1: %\documentstyle[12pt,a4,epsfig,epsf]{article}
2:
3: %\documentstyle[12pt,a4,epsfig]{report}
4: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
5: %\usepackage{dina4p}
6: \usepackage{epsfig}
7: \usepackage[hang,bf,small]{caption}
8: %\usepackage{showkeys}
9: %\usepackage{amsmath}
10: %\usepackage{amsmath}
11: \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.eps.gz,.eps,.ps,.ps.gz}
12: \oddsidemargin-5mm
13: \evensidemargin-5mm
14:
15: \setcounter{secnumdepth}{7}
16: \setcounter{tocdepth}{7}
17: \parskip=\itemsep %?
18:
19: \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt} %?
20: \setlength{\partopsep}{0pt} %?
21: \setlength{\topsep}{0pt} %?
22: %---layout fuer eine dina4 seite-------------------
23: \setlength{\textheight}{22cm}
24: \setlength{\textwidth}{174mm}
25: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1.5cm}
26:
27: \setlength{\marginparwidth}{0cm}
28: \setlength{\marginparsep}{0cm}
29: \setlength{\parindent}{0cm}
30:
31: %\input psfig
32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
33: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
34: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
35: %
36: \newcommand{\beqar}[1]{\begin{eqnarray}\label{#1}}
37: \newcommand{\eeqar}{\end{eqnarray}}
38: %
39: \newcommand{\m}{\marginpar{*}}
40: \newcommand{\lash}[1]{\not\! #1 \,}
41: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\big< #1 \big|}
42: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\big| #1 \big>}
43: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
44: \newcommand{\D}{\partial}
45: %
46: \newcommand{\g}{{\rm g}}
47: %
48: %\newcommand{\q}{\vec{q}}
49: %\newcommand{\q_0}{\vec{q_0}}
50: %\newcommand{\q'}{\vec{q}'}
51: \newcommand{\el}{{\cal L}}
52: \newcommand{\A}{{\cal A}}
53: \newcommand{\Ka}{{\cal K}}
54: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}
55: \newcommand{\be}{\beta}
56: \newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}
57: \newcommand{\ga}{\gamma}
58: \newcommand{\de}{\delta}
59: \newcommand{\De}{\Delta}
60: \newcommand{\et}{\eta}
61: \newcommand{\ka}{\vec{\kappa}}
62: \newcommand{\la}{\lambda}
63: \newcommand{\ph}{\varphi}
64: \newcommand{\si}{\sigma}
65: \newcommand{\ro}{\varrho}
66: \newcommand{\Ga}{\Gamma}
67: \newcommand{\om}{\omega}
68: \newcommand{\La}{\Lambda}
69: \newcommand{\tG}{ {G}}
70: \newcommand{\as}{\alpha_S}
71: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
72: \def\eq#1{{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}}
73:
74: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
75: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
76: % ABBREVIATED JOURNAL NAMES
77: %
78: \def\ap#1#2#3{ {\it Ann. Phys. (NY) }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
79: \def\arnps#1#2#3{ {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
80: \def\npb#1#2#3{ {\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B#1} (19#2) #3}
81: \def\plb#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Lett. }{\bf B#1} (19#2) #3}
82: \def\prd#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf D#1} (19#2) #3}
83: \def\prep#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
84: \def\prl#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
85: \def\ptp#1#2#3{ {\it Prog. Theor. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
86: \def\rmp#1#2#3{ {\it Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
87: \def\zpc#1#2#3{ {\it Z. Phys. }{\bf C#1} (19#2) #3}
88: \def\mpla#1#2#3{ {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf A#1} (19#2) #3}
89: \def\nc#1#2#3{ {\it Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
90: \def\yf#1#2#3{ {\it Yad. Fiz. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
91: \def\sjnp#1#2#3{ {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
92: \def\jetp#1#2#3{ {\it Sov. Phys. }{JETP }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
93: \def\jetpl#1#2#3{ {\it JETP Lett. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
94: %%%%%%%%% notice the parenthesys is only on one side
95: \def\ppsjnp#1#2#3{ {\it (Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
96: \def\ppjetp#1#2#3{ {\it (Sov. Phys. JETP }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
97: \def\ppjetpl#1#2#3{{\it (JETP Lett. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
98: \def\zetf#1#2#3{ {\it Zh. ETF }{\bf #1}(19#2) #3}
99: \def\cmp#1#2#3{ {\it Comm. Math. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
100: \def\cpc#1#2#3{ {\it Comp. Phys. Commun. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
101: \def\dis#1#2{ {\it Dissertation, }{\sf #1 } 19#2}
102: \def\dip#1#2#3{ {\it Diplomarbeit, }{\sf #1 #2} 19#3 }
103: \def\ib#1#2#3{ {\it ibid. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
104: \def\jpg#1#2#3{ {\it J. Phys}. {\bf G#1}#2#3}
105: %
106: \newcommand{\bas}{\bar{\alpha}_S}
107: \relax
108: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
109: %\renewcommand{\thefigure}{{\protect\bf\arabic{figure}}}
110: %
111: \begin{document}
112: %
113: \title{
114: { \Large \bf Non-Linear Evolution and} \\
115: {\Large \bf High Energy Diffractive Production}}
116: \author{
117: {\large ~ E.~Levin\thanks{e-mail:
118: leving@post.tau.ac.il}~~$\mathbf{{}^{a),b)}}$
119: \,~\,and\,\,~
120: M. ~Lublinsky\thanks{e-mail:
121: mal@techunix.technion.ac.il}~~$\mathbf{{}^{c),d)}}$}\\[2.5ex]
122: {\it ${}^{a)}$ \small HEP Department}\\
123: {\it \small School of Physics and Astronomy}\\
124: {\it \small Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Science}\\
125: {\it\small Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, ISRAEL}\\[2.5ex]
126: {\it ${}^{b)}$ \small DESY Theory Group,}\\
127: { \it\small D-22602, Hamburg, GERMANY}\\[2.5ex]
128: {\it ${}^{c)}$ \small Department of Physics}\\
129: {\it \small Technion -- Israel Institute of Technology}\\
130: {\it\small Haifa 32000, ISRAEL}\\[2.5ex]
131: {\it ${}^{d)}$ \small II. Institut f\"{u}r Theoretische Physik, Universit\"{a}t Hamburg}\\
132: {\it\small Luruper Chaussee 149,
133: 22761 Hamburg, GERMANY }\\[1.5ex]
134: }
135:
136:
137: \maketitle
138: \thispagestyle{empty}
139:
140: \begin{abstract}
141: The ratio of the diffractive production to the total cross section in DIS
142: is computed as a function of the produced mass. The analysis is based on the solution to the
143: non-linear evolution equation for the diffraction dissociation in DIS.
144:
145: The obtained ratios almost do not depend on the central mass
146: energy in agreement with the HERA experimental data. This independence is argued
147: to be a consequence of the scaling phenomena displayed by the cross sections.
148:
149: As a weakness point a significant discrepancy between the data and the obtained
150: results is found in the absolute values of the ratios. Several explanatory
151: reasons are discussed.
152:
153: \end{abstract}
154: \thispagestyle{empty}
155: \begin{flushright}
156: \vspace{-21.5cm}
157: DESY-01-124 \\
158: TAUP - 2689 - 2001 \\
159: \today
160: \end{flushright}
161: \newpage
162: \setcounter{page}{1}
163:
164:
165: \section{Introduction}
166: \setcounter{equation}{0}
167:
168: One of the most intriguing experimental
169: observations in HERA is in the energy independence of
170: the ratio between the cross section of single
171: diffractive dissociation and the total DIS cross section \cite{ZEUSDATA}
172: (see Fig.\ref{fig1}).
173: \begin{figure}[htbp]
174: \begin{center}
175: \epsfig{file=rddtexp.eps,width=90mm,height=120mm}
176: \caption{\it Experimental data for the ratio
177: $\sigma_{diff}/\sigma_{tot}$ taken from Ref. \protect\cite{ZEUSDATA}. }
178: \label{fig1}
179: \end{center}
180: \end{figure}
181: The widely used saturation model of Golec-Biernat and
182: Wusthoff (GW) quite successfully reproduces this data \cite{GW}.
183: It was conjectured by Kovchegov and McLerran that
184: the effects of the parton density saturation
185: occuring at high energies are responsible for this independence \cite{KM}.
186: Using the unitarity constraint they related the diffraction cross section
187: ($\sigma_{diff}$) to the total cross section ($\sigma_{tot}$)
188: in DIS of $q\bar q$ pair with a target
189: \beq \label{KMF}
190: R\,\,
191: \equiv\,\,\frac{\sigma_{diff}}{\sigma_{tot}}\,\,=\,\,\frac{\int\,d^2\,b \int
192: \,dz \int \,d^2 r_{\perp}
193: P^{\gamma^*}(z,r_{\perp};Q^2)\, N^2(r_{\perp},x;b)}
194: { 2\, \int\,d^2 b \,\int\,dz
195: \,\int\,d^2\,r_{\perp}\,\,P^{\gamma^*}(z,r_{\perp};Q^2)\,\,
196: N ( r_{\perp},x;b)
197: }\,\,.
198: \eeq
199: The function $N(r_{\perp},x; b) = Im
200: \,a^{el}_{\rm dipole}(r_{\perp},x; b)$, where $a^{el}_{\rm dipole}$ is
201: the amplitude
202: of the elastic scattering for the dipole of the size $r_{\perp}$ and
203: rapidity $Y\equiv\ln (1/x)$
204: scattered at impact parameter $b$. The Bjorken $x$ is related to the
205: central mass energy $W$ via $x=Q^2/W^2$.
206: $P^{\gamma^*}(z,r_{\perp};Q^2)$ is the probability to find a
207: quark-antiquark pair with the size $r_{\perp}$ inside the virtual photon
208: \cite{MU90,WF}:
209: \begin{eqnarray}
210: P^{\gamma^*}(z,r_{\perp};Q^2)&=&\frac{\alpha_{em} N_c}{2
211: \pi^2}
212: \,\sum_f \,Z^2_f \sum_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}\,\{\, | \Psi_T |^2\,\,+\,\,|
213: \Psi_L|^2 \,\}\,\,\label{PROBPH}\\
214: &=&\frac{\alpha_{em} N_c}{2 \pi^2}
215: \sum_f Z^2_f \,\{\,( z^2 + ( 1 - z )^2 )a^2 K^2_1( a\,r_{\perp}
216: )\,+\,4\,Q^2\,z^2( 1 - z )^2 K^2_0(
217: a\,r_{\perp})\,\},\nonumber
218: \end{eqnarray}
219: where in the quark massless limit $a^2 = z(1-z)Q^2$ and $\Psi_{T,L}$ stand for the
220: $q\bar q$ wave functions of transversely and longitudinally polarized photons.
221:
222: For the amplitude $N$
223: a non-linear evolution equation was derived
224: \cite{GLR,MUQI,MU94,BA,KO,Braun,ILM}.
225: This equation has been studied both
226: analytically \cite{ILM,LT} and numerically \cite{Braun,LGLM,LL,Braun2}.
227:
228: Even with inclusion of an extra gluon emission Eq. (\ref{KMF})
229: fails to describe correctly the experimental data of Fig. \ref{fig1}
230: \cite{GLMDD,KOP,KOVN,KOV}. However, \eq{KMF} can be used as initial
231: condition to a further evolution.
232:
233: Similarly to the total cross section
234: we introduce the cross section for diffractive production with the
235: rapidity gap larger than given $Y_0\equiv\ln (1/x_0)$:
236: \beq
237: \label{F2D}
238: \si_{diff}(x,x_0,Q^2)\,\,\,=\,\,\int\,d^2b\,\,\int\,\,d^2 r_{\perp} \int \,d
239: z\,\,P^{\gamma^*}(z,r_{\perp};Q^2)
240: \,\,N^D(r_{\perp},x,x_0;b)\,.
241: \eeq
242:
243: The function $N^D$ is the amplitude
244: of the diffractive production induced by the dipole
245: with the size $r_{\perp}$ and rapidity
246: gap larger than given ($Y_0$).
247: The minimal rapidity gap $Y_0$ can be kinematically
248: related to the maximal diffractively produced mass $x_0=(Q^2+M^2)/W^2$.
249: The amplitude $N^D$ is a subject to
250: a non-linear evolution equation derived for the diffraction dissociation
251: processes in Ref. \cite{LK} and recently rederived in Ref. \cite{KOVN}:
252:
253: \begin{eqnarray}
254: N^D({\mathbf{x_{01}}},Y,Y_0;b) = N^2({\mathbf{x_{01}}},Y_0;b)\,
255: {\rm e}^{-\frac{4
256: C_F\,\as}{\pi} \,\ln\left( \frac{{\mathbf{x_{01}}}}{\rho}\right)(Y-Y_0)}\,
257: +\frac{C_F\,\as}{\pi^2}\int_{Y_0}^Y dy \, {\rm e}^{-\frac{4
258: C_F\,\as}{\pi} \,\ln\left( \frac{{\mathbf{x_{01}}}}{\rho}\right)(Y-y)} \times \nonumber \\
259: \nonumber \\
260: \int_{\rho} \, d^2 {\mathbf{x_{2}}}
261: \frac{{\mathbf{x^2_{01}}}}{{\mathbf{x^2_{02}}}\,
262: {\mathbf{x^2_{12}}}}
263: [\,2\, N^D({\mathbf{x_{02}}},y,Y_0;{ \mathbf{ b-
264: \frac{1}{2}
265: x_{12}}})
266: + N^D({\mathbf{x_{02}}},y,Y_0;{ \mathbf{ b - \frac{1}{2}
267: x_{12}}}) N^D({\mathbf{x_{12}}},y,Y_0;{ \mathbf{ b- \frac{1}{2}
268: x_{02}}}) \nonumber \\ \label{DDEQ} \\
269: - 4 \, N^D({\mathbf{x_{02}}},y,Y_0;{ \mathbf{ b - \frac{1}{2}
270: x_{12}}}) N({\mathbf{x_{12}}},y;{ \mathbf{ b- \frac{1}{2}
271: x_{02}}})+2\, N({\mathbf{x_{02}}},y;{ \mathbf{ b -
272: \frac{1}{2}
273: x_{12}}}) N({\mathbf{x_{12}}},y;{ \mathbf{ b- \frac{1}{2}
274: x_{02}}})
275: ]\,. \nonumber
276: \end{eqnarray}
277: The equation (\ref{DDEQ}) describes a diffraction process initiated by dipole of the size
278: $ \mathbf{x_{01}}$ which subsequently dissociates to two dipoles with the sizes
279: $ \mathbf{x_{02}}$ and $ \mathbf{x_{12}}$.
280: The rapidity $Y$ is defined as $Y=\ln (1/x)$.
281: First numerical solution of this equation was recently
282: obtained in Ref. \cite{LL1}.
283: At the energy equal to the minimal
284: energy gap diffraction is purely given
285: by the elastic scattering as it is stated in \eq{KMF}:
286: \beq\label{iniDD}
287: N^D(r_\perp,x_0,x_0;b)\,=\,N^2(r_\perp,x_0;b)\,.
288: \eeq
289:
290: In the present letter we compute the ratio $\si_{diff}/\si_{tot}$ in mass bins.
291: For the function $N$ and $N^D$ we use the numerical solutions
292: obtained in Refs. \cite{LGLM,LL1}.
293:
294:
295: The letter is organized as follows. In the next section (2) we compute the
296: $\si_{diff}/\si_{tot}$ ratio. To this goal we first study the
297: $b$-dependence of the amplitude $N^D$. Discussion of the results is presented
298: in section 3. We conclude in the last section (4).
299:
300: \section{$\si_{diff}/\si_{tot}$}
301:
302: We assume the following
303: $b$-dependence of $N^D$:
304: \beq
305: \label{NDb}
306: N^D(r_\perp,x,x_0; b)\,=\, (1\,-\,e^{-\kappa^D(x,x_0,r_\perp)\, S(b)})^2,
307: \eeq
308: with
309: \beq
310: \label{kappaD}
311: \kappa^D(x,x_0,r_\perp)\,=\,-\,\ln(1\,-\,\sqrt{\tilde N^D(r_\perp,x,x_0)}).
312: \eeq
313: $\tilde N^D(r_\perp,x,x_0)$ computed in Ref. \cite{LL1}
314: represents a solution of the
315: same equation (\ref{DDEQ}) but with no dependence on the forth variable.
316: The initial conditions for the function
317: $\tilde N^D(r_\perp,x,x_0)$ are set at $b=0$. In order to estimate the accuracy
318: of the anzatz (\ref{NDb}) the non-linear equation (\ref{DDEQ}) was solved
319: for several values of $b$ with the only assumption $r_\perp \ll b$. The
320: comparison with the anzatz is shown in Fig. \ref{bdep}.
321:
322: \begin{figure}[htbp]
323: \begin{tabular}{c c c}
324: \epsfig{file=x3b4f.eps,width=54mm, height=45mm}&
325: \epsfig{file=x3b9f.eps,width=50mm, height=45mm}&
326: \epsfig{file=x3b16f.eps,width=50mm, height=45mm}\\
327: \end{tabular}
328: \caption[]{\it The comparison between the anzatz (\ref{NDb})(dashed line)
329: and the true $b$-dependence (solid line). The curves are plotted as a
330: function of distance at fixed $x=10^{-3}$.}
331: \label{bdep}
332: \end{figure}
333:
334: The anzatz (\ref{NDb}) underestimates significantly
335: the correct $b$-dependence
336: of the amplitude and the mismatch grows with $b$. Similar underestimation
337: was obtained for the function $N$ in Ref. \cite{LGLM} and it can be naturally
338: explained \cite{LL}. It is important to note, however, that the mismatch
339: of the function $N^D$ is significantly larger than the one of the function
340: $N$. In the final computation of the ratio this fact leads to
341: underestimation of the ratio especially for smaller $Q^2$.
342:
343:
344: $\si_{diff}(x,x_0,Q^2)$ is the cross section for the diffractive production
345: of all masses below given $M^2=Q^2(x_0-x)/x$. Hence
346: the result for a mass bin can be obtained as a difference between two
347: cross sections corresponding to largest and smallest masses in the bin.
348: Fig. \ref{ra} presents the $R=\si_{diff}/\si_{tot}$ which is a
349: main result of this letter.
350: \begin{figure}[htbp]
351: \begin{tabular}{c c c}
352: \epsfig{file=ratM1f.eps,width=54mm, height=45mm}&
353: \epsfig{file=ratM2f.eps,width=50mm, height=45mm}&
354: \epsfig{file=ratM3f.eps,width=50mm, height=45mm}\\
355: \end{tabular}
356: \caption[]{\it The ratio $\si_{diff}/\si_{tot}$ as a function of $W$. a -
357: $Q^2=8\,\,GeV^2$, b - $Q^2=14\,\,GeV^2$, c - $Q^2=27\,\,GeV^2$,
358: and d - $Q^2=60\,\,GeV^2$. }
359: \label{ra}
360: \end{figure}
361: From Fig. \ref{ra} the ratio $R$ is observed to be
362: practically independent on the energy $W$. This result
363: captures the main feature of the experimental data (Fig. \ref{fig1}). However
364: the absolute values of the ratios are not reproduced correctly. There are
365: several reasons for this discrepancy which are listed below.
366: \begin{itemize}
367: \item Due to numerical limitations the $b$-dependences of both functions $N$
368: and $N^D$ were simplified and both total and diffractive cross sections were
369: underestimated. However, as was argued above the corresponding errors are
370: not fully canceled in the ratio. More correct treatment of the $b$-dependence
371: is likely to enhance the ratio at relatively small $Q^2$.
372: \item Both the non-linear evolution equations used in the analysis are valid at
373: very low $x$. Moreover, they do not incorporate the correct DGLAP kernel at
374: high $Q^2$. The experimental data of Fig. \ref{fig1} covers kinematic domain
375: where these equations are expected to gain corrections due to
376: DGLAP kernel \cite{LGLM,talk}.
377: \item The experimental data (Fig. \ref{fig1}) includes target excitations
378: which are not accounted by the evolution equations. These excitations could
379: in principal reach up to 30\% of the diffractive production \cite{GLMDD}.
380: \end{itemize}
381: The above sources of the uncertainty may potentially change
382: the ratios significantly. Nevertheless we believe that their
383: approximate energy independence would persist in any case. In our opinion,
384: this independence is rather fundamental and related to the scaling phenomena.
385: We will discuss the issue in the next section.
386:
387:
388: \section{Discussion}
389:
390: In this section we will argue that the energy independence of the
391: $\si_{diff}/\si_{tot}$ ratio can be traced back
392: to the scaling property displayed by the amplitudes $N$ and $N^D$
393: and to the fact that both saturation
394: scales depend on $x$ with the very same power $\lambda$ \cite{LL1}.
395:
396: Both the amplitudes $N$ and $N^D$ were discovered to display the remarkable
397: scaling phenomena \cite{me,LL1}. Namely,
398: \beq\label{sc}
399: N(r_\perp,x;b)\,=\,N(\tau;b);\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\tau\,\equiv\, r_\perp\, Q_s(x);
400: \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,Q_s(x)\,=\,Q_{s0}\,x^{-\lambda};\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
401: \lambda\,=\,0.35\,\pm \,0.04\,.
402: \eeq
403: \begin{eqnarray}\label{scD}
404: N^D(r_\perp,x,x_0;b)\,&=&\,N(\tau^D;b)\,;\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
405: \tau^D\,\equiv\, r_\perp\, Q_s^D(x,x_0)\,;\nonumber \\
406: \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,Q_s^D(x,x_0)\,&=&\,Q_{s0}^D(x_0)\,x^{-\lambda}\,;
407: \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\lambda\,=\,0.37\,\pm\, 0.04\,.
408: \end{eqnarray}
409: The function $Q_{s0}^D(x_0)$ has a very weak dependence on $x_0$. With a quite
410: good accuracy the scaling (\ref{sc}, \ref{scD}) was found for all $x$ below
411: $x=10^{-2}$ \cite{me,LL1}.
412:
413: Assuming (\ref{sc}, \ref{scD}) to be exact property, we can plug the amplitudes
414: into the cross section. As a result, the ratio $R$ is given by the following
415: expression:
416: \beq\label{Rsc}
417: R\,=\,\frac{Q_s^{D\,2}(x,x_0^h)\,f^D(Q/Q_s^D)\,-\,
418: Q_s^{D\,2}(x,x_0^l)\,f^D(Q/Q_s^D)}{Q_s^2(x)\,f^{tot}(Q/Q_s)}\,.
419: \eeq
420: In (\ref{Rsc}) $x_0^{h,l}$ correspond to high and low masses in a given mass
421: bin. The functions $f^{tot}$ and $f^D$ are obtained as a result of the
422: dipole degree of freedom integrations. For the sake of transparency we use the small $z$
423: approximation to simplify the wave function integration \cite{MU90,WF} :
424: \beq \label{D1}
425: \int d^2 \,r_\perp \,\int dz \, P^{\gamma^*}(z,r_\perp;Q^2)\,\,\,\rightarrow\,\,\,
426: const \times \int_{4/Q^2}
427: \frac{d^2\,r_\perp}{Q^2\,\,r_\perp^4}\,.
428: \eeq
429: Using \eq{D1} one can obtain the following expressions for $\sigma_{tot}$ and
430: $\sigma_{diff}$:
431: \begin{eqnarray}
432: \sigma_{tot}\,\,&=&\,\,const \times \int_{4/Q^2}
433: \frac{d^2\,r_\perp}{Q^2\,\,r_\perp^4}\,\int\,d^2\,b
434: \,\,N(r_{\perp},x;b)\,\,=\,\,const\,\,
435: \tau^2\,\int_{\tau}\,\frac{d \tau'}{\tau'^3}\,\int d^2 b
436: \,\,N(\tau';b)\,\,;\nonumber \\ \label{D2}\\
437: \sigma_{diff}\,&=&\,const \times \int_{4/Q^2}
438: \frac{d^2\,r_\perp}{Q^2\,r_\perp^4}\int d^2\,b
439: \,N^D(r_{\perp},x,x_0;b)\,=\,const\,
440: \tau^{D\,2}\int_{\tau^D}\,\frac{d \tau'^D}{\tau'^{D\,3}}\int d^2 b
441: \,N^D(\tau'^D;b)\,.\nonumber
442: \end{eqnarray}
443:
444: These equations show that the main contribution in integration over $\tau$ stems
445: from
446: the region of small $\tau$ (small dipole sizes). It was shown in Refs.
447: \cite{Braun,LGLM,LL,Braun2,LL1,me} that both $N(r_{\perp},x;b )$ and
448: $N^D(r_{\perp},x,x_0;b)$ at low $x$ display scaling properties even at short
449: distances where $N \,\propto \,r^2_{\perp}\,Q^2_s(x)$ and $ N^D
450: \,\propto\,\left( \,r^2_{\perp}\,Q^{D\,\,2}_s(x,x_0)\,\right)^2$.
451: Substituting these estimates in \eq{D2} one can see that
452: \begin{eqnarray}
453: \sigma_{tot}
454: \,\,&\propto &\,\,S\,\,\tau^2\,\ln(\tau)\,\,+\,\,Const\,\,;\label{D4}\\
455: \sigma_{diff}\, &\propto &\,\,S\,\tau^{D\,\,2} \,\,Const\,\,,\label{D5}
456: \end{eqnarray}
457: with $S$ standing for the target
458: transverse area.
459:
460: Consequently, the main power dependence on $x$ (or $W$) comes from the
461: saturation scales $Q_s$ and $Q_s^D$, which cancels in the ratio. As a result,
462: at most logararithmic dependence could be expected for the ratio.
463:
464: In our opinion, the scaling property is a fundamental block in explaining
465: the energy independence of the ratio $R$.
466: So successful GW saturation model has this scaling built in \cite{GW}.
467: To conclude the discussion it is important to note that the scaling (\ref{sc})
468: was discovered in the experimental data on the structure function $F_2$
469: \cite{scaling}. Hence any possible corrections to our analysis mentioned
470: in the previous section are unlikely to spoil the scaling phenomena.
471:
472:
473: \section{Conclusions}
474:
475: The letter presents our attempt to reproduce the experimental data
476: (Fig. \ref{fig1}) on $\si_{diff}/\si_{tot}$ ratio as a function of the produced mass.
477: In particular focus is the energy independence of the ratios, which is well
478: established experimentally \cite{ZEUSDATA}.
479:
480: The analysis is carried on a basis of the non-linear evolution equations
481: derived for the total DIS production in Ref. \cite{BA,KO} and for the
482: diffractive production in Ref. \cite{LK}. The numerical solutions of these
483: equations used for the analysis were obtained in Refs. \cite{LGLM,LL1}.
484:
485: Though our results (Fig. \ref{ra}) fail to reproduce correctly the experimental
486: data, they successfully reproduce the desired energy independence of the
487: ratios. This independence is explained by relating it to the
488: scaling phenomena which are argued to be a fundamental property of DIS at
489: low $x$ starting from $x \approx 10^{-2}$. These scaling phenomena are
490: found to hold approximately even at short distances ($r_\perp \ll 1/Q_s$) which
491: give dominant contributions to the computed cross sections.
492:
493:
494:
495: \section*{Acknowledgments}
496:
497: The authors are very thankful to Jochen Bartels,
498: Krystoff Golec-Biernat and Yuri Kovchergov
499: for numerous elucidating discussions on
500: diffraction production in DIS. We would like to thank Boris Blok,
501: Asher Gotsman, Uri Maor, Eran Naftali and Kirill Tuchin
502: for many helpful and encouraging discussions. We thank DESY theory group
503: and Hamburg University Institute of theoretical physics for their
504: hospitality.
505:
506:
507: The research of
508: E. L. was supported in part by the BSF grant $\#$ 9800276, by GIF grant $\#$
509: I-620.-22.1411444 and by
510: Israeli Science Foundation, founded by the Israeli Academy of Science
511: and Humanities.
512: The work of M.L. was partially supported by the Minerva Foundation and its
513: financial help is gratefully acknowledged.
514:
515: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
516:
517:
518: \bibitem{ZEUSDATA}
519: ZEUS collaboration: J. Breitweg et al., {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C6}
520: (1999) 43;\\
521: H1 collaboration: C. Adloff et al., {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C 76} (1997) 613;\\
522: see also H. Abramowicz and J. Dainton, { \it J. Phys.} {\bf G 22} (1996), 911.
523:
524: \bibitem{GW} K. Golec-Biernat and M. W\"{u}sthoff, \prd{59}{99}{014017}.
525:
526:
527: %\cite{Kovchegov:1999kx}
528: \bibitem{KM}
529: Y.~V.~Kovchegov and L.~McLerran,
530: %``Diffractive structure function in a quasi-classical approximation,''
531: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\,} {\bf D 60} (1999) 054025,
532: Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf D 62} (1999) 019901.
533: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903246;%%
534: \bibitem{MU90}
535: A. H. Mueller: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B335} (1990) 115.
536: \bibitem{WF}
537: N.N.Nikolaev and B.G. Zakharov, \zpc{49}{91}{607},\plb{260}{91}{414};
538: E. Levin and M. W\"{u}sthoff, \prd{50}{94}{4306}; E. Levin, A.D. Martin,
539: M.G. Ryskin and T. Teubner, \zpc{74}{97}{671}.
540:
541:
542:
543: \bibitem{GLR} L. V. Gribov, E. M. Levin, and M. G. Ryskin, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf
544: 100}
545: (1981) 1.
546: \bibitem{MUQI}
547: A. H. Mueller and J. Qiu, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 268} (1986) 427.
548:
549: \bibitem{MU94}
550: A. H. Mueller, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 415} (1994) 373.
551:
552: \bibitem{BA}
553: Ia. Balitsky, {\it Nucl. Phys. } {\bf B 463} (1996) 99.
554:
555: \bibitem{KO}
556: Yu. Kovchegov,
557: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 60} (2000) 034008.
558:
559: \bibitem{Braun}
560: M. Braun, {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C 16} (2000) 337, {\tt hep-ph/0101070}.
561:
562:
563: \bibitem{ILM}
564: E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, and L. McLerran, {\tt hep-ph/0011241};
565: E. Iancu and L. McLerran, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 510} (2001) 145.
566:
567: \bibitem{LT}
568: Yu. Kovchegov, { \it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 61} (2000) 074018;
569: E. Levin and K. Tuchin, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 573} (2000) 833;
570: {\tt hep-ph/01012175}; {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A 691} (2001) 779.
571:
572:
573: \bibitem{LGLM} M. Lublinsky, E. Gotsman, E. Levin, and U. Maor,
574: {\tt hep-ph/0102321},
575: to be published in {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A}.
576:
577: \bibitem{LL} E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, {\tt hep-ph/0104108},
578: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A} (in press).
579:
580:
581: \bibitem{Braun2} N. Armesto and M. Braun, {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C 20} (2001) 517.
582:
583: %\cite{Gotsman:2000gb}
584: \bibitem{GLMDD}
585: E.~Gotsman, E.~Levin, M.~Lublinsky, U.~Maor and K.~Tuchin,
586: {\tt hep-ph/0007261}, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A} (in press).
587: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007261;%%
588:
589: %\cite{Kopeliovich:2001pc}
590: \bibitem{KOP}
591: B.~Z.~Kopeliovich, I.~K.~Potashnikova, B.~Povh and E.~Predazzi,
592: %``Soft QCD dynamics of elastic scattering in impact parameter
593: %representation,''
594: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\,} {\bf D 63} (2001) 054001.
595: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009008;%%
596:
597: %\cite{Kovner:2001vi}
598: \bibitem{KOVN}
599: A.~Kovner and U.~A.~Wiedemann,
600: %{\it ``Eikonal evolution and gluon radiation''},
601: {\tt hep-ph/0106240}.
602: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106240;%%
603: %\cite{Kovchegov:2001ni}
604:
605: \bibitem{KOV}
606: Y.~V.~Kovchegov,
607: %{\it ``Diffractive gluon production in proton nucleus collisions and in DIS,''}
608: {\tt hep-ph/0107256}.
609: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107256;%%
610:
611:
612:
613: \bibitem{LK} Yu. Kovchegov and E. Levin, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 577} (2000) 221.
614:
615: \bibitem{LL1} E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, {\tt hep-ph/0108239}.
616:
617: \bibitem{talk} M. Lublinsky, {\tt hep-ph/0106114}.
618:
619: \bibitem{me} M. Lublinsky, {\tt hep-ph/0106112},
620: {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C} (in press).
621:
622:
623: \bibitem{scaling} K. Golec-Biernat, J. Kwiecinski, and A. M. Stasto,
624: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86} (2001) 596.
625:
626:
627: \end{thebibliography}
628:
629: \end{document}
630: