1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{a4,graphicx,epsfig}
3: \def\question#1 {~\\ {\bf\it #1 }\\}
4: %\def\baselinestretch{1.6}
5: \newcommand{\A}{{\mathcal A}}
6: \newcommand{\p}{{\mathcal A}}
7: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
10: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
12: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
13: \newcommand{\bb}{\begin{thebibliography}}
14: \newcommand{\eb}{\end{thebibliography}}
15: \newcommand{\ci}[1]{\cite{#1}}
16: \newcommand{\bi}[1]{\bibitem{#1}}
17: \newcommand{\lab}[1]{\label{#1}}
18: \newcommand{\sq}{\sqrt{s}}
19: \newcommand{\bdd}{\Delta_{33}}
20: \newcommand{\st}{\sigma_{tot}(s)}
21: \newcommand{\bd}{\Delta}
22: \newcommand{\lb}{\Lambda}
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: \title{ Unitarisation of the hard pomeron \\ and black-disk limit
26: at the LHC}
27: \vskip 1cm
28: \author{J.-R. Cudell\footnote{Institut de Physique, B\^at. B5a, Universit\'e de Li\`ege, Sart
29: Tilman, B4000
30: Li\`ege, Belgium, e-mail: J.R.Cudell@ulg.ac.be },
31: and O.V. Selyugin\footnote{Bogoliubov
32: Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, JINR, 141980, Dubna, Moscow Region,
33: Russia, e-mail: selugin@theor.jinr.ru.}}
34: \maketitle
35: \vskip 1cm
36: \begin{quote}
37: \centerline{\bf Abstract}
38: {\small\noindent
39: Recent models of soft diffraction include a hard pomeron pole besides
40: the usual soft term. Such models violate the black-disk limit
41: around Tevatron energies, so that they need to be supplemented by
42: a unitarisation scheme. Several such schemes are considered
43: in this letter, where we show that they lead to a large uncertainty
44: at the LHC. We also examine the impact of unitarisation on various
45: small-$t$ observables, the slope in $t$
46: of the elastic cross section, or the ratio of
47: the real to imaginary parts of the scattering amplitude, leading to
48: the conclusion that the existence of a hard pomeron in soft scattering
49: may be confirmed by LHC data.}
50: \end{quote}
51:
52: \noindent PACS numbers: 13.85.Lg, 13.85.-t, 13.85.Dz, 12.40.Nn, 11.80.Fv\\
53: \noindent Keywords: Saturation, unitarisation, hard pomeron
54: \vskip 2cm
55:
56:
57: \section*{Introduction: hard poles}
58: Experimental data reveal that total cross sections
59: grow with energy. This means that the leading contribution in the
60: high-energy limit is given by the rightmost singularities in the complex-$j$
61: plane, the pomerons,
62: with intercepts exceeding unity. In the framework of perturbative QCD,
63: the leading singularity is expected to exceed unity by an amount
64: proportional to $\alpha_s$ \cite{lipatov1}. At leading-log, one obtains
65: a leading singularity at $J-1 = 12 \alpha_s\ \log 2/\pi$.
66: From analytic $S$-matrix theory, it is expected that the singularities
67: of the exchanges do not depend on the external kinematics. Hence, although
68: perturbative calculations can be justified only for the scattering of
69: far off-shell particles, the singularities that they predict
70: should remain valid in the long-distance
71: range.
72:
73: In a recent study \cite{clms}, we have indeed found that forward data
74: (total cross sections and the ratios of the real part to the imaginary part of
75: the amplitude) could be fitted well by a combination of a soft pomeron
76: (which would be purely non perturbative)
77: and a hard pomeron.
78: The expression of the leading terms of the
79: total cross sections for the scattering of $a$ on $p$ becomes
80: \begin{equation}
81: \label{hardpompole}
82: \sigma _{tot}^{ap}=\frac{1}{2P\sqrt{s}}\Im mA
83: \left({s-u\over 2}\right)
84: \end{equation}
85: with $P$ the beam momentum in the target frame, $s$, $t$ and $u$
86: the Mandelstam variables, and $A$ the hadronic amplitude
87: \begin{equation}
88: \label{poles}
89: \Im mA(s)\approx {H_a}\left( \frac{s}{s_{1}}\right) ^{\alpha _{H}(0)}
90: +{S_a}\left( \frac{s}{s_{1}}\right) ^{\alpha _{S}(0)}
91: \end{equation}
92: with \( s_{1}=1 \) GeV\( ^{2} \), and the parameters given in Table~1.
93: \begin{table}
94: {\begin{center} \begin{tabular}{||c|c|c||c|c|c||}
95: \hline\hline
96: parameter & value & error¶meter & value & error \\ \hline\hline
97: \( \alpha _{S}(0) \) & 1.0728 & 0.0008 &\( \alpha _{H}(0) \) & 1.45 & 0.01 \\ \hline
98: \( S_{p} \)& 56.2 & 0.3 &\( H_{p} \)& 0.10 & 0.02\\ \hline
99: \( S_{\pi } \) & 32.7 & 0.2 &\( H_{\pi } \)& 0.28 & 0.03\\ \hline
100: \( S_{K} \)& 28.3 & 0.2 &\( H_{K} \)& 0.30 & 0.03 \\ \hline
101: \( S_{\gamma } \)& 0.174 & 0.002 &\( H_{\gamma } \)& 0.0006 & 0.0002\\ \hline\hline
102: \end{tabular}\end{center}}
103: \label{parameters}
104: \caption{Parameters of the leading singularities of the fits of ref.~\cite{clms}
105: for \protect\( \sqrt{s}\protect \) from 5 to 100~GeV. }
106: \end{table}
107: The inclusion of these two pomerons, together with the use of
108: integral dispersion relations, and the addition of sub-leading
109: meson trajectories ($\rho$/$\omega$ and $a/f$), leads to
110: a successful description of all $pp$, $\bar p p$, $\pi^\pm p$,
111: $K^\pm p$, $\gamma p$ and $\gamma\gamma$ data for $\sqrt{s}\leq 100$ GeV.
112:
113: The problem however is that such a fit does not extend to
114: high energies. Indeed, the fast growing hard pomeron leads to a violation
115: of unitarity (an elastic cross section bigger than the total cross section)
116: for values of $s$ smaller than 1 TeV.
117:
118: In \cite{clms}, we used a simple ansatz to unitarise the hard pole. However,
119: we did not examine the uncertainties linked to it, as we simply wanted to
120: show that it was possible to extend the fit to higher energies.
121: In this letter, we propose to reconsider this question
122: and to give an estimate of the uncertainties on total cross section
123: measurements at the LHC.
124:
125: Section 1 will be devoted to a reminder of unitarisation,
126: and of the impact-parameter ($\vec b$) formalism.
127: Section 2 will consider the ``minimal"
128: unitarisation, which cuts off the amplitude in impact parameter once it
129: reaches the black-disk limit.
130: Section 3 will consider analytic
131: unitarisation schemes.
132: Finally, putting everything together,
133: we shall show that the cross section at the LHC should be large, of the
134: order of 150 mb.
135: \section{Unitarity and black-disk limit}
136: The simplest expression of the unitarity constraints can be obtained from
137: partial-wave amplitudes. We can write
138: \beq A(s,t)=8\pi\sum_l (2l+1){\cal F}_l(s) P_l(\cos\theta_s).\eeq
139: At high energy and small angle, one can rewrite $l\approx {b\sqrt{s}\over 2}$,
140: so that the partial-wave decomposition can be rewritten in impact-parameter space as
141: \newcommand{\F}{{\cal F}}
142: \beq
143: A(s,t=-q^2)=2s\int d^2\vec b e^{-i \vec q.\vec b} \F(s,b)
144: \eeq
145: In terms of $\F(s,b)=\int d^2\vec q e^{i \vec q.\vec b} A(s,t)/(8\pi^2 s)$, the total and elastic cross sections are given by
146: \beq
147: \sigma_{tot}=4\pi\int bdb\Im m\F(s,b)
148: \label{tot}
149: \eeq
150: and
151: \beq
152: \sigma_{el}=2\pi\int bdb|\F(s,b)|^{2}.
153: \label{el}
154: \eeq
155:
156: One can then show that
157: unitarity of the $S$ matrix, $S S^\dagger=1$,
158: together with analyticity, and with the normalisation used in (\ref{tot})
159: and (\ref{el}), requires that
160: \beq
161: 0\leq\left|\F(s,b)\right|^{2}\leq 2\Im m \F(s,b)\leq 4.
162: \label{unitarity}
163: \eeq
164: At high energies, as $\Im m \F\propto s^\Delta$ with $\Delta>0$,
165: the scattering amplitude $\F(s,b)$
166: reaches the unitarity bound for some value $b_u(s)$ of the
167: impact parameter.
168:
169: However, before this happens, another regime is reached:
170: one gets the maximum inelasticity if $2\Im m \F(s,b)-|\F(s,b)|^2$ is
171: maximum, i.e. if
172: \beq
173: \Im m \F(s,b)=1.\eeq
174: This is the region where the proton
175: becomes black, and it is usually referred to as the black-disk limit. The
176: imaginary part of $\F$ is usually noted as $\Gamma(s,b)$ and called the
177: profile function.
178: Saturation usually refers to the black-disk limit.
179: We shall use it to mean that we reach the maximum possible
180: inelastic amplitude at some distance $b_S(s)$
181: between scattering particles.
182:
183: In QCD, this can be thought of
184: as a consequence of the growth of the gluon density at small $x$, which
185: must be tamed by non-linear effects
186: connected to the next-to-leading terms.
187: One needs to note that the role of non-perturbative effects
188: connected with confinement \cite{kovner-cf} and with large impact
189: parameters makes the analogy with perturbative saturation questionable,
190: as in the present work saturation will first occur at small $b$.
191:
192: One expects saturation
193: to tame the growth of $\sigma_{tot}$.
194: For example,
195: in the loop-loop correlation model (LLCM) \cite{sochi}
196: based on the functional integral approach to high-energy
197: collisions \cite{nach},
198: the $T$-matrix element for elastic
199: proton-proton scattering
200: reads
201: \begin{eqnarray}
202: A_{pp}(s,t)
203: & \propto & \,\,
204: i s \ \int \ d^2\vec b\,
205: e^{i {\vec q}.{\vec b}}\,
206: \Gamma(s,b)
207: \label{Eq_T_pp_matrix_element} \nonumber \\
208: \Gamma(s,b)
209: & = &
210: \int \!\!dz_1 d^2r_1\!\! \int \!\!dz_2 d^2r_2
211: |\psi_p(z_1,\vec{r}_1)|^2 |\psi_p(z_2,\vec{r}_2)|^2
212: \nonumber\\ &&
213: \times
214: \left[1-S_{DD}(s,{\vec b},z_1,{\vec r}_1,z_2,{\vec r}_2)
215: \right]
216: \label{Eq_model_pp_profile_function}
217: \end{eqnarray}
218: with
219: $\psi$ the proton light-cone wave function
220: and $S_{DD}$ the dipole-dipole S matrix element.
221: The saturation of the profile function is a direct consequence
222: of $S$-matrix unitarity.
223: In this model, the saturation
224: regime
225: at small $b$ is reached only at very small $x \approx 10^{-10}$ and very high
226: energies $\sqrt{s} \geq 10^{6} \ $GeV, where
227: there is a transition from a power-like to an
228: $\log^2$-increase of $\sigma^{tot}_{pp}(s)$, which then respects the
229: Froissart bound \cite{Froissart}.
230: A similar result, in the framework of the dipole picture of soft processes,
231: also leads to a taming $\sigma_{tot}$
232: but at lower energy \cite{bart}.
233:
234: If we take a single simple pole for the scattering amplitude,
235: with an exponential form factor of slope $d$,
236: \beq
237: A(s,t)=S_p s^{\alpha_S(0)+\alpha' t} e^{dt}
238: \eeq
239: then the radius of saturation and its dependence on energy
240: can be obtained analytically:
241: \begin{equation}
242: b_S(s)^2 =4(d+\alpha' \log s )
243: \log\left({S_p s^{\alpha_S(0)-1}\over 2(d+\alpha' \log s )}\right)
244: \end{equation}
245: Approximating $\sigma_{tot}\approx 2\pi b_S^2(s)$, one sees that
246: the total cross section grows logarithmically at medium energies
247: and like $\log^2 s$ at very high energies.
248:
249: In our model \cite{clms,clm}, the $pp$ elastic scattering amplitude is
250: proportional to the hadrons form-factors and can be approximated
251: at small $t$ as:
252: \begin{eqnarray}
253: A(s,t) &=& [ H_p\ F_H(t) (s/s_1)^{\alpha_H(0)}
254: e^{\alpha^{\prime}_H \ t \ \log (s/s_1)}\nonumber\\
255: &+& S_p\ F_S(t) \ (s/s_1)^{\alpha_S(0)}
256: e^{\alpha^{\prime}_S \ t \ \log (s/s_1)} ]
257: \end{eqnarray}
258: where the couplings and intercepts are given in Table 1.
259: The study of ref.~\cite{clm} of small-$t$ elastic scattering shows
260: that the slope $\alpha'_S$ of the soft pomeron trajectory
261: is slightly higher than its
262: classical value \cite{DL,book}, and we shall take $\alpha'_S=0.3$ GeV$^2$.
263: The slope of the hard pomeron trajectory is evaluated \cite{clm,DLH} to be
264: $\alpha'_H=0.1$~GeV$^2$.
265: The normalisation $s_1=1$ GeV$^2$ will be dropped below and
266: $s$ also contains implicitly the phase factor $\exp(-i \pi/2)$, corresponding to
267: crossing symmetry.
268:
269: A small-$t$ analysis \cite{clm} indicates that the form factor
270: $F_S(t)$ is close to the square of
271: the Dirac elastic form factor,
272: and can be approximated by the sum of three exponentials \cite{book}.
273: \begin{eqnarray}
274: F_S(t)&=&\left(\frac{4 m_p^2-2.79 t}{4 m_p^2-t}
275: \frac{1}{1-t/\Lambda^2}\right)^2\nonumber\\
276: &\approx& h_{1} e^{d_1 \ t} \ + \ h_{2} e^{d_2 \ t} \
277: + h_{3} e^{d_3 \ t}.
278: \label{formfac}
279: \end{eqnarray}
280: where $m_p$ is the mass of the proton, $\Lambda^2=0.71$ GeV$^2$.
281: The other parameters are given in Table~2.
282: \begin{table}
283: {\begin{center} \begin{tabular}{||c|c||c|c||}
284: \hline\hline
285: parameter & value ¶meter & value (GeV$^{-2}$) \\ \hline\hline
286: $h_{1}$ & 0.55 & $d_1$ & 5.5 \\\hline
287: $h_{2}$ & 0.25 & $d_2$ & 4.1 \\\hline
288: $h_{3}$ & 0.20 & $d_3$ & 1.2\\\hline\hline
289: \end{tabular}\end{center}}
290: \label{tform}
291: \caption{Parameters of the elastic pomeron form factor, see Eq.~(\ref{formfac}).}
292: \end{table}
293: For the hard pomeron, the form factor is rather uncertain \cite{clm},
294: and we assume that it can be taken equal to $F_S(t)$.
295:
296: We then obtain in the impact parameter representation
297: a specific form for the amplitude in $\vec b$ space, $\F_0(s,b)$ \cite{dif04},
298: which we show in Fig.~\ref{profile}:
299: \begin{eqnarray}
300: \F_0(s,b) &= &{S_p\over s}\sum_i {2h_i\over r_{i,S}}
301: s^{\alpha_S(0)}
302: \exp(-b^2 /r_{i,S}^2) + (S\rightarrow H)\nonumber\\
303: {\mathrm{with}\ } r_{i,S}^2 &=& 4 \ (d_i + \alpha^{\prime}_S \ \log (s)) \\
304: r_{i,H}^2 &=& 4 \ (d_i + \alpha^{\prime}_H \ \log (s)).
305: \label{eqprofile}
306: \end{eqnarray}
307: \begin{figure}
308: \begin{center}
309: \mbox{\epsfxsize=100mm\epsffile{g0st3.eps}}
310: \end{center}
311: \caption{
312: The profile function for proton-proton scattering:
313: the hard line and circles - at $\sqrt{s}=2$~TeV
314: without and with the saturation; the dashed line and squares -
315: at $\sqrt{s}=14$~TeV without and with saturation.
316: the dash-dotted line - the eikonal form (\ref{eik}) at
317: $\sqrt{s}= 14$~TeV.
318: }
319: \label{profile}
320: \end{figure}
321: One can see that at some energy and at small $b$, $\Gamma_0(s,b)=
322: \Im m\F_0(s,b)$
323: reaches the black disk limit.
324: For our model, this will be in the region
325: $\sqrt{s} \approx 1.5 \ $TeV.
326:
327: What happens then is largely unclear. There is no unique procedure
328: to saturate the amplitude, and saturation and unitarisation will
329: be important issues at the LHC. In the following, we shall
330: consider two main schemes: the minimal one, where the saturation
331: freezes the profile function at 1: this is the minimum possibility
332: for the restoration of unitarity, as it does not affect in any way the
333: low-energy data. In the next section, we shall also
334: consider the predictions of an eikonal scheme.
335:
336: Saturation of the profile function will surely control
337: the behaviour of $\sigma_{tot}$ at higher
338: energies. We assume that once it reaches 1, the amplitude
339: does not change anymore and remains equal to $i$:
340: recombination must be maximal for black
341: protons. But this freezing of the profile function must be implemented
342: carefully: one cannot simply cut the profile function sharply
343: as this would lead to a non-analytic amplitude, and to specific
344: diffractive patterns in the total cross section and in the slope of
345: the differential cross sections. Furthermore, we have to match at
346: large impact parameter the behaviour of the unsaturated
347: profile function.
348:
349: We use an analytic interpolating function, which is equal to one
350: for large impact parameters
351: and which forces the profile function to approach 1 at
352: the saturation scale $b_s$ as a Gaussian. Analyticity of the
353: function enables us to use a complex $s$ as before to obtain the real
354: part.
355:
356: We assume saturation starts at a point $b_0$ a little before $b_s$, and that
357: the profile function is 1 for $b<b_0$.
358: The saturated profile, $\Gamma_s(s,b)$,
359: is otherwise given by
360: \beq \Gamma_s(s,b)={\Gamma\left(s, b-{b_0\over 1+ ((b-b_0)/b_z)^2}\right)\over
361: 1 + (\Gamma(s,0)-1) \exp\left[-\left({\left({(b-b_0)\over b_y(s)}\right)}\right)^2
362: \right] }
363: \eeq
364: We find that we need to assume that the scale in the Gaussian is $s$-dependent
365: because the slope of the profile function decreases with energy. A
366: reasonable match is provided by $b_y=32/ \log s$, which is about 5 GeV$^{-1}$
367: at the Tevatron. We shall give our results for $b_z^2=2$ GeV$^{-2}$ and
368: $b_0/b_s=97.5 \%$.
369:
370: We show in Fig. \ref{sigtot} the behaviour of the total cross section
371: at high energies. We see that saturation brings in a significant decrease of the LHC cross section. However, it is also clear that the simple saturation
372: considered here is not enough, as the total cross section at the Tevatron will
373: be 85 mb, which is 2 standard deviations from the CDF result. It may be
374: that our previous estimate of the pomeron coupling or intercept is too big.
375: We show in Fig.~\ref{coupeps} the effect of changing either. We see that if
376: saturation is the driving mechanism, then the coupling would need to be
377: reduced\footnote{Note that this is still four times larger than the
378: value advocated in \cite{peter}.}
379: to 0.06 or the intercept to 1.41 in order to accommodate the Tevatron point in
380: this scheme. As we want to show qualitatively what the effect of saturation
381: might be, we keep the parameters of Table~1 in the following.
382:
383: \begin{figure}
384: \begin{center}
385: \mbox{\epsfxsize=100mm\epsffile{totsh1.ps}}
386: \end{center}
387: \caption{The total cross section as a function of $\sqrt{s}$,
388: for the bare amplitude (short dashes), the saturated amplitude (plain curve),
389: the eikonalised amplitude (dash-dot-dot), and for a renormalised eikonal
390: (long dashes).}
391: \label{sigtot}
392: \end{figure}
393:
394: \begin{figure}
395: \begin{center}
396: \mbox{\epsfxsize=70mm\epsffile{alf2.ps}}
397: \mbox{\epsfxsize=70mm\epsffile{h2.ps}}
398: \end{center}
399: \caption{The total cross section at the Tevatron (lower curves) and at the LHC
400: (upper curves) as a function of the intercept (left) and of the coupling (right)
401: of the hard pomeron for a saturated amplitude (plain curves and short dashes)
402: and for an eikonalised amplitude (long dashes and dash-dots)
403: .}
404: \label{coupeps}
405: \end{figure}
406: \begin{figure}
407: \begin{center}
408: \mbox{\epsfxsize=70mm\epsffile{telsh1.ps}}
409: \mbox{\epsfxsize=70mm\epsffile{reltash.ps}}
410: \end{center}
411: \caption{The elastic cross section
412: as a function of $s$ (left), and its ratio to the total cross section (right),
413: for the bare amplitude (short dashes), the saturated amplitude (plain curve),
414: the eikonalised amplitude (dash-dot-dot), and for an extended eikonal
415: (long dashes).
416: }
417: \label{elastic}
418: \end{figure}
419: The saturation regime will have some major effects at the LHC. We show in Fig.~\ref{elastic} that the elastic cross section will be somewhat affected, and
420: that its growth will be tamed: the ratio $\sigma_{el}/\sigma_{tot}$ will
421: start a slow growth towards 0.5. But more importantly, the small-$t$ data
422: will look quite different. We show in Fig.~\ref{rho} the behaviour of the
423: ratio of the real-to-imaginary part of the cross section, both in the bare
424: and in the saturated case. From it, we see that the small-$t$ slope of $\rho$
425: will be one of the most striking features of saturation.
426: \begin{figure}
427: \begin{center}
428: \mbox{\epsfxsize=70mm\epsffile{rons.ps}}
429: \mbox{\epsfxsize=70mm\epsffile{rosc.ps}}
430: \end{center}
431: \caption{The ratio of the real to the imaginary part of the amplitude as a function of $t$,
432: for the bare and the saturated amplitudes
433: at various energies: 100~GeV (plain curve),
434: 500~GeV (long dashes), 5~TeV (short dashes) and 14~TeV (dash-dotted curve).
435: }
436: \label{rho}
437: \end{figure}
438: If this is not measurable at the LHC, then one can also consider the slope of
439: the differential elastic cross section, which we show in Fig.~\ref{slopeel}.
440: We see that saturation increases the slope at small $t$, and predicts a
441: fast drop around $|t|=0.25$ GeV$^2$, when one enters the region of the dip.
442:
443: In fact, saturation naturally predicts
444: a small increase of the slope with $t$ at small
445: $t$. To understand this,
446: let us take the simple form of the black disk with a sharp edge at radius $R$.
447: The scattering
448: amplitude can then be represented as
449: \begin{eqnarray}
450: A(s, t\!=\!0) \ \sim \ \frac{J_1(\sqrt{-t} R)}{\sqrt{-t} R}\ ,
451: \lab{hbd} \nonumber
452: \end{eqnarray}
453: In this case, the slope of the differential cross section at small
454: momentum transfer will be
455: \begin{eqnarray}
456: B_{BDL} \sim R^2/4 \ + R^4/32 \ |t|. \lab{b-bdl}
457: \end{eqnarray}
458: Hence the slope will grow with increasing $|t|$
459: at small momentum transfer, as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{slopeel}.
460: \begin{figure}
461: \begin{center}
462: \mbox{\epsfxsize=70mm\epsffile{slns.ps}}
463: \mbox{\epsfxsize=70mm\epsffile{slsc.ps}}
464: \end{center}
465: \caption{The slope of the elastic differential cross section
466: as a function of $t$,
467: for the bare and saturated amplitudes at various energies: 100 GeV (plain curve),
468: 500 GeV (long dashes), 5 TeV (short dashes) and 14 TeV (dash-dotted curve).
469: }
470: \label{slopeel}
471: \end{figure}
472:
473: \section{Analytic unitarisation schemes}
474: As we have seen, in $\vec b$ space, unitarisation can be written
475: \beq
476: 2\Im m\F-(\Im m\F)^2-(\Re e\F)^2=g_{in}>0.
477: \eeq
478: The general solution can be obtained iff $g_{in}<1$,
479: and can be written
480: $\F=i(1-(1-g_{in})e^{i\Phi}).$
481: We can rewrite it using the opacity $\Omega$ so that $(1-g_{in})=e^{-\Omega}$
482: \beq
483: \F=i\left(1-e^{-\Omega+i\Phi}\right)=i\left(1-e^{i\chi(s,b)}\right).
484: \label{eiko}
485: \eeq
486: Any unitarisation method has to lead to such a form for the amplitude.
487: The ambiguity however comes when one tries to identify $g_{in}$ and
488: $\Phi$ in formula (\ref{eiko}) with the physics input. It is known
489: from potential models that in non-relativistic physics
490: one can think of the Taylor expansion of (\ref{eiko}) as a description
491: of successive interactions with the potential. Here, however, we have no
492: potential, so that the identification of each term with successive pomeron
493: exchanges is not obvious.
494:
495: The usual approach is to assume that the Taylor expansion of (\ref{eiko})
496: is such that the $n^{th}$ term corresponds to $n$-pomeron exchange.
497: In this case,
498: we take the eikonal form for the scattering amplitude.
499: \begin{eqnarray}
500: A_e(s, t\!=\!0)
501: \,=\, 2 \int \!d^2b\, [1-\exp(i\F_0(s,b))] \, .
502: \label{eik} \nonumber
503: \end{eqnarray}
504:
505: Before giving the results in this approach, a few comments are in order.
506: First of all, the eikonal is only a model. Indeed,
507: it is known \cite{LPcuts} that it does not reproduce properly the s-channel
508: cuts of the scattering amplitude coming
509: from multiple exchanges. For instance, already the second term, corresponding to
510: the two-pomeron cut, could have a suppression due to the structure of
511: the proton \cite{book}.
512:
513: Furthermore, the eikonal does not always guarantee unitarisation. Although
514: it obeys Eq. (\ref{unitarity}) for all values of $b$, it can produce,
515: after integration, amplitudes that violate the Froissart bound \cite{Froissart}, depending on the dependence of the form factor.
516: To see this, take the eikonal in factorised form
517: \begin{eqnarray}
518: \chi(s,b) = h(s) \ f(b),
519: \end{eqnarray}
520: with $h(s)=s^\Delta$,
521: and assume simple functional forms for the form factor $f(b)$, which allow an
522: analytical treatment.
523: If one considers a Gaussian form
524: \begin{eqnarray}
525: f(b) \sim \exp(-b^2/R^2),
526: \end{eqnarray}
527: one obtains
528: \begin{eqnarray}
529: A(s,t=0) \sim i \ R^2 \ ( \Gamma(0,s^{\Delta}) \ + \ \gamma \ + \ \Delta \log{s} ),
530: \end{eqnarray}
531: where
532: \begin{eqnarray}
533: \Gamma(a,z) = \int_{z}^{\infty} \ t^{a-1} \ e^{-t} \ dt \nonumber
534: \end{eqnarray}
535: and, in our case,
536: \begin{eqnarray}
537: \Gamma(0,s^{\Delta}) \rightarrow \ 0, \ \ \
538: s \ \rightarrow \ \infty .
539: \end{eqnarray}
540: If $R^2$ is independent from $s$, we have
541: \begin{eqnarray}
542: \sigma_{tot} \ \sim \ \log(s).
543: \end{eqnarray}
544: whereas for $R^2$ growing like $ \log(s)$, we obtain
545: \begin{eqnarray}
546: \sigma_{tot} \ \sim \ \log^2(s),
547: \end{eqnarray}
548: so the total cross section respects the Froissart bound.
549: However, if we take a polynomial form, such as that resulting from
550: dipole-dipole interactions \cite{kozlov-dd},
551: \begin{eqnarray}
552: f(b) \ \sim \frac{1}{b^4}
553: \end{eqnarray}
554: we obtain
555: \begin{eqnarray}
556: A(s,t) \sim i \int_{0}^{\infty} \ \frac{ 1}{y \sqrt{y}}
557: \ [1\ - \ \exp( - s^{\Delta} \ y)] \ = \ 2 \sqrt{\pi} \ s^{\Delta/2}.
558: \end{eqnarray}
559: with $y= 1/b^4$. So, in this case, the scattering amplitude
560: does not satisfy the Froissart unitarity bound.
561: This violation is not due to the divergence of $f(b)$ at small $b$. Indeed,
562: if we introduce an additional small constant radius $r$ which removes
563: the singular point $b=0$ in $f(b)$ and take
564: \begin{eqnarray}
565: f(b) \ \sim \frac{1}{b^4+r^4}
566: % \nonumber
567: \end{eqnarray}
568: the answer, after some complicated algebra, is
569: \begin{eqnarray}
570: A(s,t=0)\ \sim \ \frac{1}{4r^2}[\pi s^{\Delta} \exp[-s^{\Delta}/(2r^4)]
571: \ [I_{0}(s^{\Delta}/(2r^4)) +I_{1}(s^{\Delta}/ (2r^4))].
572: \end{eqnarray}
573: The asymptotic value of the Modified Bessel functions is
574: \begin{eqnarray}
575: I_{0,1}(s^{\Delta}/(2r^4)) \ \sim \ \frac{r^2}{\sqrt{\pi} s^{\Delta/2}}.
576: \end{eqnarray}
577: Hence we again obtain for asymptotic high energies
578: \begin{eqnarray}
579: A(s,t) \sim i \ \frac{\sqrt{\pi} \ s^{\Delta/2}}{2 \sqrt{2}}.
580: \end{eqnarray}
581: which again does not obey the Froissart bound.
582:
583: So, in the following, we shall use the eikonal as a simple example. The form
584: factors that we use lead to a cross section that does respect the Froissart
585: bound. Furthermore, we shall be able to see whether the saturation effects
586: that we found depend on the picture of saturation, or depend only on
587: the onset of unitarising cuts.
588:
589: We show in Fig.~\ref{profile} that, in this case, the profile function
590: never saturates: the cuts actually reduce the cross section from the start,
591: and never allow $\Gamma(s,b)$ to become larger than 1.
592: This means, as is shown in Fig.~\ref{sigtot} that eikonalisation will
593: give a suppression, even at lower energies. So one needs to modify
594: slightly the parameters of Table~1, to recover the low-energy fit. We find
595: that multiplying the couplings by 1.2 provides such an agreement,
596: and refer to this as the "renormalised eikonal", shown in Fig.~\ref{sigtot}.
597: We see that both curves are very close at the LHC, but exceed considerably
598: previous estimates \cite{compete}: whereas the total cross section at the
599: LHC was predicted to be $111.5\pm 1.2 \begin{array}{c} +4.1\\ -2.1 \end{array}$ mb, it is
600: now 152~mb.
601:
602: In a similar manner, Fig.~\ref{elastic} shows that the elastic cross
603: section also gets large corrections from the cuts at lower energies. Again,
604: the renormalised eikonal is close to the saturated curve at low energy,
605: but this time deviates at higher energies, so that the ratio of
606: the elastic cross section to the total cross section changes by about
607: 10\%.
608:
609: We had seen that a striking feature of saturation was the behaviour
610: of the real part of the amplitude at small $t$, as the $\rho$ parameter
611: would have a drastic change of slope. We find that such an effect will also be
612: present in the eikonal case (see Fig.~\ref{rhoeiko}), although the real
613: part will be much bigger in this case. Similarly, we also show in
614: Fig.~\ref{rhoeiko} the behaviour of the slope of the differential
615: elastic cross section. Again, we see that it increases at small $t$,
616: and then decreases towards the dip.
617:
618: \begin{figure}
619: \begin{center}
620: \mbox{\epsfxsize=70mm\epsffile{roeia.ps}}
621: \mbox{\epsfxsize=70mm\epsffile{sleia.ps}}
622: \end{center}
623: \caption{The ratio of the real to the imaginary part of the amplitude
624: (left), and the slope of the elastic differential cross section
625: (right) as functions of $t$
626: for the eikonalised amplitude at various energies: 100 GeV (plain curve),
627: 500 GeV (long dashes), 5 TeV (short dashes) and 14 TeV (dash-dotted curve).
628: }
629: \label{rhoeiko}
630: \end{figure}
631:
632: \section{Conclusion}
633: Now the structure of the diffractive
634: scattering amplitude cannot be obtained from first principles
635: or from QCD. The procedure used to extract
636: such structure and parameters of the elastic scattering amplitude
637: from the experimental data requires some different assumptions.
638: If we assume that the hard pomeron is present in soft data, it will
639: lead to a cross section of the order of
640: 150 mb (a similar conclusion, via a different argument, has been
641: reached in \cite{peter}). The uncertainty in this number
642: is quite large, as unitarisation and saturation schemes are numerous.
643: Hence it seems that the total cross section can be anywhere between
644: 108 mb \cite{compete} and 150 mb.
645:
646: Other observables may be used to decide whether one has a simple
647: extrapolation of the lower-energy data, such as in \cite{compete},
648: or one is entering a new regime of unitarisation. Indeed,
649: in the presence of the hard Pomeron,
650: the saturation effects, which must then be present at LHC energies,
651: can change the behavior of the real part of the cross section making
652: it smaller than expected, especially in the near-forward region,
653: and of the slope of the differential elastic scattering cross section.
654:
655: Despite the lack of an absolute prediction for total cross sections,
656: the observation of such features would be a clear sign that a new regime
657: of strong interactions has been reached.
658: \section*{Acknowledgements}
659: O.V.S. acknowledges the support of FNRS (Belgium) for visits to the University
660: of Li\`ege where part of this work was done.
661: We thank E. Martynov, S. Lengyel, G. Soyez and P.V. Landshoff for discussions.
662: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
663: \bibitem{lipatov1} L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 23} (1976) 338;
664: E.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov, and V.S. Fadin,
665: Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 45} (1977) 199;
666: I.I. Balitsky and L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 28} (1978) 822.
667: %
668: \bibitem{clms} J.~R.~Cudell, E.~Martynov, O.~V.~Selyugin and A.~Lengyel,
669: %``The hard pomeron in soft data,''
670: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 587}, 78 (2004)
671: [arXiv:hep-ph/0310198];
672: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310198;%%
673: %``Soft data and the hard pomeron,''
674: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 152}, 79 (2006)
675: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408332].
676: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408332;%%
677: %
678: \bibitem{kovner-cf}
679: A.~Kovner, Lectures on XLV Cracow School of Theoretical Physics,
680: %``High energy evolution: The wave function point of view,''
681: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 36}, 3551 (2005)
682: [arXiv:hep-ph/0508232].
683: %
684: \bibitem{sochi}
685: A.~I.~Shoshi, F.~D.~Steffen and H.~J.~Pirner,
686: %``S-matrix unitarity, impact parameter profiles, gluon saturation and
687: %high-energy scattering,''
688: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 709}, 131 (2002)
689: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202012].
690: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202012;%%
691: %
692: \bibitem{nach}
693: O.~Nachtmann,
694: %``Considerations Concerning Diffraction Scattering In Quantum Chromodynamics,''
695: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 209} (1991) 436;
696: %%CITATION = APNYA,209,436;%%
697: H.~G.~Dosch, E.~Ferreira and A.~Kramer;
698: %``Nonperturbative QCD Treatment Of High-Energy Hadron Hadron Scattering,''
699: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50} (1994) 1992
700: [arXiv:hep-ph/9405237].
701: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405237;%%
702: %
703: \bibitem{Froissart}
704: M.~Froissart,
705: %``Asymptotic Behavior And Subtractions In The Mandelstam Representation,''
706: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 123}, 1053 (1961);
707: %%CITATION = PHRVA,123,1053;%%
708: A.~Martin,
709: %``Extension Of The Axiomatic Analyticity Domain Of Scattering Amplitudes By
710: %Unitarity. 1,''
711: Nuovo Cim.\ A {\bf 42}, 930 (1965).
712: %%CITATION = NUCIA,A42,930;%%
713: %
714: \bibitem{bart}
715: J.~Bartels, E.~Gotsman, E.~Levin, M.~Lublinsky and U.~Maor,
716: %``The dipole picture and saturation in soft processes,''
717: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 556} (2003) 114
718: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212284].
719: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212284;%%
720: %
721: \bibitem{clm}
722: J.~R.~Cudell, A.~Lengyel and E.~Martynov,
723: %``The soft and the hard pomerons in hadron elastic scattering at small t,''
724: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 034008 (2006)
725: [arXiv:hep-ph/0511073].
726: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511073;%%
727: %
728: \bibitem{DL}
729: A.~Donnachie and P.~V.~Landshoff,
730: %``P P And Anti-P P Elastic Scattering,''
731: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 231} (1984) 189.
732: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B231,189;%%
733: %
734: \bibitem{book}
735: A.~Donnachie, G.~Dosch, O.~Nachtmann and P.~V.~Landshoff,
736: ``Pomeron physics and QCD,''
737: Camb.\ Monogr.\ Part.\ Phys.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ Cosmol.\ {\bf 19}, 1 (2002).
738: %%CITATION = CMPCE,19,1;%%
739: %
740: \bibitem{DLH} A.~Donnachie and P.~V.~Landshoff,
741: %``Exclusive vector photoproduction: Confirmation of Regge theory,''
742: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 478}, 146 (2000)
743: [arXiv:hep-ph/9912312].
744: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912312;%%
745: %
746: \bibitem{dif04}
747: J.~R.~Cudell and O.~V.~Selyugin,
748: %``Saturation regimes at LHC energies,''
749: Czech.\ J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 54}, A441 (2004)
750: [arXiv:hep-ph/0309194].
751: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309194;%%
752: %
753: \bibitem{peter}
754: P.~V.~Landshoff,
755: %``The total cross section at the LHC,''
756: talk given at 11th International Conference on Elastic and Diffractive
757: Scattering: Towards High Energy Frontiers: The 20th Anniversary of the
758: Blois Workshops, Chateau de Blois, Blois, France, 15-20 May 2005,
759: arXiv:hep-ph/0509240.
760: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509240;%%
761: %
762: \bibitem{LPcuts}P.~V.~Landshoff and J.~C.~Polkinghorne,
763: %``Iterations Of Regge Cuts,''
764: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 181}, 1989 (1969).
765: %%CITATION = PHRVA,181,1989;%%
766: %
767: \bibitem{kozlov-dd}
768: H.~Navelet and R.~Peschanski,
769: %``Conformal invariant saturation,''
770: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 634}, 291 (2002)
771: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201285];
772: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201285;%%
773: %``The elastic {QCD} dipole amplitude at one-loop,''
774: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 1370 (1999)
775: [arXiv:hep-ph/9809474];
776: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809474;%%
777: %``Conformal invariance and the exact solution of BFKL equations,''
778: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 507}, 353 (1997)
779: [arXiv:hep-ph/9703238];
780: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703238;%%
781: L.~N.~Lipatov,
782: %``Small-x physics in perturbative QCD,''
783: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 286}, 131 (1997)
784: [arXiv:hep-ph/9610276];
785: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610276;%%
786: S.~Bondarenko, M.~Kozlov and E.~Levin,
787: %``gamma* gamma* scattering: Saturation and unitarization in the BFKL
788: %approach,''
789: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 34}, 3081 (2003)
790: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303118];
791: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303118;%%
792: M.~Kozlov and E.~Levin,
793: %``QCD saturation and gamma* gamma* scattering,''
794: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 28}, 483 (2003)
795: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211348].
796: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211348;%%
797: %
798: \bibitem{compete}
799: J.~R.~Cudell {\it et al.} [COMPETE Collaboration],
800: %``Benchmarks for the forward observables at RHIC, the Tevatron-run II and
801: %the LHC,''
802: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 201801 (2002)
803: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206172].
804: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206172;%%
805: \end{thebibliography}
806: \end{document}
807: