1: \documentclass[a4paper,twoside,notoc,12pt]{JHEP3}

2: \usepackage{epsfig,multicol}

3: 

4: %\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.2cm}

5: %\setlength{\textwidth}{16.9cm}

6: %\setlength{\topmargin}{-1cm}

7: %\setlength{\textheight}{23cm}

8: 

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

10: %%%%%%%%%%%% Options: preprint* published, (no)hyper*, paper, draft,

11: %%%%%%%%%%%%          a4paper*, letterpaper, legalpaper, executivepaper

12: %%%%%%%%%%%%          11pt, 12pt*, oneside*, twoside

13: %%%%%%%%%%%%          *=default

14: %%%%%%%%%%%% \title{...}

15: %%%%%%%%%%%% \author{...\\...}

16: %%%%%%%%%%%% \email{...}

17: %%%%%%%%%%%% \author{...\thanks{...}\\...}

18: %%%%%%%%%%%% \abstract{...}

19: %%%%%%%%%%%% \keywords{...}

20: %%%%%%%%%%%% \preprint{...}

21: %%%%%%%%%%%% or \received{...} \accepted{...} \JHEP{...}

22: %%%%%%%%%%%% \dedicated{...}

23: %%%%%%%%%%%% \aknowledgments

24: %%%%%%%%%%%% -- No pagestyle formatting.

25: %%%%%%%%%%%% -- No size formatting.

26: 

27: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

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

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

30: \newcommand{\beqa} {\begin{eqnarray}}

31: \newcommand{\eeqa} {\end{eqnarray}}

32: \newcommand{\mrm}[1] {{\mathrm{#1}}}

33: \newcommand{\mbf}[1] {{\mathbf{#1}}}

34: 

35: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}

36: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.}}

37: \newcommand{\cf}{{\it cf.}}

38: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}}

39: 

40: \newcommand\mev{~{\rm MeV}}

41: \newcommand\gev{~{\rm GeV}}

42: \newcommand{\as}{\alpha_s}

43: \newcommand{\lqcd}{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}

44: \newcommand{\ieps}{i\varepsilon}

45: \newcommand{\order}[1]{${\cal O}\left(#1 \right)$}

46: \newcommand{\morder}[1]{{\cal O}\left(#1 \right)}

47: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

48: 

49: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\vert{#1}\rangle}

50: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle{#1}\vert}

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

52: 

53: \newcommand{\half}{{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}

54: \newcommand{\halft}{{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}}

55: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lesssim}

56: \newcommand{\gsim}{\gtrsim}

57: \newcommand{\ol}{\overline}

58: \newcommand{\zb}{\bar z}

59: 

60: \newcommand{\Lslash}[1]{ \parbox[b]{1em}{$#1$} \hspace{-0.8em}

61:                                  \parbox[b]{0.8em}{

62: \raisebox{0.2ex}{$/$}}}

63: \newcommand{\Slash}[1]{ \parbox[b]{0.6em}{$#1$} \hspace{-0.55em}

64:                                  \parbox[b]{0.55em}{ \raisebox

65: {-0.2ex}{$/$}}}

66: \newcommand{\aslash}[1]{ \rlap{/}{#1} }

67: 

68: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

69: 

70: \newcommand\sh{\hat{s}}

71: \newcommand\uh{\hat{u}}

72: 

73: \newcommand{\tr}[1]{ {\bf #1}_\perp}

74: \newcommand{\ov}[1]{\overline#1}

75: 

76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

77: 

78: \def\pit{P}         % definition of transverse pi    momemtum

79: \def\qt{k}          %                          quark

80: 

81: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

82: 

83: \title{Subprocess Size in Hard Exclusive Scattering}

84: \author{Paul Hoyer$^1$, Jonathan T.\ Lenaghan$^{2,3}$, Kimmo

85: Tuominen$^{4,5}$ and Carsten Vogt$^4$\\

86: $^1$Department of Physical Sciences and

87: Helsinki Institute of Physics\\ \vspace{3mm}

88: POB 64, FIN-00014 Helsinki University, Finland\\

89: $^2$Department of Physics, University of Virginia\\\vspace{3mm}

90: 382 McCormick Rd.,Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA\\

91: $^3$Niels Bohr Institute and $^4$Nordita\\ Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100

92: Copenhagen, Denmark}

93: 

94: \preprint{May, 2004\\ HIP-2002-47/TH \\ NORDITA-2002-67 HE\\

95: \hepph{0210124}}

96: 

97: \abstract{The interaction region of hard exclusive hadron

98: scattering can have a large transverse size due to endpoint

99: contributions, where one parton carries most of the hadron

100: momentum. The endpoint region is enhanced and can dominate in

101: processes involving multiple scattering and quark helicity flip.

102: The endpoint Fock states have perturbatively short lifetimes and

103: scatter softly in the target. We give plausible arguments that

104: endpoint contributions can explain the apparent absence of color

105: transparency in fixed angle exclusive scattering and the

106: dimensional scaling of transverse $\rho$ photoproduction at high

107: momentum transfer, which requires quark helicity flip. We also

108: present a quantitative estimate of Sudakov effects.}

109: 

110: \keywords{Perturbative QCD, Exclusive reactions}

111: 

112: \begin{document}

113: 

114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

115: \section{The dynamics of endpoint contributions}

116: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

117: 

118: In the Brodsky-Lepage (BL)

119: framework of exclusive scattering

120: \cite{bl:1980,Brodsky:1989pv}, the amplitude for a process $A+B \to C+D$

121: factorizes at large $t=(p_A-p_C)^2$ into a hard subprocess $a+b

122: \to c+d$ times distribution amplitudes $\phi_{a/A},\ldots$ for

123: each external hadron. Here $a$ represents the valence Fock state

124: of hadron $A$ (\eg, $a = uud$ for the proton). The distribution

125: amplitude is the valence Fock state amplitude at equal Light-Cone

126: (LC) time, integrated over the relative transverse momenta of the

127: partons up to a hard scale of $\morder{\sqrt{-t}}$. Hence all

128: hadrons involved in the scattering are in transversally compact

129: configurations. In the subprocess amplitude the momenta of the

130: partons in each hadron are effectively parallel, their relative

131: transverse momenta being negligible compared to the hard scale.

132: 

133: There are factorization theorems of various degree of rigour for QCD reactions. 

134: However, it should be kept in mind that for 

135: semi-exclusive processes and for hadronic projectiles in general, factorization is a 

136: strong assumption: no rigorous QCD proof exists. In this paper we qualitatively study 

137: which aspects of the data conform to general expectations when factorization is 

138: assumed. Our investigation builds on a physical picture rather than a precise 

139: formalism, and serves to indicate potential problems and possible solutions. This will 

140: hopefully guide the development of a more systematic formalism in future work.

141: 

142: The assumed factorization framework may indeed fail due to endpoint contributions in 

143: the integration over the longitudinal momentum

144: fractions of the quarks \cite{Brodsky:1989pv,ilr}.

145: The longitudinal momentum of a quark with fraction

146: $z \lsim \lqcd/p^+$ of its parent hadron momentum~$p^+$

147: (in a frame where the hadron moves fast along the $z$-axis)

148: is no larger than its transverse momentum.

149: Hence the quark is isotropically

150: distributed in momentum space and outside the light-cone

151: formed by the fast quarks of the subprocess. The virtualities of

152: subprocess propagators decrease with $z$, allowing hadron Fock

153: states of large transverse size to contribute near the endpoints.

154: 

155: The lifetime $\tau$ of a Fock state in a parent hadron of high

156: momentum $p^+= E+p^z$ is inversely proportional to the difference

157: between its energy and that of the hadron,

158: \beq \label{lifetime}

159: \frac{1}{\tau} \simeq \sum_i E_i - E \simeq \sum_i

160: \frac{k_{\perp i}^2 + m_i^2}{z_i \, p^+} - \frac{M^2}{p^+} \,,

161: \eeq

162: where $M$ is the mass of the parent. The second approximation between

163: the ordinary and light-cone energy differences is valid when

164: $z_i \, p^+=k_i^+ \gg k_{\perp i},m_i$ for all constituents~$i$ and

165: is thus {\em not} valid for Fock states in the endpoint region.

166: The lifetime of the endpoint Fock states is $\sim 1/\lqcd$,

167: which is short compared to the typical lifetimes of

168: \order{p^+/\lqcd^2} of Fock states where all constituents have

169: comparable momentum fractions~$z_i$.

170: 

171: The nature of endpoint dynamics is illustrated by Deep Inelastic

172: Scattering ($e \, p \to e \, X$, DIS). In the aligned jet (parton

173: model) regime the virtual photon with $q^+ \simeq 2 \, \nu$ splits

174: asymmetrically into a $q\bar q$ pair, such that $z_{\bar q} \sim

175: \lqcd^2/Q^2$ and $k_{\perp\bar q} \sim \lqcd$~\cite{bks,bhm}.

176: Thus the antiquark momentum $k_{\bar q}^+ = z_{\bar q} \, q^+

177: \simeq \lqcd^2/(m_N x_B)$ stays finite in the Bjorken limit. The

178: probability $\propto 1/Q^2$ of the asymmetric photon splitting

179: determines the scaling of the DIS cross section,

180: $\sigma_{tot}(\gamma^*p) \propto 1/Q^2$. The non-perturbative

181: scattering cross section $\sigma[(q\bar q)N] \sim 1/\lqcd^2$ of

182: the $q\bar q$ Fock state corresponds to the quark distribution

183: $f_{q/N}(x_B)$ in the $q^- \simeq 2 \, \nu$ (or Breit) frame.

184: 

185: The endpoint dynamics was also studied for quarkonium

186: hadroproduction, $\pi N \to J/\psi + X$ \cite{bhmt}. QCD

187: factorization breaks down when the quarkonium carries large

188: fractional momentum, $x_F \simeq 1- \lqcd^2/M_{J/\psi}^2$. In

189: this regime there is no hard scattering on a target parton (\eg,

190: in a subprocess such as $gg \to c\bar c$). Rather, a compact

191: Fock state in the pion  projectile fluctuates into an endpoint

192: state where nearly all momentum is carried by the heavy quark

193: pair. The light valence quarks have transverse momenta of

194: \order{\lqcd} and their soft, non-perturbative scattering in the

195: target liberates the heavy quarks, which then appear in the final

196: state.

197: 

198: According to Eq. \eq{lifetime} all endpoint configurations have

199: short lifetimes in spite of their large transverse size. Like

200: compact states they thus have a low number of constituents -- in

201: particular, comoving fields that have long formation times are

202: absent. Hence there is no enhanced forward radiation in scattering

203: processes.

204: 

205: The large size of endpoint configurations favors multiple

206: scattering in the target. This enhances their importance in

207: diffractive processes which require color singlet exchange. The

208: aligned jet configuration contributes at leading twist to

209: diffractive DIS, whereas multiple scattering of the compact,

210: symmetric $q\bar q$ configurations is power suppressed. Endpoint

211: configurations are also enhanced in scattering on nuclear

212: targets due to the increased importance of multiple scattering.

213: The nuclear dependence in effect measures the size of the

214: contributing Fock states. The apparent absence of color

215: transparency in large angle $e \, p \to e \, p$ \cite{ctep} and

216: $p \, p \to p \, p$ \cite{ctpp} scattering, with the target proton

217: embedded in a nucleus, may signal dominant endpoint contributions

218: in these processes\footnote{See Ref.~\cite{Sargsian:2002wc} for a

219: discussion and alternative explanations.}.

220: 

221: Quark helicity flip in hard photon and gluon interactions is

222: suppressed by a factor $m_q/k_\perp$. Helicity is therefore

223: conserved at leading twist in BL factorization. On

224: the other hand, the low $k_\perp \sim \lqcd$ of endpoint

225: constituents implies that quark helicity flip is not suppressed.

226: The relative importance of amplitudes with quark helicity flip

227: is thus another measure of endpoint contributions.

228: 

229: The LC energy difference in \eq{lifetime} diverges when any

230: fractional momentum $z_i \to 0$. This is the reason why

231: distribution amplitudes, which are defined at equal LC time,

232: vanish at the endpoints \cite{bl:1980,Brodsky:1989pv}. As we

233: emphasized above, however, target scattering is soft in the

234: endpoint regime, implying a breakdown of LC dominance and of

235: factorization into hard subprocess and distribution amplitudes.

236: For this dynamics it is more natural to use the difference of

237: ordinary energies in~\eq{lifetime} which stays finite (albeit large)

238: in the $z_i \to 0$ limit. This increases the importance of endpoint

239: contributions in convolution integrals.

240: 

241: In this paper we study two processes where data indicates that

242: endpoint contributions dominate. The perturbative QCD (PQCD)

243: estimate for $d\sigma/dt(\gamma \, p \to \pi^+ n)$, obtained from

244: the semi-exclusive process $\gamma \, p \to \pi^+ Y$

245: (Fig.~1)~\cite{BDHP:1998} using Bloom-Gilman duality~\cite{BG, CEBAF},

246: is two orders of magnitude below the data \cite{hoyer:2001}. In

247: section~2 we show that the transverse size of the  $\gamma \, u \to

248: \pi^+ d$ subprocess is effectively large, and that the color

249: transparency assumed in the semi-exclusive process is thus

250: likely to be violated.

251: 

252: Recent high energy data on $\rho^0$ and $\phi$ meson

253: photoproduction show a dominance of quark helicity flip out to

254: large momentum transfer $|t| \lsim 12

255: \gev^2$~\cite{Chekanov:2002}. In section~3 we study the properties

256: of the $\gamma \, g \to \rho\, g$ subprocess amplitude. The

257: amplitude for longitudinally polarized $\rho$ mesons (which

258: conserves quark helicity) vanishes for real external photons. The

259: amplitude for transversely polarized $\rho$'s (which dominates in

260: the data) has strongly enhanced endpoint contributions. Due to the

261: suppression of quark helicity flip in hard scattering only the

262: soft endpoint contributions can potentially explain the observed

263: dimensional scaling of the cross section. We discuss qualitatively

264: how the endpoint region might give rise to dimensional scaling.

265: 

266: 

267: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

268: \section{The size of $\gamma \, u \to \pi^+ d$}

269: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

270: 

271: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

272: \FIGURE[t]{\epsfig{file=Fig1.eps,width=.6\textwidth}

273: \caption{Semi-exclusive scattering. In the limit (2.1) the cross

274: section factorizes into a hard subprocess cross section

275: $\hat\sigma$ times a target parton distribution.}}

276: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

277: 

278: Our study of the $\gamma \, u \to \pi^+ d$ process is motivated by

279: its role as a subprocess of semi-exclusive $\gamma \, p \to \pi^+

280: Y$ scattering. Although no rigorous proof exists, the applicability of factorization 

281: is often assumed. Then, in the kinematic limit

282: \beq \label{sexlimit}

283: s \gg -t, M_Y^2 \gg \lqcd^2 \,,

284: \eeq

285: where (\cf\ Fig.~1) $s=(q+p)^2 = E_{\rm CM}^2$ and the invariant

286: momentum transfer $t=(q-P)^2$, the semi-exclusive cross section

287: reads~\cite{BDHP:1998}

288: \beq \label{sexsigma}

289: \frac{d\,\sigma}{dt}(\gamma \, p \to \pi^+ Y) = \sum_{q=u,\bar d}

290: f_{q/p}(x)\, \frac{d\hat{\sigma}}{dt}(\gamma \, q \to \pi^+ q') \,.

291: \eeq

292: The fractional momentum of the struck quark is $x=-t/(M_Y^2-t)$

293: and the subprocess cross section is given by

294: ($\hat s = xs$)

295: \begin{eqnarray}\label{subsigma}

296:       \frac{d\hat{\sigma}}{dt}(\gamma \, u \to \pi^+ d) =

297:           \frac{256\,\pi^2\,\alpha\,\as^2}{27\,\hat{s}^2\,|t|} \,

298:           (e_u - e_d)^2 \,

299:           \left[ \int_0^1 dz \, \frac{\Phi_\pi(z)}{z} \right]^2 \,.

300: \end{eqnarray}

301: Here $\Phi_\pi(z)$ is the pion distribution amplitude, \ie, its

302: Fock state wave function for a $u\bar d$ pair at short

303: transverse distance $\sim \morder{1/\sqrt{-t}}$, with the

304: $u$-quark carrying a fraction $z$ of the pion momentum. A color

305: singlet $u\bar d$ pair of small transverse size does not

306: rescatter in the proton target, giving the simple expression

307: \eq{sexsigma} for the semi-exclusive cross section.

308: 

309: There is as yet no data on $\gamma \, p \to \pi^+ Y$ in the kinematic

310: region~\eq{sexlimit}. Assuming that semi-exclusive processes obey

311: Bloom-Gilman duality, one may relate the $\gamma \, p \to \pi^+ Y$

312: cross section to the one for $\gamma \, p \to \pi^+ n$. However, the

313: measured $\gamma \, p \to \pi^+ n$ cross section is so large that

314: Bloom-Gilman duality would have to fail by two orders of magnitude

315: for the prediction of the semi-exclusive cross section to be

316: correct~\cite{hoyer:2001}.

317: 

318: In light of the recent experimental evidence for

319: Bloom-Gilman duality in inclusive reactions~\cite{CEBAF},

320: such a gross failure seems rather unlikely. A more plausible

321: explanation is that~\eq{sexsigma} is an underestimate of the true

322: $\gamma \, p \to \pi^+ Y$ cross section due to a lack of color

323: transparency.

324: 

325: We shall use the photon virtuality as a probe of the transverse

326: size of the subprocess \eq{subsigma}. The cross section is

327: independent of $Q^2$ when the size of the scattering region is

328: small compared to $1/Q^2$. We employ the asymptotic distribution

329: amplitude

330: \beq \label{asdist}

331: \Phi_\pi(z) = \frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}f_\pi\, z(1-z)

332: \eeq

333: ($f_\pi\simeq 130$ MeV) and neglect quark masses ($m_q=0$). In

334: Fig.~2 we show the differential cross section

335: $d\sigma/dt(\gamma_\mrm{\, T}^*(Q^2) \, u \to \pi^+ d)$ (solid line)

336: for a transversely polarized virtual photon as a function the

337: dimensionless ratio $Q^2/|t|$. While the real photon cross

338: section given by~\eq{subsigma} is finite, its {\em slope} at

339: $Q^2=0$ is (as we shall see, logarithmically) infinite. Thus,

340: however big the momentum transfer $|t|$ is, the transverse size

341: of the photon scattering region remains large. For comparison we

342: also show (dashed line in Fig.~2) that the Compton scattering

343: $\gamma^* e \to \gamma \, e$ cross section is independent of $Q^2$

344: in the limit $s \gg |t|$, as expected due to the pointlike nature

345: of the photon.

346: 

347: 

348: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

349: \FIGURE[h]{\epsfig{file=Fig2.eps,width=0.6\textwidth}

350: \caption{$d\sigma/dt(\gamma_\mrm{\, T}^*(Q^2)+u \to \pi^+ +d)$

351: for a transversely polarized photon as a function of $Q^2/|t|$

352: (solid line). For comparison, we show the corresponding plot for

353: Compton scattering, $\gamma^*(Q^2)+e \to \gamma +e$ (dashed line).

354: The normalization is arbitrary.}}

355: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

356: 

357: 

358: The divergent slope of the meson photoproduction cross section

359: has already been noted by the authors of~\cite{ginz:1996}. They

360: concluded that the onset of the perturbative regime for the

361: production of light vector mesons is at rather large momentum

362: transfers, well beyond $30 \gev^2$.

363: 

364: The strong $Q^2$ dependence of the $\gamma^* u \to \pi^+ d$

365: cross section is due to endpoint contributions, even though the

366: $z$-integral in \eq{subsigma} is not enhanced near $z=0,1$. This

367: may be seen from the expression for the scattering amplitude,

368: which is a convolution of the pion distribution amplitude

369: \eq{asdist} with the $\gamma^* u \to (u\bar d) + d$ subamplitude

370: ${\cal H}_{\mu, \lambda\lambda'}^{\nu\nu'}$ (\cf\ Fig.~3a),

371: \beq \label{convamp}

372: {\cal M}_{\mu,\lambda\lambda'}^{AB}(\gamma^* + u \to \pi^+ + d) =

373:       \delta_{AB} \int_0^1 dz \,

374:        \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \, \Big[ {\cal H}_{\mu,\lambda\lambda'}^{+-}(z)

375:        - {\cal H}_{\mu,\lambda\lambda'}^{-+}(z) \Big] \,

376: \Phi_{\pi}(z) \,.

377: \eeq

378: Here $A,B$ are the color indices of the incoming $u$- and outgoing

379: $d$-quark, $\mu$ is the photon helicity, $\lambda\ (\lambda')$

380: is the incoming $u$-quark (outgoing $d$-quark) helicity and

381: $\nu\ (\nu')$ is the $u\ (\bar d)$ quark helicity in the pair

382: forming the $\pi^+$. For $m_u = m_d =0$ quark helicity is

383: conserved\footnote{Expressions for the helicity amplitudes for

384: $Q^2,m_q \neq 0$ are given in the Appendix.} and we shall only

385: consider the $\mu=+1, \lambda=\lambda'=-\half$ amplitude. In the

386: semi-exclusive limit~\eq{sexlimit}

387: ($s \gg -t,Q^2$),

388: \beq \label{subamp}

389:       {\cal H}^{-+}_{+,--} =

390:           - \frac{2 \sqrt{2} \, e \, (4 \pi \as) \, C_F}{\sqrt{-t}} \,

391:            \Bigg[ \frac{e_u}{ z - \bar{z} \, Q^2/t }

392:           - \frac{ e_d \, \zb }{z \, (\zb - z \, Q^2/t) } \Bigg] \,,

393: \eeq

394: where $C_F=(N_c^2-1)/2N_c$ is

395: the color factor and $\zb=1-z$.

396: We make the following observations:

397: \begin{itemize}

398: \item[(a)] At $Q^2=0$ the amplitude is $\propto (e_u-e_d)/z$.

399: This endpoint behavior therefore arises both from the photon coupling

400: to the `slow' $u$-quark and to the `fast' $d$-quark. On the

401: other hand, the amplitude is finite for $z \to 1$ since the

402: $u$-quark helicity $\nu = -\half$ is opposite to that of the photon

403: helicity $\mu = +1$.

404: Thus the helicity flip between the projectile and

405: fast outgoing particles is minimized.

406: 

407: \item[(b)] $d{\cal H}/dQ^2 \propto e_u/z^2$ for $z \to 0$ at

408: $Q^2=0$. The $1/z^2$ behavior gives a logarithmic singularity in

409: the convolution \eq{convamp} when $\Phi_{\pi}(z) \propto z$.

410: This is the origin of the infinite slope in Fig.~2. We also note

411: that the singular contribution arises from the photon coupling

412: to the {\em slow} quark.

413: 

414: This is distinct from the well known Feynman endpoint mechanism, where

415: the photon couples to the {\em fast} quark.

416: \end{itemize}

417: 

418: 

419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

420: \FIGURE[h]{\epsfig{file=Fig3.eps,width=.8\textwidth}

421: \caption{(a) A diagram contributing to $\gamma+u \to u\bar d +

422: d$. (b) A diagram contributing to $\gamma+g \to q\bar q + g$.}}

423: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

424: 

425: 

426: The $Q^2$-sensitivity is due to the large transverse size of the

427: $\gamma \, u \to \pi^+ d$ process, as can be seen explicitly from

428: the kinematics (\cf\ Fig.~3a). We use the notation

429: $v=[ \, v^+,v^-,\mbf{v}_\perp \, ]$ where $v^\pm = v^0 \pm v^3$

430: for light-cone coordinates and take the photon momentum in the

431: negative $z$-direction so that\footnote{For notational convenience

432: we denote the (target) $u$-quark momentum by $p$ and the subprocess

433: energy by $s$ rather than $\hat s$.}

434: \beqa \label{momdef}

435: p&=&\sqrt{s} \, [ \, 1 \, , \, 0 \, , \, \mbf{0}_\perp \, ] \,,\nn\\

436: q&=&\sqrt{s} \, [ \, 0 \, , \, 1 \, , \, \mbf{0}_\perp \, ] \,,\nn\\

437: \\

438: k_u&=&

439: \left[\frac{(z \, \mbf{\pit}_\perp+\mbf{\qt}_\perp)^2}{z

440: \sqrt{s}} \, , \,

441: z \sqrt{s} \, , \, z \, \mbf{\pit}_\perp +

442: \mbf{\qt}_\perp\right] \,, \nn\\

443: k_{\bar d}&=& \left[\frac{(\bar

444: z \, \mbf{\pit}_\perp-\mbf{\qt}_\perp)^2}{\bar z \sqrt{s}} \, , \, \bar

445: z \sqrt{s} \, , \, \bar z \, \mbf{\pit}_\perp -

446: \mbf{\qt}_\perp\right] \nn

447: \eeqa

448: for on-shell massless quarks.

449: $\mbf{\pit}_\perp$ denotes the pion's transverse momentum relative

450: to the collision axis and $\mbf{\qt}_\perp$ is the relative

451: transverse momentum of its $u\bar d$ constituents.

452: The pion momentum $P = k_u+k_{\bar d}$

453: satisfies\footnote{If the $u$ and $\bar d$ quarks are not

454: on-shell (as would be the case in the pion) we have

455: $P^2=(\qt_\perp^2+z k_u^2+\zb k_{\bar d}^2)/z\zb$. Hence an

456: off-shellness of \order{\qt_\perp^2} is sufficient to keep the

457: pion on-shell even for $z\to 0,1$.} $P^2= \qt_\perp^2/z\bar z$,

458: where $\qt_\perp = $ \order{\lqcd},

459: and the momentum transfer $t=(q-P)^2 = -\pit_\perp^2$.

460: 

461: The virtualities of the internal quark and gluon lines in Fig.~3a are

462: \beqa \label{virtualities}

463: \ell_u^2 &=& (q-k_u)^2 = -z \pit_\perp^2- 2 \,

464: \mbf{\pit}_\perp\cdot\mbf{\qt}_\perp-\qt_\perp^2/z \,,\\

465: \ell_g^2 &=& (p+\ell_u)^2 = \bar zs +\ell_u^2 \,.

466: \eeqa

467: In the semi-exclusive limit \eq{sexlimit} we see that $\ell_u^2$

468: becomes sensitive to $\mbf{\qt}_\perp$ for

469: \beq \label{softz}

470: z \lsim \frac{\qt_\perp}{\pit_\perp} \sim \frac{\lqcd}{\sqrt{-t}} \,.

471: \eeq

472: Hence the subprocess is not transversally compact: the distance

473: between the photon absorption and gluon emission vertices in Fig.~3a

474: is given by the inverse of $\ell_{u\perp} =|z \,

475: \mbf{\pit}_\perp+\mbf{\qt}_\perp| = \morder{\lqcd}$ in the region

476: \eq{softz}. Moreover, BL factorization fails in this

477: endpoint region since the hard subamplitude depends on the relative

478: momentum of the quarks in the pion. These consequences of the

479: kinematics imply the $Q^2$-sensitivity of the process.

480: 

481: We can also see why the large transverse size, \ie,

482: the $Q^2$-sensitivity, arises only from the photon coupling to the slow

483: quark. When the $u$-quark is fast, \ie, for $z \simeq 1-

484: \lqcd/\sqrt{-t}$, the transverse distance $1/\ell_{u\perp} =

485: \morder{1/\sqrt{|t|}}$ while $\ell_g^2 \propto s\lqcd/\sqrt{-t}$

486: remains large since $s \gg -t$. Hence the distances between all

487: interaction vertices in Fig.~3a are short for $z \to 1$.

488: 

489: The fact that the $Q^2$ derivative of the subprocess amplitude

490: \eq{subamp} is more endpoint sensitive than the the amplitude

491: itself shows that a size measurement introduces inverse factors

492: of $z$ and $1-z$. Our result does not change the fact that the

493: $z$-integral of the leading twist cross section is flat (for the

494: asymptotic distribution amplitude \eq{asdist}), and thus is

495: dominated by compact configurations. However, rescattering in

496: the target will introduce dipole factors proportional to the

497: transverse size and cause the convolution integral to be

498: endpoint dominated. A failure of color transparency is thus a

499: likely reason for the large discrepancy with data found in

500: Ref.~\cite{hoyer:2001} for the $\gamma \, p \to \pi^+ n$ cross

501: section.

502: 

503: An analogous sensitivity to small photon virtualities can be

504: observed for the photon-pion transition form factor~\cite{DKV1},

505: $\gamma^*(Q^2) \, \gamma^{(*)}(Q'^2) \to \pi^0\,$: its rate of

506: change is logarithmically divergent as the ratio $Q'^2/Q^2 \to 0$.

507: At $Q'^2 = 0$ the pion transition form factor is given by the

508: same integral over the distribution amplitude as appears in the

509: cross section~\eq{subsigma}. The fact that the

510: $\pi^0$ is produced in isolation and color transparency thus is

511: not an issue may explain the phenomenological success

512: (see~\cite{Gronberg:1997fj} and references therein)

513: of the PQCD prediction in this case.

514: 

515: We have checked that the Sudakov effect does not change our

516: conclusions, by applying the modified factorization approach of

517: Ref.~\cite{bls} to the subprocess $\gamma \, u \to \pi^+ d$ in the

518: above kinematical limit. In our numerical calculation we employed

519: the asymptotic distribution amplitude~(\ref{asdist}), and two

520: parametrizations of the transverse momentum dependence of the

521: pion's LC wave function: a Gaussian of the form~\cite{jak:1993}

522: $\exp[- a_\pi^2\,k_\perp^2/(z\bar z)]$, with $a_\pi \simeq 0.86

523: \gev^{-1}$ being the transverse size parameter, and a Gaussian of

524: the form~\cite{BHL} $\exp[- \beta^2\,(k_\perp^2 + m^2_{\rm

525: eff})/(z\bar z)]$ with an effective mass $m_{\rm eff}=0.33\gev$

526: and $\beta \simeq 0.94 \gev^{-1}$. In both cases we found moderate

527: Sudakov corrections of about 5 -- 10\%, which shows that Sudakov

528: effects do not play a signi\-ficant role in the present

529: discussion. Similar qualitative and quantitative conclusions about

530: the impact of Sudakov corrections have been reached in

531: Refs.~\cite{jain:1995,DKV1}.

532: 

533: 

534: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

535: \section{Dimensional scaling with quark helicity flip in $\gamma

536: +p \to \rho+Y$}

537: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

538: 

539: \subsection{The experimental evidence}

540: 

541: The ZEUS collaboration recently published~\cite{Chekanov:2002}

542: data on $\rho$ photoproduction, $\gamma +p \to \rho+Y$, in the

543: semi-exclusive kinematics specified by Eq.~\eq{sexlimit}. The

544: data cover $80 < \sqrt{s} < 120$ GeV, $1.1 < |t| < 12\ \gev^2$

545: and is integrated over $x=-t/(M_Y^2-t) \gsim 0.01$.

546: The scattering is believed to be dominantly diffractive and,

547: due to the high value of $|t|$, to provide a testing ground for

548: the BFKL exchange mechanism~\cite{bfkl}. The hard

549: subprocess is then $\gamma + g \to \rho+g$, with the t-channel

550: containing a two-gluon ladder and the $\rho$ emerging via its

551: distribution amplitude according to BL factorization.

552: 

553: However, the data \cite{Chekanov:2002} pose a serious challenge

554: to this picture. Dimensional scaling predicts

555: \beq \label{rhoscaling}

556: \frac{d\sigma(\gamma \, g \to \rho \, g)}{dt}

557: \propto \frac{I_\rho^2}{|t|^n}

558: \eeq

559: with  $n=3$. Here $I_\rho$ is an integral over the $\rho$

560: distribution amplitude with dimension GeV. In contrast to the

561: quark exchange cross section \eq{subsigma} there is no factor

562: $s$ in the denominator of this gluon exchange cross section. The

563: data agree with dimensional scaling, giving $n=3.21\pm 0.04 \pm

564: 0.15$ (in $\phi$ production the corresponding power is measured

565: to be $n=2.7 \pm 0.1 \pm 0.2$). Together with the fact that the

566: $\phi/\rho$ cross section ratio is consistent with the ratio 2/9

567: of the charge factors for $|t| \gsim 4\ \gev^2$, this suggests

568: that the $\gamma + g \to \rho+g$ process is hard and perturbative.

569: 

570: The upper part of the subprocess is shown in Fig.~3b. The quark

571: pair produced at the photon vertex scatters off the two gluons

572: and forms the vector meson via its distribution amplitude. The

573: vector meson is expected to be longitudinally polarized since

574: its quark and antiquark constituents have opposite helicities

575: due to helicity conservation at the photon and gluon vertices.

576: However, the ZEUS data show that the $\rho$ meson inherits (to a

577: good approximation and in the full $t$-range) the transverse

578: polarization of the incoming photon. In the BL factorization

579: framework this implies a quark helicity flip, incurring an

580: $m_q^2/|t|$ suppression factor in the cross section

581: \eq{rhoscaling}, which is then expected to scale with a power

582: $n=4$.

583: 

584: Thus, we are faced with a dilemma. The data obeys simple

585: dimensional scaling ($n=3$), is consistent with the quark

586: production process being hard ($\phi/\rho$ flavor symmetry

587: indicates insensitivity to $m_q$) and the semi-exclusively

588: produced $\rho$ meson carries both the momentum and the helicity

589: of the projectile. But these attractive features are mutually

590: inconsistent within the standard factorization

591: framework~\cite{bl:1980} of exclusive processes.

592: 

593: The authors of~\cite{ivanov:2000} consider the possibility

594: that the production of transverse vector mesons is due to a

595: non-perturbative, chiral-odd wave function of the photon, which

596: is proportional to the quark condensate. This contribution is

597: subleading at asymptotically large momentum transfers. In such

598: an approach the dimensional scaling observed~\cite{Chekanov:2002}

599: for $|t| \lsim 12 \gev^2$ would be accidental.

600: 

601: 

602: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

603: \subsection{The subprocess amplitudes}

604: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

605: 

606: To resolve the dilemma let us consider the structure of the

607: factorized $\gamma + g \to \rho+g$ amplitude. It is a convolution

608: of the quark pair production amplitude

609: ${\cal G}(\gamma + g \to q\bar q+g)$ and

610: the $\rho$ distribution amplitude $\Phi_\rho^{\mu'}$.

611: For example, for transversely polarized $(\mu'= +1)\ \rho$ mesons,

612: \beq \label{convampg}

613: {\cal M}_{\mu,\lambda\lambda'}^{ab}(\gamma + g \to \rho+g) =

614:        \delta_{ab}\int_0^1 dz \, {\cal

615: G}_{\mu,\lambda\lambda'}^{++}(z) \, \Phi_{\rho}^+(z) \,.

616: \eeq

617: Here $a,b$ are gluon color indices, the

618: $\mu,\lambda,\lambda'$ indices of ${\cal G}$ are the helicities

619: of the photon, incoming and outgoing gluon, respectively, and

620: the upper indices refer to the $q$ and $\bar q$ helicities.

621: 

622: For simplicity we consider only the lowest order contribution to

623: ${\cal G}(\gamma + g \to q\bar q+g)$ (\cf\ Fig.~3b). Higher

624: order diagrams build the gluon ladder and are important for

625: describing the $s$-dependence, but should not affect the

626: helicity structure of the upper vertex, which is our present

627: concern.

628: 

629: The transverse photon ($\mu=+1$) amplitude with

630: $\lambda=\lambda'= +1$ and no quark helicity flip is

631: \beqa \label{g-trans-long}

632: {\cal G}^{+-}_{+,++}(\gamma + g \to q\bar q+g) &=&

633:     -\frac{\sqrt{2} \, e e_q \, (4\pi\as)}{\sqrt{N_c}\, \sqrt{-t}}

634:     \frac{Q^2}{t} \,\nn\\

635:     &\times& \frac{2 \, z - 1}{\bar{z} \, ( z - \bar{z} \,

636: Q^2/t - m_q^2/t)( \bar{z} - z \, Q^2/t - m_q^2/t ) } \,\,.

637: \eeqa

638: This leading twist amplitude {\em vanishes} in

639: photoproduction ($Q^2=0$). The quark helicity flip amplitude

640: contributing to transverse $\rho$ production in \eq{convampg} is

641: at\footnote{Expressions for $Q^2\neq 0$

642: are given in the Appendix.} $Q^2=0$

643: \beqa

644: \label{g-trans-trans}

645:     {\cal G}^{++}_{+,++}(\gamma + g \to q\bar q+g) &=&

646:     - \frac{\sqrt{2}\, e e_q \, (4\pi\as)}{\sqrt{N_c}\, \sqrt{-t}} \,

647:       \frac{\sqrt{m_q^2/(-t)}}{z \bar{z} \, ( z -  m_q^2/t )

648:       ( \bar{z} - m_q^2/t)} \nn\\ &&\\

649:    &=& - \frac{\sqrt{2}\, e e_q \, (4\pi\as)}{\sqrt{N_c}\, \sqrt{-t}}

650:       \, \frac{\sqrt{m_q^2/(-t)}}{(z \bar{z})^2}\left[1+

651:       \morder{\frac{m_q^2}{t}}\right] \,. \nn

652: \eeqa

653: The factor $(z\zb)^2$ in the denominator enhances the endpoint

654: regions $z=0,1$ in the convolution \eq{convampg} causing a

655: (logarithmic) singularity in the $z$-integral for distribution

656: amplitudes which vanish linearly at the endpoints. This implies

657: a breakdown of factorization in semi-exclusive $\rho$

658: photoproduction.

659: 

660: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

661: \subsection{Endpoint behavior of the distribution amplitude}

662: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

663: 

664: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

665: \FIGURE[t]{\label{fig:one-gluon}

666: \psfig{file=meson-da.ps,width=.4\textwidth}

667: \caption{A representative of the one-gluon exchange diagrams

668: contributing to the evolution equation in time-ordered LC

669: perturbation theory.}}

670: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

671: 

672: Even though factorization fails due to the strong enhancement of

673: the subprocess amplitude in the region where one of the produced

674: quarks carries nearly all the momentum, we may still see

675: qualitatively how the experimentally observed dimensional

676: scaling of the cross section can arise. As we emphasized above,

677: this must be due to the endpoint contributions, since for finite

678: values of $z$ the transverse $\rho$ cross section is suppressed

679: by $m_q^2/|t|$, giving $n=4$ in Eq. \eq{rhoscaling}.

680: 

681: The distribution amplitude $\Phi_{\rho}^{\mu'}(z)$ appearing in

682: the convolution \eq{convampg} is the valence Fock state amplitude

683: {\em at equal light-cone (LC) time}. Its endpoint behavior can be

684: determined from the evolution equation, which, at leading order,

685: corresponds to one-gluon exchange diagrams, \cf\

686: Fig.~\ref{fig:one-gluon}~\cite{bl:1980}. Thus, the wave function

687: can be written as

688:  \beq \label{eq:wavefct} \Phi_\rho(z,\mu_F) =

689: \int dy \int^{\mu_F} \frac{d^2 \tr{l}}{16\,\pi^3} \, \as(\mu_F) \,

690: \frac{\mathcal{S}(y,z,\tr{l},\tr{k})} {P^- - \sum_i p_i^-+ i

691: \epsilon} \, \Phi_\rho(y,\tr{l}) \,, \eeq where $P^-$ is the meson

692: LC energy and the sum is over all LC energies $p_i^-$ of the

693: intermediate $q \bar q g$ state. $\mathcal{S}$ is a momentum

694: dependent function which is finite at the endpoints. Hence, the

695: behavior for $z\to 1$ follows from the energy denominator of the

696: intermediate state, \beq P^- - \sum_i p_i^-\simeq -\frac{k_\perp^2

697: + m_q^2} {(1-z) \, P^+} \quad \mathrm{for} \quad z \to 1 \,. \eeq

698: An analogous behavior can be found for $z \to 0$. Consequently,

699: $\Phi_\rho(z,\mu_F)$ vanishes at $z=0,1$ because the LC energy of

700: a parton with momentum fraction $z$ tends to infinity as $z \to

701: 0$. However, as we saw in the previous section, the subprocess is

702: soft and therefore not light-cone dominated for $z \lsim z_s

703: \simeq \lqcd/\sqrt{-t}$. The LC energy is not relevant in this

704: region -- while the ordinary energy difference \eq{lifetime}

705: obviously remains finite and is of \order{\lqcd} as the

706: longitudinal momentum of a parton vanishes.

707: 

708: This suggests that $\Phi_{\rho}^{\mu'}(z)$ (effectively) does not

709: vanish at the endpoints. The $z$-integral is then linearly divergent

710: at $z=0,1$. Truncating the integration region

711: where the subprocess becomes soft we get

712: \beq

713: \int_{z_s}^{1-z_s} \frac{\Phi_{\rho}^{\mu'}(z)}{z^2\zb^2}

714: \propto \frac{\sqrt{-t}}{\lqcd}\, \Phi_{\rho}^{\mu'}(0) \,.

715: \eeq

716: Thus we {\em gain} a factor $\sqrt{-t}$ in the amplitude, which

717: restores dimensional scaling, implying $n=3$ in Eq.~\eq{rhoscaling}.

718: As already remarked above, here we only give qualitative arguments

719: for the observed scaling. In order to predict the normalization of

720: the cross section a more detailed analysis is necessary, which is

721: however beyond the scope of the present work.

722: 

723: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

724: \section{Summary}

725: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

726: 

727: In this paper we have attempted to give a physical picture able to explain some 

728: qualitative aspects of the data on meson production at large momentum

729: transfer $|t|$ by real, transversely polarized photons. Also, we have pointed out why 

730: some expectations based on the common assumption of factorization in exclusive PQCD 

731: studies seem to fail. Namely, we saw that the scattering is

732: likely to be endpoint dominated and thus involve $q\bar q$ pairs

733: of large transverse size. Hence it appears that highly

734: asymmetric Fock states, where one quark carries nearly all the

735: momentum, do have a significant overlap with hadron wave functions.

736: This would explain the apparent absence of color transparency

737: in $e \, A \to e \, p \, (A-1)$ \cite{ctep} and $p \, A \to p \,

738: p \, (A-1)$~\cite{ctpp}.

739: 

740: Endpoint contributions are enhanced in photoproduction since the

741: wave function of transverse photons does not vanish at $z=0,1$.

742: This also prevents factorization of the transverse photon

743: amplitude in deeply virtual meson production at high $Q^2$ and

744: low $|t|$ \cite{cfs}. The longitudinal photon wave function

745: $\Psi_\gamma^{\mu=0}(z) \propto z(1-z)$ favors contributions

746: from $q\bar q$ pairs of small transverse size $\sim 1/Q$. The

747: color transparency observed in $\gamma^*(Q^2)+N \to \rho

748: +N$~\cite{Adams:1994bw,Arneodo:1994id,Ackerstaff:1998wt} agrees

749: with this.

750: 

751: Due to the short lifetime of the endpoint states their dynamics

752: has many of the attributes of hard scattering, despite their large

753: transverse size and soft scattering in the target. We have found

754: that the Sudakov form factor numerically leads to a suppression of

755: no more than about 10\%, and is thus of minor importance.

756: Furthermore, we have presented qualitative arguments suggesting

757: that endpoint contributions may explain the dimensional scaling of

758: the ZEUS data. The endpoint states are not color transparent, nor

759: do they preserve quark helicity. These features make it possible

760: to identify their contribution to exclusive processes.

761: 

762: \acknowledgments

763: 

764: It is a pleasure to thank Stan Brodsky and Jim Crittenden for many

765: helpful discussions and comments on the manuscript. This work was

766: begun while PH was employed by Nordita, and has been supported by

767: the European Commission under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00130 and by

768: the Academy of Finland under project 102046.

769: 

770: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

771: 

772: \appendix

773: 

774: \section{Appendix}

775: 

776: \subsection{Quark production amplitudes}

777: 

778: We present the helicity amplitudes $\cal{H}^{\nu\nu'}_{\mu,\lambda

779: \lambda'}$ for the subprocess $\gamma^*(\mu) \, u(\lambda)

780: \to u(\nu) \bar{d}(\nu') +

781: d(\lambda')$ for

782: $Q^2, \, m_q \neq 0$. For transversely polarized photons we find

783: \begin{eqnarray}

784: \label{qsubamp_t-l}

785:    {\cal H}^{+-}_{+,++} = - {\cal H}^{-+}_{-,--} &=&

786:    \frac{2 \, \sqrt{2} \, e \, (4 \pi \as) \, C_F}{\sqrt{-t}} \,

787:    \nn \\ &\times& \Bigg[ \frac{e_u \,z}{\bar{z} \,

788:    ( z - \bar{z}\,Q^2/t - m_q^2/t ) }

789:    - \frac{ e_d }{ ( \bar{z} - z\,Q^2/t - m_q^2/t ) } \Bigg] \,.

790: \end{eqnarray}

791: The amplitudes ${\cal H}^{+-}_{-,++}$ and ${\cal H}^{-+}_{+,--}$ are

792: obtained from ${\cal H}^{+-}_{+,++}$ and ${\cal H}^{-+}_{-,--}$,

793: respectively, by exchanging $z \to \bar{z}, \, e_u \leftrightarrow e_d$

794: and reversing the overall sign. For longitudinally polarized photons

795: we get

796: \begin{eqnarray}

797: \label{qsubamp_l-l}

798:    {\cal H}^{+-}_{0,++} = {\cal H}^{-+}_{0,--} =

799:    \frac{4 \, e \, (4 \pi \as) \, C_F}{\sqrt{-t}} \, \left[

800:    \frac{ e_u \, \sqrt{Q^2/(-t)} }{ z - \bar{z} \, Q^2/t - m_q^2/t}

801:    +\frac{ e_d \, \sqrt{Q^2/(-t)} }{ \bar{z} - z \, Q^2/t - m_q^2/t}

802:     \right] \,. \quad

803: \end{eqnarray}

804: The quark helicity flip amplitudes read

805: \begin{eqnarray}

806: \label{qsubamp_t-t}

807:    {\cal H}^{++}_{+,--} = {\cal H}^{--}_{-,++} =

808:    -\frac{2 \, \sqrt{2} \, e \, (4 \pi \as) \, C_F}{\sqrt{-t}} \,

809:    \left[\frac{e_u \, \sqrt{m_q^2/(-t)}}{z \, \bar{z} \,

810:    ( z - \bar{z}\,Q^2/t - m_q^2/t ) } \right] \,.

811: \end{eqnarray}

812: For ${\cal H}^{++}_{+,++}$ and ${\cal H}^{--}_{-,--}$ we have

813: to make the replacements $z \to \bar{z}, \, e_u \to e_d$ in

814: the above respective amplitudes. All other helicity amplitudes

815: vanish in the kinematical limit~\eq{sexlimit}. The helicity

816: non-flip amplitudes agree with those given in Ref.~\cite{huang:2000}

817: in the limit of large c.m. energies and when appropriate replacements

818: for the charge factors are made.\footnote{In Ref.~\cite{huang:2000}

819: the production of flavor-neutral mesons is considered. Also note

820: that the normalization of the subprocess amplitudes is different

821: than in our case.}

822: We note that in the helicity flip amplitudes~(\ref{qsubamp_t-t})

823: the photon couples only to the quark whose helicity is flipped.

824: According to \eq{virtualities} the gluon virtuality in Fig. 3a

825: is of order $s$. Hence to leading order in the limit \eq{sexlimit}

826: the quark helicity can flip only at the photon vertex.

827: 

828: \subsection{Gluon production amplitudes}

829: 

830: The helicity amplitudes for the subprocess

831: $\gamma^*(\mu) + g(\lambda) \to q(\nu) \, \bar{q}(\nu') + g(\lambda')$

832: are denoted by $\cal{G}^{\nu\nu'}_{\mu,\lambda\lambda'}$.

833: For transversely polarized photons we find

834: \begin{eqnarray}

835: \label{gsubamp_-t-l}

836:    {\cal G}^{+-}_{+,++} = - {\cal G}^{-+}_{-,++} &=&

837:    -\frac{\sqrt{2} \, e e_q \, (4 \pi \as) }

838:    {\sqrt{N_{\rm c}} \, \sqrt{-t}} \, \frac{Q^2}{t} \nn \\

839:    &\times& \frac{2\,z - 1}{ \bar{z} \, ( z - \bar{z} \, Q^2/t -

840:    m_q^2/t )\,  ( \bar{z} - z \, Q^2/t - m_q^2/t ) } \,,

841: \end{eqnarray}

842: and for longitudinally polarized photons

843: \begin{eqnarray}

844: \label{gsubamp_l-l}

845:    && {\cal G}^{+-}_{0,++} = {\cal G}^{-+}_{0,++} =

846:      \frac{2\, e e_q \, (4 \pi \as) }{\sqrt{N_{\rm c}} \, \sqrt{-t}} \,

847:      \frac{\sqrt{Q^2/(-t)}\, (1 - Q^2/t)}

848:      { (z - \bar{z} \, Q^2/t - m_q^2/t)\,

849:      ( \bar{z} - z \, Q^2 - m_q^2/t)} \,.

850: \end{eqnarray}

851: The amplitudes

852: ${\cal G}^{-+}_{+,++}$ and ${\cal G}^{+-}_{-,++}$ are obtained

853: from ${\cal G}^{+-}_{+,++}$ and ${\cal G}^{-+}_{-,++}$

854: respectively by replacing $z \to 1-z$.

855: For the quark helicity flip amplitudes we obtain

856: \begin{eqnarray}

857: \label{gsubamp_t-t}

858:    {\cal G}^{++}_{+,++} = {\cal G}^{--}_{-,++} &=&

859:    -\frac{\sqrt{2} \, e e_q \, (4 \pi \as)}{\sqrt{N_{\rm c}} \,

860: \sqrt{-t}}

861:    \,\frac{\sqrt{m_q^2/(-t)}}{z\, \bar{z}} \nn \\

862:    &\times& \frac{1 - Q^2/t}{ ( z - \bar{z} \, Q^2/t - m_q^2/t ) \,

863:    ( \bar{z} - z \, Q^2/t - m_q^2/t)} \,.

864: \end{eqnarray}

865: For the above combination of quark and photon helicities, the set of

866: amplitudes with negative gluon helicities is identical, \ie,

867: \begin{equation}

868:    {\cal G}^{\nu\nu'}_{\mu,--}={\cal G}^{\nu\nu'}_{\mu,++} \,.

869: \end{equation}

870: All other helicity amplitudes vanish in the limit~\eq{sexlimit}.

871: Again, we find agreement with the results given in

872: Ref.~\cite{huang:2000}.

873: 

874: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

875: 

876: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

877: 

878: \bibitem{bl:1980}

879: G.~P.~Lepage and S.~J.~Brodsky,

880: %``Exclusive Processes In Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics,''

881: \prd{22}{1980}{2157}.

882: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,2157;%%

883: %\cite{Brodsky:1989pv}

884: 

885: \bibitem{Brodsky:1989pv}

886: S.~J.~Brodsky and G.~P.~Lepage,

887: %``Exclusive Processes In Quantum Chromodynamics,''

888: In {\it Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics}, (A. H. Mueller,

889: Ed.) World Scientific (1989), p. 23-240 (SLAC-PUB-4947).

890: 

891: \bibitem{ilr} N. Isgur and C. H. Llewellyn Smith,

892: \prl{52}{1984}{1080} and \npb{317}{1989}{526}; \\

893: A.V. Radyushkin \npa{527}{1991}{153c} and \npa{532}{1991}{141c}.

894: 

895: \bibitem{bks}

896: J. D. Bjorken, J. B. Kogut and D. E. Soper, \prd{3}{1971}{1382}.

897: 

898: \bibitem{bhm}

899: S. J. Brodsky, P. Hoyer and L. Magnea, \prd{55}{1997}{5585}

900: [\hepph{9611278}].

901: 

902: \bibitem{bhmt} S. J. Brodsky, P. Hoyer, A. H. Mueller and W.-K.

903: Tang, \npb{369}{1992}{519}.

904: 

905: \bibitem{bls} J. Botts and G. Sterman, \npb{325}{1989}{62}; \\

906: H.-N. Li and G. Sterman, \npb{381}{1992}{129}.

907: 

908: \bibitem{ctep} T. G. O'Neill \etal, \plb{351}{1995}{87}

909: [\hepph{9408260}].

910: 

911: \bibitem{ctpp} A. Leksanov \etal, \prl{87}{2001}{212301}

912: [\hepex{0104039}].

913: 

914: %PH added publication info

915: %\cite{Sargsian:2002wc}

916: \bibitem{Sargsian:2002wc}

917: M.~M.~Sargsian {\it et al.},

918: %``Hadrons in the nuclear medium,''

919: \jphg{29}{2003}{R1}

920: [\nuclth{0210025}].

921: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0210025;%%

922: 

923: %\cite{Brodsky:1987xw}

924: %\bibitem{Brodsky:1987xw}

925: %S.~J.~Brodsky and G.~F.~de Teramond,

926: %``Spin Correlations, QCD Color Transparency And Heavy Quark

927: %Thresholds In Proton-Proton Scattering,''

928: %Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 60} (1988) 1924.

929: %\prl{60}{1988}{1924}.

930: %%CITATION = PRLTA,60,1924;%%

931: %\cite{Ralston:rb}

932: %\bibitem{Ralston:rb}

933: %J.~P.~Ralston and B.~Pire,

934: %``Fluctuating Proton Size And Oscillating Nuclear Transparency,''

935: %Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 61} (1988) 1823.

936: %\prl{61}{1988}{1823}.

937: %%CITATION = PRLTA,61,1823;%%

938: 

939: \bibitem{BDHP:1998}

940: S.~J.~Brodsky, M.~Diehl, P.~Hoyer and S.~Peigne,

941: %``Semi-exclusive processes: New probes of hadron structure,''

942: \plb{449}{1999}{306} [\hepph{9812277}].

943: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812277;%%

944: 

945: \bibitem{BG} E.~D.~Bloom and F.~J.~Gilman, \prl{25}{1970}{1140}

946: and \prd{4}{1971}{2901}.

947: 

948: \bibitem{CEBAF}

949: I.~Niculescu \etal, \prl{85}{2000}{1182 and 1186}. \\

950: %\bibitem{Airapetian:2002rw}

951: A.~Airapetian {\it et al.}  [HERMES Collaboration],

952: %``Evidence for quark-hadron duality in the proton spin asymmetry A1,''

953: \prl{90}{2003}{092002} [\hepex{0209018}].

954: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0209018;%%

955: 

956: \bibitem{hoyer:2001}

957: P.~Eden, P.~Hoyer and A.~Khodjamirian,

958: %``Duality in semi-exclusive processes,''

959: \jhep{0110}{2001}{040} [\hepph{0110297}].

960: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110297;%%

961: 

962: %PH added publication info

963: \bibitem{Chekanov:2002}

964: S.~Chekanov {\it et al.}  [ZEUS Collaboration],

965: %``Measurement of proton dissociative diffractive photoproduction of

966: %vector mesons at large momentum transfer at HERA,''

967: \epjc{26}{2003}{389}

968: [\hepex{0205081}].

969: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0205081;%%

970: 

971: \bibitem{ginz:1996}

972: I.~F.~Ginzburg and D.~Y.~Ivanov,

973: %``The $Q~2$ dependence of the hard diffractive photoproduction

974: %of vector meson or photon and the range of pQCD validity,''

975: \prd{54}{1996}{5523}, [\hepph{9604437}].

976: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604437;%%

977: 

978: \bibitem{DKV1}

979: M.~Diehl, P.~Kroll and C.~Vogt,

980: %``The annihilation of virtual photons into pseudoscalar mesons,''

981: \epjc{22}{2001}{439} [\hepph{0108220}].

982: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108220;%%

983: 

984: \bibitem{Gronberg:1997fj}

985: J.~Gronberg {\it et al.}  [CLEO Collaboration],

986: %``Measurements of the meson photon transition form factors of

987: %light  pseudoscalar mesons at large momentum transfer,''

988: \prd{57}{1998}{33} [\hepex{9707031}].

989: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9707031;%%

990: 

991: \bibitem{jak:1993} R. Jakob and P. Kroll, Phys. Lett. B {\bf315}, 463 (1993).

992: 

993: \bibitem{BHL} S. J. Brodsky, T. Huang and G. P. Lepage,

994: {\it Particles and Fields} {\bf 2}, eds. Z. Capri and

995: A.N. Kamal (Banff Summer Institute) p.\ 143 (1983).

996: 

997: \bibitem{jain:1995}

998: P.~Jain, B.~Pire and J.~P.~Ralston,

999: %``Quantum Color Transparency and Nuclear Filtering,''

1000: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 271}, 67 (1996) [hep-ph/9511333].

1001: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511333;%%

1002: 

1003: \bibitem{bfkl}

1004: J.~R.~Forshaw and M.~G.~Ryskin,

1005: %``Diffractive vector meson production at large momentum transfer,''

1006: \zpc{68}{1995}{137} [\hepph{9501376}];

1007: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9501376;%%

1008: J.~Bartels, J.~R.~Forshaw, H.~Lotter and M.~Wusthoff,

1009: %``Diffractive Production of Vector Mesons at Large t,''

1010: \plb{375}{1996}{301} [\hepph{9601201}].

1011: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9601201;%%

1012: 

1013: \bibitem{ivanov:2000}

1014: D.~Y.~Ivanov, R.~Kirschner, A.~Schafer and L.~Szymanowski,

1015: %``The light vector meson photoproduction at large t,''

1016: \plb{478}{2001}{101} [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf B 498} (2001) 295]

1017: [\hepph{0001255}].

1018: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 478}, 101 (2000)

1019: %[Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 498}, 295 (2001)] [hep-ph/0001255].

1020: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001255;%%

1021: 

1022: \bibitem{cfs} J.~C.~Collins, L.~Frankfurt and M.~Strikman,

1023: %``Factorization for hard exclusive electroproduction of mesons

1024: %in QCDa,''

1025: \prd{56}{1997}{2982} [\hepph{9611433}].

1026: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9611433;%%

1027: 

1028: %\cite{Adams:1994bw}

1029: \bibitem{Adams:1994bw}

1030: M.~R.~Adams {\it et al.}  [E665 Collaboration],

1031: %``Measurement of nuclear transparencies from exclusive rho0

1032: %meson production in muon - nucleus scattering at 470-GeV,''

1033: \prl{74}{1995}{1525}.

1034: %%CITATION = PRLTA,74,1525;%%

1035: 

1036: %\cite{Arneodo:1994id}

1037: \bibitem{Arneodo:1994id}

1038: M.~Arneodo {\it et al.}  [New Muon Collaboration],

1039: %``Exclusive rho0 and phi muoproduction at large q**2,''

1040: \npb{429}{1994}{503}.

1041: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B429,503;%%

1042: 

1043: %\cite{Ackerstaff:1998wt}

1044: \bibitem{Ackerstaff:1998wt}

1045: K.~Ackerstaff {\it et al.}  [HERMES Collaboration],

1046: %``Observation of a coherence length effect in exclusive rho0

1047: %electroproduction,''

1048: \prl{82}{1999}{3025} [\hepex{9811011}]; \\

1049: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9811011;%%

1050: %

1051: %PH added publication info

1052: %\cite{Airapetian:2002eh}

1053: %\bibitem{Airapetian:2002eh}

1054: A.~Airapetian  [HERMES Collaboration],

1055: %``The Q^2-Dependence of Nuclear Transparency for Exclusive

1056: %$\rho^0$ Production,''

1057: \prl{90}{2003}{052501}

1058: [\hepex{0209072}].

1059: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0209072;%%

1060: 

1061: \bibitem{huang:2000}

1062: H.~W.~Huang and P.~Kroll,

1063: %``Large momentum transfer electroproduction of mesons,''

1064: \epjc{17}{2000}{423} [\hepph{0005318}].

1065: %Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 17}, 423 (2000)

1066: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005318;%%

1067: 

1068: \end{thebibliography}

1069: 

1070: \end{document}

1071: