1: 

2: % The last update:  February  28,  2006

3: \documentstyle[epsfig,12pt]{article}

4: \newcommand{\mc}{\multicolumn}

5: \newcommand{\bce}{\begin{center}}

6: \newcommand{\ece}{\end{center}}

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

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

9: \newcommand{\bea}{\vspace{0.25cm}\begin{eqnarray}}

10: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

11: \newcommand{\cont}{\nonumber\end{eqnarray}\begin{eqnarray}}

12: \newcommand{\ab}{{\alpha\beta}}

13: \newcommand{\cd}{{\gamma\delta}}

14: \newcommand{\dc}{{\delta\gamma}}

15: \newcommand{\ac}{{\alpha\gamma}}

16: \newcommand{\bd}{{\beta\delta}}

17: \newcommand{\abc}{{\alpha\beta\gamma}}

18: \newcommand{\eps}{{\epsilon}}

19: \newcommand{\lam}{{\lambda}}

20: \newcommand{\mn}{{\mu\nu}}

21: \newcommand{\mpnp}{{\mu'\nu'}}

22: \newcommand{\Amuu}{{A_{\mu}}}

23: \newcommand{\Amuo}{{A^{\mu}}}

24: \newcommand{\Vmuu}{{V_{\mu}}}

25: \newcommand{\Vmuo}{{V^{\mu}}}

26: \newcommand{\Anuu}{{A_{\nu}}}

27: \newcommand{\Anuo}{{A^{\nu}}}

28: \newcommand{\Vnuu}{{V_{\nu}}}

29: \newcommand{\Vnuo}{{V^{\nu}}}

30: \newcommand{\Fmnu}{{F_{\mu\nu}}}

31: \newcommand{\Fmno}{{F^{\mu\nu}}}

32: \newcommand{\abcd}{{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}}

33: \newcommand{\bsigma}{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}

34: \newcommand{\btau}{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}

35: \newcommand{\brho}{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}

36: \newcommand{\bpipi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\pi\pi$}}

37: \newcommand{\bss}{\bsigma\!\cdot\!\bsigma}

38: \newcommand{\btt}{\btau\!\cdot\!\btau}

39: \newcommand{\bnab}{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}

40: %\newcommand{\b0}{\mbox{\boldmath $0$}}

41: %\newcommand{\b1}{\mbox{\boldmath $1$}}

42: \newcommand{\bA}{{\bf A}}

43: \newcommand{\be}{{\bf e}}

44: \newcommand{\bj}{{\bf j}}

45: \newcommand{\bk}{{\bf k}}

46: \newcommand{\bl}{{\bf l}}

47: \newcommand{\bL}{{\bf L}}

48: \newcommand{\bM}{{\bf M}}

49: \newcommand{\bp}{{\bf p}}

50: \newcommand{\bq}{{\bf q}}

51: \newcommand{\br}{{\bf r}}

52: \newcommand{\bR}{{\bf R}}

53: \newcommand{\bs}{{\bf s}}

54: \newcommand{\bS}{{\bf S}}

55: \newcommand{\bT}{{\bf T}}

56: \newcommand{\bv}{{\bf v}}

57: \newcommand{\bV}{{\bf V}}

58: \newcommand{\bx}{{\bf x}}

59: \newcommand{\fph}{${\cal F}$}

60: \newcommand{\aph}{${\cal A}$}

61: \newcommand{\dph}{${\cal D}$}

62: \newcommand{\bm}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}

63: \newcommand{\fpi}{f_\pi}

64: \newcommand{\mpi}{m_\pi}

65: \newcommand{\Tr}{{\mbox{\rm Tr}}}

66: \newcommand{\delu}{\partial_{\mu}}

67: \newcommand{\delo}{\partial^{\mu}}

68: \newcommand{\up}{\!\uparrow}

69: \newcommand{\do}{\!\downarrow}

70: \newcommand{\upup}{\uparrow\uparrow}

71: \newcommand{\updo}{\uparrow\downarrow}

72: \newcommand{\uu}{$\uparrow\uparrow$}

73: \newcommand{\ud}{$\uparrow\downarrow$}

74: \newcommand{\auu}{$a^{\uparrow\uparrow}$}

75: \newcommand{\aud}{$a^{\uparrow\downarrow}$}

76: \newcommand{\pu}{p\!\uparrow}

77: %\newcommand{\half}{{1\over 2}}

78: %\newcommand{\quart}{{1\over 4}}

79: \newcommand{\cl}[1]{\begin{center} {#1} \end{center}}

80: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}

81: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}

82: \newcommand{\bpi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}}

83: \newcommand{\bphi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi$}}

84: \newcommand{\bthet}{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}

85: \newcommand{\qp}{quasiparticle}

86: \newcommand{\sa}{scattering amplitude}

87: \newcommand{\ph}{particle-hole}

88: \newcommand{\qcd}{{\it QCD}}

89: \newcommand{\integ}{\int\!d}

90: \newcommand{\ie}{{\sl i.e.~}}

91: \newcommand{\etal}{{\sl et al.~}}

92: \newcommand{\etc}{{\sl etc.~}}

93: \newcommand{\rhs}{{\sl rhs~}}

94: \newcommand{\lhs}{{\sl lhs~}}

95: \newcommand{\eg}{{\sl e.g.~}}

96: \newcommand{\ef}{\epsilon_F}

97: \newcommand{\sigt}{d^2\sigma/d\Omega dE}

98: \newcommand{\sige}{{d^2\sigma\over d\Omega dE}}

99: \newcommand{\rpaeq}{\beq

100: \left ( \begin{array}{cc}

101: A&B\\

102: -B^*&-A^*\end{array}\right )

103: \left ( \begin{array}{c}

104: X^{(\kappa})\\Y^{(\kappa)}\end{array}\right )=E_\kappa

105: \left ( \begin{array}{c}

106: X^{(\kappa})\\Y^{(\kappa)}\end{array}\right )

107: \eeq}

108: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{| {#1} \rangle}

109: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle {#1} |}

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

111: %\newcounter{f1}

112: %\newcounter{f2}

113: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesubsection.\arabic{equation}}

114: %\renewcommand{\thetable}{\thesection.\arabic{table}}

115: \newcommand{\singlespace}{

116: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\large\normalsize}

117: \newcommand{\doublespace}{

118: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.6}\large\normalsize}

119: \newcommand{\bftau}{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}

120: \newcommand{\bfalpha}{\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}

121: \newcommand{\bfgamma}{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}

122: \newcommand{\bfxi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}}

123: \newcommand{\bfbeta}{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}

124: \newcommand{\bfeta}{\mbox{\boldmath $\eta$}}

125: \newcommand{\bfpi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}}

126: \newcommand{\bfphi}{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi$}}

127: \newcommand{\bfrho}{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}

128: \newcommand{\bfR}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\cal R}$}}

129: \newcommand{\bfL}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\cal L}$}}

130: \newcommand{\bfM}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\cal M}$}}

131: \newcommand{\bkappa}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\kappa}$}}

132: \newcommand{\bPhi}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\Phi}$}}

133: \newcommand{\bDelta}{\mbox{\boldmath ${\Delta}$}}

134: \newcommand{\bb}{{\bf b}}

135: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

136: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}         %less than or approx. symbol

137: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

138: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}         %greater than or approx. symbol

139: \def\dblint{\mathop{\rlap{\hbox{$\displaystyle\!\int\!\!\!\!\!\int$}}

140: \hbox{$\bigcirc$}}}

141: \def\ut#1{$\underline{\smash{\vphantom{y}\hbox{#1}}}$}

142: \def\Pom{{\bf I\!P}}

143: \def\ni{\noindent}

144: \def\jp{$J/\Psi~$}

145: \def\z{$z~$}

146: \def\pt{$p_T^2~$}

147: \def\psip{$\psi^{\prime}~$}

148: \def\cbc{$c \bar{c}$}

149: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

150: \def\endeq{\end{equation}}

151: \def\arr{\begin{eqnarray}}

152: \def\endarr{\end{eqnarray}}

153: \makeindex

154: \textwidth              16.7cm

155: \oddsidemargin           2.5cm

156: \advance\oddsidemargin  by -1in

157: \evensidemargin          0.0cm

158: \advance\evensidemargin by -1in

159: \marginparwidth          1.9cm

160: \marginparsep            0.4cm

161: \marginparpush           0.4cm

162: \topmargin              -0.5cm

163: \advance\topmargin      by -0.5in

164: \textheight             24.0cm

165: %--------------------------------------------------

166: \begin{document}

167: 

168: \vspace{2.0cm}

169: %\begin{flushright}

170: %ITEP(Ph)-2005-08

171: %\end{flushright}

172: 

173: \vspace{1.0cm}

174: 

175: \begin{center}

176: {\Large \bf

177: Color dipoles, PCAC and  Adler's theorem}

178: 

179: \vspace{1.0cm}

180: 

181: {\large\bf R.~Fiore$^{1 \dagger}$ and V.R.~Zoller$^{2 \ddagger}$}

182: 

183: \vspace{1.0cm}

184: $^1${\it Dipartimento di Fisica,

185: Universit\`a     della Calabria\\

186: and\\

187: Istituto Nazionale

188: di Fisica Nucleare, Gruppo collegato di Cosenza,\\

189: I-87036 Rende, Cosenza, Italy}\\

190: $^2${\it

191: ITEP, Moscow 117218, Russia\\}

192: \vspace{1.0cm}

193: { \bf Abstract }\\

194: \end{center}

195: Being reformulated in the color dipole basis of  small-$x$ QCD

196: Adler's theorem establishes a connection  between perturbative

197: and non-perturbative descriptions of DIS  and quantifies the effect

198: of non-perturbative dynamics on would-be-perturbative observables.

199:  In particular, it provides

200:  a quantitative measure  of the non-perturbative  

201: influence on  the longitudinal 

202: structure function in  charged current DIS and

203: imposes stringent constraints on non-perturbative parameters of 

204: color dipole models. Our analysis  calls for new experimental tests of 

205: Adler's theorem in diffractive

206: neutrino scattering.  

207: \doublespace

208: \vskip 0.5cm \vfill $\begin{array}{ll}

209: ^{\dagger}\mbox{{\it email address:}} & \mbox{fiore@cs.infn.it} \\

210: ^{\ddagger}\mbox{{\it email address:}} & \mbox{zoller@itep.ru} \\

211: \end{array}$

212: \pagebreak

213: %---------------------------------------------------

214: %-------------------------------------------

215: 

216: \section{Introduction}

217: Adler's theorem  \cite{Adler} connects charged current DIS

218: (deep inelastic scattering) with

219: soft hadronic physics. Here we study its efficiency as a constraint on

220: parameters of color dipole models intended to describe phenomenologically both

221: soft and hard dynamics of DIS processes.  We

222: focus on the vacuum exchange dominated

223: leading $\log(1/x)$ region of large  Regge parameter

224: $x^{-1}\gsim 10^2$ which is

225: \beq

226: x^{-1}= {2m_N\nu\over m_A^2+Q^2}.

227: \label{eq:Regge}

228: \eeq

229: In (\ref{eq:Regge}) $\nu$ and $Q^2$ are the laboratory frame energy and

230:  virtuality of the  probe, respectively. The parameter  $m_A\simeq 1$ GeV

231: serves to define

232: the mass scale in the light-flavor axial channel. 

233: We base our consideration on

234: the color dipole (CD) approach to the  BFKL \cite{BFKL},

235: evolution of small-$x$ DIS \cite{NZZBFKL,NZ94}.

236: In this approach the  interaction of high-energy  neutrino

237: with the target nucleon, viewed in the laboratory frame,

238:  derives  from the coherent

239: interaction of $q\bar q, q\bar q g,...$

240: states in the light-cone electro-weak (EW) boson.

241: At small $x$  the

242: color dipole size,  $\br$, of the constituent quark-antiquark pair

243: is conserved in the interaction process and

244: the absorption cross section  for the EW boson in the

245: helicity state $\lambda$ is

246: calculated as  the quantum mechanical expectation value of

247: the flavor independent CD cross section $\sigma(x,r)$,

248: \beq

249: \sigma_{\lambda}(x,Q^2)=

250: \ave{\Psi_{\lambda}(z,\br)|\sigma(x,r)|\Psi_{\lambda}(z,\br)}.

251: \label{eq:CDF}

252: \eeq

253:  The CD structure of the

254:  W boson  is described by the

255:  light-cone wave function (LCWF) of the  quark-antiquark state

256: $\Psi_{\lambda}(z,\br)$ \cite{FZ1,Kolya92}.

257: An interesting possibility to gain deeper insight into the

258:  dynamics

259: of small and large color dipoles is offered by the neutrino DIS in

260: the axial channel.

261: In the axial channel at $Q^2\to 0$ the light-cone wave function of the

262: longitudinal W boson is proportional of the divergence of the

263: axial-vector current,

264: $\Psi_L\propto \partial_{\mu}A_{\mu}$.

265: The PCAC (partially  conserved   axial-vector  current) relation \cite{Nambu},

266: $\partial_{\mu}A_{\mu}=m^2_{\pi}f_{\pi}\varphi$,

267: connects  via Adler's theorem \cite{Adler}

268: the longitudinal cross section $\sigma_L$ defined by Eq.(\ref{eq:CDF})

269: and  the on-shell pion-nucleon total cross section

270: $\sigma_{\pi}=\ave{\Psi{_\pi}(z,\br)|\sigma(x,r)|\Psi{_\pi}(z,\br)}$,

271: \beq

272: \lim_{Q^2\to 0}Q^2\sigma_{L}(x,Q^2)=g^2f^2_{\pi}\sigma_{\pi}(\nu).

273: \label{eq:PS}

274: \eeq

275: In Eq.(\ref{eq:PS}) $\nu$ and $x$ are linked by the  Eq.(\ref{eq:Regge}).

276: The weak charge $g$ in (\ref{eq:PS}) is

277: related to the Fermi coupling constant $G_F$,

278: \beq

279: {G_F\over \sqrt{2}}={g^2\over m^2_{W}},

280: \label{eq:GF}

281: \eeq

282: and  $f_{\pi}\simeq 131$ MeV is the pion decay

283: constant.

284: The Eq.(\ref{eq:PS}) connects  absorption  cross sections of two high-energy

285: projectiles having  very different CD structure, the pointlike $W$ and

286: the non-pointlike $\pi$. While  the light-cone wave function

287: of the

288:  pion $\Psi_\pi(z,\br)$

289: is smooth and finite at small $r$

290: \footnote {for a review of the dominance of the soft LCWF and references

291: see \cite{Diehl,Radyushkin}},

292: the EW boson wave function is singular,

293: $\Psi_L\sim r^{-1}$. 

294: This singularity is  a legitimate pQCD effect and

295: it  makes evaluation of hard contributions to

296: $Q^2\sigma_{L}(x,Q^2)|_{Q^2\to 0}$ more reliable.

297: In particular, this singularity uniquely predicts that the small dipole (hard)

298: contribution to $\sigma_L$ is

299: much stronger than to $\sigma_{\pi}$.

300: 

301: Since the pioneering paper

302: \cite{PS}, where the  axial-vector meson dominance (AVMD) was  suggested,

303: Adler's theorem has been considered as a relation between the

304: higher mass contributions to the axial current and the pion-nucleon

305:  cross section.

306:  The  AVMD  was successfully

307: applied to the analysis of the  coupled-channel problem of

308:  neutrino-nucleus interactions in

309: Refs. \cite{BelKop,Kop,KopMar} where  the  mechanism of the   $\rho\pi$

310: dominance was analyzed in detail.  In Ref. \cite{LonThom}

311: the PCAC component of the cross section was identified with the

312: longitudinal part of the $a_1$-meson and  the constraint for the

313: longitudinal AVMD DIS structure function was obtained.

314: Thus, in the AVMD representation Adler's theorem relates so to say

315: soft physics to soft physics, the pion to higher axial-vector excitations.

316: Only in the CD basis Adler's theorem gains its rightful  heuristic power.

317: It establishes a connection  between perturbative

318: and non-perturbative processes and shows the effect, if not reveals a 

319: mechanism,

320: of non-perturbative dynamics on would-be-perturbative observables.

321:  In particular, it provides

322:  a quantitative measure  of the non-perturbative  

323: influence on  the longitudinal 

324: structure function of the light-flavor charged current (CC) DIS.

325: Below we discuss the origin and consequences of this observation.

326: 

327: 

328: \section{Adler's theorem and the axial  mass scale}

329: The color dipole (CD) approach

330: \cite{NZ91,M} proved to be

331: very successful in describing  of inclusive and diffractive

332: electroproduction DIS data in the vector channel down to $Q^2\sim m_q^2$,

333: where $m_q$ is the constituent quark mass

334: (for the review see \cite{HEBECKER} and also \cite{GBW}).

335: The mass scale in the vector channel

336: is fixed by the mass of lightest vector mesons, $m_V\sim 1$ GeV.

337: In the axial channel the spectrum of hadronic excitations starts with

338: the nearly massless pion. To get an idea of the characteristic  axial

339:  mass scale let us turn to Adler's theorem.

340: Following Adler \cite{Adler}, consider the particular case of

341: forward lepton  production in the reaction of neutrino-nucleon scattering

342: \beq

343: \nu(k)+N(p)\to l(k^{\prime})+X(p_X)

344: \label{eq:NU-N}

345: \eeq

346: in  the limit $Q^2=-q^2\to 0$ and 

347:  suppose that  ${k^{\prime}}^2=m^2_l=0$.

348:   In (\ref{eq:NU-N}) $p_X$

349: is the 4-momentum of the final hadronic state $X$,

350: $k$ and $k^{\prime}$ are the

351: 4-momenta

352: of the neutrino  and final lepton and $q=k-k^{\prime}$ is the 4-momentum

353: carried by W-boson.

354: The amplitude of  the process  (\ref{eq:NU-N})

355: is

356: \beq

357: M= {G_F\over \sqrt{2}}l_{\mu}\ave{X|J_\mu  |p},

358: \label{eq:M}

359: \eeq

360: The  massless leptonic current $l_{\mu}$ is conserved and at $Q^2\to 0$ is

361: proportional to $q_{\mu}$,

362: \beq

363: l_{\mu}=\bar u_l(k^{\prime})\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)u_{\nu}(k)=

364: {4\sqrt{1-y}\over y}q_{\mu}

365: \label{eq:Lepton}

366: \eeq

367: where $y=pq/kp=\nu/E$. The divergence

368: of the vector component of the  hadronic current

369: $J_{\mu}=V_{\mu}-A_{\mu}$

370:  is supposed to be zero.

371: Let $\ave{X|A_\mu|p}=M_{\mu}$ be

372: the sum of the pion pole term and

373:  amplitudes of higher axial-vector hadronic states, $\ket{a}$,

374: \beq

375: M_{\mu}=M^{\pi}_{\mu}+\sum_{a\neq \pi} M^a_{\mu}.

376: \label{eq:SIGR1}

377: \eeq

378: In  (\ref{eq:SIGR1})

379: \beq

380: M^{\pi}_{\mu}=iq_\mu f_\pi{{1 }\over {Q^2+m^2_\pi}}M_\pi\,.

381: \label{eq:SIGR2}

382: \eeq

383: Since $q_\mu l_\mu=0$, the pion pole does not contribute

384: to $l_{\mu}M_{\mu}$ and $M$ is saturated by higher

385: axial-vector states \cite{Bell}

386: \beq

387: M={G_F\over\sqrt{2}}\sum_{a\neq \pi}l_{\mu}M^a_{\mu}.

388: \label{eq:SIGR3}

389: \eeq

390: So, the mass scale in the axial channel has been determined, in fact,

391: in experiments on the diffraction dissociation of high-energy  pions,

392:  where the

393: mass spectrum of final

394: $a_1,\rho\pi, \pi\pi\pi...$ states was measured

395: (see \cite{Daum} and  also the discussion  in \cite{BelKop}).

396: 

397: Adler's amplitude is linear in the divergence of the axial current. 

398: To this accuracy, 

399: making use of $q_{\mu}M_{\mu}=0$ and

400: \beq

401: \sum_{a\neq \pi}q_{\mu}M^a_{\mu}=if_\pi M_\pi

402: \label{eq:GT}

403: \eeq

404: - the Goldberger-Treiman conspiracy \cite{GT}, - yields 

405: the neutrino amplitude which  is multiple of the pion amplitude

406: \beq

407: M ={iG_Ff_{\pi}\over \sqrt{2}}{4\sqrt{1-y}\over y} M_\pi.

408: \label{eq:QA}

409: \eeq

410: Summing over all final hadronic states

411: one arrives  at

412: Adler's  relation between $\sigma_{\pi}(\nu)$ and the

413: double differential cross section of the process (\ref{eq:NU-N}),

414: \bea

415: {d\sigma\over dydQ^2}\Big|_{Q^2=0}={\pi\over (pk)}

416: {1\over(4\pi)^3}\sum_X|M|^2(2\pi)^4\delta^{(4)}(p+q-p_X)

417: \nonumber\\

418: ={G^2_F\over 2\pi^2}{1-y\over y}

419: f^2_\pi\sigma_\pi(\nu)

420: \label{eq:DSDYDQ2}

421: \eea

422: 

423: \section{CD models  and the axial mass scale again}

424: CD models rely upon the small-$x$ flux-cross section factorization,

425: \beq

426: yQ^2{d\sigma\over dydQ^2}=f_\lambda\sigma_\lambda

427: \label{eq:FLUXSEC}

428: \eeq

429: The  fluxes $f_\lambda$ and cross sections $\sigma_\lambda$

430:  depend on the polarization state

431: $\lambda$ of the EW boson.

432: In  the $W$-proton collision frame $q_\mu=(\nu,0,0,q_z)$.

433: and the 4-vector of the so called  longitudinal  polarization,

434: which we are interested in, is

435: \beq

436: s_\mu={1\over \sqrt{Q^2}}(q_z,0,0,\nu)={\sqrt{Q^2}\over \sqrt{(pq)^2+m_N^2Q^2}}

437: \left(p_\mu+{pq\over Q^2}q_\mu\right) .

438: \label{eq:SMU}

439: \eeq

440: Throughout this paper we use, following tradition,  the name ``longitudinal''

441: for the time-like vector $s_\mu$ and provide corresponding variables with

442: the label $L$.

443: Then, in close similarity with the QED flux of longitudinal photons,

444: the flux of $W_L$ bosons is

445: \beq

446: f_L={4\alpha_W\over\pi}{Q^4\over m^4_W}(1-y),

447: \label{eq:FLUXES}

448: \eeq

449: where $\alpha_W=g^2/4\pi$.

450: Applying the optical theorem to the amplitude

451: for Compton scattering of the  $W_L$  yields

452: \bea

453: {d\sigma\over dydQ^2}\Big|_{Q^2=0}

454: ={G_F^2\over 2\pi^2}{(1-y)\over y}{Q^2\over g^2}

455: \sigma_L(x,Q^2)\Big|_{Q^2=0},

456: \label{eq:FLUXSEC1}

457: \eea

458: where, in the fixed-$\br$ representation,

459: \bea

460: \sigma_L(x,Q^2)=\ave{W|\br}\ave{\br|\hat\sigma|\br}

461: \ave{\br|W}\nonumber\\

462: =\int dz d^{2}{\bf{r}}

463: |\Psi_{L}(z,{\bf{r}})|^{2}

464: \sigma(x,r)\,.

465: \label{eq:FACTOR}

466: \eea

467: The Eq.(\ref{eq:PS} ) then follows from comparison of

468: Eqs. (\ref{eq:DSDYDQ2}) and (\ref{eq:FLUXSEC1}).

469: In Eq.~(\ref{eq:FACTOR}) $\ave{\br|\hat\sigma|\br}=\sigma(x,r)$,

470: $\hat\sigma$ is the  cross section operator and

471: $\ave{\br|W}=\Psi_{L}(z,{\bf{r}})$

472:  is the LCWF of

473: the $|u\bar d\rangle$ state with the $u$ quark

474: carrying fraction $z$ of the $W^+$ light-cone momentum and

475: $\bar d$ with momentum fraction $1-z$

476: (see \cite{FZ1} for details).

477: In \cite{FZ1} we used for $\Psi_L$

478: the notation $\Psi_0$.

479: The expansion (\ref{eq:SIGR1}) is written in the basis of physical hadrons

480: (mass operator

481: eigenstates) $\ket{a}$ related to fixed-${\br}$ states via

482:  $\ket{\br}=\sum_a\ave{a|\br}\ket{a}$. In this basis the diagonal matrix

483: elements of $\hat\sigma$ give the total cross section of $a-N$ scattering,

484: $\sigma_{a}=\ave{a|\hat\sigma|a}$ \cite{KolyaFacts}, and

485:   Eq.(\ref{eq:FACTOR}) turns  into

486: \bea

487: Q^2\sigma_L\Big|_{Q^2=0}=Q^2\ave{W|\br}\ave{\br|\hat\sigma|\br}

488: \ave{\br|W}\nonumber\\

489: =Q^2\sum_{a,a^{\prime}\neq \pi}\ave{W|a}\ave{a|\hat\sigma|a^{\prime}}

490: \ave{a^{\prime} |W}\nonumber\\

491: =Q^2\ave{W|\pi}\ave{\pi|\hat\sigma|\pi}\ave{\pi|W}

492: =g^2 f^2_\pi\sigma_\pi .

493: \label{eq:CDPCAC}

494: \eea

495: In (\ref{eq:CDPCAC}) the Goldberger-Treiman

496: conspiracy, Eq.(\ref{eq:GT}), was used to come from the second line 

497:  to the third one.

498: 

499: Notice that the sum over hadronic states $\ket{a}$ in (\ref{eq:CDPCAC})

500: does not include the pion, the

501: W-boson in the polarization state  $s_{\mu}$ (see Eq.(\ref{eq:SMU}))

502:  does not mix with the pion, $s_{\mu}q_{\mu}=0$.  Consequently,

503: the CD states described by   the light-cone

504: wave function $\Psi_L(z,\br)$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:FACTOR}) are  dual not to the

505: nearly massless  $\pi$-meson but

506: to ``normal''  axial-vector  hadronic  states ($a_1,\rho\pi,...$) of

507: a mass $\sim 1$ GeV. This observation justifies, in particular,

508:  the choice of the mass scale  $m_A=1$ GeV

509: in Eq.(\ref{eq:Regge}) and lends support to the CD

510: description  of  small-$x$ phenomena in the axial channel.

511: 

512: 

513: 

514: \section{$F_L$-$f_{\pi}$-$\sigma_{\pi}$-correlation in color dipole  basis.}

515: 

516: In terms of the longitudinal structure function

517: \beq

518: F_L(x,Q^2)={Q^2\over 4\pi^2\alpha_W}\sigma_L(x,Q^2),

519: \label{eq:FL}

520: \eeq 

521: Eq.(\ref{eq:CDPCAC}) can be rewritten as

522: \beq

523: F_L(x,0)= {f^2_\pi\over \pi}\sigma_\pi(\nu),

524: \label{eq:FLPCAC}

525: \eeq

526: where $\nu$ is related to $x$ by Eq.(\ref{eq:Regge}).

527: In (\ref{eq:FL}) $\sigma_L(x,Q^2)$ is defined by the CD factorization

528: equation (\ref{eq:FACTOR})  and  the light-cone density of CD  states  

529: $u\bar d, c\bar s,...$

530: is 

531: $$|\Psi_{L}(z,\br)|^2= |V_{L}(z,\br)|^2+ |A_{L}(z,\br)|^2$$

532: with

533: \bea

534: |V_L(z,{\bf r})|^2

535: ={{2\alpha_W N_c}\over (2\pi)^2 Q^2}\left\{\left[2Q^2z(1-z)

536: +(m-\mu)[(1-z)m-z\mu]\right]^2K_0^2(\varepsilon r)

537: \right.

538: \nonumber\\

539: \left.

540:  +(m-\mu)^2

541: \varepsilon^2 K^2_1(\varepsilon r)\right\}

542: \label{eq:RHOS1}\\

543: |A_L(z,{\bf r})|^2

544: ={{2\alpha_W N_c}\over (2\pi)^2 Q^2}\left\{\left[2Q^2z(1-z)

545: +(m+\mu)[(1-z)m+z\mu]\right]^2 K_0^2(\varepsilon r)

546: \right.

547: \nonumber\\

548: \left.

549:  +(m+\mu)^2

550: \varepsilon^2 K^2_1(\varepsilon r)\right\},

551: \label{eq:RHOS2}

552: \eea

553: where $m$ and $\mu$ are the quark and antiquark masses and 

554: $\varepsilon^2=z(1-z)Q^2+(1-z)m^2+z\mu^2$ \cite{FZ1,Kolya92}. 

555: At $Q^2\to 0$ and for equal  masses of  constituent quarks $m=\mu=m_q$,

556: the axial-vector light-cone  density of $u\bar d$ states does not depend

557: on $z$ and is as follows

558: \beq

559: |\Psi_{L}(r)|^2={{2\alpha_W N_c}\over \pi^2 }{m_q^2\over Q^2}

560: \left[m_q^2K_0^2(m_qr) + m_q^2K_1^2(m_qr)\right]

561: \label{eq:A2}

562: \eeq

563: At $y\lsim 1$, $K_0(y)\sim \log(1/y)$ and $K_1(y)\sim 1/y$. Then, from Eqs. 

564: (\ref{eq:FL}) and (\ref{eq:A2})

565: \beq

566: F_L(x,0)\sim {N_c m_q^2\over 2\pi^3}\int_0^{m_q^{-2}}

567: {dr^2\over r^2}\sigma(x,r).

568: \label{eq:FLESTIM}

569: \eeq

570: The CD cross section is 

571: $\sigma(x,r)=r^2C(x,r)$ with

572: $C(x,r)$ slowly varying with $r$. For small dipoles 

573: $C(x,r)$ depends on $r$ only logarithmically.

574:  For large dipoles, such that  $r > r_s$,

575:  $\sigma(x,r)$ saturates and  $C(x,r)=\sigma_s(x)/r^2$ \cite{NZ91}.

576: Therefore $F_L$ depends on several  non-perturbative parameters,

577: $m_q,r_s$ and $\sigma_s$ \footnote{There is, of course, one more 

578: (hidden) non-perturbative parameter -

579: the axial charge $g_A$.

580: The renormalization of $g_A$ is neglected here  and

581: the ratio $g_A/g_V$ for constituent quarks is assumed to be the same as

582: for current quarks, $g_A/g_V=1$.},

583: and, because

584: of the axial current non-conservation, it

585: is  sensitive to

586: the value of the constituent quark mass, 

587: \beq

588: F_L\propto m_q^2\sigma_s\log[1+1/(m_qr_s)^2].

589: \label{eq:FLPCAC1}

590: \eeq

591:  The sensitivity is lost, however,

592: for $m_q^2\gg r_s^{-2}$.

593: 

594: 

595: 

596: The {\sl rhs} of Eq.(\ref{eq:FLPCAC}) is known  experimentally

597: with high accuracy and,  in  view of all theoretical uncertainties with

598: non-perturbative effects, Eq.(\ref{eq:FLPCAC}) could  be considered as

599: a very useful constraint on parameters of CD models. Let us start, however,

600: with a self-consistency check and  before

601: imposing experimental bounds on $f_{\pi}$ and $\sigma_{\pi}$ let us 

602: evaluate $F_L$, $f_{\pi}$ and $\sigma_{\pi}$ 

603: within  the LCWF CD technique. Then, the deviation of the  ratio 

604: \beq

605: R_{PCAC}={{\pi}F_L(x,0)\over f^{2}_{\pi}\sigma_{\pi}(\nu)}.

606: \label{eq:RPCAC}

607: \eeq

608: from unity may serve as  the   measure of accuracy of the approach.

609: Because of (\ref{eq:FLPCAC1}) the dependence of $f_{\pi}$ and $\sigma_{\pi}$ 

610: on the constituent quark mass is of prime importance here.

611: 

612: Notice first,  that contrary to the  pointlike probe, the dipole size of

613: the non-pointlike  pion and, consequently, the value of 

614:  $\sigma_{\pi}$ is  determined not by $m_q$ but  by an 

615: additional  

616: parameter $R$ which introduces the  intrinsic  momentum cut-off.

617:  \footnote{ The radial part of $\Psi_{\pi}$ in  momentum space is 

618: $\Psi_{\pi}(M^2)\propto M^{-2}exp[-{1\over 8}R^2M^2]$ \cite{SNS} 

619: (see also \cite{Jaus}),

620: where $M$ stands for the invariant mass of the light-cone 

621:  $q\bar q$ state and

622:  $M^2={(m_q^2+\bk^2 )/z(1-z)}$.}  

623: The latter  removes the small-$r$ singularity

624: from $\Psi_{\pi}(z,r)$

625: and, simultaneously,  ensures the correct value of the  

626: charge radius of the pion. The dependence of $\sigma_{\pi}$ on $m_q$ 

627: appears to be  marginal and

628: \beq

629: \sigma_{\pi}=\ave{\Psi{_\pi}(z,\br)|\sigma(x,r)|\Psi{_\pi}(z,\br)}

630: \sim r^2_{\pi}C(x,r_{\pi}).

631: \label{eq:CSPI}

632: \eeq

633: The quantity which is very sensitive to $m_q$  

634: is the pion decay constant \cite{SNS,Jaus},

635: \beq

636: f_{\pi}={m_qN_c\over 4\pi^3}\int{dzd^2{\bk}\over z(1-z)}\Psi_{\pi}(M^2).

637: \label{eq:FPI}

638: \eeq

639: To a crude approximation, 

640: $f_{\pi}\propto m_q$ and  for 

641: $m_qR\ll 1$ (in \cite{SNS} $R=2.2$ GeV$^{-1}$) 

642: $$f_{\pi}\propto m_q\sqrt{\log(2/m_qR)}.$$ This gives 

643: a  chance  to

644: satisfy (\ref{eq:FLPCAC}) adjusting  properly non-perturbative  parameters. 

645: \begin{figure}[h]

646: %\psfig{figure=fig1.eps,height=14cm}

647: %\psfig{figure=fig1.eps,angle=-90,scale=0.6}

648: \psfig{figure=adler.eps,scale=0.6}

649: \vspace{-0.5cm}

650: \caption{\small 

651: Left panel: the ratio $R_{PCAC}$ as a function of $\nu$ 

652: evaluated  with the pion LCWF 

653: of Ref.\cite{SNS}

654:  for $m_q=150$ MeV - thin solid line; 

655: the ratio $R_{PCAC}$ with the pion LCWF 

656: of Ref.\cite{Jaus} and

657: $m_q=250$ MeV - dotted line.  Right panel:

658: the CD BFKL evaluation of $\sigma_{\pi}(\nu)$ - dashed line.

659: Data points (triangles and circles) are measurements of  

660: total $\pi^+p$ and $\pi^-p$

661: cross sections, respectively \cite{PDG}.

662: Also shown by the

663: thick solid line is  the quantity $\sigma_{PCAC}(\nu)$ for the empirical value of $f_{\pi}$

664: and  with $F_L$ evaluated  

665: for $m_q=150$ MeV.}

666: \label{fig:adler}

667: \end{figure} 

668:  

669: Invoking the CD factorization,

670: which is valid for  soft as well as for hard

671: diffractive interactions,

672:  we evaluate the vacuum exchange contribution to $F_L(x,0)$

673: and $\sigma_{\pi}(\nu)$.   The structure function $F_L(x,0)$ comes from

674: Eqs.(\ref{eq:FACTOR},\ref{eq:FL},\ref{eq:A2}) with $m_q=150$ MeV, the value 

675: commonly used now in CD models

676: successfully tested against DIS data.

677: The $\log(1/x)$-evolution

678: of $\sigma(x,r)$ is

679:  described by the CD BFKL equation \cite{NZZPHL94,BFKLRegge}.

680: Corresponding boundary condition is found in \cite{Shad06}. With the pion LCWF of 

681: Ref.\cite{SNS}    we obtain $\sigma_{\pi}$ 

682: shown in  Fig.\ref{fig:adler} (right panel)  by the dashed line.

683: The $\nu$-dependence of $R_{PCAC}$ is  shown in Fig. \ref{fig:adler} (left panel)

684: by the thin solid line. With certain reservations about the slope of $R_{PCAC}(\nu)$ (see below)

685: we  conclude that our  CD model  successfully passed the consistency test. However,

686: this ``purely theoretical'' approach to Adler's theorem is not quite satisfactory.

687: The point is that the constituent quark with  $m_q=150$ MeV  amounts to $f_{\pi}=96$ MeV 

688: {\sl vs.} the empirical value $f_\pi=130.7\pm 0.46$ MeV  \cite{PDG}: not quite bad

689: for the model evaluation of the soft parameter $f_{\pi}$, although not satisfactory either. 

690: Within the model \cite{SNS} $f_{\pi}=131$ MeV corresponds  to $m_q=245$ MeV,

691:  the value 

692: which is very close to $m_q=250$ MeV of  Ref.\cite{Jaus}. In \cite{Jaus}   an oscillator type

693: ansatz for the pion LCWF was used and   good agreement of predictions of the model 

694:  with  both  the empirical

695:  value of  the pion decay constant and

696: the  charge radius of the pion was found.

697:   The ratio $R_{PCAC}$

698: evaluated with the pion LCWF of Ref.\cite{Jaus} is shown in Fig.\ref{fig:adler} (left panel)

699: by the dotted line.  

700: Evidently,  making the light quark heavier affects the distribution of 

701: color dipoles

702: in the light-cone $W_L$ boson in such a way that

703: the characteristic dipole sizes contributing to $F_L$, $r^2\lsim m_q^{-2}$ 

704: (mind also the small-$r$ singularity in $\Psi_L$),

705: becomes  much smaller than those contributing 

706: to $\sigma_{\pi}$, $r^2\sim r^2_{\pi}\simeq 1.2$ fm$^2$. 

707: The BFKL $\log(1/x)$-evolution  

708: of dipole cross sections  is characterized by

709: the exponent $\Delta(x,r)$  of the local $x$-dependence 

710: of $\sigma(x,r)$ 

711: \beq

712: \sigma(x,r)\propto \exp[-\Delta(x,r)\log(1/x)].

713: \label{eq:PREAS}

714: \eeq 

715: $\Delta(x,r)$ varies with $r$ and $\Delta(x,r_1)>\Delta(x,r_2)$ for $r_1<r_2$ 

716: \cite{NZZPHL94}. Hence, the  structure function $F_L(x,0)$ growing with

717:  $\nu$ faster than $\sigma_{\pi}(\nu)$ 

718:  in conflict with the requirement of Eq.(\ref{eq:FLPCAC}). 

719: 

720:  As we noted above Eq.(\ref{eq:FLPCAC}) can be considered as a condition on 

721: parameters of CD models. To see its restrictive power  in action

722: one can  construct the quantity  

723: \beq

724: \sigma_{PCAC}(\nu)=\pi F_L(x,0)/f^2_{\pi}

725: \label{eq:SPCAC}

726: \eeq

727: with the empirical  value of  $f_{\pi}=130.7$ MeV

728: and compare its $\nu$-dependence  with experimental data on 

729: $\sigma_{\pi}(\nu)$. 

730: Our $\sigma_{PCAC}(\nu)$ is  shown by the thick solid line in 

731: Fig.\ref{fig:adler} (right panel). It strongly undershoots 

732: $\sigma_{\pi}(\nu)$  thus indicating

733:  that $F_ L(x,0)$ evaluated with $m_q=150$ MeV fails to 

734:  satisfy the  Eq.(\ref{eq:FLPCAC}). 

735:  We tried also the  CD cross sections of Refs.\cite{GBW}. 

736: Corresponding  $F_L$ proved to be 

737: close to ours. 

738: Notice that, the discrepancy observed may have the same origin as 

739: the deficit of 

740: the differential cross section of diffractive vector meson production found 

741: in \cite{VecMesons}. That calls for 

742: better understanding of the infrared properties of the CD cross section.

743: 

744: From a different point of view, 

745: good agreement with data of both $\sigma_{\pi}(\nu)$ and $f_{\pi}$

746: spoiled, however, by the under-predicted $F_L(x.0)$ implies that

747:  non-perturbative interactions in the axial channel

748: blow-up the   dipole size   

749:  and, in the spirit of PCAC,

750: $\sqrt{Q^2}\Psi_L(z,\br)\to gf_{\pi}\Psi_{\pi}(z,\br)$ at $Q^2\to 0$.

751: \begin{figure}[h]

752: %\psfig{figure=fig1.eps,height=14cm}

753: %\psfig{figure=fig1.eps,angle=-90,scale=0.6}

754: \psfig{figure=flfl.eps,scale=0.6}

755: \vspace{-0.5cm}

756: \caption{\small Left panel: three lower lines represent the $ud$-current

757:  contribution to $F_L(x,Q^2)$

758: as a function of Bjorken variable denoted by $x_{Bj}$ 

759: for different values of $Q^2$. 

760: Three upper lines correspond to the sum of $ud$- and $cs$-current  

761: contributions to  

762: $F_L$. Right panel: $F_L$ as a function of $\nu$ for $Q^2=0$.}

763: \label{fig:fl}

764: \end{figure} 

765: 

766: 

767: \section{Weak current non-conservation 

768: and charm-strange dominance.}

769: 

770: One more concluding remark is on the role of charm-strange current.

771: The structure function $F_L(x,0)$

772:  shown in Fig.\ref{fig:adler} does not contain the 

773: $cs$-current contribution. 

774: The latter is presented in Fig.\ref{fig:fl} were

775: the $ud$-term  and the sum $ud + cs$ are shown separately  for different 

776: virtualities of the probe. For the $cs$-current $x=x_{Bj}(1+M^2_{cs}/Q^2)$

777: with $M^2_{cs}=4$ GeV$^2$.

778: Eqs.(\ref{eq:RHOS1},\ref{eq:RHOS2}) make it clear that  it is

779:  the  non-conservation of 

780: both   axial-vector and vector currents what

781: leads to the charm-strange dominance in  $F_L(x,Q^2)$ at small $x$.  

782:   

783: 

784: 

785: 

786: 

787: \section{Summary and conclusions}

788: 

789: Summarizing, we considered the PCAC hypothesis in a specific domain of

790:  small Bjorken $x$,

791: where the relevant degrees of freedom are

792: the QCD color dipoles.

793: We reformulated Adler's theorem in the CD basis and analyzed

794: its efficiency  as a constraint requiring identical cross sections

795: for  scattering processes with pointlike and non-pointlike

796: probes.

797: This requirement, with certain reservations about

798: absorption/unitarity corrections, was found hard to  meet within 

799: the color dipole models successfully tested against HERA data. Corresponding

800:  non-perturbative

801: parameters including $m_q$ were adjusted to pave the way from the region 

802: $Q^2\simeq m_q^2$ to  high-$Q^2$ DIS. 

803: The analysis of diffractive vector mesons \cite{VecMesons} shows that the 

804: adjustment 

805: is not perfect.  

806: The discrepancy found in our paper can be understood  as the  non-perturbative

807: effect of 

808: increasing dipole size of the light-cone $W_L$ boson at $Q^2\to 0$.   

809: Adler's theorem  provides its quantitative  measure.

810: This observation     

811:  makes topical new experimental  tests

812: of Adler's theorem  in the diffraction region of $x\lsim 0.01$.

813: In view of the charm-strange dominance discussed above (which also

814: should be tested experimentally) 

815:  the 

816: $cs$-current contribution to the differential cross section

817: ${d\sigma/dydQ^2}$ of  the reaction 

818: (\ref{eq:NU-N})

819:  has to  be isolated properly to separate the PCAC term.

820: 

821: 

822: 

823: \vspace{0.2cm} \noindent \underline{\bf Acknowledgments:}

824: 

825: Thanks are due  to N.N. Nikolaev for useful comments.

826: V.R.~Z. thanks  the Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a

827: della Calabria and the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica

828: Nucleare - gruppo collegato di Cosenza for their warm

829: hospitality while a part of this work was done.

830: The work was supported in part by the Ministero Italiano

831: dell'Istruzione, dell'Universit\`a e della Ricerca

832: and  by

833: the DFG grant 436 RUS 17/82/06 and by the RFBR grant 06-02-16905-a.

834: 

835: \begin{thebibliography}{299}

836: 

837: \bibitem{Adler}

838: S. Adler {\sl Phys. Rev.} {\bf 135} (1964) B963.

839: \bibitem{BFKL} E.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov and V.S. Fadin

840: {\sl Sov. Phys. JETP} {\bf 45} (1977) 199

841: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 72}, 377 (1977)];

842: I.I. Balitsky and L.N. Lipatov

843: {\sl Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 28} (1978) 822

844: [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 28}, 1597 (1978)].

845: 

846: \bibitem{NZZBFKL} N.N. Nikolaev, B.G. Zakharov and V.R. Zoller,

847: {\sl JETP Lett.} {\bf 59} (1994) 6 [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\

848: {\bf 59}, 8 (1994)].

849: 

850: \bibitem{NZ94} N.N. Nikolaev and  B.G. Zakharov,

851: {\sl J. Exp. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 78} (1994) 598

852: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 105}, 1117 (1994)].

853: 

854: \bibitem{FZ1} R. Fiore and V.R. Zoller, {\sl JETP Lett.}

855: {\bf 82} (2005) 385; {\sl Phys.Lett.} {\bf B632} (2006) 87.

856: 

857: \bibitem{Kolya92}

858: V. Barone, M. Genovese, N.N. Nikolaev, E. Predazzi and B.G. Zakharov,

859: {\sl Phys.Lett.} {\bf B292} (1992) 181.

860: 

861: \bibitem{Nambu}

862: Y.Nambu {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 4} (1960) 380;\\

863: M. Gell-Mann and M. Levy, {\sl Nuovo Cimento} {\bf 17} (1960) 705.

864: 

865: \bibitem{Diehl}

866: M. Diehl, T. Feldmann, R. Jakob and R. Kroll,

867: {\sl Eur. Phys. J} {\bf C8} (1999) 409.

868: \bibitem{Radyushkin}

869: A.V. Radyushkin, {\sl Phys. Rev.} {\bf D58} (1998) 114008.

870: \bibitem{PS}

871: C.A. Piketty and L. Stodolsky

872: {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B15} (1970) 571.

873: 

874: \bibitem{BelKop}

875: A.A. Belkov and B.Z. Kopeliovich

876: {\sl Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 46} (1987) 499.

877: \bibitem{Kop}

878: B.Z. Kopeliovich, {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B227} (1989) 461;

879: {\sl Sov. Phys. JETP} {\bf 70} (1990) 801.

880: \bibitem{KopMar}

881: B.Z. Kopeliovich and P. Marage, {\sl Int. J. Mod. Phys.} {\bf A8} (1993) 1513.

882: 

883: \bibitem{LonThom}

884: C. Boros, J.T. Londergan, A.W. Thomas,

885: {\sl Phys. Rev.} {\bf  D58} (1998) 114030.

886: 

887: \bibitem{NZ91}

888: N.N. Nikolaev and B.G. Zakharov,

889: {\sl Z.Phys.} {\bf C49} (1991) 607; {\bf C53} (1992) 331; {\bf C64}

890: (1994) 631.

891: 

892: \bibitem{M}

893: A.H. Mueller, {\sl Nucl. Phys.}  {\bf B415} (1994) 373;

894: A.H. Mueller and B. Patel, {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B425} (1994) 471.

895: 

896: \bibitem{HEBECKER}

897: A. Hebecker,

898: {\sl Phys.Rept.} {\bf 331} (2000) 1.

899: 

900: \bibitem{GBW}

901: K. Golec-Biernat and M. W\"usthoff, {\sl Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59} (1999)

902:  014017; ibid.,{\bf D60} (1999) 114023;

903: H. Kowalski, L. Motyka and G. Watt,

904: {\sl Phys. Rev.} {\bf D74} (2006) 074016;

905: J.R. Forshaw,  G. Shaw and   R. Sandapen,

906: {\sl JHEP} {\bf 0611} (2006) 025.

907: 

908: \bibitem{Bell} J.S. Bell, 

909: in Proc. of the 11th session of the Scottish Universities

910: Summer School in Physics, 1970. NATO Advanced Study Institute.

911: Edited by J. Cumming and H. Osborn. Academic Press, New York, 1971, p.369.

912: \bibitem{Daum}

913: The ACCMOR Collab., C. Daum et al.,

914: {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B182} (1981) 269.

915: \bibitem{GT}

916: M.L. Goldberger and S.B. Treiman, {\sl Phys. Rev.} {\bf 111} (1958) 354.

917: 

918: \bibitem{KolyaFacts}

919: N.N. Nikolaev, {\sl Comments Nucl.Part.Phys.} {\bf 21} (1992) 41; 

920: N.N. Nikolaev, A. Szczurek, J. Speth, J. Wambach,

921: B.G. Zakharov and V.R. Zoller,

922: {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A567} (1994) 781

923: 

924: \bibitem{SNS}

925: A. Szczurek, N.N. Nikolaev and  J. Speth,

926: {\sl Phys. Rev.} {\bf C60} (2002) 055206.

927: 

928: \bibitem{Jaus}

929: W. Jaus,

930: {\sl Phys. Rev.} {\bf D44} (1991) 2851.

931: 

932: \bibitem{NZZPHL94} N.N. Nikolaev, B.G. Zakharov and V.R. Zoller,

933: {\sl Phys.Lett.} {\bf B328} (1994) 486;

934: {\sl J. Exp. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 78} (1994) 806

935: 

936: \bibitem{BFKLRegge}

937:   N.~N.~Nikolaev, B.~G.~Zakharov and V.~R.~Zoller,

938:   %``The BFKL-Regge phenomenology of deep inelastic scattering,''

939:   JETP Lett.\  {\bf 66}, 138 (1997)

940:   [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 66}, 134 (1997)];

941:  N.~N.~Nikolaev, J.~Speth and V.~R.~Zoller,

942:   % ``Color dipole BFKL-Regge factorization and high-energy photon photon

943:   %scattering,''

944:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 473}, 157 (2000);

945:   J.\ Exp.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 93}, 957 (2001)

946:   [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 93}, 1104 (2001)];

947:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 22}, 637 (2002).

948: 

949: \bibitem{Shad06}

950: N.N. Nikolaev, W. Sch\"afer, B.G. Zakharov, V.R. Zoller, 

951: {\sl Pis'ma v ZhETF}

952: {\bf 84} (2006) 631.

953: 

954: \bibitem{PDG}

955: Particle Data Group, W.-M. Yao et al.,

956: {\sl J. Phys.} {\bf G33} (2006) 1.

957: 

958: \bibitem{VecMesons}

959: I.P. Ivanov, N.N. Nikolaev and W. Sch\"afer, {\sl Phys.\ Part.\ Nucl.} 

960: {\bf 35} (2004) 30.

961: 

962: \end{thebibliography}

963: \end{document}

964: