1: %\documentclass{cjpsuppl}% for LaTeX 2e
2: \documentclass{article}% for LaTeX 2e
3:
4: % \usepackage{graphics} % or
5:
6: \usepackage{epsfig }
7: %\slacs{.6mm}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \title{Impact of saturation on spin effects\\ in proton-proton
12: scattering\footnote{presented by O.V.S.
13: at the Advanced Studies Institute ``Symetries and Spin"
14: (SPIN-Praha-2004), Prague, July 5 - July 10, 2004.} }
15:
16: \author{O.\,V. Selyugin\footnote{
17: JINR, Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, 141980 Dubna, Russia, e-mail: selugin@thsun1.jinr.ru} ~~and
18: ~~J.-R. Cudell\footnote{Institut de Physique, B\^at. B5a, Universit\'e de Li\`ege, Sart Tilman, B4000 Li\`ege, Belgium, e-mail: JR.Cudell@ulg.ac.be}}
19:
20: \maketitle
21:
22:
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25:
26: For pomerons described by a sum of two simple-pole terms, a soft
27: and a hard pomeron, the unitarity bounds from saturation in
28: impact-parameter space are examined. We consider the effect of
29: these bounds on observables linked with polarisation, such as the
30: analyzing power $A_N$ in elastic proton-proton scattering, for LHC
31: energies. We obtain the $s$ and $t$
32: % energy and momentum-transfer
33: dependence of the Coulomb-nuclear interference at small momentum
34: transfer, and show that the effect of the hard pomeron may be
35: observed at the LHC.
36: \end{abstract}
37:
38: \section{Introduction}
39: %In this work, we investigate strong-interaction processes at large
40: %distances and high energies for different
41: %models describing the structure of hadrons and the dynamics of their
42: %interactions.
43: The study of elastic scattering requires a detailed knowledge of
44: the properties of the pomeron, which is the dominant interaction
45: of hadrons at high energies. In this case, the structure and spin
46: properties both of the hadron and of the pomeron play a special
47: role.
48:
49: There are two regimes for the pomeron, the ``soft"
50: non-perturbative pomeron, and the perturbative-QCD ``hard"
51: pomeron. The soft pomeron dominates in high-energy hadron-hadron
52: diffractive reactions at long distances while the hard pomeron
53: dominates in high-energy short-distance scattering \cite{bj} and
54: determines the very-small-$x$ behaviour of deep inelastic
55: structure functions and spin-averaged gluon distributions.
56:
57: The ``soft" pomeron of the standard form with
58: $ \alpha_{pom}(0)=1 + \epsilon$.
59: was introduced in \cite{lan1}%
60: The observed growth of inelastic cross sections and the
61: multiplicity coincide with these idea.
62: The perturbative QCD leading log calculation of the gluon ladder diagrams
63: gives the following result \cite{kur}
64: \begin{eqnarray}
65: \epsilon = 12 \ \alpha_{s}/ \pi \ \ln{2} \sim 0.5 .
66: \end{eqnarray}
67: Really,
68: the new global QCD analysis of data for various hard scattering processes
69: leads to the small x behaviour of the gluon structure function
70: determined by the hard pomeron contribution \cite{lai}
71: $ g(x) \sim 1/x^{1+\epsilon} $
72: with $\epsilon = 0.3$.
73: % In \cite{levin}, the overall analysis of experimental material has been made
74: %on the basis of the soft and hard supercritical pomeron where
75: %the $\log^{2}(s/s_0)$ has been obtained.
76: %Good agreement with the data on deep inelastic scattering
77: %and photoproduction is achieved when the non-perturbative
78: %component of the pomeron is governed by the ``maximal" behaviour, i.e.
79: %like $\ln^2(s)$ \cite{enk2}.
80: A recent analysis \cite{mrt} of the experimental data for total
81: cross sections and $\rho$-parameters of hadron-hadron and
82: photon-hadron scattering reveals the possibility that both soft
83: and hard pomerons are simple poles, and that both contribute to
84: soft physics: if the soft pomeron is a simple pole, the hard
85: pomeron is in fact needed to describe simultaneously the energy
86: dependence of the total cross sections (hence the imaginary part
87: of the scattering amplitude at $t=0$) simultaneously with the
88: value of $\rho(s, t=0)$---the ratio of the real to the imaginary
89: part of the hadron elastic spin-non-flip scattering
90: amplitude---(hence the real part of this amplitude).
91:
92: Note that the contribution of the hard pomeron to the elastic
93: amplitude leads to the saturation of the unitarity bound in the
94: profile function at some impact-parameter values at very high
95: energies.
96:
97: Here, by ``saturation", we mean, in the $S$-matrix language, that
98: for some distance between scattering particles, the maximum
99: possible scattering is reached. This distance is correlated with
100: the angular momentum $l$ and part of the scattering reaches the
101: black disc limit (BDL).
102:
103: It is that last meaning of ``saturation", which is directly
104: connected with the unitary property of the scattering amplitude,
105: that we shall use in this work.
106:
107: % As the coefficient in front of the logarithm is very large,
108: %``saturation of the Froissart-Martin bound'' usually refers
109: %to an energy dependence of the total cross section rising
110: %as $\log^2 s$ rather than to the limit of a total cross section equal
111: % to (\ref{FM}).
112: %Experimental data reveal that total cross sections
113: %grow with energy. This means that the leading contribution in the
114: %high-energy limit is given by the rightmost singularity in the complex-$j$
115: %plane, the pomeron,
116: %with intercept exceeding unity.
117: %In the framework of perturbative QCD,
118: %the intercept is also expected to exceed unity by an amount
119: %proportional to $\alpha_s$ \cite{lipatov1}. At leading-log, one obtains
120: %a leading singularity at $J-1 \ = \ 12 \ \log 2({\alpha_s }/{\pi})$.
121: %In this case, the Froissart-Martin bound is soon violated.
122:
123: \section{The elastic-scattering amplitude at high energy}
124: The presence of a hard pomeron in elastic diffractive processes
125: with a large intercept $1+\epsilon_2 =1.45$ \cite{mrt,lnd-hp} will
126: lead to a lowering of the energy where saturation starts: it now
127: appears as we approach the TeV region.
128: It is not obvious
129: how the total cross sections will grow with energy after
130: partial saturation, especially in the energy region of LHC.
131:
132: One can show that saturation leads to a behaviour of the total
133: cross sections at LHC energy which is almost model-independent.
134: Indeed, different models can be obtained by varying the the
135: profile function of the hadrons. The BDL leads to a cut of this
136: function when it reaches 1. If we take a sharp cut with a break in
137: the derivative, then we obtain strong edge effects from the disk
138: corresponding to the radius of saturation $b_s$. To remove such
139: nonphysical behaviour, we input an additional function which
140: provides a smooth matching between the central black disk and the
141: rest of the amplitude, and consider various profile functions
142: (exponential, Gaussian, multipole).
143:
144: We find in fact that the energy dependence of the imaginary part
145: of the amplitude and hence of the total cross section depends on
146: the form of $f(b)$, {i.e.} on the $s$ and $t$ dependence of the
147: slope of the elastic scattering amplitude, but that fitting these
148: quantities to existing data removes most of the uncertainty. It is
149: unlikely that the LHC will help us choose the right profile
150: function, or let us decide whether saturation has been reached.
151: So, we need additional information.
152:
153: Therefore, we investigate the impact of the hard pomeron on the
154: polarisation of the elastic proton-proton scattering at LHC
155: energies and at small momentum transfer. One of the most important
156: effects is the Coulomb-Nuclear Interference at small
157: momentum transfer
158: \cite{schwinger,lap,lead},
159: which mostly comes from the interference of the imaginary part of
160: the hadron spin-non flip amplitude with the electromagnetic part
161: of the spin-flip amplitude.
162:
163: The differential cross section and analysing power $A_N$ are
164: defined as follows:
165: \begin{eqnarray}
166: \frac{d\sigma}{dt}&=& \frac{2
167: \pi}{s^2}(|\Phi_1|^2+|\Phi_2|^2+|\Phi_3|^2
168: +|\Phi_4|^2+4|\Phi_5|^2), \label{dsth}\\
169: A_N\frac{d\sigma}{dt}&=& -\frac{4\pi}{s^2}
170: Im[(\Phi_1+\Phi_2+\Phi_3-\Phi_4) \Phi_5^{*})], \label{anth}
171: \end{eqnarray}
172: in terms of the usual helicity amplitudes $\Phi_i$.
173:
174: In the general case, the form of $A_N$ and the position of its
175: maximum depend on the parameters of the elastic scattering
176: amplitude: $\sigma_{\rm tot}$, $\rho(s,t)$, the Coulomb-nuclear
177: interference phase $\varphi_{\rm cn}(s,t)$ and the elastic slope
178: $B(s,t)$. For the definition of new effects at small angles, and
179: especially in the region of the diffraction minimum, one must know
180: the effects of the Coulomb-nuclear interference with sufficiently
181: high accuracy. The Coulomb-nuclear phase was calculated in the
182: entire diffraction domain taking into account the form factors of
183: the nucleons \cite{prd-sum}.
184:
185: The total helicity amplitudes can be written as
186: \begin{eqnarray}
187: \Phi_i(s,t) = \phi^h_{i}(s,t)
188: + \phi_{i}^{\rm em}(t) \exp[i \alpha_{\rm em} \varphi_{\rm cn}(s,t)],
189: \end{eqnarray}
190: where $\alpha_{\rm em}=1/137$ is the electromagnetic constant,
191: $\phi^h_{i}(s,t)$ describes the strong interaction of hadrons,
192: $\phi_{i}^{\rm em}(t)$ their electromagnetic interaction, and
193: $\varphi_{\rm cn}(s,t)$ is the electromagnetic-strong interference
194: phase factor. Therefore, to determine the hadron spin-flip
195: amplitude at small angles, one should take into account all
196: electromagnetic and Coulomb-nuclear interference (CNI) effects.
197:
198: In this paper, we define the hadronic and electromagnetic
199: spin-non-flip amplitudes as
200: \begin{eqnarray}
201: F^{h}_{\rm nf}(s,t)
202: &=&
203: = \frac{1}{2s}\left[\phi^h_{1}(s,t) + \phi^h_{3}(s,t)\right]; \ \
204: \\
205: F^{c}_{\rm nf}(s,t)
206: &=&
207: = \frac{1}{2s}\left[\phi^{\rm em}_{1}(s,t) + \phi^{\rm em}_{3}(s,t)\right].
208: \end{eqnarray}
209: Taking into account the Coulomb-nuclear phase $\varphi_{\rm cn}$,
210: we obtain
211: \begin{equation}
212: Im F_{\rm nf}^{c} = \alpha_{\rm em} \varphi_{\rm cn} F_{\rm
213: nf}^{c} .
214: \end{equation}
215: %The ``reduced'' spin-flip amplitudes are defined as
216: % $\tilde{F^{h}_{\rm sf}}(s,t) = \phi^{h}_{5}(s,t)/(s \sqrt{|t|})$ and
217: % $\tilde{F^{c}_{\rm sf}}(s,t) = \phi^{\rm em}_{5}(s,t)/(s \sqrt{|t|})$.
218:
219: Let us now examine the behaviour of the analysing power
220: (\ref{anth}), which can be rewritten as
221: \begin{eqnarray}
222: \frac{A_N}{2}\frac{d\sigma}{dt}& =&
223: (ImF_{\rm nf}ReF_{\rm sf}-ReF_{\rm nf}ImF_{\rm sf}) \\ \nonumber
224: &=& [( ImF_{\rm nf}^h ReF_{\rm sf}^c +ImF_{\rm nf}^c ReF_{\rm sf}^c
225: - ReF_{\rm nf}^h ImF_{\rm sf}^c
226: -ReF_{\rm nf}^c ImF_{\rm sf}^c )\\ \nonumber
227: &+& (ImF_{\rm nf}^h ReF_{\rm sf}^h -ReF_{\rm nf}^c ImF_{\rm sf}^h
228: + ImF_{\rm nf}^c ReF_{\rm sf}^{h} -Re F_{\rm nf}^{h} Im F_{\rm sf}^{h})]. \label{anf}
229: \end{eqnarray}
230:
231: Equation (\ref{anth}) was applied at high energy and at small
232: momentum transfer, with the following usual assumptions
233: for hadron spin-flip amplitudes:\\
234: $\bullet$ $\phi_{1}=\phi_{3}$, $\phi_{2}=\phi_{4} = 0$, \\
235: $\bullet$ the slopes of the hadronic spin-flip and spin-non-flip
236: amplitudes are equal.
237:
238: In this kinematic region, the analysing power can then be
239: rewritten as
240: \begin{eqnarray}
241: \frac{A_N}{2}\frac{d\sigma}{dt}& =& -(ImF_{\rm nf}^h ReF_{\rm
242: sf}^c + Im F^{c}_{\rm nf} Re F^{c}_{\rm sf})
243: + ImF_{\rm sf}^c (Re F_{\rm nf}^{c} + Re F_{\rm nf}^{h})
244: \end{eqnarray}
245:
246: If we know the parameters of the hadron spin non-flip amplitude,
247: the measurement of the analyzing power at small transfer momenta
248: helps us to find the structure
249: of the hadron spin-flip amplitude.
250:
251: \subsection{Soft and hard pomeron as simple poles}
252:
253: Let us extend the Donnachie-Landshoff (DL) \cite{DL} approach as
254: it is a well-known model for hadron-hadron elastic scattering. A
255: modern analysis of the existing experimental data for the
256: hadron-hadron and photon-hadron total cross sections and
257: $\rho(s,t=0)$ parameters suggests a possible contribution of the
258: hard pomeron \cite{mrt,lnd-hp}.
259:
260: In the DL approach, the $pp$-elastic scattering amplitude is
261: proportional to the hadrons form-factors and can be approximated
262: at small $t$ by \cite{lnd-hp}:
263: \begin{eqnarray}
264: T(s,t) \ = [\ h_{1} \ (s/s_0)^{\epsilon_1}
265: e^{\alpha^{\prime}_1 \ t \ \ln (s/s_0)}
266: \ + \ \ h_{2} \ (s/s_0)^{\epsilon_2}
267: e^{\alpha^{\prime}_2 \ t \ \ln (s/s_0)} ]
268: \ F^2(t).
269: \end{eqnarray}
270: where $h_1=4.47$ and $h_2 = 0.005$ are the coupling of the
271: ``soft'' and ``hard'' pomerons, and $1+\epsilon_1 =1.073$,
272: $\alpha^{\prime}_1=0.3$\,GeV$^2$, and $1+\epsilon_2=1.45$,
273: $\alpha^{\prime}_2=0.10$\,GeV$^2$ are the intercepts and the
274: slopes of the two pomeron trajectories. The normalisation $s_0$
275: will be set to $1$\,GeV$^2$ below and $s$ implicitly contains the
276: phase factor $\exp(-i \pi/2)$. $F^2(t)$ is the square of the
277: Dirac elastic form factor,
278:
279: \begin{eqnarray}
280: F^2(t)=\frac{4 m_p^2-2.79 t}{4 m_p^2-t} \frac{1}{1-t/\Lambda^2}
281: \label{dff}
282: \end{eqnarray}
283: where $m_p$ is the mass of the proton and
284: $\Lambda^2=0.71$\,GeV$^2$. It can be approximated by the sum of
285: three exponential \cite{book}:
286: \begin{eqnarray}
287: F^2(t)\approx f_a e^{d_a \ t} + f_b e^{d_b \ t}
288: + f_c e^{d_c \ t}. \label{eff}
289: \end{eqnarray}
290: with
291: $$f_a=0.55 , \ \ \ f_b=0.25, \ \ \ f_c=0.20,$$
292: and
293: $$d_a=5.5 \ {\rm GeV}^{-2}, \ \ \ d_b=4.1 \ {\rm GeV}^{-2}, \ \ \ d_c=1.2 \ {\rm GeV}^{-2} .$$
294:
295: We then obtain in the impact parameter representation a specific
296: form for the profile function $\Gamma(b,s)$ \cite{dif04}. One can
297: see that at some energy and at small $b$, $\Gamma(b,s)$ reaches
298: the black disk limit.
299: For one-(soft+hard)-pomeron exchange %(with intercept 1.09),
300: this will be in the region $\sqrt{s} \approx 1.5 $\,TeV. If one
301: adds to the model the cut due to 2-pomeron exchanges \cite{DL},
302: the resulting $\Gamma_2$ will saturate at $\sqrt{s}=4.5 $\,TeV.
303:
304: From the DL model, we obtain in the impact parameter
305: representation the following form of the profile function
306: $\Gamma(b,s)$:
307: \begin{eqnarray}
308: \Gamma(b,s) &=&
309: h_{1a} \exp(-\frac{x^2}{r^2_{1a}})
310: + h_{1b} \exp(-\frac{x^2}{r^2_{1b}}) + h_{1c} \exp(-\frac{x^2}{r^2_{1c}})
311: \nonumber \\
312: &+& h_{2a} \exp(-\frac{x^2}{r^2_{2a}})
313: + h_{2b} \exp(-\frac{x^2}{r^2_{2b}}) + h_{2c} \exp(-\frac{x^2}{r^2_{2c}}), \label{pf}
314: \end{eqnarray}
315: where the variables $h_i,\ i=a, b, c$ are
316: \begin{eqnarray}
317: h_{1i}
318: % & = &
319: = 2 {f_i} h_1 s^{\epsilon_1} / r^2_{1i}; \ \ \ % \\
320: h_{2i} =
321: % & = &
322: 2 {f_i} h_2 s^{\epsilon_2} / r^2_{2i}.
323: \end{eqnarray}
324: with
325: \begin{eqnarray}
326: r_{1i}^2 = 4 \left(d_i + \alpha^{\prime}_1
327: \log({s}/{s_0})\right); \ \ \ r_{2i}^2 = 4 \left(d_i +
328: \alpha^{\prime}_2 \log({s}/{s_0})\right) .
329: \end{eqnarray}
330:
331: Here the value $s$ contains the phase factor $\exp(-i \pi/2)$.
332: % If double pomeron
333: % exchange is taken into account it gives:
334: %\begin{eqnarray}
335: % \Gamma(b,s)_2 \ = \ G_0 (b,s) - \lambda G_{0}^2 (b,s)/2.
336: % \end{eqnarray}
337: % At some energy and at small $b$, the $\Gamma(b,s)$ reach
338: % For the one pomeron exchange it will be in the region
339: % at $\sqrt{s} \approx 1.5 \ $~TeV.
340: % and for $\Gamma_2$ it will be at $\sqrt{s}=4.5 \ $~TeV.
341: Saturation of the profile function will control the behaviour of
342: $\sigma_{\rm tot}$ at super-high energies.
343: %Furthermore,
344: We implement saturation as explained above, by using a smooth
345: matching between the saturated region ($ \Gamma(b,s)=1$, $b<b_s$)
346: and the unsaturated one ($ \Gamma(b,s)$ given by (\ref{pf}).
347: %%%%%%%%%%% FIG. 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
348: \begin{figure}[!ht]
349: ~\vglue -1.5cm
350: %\centerline{\mbox{\epsfysize=70mm\epsffile{anss20t.ps}}}\vglue -0.5cm
351: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfysize=80mm\epsffile{anss20t.ps}}}\vglue
352: -0.6cm
353: \caption{ $A_N$ due to the interference of electromagnetic
354: and strong amplitudes, calculated at $\sqrt{s} = 20 $\,TeV.
355: (hard line --- with saturation, with contributions from the soft
356: and the hard pomerons; dashed line --- without saturation, with
357: a contribution only the soft pomeron, normalised to the total
358: cross section at $\sqrt{s} = 550$\,GeV). } \label{Fig_1}
359: \end{figure}
360: %%%%%%%%%%% FIG. 1 KONEC %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
361:
362: Let us now calculate the CNI effect at LHC energies in different
363: approaches. On the one hand, the contribution of the hard pomeron
364: will lead to a growth of the real part of the spin-non-flip
365: elastic scattering amplitude, but on the other hand, the
366: contribution of the hard pomeron in the profile function at small
367: impact parameters leads to the saturation of the unitarity bound,
368: and to a decrease of the real part of the hadron spin-non-flip
369: amplitude. The calculated $A_N$, which comes from the CNI-effect,
370: in the framework of the Donnachie--Landshoff model with a
371: contribution from the hard pomeron is shown in Fig.~1.
372:
373: In this figure, the hard line represents the result from
374: saturation with contributions from the soft and from the hard
375: pomerons whereas the dashed line is calculated without saturation
376: but with only a soft pomeron. Of course the predictions for LHC
377: energies depend on the values of the couplings and intercepts of
378: the pomeron(s). For both cases, we choose these parameters to
379: obtain a correct description of the total cross sections at high
380: energies ($\sqrt{s} > 50$\,GeV). From Fig.~1, we can see that the
381: shape of the analysing power is practically the same in both
382: cases.
383: %Note that the saturation regime in the first case
384: %is reached at $\sqrt{s} \sim 2$~TeV, and that the
385: %interplay between the hard pomeron
386: %and the saturation regime moves the position of the CNI-peak towards
387: %higher $t$.
388:
389: In Fig. 2a, we show the energy dependence of the value of the
390: maximum of $A_N$ for three cases. In the first one, we use
391: saturation and contributions from the soft and the hard pomerons.
392: In the second one, we do not use a unitarity/saturation bound and
393: we allow a free growth of the profile function.
394:
395: We then obtain a decrease of the maximum CNI-effect faster than in
396: the case of the saturation regime but only at very high energies
397: ($\sqrt{s} > 10 $\,TeV). This means that saturation tampers the
398: growth of the real part which comes from the hard pomeron.
399: Finally, the third case shows the standard behaviour of of the CNI
400: effect when we take into account only the contribution of the soft
401: pomeron (with intercept 1.07), which reaches the unitarity bound
402: only at super-high energies beyond the LHC. At the LHC, the value
403: of the maximum of $A_N$ changes slowly with the energy.
404:
405: In Fig. 2b, we show the energy dependence of the value of the
406: maximum of $A_N$ in these three cases. It increases faster in the
407: case of the saturation regime especially at sufficiently large
408: energies, whereas the smallest change corresponds to the standard
409: analysis with a contribution from the soft pomeron only.
410: %\vspace{-10.mm}
411: %%%%%%%%%%% FIG. 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
412: \begin{figure}\begin{center}
413: ~\vglue -1.2cm \vbox{\mbox{\epsfxsize=110mm\epsffile{anmax2.ps}}~\vglue -4.5cm\hglue 4.5cm (a)\\[2.5cm]
414: \mbox{\epsfxsize=110mm\epsffile{antmax1.ps}}\\
415: ~\vglue -5.5cm\hglue 4.5cm (b)\vglue +4cm }
416: \end{center}\caption{ The energy
417: dependence of a) the maximum value of $A_N$ and b) the position in
418: $t$ of the maximum of $A_N$ (hard line: in the saturation regime,
419: with contributions from the soft and the hard pomeron; the
420: dash-dotted line: the same, but without saturation; dashed line:
421: without saturation, with a contribution from the soft pomeron
422: only, normalised to the total cross section at $ \sqrt{s} \ = \
423: 550 $\,GeV). }
424: \end{figure}
425:
426: \section{Conclusion}
427: In the presence of a hard pomeron, saturation effects can change
428: the behaviour of some characteristic features of the diffractive
429: scattering amplitudes at the LHC.
430: %Some models predict non-decreasing spin effects at super-high
431: %energies in diffractive reactions \cite{ter,gol-pl,fo,do}. The unknown
432: %magnitude of the hadron spin-flip is a serious limitation
433: %on the use of the Coulomb-nuclear interference
434: %for the definition of the beam polarisation at future colliders.
435: However, accurate measurements of the analysing power in the
436: Coulomb-nuclear interference region can map the structure of the
437: hadron spin-flip amplitude, and this will give us further
438: information about the behaviour of hadronic interactions at large
439: distances.
440: Large-distance spin-flip contributions can be taken into account,
441: for example in the peripheral dynamic model \cite{zpc,yaf-str}.
442: Saturation will lead to a relative growth of the contribution of
443: peripheral interactions, and to changes in the energy dependence
444: of the differential cross sections at moderate momentum transfer.
445: This is especially true in the case of the energy dependence of
446: the Coulomb-nuclear interference at small $t$. Such saturation
447: effects can in principle be observed at the LHC.\bigskip
448:
449: \noindent {{\bf Acknowledgements:}
450: The authors would like to thank P.V. Landshoff for helpful
451: discussion. This research was conducted while O.V.S. was a
452: Visiting Fellow of the FNRS, Belgium.}
453:
454: %Fonds National pour la Recherche Scientifique, Belgium.}
455: % \bigskip
456:
457: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
458: % \bibitem{frois} M. Froissart, Phys. Rev. {\bf 123} (1961) 1053;
459: % A. Martin, Nuovo Cimento {\bf A 42} (1965) 930.
460:
461: \bibitem{bj}
462: J.\,D.~Bjorken:
463: %``Soft and hard pomerons: Is there a distinction?,''
464: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 25B} (1992) 253.
465: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,25B,253;%%
466:
467: \bibitem{lan1} A.Donnachie, P.V.Landshoff, Nucl. Phys. v.231B (1984) 189.
468: \bibitem{kur} E.A.Kuraev, L.N.Lipatov, V.F.Fadin, Zetf, v.72 (1977) 377.
469: \bibitem{lai} H.L.Lai et al., preprint MSU-Hep-41024, STEQ-404, Michigan, 1994.
470: %\bibitem{lipatov1} L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 23} (1976) 338;
471: % E.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov, and V.S. Fadin,
472: % Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 45} (1977) 199;
473: % I.I. Balitsky and L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 28} (1978) 822.
474: %\bibitem{levin} E.Gotsman, E.Levin, U.Maor, Z. Phys. C57 (1993) 677.
475: \bibitem{mrt}
476: J.~R.~Cudell, E.~Martynov, O.~Selyugin and A.~Lengyel,
477: %``The hard pomeron in soft data,''
478: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 587}, 78 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0310198].
479: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310198;%%
480: %\bibitem{nach}O.~Nachtmann,
481: %``Considerations Concerning Diffraction Scattering
482: % In Quantum Chromodynamics,''
483: %Annals Phys.\ {\bf 209} (1991) 436;
484: %%CITATION = APNYA,209,436;%%
485: %H.~G.~Dosch, E.~Ferreira and A.~Kramer;
486: %``Nonperturbative QCD Treatment Of High-Energy Hadron Hadron Scattering,''
487: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50} (1994) 1992
488: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9405237].
489: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405237;%%
490:
491: %\bibitem{bart}
492: %J.~Bartels, E.~Gotsman, E.~Levin, M.~Lublinsky and U.~Maor,
493: %``The dipole picture and saturation in soft processes,''
494: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 556} (2003) 114
495: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0212284].
496: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212284;%%
497: \bibitem{lnd-hp}
498: A.~Donnachie and P.\,V.~Landshoff:
499: %``Does the hard pomeron obey Regge factorisation?,''
500: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 595} (2004) 393, [arXiv:hep-ph/0402081].
501: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402081;%%
502: \bibitem{schwinger}
503: J.\,S.~Schwinger:
504: %``On Quantum Electrodynamics And The Magnetic Moment Of The Electron,''
505: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 73} (1948) 416.
506: %%CITATION = PHRVA,73,416;%%
507: %J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev., {\bf 73} (1948) p. 407???.
508: \bibitem{lap} L.\,I. Lapidus: Particles \& Nuclei {\bf 9} (1978) 84;
509: \bibitem{lead}
510: N.\,H.~Buttimore, E.~Gotsman and E.~Leader:
511: %``Spin Dependent Phenomena Induced By Electromagnetic Hadronic Interference At
512: %High-Energies,''
513: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 18} (1978) 694;
514: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D18,694;%%
515: % N.\,H. Buttimore, E. Gotsman, E. Leader: Phys. Rev.
516: % {\bf D 35} (1987) 407.%???????????????????.
517: %11
518: \bibitem{prd-sum}
519: O.\,V.~Selyugin:
520: %``Coulomb hadron phase factor and spin phenomena in a wide region of transfer
521: %momenta,''
522: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 074028.
523: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D60,074028;%%
524: \bibitem{DL}
525: A.~Donnachie and P.\,V.~Landshoff:
526: %``P P And Anti-P P Elastic Scattering,''
527: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 231} (1984) 189.
528: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B231,189;%%
529: \bibitem{book}S.~Donnachie, G.~Dosch, O.~Nachtmann and
530: P.~Landshoff: {\it Pomeron Physics And QCD}, Cambridge University
531: Press (2002) p. 347, (Cambridge monographs on particle physics,
532: nuclear physics and cosmology, 19).
533: \bibitem{dif04}
534: J.\,R.~Cudell and O.\,V.~Selyugin:
535: in {\it Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on LHC
536: Physics and Detectors (LHC 2003)}, Batavia, Illinois, May 1--3,
537: 2003, [arXiv:hep-ph/0309194].
538: %\bibitem{lipat04} J. Bartels, L.N. Lipatov, G.P. Vacca,
539: % hep-ph/0404110.
540: %\bibitem{sel-pl} O. V. Selyugin, Phys. Lett. {\bf B333}, 245 (1993).
541: %3
542: %4
543: %\bibitem{ter}
544: %A.~V.~Efremov and O.~V.~Teryaev,
545: %%``QCD Asymmetry And Polarized Hadron Structure Functions,''
546: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 150} (1985) 383.
547: %%%CITATION = PHLTA,B150,383;%%
548: %5
549: %\bibitem{gol-pl}
550: %S.~V.~Goloskokov,
551: %``Quark - pomeron vertex and spin effects at high-energies,''
552: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 315} (1993) 459.
553: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B315,459;%%
554: %\bibitem{fo}
555: %M.~Anselmino and S.~Forte,
556: %``Small angle polarization in high-energy p p scattering through
557: %nonperturbative chiral symmetry breaking,''
558: %Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 71} (1993) 223
559: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9211221].
560: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9211221;%%
561: %8
562: %\bibitem{do}
563: %A.~E.~Dorokhov, N.~I.~Kochelev and Y.~A.~Zubov,
564: %``Proton spin within nonperturbative QCD,''
565: %Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 8} (1993) 603.
566: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A8,603;%%
567: %16
568: %\bibitem{yaf-wak}
569: % O.V.Selyugin,
570: % Phys. of Atomic Nuclei {\bf 62} (1999) 333.
571: %19
572: \bibitem{zpc}
573: S.~V.~Goloskokov, S.~P.~Kuleshov and O.~V.~Selyugin,
574: %``Spin effects in high-energy hadron hadron scattering,''
575: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 50} (1991) 455.
576: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C50,455;%%
577: %20
578: \bibitem{yaf-str}
579: N.~Akchurin, S.~V.~Goloskokov and O.~V.~Selyugin,
580: %``Spin-dependent differential cross sections at small angles at RHIC
581: %energies,''
582: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 14} (1999) 253.
583: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A14,253;%%
584: \end{thebibliography}
585: %\lastevenpage
586: \end{document}
587: