1: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}

2: %\documentclass[12pt]{article}

3: %\usepackage{amsbsy}

4: %-------------------------------------------

5: \newcommand{\mc}{\multicolumn}

6: \newcommand{\bce}{\begin{center}}

7: \newcommand{\ece}{\end{center}}

8: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

9: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

10: \newcommand{\bea}{\vspace{0.25cm}\begin{eqnarray}}

11: %\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\newline\vspace{0.25cm}\noindent}

12: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

13: \newcommand{\cont}{\nonumber\end{eqnarray}\begin{eqnarray}}

14: \newcommand{\ab}{{\alpha\beta}}

15: \newcommand{\cd}{{\gamma\delta}}

16: \newcommand{\dc}{{\delta\gamma}}

17: \newcommand{\ac}{{\alpha\gamma}}

18: \newcommand{\bd}{{\beta\delta}}

19: \newcommand{\abc}{{\alpha\beta\gamma}}

20: \newcommand{\eps}{{\epsilon}}

21: \newcommand{\lam}{{\lambda}}

22: \newcommand{\mn}{{\mu\nu}}

23: \newcommand{\mpnp}{{\mu'\nu'}}

24: \newcommand{\Amuu}{{A_{\mu}}}

25: \newcommand{\Amuo}{{A^{\mu}}}

26: \newcommand{\Vmuu}{{V_{\mu}}}

27: \newcommand{\Vmuo}{{V^{\mu}}}

28: \newcommand{\Anuu}{{A_{\nu}}}

29: \newcommand{\Anuo}{{A^{\nu}}}

30: \newcommand{\Vnuu}{{V_{\nu}}}

31: \newcommand{\Vnuo}{{V^{\nu}}}

32: \newcommand{\Fmnu}{{F_{\mu\nu}}}

33: \newcommand{\Fmno}{{F^{\mu\nu}}}

34: \newcommand{\abcd}{{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}}

35: \newcommand{\bsigma}{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}

36: \newcommand{\btau}{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}

37: \newcommand{\brho}{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}

38: \newcommand{\bpipi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\pi\pi$}}

39: \newcommand{\bss}{\bsigma\!\cdot\!\bsigma}

40: \newcommand{\btt}{\btau\!\cdot\!\btau}

41: \newcommand{\bnab}{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}

42: %\newcommand{\b0}{\mbox{\boldmath $0$}}

43: %\newcommand{\b1}{\mbox{\boldmath $1$}}

44: \newcommand{\bA}{{\bf A}}

45: \newcommand{\be}{{\bf e}}

46: \newcommand{\bj}{{\bf j}}

47: \newcommand{\bk}{{\bf k}}

48: \newcommand{\bl}{{\bf l}}

49: \newcommand{\bL}{{\bf L}}

50: \newcommand{\bM}{{\bf M}}

51: \newcommand{\bp}{{\bf p}}

52: \newcommand{\bq}{{\bf q}}

53: \newcommand{\br}{{\bf r}}

54: \newcommand{\bR}{{\bf R}}

55: \newcommand{\bs}{{\bf s}}

56: \newcommand{\bS}{{\bf S}}

57: \newcommand{\bT}{{\bf T}}

58: \newcommand{\bv}{{\bf v}}

59: \newcommand{\bV}{{\bf V}}

60: \newcommand{\bx}{{\bf x}}

61: \newcommand{\fph}{${\cal F}$}

62: \newcommand{\aph}{${\cal A}$}

63: \newcommand{\dph}{${\cal D}$}

64: \newcommand{\bm}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}

65: \newcommand{\fpi}{f_\pi}

66: \newcommand{\mpi}{m_\pi}

67: \newcommand{\Tr}{{\mbox{\rm Tr}}}

68: \newcommand{\delu}{\partial_{\mu}}

69: \newcommand{\delo}{\partial^{\mu}}

70: \newcommand{\up}{\!\uparrow}

71: \newcommand{\do}{\!\downarrow}

72: \newcommand{\upup}{\uparrow\uparrow}

73: \newcommand{\updo}{\uparrow\downarrow}

74: \newcommand{\uu}{$\uparrow\uparrow$}

75: \newcommand{\ud}{$\uparrow\downarrow$}

76: \newcommand{\auu}{$a^{\uparrow\uparrow}$}

77: \newcommand{\aud}{$a^{\uparrow\downarrow}$}

78: \newcommand{\pu}{p\!\uparrow}

79: %\newcommand{\half}{{1\over 2}}

80: %\newcommand{\quart}{{1\over 4}}

81: \newcommand{\cl}[1]{\begin{center} {#1} \end{center}}

82: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}

83: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}

84: \newcommand{\bpi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}}

85: \newcommand{\bphi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi$}}

86: \newcommand{\bthet}{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}

87: \newcommand{\qp}{quasiparticle}

88: \newcommand{\sa}{scattering amplitude}

89: \newcommand{\ph}{particle-hole}

90: \newcommand{\qcd}{{\it QCD}}

91: \newcommand{\integ}{\int\!d}

92: \newcommand{\ie}{{\sl i.e.~}}

93: \newcommand{\etal}{{\sl et al.~}}

94: \newcommand{\etc}{{\sl etc.~}}

95: \newcommand{\rhs}{{\sl rhs~}}

96: \newcommand{\lhs}{{\sl lhs~}}

97: \newcommand{\eg}{{\sl e.g.~}}

98: \newcommand{\ef}{\epsilon_F}

99: \newcommand{\sigt}{d^2\sigma/d\Omega dE}

100: \newcommand{\sige}{{d^2\sigma\over d\Omega dE}}

101: \newcommand{\rpaeq}{\beq

102: \left ( \begin{array}{cc}

103: A&B\\

104: -B^*&-A^*\end{array}\right )

105: \left ( \begin{array}{c}

106: X^{(\kappa})\\Y^{(\kappa)}\end{array}\right )=E_\kappa

107: \left ( \begin{array}{c}

108: X^{(\kappa})\\Y^{(\kappa)}\end{array}\right )

109: \eeq}

110: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{| {#1} \rangle}

111: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle {#1} |}

112: \newcommand{\ave}[1]{\langle {#1} \rangle}

113: %\newcounter{f1}

114: %\newcounter{f2}

115: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesubsection.\arabic{equation}}

116: %\renewcommand{\thetable}{\thesection.\arabic{table}}

117: \newcommand{\singlespace}{

118:     \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\large\normalsize}

119: \newcommand{\doublespace}{

120:     \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.6}\large\normalsize}

121: \newcommand{\bftau}{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}

122: \newcommand{\bfalpha}{\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}

123: \newcommand{\bfgamma}{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}

124: \newcommand{\bfxi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}}

125: \newcommand{\bfbeta}{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}

126: \newcommand{\bfeta}{\mbox{\boldmath $\eta$}}

127: \newcommand{\bfpi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}}

128: \newcommand{\bfphi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi$}}

129: \newcommand{\bfrho}{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}

130: \newcommand{\bfR}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\cal R}$}}

131: \newcommand{\bfL}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\cal L}$}}

132: \newcommand{\bfE}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\cal E}$}}

133: \newcommand{\bfM}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\cal M}$}}

134: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

135:     \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}         %less than or approx. symbol

136: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

137:     \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}         %greater than or approx. symbol

138: \def\dblint{\mathop{\rlap{\hbox{$\displaystyle\!\int\!\!\!\!\!\int$}}

139:     \hbox{$\bigcirc$}}}

140: \def\ut#1{$\underline{\smash{\vphantom{y}\hbox{#1}}}$}

141: \def\Pom{{\bf I\!P}}

142: \def\ni{\noindent}

143: \def\jp{$J/\Psi~$}

144: \def\z{$z~$}

145: \def\pt{$p_T^2~$}

146: \def\psip{$\psi^{\prime}~$}

147: \def\cbc{$c \bar{c}$}

148: % ------------------------------------------------------------------

149: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

150:     \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}         %less than or approx. symbol

151: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

152:     \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}         %greater than or approx. symbol

153: \def\dblint{\mathop{\rlap{\hbox{$\displaystyle\!\int\!\!\!\!\!\int$}}

154:     \hbox{$\bigcirc$}}}

155: \def\ut#1{$\underline{\smash{\vphantom{y}\hbox{#1}}}$}

156: \def\Pom{{\bf I\!P}}

157: \def\ni{\noindent}

158: \def\jp{$J/\Psi~$}

159: \def\z{$z~$}

160: \def\pt{$p_T^2~$}

161: \def\psip{$\psi^{\prime}~$}

162: \def\cbc{$c \bar{c}$}

163: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

164: \textwidth              16.4cm

165: \oddsidemargin           2.5cm

166:   \advance\oddsidemargin  by -0.9in

167: \evensidemargin          0.0cm

168:   \advance\evensidemargin by -0.9in

169: \marginparwidth          1.9cm

170: \marginparsep            0.6cm

171: \marginparpush           0.6cm

172: \topmargin              -1.5cm

173:   \advance\topmargin      by -0.20in

174: \textheight             24.00cm

175: % ===================================================================

176: \makeindex

177: %--------------------------------------------------

178: \begin{document}

179: 

180: %\phantom{.}\hspace{10.0cm}{\large \bf IKP-TH /00}  \\

181: \phantom{.}\hspace{10.5cm}{\large \bf 24 March 2000}

182: \vspace{1.5cm}\\

183: \begin{center}

184: {\Large \bf

185: %

186: The wave function

187: of 2S radially excited vector mesons from data

188: for diffraction slope} \\

189: \vspace*{1.5cm} 

190: %

191: {\large \bf J.~Nemchik}

192: \vspace*{0.5cm} \\

193: {\it Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, \\

194: Watsonova 47, 04353 Ko\v sice, Slovakia} \\

195: \vspace*{3.5cm}

196: %and \\

197: %\vspace*{0.5cm}

198: %{\large \bf N.~Nikolaev}

199: %\vspace*{0.3cm} \\

200: %{\it IKP(Theorie), KFA J{\"u}lich, 5170 J{\"u}lich, Germany \\

201: %and \\

202: %L. D. Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics, GSP-1, \\

203: %117940, ul. Kosygina 2, Moscow 117334, Russia}

204: %\vspace*{2.0cm} \\

205: \begin{minipage}[h]{13cm}

206: \centerline{\Large \bf

207: Abstract }

208: \vspace*{1.5cm}

209: 

210: In the color dipole gBFKL dynamics,

211: we predict a strikingly different 

212: $Q^{2}$ and energy dependence of the diffraction slope

213: for the elastic production of ground state $V(1S)$ and 

214: radially excited $V'(2S)$ light

215: vector mesons.

216: %

217: The color dipole model predictions for the 

218: diffraction

219: slope for $\rho^{0}$ and $\phi^{0}$ production

220: are in a good

221: agreement with the data from the 

222: fixed target and collider HERA experiments.

223: %

224: We present how a different form of anomalous

225: energy- and $Q^{2}$ dependence of the diffraction

226: slope for $V'(2S)$ production leads to a different

227: position of the node in radial wave function

228: and discuss a possibility how to determine this

229: position from the fixed target and HERA data.

230: 

231: 

232: \end{minipage}

233: \end{center}

234: \pagebreak

235: \setlength{\baselineskip}{0.55cm}

236: % -------------------------------------------------

237: % 

238: %     Section 1

239: 

240: % -------------------------------------------------

241: % =================================================

242: \section{Introduction}

243: % =================================================

244: 

245: Diffractive photo- and electroroduction of 

246: vector mesons 

247: %

248: %

249: % ===============================

250: \beq

251: \gamma^{*}p \rightarrow Vp\, ,\,\, (V = \rho^{0}, \Phi^{0},

252: \omega^{0}, J/\Psi, \Upsilon ...)

253: \label{eq:1}

254: \eeq

255: % ===============================

256: %

257: %

258: is presently intensively studied

259: at HERA and represent a good cross check

260: to test the ideas implemented into various 

261: theoretical models 

262: \cite{DL,KZ91,Ryskin,KNNZ93,KNNZ94,NNZscan,Brodsky,Forshaw,GLM}

263: within the framework of the perturbative QCD (pQCD). 

264: Morevever, the high statistics data 

265: at HERA

266: during a several last years allows also

267: to study diffractive electroproduction

268: of radially excited $V'(2S)$ vector mesons,

269: which are known to have a node

270: (the node effect 

271: \cite{KZ91,KNNZ93,NNZanom,NNPZ97,NNPZZ98}) in the radial

272: wave function leading to pecularities in

273: investigation of various aspects 

274: of their diffractive production. 

275: In this paper we demonstrate

276: further salient features of the node effect

277: in conjunction with the gBFKL phenomenology of the

278: diffraction slope 

279: \cite{NZZslope,NZZspectrum,NNPZZ98}

280: leading to an anomalous

281: energy and $Q^{2}$ dependence of the diffraction cone.

282: 

283: The details of the gBFKL phenomenology of diffractive

284: electroproduction of vector mesons has been presented

285: in the paper \cite{NNPZ97} and will not be

286: repeated here. The same concerns to the color dipole phenomenology

287: of the diffraction slope for photo- and electroproduction

288: of heavy vector mesons developed in the paper \cite{NNPZZ98}.

289: We start with the principal result coming from

290: the analysis of the diffractive production of light

291: \cite{NNZscan,NNPZ97} and heavy

292: \cite{NNPZZ98} vector mesons at $t=0$ within

293: the gBFKL phenomenology and leading to the conclusion

294: that the

295: $1S$ vector meson production amplitude probes the color dipole cross

296: section

297: (and the dipole diffraction slope as well)

298: at the dipole size $r\sim r_{S}$

299: ({\it scanning phenomenon} \cite{NNN92,KNNZ93,KNNZ94,NNZscan}),

300: where the scanning radius can be expressed through the scale

301: parameter $A$, photon virtuality $Q^{2}$ and

302: vector meson mass $m_{V}$ :

303: %

304: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

305: \beq

306: r_{S} \approx {A \over \sqrt{m_{V}^{2}+Q^{2}}}\, .

307: \label{eq:2}

308: \eeq

309: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

310: %

311: Scanning phenomenon allows to study the transition

312: between the perturbative (hard)

313: and nonperturbative (soft) regimes.

314: Changing $Q^{2}$ and the mass of the produced

315: vector meson, one can

316: probe the dipole cross section $\sigma(\xi,r)$,

317: and the dipole diffraction slope $B(\xi,r)$

318: in a very broad range of the dipole

319: sizes, $r$.

320: 

321: Radially excited $V'(2S)$ vector mesons can extend

322: an additional

323: information on the dipole cross section and dipole

324: diffraction slope.

325: %

326: The presence of the node in the

327: $2S$ radial

328: wave function leads to the node effect

329: (a strong cancellation

330: of the dipole size contributions to the production amplitude

331: from the region above and below the node position,

332: $r_{n}$, in the $2S$ radial wave function \cite{KZ91,NNN92,NNZanom,NNPZ97}).

333: For this reason, the amplitudes for the

334: electroproduction of the $1S$ and $2S$ vector mesons probe $\sigma(\xi,r)$

335: and $B(\xi,r)$ in a different way.

336: The onset of the node effect depends

337: on vector meson mass.

338: The node effect has been found to be a strong in

339: electroproduction of radially excited

340: light vector mesons ($\rho^{0}$, $\Phi^{0}$, $\omega^{0}$)

341: \cite{NNPZ97} leading

342: to an anomalous $Q^{2}$ and energy dependence of the production

343: cross section.

344: However, node effect is much weaker for the electroproduction of $2S$ heavy

345: vector mesons ($J/\Psi$, $\Upsilon$, ...)

346: For production of charmonia it

347: leads to a slightly different $Q^{2}$ and

348: energy dependence of the production cross section

349: for $\Psi'$ vs. $J/\Psi$ 

350: and to a counterintuitive inequality $B(\Psi') < B(J/\Psi)$

351: \cite{NNPZZ98}.

352: 

353: For $\Upsilon'$ production, the node

354: effect is negligible small and gives approximately the

355: same $Q^{2}$ and energy behaviour of the production cross section

356: and practically the same diffraction slope at $t=0$ for

357: $\Upsilon$ and $\Upsilon'$ production \cite{NNPZZ98}.

358: Therefore, it is very important to explore farther the salient features

359: of the node effect with conjunction with the emerging gBFKL

360: phenomenology of the diffraction slope especially in production of

361: $V'(2S)$ light vector mesons where the node effect is

362: expected to be very strong.

363: 

364: Two main reasons affect the cancellation pattern

365: in the diffraction slope for $2S$ state.

366: The first reason is connected with the $Q^{2}$ behaviour

367: of the scanning radius $r_{S}$ (see (\ref{eq:2}));

368: for the electroproduction of $V'(2S)$ light vector mesons

369: at moderate $Q^{2}$ when the scanning radius

370: $r_{S}$ is close to $r_{n}$,

371: due to $\sim r^{2}$ behaviour of $B(\xi,r)$ \cite{NZZslope}

372: even a slight variation of

373: $r_{S}$ with $Q^{2}$ strongly changes the cancellation

374: pattern  and leads to an anomalous

375: $Q^{2}$ dependence

376: of the forward diffraction slope, $B(t=0)$

377: \cite{NNPZZ98}.

378: The second reason is due to

379: different energy dependence

380: of $\sigma(\xi,r)$

381: at different dipole sizes $r$ coming from

382: the gBFKL dynamics

383: leading also to an

384: anomalous energy dependence of $B(t=0)$ for the $V'(2S)$ production.

385: 

386: The effects mentioned above are sensitive to the

387: form of the dipole cross section and the dipole diffraction slope.

388: In Ref.~\cite{NNPZdipole} (\cite{SlopeDipole})

389: we presented the first direct determination

390: of the color dipole cross section (color dipole diffraction slope)

391: from the data on

392: the photo- and electroproduction of $V(1S)$ vector mesons.

393: So extracted dipole cross section 

394: (dipole diffraction slope) is in a good agreement with

395: the dipole cross section (dipole diffraction slope)

396: obtained from gBFKL analysis

397: \cite{NZHera,NNZscan} (\cite{NZZslope,NZZspectrum,NNPZZ98}).

398: This fact confirms a very reasonable choice

399: of the nonperturbative component of the dipole cross section

400: (dipole diffraction slope)

401: corresponding to a soft nonperturbative mechanism contribution

402: to the scattering amplitude.

403: 

404: Due to a large value of the scale parameter in (\ref{eq:2}),

405: the large-distance

406: contributions to the production amplitude

407: from the semiperturbative and nonperturbative

408: region of color dipoles $r\gsim R_{c}$ becomes substantial

409: ($R_{c}\sim 0.27 fm$ is gluon correlation radius introduced in

410: \cite{NZ94,NZZ94}) .

411: Only the virtual $\rho^{0}$ and $\phi^{0}$ photoproduction

412: at $Q^{2}\gsim 100$\,GeV$^{2}$ can be treated as a purely

413: perturbative process, when the production

414: amplitude is dominantly contributed from the perturbative

415: region, $r\lsim R_{c}$.

416: 

417: In the present paper

418: we concentrate on the production of $V'(2S)$ radially

419: excited light vector mesons, where the node in the

420: radial wave function in conjunction with the

421: subasymptotic energy dependence of $B(\xi,r)$

422: leads to a

423: strikingly different $Q^{2}$ and energy

424: dependence of the diffraction slope

425: for the production of $V'(2S)$ vs.

426: $V(1S)$ vector mesons.

427: We also study how

428: the position of the node in the radial wave function

429: for $V'(2S)$ vector mesons can be

430: extracted from the data.

431: %

432: We present an exact prescription how the experimental

433: measurement of the $Q^{2}$ and energy

434: dependence of the diffraction slope for

435: $V'(2S)$ production could

436: distinguish between the undercompensation

437: and overcompensation scenarios of the $2S$ production amplitude

438: (see Section 4).

439: The explicit form of that $Q^{2}$- and energy behaviour

440: of the diffraction slope is connected

441: with the position of the node in radial wave function

442: for $V'(2S)$ vector mesons.

443: %

444: %

445: %

446: This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we present 

447: a very short review of the 

448: the color dipole phenomenology

449: of the diffractive photo- and electroproduction of vector mesons

450: including some needful results from 

451: the gBFKL phenomenology of the diffraction slope.

452: %

453: Section 3 contains the model predictions

454: for $Q^{2}$ and energy dependence of the forward diffraction slope 

455: for the $\rho^{0}$ and $\phi^{0}$ real and virtual

456: electroproduction.

457: We predict a substantial growth of the diffraction slope

458: with energy in a good agreement

459: with the low energy data and

460: the data from the HERA collider experiments.

461: %

462: The subject of section 4 concerns to

463: the anomalous $Q^{2}$ and energy dependence of diffraction slope

464: for electroproduction of $2S$ radially excited light vector mesons.

465: %

466: The summary

467: and conclusions are presented in section 5.

468: 

469: 

470: % -------------------------------------------------

471: 

472: % Section 2

473: 

474: % -------------------------------------------------

475: % =================================================

476: \section{Basic formulas from the color dipole phenomenology

477:          of vector meson production and the diffraction slope}

478: % =================================================

479: 

480: 

481: In the mixed $({\bf{r}},z)$ representation,

482: the high energy meson is considered as

483: a system of color dipole described by

484: the distribution

485: of the transverse separation ${\bf{r}}$ of the quark and

486: antiquark given by the $q\bar{q}$ wave function,

487: $\Psi({\bf{r}},z)$, where $z$ is

488: the fraction of meson's lightcone momentum

489: carried by a quark.

490: The Fock state expansion for the

491: relativistic meson starts

492: with the $q\bar{q}$ state and

493: the higher Fock states $q\bar{q}g...$

494: become very important at high energy $\nu$.

495: The interaction of the relativistic

496: color dipole of the dipole moment, ${\bf{r}}$, with the

497: target nucleon is quantified by the energy dependent color

498: dipole cross section, $\sigma(\xi,r)$,

499: satisfying

500: the gBFKL equation

501: \cite{NZ94,NZZ94} for the energy evolution.

502: This reflects the fact that 

503: in the leading-log ${1\over x}$ approximation the

504: effect of higher Fock states can be

505: reabsorbed into the energy dependence

506: of $\sigma(\xi,r)$.

507: The dipole cross section is flavor

508: independent and represents the universal

509: function of $r$ which describes

510: various diffractive processes in unified form.

511: At high energy, when the transverse separation, ${\bf{r}}$,

512: of the quark and antiquark is frozen during the interaction

513: process, 

514: the scattering

515: matrix describing the $q\bar{q}$-nucleon interaction

516: becomes diagonal

517: in the mixed $({\bf{r}},z)$-representation ($z$ is known also as

518: the Sudakov light cone variable). 

519: This diagonalization property is held even 

520: when the dipole size, ${\bf{r}}$, is large,

521: i.e. beyond the perturbative region of short distances.

522: 

523: Following an advantage of

524: the $({\bf{r}},z)$-diagonalization of the

525: $q\bar{q}-N$ scattering matrix, the

526: imaginary part of the production

527: amplitude for the real (virtual) photoproduction

528: of vector mesons

529: with the momentum transfer ${\bf{q}}$ can be represented in the 

530: factorized form

531: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

532: \beq

533: {\rm Im}{\cal M}(\gamma^{*}\rightarrow V,\xi,Q^{2},{\bf{q}})=

534: \langle V |\sigma(\xi,r,z,{\bf{q}})|\gamma^{*}\rangle=

535: \int\limits_{0}^{1} dz\int d^{2}{\bf{r}}\sigma(\xi,r,z,{\bf{q}})

536: \Psi_{V}^{*}({\bf{r}},z)\Psi_{\gamma^{*}}({\bf{r}},z)\,

537: \label{eq:3}

538: \eeq

539: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

540: whose normalization is

541: $

542: \left.{d\sigma/ dt}\right|_{t=0}={|{\cal M}|^{2}/ 16\pi}.

543: $

544: In Eq.~(\ref{eq:3}), 

545: $\Psi_{\gamma^{*}}({\bf{r}},z)$ and

546: $\Psi_{V}({\bf{r}},z)$ represent the

547: probability amplitudes

548: to find the color dipole of size, $r$,

549: in the photon and quarkonium (vector meson), respectively.

550: The color dipole distribution in (virtual) photons was

551: derived in \cite{NZ91,NZ94}.

552: $\sigma(\xi,r,z,{\bf{q}})$ 

553: is the dipole scattering matrix for $q\bar{q}-N$ interaction. 

554: and

555: represents the above mentioned color dipole cross section

556: for ${\bf{q}}=0$.

557: %

558: At small ${\bf{q}}$ considered in this paper,

559: one can safely neglect

560: the $z$-dependence of $\sigma(\xi,r,z,{\bf{q}})$ 

561: for light and heavy vector meson production

562: and set $z=\frac{1}{2}$.

563: This follows partially from the analysis within double gluon 

564: exchange approximation

565: \cite{NZ91} leading to a slow $z$ dependence of 

566: the dipole cross section.

567: 

568: 

569: The energy dependence of the dipole cross section is quantified

570: in terms of the dimensionless

571: rapidity, $\xi=\log{1\over x_{eff}}$, where

572: $x_{eff}$ is the effective value of the Bjorken variable

573: %

574: %

575: % ===============================================================

576: \beq

577: x_{eff} =

578: \frac {Q^{2}+m_{V}^{2}}{Q^{2}+W^{2}} \approx

579:  \frac{m_{V}^{2}+Q^{2}}{2\nu m_{p}}\, ,

580: \label{eq:4}

581: \eeq

582: % ===============================================================

583: %

584: %

585: where $m_{p}$ is the proton mass.

586: Hereafter, we will write the energy dependence of the dipole

587: cross section in both variables,

588: either in $\xi$ or in $x_{eff}$. 

589: 

590: The production amplitudes for the

591: transversely (T) and the longitudinally (L) polarized vector mesons

592: with the momentum transfer, $\bf{q}$,

593: can be written in more explicit form \cite{NNZscan,NNPZZ98}

594: %

595: %

596: % =================================================================

597: \bea

598: {\rm Im}{\cal M}_{T}(x_{eff},Q^{2},{\bf{q}})=

599: {N_{c}C_{V}\sqrt{4\pi\alpha_{em}} \over (2\pi)^{2}}

600: \cdot~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

601: \nonumber \\

602: \cdot \int d^{2}{\bf{r}} \sigma(x_{eff},r,{\bf{q}})

603: \int_{0}^{1}{dz \over z(1-z)}\left\{

604: m_{q}^{2}

605: K_{0}(\varepsilon r)

606: \phi(r,z)-

607: [z^{2}+(1-z)^{2}]\varepsilon K_{1}(\varepsilon r)\partial_{r}

608: \phi(r,z)\right\}\nonumber \\

609:  =

610: {1 \over (m_{V}^{2}+Q^{2})^{2}}

611: \int {dr^{2} \over r^{2}} {\sigma(x_{eff},r,{\bf{q}}) \over r^{2}}

612: W_{T}(Q^{2},r^{2})

613: \label{eq:5}

614: \eea

615: %=================================================================

616: %

617: %

618: \bea

619: {\rm Im}{\cal M}_{L}(x_{eff},Q^{2},{\bf{q}})=

620: {N_{c}C_{V}\sqrt{4\pi\alpha_{em}} \over (2\pi)^{2}}

621: {2\sqrt{Q^{2}} \over m_{V}}

622: \cdot~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

623:  \nonumber \\

624: \cdot \int d^{2}{\bf{r}} \sigma(x_{eff},r,{\bf{q}})

625: \int_{0}^{1}dz \left\{

626: [m_{q}^{2}+z(1-z)m_{V}^{2}]

627: K_{0}(\varepsilon r)

628: \phi(r,z)-

629: \varepsilon K_{1}(\varepsilon r)\partial_{r}

630: \phi(r,z)\right\} \nonumber \\

631:  =

632: {1 \over (m_{V}^{2}+Q^{2})^{2}}

633: {2\sqrt{Q^{2}} \over m_{V}}

634: \int {dr^{2} \over r^{2}} {\sigma(x_{eff},r,{\bf{q}}) \over r^{2}}

635: W_{L}(Q^{2},r^{2})

636: \label{eq:6}

637: \eea

638: %==================================================================

639: %

640: %

641: where

642: %

643: %

644: %==================================================================

645: \beq

646: \varepsilon^{2} = m_{q}^{2}+z(1-z)Q^{2}\,,

647: \label{eq:7}

648: \eeq

649: %==================================================================

650: %

651: %

652: $\alpha_{em}$ is the fine structure 

653: constant, $N_{c}=3$ is the number of colors,

654: $C_{V}={1\over \sqrt{2}},\,{1\over 3\sqrt{2}},\,{1\over 3},\,

655: {2\over 3},\,{1\over 3}~~$ for 

656: $\rho^{0},\,\omega^{0},\,\phi^{0},\, J/\Psi, \Upsilon$ production,

657: respectively and

658: $K_{0,1}(x)$ are the modified Bessel functions.

659: The detailed discussion and parameterization 

660: of the lightcone radial wave function $\phi(r,z)$

661: of the $q\bar{q}$ Fock state of the vector meson

662: is given in \cite{NNPZ97}.

663: 

664: The terms $\propto \epsilon K_{1}(\epsilon r)\partial_{r}\phi({\bf r},z)$

665: for $T$ polarization

666: and $\propto K_{0}(\epsilon r)\partial_{r}^{2}\Phi({\bf r},z)$

667: for $L$ polarization

668: in the integrands of

669: (\ref{eq:5}) and (\ref{eq:6}) represent

670: the relativistic corrections

671: which become important

672: at large $Q^{2}$ and for

673: the production of light vector mesons.

674: For the production of heavy quarkonia,

675: the nonrelativistic approximation can be used

676: with a rather high accuracy \cite{KZ91}.

677: 

678: The weight functions,

679: $W_{T}(Q^{2},r^{2})$ and

680: $W_{L}(Q^{2},r^{2})$, introduced in (\ref{eq:5}) and (\ref{eq:6})

681: have a smooth $Q^{2}$ behaviour \cite{NNZscan} and are very

682: convenient for the analysis of the scanning phenomenon.

683: %

684: They are

685: sharply peaked at $r\approx A_{T,L}/\sqrt{Q^{2}+m_{V}^{2}}$.

686: At small $Q^{2}$ the values of the scale parameter $A_{T,L}$ are 

687: close to $A \sim 6$, which follows from $r_{S}=3/\varepsilon$ with

688: the nonrelativistic choice $z=\frac{1}{2}$. 

689: In general, $A_{T,L} \geq 6$

690: and increases slowly with $Q^2$ \cite{NNZscan}.

691: For heavy vector meson production, the scale parameters $A_{T,L}

692: \sim 6$ for $\Upsilon$ at $Q^{2}\le 100$\,GeV$^{2}$ and

693: $A_{T,L}\sim 6$ at $Q^{2}=0$ and

694: $A_{T,L}\sim 7$ at $Q^{2}=100\,$GeV$^{2}$ for $J/\Psi$.

695: For this reason, 

696: the heavy vector mesons can be treated nonrelativistically,

697: except for small relativistic corrections for the electroproduction

698: of charmonia at very large $Q^{2}\sim 100$\,GeV$^{2}$. 

699: Not so for the light vector mesons where the relativistic

700: corrections play an important role especially at large

701: $Q^{2}\gg m_{V}^{2}$, and lead to

702: $Q^{2}$ dependence of $A_{L,T}$ coming from

703: the large-size asymmetric $q\bar{q}$ configurations:

704: $A_{L}(\rho^0;Q^{2}=0)\approx 6.5,~

705: A_{L}(\rho^0;Q^2 = 100\,{\rm GeV}^2) \approx 10,~

706: A_{T}(\rho^0;Q^{2}=0) \approx 7,~

707: A_{T}(\rho^0,Q^2 = 100\,{\rm GeV}^2)\approx 12$ \cite{NNZscan}.

708: Due to an extra factor $z(1-z)$ in the integrand of

709: (\ref{eq:6}) in comparison with (\ref{eq:5}),

710: the contribution from asymmetric $q\bar{q}$ 

711: configurations to the longitudinal

712: meson production is considerably smaller.

713: 

714: The integrands in 

715: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:5}) and

716: (\ref{eq:6}) contain the dipole cross section,

717: $\sigma(\xi,r,{\bf{q}})$.

718: As was mentioned,

719: due to a very slow onset of the pure perturbative region

720: (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:2})),

721: one can easily anticipate 

722: a contribution to the production amplitude

723: coming

724: from the semiperturbative and nonperturbative $r\gsim R_{c}$.

725: Following the simplest assumption about an additive property

726: of the perturbative and nonperturbative mechanism of interaction,

727: we can represent the contribution of the bare pomeron exchange

728: to $\sigma(\xi,r,{\bf{q}})$ as a sum

729: of the perturbative and nonperturbative component

730: \cite{NNPZ97,NNPZZ98}

731: %

732: %

733: % ==============================================================

734: \beq

735: \sigma(\xi,r,{\bf{q}}) = 

736: \sigma_{pt}(\xi,r,{\bf{q}})+\sigma_{npt}(\xi,r,{\bf{q}})\,,

737: \label{eq:8}

738: \eeq

739: % ==============================================================

740: %

741: %

742: with the parameterization of both components at small ${\bf{q}}$

743: % ==============================================================

744: \beq

745: \sigma_{pt,npt}(\xi,r,{\bf{q}})=\sigma_{pt,npt}(\xi,r,{\bf{q}}=0)

746: \exp\Bigl(-\frac{1}{2}

747: B_{pt,npt}(\xi,r){\bf{q^{2}}}\Bigr)\,.

748: \label{eq:2.9}

749: \eeq

750: % ==============================================================

751: Here $\sigma_{pt,npt}(\xi,r,{\bf{q}}=0)

752: = \sigma_{pt,npt}(\xi,r)$ represent the contribution

753: of the perturbative and nonperturbative mechanisms to the

754: $q\bar{q}$-nucleon interaction cross section, 

755: respectively, $B_{pt,npt}(\xi,r)$ are the

756: corresponding

757: diffraction slopes. 

758: 

759: A small real part of  production amplitudes can be taken

760: in the form \cite{GribMig}

761: %

762: %

763: %------------------------------------------------

764: \beq

765: {\rm Re}{\cal M}(\xi,r) =\frac{\pi}{2}\cdot\frac{\partial}

766: {\partial\xi} {\rm Im}{\cal M}(\xi,r)\,.

767: \label{eq:10}

768: \eeq

769: %------------------------------------------------

770: %

771: %

772: 

773: and can be easily included in the production amplitudes

774: (\ref{eq:5}),(\ref{eq:6})

775: using substitution

776: %

777: %

778: % -----------------------------------------------

779: \beq

780: \sigma(x_{eff},r,{\bf q})\rightarrow

781: \biggl (1-i\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\partial}{\partial~log~x_{eff}}

782: \biggr)

783: \sigma(x_{eff},r) = \biggl [1-i\alpha_{V}(x_{eff},r)

784: \biggr  ]\sigma(x_{eff},r,{\bf q})

785: \label{eq:11}   

786: \eeq

787: %------------------------------------------------

788: %

789: %

790: 

791: The formalism for calculation of $\sigma_{pt}(\xi,r)$

792: in the leading-log $s$ approximation was developed

793: in \cite{NZ91,NZ94,NZZ94}. 

794: The nonperturbative contribution, $\sigma_{npt}(\xi,r)$, 

795: to the dipole cross section was used in

796: Refs.~\cite{NZHera,NNZscan,NNPZ97,NNPZZ98} where

797: we assume that this soft nonperturbative component

798: of the pomeron is a simple Regge pole with

799: the intercept, $\Delta_{npt}=0$.

800: The particular form together with 

801: assumption of

802: the energy independent

803: $\sigma_{npt}(\xi=\xi_{0},r)=\sigma_{npt}(r)$

804: ($\xi_{0}$ corresponds to boundary condition for the gBFKL

805: evolution, $\xi_{0}=\log{1/x_{0}}$, $x_{0}=0.03$)

806: allows one to successfully describe \cite{NZHera} the

807: proton structure function at very small $Q^{2}$,

808: the real photoabsorption \cite{NNZscan} and

809: diffractive real and virtual photoproduction of light

810: \cite{NNPZ97} and heavy \cite{NNPZZ98} vector mesons.

811: A larger contribution of the nonperturbative pomeron

812: exchange to $\sigma_{tot}(\gamma p)$ vs.

813: $\sigma_{tot}(\gamma^{*} p)$ can, for example, explain

814: a much slower

815: rise with energy

816: of the real photoabsorption cross section, 

817: $\sigma_{tot}(\gamma p)$, in comparison

818: with $F_{2}(x,Q^{2})\propto

819: \sigma_{tot}(\gamma^{*} p)$ observed at HERA \cite{H1sf,ZEUSsf}.

820: Besides, the reasonable form of this soft cross section, $\sigma_{npt}(r)$,

821: was confirmed in the process of the first determination of the dipole

822: cross section from the experimental data on vector meson

823: electroproduction \cite{NNPZdipole}. The so extracted dipole cross section

824: is in a good agreement with the dipole cross section obtained

825: from the gBFKL dynamics \cite{NNZscan,NZHera}.

826: Thus, this nonperturbative component of the pomeron

827: exchange plays a dominant

828: role at low NMC energies

829: in the production of the light vector mesons, where the

830: scanning radius, $r_{S}$ (\ref{eq:2}), is large.

831: However, the perturbative component of the pomeron become

832: more important with the rise of energy also in the nonperturbative

833: region of the dipole sizes. 

834: 

835: Now we present the basic aspects of the diffraction

836: slope coming

837: from the gBFKL phenomenology \cite{NZZslope,NNPZZ98}. 

838: As the result of the generalization of the factorization

839: formula (\ref{eq:3}) to the diffraction slope of the

840: reaction $\gamma^{*}p\rightarrow Vp$ one can write

841: %

842: %

843: %------------------------------------------------

844: \beq

845: B(\gamma^{*}\rightarrow V,\xi,Q^{2})

846: {\rm Im} {\cal M}(\gamma^{*}\rightarrow V,\xi,Q^{2},\vec{q}=0)=

847: \int\limits_{0}^{1} dz\int d^{2}\vec{r}\lambda(\xi,r)

848: \Psi_{V}^{*}(r,z)\Psi_{\gamma^{*}}(r,z)\,.

849: \label{eq:12}

850: \eeq

851: %------------------------------------------------

852: %

853: %

854: where

855: %

856: %

857: %------------------------------------------------

858: \beq

859: \lambda(\xi,r)=\int d^2\vec{b}~

860: \vec{b}\,^2~\Gamma(\xi,\vec{r,}\vec{b})\, .

861: \label{eq:13}

862: \eeq

863: %------------------------------------------------

864: %

865: %

866: Then the diffraction slope expressed through

867: the amplitude of elastic scattering of the color

868: dipole ${\rm Im}{\cal M}$

869: %

870: %

871: %------------------------------------------------

872: \beq

873: B(\xi,r)=\left.-

874: 2{d \log {\rm Im}{\cal M}(\xi,r,{\bf q})/ dq^{2}}\right|_{q=0}

875: \label{eq:14}

876: \eeq

877: %-----------------------------------------------

878: %

879: %

880: equals

881: %

882: %

883: %------------------------------------------------

884: \beq

885: B(\xi,r)= {1\over 2}\langle \vec{b}\,^{2}\rangle =

886: \lambda(\xi,r)/\sigma(\xi,r)\,.

887: \label{eq:15}

888: \eeq

889: %------------------------------------------------

890: %

891: %

892: The amplitude ${\rm Im}{\cal M}(\xi,r,{\bf q})$

893: in (\ref{eq:14}) 

894: within the impact-parameter representation

895: reads

896: %

897: %

898: %------------------------------------------------

899: \beq

900: {\rm Im} {\cal M}(\xi,r,\vec{q})=2\int d^{2}\vec{b}\,

901: \exp(-i\vec{q}\vec{b})\Gamma(\xi,\vec{r},\vec{b})\,,

902: \label{eq:16}

903: \eeq

904: %------------------------------------------------

905: %

906: %

907: where $\Gamma(\xi,r,{\bf b})$ is the profile function

908: and ${\bf b}$ is the impact parameter defined with

909: the respect to the center of the $q\bar{q}$ dipole.

910: 

911: The diffraction cone in the color dipole gBFKL approach

912: for production of vector mesons has been detaily studied

913: in \cite{NNPZZ98}. Here we only present the salient

914: feature of the color diffraction slope reflecting

915: the presence of the geometrical contribution from beam

916: dipole - $r^{2}/8$

917: and the contribution from the target proton size - $R_{N}^{2}/3$:

918: %

919: %

920: %------------------------------------------------

921: \beq

922: B(\xi,r)=

923: \frac{1}{8}r^{2}+\frac{1}{3}R_{N}^{2}+

924: 2\alpha_{\Pom}'(\xi-\xi_{0}) + {\cal O}(R_{c}^{2})\, ,

925: \label{eq:17}

926: \eeq

927: %------------------------------------------------

928: %

929: %

930: where $R_{N}$ is the radius of the proton.

931: For electroproduction of light vector mesons the

932: scanning radius is larger than the correlation one

933: $r\gsim R_{c}$ even for $Q^{2}\lsim 50 GeV^{2}$

934: and one recovers a sort of

935: additive quark model, in which the uncorrelated gluonic clouds

936: build up around the beam and target quarks and antiquarks and

937: the term $2\alpha_{\Pom}'(\xi-\xi_{0})$

938: describe the familiar Regge growth of diffraction slope for

939: the quark-quark scattering.

940: The geometrical contribution to the diffraction

941: slope from the target proton size, ${1\over 3}R_{N}^{2}$,

942: persists for all the dipole sizes,

943: $r\gsim R_{c}$ and $r\lsim R_{c}$. The last term in (\ref{eq:17})

944: is also associated with the proton size and is negligibly small.

945: 

946: The soft pomeron and diffractive scattering of large color dipole has been

947: also detaily studied in the paper \cite{NNPZZ98}.

948: Here we assume the conventional Regge rise of the diffraction

949: slope for the soft pomeron,

950: %

951: %

952: %------------------------------------------------

953: \beq

954: B_{npt}(\xi,r)=\Delta B_{d}(r)+\Delta B_{N}+

955: 2\alpha_{npt}^{'}(\xi-\xi_{0})\,,

956: \label{eq:18}

957: \eeq

958: %------------------------------------------------

959: %

960: %

961: where $\Delta B_{d}(r)$ and $\Delta B_{N}$ stand for the contribution

962: from the beam dipole and target nucleon size.

963: As a guidance we take the experimental

964: data on the pion-nucleon scattering

965: \cite{Schiz}, which suggest $\alpha'_{npt}=0.15$\,GeV$^{-2}$.

966: In (\ref{eq:18}) the proton size contribution

967: is

968: %

969: %

970: %------------------------------------------------

971: \beq

972: \Delta B_{N}={1\over 3}R_{N}^{2}\, ,

973: \label{eq:19}

974: \eeq

975: %------------------------------------------------

976: %

977: %

978: and

979: the beam dipole contribution has been proposed

980: to have a form

981: %

982: %

983: %------------------------------------------------

984: \beq

985: B_{d}(r) = {r^{2} \over 8}\cdot

986: {r^{2}+aR_{N}^{2} \over 3r^{2}+aR_{N}^{2}}\,,

987: \label{eq:20}

988: \eeq

989: %------------------------------------------------

990: %

991: %

992: where $a$ is a phenomenological parameter, $a\sim 1$.

993: We take $\Delta B_{N}=4.8\,{\rm GeV}^{-2}$.

994: Then the pion-nucleon diffraction slope is reproduced with

995: reasonable values of the parameter $a$ in the formula (\ref{eq:20}):

996: $a=0.9$ for $\alpha'_{npt}=0.15$\,GeV$^{-2}$ \cite{NNPZZ98}.

997: 

998: 

999: Following the simple geometrical properties

1000: of the gBFKL diffraction slope, $B(\xi,r)$, (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:17})

1001: and \cite{NZZslope}),

1002: one can express its energy dependence through the energy

1003: dependent effective Regge slope, $\alpha_{eff}'(\xi,r)$

1004: %

1005: %

1006: %===================================================================

1007: \beq

1008: B_{pt}(\xi,r) \approx \frac{1}{3}<R_{N}^{2}> + \frac{1}{8}r^{2}

1009: + 2\alpha_{eff}'(\xi,r)(\xi-\xi_{0}).

1010: \label{eq:21}

1011: \eeq

1012: % ====================================================================

1013: %

1014: %

1015: The effective Regge slope, $\alpha_{eff}'(\xi,r)$,

1016: varies

1017: with energy differently

1018: at different size of the color dipole

1019: \cite{NZZslope};

1020: at fixed scanning radius and/or $Q^{2}+m_{V}^{2}$,

1021: it decreases with energy.

1022: At fixed rapidity $\xi$

1023: and/or $x_{eff}$ (\ref{eq:4}),

1024: $\alpha_{eff}'(\xi,r)$

1025: rises with $r\lsim 1.5$\,fm.

1026: At fixed energy, it is a flat function

1027: of the scanning radius.

1028: At the asymptotically large $\xi$ ($W$),

1029: $\alpha_{eff}'(\xi,r)\rightarrow \alpha_{\Pom}'=0.072$\,GeV$^{-2}$.

1030: At the lower and HERA energies, the subasymptotic

1031: $\alpha_{eff}'(\xi,r)\sim (0.15-0.20)$\,GeV$^{-2}$ and is very

1032: close to $\alpha_{soft}'$ known from the Regge phenomenology

1033: of soft scattering.

1034: It means, that the gBKFL dynamics predicts a substantial rise

1035: with the energy and dipole size, $r$, of the diffraction slope, $B(\xi,r)$,

1036: in accordance with

1037: the energy and dipole size dependence of the effective

1038: Regge slope, $\alpha_{eff}'(\xi,r)$ and due to a presence of the

1039: geometrical component, $\propto r^{2}$, in (\ref{eq:17}) and

1040: (\ref{eq:18}).

1041: 

1042: Generalized factorization formula (\ref{eq:12}) for the

1043: forward diffraction slope can be re-written for somewhat

1044: better understanding of anomalous properties

1045: of the forward diffraction slope for production of

1046: $V'(2S)$ vector mesons

1047: %

1048: %

1049: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1050: \bea

1051: B(\gamma^{*}\rightarrow V,\xi,Q^{2},{\bf q}=0) =

1052: \frac{

1053: \langle V |\sigma(\xi,r)B(\xi,r)|\gamma^{*}\rangle

1054: }{

1055: \langle V |\sigma(\xi,r)|\gamma^{*}\rangle} =

1056: \nonumber \\

1057: \frac{

1058: \int\limits_{0}^{1} dz\int d^{2}{\bf{r}}\sigma(\xi,r)

1059: B(\xi,r)\Psi_{V}^{*}({\bf{r}},z)\Psi_{\gamma^{*}}({\bf{r}},z)

1060: }{

1061: \int\limits_{0}^{1} dz\int d^{2}{\bf{r}}\sigma(\xi,r)

1062: \Psi_{V}^{*}({\bf{r}},z)\Psi_{\gamma^{*}}({\bf{r}},z)}

1063: \,

1064: \label{eq:22}

1065: \eea

1066: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1067: %

1068: %

1069: 

1070: 

1071: % -------------------------------------------------

1072: %

1073: %     Section 3

1074: %

1075: % -------------------------------------------------

1076: % =================================================

1077: \section{Diffraction slope for $\rho^{0}$

1078:          and $\phi^{0}$ electroproduction:

1079:          model predictions vs. experiment}

1080: % =================================================

1081: 

1082: 

1083: Firstly the model predictions for the diffraction slope

1084: will be tested taking the fixed target and HERA data

1085: of $V(1S)$ vector meson production.

1086: The color dipole gBFKL dynamics predicts a substantial growth

1087: with energy of the diffraction slope coming from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:18})

1088: and (\ref{eq:21}).

1089: According to simple geometrical behaviour, $\propto r^{2}$,

1090: of the slope parameter (\ref{eq:18},\ref{eq:21}),

1091: we expect a shrinkage of the diffraction slope with $Q^{2}$

1092: in accordance with the scanning property in vector meson

1093: production (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:2})).

1094: %

1095: In Fig.1 we compare the model predictions for 

1096: $Q^{2}$ dependence of 

1097: the diffraction

1098: slope for $\rho^{0}$ production with the low energy

1099: data of the CHIO \cite{CHIOrho} NMC \cite{NMCfirho}

1100: and E665 \cite{E665rho}

1101: collaborations and the data from

1102: H1 \cite{H1rho96,H1rho96Q2,H1rho99Q2} and 

1103: ZEUS \cite{ZEUSrho95,ZEUSrho97,ZEUSrho98,ZEUSrho95Q2,ZEUSrho99Q2} experiments.

1104: Although the experimental data have still large error bars,

1105: they show a trend to smaller values of the diffraction slope as $Q^{2}$

1106: increases. 

1107: We predict a steep shrinkage of $B(\rho^{0})$ with $Q^{2}$

1108: on the scale $Q^{2}\in (0,5)$\,GeV$^{2}$:

1109: it falls down, by $\sim 4~$\,GeV$^{-2}$ from $\sim 8.7$\,GeV$^{-2}$

1110: at $Q^{2}=0$ down to 

1111: 5.0\,GeV$^{-2}$ at $Q^{2}=5$\,GeV$^{2}$ and

1112: to 4.6\,GeV$^{-2}$ at $Q^{2}=10$\,GeV$^{2}$ 

1113: in accordance with the low energy

1114: CHIO, NMC and E665 data.

1115: %

1116: At HERA energy, we predict a higher shrinkage from $\sim

1117: 10.7$\,GeV$^{-2}$

1118: at $Q^{2}=0$ down to $\sim 6.0$\,GeV$^{-2}$

1119: at $Q^{2}=10$\,GeV$^{2}$ not in disagreement with the data of H1 and ZEUS

1120: collaborations. 

1121: %

1122: Concerning the shrinkage of the diffraction slope with energy $W$, 

1123: in the photoproduction limit $Q^{2}=0$ the data show a possible

1124: presence of the considerably

1125: large rise from the fixed target to HERA energy range.

1126: However, the large error bars of the data affect the large

1127: errors on $\alpha'$- fit \cite{ZEUSrho98} and preclude any definitive

1128: statement. 

1129: In Fig.2 we predict this substantial growth, 

1130: by $\sim 2.3-2.4$\,

1131: GeV$^{-2}$ from $\sim 8.3-8.4$\,GeV$^{-2}$

1132: at $W=10$\,GeV up to $\sim 10.7$\,GeV$^{-2}$

1133: at $W=100$\,GeV in accordance with the data from the fixed target

1134: experiments \cite{FTrho} and the data from HERA experiments

1135: \cite{H1rho96,ZEUSrho95,ZEUSrho97,ZEUSrho98}. This rise corresponds to

1136: effective Regge slope, $\alpha'\sim 0.25-0.26$\,GeV$^{-2}$.

1137: 

1138: We would like to emphasize, that the overall effective

1139: Regge slope, $\alpha'$, contains the energy dependent contribution

1140: of the perturbative component, $\alpha_{eff}'(xi,r)$, characterizing

1141: the energy rise of the gBFKL slope, $B_{pt}(\xi,r)$

1142: (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:17},(\ref{eq:21})), and the constant nonperturbative

1143: (soft) Regge slope, $\alpha_{npt}'= 0.15$\,GeV$^{-2}$, corresponding

1144: to the soft component of the slope, $B_{npt}(\xi,r)$

1145: (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:18})).

1146: As was mentioned in Ref.~\cite{NZZslope}, 

1147: in the energy range, $W\in

1148: (50-200)$\,GeV, the effective

1149: Regge slope, $\alpha_{eff}'(\xi,r)$, varies slowly within

1150: the interval $\sim (0.15-0.20)$\,GeV$^{-2}$ at different

1151: scanning radii $\lsim 1$\,fm and

1152: is approximately a flat function of

1153: the scanning radius at fixed energy 

1154: corresponding to HERA experiments;

1155: for instance, at $W=100$\,GeV, 

1156: $\alpha_{eff}'\sim 0.15$\,GeV$^{-2}$ at $r_{S}\sim 0.1$\,fm\,,

1157: $\alpha_{eff}'\sim 0.16-0.17$\,GeV$^{-2}$ at $r_{S}\sim 0.2-0.5$\,fm\,,

1158: $\alpha_{eff}'\sim 0.19.-0.20$\,GeV$^{-2}$ at $r_{S}\sim 0.6-0.9$\,fm\,,

1159: $\alpha_{eff}'\gsim 0.20$\,GeV$^{-2}$ at $r_{S}\gsim 1.0$\,fm\,.

1160: $\alpha_{npt}'$ only slightly modifies the overall effective

1161: Regge slope $\alpha'$.

1162: 

1163: In Fig.2 we show also the energy dependence of the slope parameter

1164: for $\rho^{0}$ virtual photoproduction at $Q^{2}\sim 10$\,GeV$^{2}$

1165: vs. NMC \cite{NMCfirho} and H1 \cite{H1rho96Q2,H1rho99Q2} data.

1166: The growth with energy $W$ is much smaller than at $Q^{2}=0$:

1167: $B(\rho^{0})$ rises from $\sim 4.4$\,GeV$^{-2}$ at $W=10$\,GeV up to

1168: $\sim 6.0$\,GeV$^{-2}$ at $W=100$\,GeV.

1169: It correspond to effective Regge slope $\sim 0.17$ GeV$^{-2}$.

1170: At $Q^{2}\sim 20-30$ GeV$^{2}$, we predict $\alpha'\sim 0.15$

1171: GeV$^{-2}$, which is

1172: in accordance with value of the effective shrinkage rate

1173: of the diffraction slope for $J/\Psi$ elastic photoproduction

1174: ($Q^2=0$) presented in the paper \cite{NNPZZ98}.

1175: It confirms an approximate flavor independence of the effective

1176: Regge slope in the scaling variable $Q^{2}+m_{V}^{2}$.

1177: 

1178: Fig.3 shows the analogical $W$ dependence of the slope for real 

1179: $\phi^{0}$ photoproduction together with the data from fixed

1180: target \cite{Philownu,Philownuold} and collider

1181: HERA experiments \cite{ZEUSphi96}.

1182: Unfortunately, the error bars are quite a large to

1183: see a clear evidence of the shrinkage of $B(\phi^{0})$

1184: with energy. 

1185: The model predictions do not show a deviation from the data

1186: and it is not in disagreement with the conclusion 

1187: about a shrinkage of the diffraction peak with energy

1188: expected from the gBFKL dynamics.

1189: The energy growth of $B(\phi^{0})$ on the interval

1190: of $W\in (10-100)$\,GeV, is expected to correspond 

1191: to overall effective

1192: Regge slope $\alpha'\sim 0.20-0.21$\,GeV$^{-2}$.

1193: 

1194: Regarding a comparison with the data, the most

1195: straightforward theoretical predictions are

1196: for the forward production  and we calculate

1197: $d\sigma/dt|_{t=0}$ and $B(t=0)$. 

1198: The data on the vector meson production correspond to a slope

1199: extracted over quite a broad range of $t$ using an

1200: extrapolation to $t=0$,

1201: and the minimal value of $t$, corresponding to the fist experimental

1202: point in $t$- distribution, is relatively far from $t=0$.

1203: Also the range of $t$ is different in different experiments.

1204: This fact explains

1205: quite a large dispersion of the low-energy data which is

1206: the most striking for $\phi^{0}$ production depicted on Fig.3

1207: (see also Fig.2).

1208: Moreover, the above extrapolation

1209: is not always possible and one often reports the

1210: $t$-integrated production cross sections. 

1211: Because of the model calculations

1212: are at $t=0$ and because of a well known rapid rise of the

1213: diffraction slope towards $t=0$ \cite{Schiz},

1214: the experimental data may

1215: underestimate $B(V)$ at $t=0$.

1216: For average $\langle t \rangle \sim$

1217: 0.1-0.2\,GeV$^{2}$ which dominate the integrated total

1218: cross section, the diffraction slope is smaller than

1219: at $t=0$ by $\sim 1$\,GeV$^{-2}$ \cite{Schiz}. We take these $\pi N$

1220: scattering data for the guidance, and for more direct comparison with

1221: the presently available experimental data instead of the directly

1222: calculated $B(t=0)$ we report  in Figs.1-3 the value

1223: %

1224: %

1225: %------------------------------------------------

1226: \beq

1227: B=B(t=0)-1\,GeV^{-2}

1228: \label{eq:23}

1229: \eeq

1230: %------------------------------------------------

1231: %

1232: %

1233: The uncertainties in the value of $B$ and with this

1234: evaluation

1235: (\ref{eq:23})

1236: presumably do not exceed

1237: $10\%$ and can be reduced when more accurate data will

1238: become available.

1239: However, hereafter we will present the model predictions for the

1240: diffraction slope at $t=0$. 

1241: 

1242: More detailed predictions for the energy and $Q^{2}$ dependence

1243: of the forward diffraction slope $B(V,t=0)$ for the $\rho^{0}$

1244: and $\phi^{0}$ production (for $T$, $L$ and mixed

1245: $T + \epsilon L$ polarizations, with $\epsilon=1$)

1246: are presented in Fig.4.

1247: They show a substantial shrinkage of the

1248: elastic peak with energy at different $Q^{2}$.

1249: The energy rise of the diffraction slope

1250: is more evident than for the production

1251: of heavy vector mesons \cite{NNPZZ98}.

1252: 

1253: 

1254: The rate of rise with energy of the diffraction slope

1255: decreases slowly with $Q^{2}$:

1256: on the interval of the c.m.s. energy $W\in (10-100)$\,GeV

1257: the corresponding $\alpha'\sim 0.25$\,GeV$^{-2}$

1258: at $Q^{2}=0$, $\alpha'\sim 0.21$\,GeV$^{-2}$

1259: at $Q^{2}\sim 0.5$\,GeV$^{2}$,

1260: $\alpha'\sim 0.19$\,GeV$^{-2}$ at $Q^{2}\sim 1.0$\,GeV$^{2}$,

1261: $\alpha'\sim 0.17$\,GeV$^{-2}$ at $Q^{2}\sim 5.0$\,GeV$^{2}$ and

1262: $\alpha'\sim 0.16$\,GeV$^{-2}$ at $Q^{2}\sim 20$\,GeV$^{2}$.

1263: The effective Regge slope

1264: becomes still smaller at very large $Q^{2}$ and $W$

1265: when the scanning

1266: radius $r_{S}\lsim R_{c}$ and

1267: a contribution of $\alpha_{npt}'=0.15$\,GeV$^{-2}$ 

1268: to overall $\alpha'$ becomes 

1269: practically insignificant. 

1270: At $Q^{2}\gsim 100$\,GeV$^{2}$ 

1271: when the scanning radius $r_{S}\lsim R_{c}$,

1272: and one can observe a standard picture of a decreasing rate of

1273: energy growth of $B(V)$ expected from gBFKL dynamics

1274: (see Fig.~4).

1275: 

1276: The above results for the energy growth of the slope parameter

1277: can be tested in higher statistics data from HERA experiments

1278: measuring the exclusive electroproduction of vector

1279: mesons. The measurement of energy rise of the slope

1280: parameter at different $Q^{2}$ can give an information

1281: about a contribution of the nonperturbative component

1282: of the diffraction slope, $B_{npt}(\xi,r)$, and the

1283: effective Regge slope, $\alpha_{eff}'(\xi,r)$.

1284: The more precise data

1285: could also test the universal properties

1286: of diffraction slope and effective Regge slope for production

1287: of different vector mesons, i.e. a similarity between

1288: the production of different vector mesons when compared

1289: at the same value of the scanning radius $r_{S}$ and/or the

1290: same value of $Q^{2}+m_{V}^{2}$ (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:2})).

1291: Such a comparison must be performed at the same energy

1292: and/or rapidity $\xi$, which also means the equality of

1293: $x_{eff}$ at equal $Q^{2}+m_{V}^{2}$

1294: (see \cite{NNPZ97,NZZslope}).

1295: The value of $Q^{2}$ must be large enough so that the scanning

1296: radius $r_{S}$ is smaller than the radii of vector mesons, 

1297: $r_{S}\lsim R_{V}$.

1298: It means, that for all reactions $\gamma^{*}~p\rightarrow V~p$

1299: with the same $r_{S}$ and $\xi$, we predict approximately the same

1300: $B(V)$ and $\alpha_{eff}'$ \cite{NNPZZ98}.

1301: 

1302: Although a new data on the diffraction slope were obtained

1303: from collider HERA experiments 

1304: measuring the real (virtual) photoproduction of 

1305: vector mesons,

1306: the present experimental information on the energy and $Q^{2}$

1307: dependence of the diffraction slope 

1308: for vector meson production is not still very conclusive.

1309: Especially, it concerns to

1310: $J/\Psi$ photoproduction.

1311: There are no data yet on the diffraction slope

1312: for the real (virtual) photoproduction of $\Upsilon$ and

1313: the radially excited $(2S)$ heavy vector

1314: mesons\footnote{

1315: More detailed discussion of the data on the slope

1316: parameter for heavy vector meson production is presented

1317: in Ref.~\cite{NNPZZ98}}.

1318: The data on the diffraction slope measuring the photo-

1319: and electroproduction of light vector mesons presented on

1320: Figs.~1-3 have still large error bars.

1321: %

1322: %

1323: The ZEUS and H1 data on virtual photoproduction give

1324: $B(\rho^{0},W\sim 80$\,GeV,$7<Q^{2}<25$\,GeV$^{2})=

1325: 5.1+1.2-0.9(stat)\pm 1.0(syst)$\,GeV$^{-2}$ \cite{ZEUSrho95Q2},

1326: $B(\rho^{0},W\sim 100$\,GeV,$Q^{2}=28$\,GeV$^{2})=

1327: 4.4+3.5-2.8(stat)+3.7-1.2(syst)$\,GeV$^{-2}$ \cite{ZEUSrho99Q2}

1328: and

1329: $B(\rho^{0},W\sim 75$\,GeV,$Q^{2}=21.2$\,GeV$^{2})=

1330: 4.7\pm 1.0(stat)\pm 0.7(syst)$\,GeV$^{-2}$ \cite{H1rho99Q2} 

1331: which is close to 

1332: $B(J/\Psi,W=90$\,GeV$,Q^{2}=0)=

1333: 4.7\pm 1.9$\,GeV$^{-2}$,

1334: $B(J/\Psi,W=90$\,GeV$,Q^{2}=0)=

1335: 4.0\pm 0.3$\,GeV$^{-2}$ from H1 data \cite{H1Psi94,H1Psi96}

1336: and to

1337: $B(J/\Psi,W=90$\,GeV$,Q^{2}=0)=

1338: 4.5\pm 1.4$\,GeV$^{-2}$ 

1339: $B(J/\Psi,W=90$\,GeV$,Q^{2}=0)=

1340: 4.6\pm 0.4(stat)+0.4-0.6(syst)$\,GeV$^{-2}$ 

1341: from ZEUS data \cite{ZEUSPsi95,ZEUSPsi97}

1342: in accordance with $(Q^{2}+m_{V}^{2})$- scaling of the

1343: diffraction slope.

1344: High statistics data are needed from the both fixed target

1345: and the collider HERA experiments for both

1346: the exploratory study of very interesting $Q^{2}$ and energy

1347: dependence of $B(V)$ and 

1348: the precise test of the $(Q^{2}+m_{V}^{2})$- 

1349: scaling of the diffraction slope. 

1350: 

1351: 

1352: 

1353: %-----------------------------------------------

1354: %

1355: %    Section 4

1356: %

1357: % ----------------------------------------------

1358: % ==============================================

1359: \section{Anomalous diffraction slope

1360:          in electroproduction of $2S$ 

1361:          radially excited vector mesons}

1362: % ==============================================

1363: 

1364: Now we concentrate on the production of radially excited

1365: $V(2S)$ light vector mesons, where the node effect is

1366: known to be presented 

1367: - the $Q^{2}$ and energy dependent cancellations

1368: from the soft (large size) and hard (small size)

1369: contributions, i.e. from the region

1370: above and below the node position, $r_{n}$,

1371: to the $V'(2S)$ production amplitude.

1372: The strong $Q^{2}$ dependence of these cancellations comes

1373: from the scanning phenomenon (\ref{eq:2}) when

1374: the scanning radius $r_{S}$ for some value of $Q^{2}$

1375: is close to $r_{n}\sim R_{V}$.

1376: The energy dependence of the node effect comes from the 

1377: different energy dependence of the dipole cross section

1378: at small ($r<R_{V}$) and large ($r>R_{V}$) dipole sizes.

1379: The strong node effect in production of radially

1380: excited light vector mesons leading to an anomalous

1381: $Q^{2}$ and energy dependence of the production

1382: cross section has been demonstrated in Ref.~\cite{NNPZ97}\footnote{

1383: Manifestations of the node

1384: effect in electroproduction on nuclei were discussed earlier, see

1385: \cite{NNZanom} and \cite{BZNFphi}}

1386: 

1387: Note, that the predictive power is weak

1388: and is strongly model dependent in the region of $Q^{2}$ and energy

1389: where the node effect becomes exact.

1390: 

1391: For the production of $V'(2S)$ light vector mesons, 

1392: the node effect depends on the

1393: polarization of the virtual photon and of the produced vector

1394: meson \cite{NNPZ97}. 

1395: The wave functions of $T$ and $L$ polarized (virtual)

1396: photon are different.

1397: Different regions of $z$ contribute to the

1398: ${\cal M}_{T}$ and ${\cal M}_{L}$.

1399: Different scanning radii

1400: for production of $T$ and $L$ polarized vector mesons

1401: and different energy dependence of $\sigma(\xi,r)$ at

1402: these scanning radii

1403: lead to a different $Q^{2}$ and energy dependence of the

1404: node effect in production of $T$ and $L$ polarized 

1405: $V'(2S)$ vector mesons.

1406: Not so for production of heavy quarkonia,

1407: where the node effect is very weak and

1408: is approximately polarization independent.

1409: However, there is a weak polarization dependence of the

1410: node effect for $\Psi'$ photoproduction \cite{NNPZZ98} and

1411: this weak node effect still leads to a nonmonotonic $Q^{2}$

1412: dependence of the diffraction slope.

1413: For $\Upsilon'$ production the node effect is negligibly small

1414: and is polarization independent with very high accuracy.

1415: 

1416: There are two possible scenarios for the node effect:

1417: the undercompensation

1418: and the overcompensation regime \cite{NNZanom}.

1419: In the undercompensation case,

1420: the $2S$ production amplitude

1421: $\langle V'(2S)|\sigma(\xi,r)|\gamma^*\rangle$

1422: is dominated by the positive contribution coming from small

1423: dipole sizes, $r\lsim r_{n}$ ($r_{n}$ is the node position),

1424: and the $V(1S)$ and $V'(2S)$ photoproduction

1425: amplitudes have the same sign. 

1426: This scenario corresponds namely to the production

1427: of $2S$ heavy vector mesons, $\Psi'(2S)$ and $\Upsilon'(2S)$.

1428: In the overcompensation case,  

1429: the $2S$ production amplitude

1430: $\langle V'(2S)|\sigma(\xi,r)|\gamma^*\rangle$

1431: is dominated by the negative contribution coming from large

1432: dipole sizes, $r\gsim r_{n}$, 

1433: and the $V(1S)$ and $V'(2S)$ photoproduction

1434: amplitudes have the opposite sign. 

1435: 

1436: The anomalous properties of the diffraction slope can

1437: be understood

1438: from the expression (\ref{eq:22}).

1439: The denominator represents the well known production

1440: amplitude $\langle V(V')|\sigma(\xi,r)|\gamma^*\rangle$.

1441: As it was mentioned, 

1442: the $1S$ production amplitude

1443: is dominated by contribution from

1444: dipole size $r\sim r_{S}$ (\ref{eq:2}).

1445: However, 

1446: due to $\propto r^{2}$

1447: behaviour of the slope parameter (see (\ref{eq:18}) and

1448: (\ref{eq:21})),

1449: the integrand of the matrix element in the numerator,

1450: $\langle V(1S)|\sigma(\xi,r)B(\xi,r)|\gamma^*\rangle$,

1451: is $\sim r^{5}\exp(-\epsilon r)$ and is peaked by

1452: $r\sim r_{B} = 5/3r_{S}$.

1453: 

1454: Let us start from $T$ polarized $\rho'(2S)$ 

1455: In Ref.~\cite{NNPZ97}

1456: using our model wave functions for vector mesons, we found 

1457: the undercompensation scenario at $Q^{2}=0$

1458: for the production amplitude

1459: $\langle V_{T}'(2S)|\sigma(\xi,r)|\gamma^*\rangle$, 

1460: which is positive valued.

1461: However, because of the large numerical factor $\sim 10$ for 

1462: $r_{B}\sim 10/\sqrt{Q^{2}+m_{V}^{2}} > r_{S}$,

1463: the matrix element

1464: $\langle V_{T}'(2S)|\sigma(\xi,r)B(\xi,r)|\gamma^*\rangle$ 

1465: in the numerator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:22})

1466: corresponds to the overcompensation scenario

1467: at $Q^{2}=0$ and at energy range

1468: $\lsim 15-20\,$ GeV and is negative valued.

1469: As the result,

1470: the numerator and denominator have the opposite signs

1471: resulting in a negative value for the diffraction slope,

1472: $B(V_{T}'(2S))$ at $Q^{2}=0$.

1473: However the node effect for production of $phi'(2S)$ is

1474: weaker resulting in positive valued numerator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:22}).

1475: Both the numerator and denominator have the same sign and

1476: we start with positive valued diffraction slope.

1477: Such a situation is depicted in Fig.~5 (bottom boxes) for both the

1478: $\rho'(2S)$ and $\phi'(2S)$ production,

1479: where we present the model predictions

1480: for the forward diffraction slope $(t=0)$ as a function of $Q^{2}$

1481: at different values of the c.m.s. energy $W$.

1482: 

1483: A decrease of the scanning radius with $Q^{2}$ leads to a very

1484: rapid decrease of the negative contribution to the

1485: diffraction slope

1486: coming from $r\gsim r_{n}$ and consequently, 

1487: leads to a steep rise of the

1488: negative valued $B(V_{T}'(2S))$

1489: with $Q^{2}$ for $\rho'(2S)$ production

1490: (positive valued $B(V_{T}'(2S))$

1491: with $Q^{2}$ for $\phi'(2S)$ production).

1492: For $\rho'(2S)$ production 

1493: at some value of $Q^{2}\sim Q^{2}_{T}\sim 0.01$\,GeV$^{2}$,

1494: one encounters the exact cancellation of the large and small

1495: distance contributions, i.e. the exact node effect for

1496: the numerator of Eq. (\ref{eq:22}), and 

1497: $B(V_{T}'(2S)) = 0$. Not so for $\phi'(2S)$ production,

1498: where the numerator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:22}) is in the 

1499: undercompensation regime already at very small energies

1500: $\sim 5\,$ GeV. 

1501: 

1502: We would like to emphasize that the position of $Q^{2}_{T}$

1503: is model dependent and can be shifted towards to smaller

1504: or to larger values.

1505: 

1506: At larger $Q^{2}$ and smaller scanning

1507: radius, one enters the undercompensation scenario also for

1508: numerator

1509: $\langle V_{T}'(2S)|\sigma(\xi,r)B(\xi,r)|\gamma^*\rangle$.

1510: Thus, the diffraction slope will be positive valued and continues to

1511: rise strongly with $Q^{2}$ due to a more rapid decrease with $Q^{2}$

1512: of the negative contribution to the slope parameter coming

1513: from $r\gsim r_{n}$ in numerator than in denominator

1514: (the numerator has much stronger node effect than the

1515: denominator).

1516: At still larger $Q^{2}$, i.e. smaller

1517: scanning radii $r_{S}$, the node effect also for the

1518: numerator becomes to be weaker and as the result,  

1519: the slope parameter 

1520: at fixed energy $W$ and some value of $Q^{2}\sim (0.5-2.0)$\,GeV$^{2}$,

1521: has a maximum of $B(V_{T}'(2S))$.

1522: At very large $Q^{2}\gg m_{V}^{2}$, when the node effect becomes

1523: negligible, $B(V_{T}'(2S))$ has the standard $Q^{2}$- behaviour

1524: and decreases monotonously with $Q^{2}$

1525: following the behaviour of the diffraction slope $B(V_{L,T}(1S))$

1526: for $V(1S)$ mesons (see Fig.~4).

1527: 

1528: The more interesting situation is for production of $L$ polarized

1529: $V'(2S)$ mesons resulting in a very spectacular pattern of $Q^{2}$

1530: dependence of the slope parameter shown in Fig.~5 (middle boxes).

1531: Using our model wave functions, we predicted overcompensation

1532: for the production amplitude  

1533: $\langle V_{L}'(2S)|\sigma(\xi,r)|\gamma^*\rangle$ 

1534: \cite{NNPZ97}.

1535: Because of $r_{B}> r_{S}$, the matrix element

1536: $\langle V_{L}'(2S)|\sigma(\xi,r)B(\xi,r)|\gamma^*\rangle$,

1537: will be also in the overcompensation regime. 

1538: For this reason, the both matrix elements have the same sign

1539: and according to (\ref{eq:22}) the slope parameter

1540: $B(V_{L}'(2S))$ will be positive valued at

1541: $Q^{2}=0$ (see Fig.~5).

1542: Consequently, with the

1543: decrease of the scanning radius with $Q^{2}$,

1544: there is a

1545: rapid decrease of the negative contributions 

1546: to the numerator and denominator

1547: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:22}) coming from $r\gsim r_{n}$.

1548: For some $Q^{2}\sim Q'^{2}_{L}\sim 0.5-1.0$\,GeV$^{2}$

1549: one encounters the exact node effect firstly for the denominator

1550: due to $r_{B}> r_{S}$. This fact corresponds to

1551: a presence of the peak for $B(V_{L}'(2S))$ for both the $\rho_{L}'(2S)$ and

1552: $\phi_{L}'(2S)$ production. The value of $B(V_{L}'(2S))$ corresponding to

1553: this exact node effect will be finite due to a different node effect

1554: for the real and imaginary part of the production amplitude.

1555: This fact also reflects the

1556: continuous transition of $B(V_{L}'(2S))$ from positive to 

1557: negative values

1558: when the matrix element in denominator passes from the

1559: overcompensation to undercompensation regime.

1560: Thus, for $Q^{2}\geq Q'^{2}_{L}\sim 0.5-1.0$\,GeV$^{2}$, 

1561: the denominator will be in

1562: the undercompensation regime and $B(V_{L}'(2S))$ starts to

1563: rise from its minimal negative value.

1564: Note, that the numerator is still in the overcompensation.

1565: The further pattern of the $Q^{2}$ behaviour of 

1566: $B(V_{L}'(2S))$ is analogical to that for

1567: $Q^{2}$ dependence of $B(V_{T}'(2S))$.

1568: However,  the exact node effect for

1569: the numerator in Eq.~(\ref{eq:22}), resulting in $B(V_{L}'(2S))=0$,

1570: will be at $Q^{2}\sim Q^{2}_{L} > Q'^{2}_{L}$.

1571: For $\phi'(2S)$ production because of different node effect for

1572: the real and imaginary part of production amplitude,

1573: at HERA energy range $W\sim 50-200\,$ GeV 

1574: $B(V_{L}'(2S))$ never reaches the zero value corresponding

1575: to the exact node effect for the numerator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:22}).

1576: 

1577: For the production of polarization unseparated $V'(2S)$,

1578: the anomalous properties of $B(V_{L}'(2S))$ are essentially

1579: invisible and the corresponding slope parameter

1580: $B(V'(2S))$ is shown in Fig.~5 (bottom boxes).

1581: Although the above

1582: value of $Q_{T}^{2}$ is too small to be measured experimentally

1583: (we can not exclude that $Q^{2}$ dependence of $B(V_{T}'(2S))$

1584: will start from positive valued $B(V_{T}'(2S))$ at small energies

1585: also for $\rho'(2S$) production),

1586: we predict nonmonotonic $Q^{2}$ dependence of the diffraction slope

1587: for production of $T$ polarized 

1588: and polarization unseparated $\rho'(2S)$ and $\phi'(2S)$,

1589: strikingly different from monotonic $Q^{2}$ behaviour

1590: of the slope parameter for $V(1S)$ production (see

1591: Fig.~4).

1592: For production of $\rho_{L}'(2S)$ and $\phi_{L}'(2S)$,

1593: we predict anomalous $Q^{2}$ behaviour of $B(V_{L}'(2S))$.

1594: Here we can not insist on the precise values of $Q^{2}_{T}$, 

1595: $Q^{2}_{L}$ and $Q'^{2}_{L}$ which

1596: is subject of the soft-hard cancellations.

1597: We would like to only emphasize that the exact node effect

1598: for $B(V_{T}'(2S))$ and $B(V_{L}'(2S))$

1599: is at a finite $Q^{2}_{T}$ and $Q^{2}_{L}$, $Q'^{2}_{L}$ 

1600: respectively.

1601: Such a nonmonotonic $Q^{2}$ dependence of $B(V_{T}'(2S))$ and/or

1602: $B(V'(2S))$ can

1603: be tested experimentally at HERA measuring the virtual

1604: photoproduction of the $\rho'(2S)$ and $\phi'(2S)$ at

1605: $Q^{2}\in (0-10)$\,GeV$^{2}$.

1606: The above discussed anomalous $Q^{2}$ dependence of $B(V_{L}'(2S)$

1607: could be also investigated at HERA separating $L$ polarized

1608: $\rho_{L}'(2S)$ and $\phi_{L}'(2S)$ at moderate 

1609: $Q^{2}\sim (0.1-2.0)$\,GeV$^{2}$. 

1610: Here we would like to emphasize that only the experiment can help

1611: in decision between the undercompensation and overcompensation

1612: scenarios which affect the anomalous properties of the production

1613: cross section and diffraction slope.

1614: 

1615: The energy dependence of the slope parameter $B(V'(2S))$ 

1616: at different $Q^{2}$ is shown

1617: in Fig.6 and has its own peculiarities.

1618: Let us start with $B(V_{T}'(2S))$ at $Q^{2}=0$.

1619: Fig.~6 demonstrates (top boxes) steeper rise with energy 

1620: of the diffraction slope at lower $Q^{2}$.

1621: There are several reasons for such a behaviour.

1622: First,

1623: the gBFKL dynamics predicts a steeper rise with energy of

1624: the positive contribution to the $2S$ amplitudes

1625: $\langle V'(2S)|\sigma(\xi,r)|\gamma^*\rangle$ and

1626: $\langle V'(2S)|\sigma(\xi,r)B(\xi,r)|\gamma^*\rangle$

1627: coming from small size dipoles $r\lsim r_{n}$ 

1628: than the negative contribution coming from 

1629: large size dipoles $r\gsim r_{n}$.

1630: Thus, 

1631: the destructive interference of these two contributions

1632: is weaker at higher energy.

1633: Second,

1634: at $Q^{2}=0$,

1635: the denominator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:22}) is in the undercompensation,

1636: whereas the numerator is in the overcompensation regime

1637: (numerator is in the undercompensation regime for 

1638: $\phi'(2S)$ production) 

1639: and the corresponding scanning radii for the numerator

1640: and denominator are different, $r_{B}> r_{S}$.

1641: Third, the energy dependence of the slope parameter

1642: is given by the effective Regge slope $\alpha'$.

1643: Thus, the above destructive interference 

1644: in numerator 

1645: decreases drastically with $W$

1646: the negative contribution from $r\gsim r_{n}$ 

1647: until the exact node effect is reached, i.e.

1648: $B(V_{T}'(2S))=0$, and the undercompensation scenario

1649: also for the numerator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:22})

1650: starts to be realized at $W\sim 20$\,GeV.

1651: However, closeness of the node position in

1652: the numerator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:22}) leads to

1653: a small negative value of $B(V_{T}'(2S))$

1654: at $W\sim 5\,$ GeV and as a result

1655: it leads in a little bit steeper growth with energy

1656: of $B(V_{T}'(2S))$ than the expected 

1657: energy rise of the slope coming only 

1658: from the effective Regge slope. 

1659: For example, for $\rho'(2S)$ production 

1660: we predict the rise of $B(V_{T}'(2S))$, by $\sim 2.8$\,GeV$^{-2}$,

1661: from $W=10$ to $100$\,GeV. 

1662: At $Q^{2}\gsim 1.0$\,GeV$^{2}$, 

1663: when both the numerator and denominator are in the

1664: undercompensation regime and the node effect becomes weak,

1665: the energy growth of $B(V'(2S))$ is

1666: connected mainly with the effective Regge slope and we

1667: predict approximately the same quantities and energy growth

1668: for $B(V'(2S))$ and

1669: $B(V(1S))$ (compare Fig.~4 and Fig.~6).

1670: 

1671: The successful separation of the longitudinally polarized

1672: $V_{L}'(2S)$ mesons at HERA offers an unique possibility

1673: to study an anomalous $Q^{2}$ and energy dependence of

1674: the diffraction slope connected with the overcompensation scenario

1675: of the denominator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:22}).

1676: At $Q^{2}=0$, we have onset of the overcompensation scenario

1677: for both the numerator and denominator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:22}).

1678: At moderate energy and $Q^{2}$ closed but smaller than

1679: $Q'^{2}_{L}\sim 0.5$\,GeV$^{2}$, the negative contribution

1680: coming from $r\gsim r_{n}$ still takes over in the denominator

1681: (the numerator is safely in the overcompensation

1682: regime due to $r_{B}> r_{S}$). 

1683: Due to a steeper rise with energy of

1684: the positive contribution to the $2S$ production amplitude

1685: coming from small size dipoles $r\lsim r_{n}$ 

1686: than the negative contribution coming from 

1687: large size dipoles $r\gsim r_{n}$, we find an exact cancallation

1688: of these two contributions to the denominator and a maximum

1689: of the diffraction slope $B(V_{L}'(2S))$ at some intermediate energy

1690: followed by a rapid continuous transition

1691: from the positive to negative values,

1692: when the matrix element in denominator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:22}) passes

1693: from the overcompensation to the undercompensation regime.

1694: Different node effect for the real and imaginary part of 

1695: the production amplitude provides such a continuous transition.

1696: Then, at larger energies, 

1697: the production amplitude is in the undercompensation regime,

1698: $B(V_{L}'(2S))$ is negative valued and starts to rise 

1699: from the minimal negative value. 

1700: This situation is depicted in Fig.~6 (middle boxes), where we

1701: predict with our model wave functions 

1702: such a nonmonotonic energy behaviour

1703: of $B(V_{L}'(2S))$ for both $\rho'(2S)$

1704: and $\phi'(2S)$ production at $Q^{2}\lsim 0.7-1.0$\,GeV$^{2}$.

1705: The position $W_{t}$ 

1706: of maximum and the transition from the positive to negative 

1707: values of the logitudinally polarized diffraction slope depends

1708: on $Q^{2}$. For example, at $Q^{2}\sim 0.7$\,GeV$^{2}$,

1709: we find $W_{t}\sim 70-80$\,GeV. Then, the position of $W_{t}$

1710: is shifted to smaller values of $W$ at larger

1711: $Q^{2}\gsim 0.7$\,GeV$^{2}$ at can be measured at HERA.

1712: 

1713: At higher $Q^{2}$ and smaller scanning radii,

1714: the further pattern of the energy behaviour of 

1715: $B(V_{L}'(2S)$ is an analogical

1716: to $W$ dependence of $B(V_{T}'(2S))$.

1717: At still larger $Q^{2}$, after

1718: the exact node effect was reached also in the numerator

1719: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:22}) at $\sim Q^{2}_{L}>Q'^{2}_{L}$,

1720: both the numerator and denominator are in the

1721: undercompensation regime. 

1722: Consequently, the node effect also in the

1723: numerator starts to be weaker with $Q^{2}$ and 

1724: the energy growth of $B(V'_{L}(2S))$ is

1725: controlled practically 

1726: by the effective Regge slope.

1727: As the result we

1728: predict again almost the same quantities and energy growth

1729: for $B(V'_{L}(2S))$ and $B(V_{L}(1S))$.

1730: 

1731: If the leptoproduction of the transversally and longitudinally

1732: polarized $V_{T}'(2S)$ and $V_{L}'(2S)$ mesons will be

1733: separated experimentally, there is a

1734: possibility of experimental

1735: determination of a concrete scenario in $T$ and $L$

1736: polarized $2S$ production

1737: amplitude by a measurement of the corresponding diffraction

1738: slopes at $t=0$ and at $Q^{2}=0$, where the node

1739: effect is found to be the strongest.

1740: If at the same energy and $Q^{2}=0$

1741: the slope parameter for $V_{T}'(2S)$ production will be

1742: smaller (it can be also negative valued)

1743: than the corresponding slope parameter for

1744: $V_{T}(1S)$ production, then the $2S$ production amplitude

1745: is in the undercompensation regime.

1746: In the opposite case, if $B(V_{T}'(2S))> B(V_{T}(1S)$,

1747: then the corresponding $T$ polarized $2S$ amplitude is

1748: in the overcompensation. 

1749: The analogical conclusion concerns to $L$ polarized

1750: $2S$ production amplitude, where the values of $Q^{2}$

1751: should be high enough to have the data with a reasonable

1752: statistics, however must not be very large in order

1753: to have a strong node effect. We propose the range

1754: of $Q^{2}\in 0.5-2.0$\,GeV$^{2}$ for a possible study

1755: of the overcompensation scenario at HERA.

1756: The further supplementary

1757: indication of the overcompensation scenario is

1758: assumed to be an existence of the maximum

1759: and/or minimum of the diffraction slope and

1760: subsequent a sudden rise of $B(V'(2S))$ at some nonzero value

1761: of $Q^{2}$.

1762: 

1763: 

1764: %-------------------------------------------

1765: 

1766: %    Section 5

1767: 

1768: % -------------

1769: 

1770: \section{Conclusions} 

1771: 

1772: We study the 

1773: diffractive photo- and electroproduction

1774: of ground state $1S$ and radially excited $2S$ 

1775: vector mesons within the color dipole gBFKL dynamics

1776: with the main emphasis related to the  

1777: diffraction slope.

1778: There are two main consequences

1779: of vector meson production

1780: coming from the gBFKL dynamics.

1781: First, the energy dependence of the $1S$ vector meson production

1782: is controlled by the energy dependence of the dipole cross

1783: section which is steeper for smaller dipole sizes.

1784: The energy dependence of the diffraction slope for $V(1S)$

1785: production is given by the effective Regge slope with a small

1786: variation with energy.

1787: Second

1788: the $Q^{2}$ dependence of the $1S$ vector meson production is

1789: controlled by the shrinkage of the transverse size of the virtual

1790: photon and the small dipole size dependence of the color dipole cross

1791: section.

1792: The $Q^{2}$ behaviour of the diffraction slope is given by

1793: the simple geometrical properties, $\sim r^{2}$, coming

1794: from the gBFKL phenomenology

1795: of the slope parameter.

1796: In the gBFKL dynamics, we expect a fast subasymptotic shrinkage

1797: of the diffraction cone from the CERN/FNAL to HERA energy 

1798: due to intrusion of large distance effects. 

1799: We have predicted a reach pattern of 

1800: $Q^{2}$ and energy dependence

1801: of the diffraction slope for the $\rho^{0}$ and $\phi^{0}$ production

1802: and find a substantial rise (by $\sim 2.3-2.4$\,GeV$^{-2}$ 

1803: for $\rho^{0}$ production

1804: and by $\sim 1.9-2.0$\,GeV$^{-2}$ for $\phi^{0}$ production)

1805: from the fixed target, $W\sim 10-15$\,GeV, to

1806: the collider HERA, $W\sim 100-150$\,GeV, range of energy.

1807: The model predictions for the diffraction slope 

1808: for the $\rho^{0}$ and $\phi^{0}$ production are in 

1809: agreement with 

1810: the data from the fixed target 

1811: (CHIO, NMC) and collider HERA (H1, ZEUS) experiments.

1812: However, the relatively large error bars of the data preclude

1813: any definite statement about a shrinkage of the slope

1814: parameter with energy. The data show a trend to smaller

1815: values of the diffraction slope as $Q^{2}$ increases.

1816: 

1817: 

1818: The second class of predictions is related to the

1819: diffraction slope for the production of $2S$

1820: vector mesons.

1821: As a 

1822: consequence of the strong node effect

1823: in electroproduction of $2S$ light vector

1824: mesons $\rho'(2S)$ and $\phi'(2S)$, 

1825: we present the strong case for the anomalous $Q^{2}$ and energy

1826: dependence of the diffraction slope at $t=0$.

1827: We find a nonmonotonic $Q^{2}$ dependence of the slope

1828: parameter which can be tested at HERA in the range

1829: of $Q^{2}\in (0-10)$\,GeV$^{2}$ measuring

1830: the virtual photoproduction of $\rho'(2S)$ and $\phi'(2S)$

1831: mesons.

1832: For the production of longitudinally polarized $2S$

1833: mesons, the production amplitude is in the

1834: overcompensation scenario and

1835: we find a very rapid transition of the slope parameter

1836: $B(V_{L}'(2S))$ from positive to negative values

1837: at $Q^{2}= Q'^{2}_{L}\sim 0.5-2.0$\,GeV$^{2}$ 

1838: as a consequence of a reaching of the exact

1839: node effect by passing from the overcompensation

1840: to undercompensation scenario in $2S$ production amplitude.

1841: The position of this rapid transition, $Q'^{2}_{L}$, 

1842: is energy dependent and leads

1843: to nonmonotonic energy dependence of $B(V_{L}'(2S))$ at fixed

1844: $Q^{2}$. 

1845: 

1846: At $Q^{2}=0$, when 

1847: the node effect is strong, for undercompensation

1848: scenario we predict

1849: smaller $B(V_{T}'(2S))$ than $B(V_{T}(1S))$.

1850: However, for overcompensation

1851: scenario we predict larger $B(V_{L}'(2S))$ than $B(V_{L}(1S))$.

1852: This is a very crucial point of a possible experimental

1853: determination of a concrete scenario measuring 

1854: (and the position of the node as well) the diffraction

1855: slope at $t=0$

1856: for the production of $V'(2S)$ mesons in the photoproduction limit. 

1857: 

1858: At larger $Q^{2}$ and/or shorter scanning radius, the node effect

1859: becomes weak and we predict for $V'(2S)$

1860: mesons the standard monotonic $Q^{2}$

1861: and energy dependence of the slope parameter like for $V(1S)$

1862: mesons.

1863: One needs the higher accuracy data from the both fixed target

1864: and the collider HERA experiments for

1865: the exploratory study of $Q^{2}$ and energy

1866: dependence of the diffraction slope at $t=0$.  

1867: 

1868: %---------------------------------------------------------------

1869: 

1870: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1871: 

1872: 

1873: \bibitem{DL} %% - 1

1874: A.Donnachie and P.V.Landshoff, {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B185}

1875: (1987) 403; \\

1876: J.R.Cuddell, {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B336} (1990) 1.

1877: 

1878: \bibitem{KZ91} %%% - 2

1879: B.Z.Kopeliovich and B.G.Zakharov, {\sl Phys. Rev.} {\bf D44}

1880: (1991) 3466.

1881: 

1882: \bibitem{Ryskin} %%% - 3

1883: M.G.Ryskin, {\sl Z. Phys.} {\bf C57} (1993) 89.

1884: 

1885: \bibitem{KNNZ93} %%% - 4

1886: B.Z.Kopeliovich, J.Nemchik, N.N.Nikolaev and B.G.Zakharov,

1887: {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B309} (1993) 179.

1888: 

1889: \bibitem{KNNZ94} %%% - 5

1890: B.Z.Kopeliovich, J.Nemchik, N.N.Nikolaev and B.G.Zakharov,

1891: {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B324} (1994) 469.

1892: 

1893: \bibitem{NNZscan} %%% - 6

1894: J.Nemchik, N.N.Nikolaev and B.G.Zakharov,

1895: {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B341} (1994) 228.

1896: 

1897: \bibitem{Brodsky} %%% - 7

1898: S.J.Brodsky et al., {\sl Phys. Rev.} {\bf D50} (1994) 3134.

1899: 

1900: \bibitem{Forshaw} %%% - 8

1901: J.R.Forshaw and M.G.Ryskin, {\sl Z. Phys.} {\bf C} (1995)

1902: to be published.

1903: 

1904: \bibitem{GLM} %%% - 9

1905: E.Gotsman, E.M.Levin and U.Maor, 

1906: {\sl Nucl. Phys.}

1907: {\bf B464} (1996) 251.

1908: 

1909: \bibitem{NNZanom} %%% - 10

1910: J.Nemchik, N.N.Nikolaev and B.G.Zakharov,

1911: {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B339} (1994) 194.

1912: 

1913: \bibitem{NNPZ97} %%% - 11

1914: J.Nemchik, N.N.Nikolaev, E.Predazzi and B.G.Zakharov,

1915: {\it Z.Phys.} {\bf C75} (1997) 71.

1916: 

1917: \bibitem{NNPZZ98} %%% - 12

1918: J.Nemchik, N.N.Nikolaev, E.Predazzi, B.G.Zakharov and V.R.Zoller,

1919: {\sl JETP} {\bf 86} (1998) 1054.

1920: 

1921: 

1922: \bibitem{NZZslope} %%% - 13

1923: N.N.Nikolaev, B.G.Zakharov and V.R.Zoller,

1924: {\sl Phys. Lett.}

1925: {\bf B366} (1996) 337  

1926: 

1927: \bibitem{NZZspectrum} %%% - 14

1928: N.N.Nikolaev, B.G.Zakharov and V.R.Zoller,

1929: {\sl JETP Lett.} {\bf 60} (1994) 694.

1930: 

1931: \bibitem{NNN92} %%% - 15

1932: N.N.Nikolaev, {\sl Comments on Nucl. Part. Phys.} {\bf 21}

1933: (1992) 41.

1934: 

1935: \bibitem{NNPZdipole} %%% - 16

1936: J.Nemchik, N.N.Nikolaev, E.Predazzi and B.G.Zakharov,

1937: {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B374} (1996) 199.

1938: 

1939: \bibitem{SlopeDipole} %%% - 17

1940: J.Nemchik and N.N.Nikolaev,

1941: paper in preparation.

1942: 

1943: \bibitem{NZHera} %%% - 18

1944: N.N.Nikolaev and B.G.Zakharov,

1945: {\sl Phys. Lett. }{\bf B327} (1994) 149.

1946: 

1947: \bibitem{NZ94} %%% - 19

1948: N.Nikolaev and B.G.Zakharov, {\sl JETP} {\bf 78} (1994) 598;

1949: {\sl Z. Phys.} {\bf C64} (1994)631.

1950: 

1951: \bibitem{NZZ94} %%% - 20

1952: N.N.Nikolaev, B.G.Zakharov and V.R.Zoller,

1953: {\sl JETP Letters}  {\bf 59} (1994) 6;

1954: {\sl JETP } {\bf 78}  (1994) 866; {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B328}

1955: (1994) 486.

1956: 

1957: \bibitem{NZ91} %%% - 21

1958: N.N.~Nikolaev and B.G.~Zakharov, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C49} (1991) 607;

1959: {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C53} (1992) 331.

1960: 

1961: \bibitem{GribMig} %%% - 22

1962: V.N.Gribov and A.A.Migdal,

1963: {\sl Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 8} (1969) 703.

1964: 

1965: \bibitem{H1sf} %%% - 23

1966: H1 Collab., I.Abt et al., {\sl Nucl. Phys.}

1967: {\bf B407} (1993) 515.

1968: 

1969: \bibitem{ZEUSsf} %%% - 24

1970: ZEUS Collab., M.Derrick et al., {\sl Phys. Lett.}

1971: {\bf B316 } (1993) 412.

1972: 

1973: \bibitem{Schiz} %%% - 25

1974: A.Schiz et al.,

1975: {\sl Phys. Rev.} {\bf D24} (1981) 26.\\

1976: J.P.Burq et al.,

1977: {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B109} (1982) 111.

1978: 

1979: \bibitem{CHIOrho} %%% - 26

1980: CHIO Collab., W.D.Shambroom, et al., {\sl Phys. Rev.}

1981: {\bf D 26} (1982) 1.

1982: 

1983: \bibitem{NMCfirho} %%% - 27

1984: NMC Collab., M.Arneodo, et al., {\sl Nucl. Phys.}

1985: {\bf B 429} (1994) 503.

1986: 

1987: \bibitem{E665rho} %%% - 28

1988: E665 Collab., M.R.Adams et al.,

1989: {\sl Z. Phys.} {\bf C74 } (1997) 237.

1990: 

1991: \bibitem{H1rho96} %%% - 29

1992: H1 Collab., S.Aid et al.,

1993: {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B463} (1996) 3.

1994: 

1995: \bibitem{H1rho96Q2} %%% - 30

1996: H1 Collab., T.Ahmed et al., {\sl Exclusive $\rho^0$ Production

1997: in Deep-inelastic Scattering Events at HERA}, presented on Int.

1998: Europhys. Conf. on HEP, Brussels, July 27 - August 2, 1995,

1999: paper {\bf EPS-0490}; \\

2000: H1 Collab., S.Aid et al., 

2001: {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B468} (1996) 3.

2002: 

2003: \bibitem{H1rho99Q2} %%% - 31

2004: H1 Collab., C.Adloff et al., {\sl Elastic

2005: Electroproduction of $\rho^0$ Mesons at HERA},

2006: {\sl preprint} {\bf DESY 99-010} (1996) DESY, accepted

2007: in Eur. Phys. J. C   

2008: 

2009: %=======================================================================

2010: 

2011: \bibitem{ZEUSrho95} %%% - 32

2012: ZEUS Collab., M.Derrick et al.,

2013: {\sl Z. Phys.} {\bf C69} (1995) 39.

2014: 

2015: \bibitem{ZEUSrho97} %%% - 33

2016: ZEUS Collab., J.Breitweg et al.,

2017: {\sl Z. Phys.} {\bf C73} (1997) 253.

2018: 

2019: \bibitem{ZEUSrho98} %%% - 34

2020: ZEUS Collab., J.Breitweg et al.,

2021: {\sl Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C2} (1998) 247.

2022: 

2023: \bibitem{ZEUSrho95Q2} %%% - 35

2024: ZEUS Collab., M.Derrick et al.,

2025: {\sl Phys. lett.} {\bf B356} (1995) 601.

2026: 

2027: \bibitem{ZEUSrho99Q2} %%% - 36                       		

2028: ZEUS Collab., J.Breitweg et al.,                      		

2029: {\sl Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C6} (1999) 603.             

2030: 

2031: %=======================================================================

2032: 

2033: \bibitem{FTrho} %%% - 37

2034: W.G.Jones at al., 

2035: {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 21} (1968) 586; \\

2036: C.Berger et al.,

2037: {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B39} (1972) 659;  \\

2038: SBT Collab., J.Ballam et al.,

2039: {\sl Phys. Rev.} {\bf D5} (!972) 545; \\

2040: G.E.Gladding et al.,

2041: {\sl Phys. Rev.} {\bf D8} (1973) 3721; \\

2042: OMEGA Photon Collab., D.Aston et al.,

2043: {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B209} (1982) 56.

2044: 

2045: \bibitem{Philownu} %%% - 38

2046: J. Busenitz et al.,

2047: {\sl Phys. Rev. } {\bf D40} (1989) 40 and references therein.

2048: 

2049: \bibitem{Philownuold} %%% - 39

2050: R.Erbe et al.,

2051: {\sl Phys. Rev. } {\bf 175 } (1968) 1669; \\

2052: C.Berger et al.,

2053: {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B39 } (1972) 659; \\

2054: J.Ballam et al.,

2055: {\sl Phys. Rev. } {\bf D7  } (1973) 3150; \\

2056: H.J.Bersh et al.,

2057: {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B70 } (1974) 257; \\

2058: H.J.Behrend et al.,

2059: {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B56 } (1975) 408; \\

2060: D.P.Barber et al.,

2061: {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B79 } (1978) 150; \\

2062: D.Aston et al.,

2063: {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B172} (1980) 1; \\

2064: M.Atkinson et al.,

2065: {\sl Z. Phys.   } {\bf C27 } (1985) 233.

2066: 

2067: \bibitem{ZEUSphi96} %%% - 40

2068: ZEUS Collab., M.Derrick et al., {\sl Elastic Photoproduction

2069: of $\omega$, $\phi$ and $\rho'$ mesons at HERA}, presented on Int.

2070: Europhys. Conf. on HEP, Brussels, July 27 - August 2, 1995,

2071: paper {\bf EPS-0389}; \\

2072: ZEUS Collab., M.Derrick et al., 

2073: {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B377} (1996) 259.

2074: 

2075: \bibitem{H1Psi94} %%% - 41

2076: H1 Collab., T.Ahmed et al., {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B338} (1994) 507.

2077: 

2078: \bibitem{H1Psi96} %%% - 42

2079: H1 Collab., T.Ahmed et al.,

2080: {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B472} (1996) 3.

2081: 

2082: \bibitem{ZEUSPsi95} %%% - 43

2083: ZEUS Collab., M.Derrick et al., {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B350}

2084: (1995) 120.

2085: 

2086: \bibitem{ZEUSPsi97} %%% - 44

2087: ZEUS Collab., J.Breitweg et al., 

2088: {\sl Z. Phys.} {\bf C75}

2089: (1997) 215.

2090: 

2091: \bibitem{BZNFphi} %%% - 45

2092: O.Benhar, B.G.Zakharov, N.N.Nikolaev et al.,

2093: {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 74} (1995) 3565; \\

2094: O.Benhar, S.Fantoni, N.N.Nikolaev et al.,

2095: {\sl Zh. Exp. Teor. Fiz.} {\bf 111} (1997) 769.

2096: 

2097: %\bibitem{Kuraev} %%% - 10

2098: %E.A.Kuraev, L.N.Lipatov and S.V.Fadin,

2099: %{\sl Sov. Phys. JETP} {\bf 44} (1976) 443; {\bf 45} (1977) 199.

2100: %

2101: %\bibitem{Balitsky} %%% - 11

2102: %Yu.Yu.Balitsky and L.N.Lipatov,

2103: %{\sl Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 28} (1978) 822.

2104: %

2105: %\bibitem{Lipatov} %%% - 12

2106: %L.N.Lipatov,

2107: %{\sl Sov. Phys. JETP} {\bf 63} (1986) 904; \\ 

2108: %L.N.Lipatov, in:{\sl Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics},

2109: %ed. by A.H.Mueller, World Scientific (1989).

2110: %

2111: %

2112: %\bibitem{NZZdelta} %%% - 16

2113: %N.N.Nikolaev, B.G.Zakharov and V.R.Zoller,

2114: %{\sl JETP Lett.}

2115: %{\bf 60} (1994) 694.

2116: %

2117: %

2118: %\bibitem{lattice} %%% - 19

2119: %E.Schuryak,

2120: %{\sl Rev. Mod. Phys.}{\bf 65} (1993) 1

2121: %and references therein.

2122: %

2123: %\bibitem{Gotsman} %%% - 20

2124: %E.Gotsman and S.Nussinov, {\sl Phys. Rev.}

2125: %{\bf D22} (1980) 624.

2126: %

2127: %\bibitem{Migdal} %%% - 21

2128: %A.B.Migdal, {\sl JETP Lett.}

2129: %{\bf 46} (1987) 256.

2130: %

2131: %

2132: %\bibitem{Barone} %%% - 30

2133: %V.Barone, M.Genovese, N.N.Nikolaev, E.Predazzi and B.G.Zakharov,

2134: %{\sl Z. Phys.} {\bf C58} (1993) 541;

2135: %{\sl Int. J. Mod. Phys A}, {\bf 8} (1993) 2779.

2136: %

2137: %\bibitem{NZglue} %%% - 31

2138: %N.N.Nikolaev and B.G.Zakharov,

2139: %{\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B332} (1994) 184.

2140: %

2141: %\bibitem{E665lowQ2} %%% - 33

2142: %H.Schellman, Blois Workshop on Diffractive and Elastic

2143: %Scattering, Blois, June 1995.

2144: %

2145: %\bibitem{BGZfactor} %%% - 34

2146: %B.G.Zakharov,55

2147: %{\sl Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.}

2148: %{\bf 49} (1989) 860.

2149: %

2150: %\bibitem{Low} %%% - 35

2151: %F.Low,

2152: %{\sl Phys. Rev.}

2153: %{\bf D12} (1975) 163.

2154: %

2155: %\bibitem{Gunion} %%% - 36

2156: %J.F.Gunion and D.F.Soper,

2157: %{\sl Phys. Rev.}

2158: %{\bf D15} (1977) 2617.

2159: %

2160: %\bibitem{NZBFKL} %%% -  37

2161: %N.N.Nikolaev and B.G.Zakharov,

2162: %{\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B327} (1994) 157.

2163: %

2164: % ===================================================

2165: %\bibitem{NMCPsi'} %%% - 26

2166: %NMC Collab., P.Amaudruz, et al., {\sl Nuc. Phys.} {\bf B 371}

2167: %(1992) 3.

2168: %

2169: %\bibitem{E687Psi'} %%% - 27

2170: %P.Frabetti et al.,

2171: %presented on Int.

2172: %Europhys. Conf. on HEP, Brussels, July 27 - August 2, 1995.

2173: %

2174: %\bibitem{Gribov} %%% - 28

2175: %V.N.Gribov,

2176: %{\sl Sov. Phys. JETP} {\bf 30} (1970) 709.

2177: %

2178: %\bibitem{Kaidalov} %%% - 29

2179: %A.B.Kaidalov,

2180: %{\sl JETP Lett.}

2181: %{\bf 32} (1980) 494;

2182: %{\sl Phys. Lett.}

2183: %{\bf B116} (1982) 459; \\

2184: %A.B.Kaidalov and K.A.Ter-Martirosyan,

2185: %{\sl Yad.Fiz.}

2186: %{\bf 39} (1984) 1545;

2187: %{\sl Yad.Fiz.}

2188: %{\bf 40} (1984) 211.

2189: %

2190: %\bibitem{Veneziano} %%% - 30

2191: %G.Veneziano

2192: %{\sl Phys. Lett.}

2193: %{\bf B52} (1974) 220;

2194: %{\sl Nucl. Phys.}

2195: %{\bf B74} (1974) 365.

2196: %

2197: %\bibitem{Chew} %%% - 31

2198: %G.F.Chew and C.Rosenzweig,

2199: %{\sl Phys. Rep.}

2200: %{\bf 41} (1978) 264.

2201: %

2202: %\bibitem{Cappela} %%% - 32

2203: %A.Cappela and J.Tran Thanh Van,

2204: %{\sl Phys. Lett.}

2205: %{\bf B114} (1982) 450.

2206: %

2207: %\bibitem{Nussinov} %%% - 33

2208: %S.Nussinov,

2209: %{\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.}

2210: %{\bf 34} (1975) 1286.

2211: %

2212: %\bibitem{E665rho} %%% - 37

2213: %E665 Collab., M.R.Adams et al.,

2214: %{\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 74 } (1995) 1525.

2215: %

2216: %\bibitem{NNPZglue} %%% - 42

2217: %J.Nemchik, N.N.Nikolaev, E.Predazzi and B.G.Zakharov,

2218: %{\sl paper in preparation}.

2219: %

2220: %\bibitem{DLRegge} %%% - 51

2221: %A.Donnachie and P.V.L.Landshoff, {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B296}

2222: %(1992) 227; {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B348} (1995) 213.

2223: %

2224: %\bibitem{EMCPsiQ2} %%% - 52

2225: %EMC Collab., J.J.Aubert et al., {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B213} (1983) 1;\\

2226: %J.Ashman et al.,{\sl Z. Phys.} {\bf C39} (1988) 169.

2227: %

2228: %\bibitem{H1PsiQ2} %%% - 55

2229: %H1 Collab., S.Aid et al., {\sl Elastic Electroproduction of

2230: %$\rho^0$ and $J/\Psi$ Mesons at Large $Q^{2}$ at HERA}

2231: %{\sl preprint} {\bf DESY 96-023} (1996) DESY,

2232: %{\bf hep-ex/9602007}.

2233: %

2234: %\bibitem{E516Psi} %%% - 56

2235: %E516 Collab., B.H.Denby et al., {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 52}

2236: %(1984) 795.

2237: %

2238: %\bibitem{E401Psi} %%% - 57

2239: %E401 Collab., M.Binkley et al., {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 48}

2240: %(1982) 73.

2241: %

2242: %\bibitem{E687Psi} %%% - 58

2243: %E687 Collab., P.L.Frabetti et al., {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B316}

2244: %(1993) 197.

2245: %

2246: %\bibitem{NA14Psi'} %%% - 60

2247: %NA14 Collab., {\sl Z. Phys.} {\bf C33}

2248: %(1987) 505.

2249: %

2250: %\bibitem{SLACPsi'} %%% - 61

2251: %SLAC Collab., U.Camerini et al., {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 35}

2252: %(1975) 483.

2253: %

2254: %\bibitem{NMCPsi} %%% - 62

2255: %NMC Collab., M.Arneodo, et al., {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 332}

2256: %(1994) 195.

2257: %

2258: %\bibitem{Rholownu} %%% - 26

2259: %OMEGA Collab., D.Aston et al. {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B209} (1982) 56;

2260: %J.Park et al. {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B36} (1972) 404;

2261: %R.M.Egloff et al. {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 43} (1979) 657

2262: %

2263: %\bibitem{ZEUSrho94} %%% - 27

2264: %ZEUS Collab., M.Derrick et al., {\sl Z. Phys.} {\bf C63}

2265: %(1994) 391.

2266: %

2267: %\bibitem{Clegg} %%% - 31

2268: %A.Donnachie and A.B.Clegg, {\sl Z. Phys.} {\bf C42} (1989) 663 and

2269: %references therein.

2270: %

2271: %\bibitem{PDT} %%% - 44

2272: %Review of Particle Properties, {\sl Phys. Rev.} {\bf D50} (1994) 1177

2273: %

2274: %\bibitem{E665rop} %%% - 45

2275: %E665 Collab., C.Salgado, Workshop on CT at CEBAF, May, 1995

2276: % ========================================================================

2277: 

2278: \end{thebibliography}

2279: 

2280: \pagebreak

2281: {\bf Figure captions:}

2282: \begin{itemize}

2283: 

2284: \item[Fig.~1]

2285: ~- The color dipole model

2286: predictions for the $Q^{2}$ dependence of the

2287: diffraction slope for the production of $\rho^{0}$

2288: vs. the low-energy fixed target CHIO \cite{CHIOrho},

2289: NMC \cite{NMCfirho}, E665 \cite{E665rho}

2290: and high-energy  ZEUS

2291: \cite{ZEUSrho95,ZEUSrho97,ZEUSrho98,ZEUSrho95Q2,ZEUSrho99Q2} and H1 

2292: \cite{H1rho96,H1rho96Q2,H1rho99Q2} data.

2293: 

2294: \item[Fig.~2]

2295: ~- The color dipole model

2296: predictions for the $W$ dependence of the

2297: diffraction slope for the production of $\rho^{0}$

2298: vs. the low-energy fixed target \cite{FTrho,NMCfirho},

2299: and high-energy  ZEUS

2300: \cite{ZEUSrho95,ZEUSrho97,ZEUSrho98} and H1 

2301: \cite{H1rho96,H1rho96Q2,H1rho99Q2} data

2302: The top solid curve is a prediction for the diffraction

2303: slope at $Q^{2}=0$.

2304: The lower dashed curve represents a prediction at $Q^{2}=10$\,GeV$^{2}$.   

2305: 

2306: \item[Fig.~3]

2307: ~- The color dipole model

2308: predictions for the $W$ dependence of the diffraction slope

2309: for the real photoproduction of

2310: $\phi^{0}$

2311: vs. the low-energy fixed target \cite{Philownu,Philownuold}

2312: and high-energy  ZEUS data

2313: \cite{ZEUSphi96}.

2314: 

2315: 

2316: \item[Fig.~4]

2317: ~- The color dipole model

2318: predictions for the $W$ dependence of the diffraction slope $B(t=0)$

2319: for production of

2320: transversely (T)

2321: (top boxes), longitudinally (L)

2322: (middle boxes) polarized 

2323: and polarization-unseparated

2324: (T) + $\epsilon$(L) (bottom boxes)

2325: $\rho^{0}$ and $\phi^{0}$

2326: for $\epsilon = 1$ 

2327: at different values of $Q^2$. 

2328: 

2329: \item[Fig.~5]

2330: ~- The color dipole model

2331: predictions for the $Q^{2}$ dependence of the diffraction slope $B(t=0)$

2332: for production of

2333: transversely (T)

2334: (top boxes), longitudinally (L)

2335: (middle boxes) polarized 

2336: and polarization-unseparated

2337: (T) + $\epsilon$(L) (bottom boxes)

2338: $\rho'(2S)$ and $\phi'(2S)$

2339: for $\epsilon = 1$ 

2340: at different values of the c.m.s. energy $W$. 

2341: 

2342: \item[Fig.~6]

2343: ~- The color dipole model

2344: predictions for the $W$ dependence of the diffraction slope $B(t=0)$

2345: for production of

2346: transversely (T)

2347: (top boxes), longitudinally (L)

2348: (middle boxes) polarized 

2349: and polarization-unseparated

2350: (T) + $\epsilon$(L) (bottom boxes)

2351: $\rho'(2S)$ and $\phi'(2S)$

2352: for $\epsilon = 1$ 

2353: at different values of $Q^2$. 

2354: 

2355: \end{itemize}

2356: 

2357: 

2358: \end{document}

2359: 

2360: