1: \documentstyle[epsf,aps,psfig]{revtex}
2: \textwidth 16.5cm
3: \oddsidemargin 0cm
4: \topmargin -1 cm
5: \textheight 22.4cm
6: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
7: \begin{document}
8: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}
9: \newcommand{\dlq}{\lq\lq}
10: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}
11: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
12: \newcommand{\een}{\end{eqnarray*}}
13: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
15: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.0}
16: \newcommand{\as}{\alpha_s}
17: \def\eq#1{{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}}
18:
19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
20: % ABBREVIATED JOURNAL NAMES
21: \def\ap#1#2#3{ {\it Ann. Phys. (NY) }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
22: \def\arnps#1#2#3{ {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
23: \def\npb#1#2#3{ {\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B#1} (19#2) #3}
24: \def\plb#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Lett. }{\bf B#1} (19#2) #3}
25: \def\prd#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf D#1} (19#2) #3}
26: \def\prep#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
27: \def\prl#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
28: \def\ptp#1#2#3{ {\it Prog. Theor. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
29: \def\rmp#1#2#3{ {\it Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
30: \def\zpc#1#2#3{ {\it Z. Phys. }{\bf C#1} (19#2) #3}
31: \def\mpla#1#2#3{ {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf A#1} (19#2) #3}
32: \def\nc#1#2#3{ {\it Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
33: \def\yf#1#2#3{ {\it Yad. Fiz. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
34: \def\sjnp#1#2#3{ {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
35: \def\jetp#1#2#3{ {\it Sov. Phys. }{JETP }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
36: \def\jetpl#1#2#3{ {\it JETP Lett. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
37: \def\epj#1#2#3{ {\it Eur. Phys. J. }{\bf C#1} (19#2) #3}
38: \def\ijmpa#1#2#3{ {\it Int. J. of Mod. Phys.}{\bf A#1} (19#2) #3}
39: %%%%%%%%% notice the parenthesis is only on one side
40: \def\ppsjnp#1#2#3{ {\it (Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
41: \def\ppjetp#1#2#3{ {\it (Sov. Phys. JETP }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
42: \def\ppjetpl#1#2#3{{\it (JETP Lett. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
43: \def\zetf#1#2#3{ {\it Zh. ETF }{\bf #1}(19#2) #3}
44: \def\cmp#1#2#3{ {\it Comm. Math. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
45: \def\cpc#1#2#3{ {\it Comp. Phys. Commun. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
46: \def\dis#1#2{ {\it Dissertation, }{\sf #1 } 19#2}
47: \def\dip#1#2#3{ {\it Diplomarbeit, }{\sf #1 #2} 19#3 }
48: \def\ib#1#2#3{ {\it ibid. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
49: \def\jpg#1#2#3{ {\it J. Phys}. {\bf G#1}#2#3}
50:
51:
52: \begin{flushright}
53:
54: TAUP--2643--2000\\
55: \today
56: \end{flushright}
57: \vspace*{1cm}
58: \setcounter{footnote}{1}
59: \begin{center}
60: {\Large\bf A manifestation of a gluon saturation in e-A DIS}
61: \\[1cm]
62: Eugene \, Levin $^{1,2}$ \,and\, Uri\, Maor $^{1}$ \\
63:
64: ~
65:
66: {\it $^1$ HEP Department, School of Physics and Astronomy } \\
67: {\it Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel } \\
68: {\it $^2$ Desy Theory, 22603 Hanburg, Germany}
69:
70: \end{center}
71: \begin{abstract}
72: This is a short presentation of our talks given at eRHIC Workshop at the
73: BNL. We give here a status report of our attempts to understand how
74: gluon saturation will manifest itself in deep inelastic scattering with
75: nuclei. This summary reflects our current understanding and shows
76: directions
77: of
78: our research rather then a final answer to the question.
79: Nevertheless, we are able to share with our reader our tentative answer
80: to the
81: question:``Why do we need to measure DIS with nuclei and why these
82: data
83: will be complementary to the information obtained from proton DIS".
84:
85: \end{abstract}
86: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
87: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
88:
89:
90:
91: \section{Introduction: what are the scales in photon-nucleus DIS?}
92: The main goal of these notes is to examine if and how we can observe the
93: phenomenon of
94: gluon saturation in DIS with nucleus. We present here only a status
95: report of our attempts to clarify this subject, which is far away from
96: being
97: complete. It, rather, indicates the directions of our searches. Much
98: more work is needed to develop a reliable approach so as
99: to finalize our recommendations concerning experiments the most sensitive
100: to the
101: gluon saturation.
102:
103: We start with the general approach to photon-nucleus interaction,
104: developed by Gribov\cite{GRIB} who suggested following time sequence of
105: this process:
106: \begin{enumerate}
107: \item \quad First, the $\gamma^* $ fluctuates into a hadron ( quark -
108: antiquark ) system well before the interaction with the target;
109: \item \quad Then the converted quark-antiquark pair ( or hadron system)
110: interacts with the target.
111: \end{enumerate}
112: Generally, these two stages result in the following formula for
113: the cross section
114: \beq \label{GF}
115: \sigma_{tot}( \gamma^* + A )\,\,=\,\,\sum_n
116: \,\,|\Psi_n|^2\,\,\sigma_{tot}(n + A; x)\,\,,
117: \eeq
118: where $\Psi_n$ is the wave function of the system, produced in the first
119: stage of the process.
120: \subsection{ Separation scale $\mathbf{r^{sep}_{\perp} \,\approx\,1/M_0}$}
121: This scale is a typical distance which separates the pQCD approach from
122: the non-perturbative one. Roughly speaking, for shorter distances than
123: $r^{sep}_{\perp}$, the QCD running coupling constant can be considered as
124: a small parameter while for longer distances $\alpha_S(r_{\perp})$ is
125: large
126: and we cannot use the powerful methods of pQCD. Table 1 demonstrates how
127: this scale works in
128: our particular model to incorporate the long distance physics
129: \cite{GLMG,AGL,OSAKA}.
130: \newpage
131: \begin{table}
132: \centerline{\bf Table 1}
133: \begin{tabular}{ l l l}
134: {\large Perturbative QCD} & $\longrightarrow$ &
135: {\large non-perturbative QCD}\\
136: & & \\
137: {\large short distances} & $\longrightarrow$ & {\large long distances}
138: \\
139: & & \\
140: { \Large $ r_{\perp} \,\,<\,\,$} & {
141: \Large $ r^{sep}_{\perp}$}
142: &\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,{ \Large
143: $<\,\,
144: r_{\perp}
145: $}\\
146: & & \\
147: DOF: colour dipoles \cite{MU94}& $\bullet$ & DOF: constituent
148: quarks\cite{LF} \\
149: & & \\
150: $\Psi_n$: QED for virtual photon & $\bullet$ & $\Psi_n$: generalized
151: VDM for
152: hadronic system\\
153: & &\\
154: $\sigma_{tot}(n,x) = \sigma (r^2_t,x)$ & $\bullet$ &
155: $\sigma_{tot}(n,x) =
156: \sigma(q q \rightarrow q q; x)$ \\
157: & & \\
158: Glauber- Mueller Eikonal \cite{MU90} for $\sigma (r^2_{\perp},x)$ &
159: $\bullet$ &
160: Regge phenomenology
161: for $\sigma(q + q \rightarrow q + q; x)$\\
162: \end{tabular}
163: \end{table}
164:
165: It is important to notice that the separation scale mostly relates to the
166: produced hadronic ($q \bar q $) ) system and
167: does not depend on
168: the properties of the target ( in particular, the atomic number ).
169: From Table 1 one can write for short distances ( $r_{\perp}\, < \,
170: r^{sep}_{\perp}$ )
171: \beq \label{SDXS}
172: \sigma_{tot} ( \gamma^* p ) = \int d^2 r_{\perp}
173: \int^1_0 \,d z\, | \Psi( Q^2; r_{\perp},z ) |^2 \,\sigma_{tot} (
174: r^2_{\perp}, x
175: )\,.
176: \eeq
177:
178: \subsection{ Saturation scale $\mathbf{r^{sat}_{\perp}
179: \,\approx\,1/Q_s(x;A)}$}
180:
181: At low $x$ and at $r_{\perp} < r^{sep}_{\perp}$ we believe \cite{SAT}
182: that
183: {\it The system of partons always
184: passes the stage of hdQCD
185: ( at shorter distances ) before it goes to the black box, which we call
186: non-perturbative QCD, and which, in practice, we describe in old fashion
187: Reggeon phenomenology.} At the hdQCD stage we have to observe a parton
188: system
189: with sufficiently small typical distances ( $
190: r^{sat}_{\perp}\approx\,1/Q_s(x;A) $ ) at which the QCD coupling constant
191: is still small ($\alpha_S(r^{sat}_{\perp}) \ll 1 $), but the density of
192: partons is so large that we cannot use
193: the pQCD methods in our calculations. The picture of the parton
194: distribution in the transverse plane is shown in Fig. {~\ref{pcsd}}.
195:
196: The estimate of the value for the saturation scale is obtained
197: \cite{SAT} from the equation
198: \beq \label{SAT}
199: \kappa\,\,\,=\,\,\,\frac{3\,\pi^2 \alpha_S \,A}{2
200: Q^2_s(x)}\,\times\,
201: \frac{xG(x,Q^2_s(x))}{\pi\, R^2_A}\,\,=\,\,1\,\,,
202: \eeq
203: where $A$ and $R_A$ are the atomic number and radius of the nucleus.
204: \eq{SAT} has a simple physical meaning giving the probability of the
205: interaction between two partons in the parton cascade. Namely, such an
206: interaction will stop the increase of the parton density due to parton
207: emission, which is included in the DGLAP evolution equations
208: \cite{DGLAP}.
209:
210: It is important to notice that the saturation scale strongly depends on
211: $A$ ($Q_s(x;A) \propto A^{\frac{1}{6}}\cite{MULA} \div
212: A^{\frac{1}{3}}\cite{KOLE} $ ).
213: \subsection{The theory status}
214: In eA deep inelastic scattering we want to find the high density
215: parton system which is a non-perturbative system but which can be treated
216: theoretically. It should be stressed that the theory of hdQCD is in a
217: very
218: good shape now. Two approaches have been developed for hdQCD: the
219: first
220: one\cite{PTHEORY} is based on pQCD ( see GLR and Mueller and Qiu in Ref.
221: \cite{SAT}) and
222: on the dipole degrees of freedom \cite{MU94}, while the
223: second\cite{ELTHEORY} uses the
224: effective Lagrangian, suggested by McLerran and Venugopalan \cite{SAT}.
225: As a result of this intensive work we know now the nonlinear equation
226: which governs the QCD evolution in the hdQCD region \cite{EQ}.
227: We have not developed simple methods to estimate an effect of hdQCD on the
228: experimental observables and have to use a model approximation, but we
229: want to emphasize that this is a
230: temporary stage of our theory which will be overcome soon.
231: \section{HERA: results and puzzles.}
232: We start answering the question:``why do we need a nuclear target to find
233: the hdQCD phase" with a summary of what we have learned from HERA.
234:
235: \begin{figure}
236: \begin{center}
237: \epsfxsize=9cm
238: %\epsfysize=2.5cm
239: \leavevmode
240: \hbox{ \epsffile{scplot.eps}}
241: \end{center}
242: \caption{The parton distribution in the transverse plane. The curve shows
243: the saturation scale $Q_s(x;A)$}
244: \label{pcsd}
245: \end{figure}
246:
247:
248: \begin{itemize}
249:
250: \item \quad $\mathbf{F_2}$ - the most striking and significant result from
251: HERA is
252: the increase of $F_2$ at low $x$ \cite{HERADATA}. The interpretation of
253: the $F_2$ data in terms of the DGLAP evolution equations leads to
254: sufficient
255: large value and a steep behaviour of the gluon structure function at low
256: $x$. $xG(x,Q^2)$ turns out to be so large that $\kappa$, our new order
257: parameter, exceeds unity in a significant part of the accessible phase
258: space (
259: see
260: Fig. \ref{kappa}).
261:
262: \begin{figure}
263: \begin{center}
264: \epsfxsize=7cm
265: %\epsfysize=2.5cm
266: \leavevmode
267: \hbox{ \epsffile{kappa.eps}}
268: \end{center}
269: \caption{}
270: \label{kappa}
271: \end{figure}
272:
273: \item \quad {\bf Diffractive production} - three important results have
274: been observed at HERA: (i) the diffractive production gives a substantial
275: part of the total cross section, about 10 $\div$ 15 \% at $Q^2 \approx 10
276: \,GeV^2$; (ii) the energy behaviour of the diffractive cross section has
277: an intercept larger that the intercept of the soft Pomeron, namely,
278: $\sigma_{diff} \propto (1/x)^{2 \Delta_P}$ with $\Delta_P >
279: \Delta_{softP}\,\approx 0.1 $ \cite{DL}, and (iii) the ratio
280: $\sigma_{diff}/\sigma_{tot}$ is a constant versus energy in HERA kinematic
281: region. From Fig. \ref{pcsd}, one can see that a hadron looks as a
282: diffractive grid with typical size of the order of $r^{sat}$. Therefore,
283: we expect that diffractive processes originate from a rather small
284: distances. This fact leads to a natural explanation of the energy
285: behaviour of the diffractive cross section.
286:
287: \item \quad {\bf Matching between soft and hard processes.} The
288: experimental data on $\gamma^* p $ cross section at small $Q^2$
289: allows to test different models for the matching of the soft and hard
290: interactions.
291:
292: \item \quad The dedicated beautiful {\bf measurement of the $F_2$
293: slope}
294: ($d
295: F_2/\ln Q^2$) gives us a hope to find the saturation scale by observing
296: the movement of the maxima in $Q^2$ - behaviour at fixed $x$. The
297: experimental data show a considerable deviation fron the DGLAP analysis at
298: $Q^2 \leq 1 \div 3 \,GeV^2$.
299: However,
300: the current data can be described in two different ways, either due to a
301: gluon saturation or due to a probable matching between soft and hard at
302: rather large
303: momenta ( about 1 - 2 GeV ) \cite{OSAKA}. It should be noticed, however,
304: that the J/$\Psi$ production can be easily described taking into account
305: shadowing corrections confirming a gluon saturation hypothesis
306: \cite{OSAKA}.
307:
308: \end{itemize}
309:
310: We listed above the most important HERA observations which indicate a
311: possible
312: saturation effect. To illustrate this fact we will demonstrate that a
313: simple parameterization of
314: Golec-Biernat and Wusthoff\cite{GW}, which includes the saturation,
315: works well. They found an elegant
316: phenomenological model for $\sigma(r^2_{\perp},x)$ in \eq{SDXS} which is
317: able to describe all experimental data using only three parameters
318: \cite{GW}. In this model
319: \beq \label{GW}
320: \sigma_{dipole} (r_{\perp},x)\,\,\, =\,\,\,\sigma_0 \,\left(\,1 - exp^{-
321: \frac{r^2_{\perp}\,Q^2_0}{(x/x_0)^{\lambda}}}\,\right)\,\,,
322: \eeq
323: with $\sigma_0 = 23.03 mb$, $Q^2_0 = 1 GeV^2$, $ x_0 = 0.0003$ and
324: $\lambda = 0.288$. Figs. \ref{gw1} and \ref{gw2} show the quality of this
325: description.
326: \begin{figure}
327: \begin{center}
328: %\epsfxsize=5cm
329: \epsfysize=8cm
330: \leavevmode
331: \hbox{ \epsffile{wu10.eps}}
332: \end{center}
333: \caption{}
334: \label{gw1}
335: \end{figure}
336: Note that even though the above description is impressive, it
337: cannot fix the value of the saturation scale from the data which is too
338: constrained by the kinematics ( see Ref. \cite{OSAKA}
339: for details).
340:
341:
342: Thefore, we can conclude that the saturation hypothesis is compatible
343: with all experimental data. However, the puzzling situation is that
344: the same data can be described fron a different point of view without a
345: saturation scale in the
346: standart DGLAP evolution equation for $Q^2 > 1 GeV^2$ and the soft
347: phenomenology for $Q^2 < 1 GeV^2$. We do not claim that
348: it is a reasonable or smooth parameterization of the data but
349: Donachie-Landshoff
350: mixture of soft and hard Pomeron shows that we can produce such a
351: model.
352:
353: \begin{figure}
354: \begin{center}
355: \epsfxsize=7cm
356: \epsfysize=6cm
357: \leavevmode
358: \hbox{ \epsffile{wud1.ps}}
359: \end{center}
360: \caption{}
361: \label{gw2}
362: \end{figure}
363:
364:
365: Thus in order to fix the saturation scale and to descriminate between
366: competing models, we need either to reach a much smaller values of $x$ (
367: higher energy) or to use a new target. Realistically, we can conclude
368: that
369:
370: \begin{minipage}{16cm}{\it We need DIS with nuclei to check whether the
371: indications on saturation effect at HERA are really true.}
372: \end{minipage}
373:
374:
375: \section{Scale of the saturation effect for DIS with nuclei}
376: \subsection{Asymptotic predictions.}
377: Let us start with listing the asymptotic predictions of our approach
378: \cite{GLMG,AGL,OSAKA} which is based on the Glauber-Mueller formula for
379: $\sigma(r^2_{\perp},x)$ in \eq{SDXS} \cite{MU90}.
380:
381: \begin{itemize}
382: \item \quad At fixed $r_{\perp} $ and at $x \rightarrow 0$
383: $$ \sigma^{dipole}_{tot} \,\,
384: \longrightarrow\,\,2\,\pi\,\,\left( R_A
385: \,\,+\,\,\frac{h}{2}\,\ln(Q^2_s(x;A)/Q^2)\,\right) $$
386: where $R_A$ is the nucleus radius and $h$ is the surface thickness in the
387: Wood-Saxon nucleon density\,\,;
388: \item \quad In the same limit $ \frac{d F^A_2}{d \ln Q^2} \,\,
389: \longrightarrow\,\,F^A_2
390: \,\left(\,1 \,\,-\,\,\frac{h}{R_A}\,\right)\,\,
391: \propto\,\,\,Q^2\,\,R^2_A$;
392: \item \quad The ratio of the diffraction to the total cross sections
393: should depend on energy only weakly \cite{MK};
394: $$
395: \frac{\sigma^{diffraction}_{tot}( \gamma^* A)}{\sigma_{tot}(\gamma^* A )}
396: \,\,\approx\,\,\,Const( W ) \,\, \longrightarrow \,\, (
397: slowly )\,\,\,\,\frac{1}{2}; $$
398:
399: \item \quad The energy behaviour of $\sigma^{diffraction}(
400: \gamma^* A )$ is determined by short distances $ r_{\perp}
401: \,\approx\,1/Q_s(x;A)$;
402:
403: \item \quad The high density effects should be stronger in the
404: diffractive channels.
405:
406: \end{itemize}
407:
408: \subsection{$\mathbf{xG_A(x,Q^2)}$}
409: In Fig.5 we present our calculation of the gluon structure function for
410: different nuclei. Fig.5-d gives a glimpse at what we are taking into
411: account in our approach. Figs. 5-a - 5-c show the comparison of our
412: calculations, based on the Glauber-Mueller formula, with the solution of
413: the full equation for hdQCD \cite{EQ} \footnote{Actually, the equation,
414: suggested in Ref. \cite{AGL} was solved and plotted in Fig.5 as the
415: asymptotic solution, but this equation in the double log approximation
416: coincides with the correct one \cite{EQ}.}
417:
418:
419:
420: \begin{figure}[hptb]
421: \begin{center}
422: \begin{tabular}{ c c}
423: \psfig{file=asyga1.eps,width=70mm,height=65mm} &
424: \psfig{file=asyga2.eps,width=80mm,height=65mm}\\
425: Fig.5-a & Fig.5-b \\
426: \psfig{file=asyga3.eps,width=80mm,height=65mm}
427: &\psfig{file=fig5np.eps,width=80mm,height=65mm}\\
428: Fig. 5-c & Fig.5-d\\
429: \end{tabular}
430: \end{center}
431: \caption{}
432: \label{nxg}
433: \end{figure}
434:
435:
436: We can derive two conclusions from Fig.5: (i) the saturation effect is
437: much stronger for a nucler target than for a nucleon, and (ii) our model
438: underestimates the value of the effect for $Q^2 \approx 1 GeV^2$.
439: Unfortunately, we have not finished our estimates for $F_2$ for DIS with
440: nuclei.
441:
442: \subsection{R\,=\,$\mathbf{\frac{\sigma^{diffraction}_{tot}}{\sigma_{tot}}}$}
443:
444: This ratio shows us how we are close, or how we are far away, from the
445: asymptotic regime since at very high energy it should be equal to
446: $\frac{1}{2}$. In Fig.6 we plotted our calculations for this ratio
447: \cite{DDOUR}. One can see that the ratio is larger than for the proton
448: target ( see Fig. \ref{gw2} ) but it is still smaller than the limiting
449: value of $\frac{1}{2}$. This is a very encouraging fact for experiment
450: since
451: we do not want to measure a black disc limit which is not sensitive to the
452: theoretical approach. In other words, any model or any theoretical
453: approach will give the unitarity limit which we call `` black disck
454: limit".
455: A ll our theoretical QCD prediction are related to the form of
456: the transition from pQCD to the ``black disc limit".
457:
458:
459:
460: \begin{figure}
461: %\begin{flushleft}
462: \begin{tabular}{cc}
463: $\mathbf{A}${\bf =30}
464: &
465: $\mathbf{A}${\bf =100}\\
466: \psfig{file=ma30.eps,width=70mm,height=40mm}
467: &
468: \psfig{file=ma100.eps,width=70mm,height=40mm}\\
469: $\mathbf{A}${\bf =200}
470: &
471: $\mathbf{A}${\bf =300}\\
472: \psfig{file=ma200.eps,width=70mm,height=40mm}
473: &
474: \psfig{file=ma300.eps,width=70mm,height=40mm}
475: \label{fig1}
476: \end{tabular}
477: \caption{}
478: \end{figure}
479: \subsection{ $\mathbf{F_2}$ slope (
480: $ \mathbf{\frac{\partial F^A_2(x,Q^2}{\partial \ln\,Q^2}}$) }
481: As we have mentioned, gluon satruration leads to a maximum in the
482: $Q^2$ dependence of
483: $F_2$ slope at $Q^2= Q^2_s(x;A)$ fora fixed value of $x$. Such a
484: maximum has not been seen in the HERA data and has not been anticipated in
485: our estimates of the slope. However, the numerical value of the
486: gluon saturation is rather for a nucleus target.
487: Figs. \ref{slp1} and \ref{slp2} display the possible experimental
488: effect. In these figures the value of the damping factor ($D^A$) for the
489: $F_2$
490: slope is
491: plotted. $D^A$ is defined in the following way:
492: \beq \label{D}
493: \frac{d F^A_2 (x,Q^2)}{d \ln Q^2}\,\,=\,\,D^A(x,Q^2)\,\,A\, \frac{d
494: F^{N;DGLAP}_2
495: (x,Q^2)}{d \ln Q^2}\,\,,
496: \eeq
497: where $F^{N;DGLAP}_2$ is the $F_2$ sructure function for a
498: nucleon in
499: the DGLAP approximation.
500: It turns out that the value of the effect is sizable for $Q^2 <
501: 10\,GeV^2$ and strongly depends on $A$.
502:
503: \begin{figure}
504: \begin{center}
505: \epsfxsize=10cm
506: %\epsfysize=2.5cm
507: \leavevmode
508: \hbox{ \epsffile{q2run-eran.ps}}
509: \end{center}
510: \caption{}
511: \label{slp1}
512: \end{figure}
513: \begin{figure}
514: \begin{center}
515: \epsfxsize=10cm
516: %\epsfysize=2.5cm
517: \leavevmode
518: \hbox{ \epsffile{xrun-eran.ps}}
519: \end{center}
520: \caption{}
521: \label{slp2}
522: \end{figure}
523:
524: \section{Searching new observables.}
525:
526: \subsection{Maxima in
527: $\mathbf{ \frac{ F_L}{F_T }}$ and in
528: $\mathbf{\frac{F^D_L}{F^D_T}}$.}
529: The main idea of this calculation\cite{MAXWE} is to show that these ratios
530: have
531: maxima at $Q^2 = Q^2_{max}(x;A)$, being plotted at fixed $x$. We want to
532: claim that $Q^2_{max}(x;A) \,\,\approx \,\,Q^2_s(x;A)$. Figs. \ref{max1}
533: and \ref{max2} show that such a suggestion can be right.
534:
535:
536: \begin{figure}
537: \begin{flushleft}
538: \begin{tabular}{cc}
539: $ $& $ $\\
540: \psfig{file=lt2.eps,width=80mm,height=80mm}
541: &
542: \psfig{file=lt3i.eps,width=80mm,height=80mm}\\
543: $ $ & $ $\\
544: \psfig{file=ltd2.eps,width=80mm,height=80mm}
545: &
546: \psfig{file=ltd3i.eps,width=80mm,height=80mm}
547:
548: \end{tabular}
549: \end{flushleft}
550: \caption{}
551: \label{max1}
552:
553: \end{figure}
554:
555:
556: \begin{figure}
557: \begin{flushleft}
558: \begin{tabular}{cc}
559: \psfig{file=maxlt.eps,width=80mm,height=80mm}
560: &
561: \psfig{file=maxltd.eps,width=80mm,height=80mm}\\
562: \psfig{file=loga.eps,width=80mm,height=80mm}
563: &
564: \psfig{file=logad.eps,width=80mm,height=80mm}
565: \end{tabular}
566: \end{flushleft}
567: \caption{}
568: \label{max2}
569: \end{figure}
570:
571: \subsection{Higher twists in $\mathbf{F_{L,T}}$ and in
572: $\mathbf{F^D_{L,T}}$.}
573:
574:
575: It is well known that any structure function ( $F_2(x,Q^2)$ for example )
576: can be written
577: \beq \label{ST}
578: F_2(x,Q^2)\,\,=\,\,F^{LT}_2(x, ln Q^2 )\,\,+\,\,\frac{M^2}{Q^2}
579: \,F^{HT}_2(x, ln Q^2
580: )\,\,+\,\,...\,\,+\,\,\left(\,\frac{M^2}{Q^2}\,\right)^n\,F^{nT}_2(x, ln
581: Q^2 )\,\,+....
582: \eeq
583: Terms, which are small in terms of $Q^2$ power , called higher twist
584: contributions. The $ln Q^2$ dependence of the leading and higher twist
585: structure functions ( $F^{LT}_2$ and $ F^{HT}_2 $ in \eq{ST} ) is governed
586: by the evolution equations. The DGLAP evolution equations \cite{DGLAP}
587: give the $ln Q^2$ dependence of the leading twist structure function (
588: $F^{LT}_2$ ) only. Unfortunately, we know only a little about the higher
589: twist
590: contributions.
591: \begin{enumerate}
592: \item \quad We know the evolution equations for all higher twist structure
593: functions \cite{LHT};
594: \item \quad We know the behaviour of the higher twist structure functions
595: at low $x$ \cite{HT}. For example,
596: $$
597: F^{HT}_2 (x,ln Q^2 ) |_{x \ll 1} \,\,\longrightarrow\,\,F^{LT}_2(x, ln
598: Q^2) \,\cdot\,xG^{LT}(x, ln Q^2 ) \,\,;
599: $$
600: \item \quad We know, that higher twist contributions are needed to
601: describe the experimental data \cite{EXPHT}.
602: \end{enumerate}
603:
604: However, it is difficult to estimate the value of the higher twist
605: contributions. Following Ref. \cite{BARTW}, we estimate the value of
606: different twist contribution for e A scattering.
607:
608: Fig.\ref{tw} shows that the higher twist contributions for nucleus target
609: become smaller
610: than the leading twist one only at $Q^2 > 5 GeV^2$ even at $x = 10^{-2}$.
611: It gives us a hope to treat them theoretically.
612: \section{Conclusions.}
613: \begin{enumerate}
614: \item\quad We have a solid theoretical approach for eA DIS,
615: but we need more experience in numerical solution of
616: the non-linear equation specifically for eRHIC kinematic region;
617: \item \quad We know pretty well the scale of SC for eA interaction,
618: but we need more systematic study of DGLAP evolution for
619: nuclear structure functions and a special investigation whether the
620: initial parton distributions could be calculated for nuclear target from
621: the
622: initial parton distributions for proton ;
623: \item \quad Our estimates show that we will be able to see the
624: saturation scale in eA DIS at eRHIC being still far away from trivial
625: blackening of high energy interaction with nuclei, but we need
626: to check how close our model, which we use inn
627: practise, to theoretical estimates;
628:
629: \item \quad The $F^A_2$-slope is a very sensitive
630: observable for the
631: saturation scale,
632: but , unfortunaly, we cannot expect a qualitatively different behaviou
633: for the saturation models in comparison with others;
634:
635: \item \quad Maxima in ratios of $F_L/F_T$ and
636: $F^D_L/F^D_T$ give promising tool to extract the value of saturation scale
637: $Q_s(x;A)$, but we need more study on this subject and, in particular,
638: how the initial parton distribution for DGLAP evolution could affect our
639: predictions;
640:
641: \item \quad eA DIS is very instructive for separation of leading and
642: higher twist contributions, since the fact that typical momentum at which
643: these two contributions become of the same order is growing with $A$.
644: \end{enumerate}
645:
646: \section*{Acknowledgments}
647:
648: The authors are very much indebted to our coauthors Errol Gotsman, Larry
649: McLerran, Eran
650: Naftali and Kirill Tuchin for their help and everyday discussions on the
651: subject. E. L. thanks BNL Nuclear Theory group and DESY Theory group
652: for their hospitality and
653: creative atmosphere during several stages of this work.
654:
655:
656: This research was supported in part by the BSF grant $\#$ 9800276 and by
657: Israeli Science Foundation, founded by the Israeli Academy of Science
658: and Humanities.
659:
660:
661:
662: \begin{figure}
663: \begin{flushleft}
664: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
665: \multicolumn{3}{c}{\rule[-3mm]{0mm}{4mm} $ F_L(Q^2)\,\,A=238 (U)$}\\
666: $x_B=10^{-2}$&$x_B=5\cdot 10^{-3}$& $x_B=10^{-3}$\\[-10mm]
667: \psfig{file=238l_2.eps,width=50mm,height=50mm} &
668: \psfig{file=238l_3i.eps,width=50mm,height=50mm}&
669: \psfig{file=238l_3.eps,width=50mm,height=50mm}\\
670: \multicolumn{3}{c}{\rule[-3mm]{0mm}{4mm} $ F_T(Q^2)\,\,A=238 (U)$}\\
671: $x_B=10^{-2}$&$x_B=5\cdot 10^{-3}$& $x_B=10^{-3}$\\[-10mm]
672: \psfig{file=238t_2.eps,width=50mm,height=50mm} &
673: \psfig{file=238t_3i.eps,width=50mm,height=50mm} &
674: \psfig{file=238t_3.eps,width=50mm,height=50mm}\\
675: \multicolumn{3}{c}{\rule[-3mm]{0mm}{4mm} $ F_L^D(Q^2)\,\,A=238 (U)$}\\
676: $x_B=10^{-2}$&$x_B=5\cdot 10^{-3}$& $x_B=10^{-3}$\\[-10mm]
677: \psfig{file=238ld_2.eps,width=50mm,height=50mm} &
678: \psfig{file=238ld_3i.eps,width=50mm,height=50mm} &
679: \psfig{file=238ld_3.eps,width=50mm,height=50mm}\\
680: \multicolumn{3}{c}{\rule[-3mm]{0mm}{4mm} $ F_T^D(Q^2)\,\,A=238 (U)$}\\
681: $x_B=10^{-2}$&$x_B=5\cdot 10^{-3}$& $x_B=10^{-3}$\\[-10mm]
682: \psfig{file=238td_2.eps,width=50mm,height=50mm} &
683: \psfig{file=238td_3i.eps,width=50mm,height=50mm} &
684: \psfig{file=238td_3.eps,width=50mm,height=50mm}
685: \end{tabular}
686: \end{flushleft}
687: \caption{}
688: \label{tw}
689: \end{figure}
690:
691:
692:
693: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
694: \bibitem{GRIB}
695: V.N. Gribov, {\it Sov. Phys. JETP} {\bf 30} (1970) 709.
696: \bibitem{GLMG}
697: E. Gotsman, E. Levin and U. Maor, {it Nucl. Phys. } {\bf B464} (1996)
698: 251, {\bf B493} (1997) 354, {\bf B539} (1999) 535,
699: {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C5} (1998) 303, {\it Phys.Lett.}
700: {\bf B425} (1998) 369;{\bf B403} (1997) 120;
701: E. Gotsman, E. Levin, U. Maor and E. Naftali,
702: {\it Nucl.Phys.} {\bf B539} (1999) 535, {\it Eur.Phys.J.}
703: {\bf C10} (1999) 689, {\bf C14} (2000) 511.
704:
705: \bibitem{AGL}
706: A.L. Ayala Filho, M.B. Gay Ducati and E. Levin, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf
707: B493} (1997) 305, {\bf B511} (1998) 355, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B388}
708: (1996) 188.
709:
710: \bibitem{OSAKA}
711: E. Gotsman, E. Ferreira, E.
712: Levin, U. Maor and E. Naftali, {\it `` Screening corrections in DIS at
713: low $Q^2$ and $x$"},
714: Talk given at 30th International Conference on High-Energy Physics
715: (ICHEP 2000), Osaka, Japan, 27 Jul - 2 Aug 2000; {\tt hep-ph/0007274 }.
716: \bibitem{MU94}
717: A.H. Mueller, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B415} (1994) 373.
718: \bibitem{LF}
719: E. Levin and L. Frankfurt, {\it JETP Lett.} {\bf 2} (1965) 65;
720: H. J. Lipkin and F. Scheck, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 16 } (1966) 71.
721: \bibitem{MU90}
722: A. H. Mueller, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B335} (1990) 115,
723: \bibitem{SAT}
724: L.V. Gribov, E.M. Levin and M.G. Ryskin, {\it Phys. Rep}
725: {\bf 100} (1983) 1;
726: A.H. Mueller and J. Qiu, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B268} (1986) 427;
727: L. McLerran and R. Venugopalan,{\it Phys. Rev. } {\bf D49} (1994)
728: 2233,3352, {\bf 50} (1994) 2225, {\bf 53} (1996) 458, {\bf 59} (1999)
729: 094002.
730: \bibitem{DGLAP}
731: V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, {\it Yad. Fiz} {\bf 15} (1972) 781;
732: L. N. Lipatov,{ Sov. Phys. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 20} (1975) 94;
733: G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B126} (1977) 29;
734: Yu. L. Dokshitzer, {\it Sov. Phys. JETP} {\bf 46} (1977) 641.
735: \bibitem{MULA}
736: J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, L. McLerran,
737: and H. Weigert, { \it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 55}, (1997) 5414;
738: A.H. Mueller, {\it Phys.Lett.} {\bf B475} (2000)
739: 220, {\it Nucl.Phys.} {\bf B572} (2000) 227.
740:
741:
742: \bibitem{KOLE}
743: Yu. V. Kovchegov, { \it Phys.Rev.} {\bf D61} (2000) 074018;
744: E. Levin and K. Tuchin, {\it Nucl.Phys.} {\bf B573} (2000) 833.
745:
746: \bibitem{PTHEORY}
747: E. Levin and M.G. Ryskin, \prep{189}{267}{1990};
748: J.C.Collins and J. Kwiecinski, \npb{335}{90}{89};
749: J. Bartels, J. Blumlein and G. Shuler, \zpc{50}{91}{91};
750: E. Laenen and E. Levin, \arnps{44}{94}{199}
751: and references therein;
752: A.L. Ayala, M.B. Gay Ducati and E.M. Levin, \npb{493}{97}{305},
753: \npb{510}{98}{355};
754: Ia. Balitsky, {\it Nucl.Phys. } {\bf B463} (1996) 99;
755: Yu. Kovchegov, \prd{54}{1996}{5463}, \prd{55}{1997}{5445},
756: \prd{60}{1000}{034008},{\it Phys. Rev.}
757: {\bf D61} (2000)074018; A.H. Mueller,
758: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B572}(2000)227,
759: \npb{558}{99}{285}; Yu. V. Kovchegov, A.H. Mueller,
760: \npb{529}{98}{451}; I.~Balitsky \npb{463}{96}{99}; E. Levin
761: and
762: K. Tuchin, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B573}(2000) 833;
763: \bibitem{ELTHEORY}
764: J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, L. McLerran and H.
765: Weigert, \prd{D55}{97}{5414};
766: J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner and H.
767: Weigert, \prd{59}{99}{014015};
768: J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner and H.
769: Weigert, \prd{59}{99}{014015};
770: J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A.
771: Leonidov and H. Weigert, \prd{59}{99}{014014,034007},
772: Erratum-ibid. \prd{59}{99}{099903};
773: A. Kovner, J.Guilherme Milhano and H. Weigert,
774: OUTP-00-10P,NORDITA-2000-14-HE, {\tt hep-ph/0004014};
775: H. Weigert, NORDITA-2000-34-HE, {\tt hep-ph/0004044};
776: M.~Braun LU-TP-00-06,{\tt hep-ph/0001268}.
777:
778: \bibitem{EQ}
779: Ia. Balitsky, {\it Nucl.Phys. } {\bf B463} (1996) 99;
780: Yu. Kovchegov,
781: \prd{60}{1000}{034008}.
782: \bibitem{HERADATA}
783: A. M. Cooper-Sarkar, R. C. E. Devenish and A. De Roeck, {\it Int. J. Mod.
784: Phys.} {\bf A13} (1998) 33; H. Abramowicz and A. Caldwell, {\it Rev. Mod.
785: Phys.} {\bf 71} (1999) 1275.
786: \bibitem{DL} A. Donnachie, P. V. Landshoff,{\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf
787: B296} (1992)
788: 227; {\bf B437}(1998) 408 and references therein.
789: \bibitem{GW}
790: K. Golec-Biernat and M. Wusthoff, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59} (1999)
791: 014017; {\bf D60} (1999) 114023;
792: K.Golec-Biernat,{Talk
793: at 8th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and
794: QCD (DIS 2000)}, Liverpool, England, 25-30 Apr 2000,{\tt hep-ph/0006080}.
795: \bibitem{MK}
796: Yu. V. Kovchegov and L. McLerran, {\it Phys.Rev.} {\bf D60} (1999) 054025.
797: \bibitem{DDOUR}
798: E. Gotsman, E. Levin, M.
799: Lublinsky, U. Maor and K. Tuchin, TAUP-2605-99,
800: {\tt hep-ph/9911270}.
801: \bibitem{MAXWE}
802: E. Gotsman, E. Levin, U.
803: Maor, L. McLerran and K. Tuchin,
804: TAUP-2638-200, BNL-NT-00-19, Jul 2000,{\tt hep-ph/0007258}.
805: \bibitem{LHT}
806: A.P. Bukhvostov,G.V. Frolov, L.N. Lipatov and E.A. Kuraev, {\it Nucl.
807: Phys.} {\bf B258} (1985) 601.
808: \bibitem{HT}
809: J. Bartels, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B298} (1993) 204, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf
810: C60} (1993) 471; E.M. Levin, M.G. Ryskin and A.G. Shuvaev, {\it Nucl.
811: Phys.} {\bf B387} (1992) 589.
812: \bibitem{EXPHT}
813: U.K. Yang and A. Bodek,{\it Phys.Rev.Lett.}
814: {\bf 84} (2000) 5456, {\bf 82}
815: (1999) 2467 and references thertein.
816: \bibitem{BARTW}
817: J.Bartels, K. Golec-Biernat and K. Peters, DESY-00-038, Mar
818: 2000,{\tt hep-ph/0003042 }.
819:
820:
821:
822:
823: \end{thebibliography}
824:
825:
826:
827: \end{document}
828:
829:
830:
831: