1:
2:
3:
4: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6: \usepackage{graphicx, epsfig}
7: \usepackage{times}
8: \input epsf
9: \begin{document}
10: \begin{titlepage}
11: \title{ Energy dependence of gap survival probability and antishadowing}
12: \author{ S.M. Troshin\footnote{e-mail: Sergey.Troshin@ihep.ru}, N.E. Tyurin\\[1ex] \small\it Institute
13: \small\it for High Energy Physics,\\\small\it Protvino, Moscow Region, 142281 Russia}
14: \date{}
15: \maketitle
16: \begin{abstract}
17: We discuss energy dependence of gap survival probability which
18: follows from rational form of amplitude unitarization. In contrast
19: to eikonal form of unitarization which leads to decreasing energy
20: dependence of gap survival probability, we predict a
21: non-monotonous form for this dependence.
22: \end{abstract}
23: \vfill
24: \end{titlepage}
25:
26: Studies of the processes with large rapidity gaps are very important
27: as a tool for the search of new physics. For the first time such processes
28: have been discussed in \cite{dok,land,bj}.
29: Predictive power of QCD calculations for cross-sections of such
30: processes is affected by the uncertainties related to the soft interactions
31: (rescattering) in initial
32: and final states.
33: Dynamics of such interactions is accounted then by the introduction of a factor
34: which is known as a gap survival probability \cite{bj}, i.e. a probability to keep away
35: inelastic interactions which can result in filling up by hadrons
36: the large rapidity gaps.
37: Energy dependence and magnitude of gap
38: survival probability is an important issue e.g. in the studies
39: of Higgs production in double diffractive exclusive and inclusive
40: processes at Tevatron and the LHC (cf. \cite{khoze}). The
41: extensive studies of magnitude and energy dependence of gap survival probability
42: have been performed, results of these studies can be found, e.g. in
43: papers \cite{flet,gots,block,kaid}.
44:
45: The gap survival probability $\langle |S|^2\rangle$ is determined by the
46: relation \cite{bj}:
47: \begin{equation}\label{gap}
48: \langle |S|^2\rangle=\frac{\int_0^\infty D_H(b)|S(s,b)|^2 d^2b}{\int_0^\infty D_H(b)d^2b},
49: \end{equation}
50: where $D_H(b)$ is the probability to observe a specific hard
51: interaction in collision of the hadrons $h_1$ and $h_2$ and
52: $P(s,b)\equiv |S(s,b)|^2$, where $S$ is elastic scattering
53: $S$--matrix, i.e. $P$ is a probability of the absence of the
54: inelastic interactions. In the eikonal formalism which is usually
55: used for estimation of $\langle |S|^2\rangle$ the probability
56: $P(s,b)=\exp(-\Omega(s,b))$. All estimations of the gap
57: survival probability performed on the basis of the eikonal amplitude
58: unitarization lead to
59: decreasing energy dependence of this quantity. Therefore rather small values of
60: cross--sections for diffractive Higgs productions are expected
61: at the LHC energies \cite{der,petr}.
62:
63: However, there is an alternative approach to unitarization which
64: utilizes a rational representation
65: and leads, as it will be shown below, to a non-monotonous energy dependence
66: of gap survival probability.
67: Arguments based on analytical properties of the scattering
68: amplitude \cite{blan} provide support for the rational form of unitarization.
69: In potential scattering
70: rational form of unitarization
71: corresponds to an approximate wave function which changes both
72: the phase and amplitude of the wave.
73: The rational form of unitarization in quantum field theory
74: is based on the relativistic generalization \cite{umat}
75: of the Heitler equation \cite{heit}.
76: In the $U$--matrix approach based on rational form of
77: unitarization, the elastic scattering amplitude in the impact
78: parameter representation has the form:
79: \begin{equation}
80: f(s,b)=\frac{U(s,b)}{1-iU(s,b)}, \label{um}
81: \end{equation}
82: where $U(s,b)$ is the generalized reaction matrix, which is
83: considered to be an input dynamical quantity similar to the
84: eikonal function. Unitarity equation for the elastic amplitude
85: $f(s,b)$ rewritten at high energies has the form
86: \begin{equation}
87: \mbox{Im} f(s,b)=|f(s,b)|^2+\eta(s,b) \label{unt}
88: \end{equation}
89: where the inelastic overlap function
90: \[
91: \eta(s,b)\equiv\frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{d\sigma_{inel}}{db^2}
92: \]
93: is the sum of
94: all inelastic channel contributions.
95: Inelastic overlap function
96: is related to $U(s,b)$ according to Eqs. (\ref{um}) and (\ref{unt}) as follows
97: \begin{equation}
98: \eta(s,b)=\frac{\mbox{Im} U(s,b)}{|1-iU(s,b)|^{2}}\label{uf}.
99: \end{equation}
100: The probability
101: \begin{equation}
102: P(s,b)\equiv |S(s,b)|^2=\left|\frac{1+iU(s,b)}{1-iU(s,b)}\right|^2\label{prob}.
103: \end{equation}
104: Unitarity of the scattering matrix implies, in principle, an
105: existence at high enough energies $s>s_0$, where $s_0$ is the
106: threshold,
107: of the new scattering mode --
108: antishadow one. It has been revealed in \cite{bds} and
109: effects related to antishadowing at the LHC energies have
110: been discussed in \cite{lhc}.
111: The most important feature of this mode is the self-damping of the
112: contribution from the inelastic channels. The rational form of
113: unitarization provides smooth transition beyond the black disk
114: limit, where antishadow scattering mode is realized, i.e. at high
115: energies and at small impact parameters elastic scattering channel
116: can play dominating role.
117:
118: There is an experimental indication that this mode can indeed
119: occur at very high energies. The analysis of the experimental data
120: on high--energy diffractive scattering
121: shows that the effective interaction area expands with energy and the
122: interaction intensity -- opacity -- increases with energy at fixed
123: impact parameter. At the Tevatron highest energy $\sqrt{s}=1800$
124: GeV elastic scattering amplitude is very close to black disk limit
125: at $b=0$ \cite{cdf}, i.e.
126: \[
127: \mbox{Im} f(s,b=0)=0.492\pm 0.008.
128: \]
129: The central inelastic collisions of hadrons are far from
130: amalgamation of the two hadrons in one region of space as it was
131: shown in \cite{chyang} and the persistence of longitudinal
132: momentum takes place at very high energies.
133:
134: The rational form of amplitude unitarization can be put into
135: agreement with the experimental data using various model
136: parameterizations for the $U$--matrix. They all lead to the same
137: qualitative predictions, which reflect general properties of this
138: unitarization scheme. Originally the Regge-pole model was used to
139: get an explicit form of $U$--matrix \cite{tuh} and a good
140: description of the experimental data has been obtained in this
141: model \cite{edn} as well as in its Dipole-Pomeron modification
142: \cite{jenk}.
143:
144: We use the model for the $U$--matrix based on the ideas of chiral
145: quark approaches \cite{chpr}. It is in a good agreement with the
146: data \cite{lhc,pras,univ} and is also applicable to the large
147: angle scattering. We would like to stress here that the
148: qualitative conclusions of the present paper do not depend on the
149: particular $U$--matrix parameterization.
150:
151:
152: In this model the picture of a
153: hadron consisting of constituent quarks embedded
154: into quark condensate is used. This picture implies that overlapping
155: and interaction of
156: peripheral clouds occur at the first stage of hadron interaction.
157: Nonlinear field couplings could transform then the kinetic energy to
158: internal energy and
159: as a result massive
160: virtual quarks appear in the overlapping region. These quarks generate an effective
161: field.
162: Valence constituent quarks located in the central part of hadrons are
163: supposed to scatter simultaneously in a quasi-independent way in this
164: field.
165: Massive virtual quarks play a role of scatterers for the valence
166: quarks in elastic scattering and their hadronization leads to soft
167: production process of secondary particles in the central region
168: \cite{jpg}. The number of such scatterers was estimated
169: \begin{equation} \tilde{N}(s,b)\,\propto
170: \,\frac{(1-\langle k_Q\rangle)\sqrt{s}}{m_Q}D_C(b),
171: \label{Nsbt}
172: \end{equation}
173: under assumption that part of hadron energy carried by the outer
174: condensate clouds released in the overlap region
175: to generate massive quarks,
176: where $m_Q$ is a constituent quark mass and $\langle k_Q\rangle $
177: -- an average fraction of hadron energy carried by the
178: constituent valence quarks. Function $D_C(b)$ is a convolution of
179: the two condensate distributions $D^{h_1}_c({b})$ and
180: $D^{h_2}_c({b})$ inside the hadron $h_1$ and $h_2$.
181:
182: We will consider for simplicity the case of a pure imaginary amplitude,
183: i.e. $U\to iu$.
184: The
185: function $u(s,b)$ is represented in the model as a product of the
186: averaged quark amplitudes $\langle f_Q \rangle$,
187: \begin{equation} u(s,b) =
188: \prod^{N}_{i=1} \langle f_{Q_i}(s,b)\rangle \end{equation} in
189: accordance with assumed quasi-independent nature of the valence
190: quark scattering, $N$ is the total number of valence quarks in the
191: colliding hadrons. The essential point here
192: is the rise with energy of the number of the scatterers like
193: $\sqrt{s}$. The $b$--dependence of the function
194: $\langle f_Q \rangle$ has a simple form
195: $\langle f_Q(b)\rangle\propto\exp(-{m_Qb}/{\xi} )$.
196: The generalized
197: reaction matrix gets
198: the following form
199: \begin{equation} u(s,b) = g\left (1+\alpha
200: \frac{\sqrt{s}}{m_Q}\right)^N \exp(-\frac{Mb}{\xi} ), \label{x}
201: \end{equation} where $M =\sum^N_{Q=1}m_Q$.
202: Here $m_Q$ is the mass of constituent quark, which is taken to be
203: $0.35$ $GeV$\footnote{Other parameters have the following values:
204: $g=0.24$, $\xi=2.5$, $\alpha=0.56\cdot 10^{-4}$ which have been obtained from the fit to
205: the total
206: $hp$ cross sections \cite{pras}.}.
207:
208: This model provides linear
209: dependence on $\sqrt{s}$ for the total cross--sections,
210: i.e.
211: $\sigma_{tot}=a+c\sqrt{s}$
212: in the limited energy
213: range $\sqrt{s}\leq 0.5$ TeV. Such behaviour
214: and model predictions
215: for higher energies
216: are as it was already mentioned in
217: agreement (Fig. 1) with the experimental data on total, elastic and
218: diffractive scattering cross-sections \cite{pras,univ}.
219: \begin{figure}[h]
220: \begin{center}
221: \resizebox{6cm}{!}{\includegraphics*{fig1.eps}}\;\;\quad
222: \resizebox{6cm}{!}{\includegraphics*{fig2.eps}}
223: \end{center}
224: \caption{Total and ratio of elastic to total cross-sections of $pp$ and
225: $\bar p p$--interactions}
226: \label{ts}
227: \end{figure}
228:
229:
230:
231:
232:
233:
234:
235: This unitarization approach leads to the following asymptotical dependencies
236: $\sigma_{tot}\propto \ln^2 s$ and $\sigma_{inel}\propto \ln s$, which are
237: the same for the various models and reflect essential properties
238: of this unitarization scheme.
239:
240: Thus, now the probability $P(s,b)=|S(s,b)|^2$ can be calculated in a
241: straightforward way, i.e we use for the function $u(s,b)$ formula (\ref{x})
242: with parameter fixed from the total cross section fit and relation of
243: $S(s,b)$ and $U$-matrix (\ref{prob}). The impact parameter dependence of $P(s,b)$
244: for the different energies is presented on Fig. 2.
245: \begin{figure}[h]
246: \begin{center}
247: \includegraphics*[scale=0.6]{ssb.eps}
248: \end{center}
249: \caption{\small\it Impact parameter dependence of probability $P(s,b)=|S(s,b)|^2$
250: at three values of energy $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV (shadow scattering mode),
251: $\sqrt{s}=1800$ GeV (black disk limit at $b=0$) and
252: $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV (shadow and antishadow scattering modes).}
253: \end{figure}
254:
255: To calculate the gap survival probability $\langle |S|^2\rangle$
256: we need to know probability of hard interactions $D_H(b)$.
257: To be specific we consider the hard central production
258: processes
259: \begin{equation}\label{dpe}
260: p+p\to p+gap+(Higgs\;\mbox{or}\;jj)+gap+p
261: \end{equation}
262: The interest in such processes is related to the clear experimental signature and
263: significant signal-to-background ratio.
264:
265: We can write down
266: the probability of hard interactions in the model as a convolution
267: \begin{equation}
268: D_H({b})=\sigma_H\int D_c^{h_1}({\bf b}_1)w_H({\bf b}+{\bf b}_1-{\bf b}_2)D_c^{h_2}({\bf b}_2)
269: d{\bf b}_1 d {\bf b}_2,
270: \end{equation}
271: where $w_H({\bf b}+{\bf b}_1-{\bf b}_2)$ is the probability of
272: hard condensate (parton) interactions. It is natural to assume that the probability
273: $w_H$ has much
274: steeper impact parameter dependence than the functions $D_c^{h_i}({ b})$ have and,
275: therefore,
276: the impact parameter dependence of $w_H$ determines behaviour of $D_H({b})$.
277: Thus, we assume a simple exponential dependence for the function $D_H({b})$, i.e.
278: \begin{equation}\label{dh}
279: D_H({b})\simeq \sigma_H\exp(-M_Hb),
280: \end{equation}
281: where mass $M_H$ is determined by the hard scale of the process.
282: We perform numerical calculations of
283: the gap survival probability $\langle |S|^2\rangle$ using Eqs.
284: (\ref{gap}), (\ref{prob}) and (\ref{dh}).
285:
286: We take the hard scale
287: $M_H$ to be determined by the mass of $J/\Psi$-meson, i.e.
288: $M_H=M_{J/\Psi}$. This choice is in accord with the fact
289: that production of $J/\Psi$-meson can be treated
290: as a hard process and therefore its mass set a hard scale
291: \cite{bartels}. Lower values of $M_H$ lie in the soft region
292: \footnote{In Eq. (\ref{dh}) $\sigma_H$ can be interpreted as a probability of
293: the hot spot formation under condensate interaction and
294: $R_H\simeq1/M_H$ is the radius of this hot spot.}.
295: It should be noted that
296: numerical results are rather stable and depend weakly on the scale $M_H$, when it is
297: in the hard region, i.e. $M_H\geq M_{J/\Psi}$
298: e.g. for illustration we used the value
299: $M_H=8$ GeV and it leads to slightly lower values of the gap survival
300: probability at low energies.
301: Results of calculations are presented
302: in Fig. 3.
303: \begin{figure}[h]
304: \begin{center}
305: \includegraphics*[scale=0.6]{gsp.eps} \vspace*{-0.5cm}
306: \end{center}
307: \caption{\small\it Energy dependence of gap survival probability $\langle |S|^2\rangle$}
308: \end{figure}
309: One can notice that the gap survival probability reaches its
310: minimal values at the Tevatron highest energy. It is not
311: surprising since the scattering at this energy is very close to
312: the black disk limit.
313:
314: Asymptotical behaviour of the gap survival probability has the form:
315: \begin{equation}\label{asym}
316: \langle |S|^2\rangle\simeq 1-\frac{\xi M_H}{2m_Q}s^{-\frac{\xi M_H}{2m_Q}}\ln s.
317: \end{equation}
318: The two unitarization schemes ($U$--matrix and eikonal)
319: lead to
320: different predictions for the gap survival probability
321: in the limit $s\to\infty$; eikonal unitarization predicts $\langle
322: |S|^2\rangle=0$ at $s\to\infty$, while $U$--matrix formalism gives
323: $\langle |S|^2\rangle=1$. Latter is a result of transition to the
324: antishadow scattering mode in the $U$--matrix unitarization
325: \cite{bds}, when the amplitude becomes $|f(s,b)|> 1/2$ (in the
326: case of imaginary eikonal the scattering amplitude never
327: exceeds the black disk limit
328: $|f(s,b)|\leq 1/2$). It should be noted that the Froissart-Martin bound
329: implies unitarity (not black disk) limit for the partial amplitudes.
330: When the amplitude exceeds the black disk limit (in central
331: collisions at high energies) then the scattering at such impact
332: parameters turns out to be of an antishadow nature.
333: In this antishadow scattering mode
334: the elastic amplitude increases with decrease of the inelastic
335: channels contribution at small impact parameters and most of
336: inelastic interactions occur in the
337: peripheral region; the inelastic overlap function has a peripheral
338: impact parameter profile, which is a main reason of the large gap
339: survival probability.
340:
341:
342: Numerical predictions for the gap survival probability
343: obtained here depend on the
344: particular parameterization for $U$--matrix,
345: but the qualitative picture of the
346: energy behaviour of $\langle |S|^2\rangle$ reflects transition to the new
347: scattering mode at the LHC energies and is valid for various
348: $U$--matrix parameterizations which provide rising total cross--sections.
349: One should note that the numerical values of
350: $\langle |S|^2\rangle$ at the Tevatron energies are in a qualitative agreement
351: with a number of quantitative calculations performed in the eikonal
352: approaches (cf. \cite{khoze}).
353:
354: In the sense of gap survival probability
355: situation should be more favorable at the LHC energies
356: since the obtained numerical values of $\langle |S|^2\rangle$ at these
357: energies are close to unity and this should lead to much higher cross--sections
358: (by factor of $40$ compare to the calculations based on the gap survival probability
359: estimations in the framework of the eikonal model \cite{martin} )
360: e.g. for Higgs production in double diffractive processes compared to the
361: values obtained with eikonal based estimations of the gap survival probability.
362:
363:
364: Thus, the antishadowing which appearance is expected
365: at the LHC energies, should be correlated with enhancement of Higgs production
366: cross--section in double diffractive scattering and this would
367: significantly help in detecting of Higgs boson.
368:
369:
370:
371:
372:
373:
374: \small \begin{thebibliography}{99}
375: \bibitem{dok}
376: Y. Dokshitzer, V. Khoze, S. Troyan, in Physics in Collision VI, Proceedings
377: of the International Conference, Chicago, Illinois, 1986, edited by M. Derrick
378: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987), p. 365.
379: \bibitem{land}
380: A. Bialas, P.V. Landshoff, Phys. Lett. B256, 540 (1991).
381: \bibitem{bj}
382: J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D45, 4077 (1992); Phys. Rev. D47, 101
383: (1993).
384: \bibitem{khoze}
385: V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C26, 229
386: (2002).
387: \bibitem{flet}
388: R. S. Fletcher, Phys. Lett. B320, 373 (1994).
389: \bibitem{gots}
390: E. Gotsman, E. Levin, U. Maor, Phys. Lett. B438, 229 (1998).
391: \bibitem{block}
392: M.M. Block, F. Halzen, Phys. Rev. D63, 114004 (2001).
393: \bibitem{kaid}
394: A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C21, 521 (2001).
395: \bibitem{der}
396: A. De Roeck, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, R. Orava, M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J.
397: C25, 391 (2002).
398: \bibitem{petr}
399: V.A. Petrov, R.A. Ryutin, hep-ph/0311024.
400: \bibitem{blan}
401: R. Blankenbecler, M. L. Goldberger, Phys. Rev. 126, 766 (1962).
402: \bibitem{umat}
403: A.A. Logunov, V.I. Savrin, N.E. Tyurin and O.A. Khrustalev,
404: Teor. Math. Phys. 6, 157 (1971).
405: \bibitem{heit}
406: W. Heitler, Proc. Cambr. Phil. Soc., 37, 291 (1941).
407: \bibitem{bds}
408: S.M. Troshin, N.E. Tyurin,
409: Phys. Lett. B316, 175 (1993) .
410: \bibitem{lhc}
411: S.M. Troshin, N.E. Tyurin, Eur. Phys. J. C21, 679 (2001); V.A.
412: Petrov, A.V.~Prokudin, S.M. Troshin, N.E. Tyurin, J. Phys. G27
413: 2225, (2001).
414: \bibitem{cdf}
415: P. Giromini, Proc. of the Vth Blois
416: Workshop on Elastic and Diffractive Scattering, Providence, Rhode
417: Island, June 1993, p. 30.
418: \bibitem{chyang}
419: T.T. Chou, C.N. Yang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 2, 1727 (1987).
420: \bibitem{tuh}
421: N.E. Tyurin, O.A. Khrustalev.
422: Theor. Math. Phys. 24, 847 (1976).
423: \bibitem{edn}
424: V.F. Edneral, S.M. Troshin, N.E. Tyurin, O.A. Khrustalev.
425: Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 22 347, (1975); CERN-TH-2126 (1976).
426: \bibitem{jenk}
427: P. Desgrolard, L. Jenkovszky, B. Struminsky, Eur. Phys. J. C 11 , 145 (1999).
428: \bibitem{chpr} S.M. Troshin, N.E.
429: Tyurin, Nuovo Cim. 106A ,\rm 327 (1993); Proc. of the Vth
430: Blois
431: Workshop on Elastic and Diffractive Scattering, Providence, Rhode
432: Island, June 1993, p. 387; Phys. Rev. D49, \rm 4427 (1994); Z.
433: Phys. C 64, \rm 311 (1994).
434: \bibitem{pras}
435: S. M. Troshin, N. E. Tyurin, O. P. Yuschenko, Nuovo Cimento A
436: {\bf 91}, 23 (1986);
437: P.~M.~Nadolsky, S. M. Troshin, N. E. Tyurin, Z. Phys.
438: C 69, \rm 131 (1995).
439: \bibitem{univ}
440: S.M. Troshin, N.E. Tyurin,
441: Phys. Rev. D55, 7305 (1997).
442: \bibitem{jpg} S. M. Troshin, N. E. Tyurin,
443: J. Phys. G. 29, 1061 (2003).
444: \bibitem{bartels}
445: J. Bartels, H. Kowalski,
446: Eur. Phys. J. C 693 (2001).
447: \bibitem{martin}
448: V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C18, 167 (2000).
449: \end{thebibliography}
450: \end{document}
451: