1: \section{The classical approximation}
2:
3: In this section, we shall introduce the McLerran-Venugopalan model
4: \cite{MV94}
5: for the gluon distribution at small $x$. This is classical Yang-Mills
6: theory with a random color source, which is the effective color charge
7: of the partons having longitudinal momenta larger than
8: the scale of interest. This simple model, which is motivated by the
9: separation of scales in the infinite momentum frame (see Sect. 2.1),
10: offers an explicit scenario for saturation \cite{JKMW97,KM98}
11: (see Sect. 2.4) which supports the physical picture
12: of the Color Glass Condensate. The MV model will be further
13: substantiated by the analysis in Sect. 3, where we shall see
14: that this model is consistent with the quantum evolution
15: towards small $x$ \cite{JKMW97,JKLW97,JKLW99a}.
16:
17:
18:
19: \subsection{The McLerran-Venugopalan model}
20:
21: We consider a hadron in the infinite momentum frame (IMF),
22: and in the light-cone (LC) gauge $A^+_a=0$,
23: where the parton model is conventionally formulated (this gauge
24: choice will be further motivated in Sect. 2.4).
25: The hadron four-momentum
26: reads $P^\mu=(P,0,0,P)$ (we neglect the hadron mass), or, in LC vector
27: notations, which we shall use systematically from now on\footnote{These
28: are as defined as follows: for an arbitrary
29: 4-vector $v^\mu$, we write $v^\mu=(v^+,v^-,{\bf v}_\perp)$, with
30: $v^+\equiv (1/\sqrt 2)(v^0+v^3)$,
31: $v^-\equiv (1/\sqrt 2)(v^0-v^3)$, and ${\bf v}_\perp
32: \equiv (v^1,v^2)$. The dot product reads:
33: $p\cdot x=p^+x^- + p^-x^+-p_\perp\cdot x_\perp\,$.
34: $p^-$ and $p^+$ are, respectively, the LC energy and
35: longitudinal momentum; correspondingly, $x^+$ and $x^-$ are
36: the LC time and longitudinal coordinate.},
37: $P^\mu\equiv (P^+,P^-,{\bf P}_\perp)=({\sqrt 2} P,0,{\bf 0}_\perp)$.
38: The {\it fast partons}, that is, the hadron constituents which, like
39: the valence quarks, carry a relatively large fraction of the hadron
40: longitudinal momentum $P^+$, move as almost free particles
41: with momenta collinear with $P^\mu$,
42: and act as sources for {\it soft gluons}, %(or {\it wee}) gluons,
43: i.e., gluons with small longitudinal momenta $q^+\ll P^+$,
44: which are probed in deep inelastic scattering (DIS).
45:
46: For what follows, it is useful to have a sharp distinction between
47: ``fast'' and ``soft'' modes in the hadron %(or ``wee'')
48: wavefunction, according to their $p^+$-momentum:
49: to this aim we introduce an intermediate scale $\Lambda^+$
50: and define fast (soft) modes to have $p^+ > \Lambda^+$
51: (respectively, $p^+ < \Lambda^+$).
52: We choose $\Lambda^+=x_0 P^+$, with $x_0$ not too small;
53: in fact, the main constraint on $x_0$ is to be much larger
54: than the Bjorken parameter $x$ of the external probe that
55: the hadron is interacting with.
56:
57: %The Bjorken $x$ parameter corresponds to
58: %the light cone momentum fraction $x = k^+/P^+$ of a parton in the hadron
59: %wavefunction when the hadron is viewed in the infinite momentum frame.
60: %Gluons with this $x$ value are the part of the hadron wavefunction which
61: %is probed.
62:
63: For instance, in DIS, this probe
64: is the virtual photon $\gamma^*$, with
65: virtuality $Q^2\equiv -q^\mu q_\mu$. The Bjorken $x$ variable
66: is defined as $x\equiv Q^2/2P\cdot q$ and, by kinematics, it
67: coincides with the longitudinal momentum fraction $p^+/P^+$
68: of the struck parton. In what follows, we shall always assume
69: that $x\ll 1$. Rather than a virtual photon, which
70: couples to the charged constituents of the hadron
71: (quarks and antiquarks), it is more convenient to consider a DIS
72: initiated by the ``current''
73: $j\equiv -\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu\nu}_aF^a_{\mu\nu}$
74: which couples directly to gluons \cite{KM98}. Indeed, we are mainly
75: interested here in the gluon distribution, which is the dominant
76: component of the hadron wavefunction when $x \ll 1$.
77:
78: In the MV model, one assumes that the soft gluons can be described
79: as the classical color fields $A^\mu_a$ %(or Weizs\"acker-Williams fields)
80: radiated by the fast partons,
81: themselves represented by a random color source $\rho_a$.
82: As we shall demonstrate in Sect. 3, this assumption is indeed justified (at
83: least to lowest order in $\alpha_s$) provided the MV model is used as an
84: {\it effective} theory valid for some range of soft momenta. Then,
85: the fast degrees of freedom are treated as quantum, but they are
86: integrated out (perturbatively) in the construction of the effective
87: theory, while
88: the soft modes are non-perturbative, because of their large occupation
89: numbers, but can be treated as classical, for this same reason.
90: Via this construction, to be detailed in Sects. 3 and 4,
91: the classical source $\rho_a$ will emerge as a natural way to
92: describe the effects of the fast modes on the dynamics of the
93: soft ones. In the original MV model \cite{MV94},
94: this source has been simply postulated, and its properties have been
95: inferred via an analysis of the separation of scales in the problem.
96: Since this separation will play a major role in what
97: follows, let us briefly discuss it here:
98:
99: The fast partons move along the $z$ axis with large $p^+$ momenta.
100: %or short wavelengths $\lambda^- \sim 1/p^+$.
101: They can emit, or absorb, soft gluons,
102: but in a first approximation they do not deviate from their
103: light-cone trajectories at $z=t$, or $x^-=0$
104: ({\it no recoil}, or {\it eikonal approximation}).
105: Thus, they generate a color current only
106: in the $+$ direction: $J_a^\mu=\delta^{\mu+}J^+_a$.
107:
108: As quantum fields, the fast partons are delocalized
109: in the $x^-$ direction within a
110: distance $\lambda^- \sim 1/p^+$. However, when ``seen'' by
111: the external probe or by the soft gluons (with momenta $q^+\ll p^+$,
112: and therefore a poor longitudinal resolution), they
113: appear as {\it sharply localized} at the light cone, within
114: a distance $\Delta x^- \sim 1/\Lambda^+$.
115: (This can be also understood as an effect of the Lorentz contraction).
116: In some cases, to be carefully justified later, the associated
117: current $J^+$ can be represented as a $\delta$ function
118: at the light cone: $J^+\propto \delta(x^-)$.
119: But in general, it turns out that the longitudinal
120: extent of the source cannot be neglected: this will be important
121: both for the classical calculations in this section,
122: and for the quantum analysis to be performed
123: in the subsequent sections, and in Paper II.
124:
125: Consider also the relevant LC-time scales: for on-shell excitations,
126: $2p^+p^-=p_\perp^2$, which implies that softer gluons have larger
127: energies $p^-\sim Q^2_\perp/p^+$, and therefore shorther lifetimes
128: $\Delta x^+\sim 1/p^- \sim p^+ \sim x$. Over such a short time
129: interval, the ``fast'' partons are only slowly varying (since
130: they have smaller energies), so their dynamics is essentially
131: frozen. Thus, the
132: soft gluons, or the external current in DIS, can probe only
133: the {\it equal-time} correlators of the fast partons.
134: All such correlators can be generated by a
135: {\it static}\footnote{We will see below
136: that, strictly speaking, this time independence assumption will have
137: to be relaxed for a general solution of the classical
138: equations of motion: The source turns out to be only
139: {\it covariantly} time independent. We will however always
140: be able to find a classical solution of the equations of motion which
141: has a truly time-independent source.} current $J^+$
142: ({\it quenched approximation}).
143:
144: To summarize, the soft color current due to the
145: fast partons is expected with the following structure:
146: \be\labe{jclas}
147: J_a^\mu(x)=\delta^{\mu+}\rho_a(x^-,{\bf x}_\perp),\,\,\,
148: \,\,\del^-\rho_a\equiv \frac{\del\rho_a}{\del x^+}=0,\,\,\,\,\,
149: {\rm supp}\,\rho_a=\{x^-| 0 \le x^- \le 1/\Lambda^+ \},\,\,\ee
150: which will be confirmed by the quantum analysis in
151: Sect. 3--5 and Paper II.
152: Note the restriction of the support of $\rho$
153: to {\it positive} values of $x^-$. We shall see later that
154: the precise longitudinal structure of the color source
155: depends upon the gauge-fixing prescription, i.e., the
156: condition used to completely
157: fix the residual gauge freedom in the LC gauge.
158: [Recall that, even after imposing the LC gauge,
159: one still has the possibility to perform $x^-$--independent
160: (or ``residual'') gauge transformations, which preserve
161: the condition $A^+=0$. In quantum calculations, fixing this
162: residual gauge freedom amounts to chosing a prescription for
163: the pole of the gluon propagator at $p^+=0$.]
164: With the specific prescription that we shall adopt
165: (cf. Sects. 3.4 and 6.3), the source $\rho$ is located at
166: positive $x^-$, as anticipated in eq.~(\ref{jclas}).
167:
168: The current (\ref{jclas}) acts as a source for the Yang-Mills
169: equations describing the soft gluon dynamics:
170: \be
171: [D_{\nu}, F^{\nu \mu}]\, =\, \delta^{\mu +} \rho_a(x^-,{\bf x}_\perp)\,.
172: \labe{cleq0}
173: \ee
174: To have a gauge-invariant formulation,
175: the source $\rho_a$ must be treated as a {\it stochastic} variable
176: with zero expectation value. This is also consistent with the
177: physical interpretation of $\rho_a$ as the instantaneous color charge
178: of the fast partons ``seen'' by the shortlived soft
179: gluons, at some arbitrary time. The (spatial) correlators of
180: the classical variable $\rho_a(\vec x)$,
181: with ${\vec x}\equiv (x^-,{\bf x}_{\perp})$, are inherited
182: from the (generally time-dependent) quantum correlations of the
183: fast gluons. The precise scheme for transforming
184: quantum into classical correlations will be explained in Sect. 3.
185: Here, we shall simply summarize the ensuing classical correlations
186: in some (not yet specified) weight function for $\rho_a$, denoted
187: as $W_\Lambda[\rho]$. This is gauge-invariant by assumption, and
188: depends upon the separation scale $\Lambda^+$ since it is
189: obtained by integrating out quantum fluctuations with longitudinal
190: momenta $|p^+|> \Lambda^+$ (cf. Sect. 3).
191:
192: To conclude, in the MV model, the small-$x$ gluon correlation functions
193: are obtained in two steps: (i) First, one solves the classical
194: Yang-Mills equations (\ref{cleq0}) in the light-cone gauge $A^+=0$.
195: The solution will be some non-linear functional of $\rho$,
196: which we denote as ${\cal A}^i(\vec x)[\rho]$.
197: (Indeed, as we shall see in Sect. 2.3,
198: one can always construct a solution which
199: has $A^-=0$ and is time-independent.)
200: (ii) The correlation functions of interest are
201: evaluated on this classical solution, and then averaged over $\rho$,
202: with the weight function $W_\Lambda[\rho]$ :
203: \be\labe{clascorr}
204: \langle A^i_a(x^+,\vec x)A^j_b(x^+,\vec y)
205: \cdots\rangle_\Lambda\,=\,
206: \int {\cal D}\rho\,\,W_\Lambda[\rho]\,{\cal A}_a^i({\vec x})
207: {\cal A}_b^j({\vec y})\cdots\,.\ee
208: The normalization here is such as
209: \be\labe{normF}
210: \int {\cal D}\rho\,\,W_\Lambda[\rho]\,=\,1.\ee
211: Note that only equal-time correlators of the transverse
212: fields can be computed in this way; but these are precisely
213: the correlators which matter for the calculation
214: of the gluon distribution function, cf. Sect. 2.4.
215:
216: Note furthermore that the correlations obtained in this way depend
217: upon the scale $\Lambda^+$. As we shall argue in
218: Sect. 3 below, the effective theory in eqs.~(\ref{cleq0})--(\ref{clascorr})
219: is valid only at soft momenta of order $\Lambda^+$
220: (that is, at momenta $p^+\simle \Lambda^+$, but not too far
221: below $\Lambda^+$). Indeed, if one goes to the much softer
222: scale $b\Lambda^+$ with $b\ll 1$, then there are large radiative
223: corrections, of order $\alpha_s\ln(1/b)$, which invalidate the
224: classical approximation at the scale $\Lambda^+$.
225: In order to compute correlations at the new scale
226: $b\Lambda^+$, one must first construct the effective theory
227: valid at this scale, by integrating out the quantum
228: degrees of freedom with longitudinal momenta in the strip
229: $b\Lambda^+ <|p^+|<\Lambda^+$. Once this is done, the dependence
230: upon the intermediate scale $\Lambda^+$ goes away, as it should.
231: This will be explained in detail in Sects. 3 and 4.
232:
233: Remarkably, the equations (\ref{cleq0})--(\ref{clascorr})
234: above are those for a glass (here,
235: a {\it color} glass): There is a source,
236: and the source is averaged over.
237: This is entirely analogous to what is done for
238: spin glasses when one averages over background magnetic fields
239: \cite{PS79}. To argue that one also has a condensate,
240: one has to compute the correlation function (\ref{clascorr}).
241: By using a Gaussian approximation for the weight
242: function, one has found a saturation regime where the
243: classical field has a typical strength of order $1/g$
244: \cite{JKMW97,KM98,AM1} (see also Sect. 2.4 below). This is
245: the maximal occupation number for a classical field, since larger
246: occupation numbers are blocked by repulsive interactions of the gluon
247: field. For weak coupling, this occupation number is large, and the gluons
248: can be thought of as in some condensate. We are therefore lead to
249: conclude that the matter which describes the small $x$ part of a hadron
250: wavefunction is a Color Glass Condensate.
251:
252: \subsection{The Abelian case, as a warm up}
253:
254: Before attempting to solve the Yang-Mills equation (\ref{cleq0}),
255: it is instructive to consider its Abelian version in some
256: detail. This reads:
257: \be
258: \partial _{\nu} F^{\nu \mu} = \delta^{\mu +} \rho({\vec x})
259: \labe{acleq}
260: \ee
261: with $F^{\mu \nu} = \partial^\mu A^\nu-\partial^\nu A^\mu$
262: and ${\vec x}\equiv (x^-,{\bf x}_{\perp})$.
263:
264: We are interested in LC-gauge ($A^+=0$)
265: solutions which vanish as $\rho\to 0$.
266: Since $\rho$ is static (i.e., independent of $x^+$),
267: we can look for solutions which are static as well:
268: $\partial^- A^{\mu}=0$.
269: Then, the components of eq.~(\ref{acleq}) with
270: $\mu=-$ and $\mu=i$ imply that $A^-=0$
271: (so that $F^{-+}=F^{i-}=0$), and also $F^{ij}=0$.
272: Thus, only the transverse fields $A^i({\vec x})$ are
273: non-vanishing, and
274: define a ``pure gauge'' in the two-dimensional
275: transverse plane\footnote{Of course, this is not a pure gauge
276: in four dimensions, since $A^+=0\,\ne\,-\partial^+\omega$.}.
277: We can thus write [throughout this paper, we shall systematically
278: use calligraphic letters (like ${\cal A}^i$ and ${\cal F}^{i+}$) to denote
279: solutions of the classical equations of motion] :
280: \be
281: {\cal A}^i({\vec x}) = -\partial^i\omega({\vec x})
282: \ee
283: with $\omega({\vec x})$ satisfying the following equation
284: (cf. eq.~(\ref{acleq}) with $\mu=+$ and $F^{i+}=-\del^+A^i$):
285: \be
286: -\nabla_{\perp}^2(\partial^+ \omega)=\rho
287: \labe{alambda}
288: \ee
289: Eq.~(\ref{alambda}) can be easily solved in momentum space, to give:
290: \be
291: {\cal A}^i(p)=i p^i \omega(p) = -{p^i \over p^+} {\rho(p^+,p_{\perp})
292: \over p_{\perp}^2}\,,
293: \labe{aaimom}
294: \ee
295: where, however, one needs a prescription to
296: handle the pole at $p^+=0$. For instance, with the following,
297: retarded prescription (with $\varepsilon\to 0_+$):
298: \be\label{RETARDED}
299: {1 \over p^+} \,\equiv\,{1 \over p^+\ +i \varepsilon}\,,\ee
300: one obtains a solution which vanishes at $x^-\to -\infty$
301: (thus, the ``retardation'' property refers here
302: to $x^-$, and not to time) :
303: \be
304: {\cal A}^i (x^-,x_{\perp})=
305: \int_{-\infty}^{x^-} dy^- \, \partial^i \alpha (y^-,x_{\perp})\,,
306: \labe{aiab1}
307: \ee
308: with $\alpha ({\vec x})$ satisfying
309: \be
310: -\nabla_{\perp}^2 \alpha ({\vec x}) = \rho ({\vec x}).
311: \label{aal}
312: \ee
313: This yields $\alpha({\vec p})=\rho({\vec p})/p_{\perp}^2$
314: (with $\vec p \equiv (p^+,{\bf p}_\perp)$), or, in coordinate space,
315: \be\labe{alpha}
316: \alpha ({\vec x})\,=\,-\int \frac{d^2y_\perp}{2\pi}\,
317: \ln\Bigl(|{\bf x}_\perp - {\bf y}_\perp|\mu\Bigr)\,
318: \rho (x^-,{\bf y}_\perp),\ee
319: where $\mu$ is an infrared cutoff which must disappear from
320: physical quantities.
321:
322: In general, different prescriptions for the pole in $1/p^+$
323: correspond to different boundary conditions in $x^-$, which
324: nevertheless describe the same physical situation, since they lead
325: to the same electric field ${\cal F}^{i+}=-\partial^+
326: {\cal A}^i =\partial^i\alpha\,$.
327: Alternatively, solutions corresponding to different
328: such prescriptions are related by (residual) gauge transformations.
329:
330: Note finally that if the external source is localized around $x^-=0$
331: (cf. eq.~(\ref{jclas})), so is
332: $\alpha ({\vec x})$, and therefore the associated electric
333: field ${\cal F}^{i+}({\vec x})=\partial^i \alpha ({\vec x})$.
334:
335:
336: \subsection{The non-Abelian case}
337:
338: We now return to the non-Abelian problem, and note first that,
339: written as it stands, eq.~(\ref{cleq0}) is not really consistent:
340: The property $[D_\mu, [D_{\nu}, F^{\nu \mu}]]=0$ requires
341: the color current $J^\mu$ in the Yang-Mills equations
342: to be {\it covariantly} conserved, $[D_\mu, J^\mu]=0$, which for a
343: current $J^\mu=\delta^{\mu +}J^+$ amounts to:
344: \be\labe{COVCON1}
345: [D^-, J^+]\,\equiv\,\del^- J^+\,-\,ig[A^-,J^+]\,=\,0\,.\ee
346: In general, however, this is not satisfied by the static current
347: (\ref{jclas}) (since $\del^- \rho=0$, but the commutator $[A^-,\rho]$
348: can be non-zero). Rather, eq.~(\ref{COVCON1})
349: shows that, for a non-zero field $A^-_a$, the current $J^+_a$
350: can be static only up to a color precession. Namely,
351: if we identify $\rho_a$ in eq.~(\ref{jclas})
352: with the current $J^+_a$ at some particular time $x^+_0$,
353: \be\labe{INITJ+}
354: J^+(x)\,=\,\rho(\vec x)\qquad{\rm at}\quad
355: x^+=x^+_0\,,\ee
356: then eq.~(\ref{COVCON1}) can be easily integrated out
357: to give the current at some later time $x^+>x^+_0\,$:
358: \be\labe{JTIME}
359: J^+(x^+, \vec x)\,=\,W(x^+,\vec x)\,\rho(\vec x)
360: \,W^\dagger(x^+,\vec x).\ee
361: We have introduced here the temporal Wilson line:
362: %This describes the precession of the color vector
363: %$\rho_a(\vec x)$ with the temporal Wilson line:
364: \be\labe{WLINE1}
365: W[A^-](x^+,\vec x)\,\equiv\,{\rm T}\, \exp\left\{\,
366: ig\int_{x^+_0}^{x^+} dz^+ A^-(z^+, \vec x) \right\},
367: \ee
368: with T denoting the time ordering of the color matrices
369: in the exponential (that is, the matrix fields $A^-(x)
370: \equiv A^-_a(x) T^a$ are ordered from right to left
371: in increasing sequence of their $x^+$ arguments).
372:
373: The ensuing equations of motion for the background field:
374: \be
375: [D_{\nu}, F^{\nu \mu}](x)\, =\, \delta^{\mu +}
376: W(x)\,\rho(\vec x)
377: \,W^\dagger(x),
378: \labe{cleq1}
379: \ee
380: are generally complicated by the non-locality of the current
381: in time. As in the Abelian case, however, it is consistent
382: to look for solutions to eq.~(\ref{cleq1}) which are
383: static\footnote{Of course, time-dependent solutions with
384: non-zero $A^-_a$ can be also constructed, e.g.,
385: via $x^+$-dependent gauge transformations of the static
386: solution in eq.~(\ref{Ansatz}). For what follows,
387: it is simply more convenient to use the residual gauge
388: freedom in order to choose the solution in the form
389: (\ref{Ansatz}).} and satisfy $A^-=0$ (in addition to the
390: LC gauge condition $A^+=0$):
391: \be\labe{Ansatz}
392: A^+\,=\,A^-\,=\,0,\qquad A^i\,\equiv\,{\cal A}^i(x^-,x_{\perp})\,.\ee
393: This Ansatz is preserved by gauge transformations which are
394: both $x^-$-- and $x^+$--independent, that is, by two-dimensional
395: gauge transformations in the transverse plane.
396: With this Ansatz, eq.~(\ref{cleq1}) reduces back to
397: eq.~(\ref{cleq0}), which explains the emphasis put on
398: this equation in Sect. 2.1. In particular, for $\mu=+$,
399: \be
400: [D_i, F^{i+}] \,=\, \rho({\vec x}),
401: \labe{n+}
402: \ee
403: while the $\mu=i$ component, $[D_j, F^{ji}] = 0$,
404: implies that ${\cal A}^i$ is a pure gauge
405: in the transverse plane (${\cal F}^{ji} = 0$). We thus write:
406: \be
407: {\cal A}^i(x^-,x_{\perp})\,=\,{i \over g}\,
408: U(x^-,x_{\perp})\,\partial^i U^{\dagger}(x^-,x_{\perp})\,,
409: \labe{tpg}
410: \ee
411: with the $SU(N)$ group element $U(x^-,x_{\perp})$
412: implicitly related to $\rho$ by eq.~(\ref{n+}).
413:
414: To make progress, it is useful to
415: observe that the fields ${\cal A}^i$ in eq.~(\ref{tpg}) can be gauge
416: transformed to zero by the gauge transformation with matrix
417: $U^{\dagger} ({\vec x})$:
418: \be\labe{gtr}
419: A^\mu\longrightarrow {\tilde A}^\mu=U^{\dagger}A^\mu U+
420: \,{i \over g}\, U^{\dagger} \partial^\mu U.
421: \ee
422: This yields indeed ${\tilde A}^i={\tilde A}^- = 0$, together with
423: \be
424: {\tilde A}^+ = {i \over g}\, U^{\dagger} \left( \partial^+ U \right ).
425: \labe{ta+}
426: \ee
427: Thus, there exists a gauge where the non-Abelian
428: field has just one non-trivial component,
429: ${\tilde A}^\mu=\delta^{\mu +}{\tilde A}^+$.
430: This gauge will play an important role in what
431: follows. It will be referred to as the {\it covariant gauge},
432: since $\partial_\mu {\tilde A}^\mu =0$ for the fields in
433: eqs.~(\ref{gtr})--(\ref{ta+}).
434: In this gauge, the general Yang-Mills equations (\ref{cleq1})
435: reduce to a single {\it linear} equation,
436: \be\labe{EQTA0}
437: - \nabla^2_\perp {\tilde A}^+(\vec x)\,=\,{\tilde \rho}(\vec x)\,,
438: \ee
439: where
440: \be\label{COVRHO}
441: {\tilde \rho}(\vec x)\,\equiv\,U^{\dagger}(\vec x)
442: \, \rho(\vec x) \,U(\vec x)\ee
443: is the classical color source in the covariant gauge.
444: (We preserve the notations without the tilde --- e.g., $\rho$ ---
445: for quantities in the LC gauge.)
446:
447: Eq.~(\ref{EQTA0}) is formally the same as eq.~(\ref{aal})
448: for $\alpha$ in QED, and we prefer to rename
449: ${\tilde A}^+({\vec x})\equiv\alpha({\vec x})$ in what follows.
450: That is, $\alpha$ satisfies
451: \be\labe{EQTA}
452: - \nabla^2_\perp \alpha({\vec x})\,=\,{\tilde \rho}(\vec x)\,,
453: \ee
454: and is a linear functional of the {\it covariant gauge}
455: source ${\tilde \rho}$.
456: Thus, the classical solution in the covariant gauge is trivial
457: to obtain. However, physical quantities
458: like the gluon distribution function rather involve the
459: correlators of the fields $A^i$ in the {\it light-cone}
460: gauge\footnote{Of course, physical quantities
461: are gauge invariant, and could be computed in any gauge;
462: in general gauges, however, they are not simply related to the
463: Green's functions of the corresponding vector potentials;
464: see also Sect. 2.4.} (cf. eq.~(\ref{clascorr}) and Sect. 2.4).
465: Still, the fact that the latter can be expressed as
466: gauge rotations of the quasi-Abelian field
467: ${\tilde A}^\mu=\delta^{\mu +}\alpha$
468: will greatly simplify the calculations to follow.
469: Specifically, eq.~(\ref{ta+}) can be inverted to give (with
470: ${\tilde A}^+\equiv\alpha$)
471: \be
472: U^{\dagger}(x^-,x_{\perp})=
473: {\rm P} \exp
474: \left \{
475: ig \int_{x_0^-}^{x^-} dz^-\,\alpha (z^-,x_{\perp})
476: \right \},\labe{UTA}
477: \ee
478: where the symbol P orders the color matrices $\alpha(\vec x)$ from
479: right to left, in increasing or decreasing order of their $x^-$
480: arguments depending respectively on whether $x^->x_0^-$ or $x^-<x_0^-\,$.
481: The initial point $x^-_0$ is as yet arbitrary, and will
482: be specified in a moment. (Different choices for $x^-_0$ lead
483: to LC-gauge solutions ${\cal A}^i$ which are connected by
484: residual, two-dimensional, gauge transformations.)
485:
486: Together, eqs.~(\ref{tpg}), (\ref{EQTA}) and (\ref{UTA}) provide
487: an explicit expression for the LC-gauge solution ${\cal A}^i$
488: as a non-linear functional of
489: %the covariant gauge source
490: ${\tilde \rho}\,$, to be denoted as ${\cal A}^i [\tilde \rho]$.
491: If one rather tries to express ${\cal A}^i$ in terms of
492: %the LC-gauge source
493: $\rho$, then the corresponding functional ${\cal A}^i [\rho]$
494: would be more complicated and not explicitly known.
495: Indeed, $\alpha$ is related to $\rho$ via the following
496: non-linear equation (cf. eqs.~(\ref{COVRHO})--(\ref{UTA})):
497: \be
498: U\Bigl(-\nabla^2_{\perp} \alpha %({\vec x})
499: \Bigr) U^{\dagger} \,=\, {\rho}\,,%({\vec x}),
500: \labe{nal}
501: \ee
502: for which we have no explicit solution.
503: %which defines the functional $\alpha[\rho]$ only implicitly.
504:
505: For what follows, it will be essential
506: to know the solution ${\cal A}^i$ {explicitly}.
507: We thus propose
508: to use the covariant gauge source ${\tilde \rho}$, rather
509: than the LC-gauge source $\rho$, as the functional variable
510: that the fields depend upon. This is possible because the measure
511: and the weight function in eq.~(\ref{clascorr})
512: are gauge invariant, so that the final average over the
513: classical source can be equally well expressed as a
514: functional integral over ${\tilde \rho}$.
515: In other terms, from now on we shall replace eq.~(\ref{clascorr})
516: with
517: \be\labe{COVclascorr}
518: \langle A^i(x^+,\vec x)A^j(x^+,\vec y)
519: \cdots\rangle_\Lambda\,=\,
520: \int {\cal D}\tilde\rho\,\,W_\Lambda[\tilde\rho]\,{\cal A}^i_{\vec x}
521: [\tilde \rho]\,{\cal A}^j_{\vec y}[\tilde \rho]\cdots\,.
522: \ee
523:
524: Up to this point, the spatial distribution of the source in $x^-$
525: has been completely arbitrary: the equations above hold for any function
526: $\rho(x^-)$. For what follows, however, it is useful to recall
527: that $\rho$ has the localized structure shown in eq.~(\ref{jclas}).
528: As mentioned after this equation, and it will be demonstrated by the
529: quantum analysis to follow, the
530: precise longitudinal structure of $\rho$ is sensitive to the
531: conditions used to completely fix the gauge, in both
532: the classical and quantum calculations.
533:
534: To fix the {\it classical} gauge, i.e., the gauge for the
535: classical solution (\ref{tpg}), we shall
536: adopt retarded boundary conditions in $x^-\,$:
537: ${\cal A}^i(\tilde x)\to 0$ for $x^- \to -\infty\,$. That is,
538: we choose $x^-_0\to -\infty$ in eq.~(\ref{UTA}).
539: This amounts to a complete gauge fixing since
540: this boundary condition would be violated by any
541: $x^-$--independent gauge transformation.
542: Remarkably, we shall see later that
543: this classical gauge condition also fixes the
544: gauge prescription to be used in the {\it quantum} calculations:
545: indeed, for the above boundary condition
546: to be consistent with the quantum evolution, one must adopt a retarded
547: $i\epsilon$ prescription for the axial pole in the gluon
548: propagator (see Sect. 6.3).
549: With these gauge-fixing prescriptions, the ensuing classical
550: source has support only at positive $x^-$,
551: with $0\simle x^-\simle 1/\Lambda^+$ (cf. Sect. 5.1 and Paper II).
552:
553: In what follows, $\Lambda^+$ will be most often the {\it large}
554: longitudinal momentum scale in the problem: both the external
555: current in DIS, and the quantum fluctuations to be considered in Sect. 3,
556: will have momenta $p^+\ll \Lambda^+$. Because of their poor
557: longitudinal resolution, such fields are
558: sensitive only to the gross features of the background fields
559: ${\cal A}^i$ over large distances $|x^-| \gg 1/\Lambda^+$, where
560: we can write:
561: \be\labe{UTAF}
562: U^{\dagger}(x^-,x_{\perp})\,\equiv\,
563: {\rm P} \exp
564: \left \{
565: ig \int_{-\infty}^{x^-} dz^-\,\alpha (z^-,x_{\perp})
566: \right \}\approx \,\theta(x^-)\,V^\dagger(x_{\perp}) + \theta(-x^-),
567: \ee
568: with
569: \be\labe{v}
570: V^\dagger(x_{\perp})\,\equiv\,{\rm P} \exp
571: \left \{
572: ig \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dz^-\,\alpha (z^-,x_{\perp})
573: \right \}.\ee
574: Together with eq.~(\ref{tpg}), this gives a background field of the
575: form:
576: \be\labe{APM}
577: {\cal A}^i(x^-,x_\perp)\,\approx\,\theta(x^-)\,
578: \frac{i}{g}\,V(\del^i V^\dagger)
579: \,\equiv\,\theta(x^-){\cal A}^i_\infty(x_\perp).\ee
580: The associated electric field strength is then
581: effectively a $\delta$--function:
582: \be\labe{FDELTA}
583: {\cal F}^{i+}(\vec x) \,\equiv\,
584: -\partial^+{\cal A}^i\,\approx\,-\delta(x^-)\,
585: {\cal A}^{i}_\infty(x_\perp).\ee
586: It is implicitly understood here that the various
587: $\delta$-- and $\theta$--functions are regularized over a distance
588: $\Delta x^-\sim 1/\Lambda^+$.
589:
590:
591:
592: \subsection{Gluon distribution function and saturation}
593:
594: According to eq.~(\ref{COVclascorr}), there are two ingredients
595: needed in order to compute soft gluon correlations in the MV model:
596: the solution ${\cal A}^i_a[\tilde \rho]$ to the
597: classical equations of motion and the weight function
598: $W_\Lambda[\tilde\rho]$. The classical solution has just
599: been constructed, and is given by eqs.~(\ref{tpg}),
600: (\ref{EQTA}) and (\ref{UTA})
601: (with $x^-_0\to -\infty$). The construction of the weight
602: function from quantum fluctuations will be the main objective of the
603: remaining part of this paper together with Paper II.
604: But before turning to the quantum dynamics, let us briefly
605: recall the results of some previous calculations in the MV model
606: \cite{JKMW97,KM98}, which use a Gaussian weight function
607: and show saturation explicitly. This will also give us the
608: opportunity to discuss the gauge-invariant definition
609: of the gluon distribution function.
610:
611:
612: We first recall the usual definition of the
613: gluon distribution function, which is written
614: in the LC gauge \cite{AM1} :
615: \be\labe{GDF0}
616: G(x,Q^2)&\equiv&
617: \int {d^2k_\perp \over (2 \pi)^2}\,\Theta(Q^2-
618: k_\perp^2)\int{dk^+ \over 2 \pi}
619: \,2k^+\,\delta\biggl(x-{k^+\over P^+}\biggr)\nonumber\\
620: &{}&\qquad\qquad
621: \Bigl\langle A^i_a(x^+,k^+,{\bf k}_\perp)
622: A^i_a(x^+,-k^+,-{\bf k}_\perp)\Bigr\rangle,\,\,\,\ee
623: with the brackets denoting an average over the hadron wavefunction.
624: Eq.~(\ref{GDF0}) can be understood as follows \cite{AM1}: In light-cone
625: quantization, and with $\vec k \equiv (k^+,{\bf k}_\perp)$,
626: \be
627: \frac{2k^+}{(2 \pi)^3}\, A^i_c(x^+,\vec k)
628: A^i_c(x^+,-\vec k)\,=\,\sum_\lambda\sum_c
629: a^\dagger_{\lambda c}(\vec k)\,a_{\lambda c}(\vec k)\,=\,
630: \frac{dN}{d^3 k}\,\ee
631: is the Fock space gluon distribution function, i.e., the
632: number of gluons per unit of volume in momentum space.
633: (Here, $a^\dagger_{\lambda c}(\vec k)$ and $a_{\lambda c}(\vec k)$
634: are, respectively, creation and annihilation operators for gluons
635: with momentum $\vec k$, color $c$ and transverse polarization
636: $\lambda$, and we use the normalization in Ref. \cite{AM1}.)
637: Thus, eq.~(\ref{GDF0}) simply counts all the gluons in the
638: hadron wavefunction having longitudinal momentum
639: $k^+=xP^+$, and transverse momentum up to $Q$.
640:
641: As emphasized above, eq.~(\ref{GDF0}) is meaningful only in the LC gauge
642: $A^+_a=0$; indeed, it is only in this gauge that the matrix element
643: in the r.h.s. has a gauge-invariant meaning, as we discuss now:
644: Note first that, in this gauge, the electric field $F^{i+}_a$ and
645: the vector potential $A^i_a$ are linearly related,
646: $F^{i+}_a(k)=ik^+A^i_a(k)$,
647: so that eq.~(\ref{GDF0}) can be also written as a two-point
648: Green's function of the (gauge-covariant) electric fields.
649: After performing the integral over $k^+$, one obtains
650: (with $k^+=xP^+$ from now on) :
651: \be\labe{GDF}
652: xG(x,Q^2)\,=\,\frac{1}{\pi}\int {d^2k_\perp \over (2 \pi)^2}\,\Theta(Q^2-
653: k_\perp^2)\,\Bigl\langle F^{i+}_a(x^+,\vec k)
654: F^{i+}_a(x^+,-\vec k)\Bigr\rangle.\ee
655: This does not look gauge invariant as yet: in coordinate space
656: ($\vec x\cdot \vec k = x^-k^+-{\bf x}_\perp\cdot{\bf k}_\perp$),
657: \be\labe{FF}
658: F^{i+}_a(x^+,\vec k)F^{i+}_a(x^+,-\vec k)\,=\,
659: \int d^3x \int d^3y\,\,{\rm e}^{i(\vec x- \vec y)\cdot \vec k}\,
660: F^{i+}_a(x^+,\vec x)F^{i+}_a(x^+,\vec y)\ee
661: involves the electric fields at different spatial points
662: $\vec x$ and $\vec y$. A manifestly gauge invariant operator
663: can be constructed by inserting Wilson lines:
664: \be\labe{GIFF}
665: {\rm Tr}\,\left\{F^{i+}(\vec x)\,U_\gamma(\vec x,\vec y)\,
666: F^{i+}(\vec y)\,U_\gamma(\vec y,\vec x)\right\},\ee
667: where (with $\vec A\equiv (A^+,{\bf A}_\perp)$)
668: \be\labe{UGEN}
669: U_\gamma(\vec x,\vec y)\,=\,{\rm P}\,{\rm exp}\left\{ig\int_\gamma d\vec z
670: \cdot \vec A(\vec z)\right\},\ee
671: and the temporal coordinates $x^+$ are omitted
672: (they are the same for all the fields). In eq.~(\ref{UGEN}),
673: $\gamma$ is an arbitrary oriented path going from $\vec y$
674: to $\vec x$. For any such a path, eq.~(\ref{GIFF}) defines
675: a gauge-invariant operator.
676:
677: In particular, let us choose a path
678: made of the following three elements: two ``vertical'' pieces
679: going along the $x^-$ axis from $(y^-,y_\perp)$ to $(-\infty,y_\perp)$,
680: and, respectively, from $(-\infty,x_\perp)$ to $(x^-,x_\perp)$,
681: and an ``horizontal'' piece from $(-\infty,y_\perp)$ to $(-\infty,x_\perp)$.
682: Along the vertical pieces, $d\vec z \cdot \vec A =
683: dz^- A^+$, so these pieces do not matter in the LC gauge.
684: Along the horizontal piece $d\vec z \cdot \vec A = d{\bf z}_\perp
685: \cdot {\bf A}_{\perp}(-\infty, z_\perp)$, and the path $\gamma$
686: is still arbitrary, since this can be any path
687: joining $y_\perp$ to $x_\perp$ in the
688: transverse plane at $x^-\to -\infty$. This arbitrariness disappears,
689: however, for the classical solution constructed in Sect. 2.3:
690: this is a two-dimensional pure gauge (cf. eq.~(\ref{tpg})),
691: so the associated Wilson lines in the transverse plane
692: are path-independent. Moreover, these Wilson lines become even
693: trivial, $U_\gamma(x_\perp, y_\perp)_{ x^-,y^-\to-\infty}=1$,
694: once we choose the retarded prescription
695: $x^-_0\to -\infty$ in eq.~(\ref{UTA}).
696:
697: Thus, within the classical approximation,
698: for the particular class of paths mentioned above,
699: and with retarded boundary conditions
700: for the classical solution,
701: the manifestly gauge-invariant operator product
702: in eq.~(\ref{GIFF}) coincides with the simpler operator
703: which enters the standard definition of the gluon distribution,
704: in eqs.~(\ref{GDF})--(\ref{FF}).
705: Converserly, the latter can be given a gauge-invariant meaning
706: under the conditions mentioned above\footnote{Note also that,
707: if we let $Q^2\to \infty$ in eq.~(\ref{GDF}), then the corresponding
708: limit of the gluon distribution is gauge invariant in full generality,
709: since the unrestricted integral over $k_\perp$ sets $x_\perp=y_\perp$.}.
710:
711: In the remaining part of this section,
712: we shall be concerned only with this classical approximation,
713: which is expected to work better at very small $x$, in particular,
714: in the saturation regime. Then we can replace, in eq.~(\ref{GDF}),
715: $F^{i+}_a\to {\cal F}^{i+}_a$,
716: with ${\cal F}^{i+}_a$ the time-independent classical electric field
717: constructed in Sect. 2.3 (a functional of $\tilde \rho$):
718: \be\labe{GCL}
719: x G_{cl}(x,Q^2)\,=\,\frac{1}{\pi}
720: \int {d^2k_\perp \over (2 \pi)^2}\,\Theta(Q^2-
721: k_\perp^2)\,\Bigl\langle\,
722: |{\cal F}^{i+}_a(\vec k)|^2\Bigr\rangle_\Lambda.\,\ee
723: Here and from now on, the average is to be understood
724: as an average over $\tilde\rho$, in the sense of
725: eq.~(\ref{COVclascorr}) where the scale $\Lambda^+$
726: is now chosen as $\Lambda^+\sim xP^+$
727: (cf. the discussion after eqs.~(\ref{clascorr})--(\ref{normF})).
728: With eq.~(\ref{FDELTA}) for ${\cal F}^{i+}$, eq.~(\ref{GCL})
729: reduces to:
730: \be\labe{GCL1}
731: x G_{cl}(x,Q^2)&=&\frac{1}{\pi}
732: \int {d^2k_\perp \over (2 \pi)^2}\,\Theta(Q^2-
733: k_\perp^2)\,\Bigl\langle\,
734: |{\cal F}^{i+}_a(k_\perp)|^2\Bigr\rangle_\Lambda\nn
735: &=&{R^2}
736: \int^{Q^2} {d^2k_\perp \over (2 \pi)^2}
737: \int d^2x_\perp\,{\rm e}^{-ik_\perp\cdot x_\perp}
738: \Bigl\langle {\cal A}^{ia}_\infty(0)\,
739: {\cal A}^{ia}_\infty(x_\perp)\Bigr\rangle_\Lambda,\ee
740: where $R$ is the hadron radius, and we have assumed
741: homogeneity in the transverse plane, for simplicity.
742:
743: Note that, if there were not for the $x$--dependence
744: hidden in the weight function for $\tilde\rho$ (that is,
745: $W_\Lambda[\tilde\rho]$ with $\Lambda^+\sim xP^+$),
746: the r.h.s. of eq.~(\ref{GCL1}) would be independent of
747: $x$, and so would be also the quantity $x G_{cl}(x,Q^2)$,
748: in agreement with leading-order calculations
749: in light-cone perturbation theory \cite{AM1}.
750: Thus, in the MV model, the actual $x$--dependence of the gluon
751: distribution function is encoded in the weight function,
752: and is a consequence of the quantum evolution (which
753: makes $W[\tilde\rho]$ a function of $\Lambda^+$; cf. Sect. 3).
754:
755: To make progress, a model for the weight function
756: $W_\Lambda[\tilde\rho]$ is required. As argued in Refs.
757: \cite{JKMW97}, a simple approximation which should
758: be valid for transverse wavelengths much smaller
759: than the size of the hadron, is to write
760: %(up to a normalization
761: %constant, cf. eq.~(\ref{normF}))
762: \be\label{FCLAS}
763: W_\Lambda[\tilde\rho]\simeq \exp\left\{-
764: \frac{1}{2}\int d^3 x \,\frac{\tilde\rho_a^2(\vec x)}
765: {\xi^2_\Lambda(\vec x)}\right\}\,,\ee
766: where $\xi^2_\Lambda$ is proportional to the total color charge
767: density squared of the partons with $p^+>\Lambda^+$.
768: For instance, in a simple valence quark model,
769: \be
770: \xi^2_\Lambda(\vec x)\,\equiv\,g^2\,\frac{n(\vec x)}{2N_c}\,,\ee
771: where $n(x^-,x_\perp)$ is the quark number density in the hadron,
772: normalized such as (for a nucleon)
773: \be\label{VQ}
774: \int dx^- \int d^2x_\perp\,n(x^-,x_\perp)\,=\,N_c.\ee
775:
776: With this approximation for $W_\Lambda[\tilde\rho]$, let us first
777: compute the gluon distribution function (\ref{GCL}) in the
778: {\it linear response approximation}, that is, for a source $\rho$
779: which is weak enough so that one can linearize the results in Sect. 2.3
780: (this is the case as long as $x$ is not too small).
781: One thus obtains
782: ${\cal F}^{+j}_a \simeq i(k^j/k^2_\perp)\rho_a\,$,
783: cf. eq.~(\ref{aaimom}), and therefore:
784: \be\labe{GCLLIN}
785: x G_{cl}(x,Q^2)\,\simeq\,\frac{1}{\pi}
786: \int {d^2k_\perp \over (2 \pi)^2}\,
787: \frac{\Theta(Q^2-k_\perp^2)}{k^2_\perp}\,\Bigl
788: \langle |\,\rho_a(\vec k)|^2\Bigr\rangle_\Lambda.\,\ee
789: (Note that there is no difference between
790: $\rho$ and $\tilde\rho$ in this linear approximation.)
791: The average over $\rho$ is now easily
792: performed by using eqs.~(\ref{FCLAS})--(\ref{VQ}),
793: which give (with $\alpha_s=g^2/4\pi$ and $C_F=(N^2_c-1)/2N_c$) :
794: \be
795: x G_{cl}(x,Q^2)\,\simeq\,\frac{\alpha_s N_c\, C_F}{\pi}\,
796: \ln{Q^2\over \mu^2}\,,\ee
797: where $\mu$ is an IR cutoff as in eq.~(\ref{alpha}).
798: This result is as expected from LC perturbation theory
799: \cite{AM1}.
800:
801: But in the present formalism, one can actually do better:
802: with the Gaussian weight function
803: (\ref{FCLAS}) and the non-linear classical solution
804: in Sect. 2.3, one has been able to evaluate the
805: fully non-linear expectation value in eq.~(\ref{GCL1}), with the
806: following result \cite{JKMW97,KM98}:
807: \be\labe{GCLNON}
808: \Bigl\langle {\cal A}^{ia}_\infty(0)\,
809: {\cal A}^{ia}_\infty(x_\perp)\Bigr\rangle
810: \,=\,\frac{N_c^2-1}{\pi\alpha_s N_c}\,\frac{1-{\rm e}^{-x_\perp^2
811: \ln(x_\perp^2 \Lambda_{QCD}^2) Q_s^2/4}}
812: {x_\perp^2}\,,\ee
813: where $Q_s\propto \alpha_s\xi_\Lambda$ is the {\it saturation momentum},
814: and is expected to increase when $\Lambda^+$ (or $x$) decreases.
815: (The above equation is valid only for $x_\perp \ll 1/\Lambda_{QCD}$. The
816: logarithmic dependence upon $\Lambda_{QCD}$ comes from properly regulating
817: the infrared transverse momenta, and is associated with the over all color
818: neutrality on scale sizes of order $1/\Lambda_{QCD}$ \cite{LM00}.)
819:
820: The remarkable feature about eq.~(\ref{GCLNON}) is that it displays
821: saturation via non-linear effects. Namely,
822: the LC gauge potential never becomes larger than
823: \be \labe{SAT}
824: \sqrt{x_\perp^2}\,{\cal A}^{i}\,\sim\,\frac{1}
825: {\sqrt{\alpha_s N_c}}\,.\ee
826: As anticipated in the Introduction, gluon saturation
827: requires fields as strong as $A^i\sim 1/g$, which supports
828: the physical picture of a condensate. Together with eq.~(\ref{cleq0}),
829: this implies that $\rho\sim 1/g$ at saturation.
830:
831: This interpretation can be made sharper by going to momentum space.
832: As obvious from eq.~(\ref{GCL1}),
833: \be\label{WIGG}
834: N(k_\perp)\,\equiv\,\frac{d^2(x G_{cl})}{d^2k_\perp\,d^2b_\perp}\,\equiv\,
835: \int d^2x_\perp\,{\rm e}^{-ik_\perp\cdot x_\perp}
836: \Bigl\langle {\cal A}^{ia}_\infty(0)\,
837: {\cal A}^{ia}_\infty(x_\perp)\Bigr\rangle,\ee
838: is the gluon density per unit of $x$ and per unit
839: of transverse phase-space. By using this and eq.~(\ref{GCLNON}),
840: one obtains \cite{JKMW97}
841: \be N(k_\perp) \,\propto\, \alpha_s (Q_s^2/k_\perp^2) \quad{\rm for}
842: \quad k_\perp^2\gg Q_s^2,\ee
843: which is the normal perturbative behavior, but
844: \be N(k_\perp) \,\propto\, {1\over \alpha_s}\,\ln\,
845: \frac{k_\perp^2}{Q_s^2}\quad{\rm for}\quad k_\perp^2\ll Q_s^2,\ee
846: which shows a much slower increase, i.e., saturation, at
847: low momenta (with $k_\perp\gg \Lambda_{QCD}$ though).
848:
849: Note, however, that the above argument is not rigorous, since
850: the local Gaussian form for $W$ in eq.~(\ref{FCLAS}) is only valid at
851: sufficiently large transverse momentum scales so that the effects of
852: high gluon density are small. It is therefore important to verify
853: if saturation comes up similarly with a more realistic form for
854: the weight function, as obtained after including quantum
855: evolution towards small $x$. This would also determine the
856: $x$--dependence of the saturation scale.
857: We now turn towards this quantum analysis.
858:
859:
860:
861: