1: \documentclass[twocolumn,twoside,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,pacs]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{epsfig}

3: %\usepackage{showkeys}

4: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

5: \usepackage{dcolumn}

6: \usepackage{bm}

7: 

8: % \topmargin 0.5cm

9: 

10: 

11: %\usepackage{fancyhdr}

12: 

13: \usepackage{pslatex}

14: 

15: %\pagestyle{fancy}

16: %\fancyhead{}

17: %\fancyfoot{}

18: %\fancyhead[RO,LE]{\thepage}

19: %\fancyhead[RE]{\emph{Brazilian Journal of Physics,  vol. , no. ??,  

20: %?????????, 2006}}

21: %\fancyhead[LO]{\emph{ ????????????????????????  }}

22: 

23: %\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}

24: \newcommand\noi{\noindent}

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

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

27:  \newcommand\beqn{\begin{eqnarray}}

28:  \newcommand\eeqn{\end{eqnarray}}

29:  \newcommand{\la}{\langle}  

30:  \newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}

31:  \def\mb{\,\mbox{mb}}

32: \def\fm{\,\mbox{fm}}

33: \def\GeV{\,\mbox{GeV}}

34: \def\MeV{\,\mbox{MeV}}

35: \def\TeV{\,\mbox{TeV}}

36:  \def\Pom{{ I\!\!P}}

37:  \def\Reg{{ I\!\!R}}

38: 

39: 

40: 

41: 

42: 

43: %\input{tcilatex}

44: 

45: \begin{document}

46: %\vspace*{-2cm}

47: \hspace*{13cm}

48: \begin{minipage}{4cm}

49: {\large USM-TH-183}  \\

50: \end{minipage}

51: \bigskip

52: 

53: 

54: 

55: \title{{\Large Diffraction in QCD}}

56: 

57: \author{Boris Kopeliovich, Irina Potashnikova, Ivan Schmidt}

58: 

59: \affiliation{Departamento de F\'\i sica, Universidad T\'ecnica Federico Santa

60: Mar\'\i a, Casilla 110-V, Valpara\'\i so, Chile}

61: 

62: %\affiliation{ }

63: 

64: 

65: %\received{on 24 March, 2006}

66: 

67: \begin{abstract}

68: 

69: %PACS numbers:

70: 

71: %Keyword: Diffraction

72: 

73: This lecture presents a short review of the main features of diffractive

74: processes and QCD inspired models. It includes the following topics: (1)

75: Quantum mechanics of diffraction: general properties; (2) Color dipole

76: description of diffraction; (3) Color transparency; (4) Soft diffraction

77: in hard reactions:  DIS, Drell-Yan, Higgs production; (5) Why Pomerons

78: interact weakly; (6) Small gluonic spots in the proton; (7) Diffraction

79: near the unitarity bound: the Goulianos-Schlein "puzzle"; (8) Diffraction

80: on nuclei: diffractive Color Glass; (9) CGC and gluon shadowing.

81: \end{abstract}

82: 

83: \maketitle

84: 

85: %\thispagestyle{fancy}

86: \setcounter{page}{1}

87: 

88: 

89: \section{Introduction}

90: 

91: Diffraction is associated with the optical analogy, which is elastic 

92: scattering of light caused by absorption. A new feature of diffraction in 

93: quantum mechanics is the possibility of inelastic diffraction, which is

94: nearly elastic scattering with excitation of one or both colliding hadrons

95: to effective masses which are much smaller that the c.m. energy of 

96: the collision. The main bulk of diffractive events originate from soft 

97: interactions. Therefore, it is still a challenge to describe these 

98: processes starting from the first principles of QCD. Unavoidably, one 

99: faces the problem of confinement which is still a challenge for the 

100: theory. Nevertheless, the ideas of QCD help to develop quite an effective 

101: phenomenology for diffractive reactions, i.e. to establish relations 

102: between different observables. This lecture presents a mini-review of QCD 

103: based phenomenological models.

104: 

105: 

106: \section{Nonabeliance and diffraction}

107: 

108: Elastic and inelastic diffraction are large rapidity gap (LRG) processes.

109: Since they emerge as a shadow of inelastic interactions, their amplitudes

110: are nearly imaginary. This observation is a direct evidence for {\it

111: nonabeliance} of the underlying theory.

112: 

113:  Indeed, the elastic amplitude can be mediated only by a neutral exchange

114: in t-channel, therefore the Born graphs in the abelian and nonabelian

115: cases look like,

116: 

117:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

118:  \includegraphics[width=5cm]{abel.eps}

119:  \caption{Born approximation for elastic scattering in abelian (left) and 

120: nonabelian (right) theories.}

121:  \end{figure}  

122: 

123: The striking difference between these two amplitudes is in their phases.

124: In the abelian case (e.g. in QED) the Born amplitude is real, while in the 

125: nonabelian theory (QCD) the amplitude is imaginary.

126: 

127: Data for elastic hadron scattering show that the real part of the

128: elastic amplitude is small, and this is a direct evidence for

129: nonabeliance of the underlying dynamics. This is a remarkable

130: observation, since we have known so far very few manifestations of

131: nonabeliance in data.

132: 

133: The Born amplitude depicted in Fig.~1 is independent of energy. 

134: Gluon radiation gives rise to the energy dependence of the total cross

135: section through the unitarity relation:

136: 

137:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

138:  \includegraphics[width=8cm]{unitarity.eps}

139:  \caption{The unitarity relation for the Pomeron amplitude in terms of 

140: perturbative QCD}

141:  \end{figure}

142: 

143:  Elastic scattering reaches maximal strength at the unitarity limit of

144: black disc, ${\rm Im}\, f_{el}(b)=1$,

145:  \beq

146: \sigma_{el}=\sigma_{in}=\pi\,R^2

147: \label{100}

148:  \eeq

149:  where $R$ is the radius of interaction.

150: 

151: The unitarity relation tells us that the imaginary part of the partial

152: amplitude ${\rm Im}\, f_{el}(b)$ cannot rise for ever. After the unitarity

153: bound is reached, the total cross section can rise only due to an energy

154: dependence of the interaction radius $R(s)$.  Froissart theorem imposes a

155: restriction on this, the interaction radius cannot rise with energy faster

156: than $R\propto \ln(s)$. Then, the total and elastic cross section rise 

157: with

158: energy as $\propto \ln^2(s)$ in the Froissart regime of unitarity

159: saturation.

160: 

161: \section{Regge phenomenology}

162: 

163: In the Regge theory one assumes that the elastic amplitude is mediated by 

164: exchange of the rightmost singularity in the complex angular momentum 

165: plane. This singularity is called Pomeron.  

166: 

167: The Regge trajectory corresponding to this singularity is approximately 

168: linear,

169:  \beq

170: \alpha_{\Pom}(t)=\alpha_{\Pom}^0+\alpha_{\Pom}^\prime t

171: \label{200}

172:  \eeq

173:  with parameters 

174:  \beqn

175: \alpha_{\Pom}^0 &=& 1.1; \nonumber\\

176: \alpha_{\Pom}^\prime &=& 0.25\GeV^{-2}

177: \label{300}

178:  \eeqn

179: 

180: This behavior follows from data for elastic and total cross sections 

181: fitted by the formula,

182:  \beq

183: f_{el}(t) = \left[i-{\rm

184: ctg}\frac{\pi\alpha_{\Pom}(t)}{2}\right]\,h(t)\,

185: \left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha_{\Pom}(t)}\ ,

186: \label{400}

187:  \eeq

188:  where $h(t)$ is the phenomenological residue function which is not

189: given by the theory, but is fitted to data. It correlates with the

190: choice of the parameter $s_0$.

191: 

192: Apparently, the linear $t$-dependence of the Pomeron trajectory

193: Eq.~(\ref{300}) cannot continue for ever at large negative $t$. Indeed,

194: the higher order corrections in the ladder graph in Fig.~2 vanish as

195: powers of the QCD coupling $\alpha_s(t)$ and the Pomeron trajectory

196: $\alpha_{\Pom}(t)$ should approach the value corresponding to the Born

197: graph, $\alpha_{\Pom}(t)\to 1$. Indeed, the trajectory seems to level

198: off at large $|t|$ according to data \cite{brandt}.

199: 

200: It has been a natural and simplest assumption made in the early years of 

201: the Regge theory that the Pomeron is a Regge pole with a linear 

202: trajectory and the intercept $\alpha_{\Pom}(t) = 1$. Nowadays, however, we

203: have a multi-choice answer, and it is still debatable whether the Pomeron 

204: is

205: 

206: 

207: \begin{itemize}

208: 

209: \item

210: a Regge pole  (probably not, since

211: $\alpha_{\Pom}^0$

212: varies with $Q^2$ in DIS);

213: 

214: \item or the DGLAP Pomeron \cite{book}, which corresponds to a specific

215: ordering for radiated gluons in the ladder graph in Fig.~2, $x\leq

216: x_{i+1}\leq x_i$ and $k^2_{i+1}<k^2_i\leq Q^2$;

217: 

218: \item or the BFKL Pomeron \cite{bfkl} which does not have ordering in

219: transverse momenta of radiated gluons, but has no evolution with $Q^2$

220: either \cite{sardinia};

221: 

222: 

223: \item

224: or something else?

225: 

226: \end{itemize}

227: 

228: \subsection{Triple Regge phenomenology}

229: 

230: The cross section of the single-diffractive process, $a+b \to X +b$ can be 

231: expressed in terms of the Regge approach. Indeed, if to sum up all final 

232: state excitations $X$, one can apply the unitarity relation to the 

233: Pomeron-hadron ($\Pom-a$) amplitude as is shown in Fig.~3.

234:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

235:  \includegraphics[width=8cm]{3R.eps}

236:  \caption{The cross section of single diffraction, $a+b\to X+b$ summed 

237: over all excitation channels at fixed effective mass $M_X$}

238:  \end{figure}

239:  Provided that the effective mass of the excitation is large (but not too

240: much), $s_0\ll M_X^2\ll s$, one can describe the Pomeron-hadron elastic

241: amplitude via exchange of the Pomeron or secondary Reggeons in the

242: $t$-channel. The one arrive to the triple-Regge graph, which corresponds

243: to the cross section,

244:  \beq

245: \frac{d\sigma_{sd}^{ab\to Xb}}{dx_F\,dt} =

246: \sum\limits_{i=\Pom,\Reg} G_{\Pom\Pom i}(t)

247: (1-x_F)^{\alpha_i(0)-2\alpha_\Pom(t)}

248: \left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha_i(0)-1}

249: \label{500}

250:  \eeq

251:  Here $x_F$ is the Feynman variable for the recoil particle $b$,

252: $x_F=2p^{||}_b/\sqrt{s} \approx 1-M_X^2/s$. 

253: 

254: 

255: Equation (\ref{500}) contains new phenomenological functions, effective 

256: triple-Regge vertices, $G_{\Pom\Pom\Pom}(t)$ and $G_{\Pom\Pom\Reg}(t)$.

257: The diffractive cross section can also be expressed in terms of 

258: the Pomeron-hadron total cross section $\sigma^{\Pom a}_{tot}(s'=M_X^2)$.

259: Most interesting is the asymptotia ($s'=M_X^2\gg s$) of this cross section

260: related to the triple-Pomeron coupling,

261:  \beq

262: G_{3\Pom}(t)=\sigma^{\Pom a}_{tot}\,

263: N_{\Pom bb}(t)^2\ .

264: \label{600}

265:  \eeq

266:  Here $N_{\Pom bb}(t)$ is the Pomeron - hadron vertex known from $bb$

267: elastic scattering. Thus, one can extract from data on single diffraction

268: the Pomeron-hadron total cross section, $\sigma^{\Pom a}_{tot}$, which

269: carries unique information about the properties of the Pomeron (see 

270: below).

271:  

272: 

273: 

274: 

275: \section{Quantum mechanics of diffraction}

276: 

277: Diffractive excitation is a nontrivial consequence of presence of

278: quantum fluctuations in hadrons. In classical mechanics only elastic

279: scattering is possible. An example is diffractive scattering of

280: electromagnetic waves.

281: 

282: One can understand the origin of diffractive excitation in terms of

283: elastic diffraction \cite{fp,gw}. Since a hadron has a composite

284: structure, different hadronic constituents interact differently causing a

285: modification of the projectile coherent superposition of states. Such a

286: modified wave packet is not orthogonal any more to other hadrons different

287: from the incoming one. This makes possible production of new hadrons, i.e.

288: diffractive excitation.

289: 

290: To simplify the picture, one can switch to the basis of eigenstates of

291: interaction. Since a hadron can be excited, it cannot be an eigenstate of

292: interaction, and can be expanded over the complete set of eigen states 

293: $|\alpha\ra$ \cite{kl,mp,kst2}:

294:  \beq

295: |h\ra = \sum\limits_{\alpha=1}C^h_{\alpha}\,|\alpha\ra\ ,

296: \label{700}

297:  \eeq

298:  which satisfy the condition, $\hat f_{el}|\alpha\ra =

299: f_\alpha\,|\alpha\ra$, where $\hat f_{el}$ is the elastic amplitude

300: operator.

301: 

302: Due to completeness and orthogonality of each set of states, the

303: coefficient $C^h_{\alpha}$ in (\ref{700}) satisfy the relations,

304:  \beqn

305: \la h'|h\ra  &=&

306: \sum\limits_{\alpha=1}(C^{h'}_{\alpha})^*C^h_{\alpha} =

307: \delta_{hh'}

308: \nonumber\\

309: \la \beta|\alpha\ra  &=&

310: \sum\limits_{h'}(C^{h'}_{\beta})^*C^{h'}_{\alpha} =

311: \delta_{\alpha\beta}

312: \label{800}

313:  \eeqn

314: 

315: The elastic and single diffraction amplitudes can be thus expressed via 

316: the eigen amplitudes as,

317:  \beqn

318: f_{el}^{h\to h} &=& \sum\limits_{\alpha=1}|C^h_{\alpha}|^2\,f_\alpha

319: \nonumber\\

320: f_{sd}^{h\to h'} &=&

321: \sum\limits_{\alpha=1}(C^{h'}_{\alpha})^*C^h_{\alpha}\,f_\alpha

322: \label{900}

323:  \eeqn

324:  Using these expressions and the completeness relations, Eqs.~(\ref{800})

325: one can calculate the forward single diffraction cross section without

326: knowledge of the properties of $|h'\ra$,

327:  \beqn

328: \left.

329: \sum\limits_{h'\neq h}\frac{d\sigma^{h\to h'}_{sd}}

330: {dt}\right|_{t=0} &=&

331: \frac{1}{4\pi}\left[\sum\limits_{h'}|f_{sd}^{hh'}|^2

332: -|f_{el}^{hh}|^2\right]\nonumber\\

333: &=&

334: \frac{1}{4\pi}\left[\sum\limits_{\alpha}|C^h_{\alpha}|^2\,

335: |f_\alpha|^2 -\left(\sum\limits_{\alpha}

336: |C^h_{\alpha}|f_\alpha\right)^2\right]\nonumber\\

337: &=& \frac{\la f_\alpha^2\ra - \la f_\alpha\ra^2}

338: {4\pi}

339: \label{1000}   

340:  \eeqn

341: Thus, the forward diffractive cross section is given by the dispersion

342: of the eigen values distribution. For some specific distributions

343: the dispersion may be zero. For instance if all the eigen amplitudes are 

344: equal, or one of them is much larger than others.

345: 

346: According to Eqs.~(\ref{900})-(\ref{1000}) one can calculate the total and

347: diffractive cross sections on the same footing, provided that the

348: eigenstates $|\alpha\ra$, their weights $|C^h_{\alpha}|^2$ and the

349: eigenvalues $f_\alpha$ are known. Notice that the eigen amplitudes

350: $f_\alpha$ are the same for different hadronic species $|h\ra$. This

351: remarkable property of eigen amplitudes is employed later on.

352:  

353:  In the Froissart regime all the partial eigen amplitudes reach the

354: unitarity limit, ${\rm Im}\,f_\alpha=1$. Then, according

355: to the completeness conditions,

356:  \beqn

357: f_{el}^{hh}

358: &\Rightarrow&

359: \sum\limits_{\alpha=1}|C^h_{\alpha}|^2=1

360: \nonumber\\

361: f_{sd}^{hh'} &\Rightarrow&

362: \sum\limits_{\alpha=1}(C^{h'}_{\alpha})^*C^h_{\alpha}

363: =0 

364: \label{1100}

365:  \eeqn

366: 

367: Diffraction is impossible within a black disc, but only on its periphery,

368: $b\sim R$. Since in the Froissart regime $R\propto \ln(s)$,

369:  \beqn

370: \sigma_{tot}&\propto& \sigma_{el}

371: \propto \ln^2(s)

372: \nonumber\\

373: \sigma_{sd}&\propto& \ln(s)\ ,

374: \label{1200}

375:  \eeqn

376:   i.e. $\sigma_{sd}/\sigma_{tot}\propto 1/\ln(s)$.

