ is quite small.
299:
300: The amplitudes in (\ref{100})-(\ref{120}) are normalized as,
301: \beq
302: \sigma^{\pi^+ p}_{tot}(s'=M_X^2)={1\over M_X^2}
303: \sum\limits_X|A_{\pi^+ p\to X}(M_X^2)|^2\,,
304: \label{144}
305: \eeq
306: where different hadronic final states $X$ are summed at fixed invariant
307: mass $M_X$. Correspondingly, the differential cross section of inclusive
308: neutron production reads \cite{bishari,2klp},
309: \beqn
310: z\,\frac{d\sigma^B_{p\to n}}{dz\,dq_T^2}&=&{1\over s}
311: \left|A^B_{p\to n}(\vec q_T,z)\right|^2
312: \nonumber\\ &=&
313: \left(\frac{\alpha_\pi^\prime}{8}\right)^2
314: |t|G_{\pi^+pn}^2(t)\left|\eta_\pi(t)\right|^2
315: (1-z)^{1-2\alpha_\pi(t)}
316: \nonumber\\ &\times&
317: \sigma^{\pi^+ p}_{tot}(s'=M_X^2)\,.
318: \label{146}
319: \eeqn
320:
321: Since at $z\to1$ the value of $M_X^2$ decreases, we rely on a
322: realistic fit to the experimental data \cite{pdg} for $\pi^+p$ total
323: cross section.
324:
325: The results of the Born approximation calculation, Eq.~(\ref{146}), at
326: $\sqrt{s}=200,\ 62.7$ and $30.6\GeV$, are depicted together with the
327: ISR data \cite{isr}, in Figs.~\ref{fig:isr1} and \ref{fig:isr2}.
328: \begin{figure}[htb]
329: \centerline{
330: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{isr1.eps}}}
331: \caption{\label{fig:isr1}
332: Born approximation (dashed curve) for leading neutron production and ISR
333: data \cite{isr}, at $\sqrt{s}=62.7\GeV$ and $p_T=0$. Two solid
334: curves, the upper and bottom ones, show the effect of absorptive
335: corrections calculated in the dipole approach ($\times S^{(5q)}$)
336: and in hadronic representation ($\times S^{(hadr)}$) respectively.}
337: \end{figure}
338:
339:
340: \begin{figure}[htb]
341: \centerline{
342: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{isr2.eps}}
343: }
344: \caption{\label{fig:isr2}
345: Energy dependence of inclusive neutron production. The three
346: upper curves present the forward cross section at
347: $\sqrt{s}=30.6\GeV$ (solid), $62.7\GeV$ (dashed) and $200\GeV$
348: (dotted-dashed), calculated in the Born approximation. The same
349: cross sections, although corrected for absorption ($\times
350: S^{(5q)}$), are given by the three curves at the bottom. Data at
351: $\sqrt{s}=30.6\GeV$ and $62.7\GeV$ \cite{isr} are depicted by
352: squares and inverse triangles respectively}
353: \end{figure}
354: The data are given at two energies $\sqrt{s}=30.6\GeV$ and
355: $62.7\GeV$, and therefore we use these energies in our calculations. One can see
356: that the Born approximation considerably exceeds the data.
357:
358: Notice that only at small $1-z \sim m_\pi/m_N$ one can approach the
359: pion pole, i.e. the smallness of the pion mass is important for
360: Eq.~(\ref{120}). Otherwise $t$ is large even at $q_T=0$, and the
361: pion exchange gains a considerable imaginary part. Besides, the
362: spin-flip amplitude $\phi^B(q_T,z)$ acquires a weak dependence on
363: $q_T$ at small scattering angles, $q_T^2\ll(1-z)^2m_N^2$.
364:
365:
366: \section{Absorptive corrections}\label{absorptive.corrections}
367:
368: Absorptive corrections, or initial/final state interactions,
369: illustrated in Fig.~\ref{pion}, look quite complicated in momentum
370: representation where they require multi-loop integrations. However,
371: if they do not correlate with the amplitude of the process
372: $\pi^+p\to X$, then these corrections factorize in impact parameter
373: and become much simpler. Therefore, first of all, we should Fourier
374: transform the amplitude Eq.~(\ref{100}) to impact parameter space.
375:
376:
377: \subsection{Impact parameter representation}\label{sub-impact}
378:
379: The partial Born amplitude at impact parameter $\vec b$,
380: corresponding to (\ref{100}), has the form,
381: \beq
382: f^B_{p\to n}(\vec b,z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{z}}\,
383: \bar\xi_n\left[\sigma_3\,\tilde q_L\,\theta^B_0(b,z)-
384: i\,\frac{\vec\sigma\cdot\vec b}{b}\,
385: \theta^B_s(b,z)\right]\xi_p\,,
386: \label{150}
387: \eeq
388: where
389: \beqn
390: \theta^B_0(b,z) &=& \int d^2q\,e^{i\vec b\vec q}\,
391: \phi^B(q_T,z)
392: \nonumber\\ &=&
393: \frac{N(z)}{1-\beta^2\epsilon^2}\,
394: \left[K_0(\epsilon b)-K_0(b/\beta)\right]\,;
395: \label{154}
396: \eeqn
397:
398: \beqn
399: \theta^B_s(b,z) &=& {1\over b}
400: \int d^2q\,e^{i\vec b\vec q}\,
401: (\vec b\cdot\vec q)\,\phi^B(q_T,z)
402: \nonumber\\ &=&
403: \frac{N(z)}{1-\beta^2\epsilon^2}\,
404: \left[\epsilon\,K_1(\epsilon b)-\frac{1}{\beta}\,K_1(b/\beta)\right]\,.
405: \label{164}
406: \eeqn
407: Here
408: \beqn
409: N(z) &=&\frac{1}{2}\,g_{\pi^+pn}\,
410: z(1-z)^{\alpha^\prime_\pi(m_\pi^2+\tilde q_L^2/z)}
411: e^{-R_1^2 \tilde q_L^2/z}
412: \nonumber\\&\times&
413: A_{\pi p\to X}(M_X^2)\,
414: \nonumber\\
415: \epsilon^2&=&\tilde q_L^2+zm_\pi^2\,,
416: \nonumber\\
417: \beta^2&=&R_1^2-\alpha_\pi^\prime\,\frac{\ln(1-z)}{z}
418: \,.
419: \label{166}
420: \eeqn
421: To simplify the calculations we replaced here the Gaussian form factor,
422: $\exp(-\beta^2q_T^2)$, by the monopole form $1/(1+\beta^2q_T^2)$,
423: which is a good approximation at the small values of $q_T$ we are
424: interested in. At the same time we keep the exact expression for the
425: dependence on $\tilde q_L$, which can be rather large.
426:
427: \subsection{Survival amplitude of large rapidity gaps}\label{sub-survival}
428:
429: At large $z\to1$ the process under consideration is associated with
430: the creation of a large rapidity gap (LRG), $\Delta y=|\ln(1-z)|$,
431: where no particle is produced. Absorptive corrections may also be
432: interpreted as a suppression related to the survival probability of
433: LRG, which otherwise can be easily filled by multiparticle
434: production initiated by inelastic interactions of the projectile
435: partons with the target. Usually the corrected cross section is
436: calculated as a convolution of the cross section with the survival
437: probability factor (see \cite{ryskin} and references therein). This
438: recipe may work sometimes as an approximation, but only for
439: $q_T$-integrated cross section. Otherwise one should rely on a
440: survival amplitude, rather than probability. Besides, the absorptive
441: corrections should be calculated differently for the spin-flip and
442: non-flip amplitudes (see below).
443:
444: In impact parameter representation one can expand the incoming proton over
445: the Fock components, $|3q\ra,\ |3qg\ra,\ |4q\bar q\ra$, etc. For every
446: Fock state with fixed transverse separations between the constituents
447: the eikonal form is exact. In the dipole representation the absorption
448: corrected amplitude can be written as,
449: \beqn
450: f_{p\to n}(b,z) &=& \sum\limits_l
451: \prod\limits_{i} d^2r_i\,d\alpha_i\,
452: C^p_l(\{r_i,\alpha_i\})\,
453: \nonumber\\ &\times&
454: \left[\tilde f^B_{p\to n}(b,z,\{r_i,\alpha_i\})\right]_l
455: e^{if_l(b,z,\{r_i\})}.
456: \label{170}
457: \eeqn
458: Here we sum over Fock states containing different number of partons of
459: different species, having transverse positions $\vec r_i$ and
460: fractional light-cone momenta $\alpha_i$. The parton distribution
461: amplitudes $C^p_l(\{r_i,\alpha_i\})$ are normalized to the
462: probabilities $W_l$ of having $l$-th Fock state in the proton, $\int
463: \prod\limits_i d^2r_i\,d\alpha_i |C^p_l(\{r_i,\alpha_i\})|^2=W_l$.
464: We neglect the small real part of the partial amplitude
465: $f_l(b,z,\{r_i\})$ of elastic scattering of the partonic state
466: $|l;\{r_i\}\ra$ on a nucleon, and assume that it is pure imaginary
467: and isotopic invariant (Pomeron exchange).
468:
469: Now we have to identify the Fock states responsible for initial and
470: final state interactions leading to absorptive corrections. We start
471: with Fig.~\ref{fock-pp}a, containing the amplitude of the
472: pion-proton inelastic collision $\pi+p\to X$. This is usually
473: described as color exchange, leading to the creation of two color
474: octet states with a large rapidity interval $\sim \ln(M_X^2/s_0)$
475: ($s_0=1\GeV^2$), as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fock-pp}b.
476: \begin{figure}[htb]
477: \centerline{
478: \scalebox{0.32}{\includegraphics{8-8-pp.eps}}
479: }
480: \caption{\label{fock-pp}
481: {\bf a:} Born graph with single pion exchange and excitation of the projectile
482: proton, $p+\pi\to X$;
483: {\bf b:} inelastic proton-pion interaction, $p+\pi\to X$, via
484: color exchange, leading to the production of two color-octet dipoles
485: which hadronize further to $X$;
486: {\bf c:} Fock state representation of the previous mechanism. A color
487: octet-octet dipole which is a 5-quark Fock component of the projectile proton,
488: interacts with the target proton via
489: $\pi^+$ exchange. This 5-quark state may experience initial and final state
490: interaction via vacuum quantum number (Pomeron) exchange with the nucleons
491: (ladder-like strips). }
492: \end{figure}
493: Perturbatively, the interaction is mediated by gluonic exchanges.
494: Nonperturbatively, e.g. in the string model, the hadron collision
495: looks like intersection and flip of strings. Hadronization of the
496: color-octet dipole (described for example by the string model) leads
497: to the production of different final states $X$.
498:
499: According to Fig.~\ref{fock-pp}b the produced color octet-octet
500: state can experience final state interactions with the recoil
501: neutron. On the other hand, at high energies multiple interactions
502: become coherent, and one cannot specify at which point the
503: charge-exchange interaction happens, i.e. both initial and final
504: state interactions must be included. One can rephrase this in terms
505: of the Fock state decomposition. The projectile proton can fluctuate
506: into a 5-quark color octet-octet before the interaction with the
507: target. The fluctuation life-time, or coherence time (length), is
508: given by
509: \beq
510: l_c=\frac{2E_p}{M_X^2-m_N^2}\,,
511: \label{190}
512: \eeq
513: which rises with energy and at high energies considerably exceeds the
514: longitudinal size of target proton. Technically, one should integrate the
515: amplitude over the longitudinal coordinate $l$ of the fluctuation point,
516: weighted with a phase factor $e^{il/l_c}$ (see an example in \cite{kst2}),
517: which effectively restricts the distances from the target to $\Delta
518: l\lsim l_c$.
519:
520: This leads to a different space-time picture of the process at high
521: energies, namely the incoming proton fluctuates into a 5-quark state
522: $|\{3q\}_8\{\bar qq\}_8\ra$ long in advance of the interaction between the
523: $\{\bar qq\}_8$ pair and the target via pion exchange, see
524: Fig.~\ref{fock-pp}c. This is the general intuitive picture which is
525: supported by more formal calculations \cite{zamolodchikov,stan-ivan}.
526: Assuming only final state interactions one should sum up the amplitudes of
527: the process depicted in Fig.~\ref{fock-pp}b and of the double step
528: collision in which the 5-quark state is produced diffractively in the
529: first collision $pN\to |\{3q\}_8\{\bar qq\}_8\ra\,N$, and then the 5-quark
530: system experiences charge exchange scattering of another proton via pion
531: exchange. The resulting amplitude exposes both initial and final state
532: attenuation of the 5-quark state,
533: \beq
534: f_{p\to n}(b,z)=f^B_{p\to n}(b,z)\,S^(b,z)\,.
535: \label{195}
536: \eeq
537:
538: Thus, the 5-quark component of the projectile proton propagates through
539: the target experiencing initial and final state interactions. The
540: effective absorption cross section is the inelastic cross section of the
541: $|\{3q\}_8\{\bar qq\}_8\ra$ dipole on a nucleon.
542:
543: Of course, besides the five valence quarks, also gluons can be radiated,
544: which are essential for the energy dependence of $\sigma^{\pi
545: p}_{tot}(M_X^2)$. They are effectively included in the following
546: calculations.
547:
548: \subsection{Reggeon calculus}\label{sub-reggeons}
549:
550: Previous calculations \cite{3n,ryskin} proposed rather mild absorptive
551: corrections, corresponding to only a beam proton experiencing multiple
552: interactions in the target. This was motivated by Reggeon graphs depicted
553: in Fig.~\ref{graphs}a,b (we show only some of the interference terms))
554: \begin{figure}[htb]
555: \centerline{
556: \scalebox{0.42}{\includegraphics{graphs.eps}}
557: } \caption{ Absorptive corrections due to possibility of inelastic
558: interactions which can fill up the large rapidity gap. {\bf a:} Interactions
559: of the projectile proton and its remnants (see Fig.~\ref{vertex}) with the
560: target ; {\bf b:} triple Pomeron interaction due to interactions of produced
561: particles (e.g. radiated gluons); {\bf c:} interactions including the pion
562: remnants (see Fig.~\ref{vertex}). Only some of the interference graphs are
563: shown.}
564: \label{graphs}
565: \end{figure}
566:
567: Fig.~\ref{graphs}a presents multiple interactions of the projectile
568: proton and its remnants. Fig.~\ref{graphs}b includes interactions of the
569: multiparton states produced in $\pi-p$ inelastic collision (see
570: Fig.~\ref{pion}). This term is proportional to the triple-Pomeron coupling,
571: which is assumed to be small, and for this reason it was neglected in
572: \cite{3n,ap,ryskin}. The third term Fig.~\ref{graphs}c, overlooked in
573: \cite{3n,ap}, has a different behavior\footnote{This graph was considered in
574: \cite{ryskin}, but without detailed analysis.} since it contains a 4-Reggeon
575: vertex $\pi\pi\Pom\Pom$, and may not be small. The structure of this
576: vertex, as well as of the cut Pomeron, are shown in Fig.~\ref{vertex}.
577: \begin{figure}[htb]
578: \centerline{
579: \scalebox{0.45}{\includegraphics{vertex.eps}}
580: }
581: \caption{Structure of the four-Reggeon vertex $\pi\pi\Pom\Pom$.}
582: \label{vertex}
583: \end{figure}
584:
585: The interaction of the radiated gluons (the rungs of the Pomeron ladder) is
586: indeed weak, as follows from the smallness of the triple-Pomeron coupling. This
587: is explained dynamically in \cite{spots} by the shortness of the transverse
588: separation between the radiated gluons and the source. There is no such a
589: suppression, however, for the interaction of the ${\bar qq}_8$ pair, which is the
590: pion remnant, as is depicted in Fig.~\ref{vertex}. Calculations performed
591: below confirm that the term shown in Figs.~\ref{graphs}c, \ref{vertex}, missed
592: in \cite{3n,ryskin}, is large.
593:
594:
595: \section{Absorptive corrections in saturated regime}\label{dipole}
596:
597: Another way to estimate the absorption effects is to consider directly
598: the interaction of the 5-quark octet-octet dipole with the proton target.
599: Following the dual parton model \cite{capella} approach, we replace the
600: $|3q\ra_8-|\bar qq\ra_8$ dipole by two color triplet dipoles, $(qq)-q$
601: and $q-\bar q$, as is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{dual}.
602: \begin{figure}[htb]
603: \centerline{
604: \scalebox{0.35}{\includegraphics{dual.eps}}
605: }
606: \caption{Inelastic pion-proton interaction, $\pi+p\to X$,
607: in Fig.~\ref{fock-pp}, leading to the production of two color-triplet dipoles,
608: $q-\bar q$ and $(2q)-q$.
609: }
610: \label{dual}
611: \end{figure}
612: This approximation has an accuracy $1/N_c^2$, which is sufficient for our
613: purposes.
614:
615: Thus, the survival amplitude for such a 5-quark state can be represented
616: as a product,
617: \beqn
618: S^{(5q)}(b) &=& S^{(3q)}(b)\,S^{(q\bar q)}(b)
619: \label{290}
620: \\ &=&
621: \left[1-\Im\Gamma^{(3q)p}(b)\right]
622: \left[1-\Im\Gamma^{(\bar qq)p}(b)\right].
623: \nonumber
624: \eeqn
625: similar to Eq.~(\ref{240}),
626: The elastic amplitude $\Gamma^{(\bar33)p}(b)$ of a color $\{\bar 33\}$
627: dipole interacting with a proton is related to the partial elastic amplitude
628: \beq
629: \Im\Gamma^{(\bar 33)p}(b,z)=
630: \int d^2r W_{\bar 33}(r,M_X^2)\,
631: \Im f^{\bar33}_{el}(\vec b,\vec r,s,\alpha),
632: \label{295}
633: \eeq
634: where $\alpha$ is the fractional light-cone momentum carried by the $3$, or $\bar
635: 3$; $r$ is the dipole transverse size; and $W_{\bar 33}(r,M_X^2)$ is the
636: dipole size distribution function, which is specified later, as well as the relation
637: between $\alpha$ and $z$. Now we concentrate on the partial dipole amplitude
638: $f^{\bar33}_{el}(\vec b,\vec r,s,\alpha)$.
639:
640: \subsection{Generalized unintegrated gluon density and partial dipole
641: amplitude}\label{sub-partial.amplitude}
642:
643: The $\bar qq$-dipole-proton total cross section can be directly fitted to data
644: on the proton structure function measured in deep-inelastic scattering (DIS).
645: The popular form \cite{gbw} of the dipole cross section, which describes quite well
646: data at small Bjorken $x$, has a saturated shape, i.e. the cross section levels
647: off at large dipole sizes. For soft reactions, such as the one we are dealing with here, the c.m.
648: energy rather than Bjorken $x$, is the proper variable. A similar
649: parameterization, with the saturated shape fitted to data on DIS at
650: $Q^2$ not high and real photo-absorption and photoproduction of vector mesons, led to
651: the result \cite{kst2},
652: \beq
653: \sigma_{\bar qq}(r,s)=\sigma_0(s)\left[1-e^{-r^2/R_0^2(s)}\right]\,,
654: \label{300}
655: \eeq
656: where $R_0(s)=0.88\,fm\,(s_0/s)^{0.14}$ and $s_0=1000\,GeV^2$. This cross
657: section is normalized to reproduce the pion-proton total cross section, $\int
658: d^2r\,|\Psi_\pi(r)|^2\sigma_{\bar qq}(r,s)=\sigma^{\pi p}_{tot}(s)$. The pion
659: wave function squared integrated over longitudinal quark momenta has the
660: form,
661: \beq
662: \left|\Psi_\pi(\vec r)\right|^2 =
663: \frac{3}{8\pi \la r^2_{ch}\ra_\pi}
664: \exp\left(-\frac{3r^2}{8\la r^2_{ch}\ra_\pi}\right)\,,
665: \label{310}
666: \eeq
667: where $\la r^2_{ch}\ra_\pi=0.44\fm^2$ \cite{r-pion} is the mean pion charge
668: radius squared. This normalization condition results in
669: \beq
670: \sigma_0(s)=\sigma^{\pi p}_{tot}(s)\,
671: \left(1 + \frac{3\,R^2_0(s)}{8\,\la r^2_{ch}\ra_{\pi}}
672: \right)\,,
673: \label{320}
674: \eeq
675: For the numerical calculation we rely on one of the popular parameterizations for the
676: energy dependent total cross sections \cite{pdg} (only the Pomeron
677: part), $\sigma^{\pi p}_{tot}(s)=\Sigma_0+\Sigma_1\ln^2(s/s_1)$,
678: where $\Sigma_0=20.9\mb$ $\Sigma_1=0.31\mb$ and $s_1=28.9\GeV^2$.
679:
680: Just as the dipole-proton total cross section can be calculated via the
681: unintegrated gluon density in the proton \cite{gbw}, one can calculate the
682: partial amplitude $f(\vec b,\vec r)$ via a generalized transversely
683: off-diagonal gluon distribution \cite{amir2},
684: \beqn
685: \im f^N_{\bar qq}(\vec b,\vec r,\beta)
686: &=&\frac{1}{12\pi}
687: \int\frac{d^2q\,d^2q'}{q^2\,q'^2}\,\alpha_s\,
688: {\cal F}(x,\vec q,\vec q^{\,\prime})
689: e^{i\vec b\cdot(\vec q-\vec q^{\,\prime})}
690: \nonumber\\ &\times&
691: \left(e^{-i\vec q\cdot\vec r\beta}-
692: e^{i\vec q\cdot\vec r(1-\beta)}\right)\,
693: \nonumber\\ &\times&
694: \left(e^{i\vec q^{\,\prime}\cdot\vec r\beta}-
695: e^{-i\vec q^{\,\prime}\cdot\vec r(1-\beta)}\right)\,
696: \,.
697: \label{325}
698: \eeqn
699: A model for the generalized unintegrated gluon density was proposed
700: recently \cite{amir2}, based on the saturated form of the diagonal
701: gluon density \cite{gbw}, and assuming a factorized dependence on
702: both $\vec q$ and $\vec q^{\,\prime}$. One gets
703: \beqn
704: && {\cal F}(x,\vec q,\vec q^{\ \prime}) =
705: \frac{3\,\sigma_0}{16\,\pi^2\,\alpha_s}\ q^2\,q'^{\,2}\,R_0^2(x)
706: \nonumber\\ &\times&
707: {\rm exp}\Bigl[-{1\over8}\,R_0^2(x)\,(q^2+q'^{\,2})\Bigr]
708: {\rm exp}\bigl[-{1\over2}B(x)(\vec q-\vec q^{\ \prime})^2\bigr]
709: \,,\nonumber\\
710: \label{330}
711: \eeqn
712: This Bjorken $x$-dependent density, appropriate for hard reactions, leads to
713: an $x$-dependent partial amplitude \cite{amir2}. Although in general
714: it should not be used for soft processes, one can switch from an
715: $x$- to an $s$-dependence keeping the same parameterization and
716: adjusting the parameters to observables in soft reactions, as was
717: done in \cite{kst2}, see Eq.~(\ref{300}). Then the partial amplitude
718: reads
719: \begin{widetext}
720:
721: \beqn
722: \Im f^{\bar qq}_{el}(\vec b,\vec r,s,\alpha) =
723: \frac{\sigma_0(s)}{8\pi B(s)}\,
724: \Biggl\{\exp\left[-\frac{[\vec b+\vec r(1-\alpha)]^2}{2B(s)}\right] +
725: \exp\left[-\frac{(\vec b-\vec r\alpha)^2}{2B(s)}\right]-
726: 2\exp\Biggl[-\frac{r^2}{R_0^2(s)}
727: -\frac{[\vec b+(1/2-\alpha)\vec r]^2}{2B(s)}\Biggr]
728: \Biggr\},\nonumber\\
729: \label{340}
730: \eeqn
731: \end{widetext}
732: This partial amplitude correctly reproduces the dipole
733: cross section
734: Eq.~(\ref{300}),
735: \beq
736: 2\int d^2b\,{\rm Im}f^{\bar qq}_{el}(\vec b,\vec r,s,\alpha)=
737: \sigma_{\bar qq}(r,s)\,.
738: \label{360}
739: \eeq
740:
741: Another condition that needs to be satisfied is reproducing the
742: slope $B^{\pi p}_{el}(s)$ of the elastic $\pi p$ differential cross
743: section,
744: \beqn
745: B^{\pi p}_{el}(s)&=&{1\over 2}\,\la b^2\ra
746: \frac{1}{\sigma^{\pi p}_{tot}}
747: \int d^2b\int\limits_0^1 d\alpha
748: \nonumber\\ &\times&
749: \int d^2r\,
750: \left|\Psi_\pi(\vec r,\alpha)\right|^2
751: {\rm Im}f^{\bar qq}_{el}(\vec b,\vec r,s,\alpha)
752: \,.
753: \label{380}
754: \eeqn
755: This condition allows to evaluate the parameter $B(s)$ in (\ref{340}). To
756: simplify this calculation, we fix here $\alpha=1/2$ in the partial
757: amplitude and arrive at
758: \beq
759: B(s)=B^{\pi p}_{el}(s)-{1\over3}\,\la r_{ch}^2\ra_\pi
760: - {1\over8}\,R_0^2(s)\,.
761: \label{400}
762: \eeq
763: In what follows we use a Regge parameterization for the elastic slope, $B^{\pi
764: p}_{el}(s)=B_0+2\alpha_\Pom^\prime \ln(s/\mu^2)$, with $B_0=6\GeV^{-2}$,
765: $\alpha_\Pom^\prime=0.25\GeV^{-2}$, and $\mu^2=1\GeV^2$.
766:
767: In the case of a $(2q)-q$ dipole all relations are analogous to
768: Eqs.~(\ref{300})-(\ref{400}), but one should make the following replacements:
769: (i) $\sigma^{\pi p}_{tot}(s)\Rightarrow\sigma^{pp}_{tot}(s)$ with
770: $\Sigma_0=35.5\mb$; (ii) $\la r_{ch}^2\ra_\pi\Rightarrow\la
771: r_{ch}^2\ra_p=0.8\fm^2$ \cite{proton}; (iii) $B^{\pi p}_{el}(s)\Rightarrow
772: B^{pp}_{el}(s)$ with $B_0=8\GeV^{-2}$.
773:
774: \subsection{Survival amplitudes of dipoles}\label{sub-dipole.survival}
775:
776: To proceed further with the calculation of the survival amplitude,
777: Eqs.~(\ref{290})-(\ref{295}), we have to specify the dipole size
778: distribution. One can get a hint from Figs.~\ref{fock-pp}b and \ref{dual}
779: that the size distribution of the $(3q)_8-(\bar qq)_8$ dipoles is actually
780: given by the partial amplitude squared of $\pi-p$ elastic scattering at
781: c.m. energy $E_{c.m.}=M_X=\sqrt{s(1-z)}$. Assuming a Gaussian dependence of
782: this partial amplitude on impact parameter, we get
783: \beq
784: W_{8-8}(r,M_X^2)= \frac{1}{2\pi\,B^{\pi p}_{el}(M_X^2)}
785: \exp\left[-\frac{r^2}{2B^{\pi p}_{el}(M_X^2)}\right]\,.
786: \label{420}
787: \eeq
788: Thus, the size of the $q\bar q$ and $q-2q$ dipoles is $z$-dependent and
789: controlled by $B^{\pi p}_{el}(M_X^2)$.
790:
791: Performing the integration in (\ref{295}) with this weight factor and the partial
792: dipole amplitude Eq.~(\ref{340}), we arrive at the survival amplitude for a
793: $\bar q-q$ dipole,
794: \begin{widetext}
795: \beqn
796: S^{(\bar qq)}(b,z) &=& 1-\frac{\sigma_0(s)}{4\pi}
797: \left\{\frac{1}{B_\alpha(s,z)}
798: \exp\left[-\frac{b^2}
799: {B_\alpha(s,z)}\right] +
800: %\right.\nonumber\\ &+& \left.
801: \frac{1}{B_{1-\alpha}(s,z)}
802: \exp\left[-\frac{b^2}
803: {B_{1-\alpha}(s,z)}\right]
804: \right.\nonumber\\ &-& \left.
805: \frac{2}
806: {B_{1/2-\alpha}(s,z)
807: \left[1+B^{\pi p}_{el}(M_X^2)/R_0^2(s)\right]}
808: \exp\left[-\frac{b^2}
809: {B_{1/2-\alpha}(s,z)}\right]
810: \right\}\,,
811: \label{440}
812: \eeqn
813: \end{widetext}
814: where
815: \beqn
816: B_\beta(s,z) &=& 2B(s)+\beta^2\,B^{\pi p}_{el}(M_X^2)\,,
817: \label{460}
818: \eeqn
819: and $\beta$ equals either $\alpha$, or $1-\alpha$, or $1/2-\alpha$.
820: All other quantities related to a $\bar qq$ dipole are defined in
821: Sect.~\ref{sub-partial.amplitude}.
822:
823: The same expressions Eqs.~(\ref{440})-(\ref{460}) can be used for the
824: survival amplitude $S^{(3q)}(b)$ of a baryon $(2q)-q$ dipole, after making
825: the same replacements of $\sigma^{\pi p}_{tot}(s)$, $\la r_{ch}^2\ra_\pi$
826: and $B^{\pi p}_{el}(s)$, as is listed at the end of
827: Sect.~\ref{sub-partial.amplitude} (except $\tilde B^{\pi p}_{el}(M_X^2)$
828: which should be kept as is).
829:
830: The last variable to be specified is $\alpha$, which is related to
831: $z=1-M_X^2/s$ via the relation for the invariant mass $M_X$ of the
832: 5q system,
833: \beq
834: M_X^2=\frac{m^2_{3q}+k_T^2}{1-\alpha}+
835: \frac{m^2_{\bar qq}+k_T^2}{\alpha}\,,
836: \label{470}
837: \eeq
838: where $k_T$ is the relative transverse momentum of $(\bar qq)_8$ and $(3q)_8$.
839: For the large values of $M_X^2\gg m_p^2$ that we are interested in,
840: \beq
841: \alpha= \frac{m_T^2}{M_X^2}=\frac{m_T^2}{s(1-z)}\,,
842: \label{480}
843: \eeq
844: where we fix $m_T^2=\la m^2_{\bar qq}+k_T^2\ra=1\GeV^2$, assuming that
845: $\la m^2_{\bar qq}\ra\sim \la k_T^2\ra \sim m_\rho^2$.
846:
847: The results for the $5q$ dipole survival probability Eq.~(\ref{290})
848: calculated at $\sqrt{s}=44.7\GeV$ and $z=0.8$, are shown in
849: Figs.~\ref{survival1} and \ref{survival2}.
850: \begin{figure}[htb]
851: \centerline{
852: \scalebox{0.45}{\includegraphics{s-5q.eps}}}
853: \caption{ Partial survival amplitude $S(b,z)$ at $\sqrt{s}=60\GeV$ and
854: $z=0.8$. Survival amplitudes $S^{(2q})(b,z)$ for a $\bar q-q$
855: dipole, and $S^{(3q})(b,z)$ for a $q-2q$ dipole, are depicted by
856: dot-dashed and dashed curves, respectively. Their product,
857: $S^{(5q})(b,z)$, is shown by the solid curve. }
858: \label{survival1}
859: \end{figure}
860:
861: \begin{figure}[htb]
862: \centerline{
863: \scalebox{0.45}{\includegraphics{s-hadr.eps}}
864: }
865: \caption{ Partial survival amplitude $S(b,z)$ at $\sqrt{s}=60\GeV$ and
866: $z=0.8$. The survival amplitude evaluated in hadronic
867: representation. Dot-dashed, dashed and solid curves show the pion
868: and proton survival amplitudes and their product, respectively.}
869: \label{survival2}
870: \end{figure}
871:
872:
873:
874: \section{Survival amplitude in hadronic representation}\label{hadronic}
875:
876: \subsection{Expansion over multi-hadronic states}\label{sub-multihadrons}
877:
878: One can expand the 5-quark Fock state over the hadronic basis,
879: \beq
880: \left|\{3q\}_8\{\bar qq\}_8\right\ra =
881: d_0|p\ra + d_1|N\pi\ra + d_2|N2\pi\ra + ...\,.
882: \label{200}
883: \eeq
884:
885: These components are associated with different suppression factors,
886: which can be calculated via known hadron-proton elastic amplitudes.
887: Correspondingly, the absorption corrected partial amplitude gets the
888: form
889: \beq
890: f_{p\to n}(b,z)=f^B_{p\to n}(b,z)\,S^{(hadr)}(b)\,,
891: \label{220}
892: \eeq
893: where $S^{(hadr)}(b)$ is the survival amplitude averaged over different
894: hadronic components in (\ref{200}).
895:
896: Since the admixture of sea quarks in the proton is small, the
897: projection of the 5-quark state to the proton, the amplitude $d_0$,
898: must be small. The states that contribute consist mainly of a
899: nucleon accompanied by one or more pions and other mesons, and
900: therefore here we make the natural assumption that the amplitude
901: $d_1$ is the dominant one, since both states $|\{3q\}_8\{\bar
902: qq\}_8\ra$ and $|N\pi\ra$ have the same valence quark content.
903: %Such a factorized expression is possible only if the the Born amplitude
904: %Eq.~(\ref{100}) decouples from the projectile state $|\{3q\}_8\{\bar
905: %qq\}_8\ra$
906: %properties which control the absorption effects. An implicit energy
907: %dependence
908: %is assumed in (\ref{220}) and further on, unless specified.
909: Then the survival amplitude of a large rapidity gap mediated by pion
910: exchange is related to the amplitude of no-interaction of a $p-\pi$
911: pair propagating through the target proton. Neglecting the
912: difference in impact parameters of the pion and proton, we get
913: \beqn
914: S^{(hadr)}(b) &=& S^{\pi p}(b)\,S^{pp}(b)
915: \nonumber\\ &=&
916: \left[1-\Im\Gamma^{pp}(b)\right]
917: \left[1-\Im\Gamma^{\pi p}(b)\right]\,.
918: \label{240}
919: \eeqn
920: Here we expressed the hadron-nucleon survival amplitude via the elastic
921: partial amplitude $\Gamma(b)$,
922: \beq
923: S^{hN}(b)=1-\Im\Gamma^{hN}(b)\,.
924: \label{210}
925: \eeq
926: An implicit energy dependence is assumed in here and further on,
927: unless specified.
928:
929: Nevertheless, the calculation of the partial amplitudes
930: $\Gamma^{hN}(b)$ is still a challenge, and different models and
931: approximations are known. For instance, if the total cross section
932: $\sigma^{hN}_{tot}$ and the elastic slope $B^{hN}_{el}$ are known,
933: and one assumes a Gaussian shape for the differential hadron-proton
934: cross section, one gets
935: \beq
936: \Im\Gamma^{hN}_{(Gauss)}(b)=
937: \frac{\sigma^{hN}_{tot}}
938: {4\pi B^{hN}_{el}}\,
939: \exp\left[-\frac{b^2}{2B^{hN}_{el}}\right]\,.
940: \label{260}
941: \eeq
942: At high energies, however, this is a poor approximation, since the
943: unitarity bound stops the rise of the partial amplitude at small
944: $b$, and the periphery becomes the main source of the observed rise
945: of the total cross sections \cite{amaldi,k3p}. As a result, the
946: shape of the $b$-dependence changes with energy and cannot be
947: Gaussian.
948:
949: One has to incorporate unitarity corrections, and a popular way to do it
950: is the eikonal approximation \cite{kps1},
951: \beq
952: \Im\Gamma^{hp}_{(eik)}(b) =1 -
953: e^{-{\rm Im}\Gamma_0^{hp}(b)}\,,
954: \label{280}
955: \eeq
956: where $\Gamma_0^{hp}(b)$ is an input, bare amplitude, which is actually
957: unknown. It can be compared with data only after unitarization (e.g.
958: eikonalization) procedure.
959:
960: The eikonal approximation cannot be correct, since hadrons are not
961: eigenstates of the interaction, and they can be diffractively
962: excited. To improve the eikonal approximation (\ref{280}) one should
963: include all possible intermediate diffractive excitations
964: \cite{gribov}. This is a difficult task, since there is no
965: experimental information about diffractive off-diagonal transitions
966: between different excited states. So far this has been done only in
967: a two-channel toy-model \cite{kl-78,levin}.
968:
969: Another way of include the higher order Gribov corrections is the so
970: called quasi-eikonal model \cite{kaidalov}. However, it is based on
971: an ad hoc recipe for higher order diffractive terms, which is not
972: supported by any known dynamics.
973:
974: The dipole approach \cite{zkl,mine,kps1} allows to sum up the Gribov
975: corrections in all orders, for a given Fock state of the projectile
976: hadron. However, the inclusion of higher Fock states is difficult
977: and model dependent.
978:
979: \subsection{Partial elastic amplitude from data}\label{sub-data}
980:
981: Nevertheless, one can get reliable information about
982: $\Gamma^{hp}(b)$ extracting it directly from data for the elastic
983: differential cross section and the ratio of real-to-imaginary
984: amplitudes. We parameterize the imaginary and real parts of the
985: elastic scattering amplitude in momentum representation as
986: \beq
987: {\rm Im}\,f^{hp}(t)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}
988: a_i\,e^{b_i\,t};
989: \label{data.1}
990: \eeq
991: \beq
992: {\rm Re}\,f^{hp}(t)=c\,e^{d\,t}
993: \label{data.2}\ ,
994: \eeq
995: where $a_i,\ b_i,\ c,\ d$ are the fitting parameters. The
996: amplitudes are related to the cross sections as
997: \beq
998: \frac{d\,\sigma^{hp}_{el}}{d\,t}=
999: \bigl[{\rm Re}\,f^{hp}(t)\bigr]^2 +
1000: \bigl[{\rm Im}\,f^{hp}(t)\bigr]^2\ ;
1001: \label{data.3}
1002: \eeq
1003: \beq
1004: \sigma^{hp}_{tot}=4\,\sqrt{\pi}\,{\rm Im}\,f^{hp}(0)\ .
1005: \label{data.4}
1006: \eeq
1007:
1008: We applied this analysis to data on the $pp$ elastic differential
1009: cross section \cite{data-pp}. To make the normalization of data for
1010: the differential cross section more certain, first of all we perform
1011: a common fit of the $pp$ and $\bar pp$ total cross sections with the
1012: same Pomeron part, as function of energy. Then we adjust the
1013: normalizations of data for the differential elastic cross sections
1014: to the optical points, {\it i.e.} demand that $4\,\sqrt{\pi}\,\sum
1015: a_i=\sigma_{tot}$ at each energy.
1016:
1017: Data \cite{rho} for the ratio of real to imaginary parts of the
1018: forward amplitude, $\rho^{hp}(s)={\rm Re}\,f^{hp}(0)/{\rm
1019: Im}\,f^{hp}(0)$, were also used in the analysis. We fitted these
1020: data with a smooth energy dependence and demanded $c=\rho\,\sum a_i$
1021: for each energy included in the analysis of differential cross
1022: sections. The details of the fit to $pp$ data can be found in
1023: \cite{k3p}. Here we applied the same procedure to data for
1024: pion-proton scattering, using the database from \cite{data-ppi}.
1025:
1026: After the parameters in (\ref{data.1}) and (\ref{data.2}) are found,
1027: one can calculate the partial amplitude in impact parameter
1028: representation at each energy as
1029: \beq
1030: \Gamma^{hp}(b)=\frac{1}{2\,\pi^{3/2}}
1031: \int d^2b\,e^{i\,\vec q\cdot\vec b}\,f^{hp}(-q^2)\ ,
1032: \label{data.5}
1033: \eeq
1034: where $\vec q$ is the transverse component of the transferred momentum,
1035: $t\approx - q^2$. It is normalized according to (\ref{data.4}).
1036:
1037: Examples are depicted in Fig.~\ref{partial} for the partial amplitudes ${\rm
1038: Im}\,\Gamma^{pp}(b)$ (left panel) and ${\rm Im}\,\Gamma^{\pi p}(b)$ (right
1039: panel).
1040: \begin{figure}[htb]
1041: \centerline{
1042: \scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{pp.eps}}
1043: \scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{pi-p.eps}} }
1044: \caption{ Imaginary part of the partial elastic amplitude extracted by a
1045: model-independent analysis of data on the elastic differential cross
1046: section. {\it Left:} $pp$ partial amplitude ${\rm
1047: Im}\,\Gamma^{pp}(b)$ at c.m. energies $\sqrt{s}=23.5\GeV$ and
1048: $546\GeV$. {\it Right:} $\Im\Gamma^{\pi p}(b)$ at
1049: $\sqrt{s}=13.7\GeV$ and $19.4\GeV$.}
1050: \label{partial}
1051: \end{figure}
1052:
1053: One can see that at $b=0$ the amplitude nearly saturates the unitarity
1054: limit and hardly changes with energy, while at larger impact parameters
1055: the amplitude substantially grows. This means that the corresponding
1056: LRG survival amplitude is minimal for central collisions where it
1057: steadily decreases with energy towards zero in the black disc (Froissart)
1058: limit. Our results for $S^{(hadr)}(b,z)$ are depicted in
1059: Fig.~\ref{survival2} at $\sqrt{s}=40\GeV$ and $z=0.8,\ 0.9$.
1060:
1061: \subsection{Extreme damping}\label{extreme}
1062:
1063: Although the survival amplitudes for protons and pions were
1064: extracted in a model independent way directly from data, we feel
1065: that the main assumption made above, that the 5-quark state can be
1066: represented by just a $\pi N$ pair has a rather shaky basis. Quite
1067: probably the higher Fock component containing more pions might be
1068: important. Indeed, either the color octet-octet state or the two
1069: triplet-antitriplets representing its decay multiply produce
1070: hadrons, mainly pions. Of course, it would be exaggeration to
1071: include all of these pions into the absorption damping factor. This
1072: would be like interpreting the color transparency effect in hadronic
1073: representation by a sum of different hadrons. Neglecting the off
1074: diagonal transitions and interferences one arrives at the so called
1075: Bjorken paradox \cite{bjorken}: instead of color transparency one
1076: gets hadronic opacity. The most economic way to include the
1077: interferences is to switch to the color dipole representation, as we
1078: did in Sect.~\ref{dipole}. However, it useful to understand the
1079: magnitude of a maximal suppression when all produced pions
1080: contribute in the same footing to the absorption corrections.
1081:
1082: Apparently the pion multiplicity should rise with $M_X^2$. Following
1083: the prescription of the dual parton model \cite{capella} we replaced
1084: the octet-octet dipole, $\{3q\}_8 - \{\bar qq\}_8$, by two
1085: color-triplet strings, $q-\bar q$ and $qq-q$, which share the c.m.
1086: energy $M_X$ in fractions of $1/3$ and $2/3$ respectively. This is
1087: illustrated in Fig.~\ref{dual}.
1088:
1089: The multiplicities of pions produced from the decay of these strings
1090: are known from fits to data on $e^+e^-$ annihilation \cite{tasso}
1091: and deep-inelastic scattering \cite{kaidalov-ter},
1092: \beqn
1093: \la n_\pi\ra_{q-\bar q}&=&
1094: 4+0.72\ln(M_X^2/9s_0)\,;
1095: \label{202}\\
1096: \la n_\pi\ra_{qq-q}&=&
1097: 0.45+0.135\ln(4M_X^2/9s_0)\,,
1098: \label{204}
1099: \eeqn
1100: where $s_0=1\GeV$. Since we need the full multiplicity, we multiplied the
1101: number of charged pions by $3/2$. The fit Eq.~(\ref{202}) was performed
1102: for $M_X>4.2\GeV$, which, for instance at $\sqrt{s}=50\GeV$, corresponds
1103: to $z<0.99$. We impose this restriction which is well within the interval
1104: of $z$ we are interested in.
1105:
1106: Thus we can replace the $|\{3q\}_8\{\bar qq\}_8\ra$ dipole by a
1107: nucleon and multipion state. In the eikonal approach such a maximal
1108: suppression corresponds to the absorptive suppression factor,
1109: \beq
1110: S^{(hadr)}_{max}(b,z)=S^{NN}(b)
1111: \sum\limits_{n_\pi=0} W_{n_\pi}(z)\,S^{(n_\pi\pi)N}(b)\,,
1112: \label{222}
1113: \eeq
1114: where $W_{n_\pi}(z)$ is the probability distribution of number of pions
1115: which we assume to have a Poisson shape, $W_{n_\pi}(z)=(\la
1116: n_\pi\ra^{n_\pi}/n_\pi!)e^{-\la n_\pi\ra}$. The mean number of pions
1117: $\la n_\pi(z)\ra$ depends on $z$ according to
1118: (\ref{202})-(\ref{204}) and equals to,
1119: \beqn
1120: \la n_\pi(z)\ra&=&\la n_\pi\ra_{q-\bar q}+\la n_\pi\ra_{qq-q}
1121: \nonumber\\&=&
1122: 2.76+0.855\,\ln(M_X^2/s_0)\,.
1123: \label{206}
1124: \eeqn
1125:
1126: The survival amplitude of a LRG for the target nucleon interacting with a
1127: row of pions can be presented in the eikonal form like in the Glauber
1128: model, i.e. $S^{(n_\pi\pi)N}(b)=[S^{\pi N}(b)]^{n_\pi}$. Then the
1129: maximal suppression factor Eq.~(\ref{222}) gets the form,
1130: \beqn
1131: &&S^{(hadr)}_{max}(b,z)=S^{NN}(b)
1132: \exp\left\{-\la n_\pi(z)\ra\left[1-S^{\pi N}(b)\right]\right\}
1133: \nonumber\\ &=&
1134: \left[1-\Im\Gamma^{NN}(b)\right]
1135: \exp\Bigl[-\la n_\pi(z)\ra\,
1136: \Im\Gamma^{\pi N}(b)\Bigr]\,.
1137: \label{208}
1138: \eeqn
1139: Later, in Sect.~\ref{discussion} we will compare the effect of the maximal
1140: suppression Eq.~(\ref{208}) with the conventional ones.
1141:
1142:
1143: \section{Cross section corrected for absorption}\label{xsection}
1144:
1145: Now we can correct for absorption the Born partial amplitudes Eq.~(\ref{150})
1146: of neutron production,
1147: \beq
1148: \theta_{0,s}(b,z)=
1149: \theta^B_{0,s}(b,z)\,
1150: S(b,z)\,,
1151: \label{500}
1152: \eeq
1153: where $S(b,z)$ is calculated either within the dipole approach,
1154: Eq.~(\ref{290}), or in the hadronic model, Eq.~(\ref{240}). In
1155: Fig.~\ref{spin-amplitudes} we compare the Born partial spin
1156: amplitudes with the ones corrected for absorption, plotted as
1157: functions of impact parameter at $z=0.8$ and $\sqrt{s}=44.7\GeV$.
1158: \begin{figure}[htb]
1159: \centerline{
1160: \scalebox{0.45}{\includegraphics{amplitudes-b.eps}}
1161: }
1162: \caption{Partial spin amplitudes, Eq.~(\ref{150}), for neutron production,
1163: non-flip, $\theta_0(b,z)$, and spin-flip, $b\theta_s(b,z)$. Solid curves show
1164: the result of Born approximation. Dashed and dot-dashed curves include
1165: absorptive corrections calculated in the dipole approach ($\times
1166: S^{(5q)}(b,z)$) and in hadronic model ($\times S^{(hadr)}(b,z)$),
1167: respectively.}
1168: \label{spin-amplitudes}
1169: \end{figure}
1170:
1171:
1172: Now, it is straightforward to Fourier transform these amplitudes back to
1173: momentum representation. The absorption modified Eq.~(\ref{100})
1174: reads
1175: \beq
1176: A_{p\to n}(\vec q,z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{z}}
1177: \bar\xi_n\left[\sigma_3 \tilde q_L\,\phi_0(q_T,z)+
1178: \vec\sigma\cdot\vec q_T\phi_s(q_T,z)\right]\xi_p,
1179: \label{520}
1180: \eeq
1181: where according to (\ref{154}), (\ref{164}) and (\ref{220}),
1182: \beqn
1183: \phi_0(q_T,z)&=&\frac{N(z)}{2\pi(1-\beta^2\epsilon^2)}
1184: \int\limits_0^\infty db\,b\,J_0(bq_T)\,
1185: S(b,z)
1186: \nonumber\\ &\times&
1187: \left[K_0(\epsilon b)-K_0\left({b\over\beta}\right)\right]
1188: \,;
1189: \label{540}
1190: \eeqn
1191:
1192: \beqn
1193: q_T\,\phi_s(q_T,z)&=&\frac{N(z)}{2\pi(1-\beta^2\epsilon^2)}
1194: \int\limits_0^\infty db\,b\,J_1(bq_T)\,
1195: S(b,z)
1196: \nonumber\\ &\times&
1197: \left[\epsilon\, K_1(\epsilon b)-
1198: {1\over\beta}\,K_1\left({b\over\beta}\right)\right]
1199: \,.
1200: \label{560}
1201: \eeqn
1202:
1203: Eventually, we are in a position to calculate the differential cross
1204: section of inclusive production of neutrons corrected for absorption,
1205: \beq
1206: z\,\frac{d\sigma_{p\to n}}{dz\,dq_T^2}=
1207: \sigma_0(z,q_T) + \sigma_s(z,q_T)\,,
1208: \label{580}
1209: \eeq
1210: where
1211: \beqn
1212: \sigma_0(z,q_T)&=&
1213: \frac{\tilde q_L^2}{zs}\,
1214: \left|\phi_0(q_T,z)\right|^2
1215: \label{590}\\
1216: \sigma_s(z,q_T)&=&
1217: \frac{q_T^2}{zs}\,
1218: \left|\phi_s(q_T,z)\right|^2\,.
1219: \label{600}
1220: \eeqn
1221: The forward neutron production cross section corrected for absorption is
1222: compared with data \cite{isr} in Fig.~\ref{fig:isr1}. The two models
1223: for absorption, dipole and hadronic, give the upper and bottom solid
1224: curves respectively. The results of both models are pretty close to
1225: each other, but substantially underestimate the data (see further
1226: discussions). This is a consequence of very strong absorptive
1227: corrections found here compared to previous calculations
1228: \cite{3n,ap}, which nevertheless reported good agreement with data.
1229:
1230: The energy dependence of the cross section is presented in
1231: Fig.~\ref{fig:isr2}, at $\sqrt{s}=30.6,\ 62.7$ and $200\GeV$.
1232: Apparently the steep rise of the cross section with energy, observed
1233: in Born approximation, is nearly compensated by the falling energy
1234: dependence of the LRG survival amplitudes. Aside for the
1235: normalization, the results for the $z$- and energy-dependence agree
1236: quite well with the data.
1237:
1238: We also calculate the $q_T$-dependence of the differential cross section
1239: Eq.~(\ref{580}). The results for $\sqrt{s}=200\GeV$ are shown in
1240: Fig.~\ref{sigma-qt} for $z=0.6$ (left panel) and $z=0.9$ (right panel).
1241: \begin{figure}[htb]
1242: \centerline{
1243: \scalebox{0.45}{\includegraphics{qt-dep1.eps}}}
1244: \centerline{
1245: \scalebox{0.45}{\includegraphics{qt-dep2.eps}}
1246: }
1247: \caption{Differential cross section of neutron production,
1248: Eq.~(\ref{580}), at $\sqrt{s}=200\GeV$, $z=0.7$ (upper panel) and $z=0.9$
1249: (bottom panel). Contributions of the non-flip, Eq.~(\ref{590}), and
1250: spin-flip, Eq.~(\ref{600}), processes are shown by dashed curves, and
1251: their sum is depicted by solid curves.}
1252: \label{sigma-qt}
1253: \end{figure}
1254: The $q_T$ distribution shrinks towards larger $z$. For instance, the slope
1255: calculated at $q_T^2=0.1\GeV^2$ equals to $B(z=0.7)=12.3\GeV^{-2}$
1256: and $B(z=0.9)=17.3\GeV^{-2}$. At the same time, at small $q_T$ the
1257: spin-flip term starts sticking out at large $z$, and the effective
1258: slope measured at such small $q_T$ may become small, and even
1259: negative.
1260:
1261: Notice that the effective slope also rises with energy. The $q_T$
1262: distribution calculated at $\sqrt{s}=50\GeV$ at the same values of $z$
1263: demonstrates a similar pattern, but the slopes are about two units of
1264: $\GeV^{-2}$ smaller.
1265:
1266:
1267: \section{Discussion}\label{discussion}
1268:
1269: There are few points in the above presentation which deserve more
1270: discussion.
1271:
1272: \subsection{Maximal suppression}
1273:
1274: Although our results presented in Figs.~\ref{fig:isr1} and \ref{fig:isr2} for the
1275: cross section calculated with the hadronic model are quite below the ISR data, we
1276: think that we could only underestimate the strength of the absorptive damping. We
1277: represented the color octet-octet dipole by by a $\pi p $ pair, but apparently the
1278: effective number of pions might be larger. Of course this can only suppress the cross
1279: section further down and worsen the disagreement with the ISR data. To see the scale
1280: of possible effects we considered in Sect.~\ref{extreme} an extreme case of mean
1281: number of pions corresponding to hadronization of the octet-octet dipole. The result
1282: for the cross section of neutron production is compared with the $\pi p$ hadronic
1283: model in Fig.~\ref{max}.
1284: \begin{figure}[htb]
1285: \centerline{
1286: \scalebox{0.4}{\includegraphics{extreme.ps}}
1287: }
1288: \caption{Comparison of the effect of the cross section damping caused by a $\pi-p$
1289: pair and by a nucleon accompanied by $\la n_\pi\ra$ pions (see Sect.~\ref{extreme}
1290: for the details), represented by the upper and bottom curves respectively.
1291: Calculations are performed for $\sqrt{s}=30\GeV$ and $q_T=0$.}
1292: \label{max}
1293: \end{figure}
1294: The effect of suppression caused by the extra pions is not strong at large $z$,
1295: since the pion exchange partial amplitude is very peripheral, while the suppression
1296: factor $S^{(hadr)}_{max}$ is more central. Correspondingly, the effect of extra
1297: suppression becomes stronger towards smaller $z$.
1298:
1299:
1300: \subsection{Challenging the ISR data}\label{sub-isr.data}
1301:
1302: The shape of both the $z$ and energy dependence which resulted from our
1303: calculations agree with data \cite{isr}. However, the predicted
1304: cross section, shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:isr1} and \ref{fig:isr2},
1305: underestimates the data \cite{isr} by about a factor of two.
1306:
1307: Nevertheless, there are indications that the source of disagreement
1308: may be the normalization of the data. A strong evidence comes from
1309: the recent measurements by the ZEUS collaboration \cite{zeus} of
1310: leading neutron production in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic
1311: scattering (DIS) and photoproduction, that the normalization of the
1312: ISR data \cite{isr} is overestimated by about a factor of two.
1313: Indeed, according to Regge factorization the fraction of events with
1314: leading neutron production in $h$-proton collision,
1315: \beq
1316: \frac{dN}{dz dq_T^2}=
1317: \frac{1}{\sigma^{hp}_{tot}}\,
1318: \frac{d\sigma_{hp\to Xn}}{dz dq_T^2}\,,
1319: \label{620}
1320: \eeq
1321: should be universal, i.e. independent of the particle $h$.
1322: Of course this universality should be broken by absorption
1323: corrections, and it is natural to expect that neutron damping should
1324: be stronger in $pp$ collisions than in photoproduction. However, a
1325: comparison of photo-production and $pp$ data performed in
1326: \cite{zeus} demonstrated just the opposite: the ratio
1327: Eq.~(\ref{620}) for $pp$ is twice that for photoproduction.
1328: Moreover, Fig.~\ref{isr-zeus} demonstrates that even neutrons
1329: produced in DIS, where absorption effects should be minimal, are
1330: quite more suppressed than in the ISR data for $pp$ collisions.
1331: \begin{figure}[htb]
1332: \centerline{
1333: \scalebox{0.45}{\includegraphics{isr-zeus.ps}}
1334: }
1335: \caption{Number of events distribution, Eq.~(\ref{620}), for neutron
1336: production. {\it Open points:} ISR data \cite{isr} for forward,
1337: $q_T=0$, neutron production divided by $\sigma^{pp}_{tot}$ at
1338: $\sqrt{s}=62.7\GeV$ \cite{pdg}. The overall normalization
1339: uncertainty is $20\%$ \cite{isr}. {\it Closed points:} number of
1340: events for neutron production in DIS ($Q^2>4\GeV^2$). The ZEUS data
1341: \cite{zeus} are extrapolated to $q_T=0$ as is described in the text.
1342: Systematic errors related to the acceptance and energy scale
1343: uncertainties are added in quadrature. The overall normalization
1344: uncertainty is $4\%$ \cite{zeus}. {\it Asterix points:} event number distribution for $pp\to nX$
1345: measured in the NA49 experiment at $E_{lab}=158\GeV$ and extrapolated to $q_T=0$ \cite{na49}.
1346: }
1347: \label{isr-zeus}
1348: \end{figure}
1349: Extrapolating to $q_T=0$ the ZEUS data for neutron production in DIS, within
1350: an angle $0.8\,$mrad, we used the measured slope $b(z)=(16.3\,z -
1351: 4.25)\GeV^{-2}$.
1352:
1353: Notice that the ZEUS results \cite{zeus} also show that the ratio Eq.~({620})
1354: rises with $Q^2$, demonstrating decreasing absorptive corrections,
1355: in good accord with the above expectations and in contradiction with
1356: the weak absorption suggested by the ISR data.
1357:
1358: Another evidence comes from the ratio of the pion-to-proton
1359: structure functions measured at small $x$ in \cite{zeus}. Contrary
1360: to the natural expectation $F_2^\pi(x)/F_2^p(x)\approx 2/3$, it was
1361: found to be about $1/3$. This shows that the absorptive corrections
1362: reduce the cross section by a factor of two (like in our
1363: calculations). As was already commented, absorptive corrections in
1364: $pp$ collisions should not be smaller than in DIS.
1365:
1366: Although the systematic uncertainty of the ISR data was claimed in
1367: \cite{isr} to be $20\%$, it was probably underestimated.
1368:
1369: One can find in \cite{ryskin} more comments on the current
1370: controversies in the available data for leading neutron production
1371: in hadronic collisions.
1372:
1373: A firm support for our conjecture about an incorrect normalization of the ISR data comes from preliminary data from the NA49 experiment at CERN SPS\cite{na49} for leading neutron production in $pp$ collisions at $E_{lab}=158\GeV$. The measured cross section integrated over $q_T$ was extrapolated to $q_T=0$ assuming the same slope of $q_T$ dependence as measured for proton production \cite{na49}. The found fractional cross section plotted in Fig.~\ref{isr-zeus} is about twice as low as the ISR data, but agrees well with the ZEUS DIS data.
1374:
1375: \subsection{Further corrections}\label{sub-firther.corrections}
1376:
1377: Besides the pion pole, Fig.~\ref{pion}, other mechanisms which were
1378: discussed in \cite{k2p} can contribute. Isovector Reggeons, $\rho$
1379: $a_2$ and $a_1$, also lead to neutron production. These Reggeons
1380: contribute mostly to the spin-flip amplitude, i.e. vanish in the
1381: forward direction where we compare with data. These corrections to
1382: the cross section were estimated in \cite{k2p} to be about $10\%$,
1383: as well as the possibility of additional pion production in the
1384: pion-nucleon vertex, $\pi p\to \pi n$ \cite{k2p}. We neglect this
1385: corrections here, since they are small and quite uncertain. The main
1386: focus of this paper is the calculation of absorptive corrections.
1387:
1388: Since the isovector Reggeon amplitudes are mainly spin-flip, they are small in forward direction, but become more important with rising $q_T$. Thus,
1389: they should reduce the value of the $q_T^2$-slope of the differential cross section calculated in Sect.~\ref{xsection}. Indeed the slope measured in the ZEUS experiment \cite{zeus2007} is substantially smaller than is suggested by the contribution of pion exchange.
1390:
1391:
1392: \section{Summary}\label{summary}
1393:
1394: To summarize, we highlight some of the results.
1395: \begin{itemize}
1396:
1397: \item Pion exchange is usually associated with the spin-flip amplitude.
1398: However, the amplitude of an inclusive process mediated by pion
1399: exchange acquires a substantial non-flip part which in many cases
1400: dominates.
1401:
1402: \item We applied absorptive corrections to the spin amplitudes.
1403: This is quite different from a convolution of the LRG survival
1404: probability with the cross section, as it has been done in many
1405: publications. We found that the non-flip amplitude is suppressed by
1406: absorption much more than the spin-flip one, therefore applying an
1407: overall suppression factor is not correct.
1408:
1409: \item
1410: We identified the projectile system which undergoes initial and
1411: final state interactions as a color octet-octet 5-quark state.
1412: Absorptive corrections are calculated within two models,
1413: color-dipole light-cone approach, and in hadronic representation.
1414: The two descriptions, being so different, nevertheless lead to very
1415: similar results.
1416:
1417: \item Since the projectile 5-quark state interacts with the target
1418: stronger than a single nucleon, we predict a much stronger damping of
1419: neutrons compared to some of previous estimates.
1420:
1421: \item
1422: Comparison of fractional cross sections of forward neutron
1423: production in $pp$ collisions \cite{isr} and in DIS \cite{zeus} show
1424: a substantial discrepancy which indicates an incorrect normalization
1425: of ISR data. The preliminary data for neutron production in $pp$ collisions
1426: from the NA49 experiment at CERN SPS \cite{na49} are about twice lower than
1427: the ISR data, once again confirming that the latter has an incorrect normalization.
1428: This explains why our results are significantly lower
1429: than the ISR data.
1430: New data for inclusive neutron production at RHIC, at
1431: $\sqrt{s}=200-500\GeV$ are expected soon \cite{phenix}.
1432:
1433: \end{itemize}
1434:
1435: \begin{acknowledgments}
1436:
1437: We are grateful to Misha Ryskin
1438: for informative discussions, and to Hans Gerhard Fischer and Dezso Varga
1439: for providing us with preliminary data from the NA49 experiment and for useful comments. This work was supported in part
1440: by Fondecyt (Chile) grants 1050519 and 1050589, and by DFG (Germany)
1441: grant PI182/3-1.
1442: \end{acknowledgments}
1443:
1444: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1445:
1446: \bibitem{k2p}
1447: B.~Kopeliovich, B.~Povh and I.~Potashnikova,
1448: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 73}, 125 (1996)
1449: [arXiv:hep-ph/9601291].
1450:
1451: \bibitem{bishari}
1452: M.~Bishari,
1453: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 38}, 510 (1972).
1454:
1455: \bibitem{boreskov1} K.G. Boreskov, A.A. Grigorian and A.B. Kaidalov, Sov.
1456: J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 24}, 411 (1976).
1457:
1458: \bibitem{boreskov2} K.G. Boreskov, A.A. Grigorian, A.B. Kaidalov and
1459: I.I.Levintov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 27}, 813 (1978).
1460:
1461: \bibitem{3n}
1462: N.~N.~Nikolaev, W.~Schafer, A.~Szczurek and J.~Speth,
1463: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 014004 (1999)
1464: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812266].
1465:
1466: \bibitem{ap}
1467: U.~D'Alesio and H.~J.~Pirner,
1468: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ A {\bf 7}, 109 (2000)
1469: [arXiv:hep-ph/9806321].
1470:
1471: \bibitem{strong1} K.J.M. Moriarty, J.H. Tabor and A. Ungkichanukit, Phys.
1472: Rev. D{\bf 16}, 130 (1977).
1473:
1474: \bibitem{strong2} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J.
1475: C{\bf 18}, 167 (2000).
1476:
1477: \bibitem{ryskin}
1478: A.~B.~Kaidalov, V.~A.~Khoze, A.~D.~Martin and M.~G.~Ryskin,
1479: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 47}, 385 (2006).
1480:
1481: \bibitem{isr} W. Flauger and F. M\"onnig,
1482: Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 109} (1976) 347.
1483:
1484: \bibitem{2klp}
1485: Yu.~M.~Kazarinov, B.~Z.~Kopeliovich, L.~I.~Lapidus and
1486: I.~K.~Potashnikova,
1487: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 43}, 598 (1976)
1488: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 70}, 1152 (1976)].
1489:
1490: \bibitem{pdg} W.-M. Yao et al. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G 33, 1
1491: (2006).
1492:
1493: \bibitem{kst2} B.~Z.~Kopeliovich, A.~Schafer and A.~V.~Tarasov,
1494: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 054022 (2000)
1495: [arXiv:hep-ph/9908245].
1496:
1497: \bibitem{zamolodchikov}
1498: J.~Hufner, B.~Kopeliovich and A.~B.~Zamolodchikov,
1499: Z.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 357}, 113 (1997)
1500: [arXiv:nucl-th/9607033].
1501:
1502: \bibitem{stan-ivan}
1503: S.~J.~Brodsky, I.~Schmidt and J.~J.~Yang,
1504: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 116003 (2004)
1505: [arXiv:hep-ph/0409279].
1506:
1507: \bibitem{spots}
1508: B.~Z.~Kopeliovich, I.~K.~Potashnikova, B.~Povh and I.~Schmidt,
1509: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76}, 094020 (2007)
1510: [arXiv:0708.3636 [hep-ph]].
1511:
1512: \bibitem{capella}
1513: A.~Capella, U.~Sukhatme, C.~I.~Tan and J.~Tran Thanh Van,
1514: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 236}, 225 (1994).
1515:
1516: \bibitem{gbw}
1517: K.~J.~Golec-Biernat and M.~Wusthoff,
1518: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 014017 (1999)
1519: [arXiv:hep-ph/9807513].
1520:
1521: \bibitem{r-pion} S.~Amendolia et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B277} (1986) 186.
1522:
1523: \bibitem{amir2}
1524: B.~Z.~Kopeliovich, H.~J.~Pirner, A.~H.~Rezaeian and I.~Schmidt,
1525: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 77}, 034011 (2008)
1526: [arXiv:0711.3010 [hep-ph]].
1527:
1528: \bibitem{proton} R. Rosenfelder, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 479}, 381 (2000).
1529:
1530: \bibitem{amaldi} U. Amaldi and K.R. Schubert, Nucl. Phys. B166 (1980)
1531: 301.
1532:
1533: \bibitem{k3p}
1534: B.~Z.~Kopeliovich, I.~K.~Potashnikova, B.~Povh and E.~Predazzi,
1535: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 507 (2000)
1536: [arXiv:hep-ph/0002241];
1537: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 054001 (2001)
1538: [arXiv:hep-ph/0009008].
1539:
1540: \bibitem{kps1}
1541: B.~Z.~Kopeliovich, I.~K.~Potashnikova and I.~Schmidt,
1542: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 73}, 034901 (2006)
1543: [arXiv:hep-ph/0508277].
1544:
1545: \bibitem{gribov} V.N.~Gribov, Sov. Phys. JETP 29, 483 (1969).
1546:
1547: \bibitem{kl-78}
1548: B.~Z.~Kopeliovich and L.~I.~Lapidus,
1549: Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 28}, 664 (1978).
1550:
1551: \bibitem{levin}
1552: E.~Gotsman, E.~Levin and U.~Maor,
1553: arXiv:0708.1506 [hep-ph].
1554:
1555: \bibitem{kaidalov} A.B. Kaidalov, Phys. Rep. 50 (1979) 157.
1556:
1557: \bibitem{zkl}
1558: B.~Z.~Kopeliovich, L.~I.~Lapidus and A.~B.~Zamolodchikov,
1559: JETP Lett.\ {\bf 33}, 595 (1981)
1560: [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 33}, 612 (1981)].
1561:
1562: \bibitem{mine}
1563: B.~Z.~Kopeliovich,
1564: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 68}, 044906 (2003)
1565: [arXiv:nucl-th/0306044].
1566:
1567: \bibitem{data-pp} F.~Abe et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D50}, 550 (1993);
1568: R.~Battiston et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf 127B} (1983) 472;
1569: M.~Bozzo et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf 147B} (1984) 385; {\bf 155B} (1985)
1570: 197; D.~Bernard et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf 198B} (1987) 583; G.~Arnison et
1571: al., {\bf 128B} (1983) 336
1572:
1573: \bibitem{rho} U.~Amaldi et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf 166B} (1980) 301;
1574: C.~Augier et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf 316B} (1993) 448;
1575: N.~Amos et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68} (1992) 2433
1576:
1577: \bibitem{data-ppi} J.R. Cudell, A. Lengyel and E. Martynov,
1578: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 034008 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0511073].
1579:
1580: \bibitem{bjorken} J. D. Bjorken and J. Kogut, Phys. Rev. D{\bf8}, 1341
1581: (1973).
1582:
1583: \bibitem{tasso}
1584: R.~Brandelik {\it et al.} [TASSO Collaboration],
1585: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 89}, 418 (1980).
1586:
1587: \bibitem{kaidalov-ter}
1588: A.~B.~Kaidalov and K.~A.~Ter-Martirosian,
1589: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 39}, 979 (1984)
1590: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 39}, 1545 (1984)].
1591:
1592: \bibitem{zeus}
1593: S.~Chekanov {\it et al.} [ZEUS Collaboration],
1594: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 637}, 3 (2002)
1595: [arXiv:hep-ex/0205076].
1596:
1597: \bibitem{na49}
1598: D.~Varga, NA49 Collaboration,
1599: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 33}, S515 (2004).
1600:
1601: \bibitem{zeus2007}
1602: S.~Chekanov {\it et al.} [ZEUS Collaboration],
1603: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 776}, 1 (2007)
1604: [arXiv:hep-ex/0702028].
1605:
1606: \bibitem{phenix} The PHENIX collaboration, M.~Togawa et al. talk at the
1607: Conference "SPIN 2006", Kyoto, October 2-7, 2006.
1608:
1609: \end{thebibliography}
1610: \end{document}
1611: