1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2:
3: \topmargin -0.5cm
4: \textwidth 16.5cm
5: \textheight 22.5cm
6: \parskip .2cm
7: \oddsidemargin 0.25cm
8:
9: \usepackage{epsfig}
10: %\usepackage[russtyle]{cmcyralt}
11:
12:
13: \newcommand{\bmp}{\mbox{\boldmath$p$}}
14: \newcommand{\bmq}{\mbox{\boldmath$q$}}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: \title{Prescriptions for the scaling variable of the nucleon structure
19: function in nuclei}
20:
21: %Testing of models of nucleon structure function \newline in
22: %nucleus }
23: \author{V. I. Ryazanov, B. L. Birbrair and M. G. Ryskin\\
24: Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute\\ Gatchina, St. Petersburg 188300,
25: Russia } \date{} \maketitle
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: We tested several choices of the in-medium value of the Bjorken scaling
29: variable assuming the nucleon structure function in nucleus to be the
30: same as that of free nucleon. The results unambiguously show that it is
31: different.
32:
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35:
36:
37: \section{Introduction}
38:
39: As well known, the deep inelastic scattering (hereafter DIS) of leptons
40: on nucleons begins by the formation of parton with the size (Compton
41: wave length in the rest frame) $(mx)^{-1}=\frac{0.21}x\,$fm,
42: $x=Q^2/(2mq_0)$, $x$ and $q_0$ are the Bjorken scaling variable and the
43: energy of virtual photon in the rest frame of nucleon. Accordingly
44: three interaction regions are inherent for the DIS on nuclei:
45:
46: I. Correlation region, $0<x<0.2$. In this region the size of parton
47: exceeds the distance between nucleons $r_0=1.2\,$fm, and therefore two
48: or even several nucleons take part in the process. For this reason the
49: correlations between nucleons, both short-range and long-range ones,
50: are of importance.
51:
52: II. One-nucleon region, $0.2<x<0.8$. In this region $(mx)^{-1}<r_0$,
53: and therefore the virtual $\gamma$-quantum is absorbed by one nucleon
54: only.
55:
56: III. Competition region, $0.8<x\sim1$. In this region for a not very
57: large $Q^2$ the competition occurs between DIS, elastic lepton--nucleon
58: scattering and the possible formation of heavier baryons through the
59: reaction $\ell N\to\ell'B$, $B$ being $\Delta_{33}$, $N^*$ etc.
60:
61: In the one-nucleon region we are dealing with the in-medium nucleon
62: structure function; $F_{2m}(x,Q^2,\bmp,\varepsilon)$ depending upon
63: the momentum \bmp\ and binding energy $\varepsilon$ of nucleon in
64: nucleus in addition to $x$ and $Q^2$ must be averaged over the
65: energy-momentum distribution $S(\bmp,\varepsilon)$ of nucleon, {\em
66: i.e.}
67:
68: \begin{equation}
69: \frac{F_{2A}(x,Q^2)}{x_A}\ =\ \int d^3pd\varepsilon
70: S(\bmp,\varepsilon)
71: \,\frac{F_{2m}(x,Q^2,\bmp,\varepsilon)}{x_N}\ ,
72: \end{equation}
73: where $x_A=\frac{Amx}{M_A}$ is the scaling variable of target nucleus,
74: $M_A$ is its mass and $x_N$ is the in-medium scaling variable of
75: nucleon. The immediate question is as follows: is the in-medium
76: structure function $F_{2m}$ the same as that of free nucleon? Note that
77: in Eq.~(1) we used the in-medium scaling variable $x_N$ which is
78: different from $x$. The usual hope was that choosing an appropriate
79: definition of $x_N$ one may absorb the in-medium dependence of the
80: function $F_{2m}$ and describe the data using the free-nucleon
81: structure function, {\em i.e.} putting $F_{2m}(x,Q^2,\bmp,\varepsilon)
82: =F_2(x_N,Q^2)$. The analysis of the available data showed that this is
83: not the case \cite{1}. But as discussed in \cite{2} all the previous
84: calculations are based on seemingly evident but erroneous assumption
85: that the quantity $S(\bmp,\varepsilon)$ is the ground-state spectral
86: function of the target nucleus. Actually it is the spectral function of
87: the doorway states for one-nucleon transfer reactions. Indeed, the
88: nucleon hole (which is just the relevant doorway state) is formed in
89: the ground state of target nucleus when the struck nucleon is destroyed
90: by DIS. This state is not the eigenstate of nuclear Hamiltonian thus
91: being fragmented over the actual states of residual nucleus because of
92: the correlations between nucleons. The observed spreading width of the
93: hole states is 20~MeV \cite{3} the fragmentation time thus being
94: $3\cdot10^{-23}$sec. But the interaction times of DIS is
95: $2q/Q^2=(mx)^{-1}=\frac{0.7}x\cdot10^{-24}$sec thus being less than
96: $3\cdot10^{-24}$sec for $x>0.3$. So the DIS interaction time in the
97: one-nucleon region is an order of magnitude less than that of the
98: fragmentation and therefore the correlation processes do not have time
99: to come into play. As a consequence the quantity $S(\bmp,\varepsilon$)
100: entering (1) is the spectral function of the doorway states. As
101: discussed in \cite{4} it can be unambiguously calculated in a
102: model-independent way in contrast to the ground-state spectral
103: function. So the theory of doorway states provides a natural way for
104: testing the models of nucleon structure functions in nuclei.
105:
106: In \cite{2} we performed the EMC calculations assuming the nucleon
107: structure function in the doorway state $\lambda$ to be the same as
108: that of free nucleon however dependent upon the in-medium scaling
109: variable in this state:
110: \begin{equation}
111: F_{2m}(x,Q^2,\bmp,\varepsilon_2)=F_2(x_N,Q^2), \quad
112: x_N=\frac{mx}{m+\varepsilon_\lambda-\beta p_3}, \quad
113: \beta=\frac{|\bmq|}{q_0}=\left(1+\frac{4m^2x^2}{Q^2}\right)^{1/2},
114: \end{equation}
115: where $\varepsilon_\lambda<0$ is the nucleon binding energy in the
116: state $\lambda$ and the axis 3 is chosen along the momentum of
117: virtual photon. The results do not agree with all the available EMC
118: data thus indicating that $F_{2m}$ is different from $F_2$. In the
119: present work we are testing two different choices of the in-medium
120: scaling variable, the first belonging to Molochkov \cite{5} and the
121: second to Pandharipande and coworkers \cite{6}.
122:
123: \section{Analysis}
124: \subsection{Molochkov's definition of \boldmath $x_N$}
125:
126: Using the Bethe--Salpeter technique Molockhov derived the following
127: expression of the nucleon structure function in nucleus:
128: \begin{equation}
129: \frac{F_{2A}(x,Q^2)}{x_A}=\int\frac{id^4p}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{F_2(x_N,
130: Q^2)}{x_N} \frac{|V_{AN}(P_A,p)|^2}{(p^2-m^2)^2
131: \left((P_A-p)^2-M^2_{A-1}\right)}, \quad x_N=\frac{mx}{p_0-\beta
132: p_3}\,.
133: \end{equation}
134: The vertex $V_{AN}(P_A,p)$ describes the wave function of nucleon in
135: nucleus, see Eq.~(6). The meaning of other entering quantities is clear
136: from Fig.~1, where Eq.~(3) is graphically represented. In a more
137: detailed form
138:
139: $$
140: \hspace*{-10cm}
141: \frac{F_{2A}(x,Q^2)}{x_A}\ =\ \int\frac{id^3pdp_0}{(2\pi)^4}
142: \eqno{(3a)}
143: $$
144: $$
145: \times\
146: \frac{|V_{AN}(p_A,p)|^2}{(p_0-e_p+i\delta)^2(p_0-(M_A+E_{A-1})+i\delta)
147: (p_0-(M_A-E_{A-1})-i\delta)(p_0+e_p-i\delta)^2}.
148: $$
149: The integrand has the first-order pole $p_0=M_A-E_{A-1}$ and the
150: second-order one $p_0=-e_p=-(m^2+\bmp^2)^{1/2}$ (the latter is
151: negligible because the function $F_2(x,Q^2)$ vanishes at negative $x$
152: values) in the upper half-plane of $p_0$ and the second-order pole
153: $p_0=e_p$ together with the first-order one $p_0=M_A+E_{A-1}$ in the
154: lower half-plane. For the doorway state $\lambda$ of heavy nucleus
155: \begin{equation}
156: E_{A-1}\ =\ \left((M_A-m-\varepsilon_\lambda)^2+\bmp\right)^{1/2}\
157: \cong\ M_A-m-\varepsilon_\lambda
158: \end{equation}
159: (in this case the recoil may be neglected) and
160: $$
161: E_{A-1}\ =\ e_p
162: \eqno{(4a)}
163: $$
164: for the case of deuteron.
165:
166: Closing the integration contour over $p_0$ in the upper half-plane we
167: get $|\delta=e_p-(M_A-E_{A-1})|$
168: \begin{eqnarray}
169: F_{2A}(x,Q^2) &=& \frac{Amx}{M_A}\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}
170: \frac{M_A-E_{A-1}-\beta p_3}{mx}
171: \nonumber\\
172: &\times& F_2\left(\frac{mx}{M_R-E_{A-1}-\beta
173: p_3},Q^2\right)\frac{|V_{AN}(P_A,p)|^2}{2E_{A-1}\delta^2(2e_p-\delta)^2}.
174: \end{eqnarray}
175: This is just our result \cite{2} for the in-medium value of the scaling
176: variable. Comparing Eq.~(5) with Eqs. (29), (30) and (31) of
177: Ref.~\cite{2} we get
178: \begin{equation}
179: \frac{|V_{AN}(P_A,p)|^2}{2(2\pi)^3E_{A-1}\delta^2_\lambda
180: (2e_p-\delta_\lambda)^2} = \frac{M_A}{\bar
181: M_A}\,\frac{f_\lambda(p)}{4\pi}\,, \quad
182: \delta_\lambda=e_p-m-\varepsilon_\lambda\,, \quad \bar
183: M_A=\sum_\lambda \nu_\lambda(m+\varepsilon_\lambda)
184: \end{equation}
185: for the doorway state $\lambda$ ($f_\lambda(p)$ is the nucleon momentum
186: distribution in this state, see \cite{2} for details) and
187: $$
188: \frac{V_{DN}(P_{D,p})}{2(2\pi)^3e_p\delta^2_D(2e_p-\delta_D)^2} =
189: \frac{M_D}{\bar M_D}\frac{f_D(p)}{4\pi}\,, \quad \delta_D=2e_p-M_D\,,
190: $$
191: $$
192: \bar M_D=2(M_D-\bar e_p), \quad \bar
193: e=\int\frac{d^3p}{4\pi}e_pf_D(p)
194: \eqno{(6a)}
195: $$
196: for deuteron.
197:
198: Molochkov however closed the integration contour in the lower
199: half-plane so
200: \begin{eqnarray}
201: && \hspace*{-0.7cm}
202: F_{2A}(x,Q^2)=\frac{Amx}{M_A}\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \left(
203: \frac{p_0-\beta p_3}{mx}F_2\left(\frac{mx}{p_0-\beta p_3},Q^2\right)
204: \right.
205: \nonumber\\
206: &&\times\ \left.
207: \frac{|V_{AN}(P_A,p)|^2}{(p_0+e_p)^2(M_A-E_{A-1}-p_0)(M_A+E_{A-1}-p_0)}
208: \right)^\prime_{p_0=e_p}
209: \nonumber\\
210: &&+\ \frac{Amx}{M_A}\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{M_A+E_{A-1}-\beta
211: p_3}{mx}F_2\left(\frac{mx}{M_A+E_{A-1}-\beta p_3},Q^2\right)
212: \nonumber\\
213: &&\times\
214: \frac{|V_{AN}(P_A,p)|^2}{2E_{A-1}(M_A+E_{A-1}-e_p)^2(M_A+E_{A-1}+e_p)^2}.
215: \end{eqnarray}
216: Performing the calculations he disregarded the second term of the rhs
217: and included only part of the derivative in the first term by putting
218: \begin{eqnarray*}
219: && \hspace*{-1.cm}
220: \left(\frac{p_0-\beta p_3}{mx}F_2\left(\frac{mx}{p_0-\beta
221: p_3},Q^2\right)\frac{|V_{AN}(P_A,p)|^2}{(p_0+e_p)^2(M_A-E_{A-1}-p_0)
222: (M_A+E_{A-1}-p_0)}\right)^\prime_{p_0=e_p}
223: \\
224: &&=\ \frac{|V_{AN}(P_{A,p})|^2}{4e^2_p(M_A+E_{A-1}-e_p)} \left(
225: \frac{p_0-\beta p_3}{mx(M_A-E_{A-1}-p_0)}F_2\left(\frac{mx}{p_0-\beta
226: p_3},Q^2\right)\right)^\prime_{p_0=e_p}.
227: \end{eqnarray*}
228: We instead neglected only the $p_0$ dependence of the vertex
229: $V_{AN}(P,p)$ and included both terms of the rhs of Eq.~(7) thus
230: obtaining
231: \begin{eqnarray}
232: && \hspace*{-0.7cm}
233: F_{2A}(x,Q^2)\ =\ \frac{Amx}{M_A}\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{\left(
234: 1+\frac\delta{e_p}-\frac\delta{M_A+E_{A-1}-e_p}\right)|V_{AN}
235: (P_{A,p})|^2}{4e^2_p\delta^2(M_A+E_{A-1}-e_p)}
236: \nonumber\\
237: &&\times\
238: \left(\frac{e_p-\Delta-\beta p_3}{mx}F_2\left(\frac{mx}{e_p-\beta p_3},
239: Q^2\right)+\frac\Delta{e_p-\beta p_3}\dot F_2\left(\frac{mx}{e_p-\beta
240: p_3},Q^2\right)\right)
241: \nonumber\\
242: &&+\ \frac{Amx}{M_A}\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{|V_{AN}(P_A,p)|^2}{
243: 2E_{A-1}(M_A+E_{A-1}-e_p)^2(M_A+E_{A-1}+e_p)^2}
244: \nonumber\\
245: &&\times\
246: \frac{M_A+E_{A-1}-\beta p_3}{mx}F_2\left(\frac{mx}{M_A+E_{A-1}-\beta
247: p_3},Q^2\right),
248: \end{eqnarray}
249: where
250: \begin{equation}
251: \Delta=\left(1+\frac\delta{e_p}-\frac\delta{M_A+E_{A-1}-e_p}
252: \right)^{-1}\delta, \quad \bigg(~\bigg)^\prime=\frac\partial{\partial
253: p_0}\bigg(~\bigg), \quad \dot F_2(x,Q^2)=\frac{\partial
254: F_2(x,Q^2)}{ \partial x}.
255: \end{equation}
256:
257: First consider the doorway state $\lambda$ in heavy nucleus. As follows
258: from Eqs. (5) and (6)
259: \begin{eqnarray}
260: && \hspace*{-0.5cm}
261: \frac{\left(1+\frac{\delta_\lambda}{e_p}-\frac{\delta_\lambda}{2E_{A-1}
262: -\delta_\lambda}\right)|V_{AN}(P,p)|^2}{4(2\pi)^3e^2_p(2E_{A-1}-
263: \delta_\lambda)\delta^2_\lambda}=\frac{M_A}{\bar
264: M_A}\frac{f_\lambda(p)}{4\pi}\frac{\left(e_p+\delta_\lambda-e_p
265: \frac{\delta_\lambda}{2E_{A-1}-\delta_\lambda}\right)
266: (2e_p-\delta_\lambda)^2
267: E_{A-1}}{4e^3_p E_{A-1}\left(1-\frac{\delta_\lambda}{2E_{A-1}}\right)}
268: \nonumber\\
269: && \cong\ \frac{M_A}{\bar M_A}\frac{f_\lambda(p)}{4\pi}
270: \frac{4e_p(e_p+\delta_\lambda)\left(e_p-\delta_\lambda
271: +\frac{\delta^2_\lambda}{4e_p}\right)}{4e^3_p}\cong \frac{M_A}{\bar
272: M_A}\frac{f_\lambda(p)}{4\pi}\left(1-\frac{\delta^2_\lambda}{e^2_p}
273: \right)\cong\frac{M_A}{\bar M_A}\frac{f_\lambda(p)}{4\pi}
274: \end{eqnarray}
275: because the small quantities $\frac{\delta_\lambda}{2E_{A-1}}\ll1$ and
276: $\frac{\delta_\lambda^2}{e^2_p}\ll1$ can be neglected in (10). In the
277: same way
278: \begin{equation}
279: \frac{|V_{AN}(P_A,p)|^2}{2(2\pi)^3E_{A-1}\left((M_A+E_{A-1})^2-e^2_p
280: \right)^2}=\frac{M_A}{\bar M_A}\,\frac{f_\lambda(p)}{4\pi}\left(
281: \frac{\delta_\lambda(2e_p-\delta_\lambda)}{(M_A+E_{A-1})^2-e^2_p}
282: \right)^2,
283: \end{equation}
284: so
285: \begin{eqnarray}
286: && \hspace*{-1cm}
287: F_{2A,\lambda}(x,Q^2)=\frac{Amx}{\bar M_A}\int\frac{d^3p}{4\pi}
288: f_\lambda(p)\left\{\left[\frac{e_p-\Delta_\lambda-\beta p_3}{mx}F_2
289: \left(\frac{mx}{e_p-\beta p_3},Q^2\right)\right. \right.
290: \nonumber\\
291: &&+\ \left.\frac{\Delta_\lambda}{e_p-
292: \beta p_3}\dot F_2\left(\frac{mx}{e_p-\beta p_3},Q^2\right)\right]
293: \\
294: &&+\ \left.
295: \left(\frac{\delta_\lambda(2e_p-\delta_\lambda)}{(M_A+E_{A-1})^2
296: -e^2_p}\right)^2 \frac{M_A+E_{A-1}-\beta p_3}{mx}F_2\left(
297: \frac{mx}{(M_A+E_{A-1}-\beta p_3},Q^2\right)\right\}.
298: \nonumber
299: \end{eqnarray}
300:
301: In the case of deuteron
302: \begin{eqnarray}
303: && \hspace*{-1.cm}
304: \frac{\left(1+\frac{\delta_D}{e_p}-\frac{\delta_D}{M_D}\right)
305: |V_{DN}(P_D,p)|^2}{4(2\pi)^3e^2_p\delta_D M_D}=\frac{M_D}{\bar M_D}
306: \frac{f_D(p)}{4\pi} \frac{(2e_p-\delta_D)\left(1+\frac{\delta_D}{2e_p}
307: +\frac{\delta_D}{2e_p}-\frac{\delta_D}{M_D}\right)}{2e_p}
308: \nonumber\\
309: &&\\
310: &&=\ \frac{M_D}{\bar M_D}\frac{f_D(p)}{4\pi}\frac{(2e_p-\delta_D)
311: \left(2e_p+\delta_D-\frac{\delta^2_D}{M_D}\right)}{4e^2_p} \cong
312: \frac{M_D}{\bar M_D}\frac{f_D}{4\pi}\left(1-\frac{\delta_D^2}{4e^2_p}
313: \right)\cong\frac{M_D}{\bar M_D}\frac{f_D(p)}{4\pi}
314: \nonumber
315: \end{eqnarray}
316: and
317: \begin{equation}
318: \frac{|V_{DN}(P_D,p)|^2}{2(2\pi)^3e_pM^2_D(2e_p+M_D)^2}\ =\
319: \frac{M_D}{\bar
320: M_D}\,\frac{f_D(p)}{4\pi}\left(\frac{\delta_D}{2e_p+M_D}\right)^2,
321: \end{equation}
322: so
323: \begin{eqnarray}
324: && \hspace*{-1cm}
325: F_{2D,N}(x,Q^2)=\frac{2mx}{\bar M_D}\int\frac{d^3p}{4\pi}f_D(p)\left\{
326: \left[\frac{e_p-\Delta_D-\beta p_3}{mx}F_2\left(\frac{mx}{e_p-\beta p_3},
327: Q^2\right)\right.\right.
328: \nonumber\\
329: &&+\ \left.\frac{\Delta_D}{e_p-\beta p_3}\dot F_2\left(
330: \frac{mx}{e_p-\beta p_3},Q^2\right)\right]
331: \nonumber\\
332: &&+\ \left.\left(\frac{\delta_D}{2e_p+M_D}\right)^2
333: \frac{M_D+e_p-\beta p_3}{mx}F_2\left(\frac{mx}{M_D+e_p-\beta
334: p_3},Q^2\right)\right\}.
335: \end{eqnarray}
336:
337: \subsection{Prescription of Ref. \cite{6}}
338:
339: This prescription is based on the following consideration: to obtain by
340: DIS on bound nucleon with the momentum \bmp\ the same hadronic state as
341: that on free nucleon the momentum transfer \bmq\ must be the same, but
342: transferred energy $q_0$ must be larger to overcome the binding. As a
343: result of the energy-momentum conservation
344: \begin{equation}
345: e_p+q'\ =\ M_A-E_{A-1}+q_0
346: \end{equation}
347: we get
348: \begin{eqnarray}
349: && q'_0=q_0-e_p+(M_A-E_{A-1})=q_0-\delta,
350: \\
351: && Q'^2=Q^2+q^2_0-q'^2_0\cong Q^2+2q_0\delta=
352: \left(1+\frac\delta{mx}\right)Q^2,
353: \\
354: && x_N=\frac{Q'^2}{2pq'}=\left(1+\frac\delta{mx}\right)
355: \frac{Q^2}{2(e_pq'_0-\bmp\bmq)} =\frac{mx+\delta}{e_p-\beta p_3},
356: \end{eqnarray}
357: so
358: \begin{equation}
359: F_{2A}(x,Q^2)=\int\frac{d^3p}{4\pi}\,f(p)\frac{mx}{e_p} \frac{e_p-\beta
360: p_3}{mx+\delta}\,F_2\left(\frac{mx+\delta}{e_p-\beta p_3},
361: \left(\frac\delta{mx}\right)Q^2\right).
362: \end{equation}
363: It is worth mentioning that putting $\delta=0$ we get the net effect of
364: the Fermi-motion.
365:
366: \section{Results}
367:
368: We calculated the isoscalar part of the EMC ratio~\footnote{The MRST
369: 2002 NLO \cite{mrst} parametrization of the parton distributions in a
370: free nucleon and the Bonn-B wave function for the deuteron \cite{BB}
371: were used.}
372: \begin{equation}
373: R_A(x,Q^2)\ =\
374: \frac{F_{2A,p}(x,Q^2)+F_{2A,n}(x,Q^2)}{F_{2D,p}(x,Q^2)+F_{2D,n}(x,Q^2)},
375: \end{equation}
376: where the denominator is the structure function of deuteron, and
377: \begin{equation}
378: F_{2A,p}(x,Q^2)=\frac1Z\sum^{(p)}_\lambda\nu_\lambda F_{2A,\lambda}
379: (x,Q^2), \quad F_{2A,n}(x,Q^2)=\frac1N\sum^{(n)}_\lambda F_{2A,\lambda}
380: (x,Q^2).
381: \end{equation}
382:
383: According to the Caushy's theorem the results of the calculations using
384: our prescription \cite{2}, formula (5), and the Molochkov's one
385: \cite{5}, , formula (8), must coincide (the difference may be caused by
386: the approximations /neglection of some small contributions/ used in one
387: or another method). It is impossible to demonstrate this analytically
388: because of the absence of analytical expressions for both the structure
389: functions and the vertices (it is interesting to mention in this
390: connection that neglecting the difference between $\Delta$ and $\delta$
391: in formula (8) we get
392: \begin{eqnarray*}
393: && \hspace*{-0.7cm}
394: \frac{e_p-\delta-\beta p_3}{mx}\,F_2\left(\frac{mx}{e_p-\beta p_3},
395: Q^2\right)+\frac\delta{e_p-\beta p_3}\,\dot F_2\left(\frac{mx}{e_p-
396: \beta p_3}, Q^2\right)
397: \nonumber\\
398: &&=\ \frac{e_p-\delta-\beta
399: p_3}{mx}\left(F_2\left(\frac{mx}{e_p-\beta
400: p_3},Q^2\right)+\left[\frac{mx}{e_p-\delta-\beta p_3}
401: -\frac{mx}{e_p-\beta p_3}\right]\dot F_2\left(\frac{mx}{e_p-\beta
402: p_3},Q^2\right)\right)
403: \end{eqnarray*}
404: the quantities in the parenthesis thus being the first two terms of the
405: Tailor's expansion of the function $F_2\left(\frac{mx}{e_p-\delta-\beta
406: p_3},Q^2\right)$, see (5)~). But the numerical results for the ratios
407: are found to be the same. The results for the deuteron structure
408: functions within both the above prescriptions are shown in Table~1. The
409: comparison clearly shows that the coincidence occurs for the deuteron
410: structure functions too. It is important to mention that performing the
411: Molochkov's calculations we neglected the possible $p_0$ dependence of
412: the nuclear vertices $V_{AN}(P_A,p)$. The coincidence of the
413: calculations within the methods \cite{2} and \cite{5} indicates that
414: such a dependence is insignificant.
415:
416: The results of the calculations using the prescriptions \cite{2,5,6}
417: for the in-medium scaling variable $x_N$ and that for the Fermi-motion
418: are shown in Fig.~2 together with the SLAC data \cite{7}. As clearly
419: seen from the figure none of the prescriptions for $x_N$ leads to
420: agreement with experiment. The same result is obtained for the EMC data
421: \cite{8}--\cite{12}. This enables us to state that the structure
422: function of nucleon in nucleus is different from that of free nucleon.
423:
424: The $Q^2$ dependence of the results is insignificant. This is
425: illustrated in Fig.~3 where the EMC ratios for $^{56}$Fe are calculated
426: at $Q^2=5\rm\,GeV^2$ and $\rm100\,GeV^2$.
427:
428:
429:
430: \newpage
431: \begin{thebibliography}{**}
432:
433: \bibitem{1} M. Arneodo, Phys. Rev. Phys. Rep. {\bf240}, 301 (1994).
434:
435: \bibitem{2} B.L. Birbrair, M.G.~Ryskin and V.I.~Ryazanov, EPJA {\bf25},
436: 272 (2005).
437:
438: \bibitem{3} A.A. Vorobyov {\em et al.}, Yad. Fiz. {\bf58}, 1923 (1995).
439:
440: \bibitem{4} B.L. Birbrairn and V.I.~Ryazanov, Yad. Fiz. {\bf63}, 1842
441: (2000).
442:
443: \bibitem{5} A. Molochkov, arxiv:nucl-th/0407077.
444:
445: \bibitem{6} O. Benhar, V.R.~Pandharipande and I.~Sick, Phys. Rev. Lett.
446: B~{\bf410}, 79 (1997); B~{\bf469}, 19 (1999).
447:
448: \bibitem{mrst} A.D. Martin, R.G.~Roberts, W.J.~Stirling and
449: R.S.~Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C~{\bf28}, 455 (2003).
450:
451: \bibitem{BB} R. Machleidt, K.~Holinde and Ch.~Elster, Phys. Rep.
452: {\bf149}, 1 (1987).
453:
454: \bibitem{7} R.G. Arnold {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf52}, 727
455: (1984).
456:
457: \bibitem{8} M. Arneodo {\em et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B~{\bf441}, 12 (1995).
458:
459: \bibitem{9} G. Bari {\em et al.}, Phys. Lett. B~{\bf163}, 282 (1985).
460:
461: \bibitem{10} P. Amaudruz {\em et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B~{\bf441}, 3
462: (1995).
463:
464: \bibitem{11} A.C. Benvenuti {\em et al.}, Phys. Lett. B~{\bf189}, 483
465: (1987).
466:
467: \bibitem{12} J. Ashaman {\em et al.}, Zeit. Phys. C~{\bf57}, 211
468: (1993).
469:
470: \end{thebibliography}
471:
472:
473:
474:
475: \begin{table}
476: \caption{Comparison between the ratios
477: $D/np=F_{2D}(x,Q^2)\left(F_{2n}(x,Q^2)+F_{2p}(x,Q^2)\right)^{-1}$
478: calculated within the prescriptions \cite{2} and \cite{5}.}
479:
480: \begin{center}
481: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
482: \hline
483: $x$ & $Q^2$ & $D/np$ [2] & $D/np$ [5]\\
484: \hline
485: &&&\\
486: .100 & 5.0 & .9989 & .9993\\
487: .123 & 5.0 & .9984 & .9988\\
488: .148 & 5.0 & .9977 & .9982\\
489: .205 & 5.0 & .9960 & .9965 \\
490: .235 & 5.0 & .9948 & .9954\\
491: .268 & 5.0 & .9935 & .9941 \\
492: .303 & 5.0 & .9920 & .9926\\
493: .340 & 5.0 & .9905 & .9910\\
494: .380 & 5.0 & .9888 & .9893 \\
495: .420 & 5.0 & .9875 & .9878\\
496: .460 & 5.0 & .9864 & .9865\\
497: .500 & 5.0 & .9862 & .9861\\
498: .540 & 5.0 & .9871 & .9866 \\
499: .580 & 5.0 & .9900 & .9888\\
500: .620 & 5.0 & .9961 & .9942 \\
501: .660 & 5.0 & 1.0075 & 1.0045\\
502: .700 & 5.0 & 1.0290 & 1.0243\\
503: .740 & 5.0 & 1.0656 & 1.0582\\
504: .780 & 5.0 & 1.1316 & 1.1196\\
505: .820 & 5.0 & 1.2855 & 1.2642\\
506: .860 & 5.0 & 1.4979 & 1.4577\\
507: \hline
508: \end{tabular}
509: \end{center}
510: \end{table}
511: \clearpage
512:
513: \begin{figure}
514: \centerline{
515: \epsfig{file=f1.eps,width=12cm}}
516: \caption{Graphical representation of Eq. (3).}
517: \end{figure}
518:
519:
520:
521:
522: \begin{figure}
523: \centerline{
524: \vspace{0.2cm}\hspace{0.1cm}
525: \epsfig{file=may2c.eps,width=7cm}
526: \epsfig{file=may2al.eps,width=7cm}
527: }
528: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
529: \centerline{\vspace{0.2cm}\hspace{0.1cm}
530: \epsfig{file=may2ca.eps,width=7cm}
531: \epsfig{file=may2fe.eps,width=7cm}
532: }
533: \caption{The EMC ratios at $Q^2=5\rm\,GeV^2$ (left) and $100\rm\,GeV^2$
534: (right) for $^{56}$Fe; the data are from ref.[9]
535: (asterisks; the results \cite{2} and \cite{6} are
536: undistinguishable), \cite{6} (filled squares) and those for the
537: Fermi-motion (open squares).}
538:
539:
540: \end{figure}
541:
542:
543: \begin{figure}
544: \centerline{\vspace{0.2cm}\hspace{0.1cm}
545: \epsfig{file=qq5-fe.eps,width=7cm}
546: \epsfig{file=qq100-fe.eps,width=7cm}
547: }
548: \caption{The EMC ratios at $Q^2=5\rm\,GeV^2$ within the prescriptions
549: \protect\cite{2,5}
550: (asterisks; the results \cite{2} and \cite{6} are
551: undistinguishable), \cite{6} (filled squares) and those for the
552: Fermi-motion (open squares).}
553: \end{figure}
554:
555:
556: \end{document}
557: