format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The parton high density regime in deep inelastic scattering is one of the frontiers in perturbative QCD (pQCD). This corresponds to the small $`x`$ region and represents the challenge of studying the interface between the perturbative and nonperturbative QCD, with the peculiar feature that this transition is taken in a kinematical region where the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ is small. By the domain of perturbative QCD we mean the region where the parton picture has been developed and the well-established methods of operator expansion and renormalization group equations have been applied sucessfully. The Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP) equations , which are based upon the sum of QCD ladder diagrams, are the evolution equations in this kinematical region. In the limit of small values of $`x`$ $`(<10^2)`$, on the other hand, one expects to see new features inside the nucleon: the density of gluons and quarks becomes very high and a new dynamical effect associated with the unitarity corrections is expected to stop the further growth of the structure functions. Ultimately, the physics in the region of high parton densities will be described by nonperturbative methods, which is still waiting for a satisfactory solution in QCD. However, the transition from the moderate $`x`$ region towards the small $`x`$ limit may be very well be accessible in perturbation theory, and, hence, allows us to test the ideas about the onset of nonperturbative dynamics. In the QCD at dense systems (hdQCD) we still have a small parameter (the coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$), which implies that we can start to approach this regime using the developed methods of perturbative QCD.

The expectation of the transition for the high density regime can be understood considering the physical picture of the deep inelastic scattering. In the infinite momentum frame (IMF) the virtual photon with virtuality $`Q^2`$ measures the number density of charged partons having longitudinal momentum fraction $`x`$ and transverse spatial size $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_t1/Q`$. When $`Q^2`$ is large, $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$ is small, so that the struck quark can be treated perturbatively. Also, when $`Q^2`$ is large the struck quark is small, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_t1/Q`$, so that one can picture the struck quark as being isolated, far away from similar quarks, in the proton. Thus, so long as the parton distributions are not large, the partons in a proton are dilute. However, if the parton distributions get large enough, which happens when $`x`$ is very small, partons in the proton must begin to overlap. If there is a sufficient amount of parton overlap then a given parton will not act as a free quantum over its lifetime but will interact strongly with the other partons in the proton, even though $`\alpha _s`$ may still be in the perturbative regime.

The behavior of the cross sections in the high energy limit ($`s\mathrm{}`$) and fixed momentum transfer is expected to be described by the BFKL equation . The simplest process where this equation applies is the high energy scattering between two heavy quark-antiquark states, i.e. the onium-onium scattering. This process was studied in the dipole picture , where the heavy quark-antiquark pair and the soft gluons in the limit of large number of colors are viewed as a collection of color dipoles. However, one of the main characteristics of the BFKL equation is that it predicts very high density of partons in the small $`x`$ region. The power behavior of BFKL cross section violates the Froissart boundary, which implies that the BFKL Pomeron describes only the pre-asymptotic behavior at not very large energies and in order to find the true high energy asymptotics in perturbative QCD we need to unitarize the BFKL Pomeron. The understanding and analytical description of the unitarity corrections and consequently of the high density QCD (hdQCD) is currently one great challenge.

About 17 years ago, Gribov, Levin and Ryskin (GLR)  have started the description of the high density systems in the double logarithmic approximation (DLA) of perturbative QCD. They argued that the physical process of recombination of partons become important in the parton cascade at a large value of the parton density, and that these unitarity corrections could be expressed in a new evolution equation - the GLR equation. This equation considers the leading nonladder contributions: the multiladder diagrams, denoted as fan diagrams. The main characteristics of this equation are that it truncates the series in the expansion in powers of the density at the first nonlinear term and predicts the saturation of the gluon distribution at very small $`x`$ 111We should be careful with this statement, since it is possible that the region of validity of the GLR equation ends before saturation is reached .; it predicts a critical line, separating the perturbative regime from the saturation regime; and it is only valid in the border of this critical line. Therefore, the GLR equation predicts the limit of its validity, and as all truncation is valid in a limited range. In the last decade, the solution  and possible generalizations  of the GLR equation have been studied in great detail. At the moment, there are basically three distinct approaches for the dynamics at high densities:

* the Ayala, Gay Ducati and Levin (AGL) approach , which considers the multiple pomeron exchange in the DLA limit of perturbative QCD, considering as basic degree of freedom the usual partons (quarks and gluons). The starting point of this approach is the proof of the Glauber formula in QCD , which considers only the interactions of the fastest partons with the target. In  the authors have proposed a generalized evolution equation (the AGL equation) which takes into account the interaction of all partons in the partons cascade with the target and have analysed the solutions of this equation considering the semiclasssical method. The main conclusion was that the unitarity corrections strongly modify the behavior of the gluon distribution in the small $`x`$ region;
* the McLerran-Venugopalan et al. (MV-JKLW) approach , which is based on the effective Lagrangian formalism for the low $`x`$ DIS and the Wilson renormalization group. The basic degree of freedom is the gluonic field. In  the authors have derived a general evolution equation for the gluon distribution in the limit of large parton densities and leading logarithmic approximation considering a very large nucleus. In the general case this evolution equation is a functional equation, which does not allow to obtain analytical solutions. Recently, these authors have considered the DLA limit on their result  and have shown that the evolution equation reduces to an equation with a functional form similar, but not identical, to the AGL equation. The solution of this equation was discussed in Ref.  considering the semiclassical method;
* the Kovchegov (K) approach , which is based in the resumation of the multiple pomeron exchange in the leading logarithmic $`1/x`$ approximation \[LLA($`1/x`$)\] using the dipole picture, where the basic degree of freedom are quark-antiquark dipoles. The author has obtained an evolution equation for the interaction cross section of the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair with a nucleus considering the multiple scattering of the dipoles, which unitarizes the BFKL Pomeron. The solution of this evolution equation was analysed by the author in Ref.  and independently in Ref. .

In contrast with the MV-JKLW and K approaches, in the AGL approach a comprehensive phenomenological analysis of the $`ep`$  and $`eA`$  processes exists. The analysis of the behavior of the distinct observables for the HERA kinematical region using the Glauber-Mueller formula was presented in Ref. . In this kinematical region the solutions from the AGL equation and the Glauber-Mueller formula approximately coincide . The results from these analysis agree with the recent HERA data and allows to make some predictions which will be tested in a near future. Our main conclusion was that the unitarity corrections cannot be disregarded in the HERA kinematical region.

All these approaches reproduce the small-$`x`$ limit of the DGLAP evolution equations in the DLA limit of pQCD and the GLR equation as a first order unitarity correction. However, important questions still need to be answered: Since at high densities higher orders cannot be disregarded, what is the correct framework to treat these unitarity corrections ? Is there a common limit between these approaches ?

Although the complete demonstration of the equivalence between these three approaches is still an open question, a first step was given recently in the Ref. . In that paper we demonstrated the equivalence between the K equation and the AGL equation in the DLA limit, which motivates the use of the AGL approach, which considers the medium effects associated with the high density present at small values of $`x`$ and/or nuclear collisions at high energies, as the dynamics at dense systems. Our goal in this paper is to give a second step in the demonstration of the equivalence between the three approaches. Since in the general case the comparison between these approaches is a very difficult task, we will consider the asymptotic regime of very small values of $`x`$ (very high densities) and demonstrate that in this regime there is an agreement in the predictions of these approaches, establishing a general behavior for the $`F_2`$ structure function in this kinematical region, which does not violate the Froissart boundary.

The paper is organized as follows: In the next section we briefly review the derivation of the AGL equation and the asymptotic solution for fixed $`\alpha _s`$ in order to fix notation and to present known results . Later we derive the AGL equation for running $`\alpha _s`$ and consider the asymptotic solution of this equation. We demonstrate that the main feature of the solution of the AGL equation, the partial saturation of the gluon distribution, is not modified by the inclusion of the running of the coupling constant. In the last subsection we assume the evolution equation proposed by Jamal Jalilian Marian et al. in Ref.  and consider its asymptotic limit of high densities, showing that in this limit the predictions for the gluon distribution of this approach coincides with the AGL result. We will assume then the universality of the $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ dependence of the gluon distribution (the partial saturation) in the asymptotic regime of high density QCD and calculate the asymptotic behavior of the $`F_2`$ structure function in Section 3. We will consider two possibilities to calculate the structure function using as input the gluon distribution. First, we assume that the leading twist relation between $`F_2`$ and $`xG`$ is not modified by the unitarity corrections. In this case we demonstrate that our results coincide with the result obtained independently by Kovchegov in Ref. , and that $`F_2`$ does not violate the Froissart boundary in the asymptotic regime. This is a general behavior predicted by all approaches using the leading twist relation. Second, we consider that the relation between $`F_2`$ and $`xG`$ is modified by the higher twist terms associated with the unitarity corrections. We demonstrate that the behavior of the structure function is modified by the presence of these terms, but the Froissart boundary is not violated. Finally, in Section 4 we present our conclusions.

We have tried to make this paper self-contained, and therefore have included some of the material already included in the early works .

## 2 The AGL Equation

### 2.1 Derivation and Asymptotic Solution for fixed $`\alpha _s`$

We start considering the interaction between a virtual colorless hard probe and the nucleus via a gluon pair component of the virtual probe. The cross section for this process is written as

$`\sigma ^{G^{}A}={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{d^2r_t}{\pi }|\mathrm{\Psi }_t^G^{}(Q^2,r_t,x,z)|^2\sigma ^{gg+A}(z,r_t^2)},`$ (1)
where $`G^{}`$ is the virtual colorless hard probe with virtuality $`Q^2`$, $`r_t`$ is the transverse separation of the pair, $`z`$ is the fraction of energy carried by the gluon and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_t^G^{}`$ is the wave function of the transverse polarized gluon in the virtual probe. Furthermore, $`\sigma ^{gg+A}(z,r_t^2)`$ is the cross section of the interaction of the $`gg`$ pair with the nucleus. To estimate the unitarity corrections we have to take into account the rescatterings of the gluon pair inside the nucleus. Using the Glauber-Mueller approach, which considers the interations of the fastest partons with the target, we get

$`\sigma ^{G^{}A}={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{d^2r_t}{\pi }\frac{d^2b_t}{\pi }|\mathrm{\Psi }_t^G^{}(Q^2,r_t,z)|^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}[1e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _N^{gg}(x^{},\frac{4}{r_t^2})S(b_t)}]},`$ (2)
where $`x^{}=x/(zr_t^2Q^2)`$ ($`x`$ is the Bjorken variable), $`b_t`$ is the impact parameter, $`S(b_t)=(A/\pi R_A^2)e^{\frac{b_t^2}{R_A^2}}`$ is the gaussian profile function and $`\sigma _N^{gg}=\frac{C_A}{C_F}\sigma _N^{q\overline{q}}`$ is the cross section of the interaction of the $`gg`$ pair with the nucleons inside the nucleus. It was shown  that

$`\sigma _N^{q\overline{q}}={\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{C_A}}(3\alpha _s({\displaystyle \frac{4}{r_t^2}})/4)\pi ^2r_t^2xG_N(x,{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r_t^2}}),`$ (3)
where $`xG_N(x,\frac{4}{r_t^2})`$ is the nucleon gluon distribution.

The relation $`\sigma ^{G^{}A}(x,Q^2)=(4\pi ^2\alpha _s/Q^2)xG_A(x,Q^2)`$ is valid for a virtual probe $`G^{}`$ with virtuality $`Q^2`$. Consequently, using the expression of the squared wavefunction we obtain that the Glauber-Mueller formula for the interaction of the $`gg`$ pair with the nucleus is written as

$`xG_A(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^{}}{x^{}}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{4}{Q^2}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2r_t}{\pi r_t^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2b_t}{\pi }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}[1e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _N^{gg}(x^{},\frac{4}{r_t^2})S(b_t)}]}.`$ (4)
The AGL equation can be obtained directly from the above equation differentiating this formula with respect to $`y=ln\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/x`$ and $`ϵ=lnQ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$. Therefore the AGL equation is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2xG_A(x,Q^2)}{yϵ}}={\displaystyle \frac{2Q^2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2b_t}{\pi }[1e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _N^{gg}(x,Q^2)S(b_t)}]},`$ (5)
where the dependence of $`\sigma _N^{gg}`$ in the virtuality of the virtual probe results from the derivative. The nonperturbative effects coming from the large distances are absorbed in the boundary and initial conditions. This equation is valid in the double logarithmic approximation (DLA).

In our calculations we use the Gaussian parameterization for the profile function, which implies that the integration over $`b_t`$ is straithforward. Moreover, in what follows we will consider the nucleon case ($`A=1`$). Then, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2xG(x,Q^2)}{yϵ}}={\displaystyle \frac{2Q^2R^2}{\pi ^2}}\{C+ln[\kappa _G(x,Q^2)]+E_1[\kappa _G(x,Q^2)]\},`$ (6)
where $`C`$ is the Euler constant, $`E_1`$ is the exponential function and the function $`\kappa _G`$ is defined by

$`\kappa _G(x,Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sN_c\pi }{2Q^2R^2}}xG(x,Q^2),`$ (7)
and represents the probability of gluon-gluon interaction inside the parton cascade. Using the above definition for $`\kappa _G`$ we can rewrite the expression (6) in a more convenient form (for fixed $`\alpha _s`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2k_G(y,ϵ)}{yϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_G(y,ϵ)}{y}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sN_c}{\pi }}\{C+ln[\kappa _G(x,Q^2)]+E_1[\kappa _G(x,Q^2)]\}`$ (8)
$``$ $`F(\kappa _G).`$
In what follows we will present the asymptotic solution of the above equation . Before some comments are necessary:

* This equation matches the DLA limit of the DGLAP evolution equation in the limit of low parton densities $`(\kappa 0)`$;
* In first order of unitarity corretions \[$`𝒪(\kappa ^2)`$\] the AGL equation matches the GLR equation;
* The AGL equation sums all contributions of the order of $`\kappa ^n`$ absorbing them in the gluon distribution.

From the analysis of the AGL equation we get that this equation describes the region of large $`\kappa `$ (large parton densities) where the use of GLR equation is not a good approximation.

We expect that the unitarity corrections start to be important in kinematical region where $`\kappa _G1`$. Assuming $`\kappa _G=1`$ and using the definition of $`\kappa _G`$ \[Eq. (7)\] we can approximately estimate the behavior of the gluon distribution in the region where the parton densities become large

$`\kappa _G=1xG(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{2Q^2R^2}{3\pi \alpha _s}}.`$ (9)
Therefore in a first approximation the gluon distribution saturates at small values of $`x`$. Below we will consider the asymptotic regime and demonstrate that this behavior is modified in the region where $`k_G>1`$ (very large densities).

Analysing the structure of the Eq. (8) we see that it has a solution which depends only on $`y`$. In  was shown that this solution is the asymptotic solution of the AGL equation. In this case we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{k_G^{asymp}(y,ϵ)}{y}}=F(\kappa _G^{asymp}),`$ (10)
with the solution

$`{\displaystyle _{k_G^{asymp}(y=y_0)}^{k_G^{asymp}(y)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa _G^{}}{F(\kappa _G^{})}}=yy_0.`$ (11)
The determination of the behavior of the solution (11) in the general case is a difficult task. However, in the limit of high parton densities we have that $`F(\kappa _G^{asymp})\frac{\alpha _sN_c}{\pi }ln\kappa _G^{asymp}`$. Consequently,

$`{\displaystyle _{k_G^{asymp}(y=y_0)}^{k_G^{asymp}(y)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa _G^{}}{ln\kappa _G^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sN_c}{\pi }}(yy_0).`$ (12)
Therefore at large values of densities and $`yy_0`$ the asymptotic solution is given by

$`k_G^{asymp}(y)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sN_c}{\pi }}ylny{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sN_c}{\pi }}y.`$ (13)
We have checked that this solution is a good approximation at very small values of $`x`$ \[$`𝒪(10^8)`$\], where we expect that the density of partons will be very large, generating a high dense system. Moreover, as the energy behavior of the $`\kappa `$ function result from the $`y=ln1/x`$ factor, we will assume in this paper that the asymptotic solution is given by (13) and use this expression in the analysis that follows.

Substituting the definition of $`\kappa _G`$ \[Eq. (7)\] in the above solution, we have that in asymptotic regime the behavior of the gluon distribution is given by (for fixed $`\alpha _s`$)

$`xG(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{2N_cQ^2R^2}{3\pi ^2}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}).`$ (14)
Therefore, the gluon distribution do not saturate at small values of $`x`$, but is linearly proportional to $`lns`$ $`(s1/x)`$. However, this behavior is softer than predicted by the DGLAP equation ($`xGexp[\sqrt{ln1/x}]`$) and the BFKL equation ($`xGx^\lambda `$, $`\lambda >0`$). We have that the gluon distribution present a partial saturation in its behavior. Moreover, we have that the gluon distribution is directly dependent of the free parameter $`R`$, introduced by the profile function. In general this parameter is identified with the proton radius. However, $`R`$ is associated with the spatial gluon distribution within the proton, which may be smaller than the proton radius (see discussion in Ref. ).

An identical dependence in $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ for the behavior of the gluon distribution in the asymptotic regime was obtained in Ref. , where the solution of the K equation in the DLA limit was considered. This result is expected due to the equivalence between the K and AGL approaches in the DLA limit demonstrated in the Ref. .

In Ref.  Mueller has argued that the factor $`ln\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/x`$ in the gluon distribution is associated with the one loop level of the calculations and that beyond of this level the distribution has the same form of the Weizacker-Williams gluon distribution, which is independent of the energy. However, this statement contrast with the studies of the parton evolution in the non-linear region , where the saturation is not present. The understanding of the difference between these results is an important open question. In this paper we assume (14) as the behavior of the gluon distribution in the asymptotic regime.

In the next section we consider the consequence of (14) in the behavior of the structure function. Before we will consider the implication of the use of running $`\alpha _s`$ in the asymptotic solution of the AGL equation and the comparison between the predictions of the AGL and MV-JKLW approaches in the asymptotic regime.

### 2.2 The AGL equation for running $`\alpha _s`$

The solution (14) was obtained from the AGL equation \[Eq. (8)\] in the DLA limit of perturbative QCD and fixed $`\alpha _s`$. Our goal in this subsection is to shown that although the AGL equation is modified by the running of $`\alpha _s`$ the general behavior of the gluon distribution, i.e. the partial saturation, is independent of the approximation used.

Since the QCD coupling constant is given by $`\alpha _s(Q^2)=4\pi /(\beta _0ϵ)`$, where $`\beta _0=112/3n_f`$ ($`n_f`$ is the number of flavors) and $`ϵ=lnQ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$, the relation between the gluon distribution and the function $`\kappa _G`$ can be expressed by

$`xG(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{2Q^2R^2}{N_c\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{4\pi }}ϵ\kappa _G(x,Q^2).`$ (15)
Using this result in Eq. (6) we obtain that the AGL equation with running $`\alpha _s`$ is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2k_G(y,ϵ)}{yϵ}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+1\right){\displaystyle \frac{k_G(y,ϵ)}{y}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\pi }}\{C+ln[\kappa _G(x,Q^2)]`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`E_1[\kappa _G(x,Q^2)]\}`$
$``$ $`H(\kappa _G).`$
The AGL equation at fixed $`\alpha _s`$ is a direct consequence of the above equation in the limit of large $`ϵ`$. Moreover, this equation also has a solution which depends only on $`y`$. In this case we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{k_G^{asymp}(y,ϵ)}{y}}={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{1+ϵ}}H(\kappa _G)`$ (17)
with the solution

$`{\displaystyle _{k_G^{asymp}(y=y_0)}^{k_G^{asymp}(y)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa _G^{}}{H(\kappa _G^{})}}={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{1+ϵ}}(yy_0).`$ (18)
Following the same steps used in the previous subsection we get that the asymptotic behavior of the gluon distribution is given by

$`xG(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{1+ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{2N_cQ^2R^2}{3\pi ^2}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}).`$ (19)
As expected at large values of $`ϵ`$ $`(Q^2)`$ this solution reduces to the solution for fixed $`\alpha _s`$. The main difference is the behavior at small values of $`ϵ`$, where the prefactor in (19) is important. However, the partial saturation of the gluon distribution is not modified by the running of $`\alpha _s`$. It agrees with the result that the unitarity corrections are expected to be relevant before of the next to leading order corrections .

### 2.3 MV-JKLW approach in the asymptotic regime

Recently an approach to the evolution of dense partonic systems within the framework of the Wilson renormalization group and the McLerran-Venugopalan approach was developed in Ref. . This approach results in a nonlinear evolution equation for the generating functional of the color charge density correlators, which is valid to leading order in $`\alpha _s`$ at densities which parametrically do not exceed $`1/\alpha _s`$. The equation is fairly complicated since it only requires ordering in longitudinal momenta during evolution and puts no constraint in the ordering of transverse momenta (we refer  for details). However, some special limits were considered: at low densities this equation reduces to the BFKL equation and as consequence to the DLA limit of the DGLAP evolution equation at large values of $`Q^2`$. In Ref.  the authors have considered the DLA limit of the functional evolution equation obtaining the following equation for the impact parameter dependent gluon distribution $`xG(x,Q^2,b_t)`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2xG(x,Q^2,b_t)}{yϵ}}={\displaystyle \frac{N_c(N_c1)}{2}}Q^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}\right)E_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}\right)\right],`$ (20)
where

$`\kappa (x,Q^2,b_t)={\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{\pi (N_c1)Q^2}}xG(x,Q^2,b_t).`$ (21)
The general solution and the $`b_t`$ dependence of this evolution equation was discussed in Ref. .

At large values of densities (large $`\kappa `$) we can approximate the Eq. (20) by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2xG(x,Q^2,b_t)}{yϵ}}={\displaystyle \frac{N_c(N_c1)}{2}}Q^2.`$ (22)
To simplify our analysis we will assume that the $`b_t`$ dependence of the gluon distribution can be factorized $`xG(x,Q^2,b_t)=xG(x,Q^2)S(b_t)`$ and consider a central collision ($`b_t=0`$), with $`S(0)=1/\pi R^2`$. Consequently, the evolution equation for the gluon distribution at large densities is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2xG(x,Q^2)}{yϵ}}={\displaystyle \frac{N_c(N_c1)\pi }{2}}R^2Q^2.`$ (23)
The solution of this equation is straithforward

$`xG(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{N_c(N_c1)\pi }{2}}R^2Q^2ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right).`$ (24)
Therefore the solution of the Eq. (20) has the same $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ dependence of the AGL equation in the asymptotic regime. The difference in the prefactors is a function of the distinct normalizations and approximations used in the two approaches. The demonstration of the equivalence between the two approaches in all kinematical region is still an open question.

The main conclusion of our analysis of these two approaches is the universality of the $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ dependence of the gluon distribution (the partial saturation) in the asymptotic regime of the high density QCD. In the next section we will consider the consequences of the partial saturation in the behavior of the structure function, what is experimentally measured.

## 3 The Asymptotic Behavior of the Structure Function

The common feature of the BFKL and DGLAP equations is the steep increase of the cross sections as $`x`$ decreases. This steep increase cannot persist down to arbitrary low values of $`x`$ since it violates a fundamental principle of quantum theory, i.e. the unitarity. In the context of relativistic quantum field theory of the strong interactions, unitarity implies that the cross section cannot increase with increasing energy $`s`$ above $`log^2s`$: the Froissart’s theorem . In this section we will calculate the structure function in the asymptotic regime using as input the solution of the AGL equation \[Eq. (14)\] which considers the unitarity corrections.

Lets us start from the space-time picture of the $`ep`$ processes . The deep inelastic scattering $`epe+X`$ is characterized by a large electron energy loss $`\nu `$ (in the target rest frame) and an invariant momentum transfer $`q^2Q^2`$ between the incoming and outgoing electron such that $`x=Q^2/2m_N\nu `$ is fixed. The general features of the time development can be established using only Lorentz invariance and the uncertainty principle. The incoming physical electron state can, at a given instant of time, be expanded in terms of its (bare) Fock states

$`|e>_{phys}=\psi _e|e>+\psi _{e\gamma }|e\gamma >+\mathrm{}.`$ (25)
The amplitudes $`\psi _i`$ depend on the kinematic variables describing the states $`|i>`$, and have the time dependence $`exp(iE_it)`$, where $`E_i=_i\sqrt{m_i^2+\stackrel{}{p}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}`$ is the energy of the state. The ’lifetime’ $`\tau _i1/(E_iE_e)`$ of a Fock state $`|i>`$ is given by the time interval after which the relative phase $`exp[i(E_iE_e)]`$ is significantly different from unity. If $`\tau _i>R_A`$ the Fock state forms long before the electron arrives at the nucleon, and it lives long after its passage. New Fock states are not formed inside the nucleon. Therefore, the scattering inside the nucleon is diagonal in the Fock basis. If the state $`|i>`$ contains particles with mass $`m_j`$, energy fraction $`x_j`$ and transverse momentum $`p_{tj}`$, we have that the transverse velocities $`v_{tj}=p_{tj}/x_jE_e`$ are small at large $`E_e`$. Hence the impact parameters (transverse coordinates) of all particles are preserved.

In terms of Fock states we then view the $`ep`$ scattering as follows: the electron emits a photon ($`|e>|e\gamma >`$) with $`E_\gamma =\nu `$ and $`p_{t\gamma }^2Q^2`$, after the photon splits into a $`q\overline{q}`$ ($`|e\gamma >|eq\overline{q}>`$) and typically travels a distance $`l_c1/m_Nx`$, referred as the ’coherence length’, before interacting in the nucleon. For small $`x`$, the photon converts to a quark pair at a large distance before it interacts to the target; for example, at the $`ep`$ HERA collider, where one can study structure functions at $`x10^5`$, the coherence length is as large as $`10^4fm`$, much larger than the nucleon radii. Consequently, the space-time picture of the DIS in the target rest frame can be viewed as the decay of the virtual photon at high energy (small $`x`$) into a quark-antiquark pair long before the interaction with the target. The $`q\overline{q}`$ pair subsequently interacts with the target. In the small $`x`$ region, where $`x\frac{1}{2mR}`$, the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair crosses the target with fixed transverse distance $`r_t`$ between the quarks. It allows to factorize the total cross section between the wave function of the photon and the interaction cross section of the quark-antiquark pair with the target. The photon wave function is calculable and the interaction cross section is modelled. Therefore, the structure function is given by

$`F_2(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{4\pi \alpha _{em}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑z\frac{d^2r_t}{\pi }|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,r_t)|^2\sigma ^{q\overline{q}}(z,r_t)},`$ (26)
where

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,r_t)|^2={\displaystyle \frac{6\alpha _{em}}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{n_f}{}}}e_i^2\{[z^2+(1z)^2]ϵ^2K_1(ϵr_t)^2+m_i^2K_0(ϵr_t)^2\},`$ (27)
$`\alpha _{em}`$ is the electromagnetic coupling constant, $`ϵ^2=z(1z)Q^2+m_i^2`$, $`m_i`$ is the quark mass, $`n_f`$ is the number of active flavors, $`e_f^2`$ is the square of the parton charge (in units of $`e`$), $`K_{0,1}`$ are the modified Bessel functions and $`z`$ is the fraction of the photon’s light-cone momentum carried by one of the quarks of the pair. In the leading log$`(1/x)`$ approximation we can neglect the change of $`z`$ during the interaction and describe the cross section $`\sigma ^{q\overline{q}}(z,4/r_t^2)`$ as a function of the variable $`x`$. Considering only light quarks ($`i=u,d,s`$) $`F_2`$ can be expressed by

$`F_2(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{u,d,s}{}}e_i^2{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{Q^2}}^{\frac{1}{Q_0^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2r_t}{\pi r_t^4}}\sigma ^{q\overline{q}}(x,r_t).`$ (28)
We have introduced a cutoff in the superior limit of the integration, in order to eliminate the long distance (non-perturbative) contribution in our calculations.

Using the expression of $`\sigma ^{q\overline{q}}`$  \[Eq. 3\], we get

$`F_2(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{9\pi }}{\displaystyle _{Q_0^2}^{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dQ^2}{Q^2}}xG(x,Q^2).`$ (29)
This equation is a leading twist relation which will eventually break down when we consider the higher twist terms in the evolution. Below we discuss a generalization of the relation between the structure function and the gluon distribution and the implications in the asymptotic behavior. However, before we will assume that the relation (29) is valid and will determine the behavior of the structure function in the asymptotic regime.

Using the solution of the AGL equation in the asymptotic regime \[Eq. (14)\] as input in the Eq. (29) we get

$`F_2(x,Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi ^3}}R^2Q^2ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right).`$ (30)
We see that the partial saturation of the gluon distribution implies that the $`F_2`$ structure function does not saturate at small values of $`x`$, but is linearly proportional to $`lns`$. The main point is that this behavior does not violate the Froissart boundary.

An identical result for the behavior of the structure function was obtained by Kovchegov in Ref. , using as input the solution of the evolution equation proposed in . This evolution equation (the K equation) considers the multiple pomeron exchanges in the leading logarithmic $`1/x`$ approximation \[LLA($`1/x`$)\], which implies the unitarization of BFKL Pomeron. In Ref.  we have shown that the K equation is equivalent to the AGL equation in the DLA limit of perturbative QCD. The equivalence between the asymptotic behavior of the structure function obtained from the AGL approach (DLA) and the K approach \[LLA($`1/x`$)\] shows that the asymptotic behavior (28) is a general characteristic which is independent of the approximations used in the calculations. Furthermore, as the predictions of the AGL and MV-JKLW approaches for the gluon distribution are identical in the asymptotical regime, we have that the asymptotic behavior of the $`F_2`$ structure function is well-established by the three distinct approaches.

A comment is in order here. If we assume that the behavior of the gluon distribution is given by (9), which is valid in the region where the density starts to becomes large, we then get that the structure function saturates at small values of $`x`$ ($`F_2R^2Q^2`$). However, as shown in the previous discussion, this result is valid in the limited kinematical region where the higher orders in the parton density are not important. For a longer theoretical and phenomenological discussion about the parton saturation see for example the Refs. .

We now consider that the relation between the structure function and the gluon distribution is modified by the particular type of higher twist terms associated with the unitarity corrections (See also  for a similar calculation in the infinite momentum frame). First we obtain the expression for the structure function considering these corrections and after we estimate the behavior of $`F_2`$ in the asymptotic regime.

We estimated the unitarity corrections considering the $`s`$-channel unitarity constraint in the interaction cross section of the quark-antiquark pair with the target . In this case we the structure function is given by

$`F_2(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{u,d,s}{}}e_f^2{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{Q^2}}^{\frac{1}{Q_0^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2r_t}{\pi r_t^4}}{\displaystyle d^2b_t\{1e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^{q\overline{q}}(x,4/r_t^2)S(b_t)}\}}.`$ (31)
The use of the Gaussian parametrization for the nucleon profile function $`S(b_t)=\frac{1}{\pi R^2}e^{\frac{b^2}{R^2}}`$, where $`R`$ is a free parameter, as before, simplifies the calculations. We obtain that the $`F_2`$ structure function can be written as

$`F_2(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{u,d,s}{}}ϵ_i^2{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{Q^2}}^{\frac{1}{Q_0^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2r_t}{\pi r_t^4}}\{C+ln(\kappa _q(x,r_t^2))+E_1(\kappa _q(x,r_t^2))\},`$ (32)
where $`\kappa _q=4/9\kappa _G=(2\alpha _s/3R^2)\pi r_t^2xG_N(x,\frac{1}{r_t^2})`$. This equation allows to estimate the unitarity corrections to the structure function in the DLA limit. Expanding the equation (32) for small $`\kappa _q`$, the first term (Born term) will correspond to the usual DGLAP equation in the small $`x`$ region \[Eq. (29)\].

In the asymptotic regime (large $`\kappa _q`$) we obtain

$`F_2(x,Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{u,d,s}{}}ϵ_i^2{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{Q^2}}^{\frac{1}{Q_0^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2r_t}{\pi r_t^4}}ln(\kappa _q(x,r_t^2)).`$ (33)
Using the asymptotic solution of the AGL equation we can determine $`\kappa _q`$ at large values of densities, and so

$`F_2(x,Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{u,d,s}{}}ϵ_i^2{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{Q^2}}^{\frac{1}{Q_0^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2r_t}{\pi r_t^4}}ln\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha _s}{3}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}})\right].`$ (34)
Therefore, considering the contribution of the higher twist terms in the relation between the structure function and the gluon distribution, we predict the following asymptotic behavior for the structure function

$`F_2(x,Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{R^2Q^2}{3\pi ^2}}ln\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha _s}{3}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}})\right].`$ (35)
We see that the inclusion of higher twist term implies a softer dependence of $`F_2`$ with the energy than obtained using the leading twist relation. However, in both cases the structure function does not violate the Froissart boundary in the asymptotic regime of high density QCD. The demonstration of the behavior (35) using the other approaches for hdQCD is still an open question.

From the results for the structure function in the asymptotic regime we can see that this regime is characterized by the identity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dF_2(x,Q^2)}{dlnQ^2}}=F_2(x,Q^2),`$ (36)
which is an important signature of the asymptotic regime of high density QCD. This regime should be reached for the case of an interaction with nuclei at smaller parton densities than in a nucleon, since $`\kappa _A=A^{\frac{1}{3}}\times \kappa _N`$, where $`\kappa _N`$ is given by the expression (7).

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper we have analysed the asymptotic regime of high density QCD. We have shown that the partial saturation of the gluon distribution is a well-established result from the AGL equation for running and fixed $`\alpha _s`$ and from the MV-JKLW approach in this kinematical regime. Using the asymptotic behavior of the gluon distribution we calculate the $`F_2`$ structure function assuming first that the leading twist relation between these two quantities is valid and second that this relation is modified by the higher twist terms associated to the unitarity corrections. In the first case we have obtained that the corresponding $`F_2`$ structure function is linearly proportional to $`lns`$, which agrees with the results obtained recently by Kovchegov using a distinct approach. In the second case a softer behavior is obtained. In both cases, the $`F_2`$ structure function unitarizes and the Froissart boundary is not violated in the asymptotic regime of high density QCD. We conclude that the partial saturation of the gluon distribution and the unitarization of the structure function are general results, established in three distinct approaches for high dense QCD systems. However, the demonstration of the equivalence between the distinct approaches in all kinematical regions and of the generality of the behavior of $`F_2`$ when the higher twist are considered are still important open questions.

## Acknowledgments

This work was partially financed by CNPq and by Programa de Apoio a Núcleos de Excelência (PRONEX), BRAZIL.


text:
# On the choice of colliding beams to study deformation effects in relativistic heavy ion collisions

## Abstract

It has been suggested that collisions between deformed shapes will lead to interesting effects on various observables such as $`K`$ production and elliptic flow. Simple formulæ can be written down which show how to choose the colliding beams which will maximise the effects of deformation.

In the nuclear periodic table there are large regions where nuclei are deformed with prolate intrinsic shapes. Recent calculations  suggest that if one can arrange to have tip-on-tip collisions (collision axis = symmetry axis) of two prolate shapes, the physical results are significantly different from when the collisions are side-on-side (the collision axis is perpendicular to the symmetry axis). If unpolarised beams are used, interesting events will be buried among many uninteresting ones. The occurrence of the interesting events can be enhanced by using polarised beams. We do a quantitative estimate here.

For unpolarised beam, the average density is spherical. One still will see effects of deformation because we shall assume that heavy ion collisions sample many-body correlations contained in $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,\mathrm{}.\stackrel{}{r}_A)|^2`$: the collision knocks out all particles. Having a particle at $`\stackrel{}{r}_1`$ influences the probability of seeing a particle at $`\stackrel{}{r}_2`$ etc. But not having a control of the overall orientation is a problem: we would, for example, like to enhance the chance of tip-on-tip collision. It is then necessary to control even the one-body density.

We use the rotational model  to extract answers. The wavefunction of the ground state of an odd-A deformed nucleus can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{IMK}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2I+1}{16\pi ^2}}}\left[D_{MK}^{I}{}_{}{}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Phi }_K(x^{})+()^{IK}D_{MK}^{I}{}_{}{}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Phi }_K(x^{})\right].`$ (1)
The symmetrisation will play no role in what follows so we will use

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{IMK}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2I+1}{8\pi ^2}}}D_{M,K}^{I}{}_{}{}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Phi }_K(x^{}).`$ (2)
We use the convention of Rose  for $`D`$ functions. The quantity $`\mathrm{\Phi }_K(x^{})`$ consists of two parts:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_K(x^{})=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x^{})\varphi _k(x^{}).`$ (3)
The $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x^{})`$ is the intrinsic deformed state of the even-even core and $`\varphi _k(x^{})`$ is the Nilsson model type orbital: $`\varphi _k(x^{})=_jc_{jk}|jk>`$. One may wish to include antisymmetrisation between the core and the extra nucleon but for what we do later this will not matter. For many applications $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x^{})`$ plays no role and is suppressed. As usual, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ are the Eulerian angles specifying the orientation of the deformed intrinsic state with respect to the lab. All of this is, of course, very standard rotational model.

We need to choose $`I,M`$ such that the one-body density in the lab is as deformed as possible. This is not so transparent. However, if the expectation value of the quadrupole moment is large the density should show large deformation since the quadrupole mode is the basic deviation from sphericity. To evaluate the expectation value of the quadrupole operator $`r^2Y_{20}(x)`$ in the lab we express the operator in the body-fixed system: $`r^2Y_{20}(x)=_mD_{0m}^{2}{}_{}{}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })r^2Y_{2m}(x^{})`$. One then obtains

$`<\mathrm{\Psi }_{IMK}|r^2Y_{20}(x)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{IMK}>=(I2M0|IM)(I2K0|IK)\times <\mathrm{\Phi }_K(x^{})|r^2Y_{20}(x^{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_K(x^{})>`$ (4)
In this equation, the first two terms on the right hand side are Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, the third one is the deformation of the intrinsic state. One might want to argue that the last orbital is just one of many orbitals and can be dropped: $`<\mathrm{\Phi }_K(x^{})|r^2Y_{20}(x^{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_K(x^{})><\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x^{})|r^2Y_{20}(x^{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x^{})>`$. In that case the only role of the last odd particle is to align the nucleus. The product of the two Clebsch-Gordan coefficients is the reduction in perfect alignment brought about by quantum mechanics.

Since we are in the ground state, $`K=I`$. Hence the key factor is

$`R=(I2M0|IM)(I2I0|II)`$ (5)
Clearly for $`M=I`$ one has approximate alignment in the direction of the symmetry axis. The value of $`(I2I0|II)^2`$ is $`\frac{I(2I1)}{(I+1)(2I+3)}`$. This goes to 1 as $`I\mathrm{}`$. This is the limit at which the frequency of tip-on-tip collision is one hundred percent.

For odd-A nucleus, assuming the direction of z is defined by the collision axis, we need to have $`|I,1/2>`$ to have the “best” body-on-body collisions. The reduction factor is simply calculated by the above formula.

The arguments presented here for odd-A nuclei should hold for odd-odd nuclei also. It is advantageous to choose a nucleus with large ground state spin. Ground state spins 9/2 in the deformed regions are available. Perhaps the most advantageous nucleus from this point view is 176Lu which has 7 as its ground state spin.

If a density in the intrinsic state $`\rho _d(x^{})`$ is assumed, the one-body density of the state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{IMK}`$ can be numerically computed from $`\frac{2I+1}{4\pi }|d_{M,K}^I(\beta )|^2sin\beta 𝑑\beta 𝑑\gamma \rho _d(x^{},\beta ,\gamma )`$.

To conclude, we find that in order to study the role of deformation in high energy heavy ion collisions it will be judicious to choose nuclei with high spin in the ground state. By choosing $`|II>`$ states where the z-axis is the collision axis one can enhance tip-on-tip collision. By choosing $`|I\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2>`$ states one can enhance body-on-body collisions. Quantum mechanics will prevent a perfect alignment.

We are thankful to E. Shuryak for emphasizing to us the many-body correlation aspects of relativistic heavy ion collisions, and to J. Barrette, C. M. Ko, and C. Pruneau for useful exchanges. This work is supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and in part by the Fonds FCAR of the Québec Government.


text:
# Mass hierarchy and localization of gravity in extra time Supported by the Academy of Finland under the Project No. 163394

## Abstract:

We consider Randall-Sundrum model with localized gravity, replacing the extra compact space-like dimension by a time-like one. In this way the solution to the hierarchy problem can be reconciled with a correct cosmological expansion of the visible universe, just as a trivial result of the sign flip of cosmological constants in the bulk and on the 3-branes relative to the case of extra space-like dimension. Some phenomenological aspects of the proposed scenario related to the tachyonic nature of Kaluza-Klein states of graviton are also discussed.

preprint: HIP-2000-16/TH

During the few past years it has been realized that the fundamental scales of physics can be altered in the presence of extra dimensions . What is exceptionally exciting is that the fundamental Planck scale  or/and fundamental GUT scale  can be lowered to potentially accessible energies in the multi-TeV range. In addition to the well known explanations within the supersymetric models or the models with dynamical symmetry breaking, these observations offer a qualitatively new explanation of the observed hierarchy between the electroweak scale and high energy scales. Despite the important differences between these two scenarios, both similarly utilize $`\delta `$ extra compact dimensions with large compactification radii $`r_n`$ ($`n=1,\mathrm{},\delta `$) in the factorizable, $`M^4\times N^\delta `$, ($`4+\delta `$)-dimensional spacetime and thus the apparent weakness of gravity in the visible four-dimensional world ($`M^4`$) is explained due to the large volume $`V_{N^\delta }`$ of the extra-dimensional submanifold $`N^\delta `$ (for an earlier proposal of large extra dimensions, see )111It has been recently proposed  that the vacuum expectation value of the electroweak Higgs boson can be exponentially suppressed due to the renormalization effects in higher dimensional theories, thus explaining Planck/weak scale hierarchy without need of hierarchically large extra dimensions. For another approach to solve the hierarchy problem within the higher dimensional gauge theories see .:

$$M_{Pl}^2=M_{}^{\delta +2}V_{N^\delta },$$
(1)
where $`M_{}`$ is the fundamental high-dimensional scale and $`M_{Pl}`$ is the ordinary four-dimensional Planck scale.

More recently, a new scenario  for generating Planck/weak scale hierarchy has been proposed within the framework of 5-dimensional non-factorizable AdS5 space-time with two 3-branes located at the $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold fixed points of the fifth compact dimension. Now the weakness of gravity in the visible world 3-brane is explained without recourse to large extra dimensions, but rather as a result of gravity localization on the hidden 3-brane. Gravity localization in such scenario occurs because the five-dimensional Einstein’s equations admit the solution for the space-time metric with a scale factor (”warp factor”) which is a falling exponential function of the distance along the extra dimension y perpendicular to the branes222Earlier, it was suggested in  that gravitational interaction between particles on a brane in uncompactified five-dimensional space could have a correct four-dimensional Newtonian behaviour, provided that the corresponding contributions to Newton’s law from the bulk cosmological constant and from the brane tension cancel each other. For some previous related works, see .:

$$ds^2=e^{2k|y|}dx_{1+3}^2+dy^2,$$
(2)
when the bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$) and the tensions $`T_{vis}`$ and $`T_{hid}`$ of the visible and hidden branes respectively are related according to333Actually this relation is nothing but the condition for the vanishing of the four-dimensional effective cosmological constant.:

$$T_{hid}=T_{vis}=6M_{}^3k,k=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6M_{}^3}}.$$
(3)
Thus, graviton is essentially localized on the hidden brane with positive tension ($`T_{hid}>0`$) which is located at $`y=0`$ fixed point of the $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold, while the Standard Model particles are assumed to be restricted on the visible brane with negative tension ($`T_{vis}<0`$) which is located at $`y=\pi r_c`$ ($`r_c`$ is the size of extra dimension) orbifold fixed point. So, a hierarchically small scale factor generated for the metric on the visible brane gives an exponential hierarchy between the mass scales of the visible brane and the fundamental mass scale $`M_{}`$, after one appropriately rescales the fields on the visible brane. In fact, assuming $`M_{}M_{Pl}`$, TeV-sized electroweak scale can be generated on the visible brane by requiring $`r_cM_{}12`$. Various modifications and generalizations as well as interesting phenomenological and cosmological aspects of this scenario are intensively discussed in the literature \[9-16\].

Soon after Ref.  appeared it was pointed out in  that having a negative tension visible brane would be problematic from the cosmological point of view, since Friedmann’s equation governing the expansion of the visible universe appears with wrong sign. In fact, Einstein’s equations posses another solution  which can be obtained from (2) by changing the sign of the $`k`$ parameter:

$$kk.$$
(4)
Since the transformation (4) is not a symmetry of the theory (unless simultaneously accompanied by the shift $`yy+\pi r_c`$) the solution with $`k<0`$ is physically distinct from the solution with $`k>0`$ and, as evident from (3), replacement (4) exchanges the signs of brane tensions, so that the visible brane at $`y=\pi r_c`$ becomes now the one with positive tension. However, while the solution with $`k<0`$  is consistent with a Friedmann-like expanding universe, the generation of Plank/weak scale hierarchy becomes now impossible. To reconcile the cosmological expansion with the solution of the Plank/weak scale hierarchy problem, more complex constructions have been subsequently considered 444It was realized later that the solution to the problem of correct cosmological expansion of the visible brane can be linked to the problem of stabilization of extra space . See  for the stabilization mechanisms..

In this letter we would like to suggest that the problems of mass hierarchy and cosmological expansion can be simultaneously solved just in the frame of the original proposal of Ref.  by simply replacing the extra space-like dimension by a time-like one555Extra time-like dimensions have been a subject of interest for some time  and have been revived recently within the various versions of string and M-theory  and the so-called Two-Time Physics .. Our solution arises from a rather simple observation: The replacement of the space-like dimension by a time-like one, $`y\tau `$, i.e. the change of the signature from $`(++++)`$ to $`(+++)`$ leaves Einstein’s equations unchanged if it is simultaneously accompanied by the change of the sign of bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the brane tensions $`T_{hid}`$ and $`T_{vis}`$:

$`(++++)(+++)`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda },T_{hid}T_{hid},T_{vis}T_{vis}.`$ (5)
Thus, in our scenario the AdS5 space is replaced by the dS5 one and the solution for the metric

$$ds^2=e^{2k|\tau |}dx_{1+3}^2d\tau ^2$$
(6)
leads to the localization of gravity on the hidden brane with negative tension stuck at the $`\tau =0`$ fixed point of the time-like $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold, while the Standard Model particles are placed on the positive tension brane at $`\tau =\pi \tau _c`$ with

$$T_{hid}=T_{vis}=6M_{}^3k,k=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6M_{}^3}}.$$
(7)
The Planck/weak scale hierarchy is explained even with a small (in Planck mass units) period of extra time (such as, $`\tau _cM_{Pl}12`$), in full analogy with the case of space-like extra dimension , while the positivity of the visible brane tension ($`T_{vis}>0`$) ensures the correct Friedmann-like expansion.

Despite the similarity of solutions with extra space-like (2) and extra time-like dimension (6), the phenomenological consequences of these two scenarios drastically differ. As it is well known, typically theories with extra time-like dimensions suffer from pathologies such as negative-norm states (ghosts) and tachyons666It was shown also that most of theories with extra time have instantonic solutions  which may lead to the instability of flat space, but these solutions can be reinterpreted  so that the question of vacuum instability remains unclear.. In fact the Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations in the case of compact extra time-like dimensions would be seen by the four-dimensional observer as tachyonic states with imaginary masses quantized in units of $`\frac{i}{\tau _c}`$. The exchange of such KK states induces an imaginary part in the effective low-energy potential between two test ”charges”. This complexity was interpreted in  as a violation of causality and probability in the interaction of two ”charged” particles, so they can disappear into ”nothing”. If so, from the experiments dedicated to look for proton or double $`\beta `$ decays one can put rather severe bounds on the size of extra time-like dimension, $`\tau _c10M_{Pl}^1`$ , in the case of appearance of tachyonic KK states of photon or gluons. Recently, however, phenomenological constraints on extra time-like dimensions have been revisited in the framework of brane world (with factorizable spacetime), where the only particle feeling the extra time(s) is the graviton . It was argued there, that the induced imaginary part of the gravitational potential can be reinterpreted as an artifact of the fictitious decay into the unphysical negative energy tachyons and thus the size of extra time-like dimensions can be as large as $`\tau _c1mm`$! Since the graviton KK spectrum is quite different in the case with non-factorizable geometry considered here, we shall discuss now the phenomenology of the extra time in more details.

Let us first determine the mass spectrum of the graviton KK modes in the effective four-dimensional theory. The starting point is the five-dimensional Einstein equations

$`\sqrt{G}(R_{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{MN}R)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}^3}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{G}G_{MN}+T_{vis}\sqrt{g_{vis}}g_{\mu \nu }^{vis}\delta _M^\mu \delta _N^\nu \delta (\tau \pi \tau _c)+T_{hid}\sqrt{g_{hid}}g_{\mu \nu }^{hid}\delta _M^\mu \delta _N^\nu \delta (\tau )],`$ (8)
where $`G_{MN}`$ ($`M,N=\mu ,\tau `$) is the five-dimensional metric and $`g_{\mu \nu }^{vis}=G_{\mu \nu }(x^\mu ,\tau =\pi )`$ and $`g_{\mu \nu }^{hid}=G_{\mu \nu }(x^\mu ,\tau =0)`$ are four-dimensional metrics on the visible and hidden branes, respectively. It is easily verified that the actual solution to eq.(Mass hierarchy and localization of gravity in extra time thanks: Supported by the Academy of Finland under the Project No. 163394) is given by (6) with condition (7) satisfied. Now let us look at the linear perturbations about this solution which can be parametrized by replacing $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ with $`\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }(x,\tau )`$. Upon compactification, the graviton field $`h_{\mu \nu }(x,\tau )`$ can be expanded into a KK tower as:

$$h_{\mu \nu }(x,\tau )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}(x)\psi ^{(n)}(\tau ),$$
(9)
where $`h_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}(x)`$ are KK modes of the graviton on the background of Minkowski space on the 3-brane. In the transverse traceless gauge ($`_\mu h^{\mu \nu }=h_\mu ^\mu =0`$) the equation of motion for $`h_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}(x)`$ is given by:

$$(\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu +m_n^2)h_{\alpha \beta }^{(n)}(x)=0.$$
(10)
Note that in contrast to the case of extra space-like dimension the sign of $`m_n^2`$ in (10) is flipped and thus this equation of motion describes graviton KK states with imaginary masses, i.e. tachyonic gravitons . Imposing orthonormality condition for $`\psi ^{(n)}(\tau )`$,

$$_{\pi \tau _c}^{\pi \tau _c}𝑑\tau e^{2k|\tau |}\psi ^{(m)}\psi ^{(n)}=\delta _{mn},$$
(11)
Einstein’s equations (Mass hierarchy and localization of gravity in extra time thanks: Supported by the Academy of Finland under the Project No. 163394) in conjunction with the above equation of motion (10) give the following differential equation for $`\psi ^{(n)}(\tau )`$:

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }(e^{4k|\tau |}\frac{d\psi ^{(n)}}{d\tau })=m_n^2e^{2k|\tau |}\psi ^{(n)}.$$
(12)
This is just the same equation as in the case of extra space-like dimension . The solution to the eq.(12) is expressed by the Bessel functions of order two:

$$\psi ^{(n)}(\tau )=\frac{e^{2k|\tau |}}{N_n}[J_2(z_n)+A_nY_2(z_n)],$$
(13)
where $`z_n(\tau )=\frac{m_n}{k}e^{k|\tau |}`$, $`N_n`$ is the normalization factor and $`A_n`$ is a constant. The boundary conditions $`\frac{d}{d\tau }\psi ^{(n)}(\tau )|_{\tau =0,\pi }=0`$ lead to the following equations:

$$A_n=\frac{J_1(z_n(0))}{Y_1(z_n(0))},$$
(14)
$$A_n=\frac{J_1(z_n(\pi ))}{Y_1(z_n(\pi ))},$$
(15)
through which one can determine $`A_n`$ and $`m_n`$. In fact, working in the limit $`z_n(0)1`$, one finds $`A_nz_n(0)^20`$ and $`J_1(z_n(\pi ))0`$. Thus, the masses of the graviton KK modes given by $`m_n=kz_n(\pi )e^{k\tau _c\pi }`$, are essentially determined through the roots of $`J_1(z_n(\pi ))`$ and generally are not equally spaced, but in the limit $`z_n(\pi )1`$, $`J_1(z_n(\pi ))`$ is approximated by $`\sqrt{2/\pi z_n(\pi )}\mathrm{cos}(3\pi /4z_n(\pi ))`$ and thus,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_{n+1}m_n\pi ke^{k\tau _c\pi }.$$
(16)
Finally, from (11) one finds the normalization:

$$N_n\frac{e^{\pi k\tau _c}}{\sqrt{k}}|J_2(z_n(\pi ))|{}_{\stackrel{}{_{z_n(\pi )\mathrm{}}}}{}^{}\frac{e^{\pi k\tau _c}}{\sqrt{k}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi z_n(\pi )}}.$$
(17)
The zero mode wave function can be easily obtained from the general solution (13) by the limiting procedure $`m_n0`$:

$$\psi ^{(0)}=\sqrt{\frac{k}{1e^{2\pi k\tau _c}}}.$$
(18)
Following Refs. , we have also found a non-static (cosmological) solution and calculated the four-dimensional Hubble constant

$$H^2=\frac{(T_{hid}+\varrho _{hid})^2}{36M_{}^6}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6M_{}^3}=\frac{(T_{vis}+e^{2\pi k\tau _c}\varrho _{vis})^2}{36M_{}^6}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6M_{}^3},$$
(19)
where $`\varrho _{hid}`$ and $`\varrho _{vis}`$ ($`\varrho _{vis}=e^{2\pi k\tau _c}\varrho _{hid}`$) are matter energy densities on the hidden and visible branes, respectively. Taking into account (7) and $`e^{4k\pi \tau _c}\varrho _{hid}/M_{}^41`$, one obtains the desired form for the Hubble constant on the visible brane, $`H^2T_{vis}e^{2\pi k\tau _c}\varrho _{vis}/(18M_{}^6)`$, since now $`T_{vis}>0`$.

Having determined the KK spectrum of the effective four-dimensional, theory we are ready now to discuss the possible influences of extra time on the ordinary four-dimensional physics. The corrections appeared due to the graviton KK modes exchange to the gravitational potential of the two test point masses $`M_2`$ and $`M_1`$ placed at the points $`(x=0,\tau =\tau _c\pi )`$ and $`(|x|=r,\tau =\tau _c\pi )`$ of the visible 3-brane, can be expressed as:

$`V(r)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}G_N^{(5)}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2}{r}}|\psi ^{(n)}(z_n(\pi ))|^2e^{im_nr}=G_N{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2}{r}}+\delta V(r),`$
$`\delta V(r)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}G_N^{(5)}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2}{r}}|\psi ^{(n)}(z_n(\pi ))|^2e^{im_nr},`$ (20)
where the five-dimensional Newton constant $`G_N^{(5)}=1/M_{}^3`$ is related to the ordinary four-dimensional one $`G_N=1/M_{Pl}^2`$ as

$$G_N=G_N^{(5)}k(1e^{2\pi k\tau _c})^1.$$
(21)
Thus, an imaginary part is induced in the Newton’s potential (Mass hierarchy and localization of gravity in extra time thanks: Supported by the Academy of Finland under the Project No. 163394) as a result of tachyonic nature of the graviton KK modes . Typically, such complex contributions to the energy are associated with an instability of the system. Let us consider, for example, two neutrons inside a nucleus. Taking the wave function to be

$$\psi (r)=\frac{m_\pi ^{3/2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}e^{m_\pi r},$$
(22)
(here $`m_\pi `$ is the pion mass) we can calculate the gravitational energy of the system corresponding to (Mass hierarchy and localization of gravity in extra time thanks: Supported by the Academy of Finland under the Project No. 163394):

$$E=\psi |V(r)|\psi ,$$
(23)
the imaginary part of which can be identified with a decay width of a neutron into ”nothing” :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{16\zeta (3)}{\pi ^3k^3}m_N^2m_\pi ^4G_Ne^{5\pi k\tau _c},$$
(24)
where $`m_N`$ is the neutron mass, $`\zeta (3)1.2`$ is a Riemann’s function value. In deriving (24) we use planar wave approximation to (13) with almost equidistantly distributed masses (16). Now taking, e.g. $`k\tau _c12`$ (and $`kM_{Pl}`$), as it is desired for the solution of the hierarchy problem, we get the life-time for the disappearance of a neutron from a nucleus:

$$\tau _N10^7\mathrm{s}.$$
(25)
Needless to say, the value (25) is too low to be consistent with present observations. The experimental lower bound on the partial life-time of the decay $`n\nu \nu \overline{\nu }`$ is 40 orders of magnitude larger than (25). Thus, the extra time-like dimension even with a small size ($`\tau _cO(10)M_{Pl}^1`$) which would be consistent with experiments in the case of factorizable geometry, sharply contradicts the current experimental observations on matter stability in the case of non-factorizable geometry considered here.

Let us note that the violation of probability in processes like the ones considered above just follows from the expected violation of causality in theories with extra time-like dimensions. However, violation of causality is not an indisputable consequence of the existence of extra time-like dimensions and deserves further study. Indeed, violation of causality can be viewed as a result of propagation of tachyonic KK modes of graviton with negative energies backward in ordinary time. Clearly, to get a consistent theory of tachyons, one could somehow remove the negative energy tachyonic states from the physical spectrum (for some earlier attempts, see ). We do not aim here to go into the details of tachyonic physics, but would like to simply note that it seems quite reasonable that any solution to the problem of negative energy tachyonic states would automatically solve the problem of violation of causality. In that case, the above-mentioned phenomenological inconsistencies can be disregarded.

To conclude, we consider some cosmological and phenomenological aspects of the Randall-Sundrum model with extra time-like dimension. We show that the introduction of the extra time-like dimension, instead of the extra space-like one previously proposed, helps to reconcile the solution to the hierarchy problem with the correct cosmological expansion of the visible universe. At the same time, we are faced with the problem of matter instability related to a possible violation of causality and probability which is typical for the theories with extra time-like dimensions, although, as stressed above, a clear-cut conclusion is by far less obvious and the problem deserves further study .

###### Acknowledgments.

We thank M. Gogberashvili and A. Schwimmer for useful discussions and comments.