377: 

378: 

379:  \section{Light-cone color dipole description}

380: 

381: The choice of the eigen state basis depends on the underlying theory.  It

382: was first realized in \cite{zkl} that the eigenstates of interaction in 

383: QCD

384: are color dipoles.  Such dipoles

385: cannot be excited and can experience only elastic scattering.

386: Indeed, high energy dipoles have no definite mass, but only separation

387: $\vec r_T$ which cannot be altered during soft interaction. The

388: eigenvalues of the total cross section,

389: $\sigma(r_T)$, also depend on $r_T$, but may also depend on energy.

390: 

391: The total and single diffractive cross sections read,

392:  \beqn

393: \sigma_{tot}^{hp} &=&

394: \sum\limits_{\alpha=1}|C^h_{\alpha}|^2\,\sigma_\alpha

395: \nonumber\\ &=&

396: \int d^2r_T\left|\Psi_h(r_T)\right|^2\sigma(r_T) =

397: \la\sigma(r_T)\ra\ ;

398: \label{1300}

399:  \eeqn

400: 

401:  \beqn

402: && \left.

403: \sum\limits_{h'}\frac{d\sigma^{h\to h'}_{sd}}

404: {dt}\right|_{t=0} =

405: \sum\limits_{\alpha=1}|C^h_{\alpha}|^2\,

406: \frac{\sigma_\alpha^2}{16\pi} =

407: \nonumber\\

408: &&\int d^2r_T\left|\Psi_h(r_T)

409: \right|^2\frac{\sigma^2(r_T)}{16\pi} =

410: \frac{\la\sigma^2(r_T)\ra}{16\pi}

411: \label{1400}

412:  \eeqn

413: 

414: The eigenvalue of the cross section for a simplest $\bar qq$ dipole

415: $\sigma_{\bar qq}(r_T)$ is a fundamental flavor independent quantity. Its

416: calculation is still a theoretical challenge, but it can be fitted to

417: data.

418: 

419: A rich source of information about $\sigma_{\bar qq}(r_T)$ is DIS. At

420: small $x_{Bj}$ the virtual photon exposes hadronic properties as is 

421: illustrated in Fig.~4.

422:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

423: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{sigma-dipole.eps}

424: \caption{The virtual photon interacts via its hadronic fluctuations

425: which are $\bar qq$ dipoles and more complicated Fock states.

426: The Pomeron exchange is illustrated as a perturbative ladder.}

427:  \end{figure}

428:  One has a control of the dipole size varying the photon virtuality $Q^2$

429: according to the factorized formula \cite{zkl,nz}

430:  \beqn

431: \sigma_{tot}^{\gamma^*p}(Q^2,x_{Bj}) =

432: \int d^2r_T\int\limits_0^1 dx

433: \left|\Psi_{\gamma^*}(r_T,Q^2)\right|^2

434: \sigma_{\bar qq,}(r_T,x_{Bj})

435: \label{1500}

436: \eeqn

437:  One may expect, both intuitively and considering dimensions, that the

438: mean transverse separation is $\la r_T^2\ra \sim 1/Q^2$. However, the

439: situation is more complicated than that.

440: 

441: \subsection{The photon distribution amplitudes}

442: 

443:  The dipole size in (\ref{1500}) is governed by the photon $\bar qq$

444: light-cone wave function $\Psi_{\gamma^*}(r_T,\alpha,Q^2)$ where $\alpha$ 

445: is the 

446: fraction of the photon light-cone momentum carried by the quark as is 

447: illustrated in Fig.~5.

448:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

449: \includegraphics[width=3cm]{photon.eps}

450: \caption{Photon virtual dissociation to a $\bar qq$ pair with transverse 

451: separation $r_T$ and sharing of the light-cone momentum $\alpha$ and 

452: $1-\alpha$.}

453:  \end{figure}

454:  This wave function can be calculated perturbatively \cite{bks}.

455:  \beqn

456: \Psi^{T,L}_{\gamma^*}(\vec r_T,\alpha)=

457: \frac{\sqrt{\alpha_{em}}}{2\,\pi}\,

458: \bar\chi\,\widehat O^{T,L}\,\chi\,K_0(\epsilon r_T)

459: \label{1600}

460: \eeqn

461:  where $\epsilon^2 = \alpha(1-\alpha)Q^2 + m_q^2$ ;

462:  \beqn

463: \widehat O^{T} &=&

464: m_q\,\vec\sigma\vec e +

465:  i(1-2\alpha)\,(\vec\sigma\vec n)\,

466: (\vec {e} \vec\nabla_{r_T})

467: + (\vec\sigma\times\vec e)\vec\nabla_{r_T}\ ;

468: \nonumber\\

469: \widehat O^{L} &=&

470: 2\,Q\,\alpha(1-\alpha)\,\vec\sigma\vec n

471: \label{1700}

472: \eeqn

473:  It might be confusing that these wave functions are not normalized, the 

474: transverse part is even divergent. Therefore it is better to call them 

475: distribution amplitudes.

476: 

477: 

478:  The mean transverse $\bar qq$ separation for a transversely polarized 

479: photon is,

480:  \beqn

481: \la r_T^2\ra \sim \frac{1}{\epsilon^2}=

482: \frac{1}{Q^2 \alpha(1-\alpha)+m_q^2}\ ,

483: \label{1800} 

484: \eeqn

485:  i.e. the separation is about as small as $1/Q^2$, except the endpoints

486: $\alpha\to 0$ or $1$. Notice that $m_q\sim \Lambda_{QCD}$ plays here role 

487: of an

488: infra-red cut off.

489: 

490: \subsection{Dipole cross section and color transparency}

491: 

492:  The central ingredient of Eq.~(\ref{1500}) is the phenomenological

493: universal cross section $\sigma_{\bar qq}(r_T,x)$ for the interaction of a

494: nucleon with a $\bar qq$ dipole of transverse separation $r_T$. It must me

495: energy dependent due to teh higher-order corrections shown in Fig.~4. In

496: the presence of hard scale the dimensioneless quantity must be $s/Q^2=1/x$

497: where $x$ is the Bjorken variable. The parametrization suggested in

498: \cite{gbw},

499:  \beq

500: \sigma_{\bar qq}(r_T,x)=\sigma_0\,\left[

501: 1-e^{-{1\over4}\,r_T^2\,Q_s^2(x)}\right]\ ,

502: \label{1900}

503:  \eeq

504:  successfully fits HERA data for the proton structure function

505: $F_2(x,Q^2)$ at small $x$ with parameters: $Q_s(x)=1\GeV \times

506: (x_0/x)^{\lambda/2}$ and $\sigma_0=23.03\mb$; $\lambda=0.288$;

507: $x_0=3.04\cdot 10^{-4}$. This cross section incorporates the phenomenon of

508: saturation at a soft scale, since it levels off at large separations,

509: $r_T^2\gg 1/Q_s^2$.

510: 

511: A remarkable feature of this dipole cross section is Color Transparency

512: (CT), namely for small dipoles, $r_T\to 0$, the cross section vanishes as

513: $\sigma_{\bar qq}(r_T)\propto r_T^2$ \cite{zkl}. This is a much more

514: general property of any dipole cross section in QCD, since a point-like

515: colorless object cannot interact with external color fields. The quadratic

516: $r_T$-dependence is a direct consequence of gauge invariance and

517: nonabeliance of QCD.

518: 

519: The effect of CT has been searched for in different reactions. In some of

520: them, quasielastic high-$p_T$ scattering of electrons \cite{slac} and

521: hadrons \cite{bnl}, no unambiguous signal of CT was observed. Those

522: processes turned out to be unsuitable for CT searches \cite{jennings,jan},

523: since the formation length of the hadrons was too short compared to the

524: nuclear size.

525: 

526: More successful was search for CT in diffractive leptoproduction of vector 

527: mesons, proposed in \cite{knnz} and confirmed by the E665 experiment

528: \cite{e665}. This process illustrated in Fig.~6 is different from DIS by 

529: projection of the produced $\bar qq$ dipole on the vector meson wave 

530: function. 

531:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

532: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{gamma-v.eps}

533: \caption{Quasielasic virtual photoproduction of vector mesons.

534: At high $Q^2$ the $\bar qq$ dipole experiences little attenuation in the 

535: nucleus.}

536:  \end{figure}

537:  This projection suppresses the endpoint part of the distribution

538: amplitude and makes the signal of CT stronger. A new measurement of the

539: effect of CT was done recently by the HERMES experiment \cite{hermes}.

540: They found a good signal of CT in accordance with theoretical predictions

541: \cite{knst-ct}.

542: 

543: Another diffractive process suggested in \cite{bk}, coherent production of

544: high-$p_T$ back-to-back jets on nuclei, also revealed a strong signal of

545: CT \cite{e791} in good agreement with theoretical estimates \cite{fms}. In

546: this process the nucleus remains intact, which is possible due to

547: sufficiently high energy. A bright signature of CT observed in the E791

548: experiment at Fermilab is the $A$-dependence of the coherent cross

549: section, $\propto A^{4/3}$. This corresponds to full nuclear transparency.

550: 

551: \section{Soft diffraction in hard reactions}

552: 

553: \subsection{Diffractive DIS}

554: 

555: The contribution of diffractive quasielastic production of vector mesons

556: (see Fig.~6) is a tiny fraction, vanishing as $1/Q^2$, of the total

557: inclusive DIS cross section. However the fraction of all diffractive

558: events associated with large rapidity gaps in DIS is large, about $10\%$,

559: and is nearly independent of $Q^2$. It turns out to be a result of a

560: contribution of rare soft fluctuations in the hard photon. According to

561: (\ref{1800}) a longitudinally asymmetric $\bar qq$ pair with $\alpha$ or

562: $1-\alpha\sim 1/Q^2$ have a large hadronic size and experience soft

563: diffractive interactions like hadrons. Although the admixture of such soft

564: fluctuations in the virtual photon is tiny, that may be compensated by a

565: large interaction cross section. This interplay between the fluctuation

566: probability and the cross section is illustrated for inclusive and

567: diffractive DIS in Table.~1 \cite{kp-soft}.

568:  \begin{table}[htbp]

569: \caption{Interplay between the probabilities of hard and soft fluctuations 

570: in a highly virtual photon and the cross section of interaction of these 

571: fluctuations.}\vspace*{0.3cm}

572: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}

573:  \hline

574:  \vphantom{\bigg\vert}

575:     &

576: $|C_\alpha|^2$

577:   & $\sigma_\alpha$

578:   &

579: $\sigma_{tot}\!=\!\!\!\!\!\sum\limits_{\alpha=soft}^{hard}|C_\alpha|^2

580: \sigma_\alpha$

581:   &

582: $\sigma_{sd}\!=\!\!\!\!\!\sum\limits_{\alpha=soft}^{hard}|C_\alpha|^2

583: \sigma^2_\alpha$

584:    \\

585: [3mm]

586: \hline &&&&\\

587: %[-2mm]

588: Hard& $\sim 1$ & $\sim\frac{1}{Q^2}$ &

589: $\sim \frac{1}{Q^2}$

590: & $\sim \frac{1}{Q^4}$  \\

591: [3mm]

592: \hline &&&&\\

593: %[-6mm]

594: Soft & $\sim \frac{m_q^2}{Q^2}$ &

595: $\sim\frac{1}{m_q^2}$ &

596: $\sim\frac{1}{Q^2}$ &

597: $\sim\frac{1}{m_q^2Q^2}$

598:   \\

599: [3mm]

600: \hline

601: \end{tabular}

602:  \end{table}

603:  Hard fluctuations of the photon have large weight, but vanishing as

604: $1/Q^2$ cross section, while soft fluctuations have a small, $m_q^2/Q^2$,

605: weight, but interact strongly, $\sigma\sim 1/m_q^2$. The latter factor

606: compensates the smallness of the probability in the case of DIS, and

607: over-compensates it for diffraction.

608: 

609:  Thus, we conclude that inclusive DIS is semi-hard and semi-soft, and the

610: soft component is present at any high $Q^2$. On the other hand,

611: diffractive DIS (called sometimes "hard diffraction") is predominantly a

612: soft process. This is why its fraction in the total DIS cross section is

613: nearly $Q^2$-independent. One can test this picture studying the $Q^2$ 

614: dependence of the diffractive DIS \cite{beatriz1}.

615: 

616: Since diffraction is a source of nuclear shadowing \cite{gribov},

617: that also should scale in $x$. Indeed, most of experiment have not 

618: found any variation with $Q^2$ of shadowing in DIS on nuclei. Only the NMC 

619: experiment managed to find a weak scaling violation which agrees with

620: theoretical expectations \cite{krt}.

621: 

622: Notice that in spite of independence of $Q^2$, both diffraction and 

623: shadowing are higher twist effects. This is easy to check considering 

624: photoproduction of heavy flavors. In this case the hard scale is imposed 

625: by the heavy quark mass, and diffraction becomes a hard process with cross 

626: section vanishing as $1/m_Q^4$. Nuclear shadowing also vanishes as 

627: $1/m_Q^2$.

628: 

629: The true leading twist diffraction and shadowing are associated with gluon 

630: radiation considered below. 

631: 

632: \subsection{Diffractive Drell-Yan reaction} 

633: 

634: The dipole description of the Drell-Yan reaction in many respects 

635: is similar to DIS. This is not a surprize, since the two processes are 

636: related by QCD factorization. The cross section of heavy photon

637: ($\gamma^*\to \bar ll$) radiation by a quark reads \cite{k,kst1,krt3,bhq},

638:  \beq

639: \frac{d\sigma(qp\to \gamma^*X)}{d\ln\alpha}

640: =\int d^2r_T\, |\Psi^{T,L}_{\gamma^* q}(\alpha,r_T)|^2

641:     \sigma_{q\bar q}(\alpha r_T,x),

642: \label{1950}

643:  \eeq

644:  Here $\alpha$ is the fraction of the quark light-cone momentum taken away

645: by the dilepton; $r_T$ is the photon-quark transverse separation; and the

646: light-cone distribution function $\Psi$ is similar to one in DIS,

647: Eq.~(\ref{1600}), and can be found in \cite{k,kst1,krt3}.

648: 

649: Notice that the dileptons are radiated only in the fragmentation region of 

650: the quark and are suppressed at mid rapidities. Indeed, due to CT the 

651: dipole cross section vanishes as $\sigma_{q\bar q}(\alpha r_T,x)\propto 

652: \alpha^2$ at $\alpha\to 0$.

653: 

654: There is an important difference between DIS and DY reaction. In the

655: inclusive DIS cross section one integrates over $0<\alpha<1$, this is why

656: this cross section is always a mixture of soft and hard contributions (see

657: Table~1). In the case of DY reaction there is a new variable, $x_1$, which

658: is fraction of the proton momentum carried by the dilepton. Since $\alpha

659: > x_1$, one can enhance the soft part of the DY cross section selecting

660: events with $x_1\to 1$. This soft part of the DY process is subject to 

661: unitarity corrections \cite{beatriz3} which are more important than in 

662: DIS \cite{beatriz4}.

663: 

664: Another distinction between DIS and DY is suppression of the DY

665: diffractive cross section. Namely, the forward cross section of

666: diffractive radiation $qp\to \bar llqp$ is zero \cite{kst1}. Indeed,

667: according to (\ref{1000}) the forward diffractive cross section is given

668: by the dispersion of the eigen amplitude distribution. However, in both

669: eigen states $|q\ra$ and $|q\gamma^*\ra$ only quark interacts. So the two

670: eigen amplitudes are equal, and the dispersion is zero.

671: 

672: Nevertheless, in the case of hadronic collision diffractive DY cross

673: section does not vanish in the forward direction. In this case the two

674: eigen states are $|\bar qq\ra$ and $|\bar qq\gamma^*\ra$ (for the sake of

675: simplicity we take a pion). The interacting component of these Fock states

676: is the $\bar qq$ dipole, however it gets a different size after the $q$ or

677: $\bar q$ radiate the photon. Then the two Fock states interact

678: differently, and this leads to a nonvanishing forward diffraction. Notice

679: that the diffractive cross section is proportional to the dipole size

680: \cite{ks-t}.

681: 

682: \subsection{Diffractive Higgs production}

683: 

684: Diffractive higgsstrahlung is rather similar to diffractive DY, since in

685: both cases the radiated particle does not take part in the interaction

686: \cite{ks-t}. However, the Higgs coupling to a quark is proportional to the

687: quark mass, therefore, the cross section of higgsstrahlung by light

688: hadrons is vanishingly small.

689: 

690: A larger cross section may emerge due to admixture of heavy flavors in

691: ligt hadrons. A novel mechanism of exclusive Higgs production, $pp\to H

692: pp$, due to direct coaliscence of heavy quarks, $\bar QQ\to H$ was

693: proposed in \cite{bkss}. The cross section of Higgs production was

694: evaluated ssuming $1\%$ of intrinsic charm (IC) \cite{stan} and that

695: heavier flavors scale as $1/m_Q^2$ \cite{maxim}. The results are shown in

696: Fig.~7 as function of Higgs mass for different intrinsic heavy flavors.

697:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

698:  \includegraphics[width=7cm]{mh-dep.eps}

699:  \caption{Cross section of exclusive diffractive Higgs production, $pp\to 

700: Hpp$, from intrinsic charm (IC), bottom (IB) and top (IT) \cite{bkss}.}

701:  \end{figure}

702: 

703: 

704: 

705: \section{Diffractive Excitation of Hadrons}

706: 

707: \subsection{Excitation of the valence quark skeleton}

708: 

709: A hadron can be excited in diffractive reaction $hp\to Xp$ by different

710: mechanisms. One possibility is to excite the valence quark skeleton

711: without gluon radiation \cite{mine,kps}. This process is illustrated in

712: Fig.~8

713:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

714:  \includegraphics[width=8cm]{skeleton.eps}

715:  \caption{Diffractive excitation of the valence quark skeleton of a 

716: hadron.}

717:  \end{figure}

718:  A clear signature of this process is the dependence of the cross section

719: on effective mass of the excitation, $M_X$. It must be

720: $d\sigma_{sd}/dM_X^2\propto 1/M_X^3$, since is related to the intercept of

721: the secondary Reggeon, $\alpha_\Reg(0)=1/2$, as is demonstrated in Fig.~8.

722: 

723: The specific mass-dependence allows to single out this contribution from

724: data for diffractive reaction $pp\to pX$, Using the results of the

725: triple-Regge analysis of data \cite{kklp} we can evaluate the relative

726: probability of excitation with no gluon radiation \cite{kps},

727:  \beqn

728: R_{sd}=\left.\frac{d\sigma_{sd}/dp_T^2}

729: {d\sigma_{el}/dp_T^2}\right|_{p_T=0} =

730: \frac{5.5\mb/\GeV^2}{84.5\mb/\GeV^2}=0.065

731: \label{2000}

732: \eeqn

733:  This fraction turns out to be very small, only few percent from the

734: forward elastic cross section. This suppression can be understood as

735: follows. In terms of duality the triple-Regge graph in Fig.~8 is

736: equivalent to excitation of nucleon resonances. Their and proton wave

737: functions are orthogonal. Therefore the matrix element

738: $\la\Psi_p(r_T)|\sigma(r_T)|\Psi_X(r_T)\ra$ is not zero only due to

739: variation of the dipole cross section with $r_T$. However, since the

740: dipole cross section levels off at large separations, only the short range

741: part of the integration, $r_T<1/Q_s\sim 0.3\fm$ contributes to the overlap

742: integral. This explains the observed smallness of gluonless diffraction

743: \cite{kps}.

744: 

745: 

746: \subsection{Diffractive gluon radiation}

747: 

748: A hadron can be excited differently, by shaking off a part of its gluonic

749: field in the form of gluon radiation. Since gluons are vector particles,

750: they can propagate through large rapidity intervals without attenuation

751: and carry a tiny fraction of the hadron momentum. Therefore the effective

752: mass of the excitation should be large. This is a decisive signature of

753: radiation, the high-mass tail of the diffractive cross section,

754: $d\sigma_{sd}/dM_X^2\propto 1/M_X^2$.  Observation of this behavior is

755: undebatable proof for excitation via gluon radiation, and the cross

756: section can reliably singled out of data \cite{kklp}.

757: 

758: Fig.~9 shows how the cross section of diffractive gluon radiation is

759: related to the triple-Pomeron graph. According to Eq.~(\ref{600}) it can

760: also be expressed in terms of the Pomeron-proton total cross section

761: $\sigma^{\Pom p}_{tot}(M_X^2)$, for which the effective mass of the

762: excitation plays role of the c.m. energy.

763:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

764: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{dif-glue.eps}

765: \caption{The cross section of diffractive gluon radiation related to the 

766: triple-Pomeron term, or to the Pomeron-proton total cross section.}

767:  \end{figure}

768: 

769: The triple-Regge fit to data \cite{kklp} with parametrization (\ref{500})

770: reliably fixes the triple-Pomeron term which provides unique information

771: about $\sigma^{\Pom p}_{tot}$. Since the Pomeron is a gluonic colorless

772: dipole, one should probably expect a cross section about $9/4$ times

773: larger than for mesons. Therefore, one expects $\sigma^{\Pom p}_{tot}\sim

774: 50\mb$.

775: 

776: Surprisingly, data analyses \cite{kaidalov,dino,schlein} lead to

777:  \beqn

778: \sigma^{\Pom p}_{tot}\sim 2\mb\ (!)

779: \label{2100}

780: \eeqn

781: 

782: \subsection{Small gluonic spots}

783: 

784: Why does the Pomeron interact so weakly, while gluons interact stronger 

785: than quarks?

786: 

787: One should recall color transparency: the Pomeron-proton cross section

788: vanishes if the transverse size of the Pomeron (gluonic dipole) is small.

789: 

790: This effect of smallness of gluonic dipoles cannot be explained in pQCD

791: which treats quarks and gluons as free particles. This is a

792: nonperturbative phenomenon which may be related to the small size of

793: gluonic fluctuations in the instanton-liquid model \cite{shuryak}. It is

794: also supported by calculations on the lattice \cite{pisa} which reveal a

795: very short gluon correlation radius.

796: 

797: The shape of the impact-parameter distribution of gluons is not known, but

798: important is the mean size of the dipole. This size $r_0$ treated as a

799: phenomenological parameter was fixed at $r_0=0.3\fm$ by a fit to

800: diffraction data \cite{kst2}. Thus, we arrive at an image of the proton

801: shown in Fig.~10.

802:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

803: \includegraphics[width=2cm]{3q-1.eps}

804:  \caption{Light-cone snap-shot of the

805: proton.}

806:  \end{figure}

807:  Gluons in the proton are located in small spots of size $0.3\fm$. We

808: employ this picture in what follows and provide more evidence for it.

809: 

810: \section{Total and Elastic Cross Sections}

811: 

812: Presence of the semihard scale $r_0$ allows to use pQCD

813: to calculate in a parameter-free way the cross section of gluon

814: bremsstrahlung rising with energy.

815: The calculations performed in \cite{k3p} confirm this. 

816: 

817: \subsection{Total cross section}

818: 

819: The hadronic cross section was found in \cite{k3p,calabria} to have the 

820: following structure,

821:  \beq

822: \sigma_{tot}=\sigma_0 + \sigma_1\,

823: \left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^\Delta\ .

824: \label{2200}

825:  \eeq

826:  Here $\sigma_0$ is the term related to hadronic collisions without gluon

827: radiation. In the string model, for instance, it corresponds to string

828: crossing and flipping. This part of the cross section is independent of

829: energy, since is related to the Lorentz invariant transverse size of the

830: quark skeleton.

831: 

832:  The second term in (\ref{200})  is related to the contribution of gluon

833: bremsstrahlung to the total cross section. Since this part is expected to

834: be as small as $r_0^2$, $\sigma_1$ should be small either. Indeed, it was

835: found in \cite{k3p} that $\sigma_1=27/4\,C\,r_0^2$, where factor $C\approx

836: 2.4$ is related to the behavior at small separations of the dipole-proton

837: cross section calculated in Born approximation, $\sigma(r_T)= Cr_T^2$ at

838: $r_T\to0$.

839: 

840: The energy dependence of the second term in (\ref{2200}) was found to be

841: rather steep, 

842:  \beqn

843: \Delta=\frac{4\alpha_s}{3\pi}\approx 0.17

844: \label{2300}

845:  \eeqn

846:  This exponent seems to be too large compared to the experimentally

847: measured $\sigma_{tot}\propto s^\epsilon$ with $\epsilon\approx 0.1$.

848: Nevertheless, formula (\ref{2200}) describe data well as is shown in

849: Fig.~11.

850:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

851: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{stot.eps}

852: \caption{Total $pp$ (closed points) and $\bar pp$ (open points) cross 

853: sections. Dashed curve is the Pomeron contribution Eq.~(\ref{2200}) with 

854: one parameter $\sigma_0$ adjusted to a single experimental point at 

855: $\sqrt{s}=540\GeV$, other parameters are calculated. Solid curves include

856: Reggeons which are fitted to data to describe the cross section at low 

857: energies.}

858:  \end{figure}

859:  This is not a surprise, the energy dependence is slowed down by presence

860: of the first energy independent term in (\ref{2200}). If to approximate

861: the cross section (\ref{2200}) by the simple power dependence

862: $s^\epsilon$, then the effective exponent reads,

863:  \beq

864: \epsilon=\frac{\Delta}{1+\sigma_0/\sigma_1\,(s/s_0)^{-\Delta}}

865: \label{2400}

866:  \eeq

867:  So, one should expect the steepness of the energy dependence of

868: the total cross section to rise with energy. 

869: 

870: \subsection{Elastic slope}

871: 

872: The mean size, $\la r^2(s)\ra$, of the gluonic spots (Fig.~10) rises with

873: energy due to Brownian motion performed by multiply radiated gluons.

874: The speed of this growth is related to the slope parameter, 

875: $\alpha_\Pom^\prime$ of the Pomeron trajectory,

876:  \beqn

877: {1\over4}\,

878: \frac{d\la r^2(s)\ra}{d\ln(s)}=

879: \alpha^\prime_{\Pom}= 

880: \frac{\alpha_s}{3\pi}\,r_0^2

881: =  0.1\GeV^{-2}

882: \label{2500}

883:  \eeqn

884: 

885: In the Regge approach this phenomenon is related to the $t$-slope of the

886: differential elastic cross section,

887: $B_{el}(s)=B_0+2\alpha^\prime_{\Pom}\ln(s)$.

888: 

889: Using (\ref{2500}) and data for electromagnetic proton formfactor to

890: calculate $B_0$, the energy dependent elastic slope was calculated in

891: \cite{k3p} in good agreement with data shown in Fig.~12.

892:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

893: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{slope.eps}

894:  \caption{Slope parameter for $pp$ (closed points) and $\bar pp$ (open

895: points) elastic cross sections.  Solid curves include Reggeons which fitted

896: to data for total cross section (Fig.~11).}

897:  \end{figure}

898:  Notice that the amplitude Eq.~(\ref{2200}) was unitarized in these 

899: calculations what is important for $pp$ scattering (see next section).

900: 

901: 

902: \section{Saturation of the unitarity bound}

903: 

904: The mean number of radiated gluons slowly rises with energy, as well as

905: the mean size of the gluonic clouds in Fig.~10. This gives rise to an

906: energy dependence of the interaction radius in accordance with

907: (\ref{2500}).

908: 

909: However, the predicted value (\ref{2500}) of parameter

910: $\alpha^\prime_\Pom$ is rather small compared to the effective one, known

911: from $pp$ data, $\alpha^\prime_{eff}=0.25\GeV^{-2}$. Why does the slope

912: shown in Fig.~12 rise so steeply with energy? Does it contradict

913: theoretical expectations?

914: 

915: \subsection{Onset of the Froissart regime}

916: 

917: There is another source of energy dependence of the interaction radius

918: related to the clotheness of the unitarity bound. The rise of the total

919: cross section can originate either from the rise of the partial amplitude,

920: or from increase of the interaction radius. In the vicinity of the

921: unitarity bound, ${\rm Im}\,f_{el}(b)\leq 1$, the partial amplitude cannot

922: rise any more in central collisions, while on the periphery the amplitude

923: is small and there is still room for growth. This is how the interaction

924: radius rises \cite{k3p,calabria}.

925: 

926: In the Froissart regime (unitarity saturation) the interaction area rises

927: $\propto \ln^2(s)$ resulting in a fast shrinkage of the diffraction cone.

928: In the regime of saturation $\alpha^\prime_{eff}\gg \alpha^\prime_{\Pom}$.

929: Apparently, an onset of this phenomenon explains why the elastic slope,

930: $B_{el}={1\over2}\la b^2\ra$, rises with energy much steeper than is

931: predicted by (\ref{2500}).

932: 

933: In order to figure out whether the unitarity limit is indeed reached in

934: $pp$ collisions at high energies, one can explicitly check with the

935: partial amplitude related via Fourier transformation to the measured

936: elastic differential cross section. This is depicted in Fig.~13.

937:  \begin{figure}[htbp] \includegraphics[width=8cm]{g-b.eps}

938: \caption{Imaginary part of the partial elastic amplitude as function of

939: impact parameter. Points are the Fourier transformed experimental data for

940: differential cross section \cite{k3p}. Solid curves show the results of

941: calculation with the unitarized amplitude Eq.~(\ref{2200}). Dashed curves

942: show the contribution of the secondary Reggeons strongly shadowed by the

943: unitarity corrections (see \cite{k3p} for details). }

944:  \end{figure}

945: Indeed, both the data and theory demonstrate a nearly-saturation of the

946: unitarity bound for central $pp$ collisions.

947: 

948: \subsection{Far from saturation: \boldmath$J/\Psi$ production}

949: 

950: In order to test whether a substantial part of the observed

951: $\alpha^\prime_{eff}$ indeed originates from saturation, one should

952: look at a diffractive reaction for which the partial amplitude is far

953: from the unitarity bound. Then one should expect the parameter

954: $\alpha^\prime_{eff}$ to get its genuine value $\alpha^\prime_{eff}=

955: \alpha^\prime_\Pom=0.1\GeV^{-2}$ without absorptive (unitarity) 

956: corrections \cite{qm02}.

957: 

958: $J/\Psi$-proton elastic scattering would be very suitable for this 

959: purpose. Indeed, the partial amplitude for central collision (b=0) can be 

960: evaluated as,

961:  \beq

962: f_{el}^{\Psi p}(0) = \frac{\sigma^{\Psi p}_{tot}}

963: {4\pi\,B^{\Psi p}_{el}} = 0.3\ .

964: \label{2600}

965:  \eeq

966:  For this estimate we assumed the energy range of HERA $\sqrt{s}\sim 

967: 100\GeV$ and used $\sigma^{\Psi p}_{tot}=6\mb$ \cite{hikt} and $B^{\Psi 

968: p}_{el}=4\GeV^{-2}$ \cite{zeus1}.

969: 

970: Thus, the partial amplitude for $J/\Psi$-proton elastic scattering is

971: safely quite below the unitarity bound at all impact parameters. Then one

972: should observe a reduced value of $\alpha^\prime_{eff}$ in accordance with

973: (\ref{2500}).

974: 

975: Of course $J/\Psi$-proton scattering is not accessible, but it can be 

976: replaced by elastic photoproduction, $\gamma p\to J/\Psi p$, having in 

977: mind vector dominance. Although vector dominance is a poor approximation 

978: for charmonia \cite{vdm}, this only enforces our statements, since the 

979: real $\bar cc$ dipole is smaller than $J/\Psi$.

980: 

981: The measurements of energy dependent $t$-slope of the photoproduction cross 

982: section was performed by ZEUS collaboration at HERA. The result for the 

983: Pomeron trajectory are shown in Fig.~14.  

984:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

985: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{zeus.eps}

986: \caption{The Pomeron trajectory $\alpha_\Pom(t)$ for elastic 

987: photoproduction of $J/\Psi$ measured at $\sqrt{s}=35-350\GeV$ 

988: \cite{zeus1}.

989: the solid line is a fit (see text).}

990:  \end{figure}

991:  These data fitted with $\alpha_\Pom(t) = \alpha^0_\Pom +

992: \alpha^\prime_\Pom\,t$ result in,

993:  \beqn

994: \alpha^0_\Pom &=& 0.2 \pm 0.009;\nonumber\\

995: \alpha^\prime_\Pom &=& 0.115 \pm 0.018\GeV^{-2}\ .

996: \label{2700}

997:  \eeqn

998:  The value of $\alpha^\prime_\Pom$ is in good agreement with the 

999: prediction (\ref{2500}) made in \cite{k3p}.

1000: 

1001: 

1002: \subsection{Goulianos-Schlein puzzle}

1003: 

1004: The unitarity or absorptive corrections are especially significant for

1005: off-diagonal diffractive channels. As was demonstrated in (\ref{1100})  

1006: diffraction is completely terminated in the unitarity limit. As far as

1007: we already have an onset of the Froissart regime, diffraction has to be

1008: suppressed, and the higher the energy is, the more.

1009: 

1010: The absorptive corrections to the diffractive amplitude have the form

1011:  \beqn

1012: f_{sd}(b) \Rightarrow

1013: f_{sd}(b)\,\left[1-

1014: {\rm Im}\,f_{el}(b)\right]

1015: \label{2800}

1016:  \eeqn

1017:  Thus, at the unitarity bound,

1018: ${\rm Im}\,f_{el}(b)\to 1$, diffraction vanishes everywhere except the 

1019: very periphery. 

1020: 

1021: Do we see any suppression in data?\\ {\it Yes}, a strong deviation from

1022: the nonunitarized Regge model was found in \cite{dino,schlein} for single

1023: diffraction. Comparison of available data with the triple-Regge prediction

1024: uncorrected for unitarity, is shown in Fig.~15.

1025:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

1026: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{dino.eps}

1027: \caption{Data for single diffraction in comparison with extrapolation of 

1028: the nonunitarized Regge model (dashed curve) \cite{dino}}

1029:  \end{figure}

1030: 

1031:  Notice that the effect of unitarity corrections Eq.~(\ref{1800}) cannot

1032: be reproduced by a simple suppression of the Pomeron flux. The flux

1033: damping or renormalization factor is independent of impact parameter,

1034: while this dependence is the central issue in (\ref{1800}) (see in 

1035: \cite{beatriz2}).

1036: 

1037: 

1038: \section{Diffractive Color Glass}

1039: 

1040: Nuclear targets allow to access the unitarity bound at much lower energies

1041: than with a proton target. In fact, the central area of heavy nuclei is

1042: "black", i.e. unitarity is saturated. As a result of saturation the

1043: transverse momentum distribution of gluons is modified. It gets a shape

1044: typical for the Cronin effect \cite{cronin}, i.e. gluons are suppressed at

1045: small, but enhanced at medium-large $p_T$. This effect is called color

1046: glass condensate (CGC) \cite{mv}.

1047: 

1048: In the nuclear rest frame the same effect looks differently, as a color

1049: filtering of a glue-glue dipole \cite{al}. Nuclear medium resolves dipoles

1050: of smaller size than in the case of a proton target. This results in

1051: increased transverse momenta of radiated gluons.

1052: 

1053: First theoreticl observation of the CGC effect was made in diffraction in 

1054: \cite{bbgg}. In a large rapidity gap process a dipole (e.g. a pion)

1055: propagates through the nucleus experiencing color filtering as is 

1056: illustrated in Fig.~16.

1057:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

1058: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{cgc.eps}

1059: \caption{Dipoles propagating through the nucleus experience color 

1060: filtering leading to production of a di-jet with enhanced transverse 

1061: momentum}

1062:  \end{figure}

1063:  The nuclear matter is more transparent for small size dipoles having

1064: larger intrinsic momenta. The mean transverse momenta of quarks/jets rise

1065: $\propto R_A$. This is a direct measurement of the saturation scale which

1066: is expected to be

1067:  \beqn

1068: Q_s^2\approx 0.1\GeV^2\,A^{1/3}\approx 0.6\GeV^2

1069: \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm(for\ heavy\ nuclei)}

1070: \label{2900}

1071:  \eeqn

1072:  This momentum is substantially larger than on a proton target.

1073: For gluon jets the saturation scale $Q_s^2$ should be

1074: doubled.

1075: 

1076: One may expect observation of real mini-jets at LHC.

1077: 

1078: \section{CGC and Gluon Shadowing}

1079: 

1080: The CGC leads to a rearrangement of transverse momenta of gluons 

1081: keeping their number unaltered \cite{mv}. However, interacting gluons not 

1082: only push each other to higher transverse momenta, but also fuse 

1083: resulting in reduction of gluon density.

1084: The latter effect is called shadowing. Both CGC and shadowing have the 

1085: same origin: longitudinal overlap of gluon clouds originated from 

1086: different bound nucleons. This is illustrated in Fig.~17.

1087:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

1088: \includegraphics[width=4cm]{clouds.eps}

1089: \caption{Nucleons well separated in the longitudinal direction

1090: in the infinite momentum frame of the nucleus create gluonic fluctuations 

1091: which overlap at small $x$ }

1092:  \end{figure}

1093:  Bound nucleons in the nucleus do not overlap much, either in the rest

1094: frame, or in the infinite momentum frame, since both the nucleon size and

1095: internucleon spacing are subject to Lorentz contraction. However, gluons

1096: carrying a small fraction $x$ of the proton momentum have a smaller

1097: gamma-factor and are less compressed in the longitudinal direction.

1098: Fig.~17 shows how gluonic clouds overlap at small $x$.

1099: 

1100: However, longitudinal overlap is not sufficient for gluon interaction, 

1101: they must also overlap transversely. This may be a problem, since the 

1102: transverse size of gluonic clouds is small. The mean number of overlapped 

1103: clouds is,

1104:  \beq

1105: \la n_g\ra \approx \pi r_0^2\,\rho_A\,R_A\approx 0.3\ .

1106: \label{3000}

1107:  \eeq

1108:  In this estimate we used the nuclear density $\rho_A=0.16\fm^{-3}$, and

1109: the nuclear radius $R_A=7\fm$.

1110: 

1111: Thus, according to (\ref{3000}) gluons have a rather small chance to 

1112: overlap in impact parameters even in a nucleus as heavy as lead.

1113: Such a weak interaction of gluons leads to a weak gluon shadowing.

1114: Fig.~18 shows the results of calculations \cite{kst2} for gluon shadowing 

1115: in lead. 

1116:  \begin{figure}[htbp]

1117: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{glue.eps}

1118: \caption{Gluon shadowing, $G_A/G_N$ as function of Bjorken $x$ for 

1119: carbon, copper and lead, at $Q^2=4\GeV^2$ (solid curves) and 

1120: $Q^2=40\GeV^2$ (dashed).}

1121:  \end{figure}

1122:  The expected reduction of gluon density is less than $20\%$ even at very 

1123: small $x$. This was confirmed recently in \cite{florian} by an NLO 

1124: analysis of NMC data for DIS on nuclei.

1125: 

1126: We conclude that smallness of gluonic spots in the proton prevents them

1127: from overlap in impact parameters even in heavy nuclei. This fact leads to

1128: substantial reduction of gluon shadowing and of the CGC effect compared to

1129: wide spread expectations.

1130: 

1131: \section{Summary}

1132: 

1133: \begin{itemize}

1134: 

1135: \item Fock hadronic components which are eigenstates of interaction

1136: gain new weights in elastic scattering. The new composition formed by

1137: the interaction with the target can be projected to new states, thus

1138: diffractive excitation becomes possible.

1139:  

1140: \item

1141: In QCD the eigenstates of the diffractive amplitude are color dipoles

1142: which preserve their size during interaction. Color transparency is  

1143: the major effect governing diffraction.

1144: 

1145: \item The observed puzzling smallness of high-mass diffraction related to

1146: diffractive gluon bremsstrahlung is a direct witness for the smallness of

1147: gluonic spots in hadrons. As a consequence, color transparency suppresses

1148: gluon radiation and gluon shadowing.

1149: 

1150: \item Data on elastic scattering demonstrate an onset of the unitarity

1151: bound which causes strong breakdown of Regge factorization and suppresses

1152: diffraction. Indeed, a dramatic deviation from the Regge factorization has

1153: been observed in data. Asymptotically the fraction of diffraction vanishes

1154: as $1/\ln(s)$.

1155: 

1156: \item

1157: The observed shrinkage of diffractive cone in elastic $pp$ scattering

1158: originates mainly from onset of the unitarity bound, rather than from 

1159: Gribov's diffusion of gluons. Data on $J/\Psi$ photoproduction confirm 

1160: this demonstrating a weak shrinkage (in agreement with the predicted 

1161: magnitude)

1162: 

1163: \item Color filtering leads to a dramatic increase of transverse momenta

1164: of jets diffractively produced on nuclei. This would be a direct

1165: measurement of the saturation scale for the diffractive color glass

1166: condensate.

1167: 

1168:  \end{itemize}

1169: 

1170:  \begin{acknowledgments}

1171: 

1172: One of us (B.K.) is grateful to Beatriz Gay Ducati for the kind invitation

1173: to I LAWHEP and many fruitful discussions. This work was supported in part

1174: by Fondecyt (Chile) grants 1030355, 1050519 and 1050589, and by DFG

1175: (Germany) grant PI182/3-1.

1176: 

1177: \end{acknowledgments}  

1178: 

1179: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1180: 

1181: \bibitem{brandt} UA8 Collaboration, A.~Brandt et al., 

1182: Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 514}, 3 (1998).

1183: 

1184: \bibitem{book} Yu.L.~Dokshitzer, V.A.~Khoze, A.H.~Mueller and S.I.~Troyan,

1185: "Basics of Perturbative QCD", Editions Frontieres, ADAGP, Paris 1991

1186: 

1187: \bibitem{bfkl} E.A.~Kuraev, L.N.~Lipatov and V.S.~Fadin, Sov.  Phys.  

1188: JETP {\bf 44} (1976) 443 ; {\bf 45} (1977) 199; Ya.Ya.~Balitskii and

1189: L.I.~Lipatov, Sov.  J.  Nucl. Phys. {\bf 28} (1978) 822; L.N.~Lipatov,

1190: Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 63} (1986) 904

1191: 

1192: \bibitem{sardinia} B.Z. Kopeliovich and I.P. Ivanov, 

1193: Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. B{\bf 146} (2005) 237.

1194: 

1195: \bibitem{fp} E. Feinberg and I.Ya.~Pomeranchuk, Nuovo. Cimento. Suppl.

1196: {\bf 3} (1956) 652.

1197: 

1198: \bibitem{gw} M.L.~Good and W.D.~Walker, Phys. Rev. {\bf 120} (1960) 1857.

1199: 

1200: \bibitem{kl} B.Z. Kopeliovich, L.I. Lapidus, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.

1201: {\bf 28} (1978) 664.

1202: 

1203: \bibitem{mp} H.I.~Miettinen and J.~Pumplin, Phys. Rev.{\bf D18} (1978) 

1204: 1696.

1205: 

1206: \bibitem{kst2} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, A.~Sch\"afer and A.V.~Tarasov, Phys.

1207: Rev. D {\bf 62} (2000 054022.

1208: 

1209: \bibitem{zkl} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, L.I.~Lapidus and A.B.~Zamolodchikov, Sov.

1210: Phys. JETP Lett. {\bf 33} (1981) 595; Pisma v Zh. Exper. Teor.  Fiz.  

1211: {\bf 33} (1981) 612.

1212: 

1213: \bibitem{nz} N.N.~Nikolaev and B.G.~Zakharov,

1214: Z. Phys. {\bf C49} (1991) 607

1215: 

1216: \bibitem{bks} J.M.~Bjorken, J.B.~Kogut and D.E.~Soper, {\bf D3} (1971) 

1217: 1382.

1218: 

1219: \bibitem{gbw} K.~Golec-Biernat and M.~W\"usthoff, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}

1220: (1999) 014017.

1221: 

1222: \bibitem{slac} NE18 Collaboration, T.G.~O'Neill, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 351} 

1223: (1995) 87.

1224: 

1225: \bibitem{bnl} A.S. Carroll et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61} (1988) 1698.

1226: 

1227: \bibitem{jennings} B.K.~Jennings and B.Z.~Kopeliovich,

1228: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70} (1993) 3384.

1229: 

1230: \bibitem{jan} B.Z.~Kopeliovich and J.~Nemchik, Phys.  Lett. B{\bf 368}

1231: (1996) 187.

1232: 

1233: \bibitem{knnz} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, J.~Nemchick N.N.~Nikolaev, B.G.~Zakharov,

1234: Phys. Lett. B{\bf 309} (1993) 179; Phys. Lett. B{\bf 324} (1994) 469.

1235: 

1236: \bibitem{e665} E665 Collaboration, M.R.~Adams et al., Z. Phys. C{\bf 74}

1237: (1997) 237.

1238: 

1239: \bibitem{hermes} HERMES Collaboration, A. Airapetian et al.,

1240: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90} 2003) 052501.

1241: 

1242: \bibitem{knst-ct} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, J.~Nemchik, A.~Schafer and

1243: A.V.~Tarasov, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 65} (2002) 035201.

1244: 

1245: \bibitem{bk} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, Habilitation thesis, LNPI, Leningrad, 1987

1246: 

1247: \bibitem{e791} E791 Collaboration, E.M.~Aitala et al.,

1248: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86} (2001) 4773.

1249: 

1250: \bibitem{fms} L.~Frankfurt, G.A.~Miller and M.~Strikman,

1251: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 304} (1993) 1.

1252: 

1253: \bibitem{kp-soft} B.Z.~Kopeliovich and B.~Povh, Z. Phys. A{\bf 356} (1997) 

1254: 467.

1255: 

1256: \bibitem{beatriz1} M.B.~Gay~Ducati, V.~P.~Gonçalves, and M.V.T.~Machado,

1257: Phys. Lett. B{\bf 506} (2001) 52. 

1258: 

1259: \bibitem{gribov} V.N.~Gribov, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 56} (1968) 892.   

1260: 

1261: \bibitem{krt}  B.Z.~Kopeliovich, J.~Raufeisen and A.V.~Tarasov,

1262: Phys. Rev. {\bf C62} (2000) 035204.

1263: 

1264: \bibitem{k} B.Z. Kopeliovich {\sl Soft Component of Hard Reactions and

1265: Nuclear Shadowing (DIS, Drell-Yan reaction, heavy quark production)}, in

1266: proc. of the Workshop 'Dynamical Properties of Hadrons in Nuclear Matter',

1267: Hirschegg 1995, ed. H. Feldmeier and W. Noerenberg, p. 102

1268: (hep-ph/9609385).

1269: 

1270: \bibitem{kst1} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, A.~Sch\"afer and A.V.~Tarasov,

1271: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 59} (1999) 1609.

1272: 

1273: \bibitem{krt3} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, J.~Raufeisen and A.V.~Tarasov, Phys.  

1274: Lett. B {\bf 503} (2001) 91.

1275: 

1276: \bibitem{bhq}  S.J.~Brodsky, A.~Hebecker and  E.~Quack,

1277:  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55} (1997) 2584.

1278: 

1279: \bibitem{beatriz3}  M.A.~Betemps, M.B.~Gay~Ducati, M.V.T.~Machado, 

1280: Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 014018.

1281: 

1282: \bibitem{beatriz4} M.B.~Gay~Ducati and M.V.T.~Machado,

1283: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 65} (2002) 114019. 

1284: 

1285: \bibitem{ks-t} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, I.~Schmidt and A.V.~Tarasov,

1286: paper in preparation.

1287: 

1288: \bibitem{bkss}  S.J.~Brodsky, B.~Kopeliovich, I.~Schmidt, 

1289: J.~Soffer, hep-ph/0603238.

1290: 

1291: \bibitem{stan} R.~Vogt and S.J.~Brodsky, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 478} (1996) 

1292: 311.

1293: 

1294: \bibitem{maxim}  M.~Franz, M.~Polyakov and K.~Goeke,

1295: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 074024.

1296: 

1297: \bibitem{mine} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, Phys. Rev. {\bf C68} (2003) 044906.

1298: 

1299: \bibitem{kps} B.Z. Kopeliovich, I.K.~Potashnikova and I.~Schmidt, Phys.

1300: Rev. C{\bf 73} (2006) 034901.

1301: 

1302: \bibitem{kklp} Yu.M.~Kazarinov, B.Z.~Kopeliovich, L.I.~Lapidus, 

1303: I.K.~Potashnikova, Sov.Phys.JETP 43:598,1976, 

1304: Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 70} (1976) 1152.

1305: 

1306: \bibitem{kaidalov} A.B. Kaidalov, Phys. Rept. {\bf 50} (1979) 157.

1307: 

1308: \bibitem{dino} K.~Goulianos, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 358} (1995) 379.

1309: 

1310: \bibitem{schlein}  S.~Erhan, P.E.~Schlein, Phys. Lett. 

1311: B{\bf 481}, 177 (2000).

1312: 

1313: \bibitem{shuryak} E.V.~Shuryak, I.~Zahed, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}

1314: (2004) 014011.

1315: 

1316: \bibitem{pisa} M.~D'Elia, A.~Di~Giacomo and E.~Meggiolaro,

1317: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 408} (1997) 315.

1318: 

1319: \bibitem{k3p} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, I.K.~Potashnikova, B.~Povh, and

1320: E.~Predazzi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85} (2000) 507; Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}

1321: (2001) 054001.

1322: 

1323: \bibitem{calabria} B.Z.~Kopeliovich, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. A{\bf 99}

1324: (2001) 29.

1325: 

1326: \bibitem{qm02} B.Z.~Kopeliovich and b.~Povh, J. Phys.  G{\bf 30} (2004)

1327: S999.

1328: 

1329: \bibitem{hikt} J.~H\"ufner, Y.P.~Ivanov, B.Z.~Kopeliovich and 

1330: A.V.~Tarasov,

1331: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 094022.

1332: 

1333: \bibitem{zeus1} ZEUS Collaboration, S. Chekanov et al., Eur. Phys. J. 

1334: C{\bf 24}, 345 (2002).

1335: 

1336: \bibitem{vdm} J.~H\"ufner and B.Z.~Kopeliovich, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 426}

1337: (1998) 154.

1338: 

1339: \bibitem{cronin} D.~Antreasyan et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 19} (1979) 

1340: 764.  

1341:  

1342: \bibitem{beatriz2} M.B.~Gay Ducati, M.V.T.~Machado, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 65}

1343: (2002) 114019.

1344: 

1345: \bibitem{mv} L.~McLerran and R.~Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 49}  

1346: (1994) 2233; D {\bf 49} (1994) 3352.

1347: 

1348: \bibitem{al} A.H.~Mueller, Eur. Phys. J. A {\bf 1} (1998) 19.

1349: 

1350: \bibitem{bbgg} G.~Bertsch, S.J.~Brodsky, A.S.~Goldhaber and 

1351: J.F.~Gunion, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 47} (1981) 297.

1352: 

1353: \bibitem{florian} D.~de~Florian and R.~Sassot, Phys.  Rev. D {\bf 69}

1354: (2004) 074028.

1355: 

1356: \end{thebibliography}

1357: 

1358: \end{document}

1359: 

1360: