text:
# Transverse QCD Dynamics Near the Light Cone

## 1 Introduction

The solution of Quantum Chromodynamics on the light cone is still an unsolved theoretical task the present status of which is reviewed in ref. . In a recent paper  a formulation of QCD in coordinates near the light cone has been proposed which has the advantage of keeping a direct link  to equal time theories. The Cauchy problem is well defined in near light cone coordinates, since the initial data are given on a space like surface. This formulation avoids the solution of constraint equations which, on the quantum field theoretic level, may be very complicated. The problem of a nontrivial vacuum appears in a solvable form related to the transverse dynamics. This is physically very appealing, since in high energy reactions the incoming particles propagate near the light cone and interact mainly exchanging particles with transverse momenta. We would like to connect successful models for the soft transverse nonperturbative dynamics of high energy reactions (cf. refs. ) to the underlying QCD Hamiltonian. In diffractive reactions, fast Lorentz contracted hadrons experience the confining forces of QCD in their transverse extensions and interact with other fast moving hadrons via soft interactions. In a theory of total cross sections the nonperturbative infrared dynamics in the transverse plane is essential. The objective of this paper is to investigate the effective transverse Hamiltonian in QCD near the light cone for small light cone momenta.

Near light cone QCD has a nontrivial vacuum which we claim cannot be neglected even in the light cone limit. We will demonstrate the existence of massless excitations in the zero mode theory. These excitations do not decouple in the light cone limit. Genuine nonperturbative techniques must be used to investigate the behavior of this limit. In principle the additional parameter which labels the coordinate system can be chosen arbitrarily. We will show that the zero mode Hamiltonian depends on an effective coupling constant containing this parameter and evolves towards an infrared fixed point. Therefore, we propose a sophisticated choice of the frame dependence which facilitates calculations in the near light cone frame. We use the infrared fixed point of the zero mode Hamiltonian to follow a trajectory in the space of couplings, where high resolution is synchronized with the light cone limit. Note, we consider the parameter associated with the frame dependence as yet another coupling constant. As shown in Ref.  the zero mode sector is also relevant to the definition of M-theory in light cone coordinates.

We choose the following near light cone coordinates which smoothly interpolate between the Lorentz and light front coordinates:

$`x^t=x^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{2}}\right)x^0+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{2}}\right)x^3\right\},`$
$`x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(x^0x^3\right).`$ (1)
The transverse coordinates $`x^1`$, $`x^2`$ are unchanged; $`x^t=x^+`$ is the new time coordinate, $`x^{}`$ is a spatial coordinate. As finite quantization volume we will take a torus and its extension in “-”, as well as in “1, 2” direction is $`L`$. The scalar product of two 4-vectors $`x`$ and $`y`$ is given with $`\stackrel{}{x}_{}\stackrel{}{y}_{}=x^1y^1+x^2y^2`$ as

$`x_\mu y^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`x^{}y^++x^+y^{}\eta ^2x^{}y^{}\stackrel{}{x}_{}\stackrel{}{y}_{}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`x_{}y_++x_+y_{}+\eta ^2x_+y_+\stackrel{}{x}_{}\stackrel{}{y}_{}.`$
Obviously, the light-cone is approached as the parameter $`\eta `$ goes to zero. For non-zero $`\eta `$, the transition to the coordinates introduced above can be formally identified as a Lorentz-boost combined with a linear transformation, which avoids time dependent boundary conditions . The boost parameter $`\beta =v_3`$ is given by

$$\beta =\frac{1\eta ^2/2}{1+\eta ^2/2},$$
(3)
indicating that for $`\eta ^20`$ the relative velocity $`v_3c(1)`$. Of course, this is connected to the well-known interpretation of the ’tilted’ light-cone frame in terms of the infinite momentum frame.

The choice of near light cone coordinates allows to quantize the theory on a space-like finite interval of length $`L`$ in $`x^{}`$ at equal times, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^+=0`$. The invariant length squared of this interval for $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_{}^2=0`$ is related to the length of the compact $`x^{}`$ dimension.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }s^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}\mathrm{\Delta }x^++\mathrm{\Delta }x^+\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}\eta ^2(\mathrm{\Delta }x^{})^2\mathrm{\Delta }x_{}^2`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`\eta ^2L^2.`$
For simplicity we consider also the transverse dimensions periodic in $`L`$. Previous work of the St. Petersburg and Erlangen groups  assumed a fixed tilted coordinate system with fixed transverse ultraviolet cut off. Our main purpose in this paper is to consider the zero mode fields on a transverse lattice with varying transverse lattice spacing $`a`$. We propose to approach light-cone dynamics by synchronizing the continuum limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\pi /a\mathrm{}`$ with the light-cone limit $`x^+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x^0+x^3)`$. The vacuum fluctuations in the transverse directions induce a second order phase transition which allows to have a continuum limit of the lattice theory. Thereby we can eliminate the cut off in a controlled way, preserving the nontrivial vacuum structure.

The gauge fixing procedure in the modified light-cone gauge $`_{}A_{}=0`$ involves zero modes dependent on the transverse coordinates. These zero mode fields carry zero linear momentum $`p_{}`$ in near light cone coordinates, but finite amount of $`p_0+p_3`$. They correspond to ”wee” partons in the language of the original parton model of Feynman. In $`SU(2)`$ the zero mode fields $`a_{}(x_{})`$ are proportional to $`\tau ^3`$, i.e. they can be chosen color diagonal. The use of an axial gauge is very natural for the light-cone Hamiltonian even more so than in the equal-time Hamiltonian. The asymmetry of the background zero mode naturally coincides with the asymmetry of the space coordinates on the light cone. The zero mode fields describe disorder fields. Depending on the effective coupling the zero mode transverse system will be in the massive or massless phase. Its second order phase transition allows to perform the continuum limit in the zero mode Hamiltonian. Our main conjecture is that the continuum limit and light cone limit can be realized simultaneously at this critical point. The evolution of the coupling determines the approach to the light cone with transverse resolution approaching zero. The resulting relation is reminiscent of the simple behavior one gets from considering naive scaling relations and dynamics in the infinite momentum frame. We will also calculate the contribution of the two dimensional zero modes to the ground state energy and show that it scales with the three dimensional volume. This estimate demonstrates very simply the relevance of modes with lower dimensionality to the full problem in the case of critical second order behavior.

The naive considerations for a simultaneous light cone and continuum limit go as follows. We characterize the ’infinite’ momentum frame by giving the momenta of the proton and photon in usual coordinates. The fast moving proton carries $`(P,0_{},P)`$ and the photon $`q=(\frac{\nu M}{2P},\sqrt{Q^2},\frac{\nu M}{2P})`$, where $`\nu `$ is the energy transfer in the laboratory. The dominant contribution comes from energy conserving transitions, where the energy of the quark in the final state equals the sum of initial quark and photon energies. For collinear quarks with momentum $`p=(x_BP,0_{},x_BP)`$, where $`x_B`$ denotes the momentum fraction, one explicitly finds

$$\sqrt{Q^2+\left(x_BP\frac{\nu M}{2P}\right)^2}=x_BP+\frac{\nu M}{2P},$$
(5)
which yields the “scaling variable” $`x_B=\frac{Q^2}{2M\nu }`$ as long as $`PQ/x_B`$, i.e. the “infinite” momentum has to be large enough:

$$\gamma M=PQ=1/a.$$
(6)
At the same time, the photon has a wavelength $`1/Q`$ which resolves transverse details of size $`a`$ in the hadronic wavefunction. By eq. (3), the $`\gamma `$ factor of the “infinite” momentum is related to $`\eta `$. Therefore we expect that the parameter $`\eta `$ approaches zero with the transverse cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\pi /a\mathrm{}`$

$$\eta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\gamma }\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}aM0.$$
(7)
One of the objectives of this paper is to derive the precise relation between $`\eta `$ and $`a`$. We will simulate the zero mode dynamics on a $`(2+1)`$ dimensional lattice to find the fixed point of the effective coupling. The light-like limit is governed by an infrared fixed point (cf. ref. ). Most previous discussions of the zero mode problem have been on the classical equations of motion level, here we will work on the fully nonperturbative quantum level. Our work is not directly related to M-theory, but some of the consequences may be relevant for other studies with light like compactification.

## 2 Near Light Cone QCD Hamiltonian

In Ref.  the near light cone Hamiltonian has been derived. A similar Hamiltonian has been obtained in equal time coordinates . Here we will sketch the derivation. We restrict ourselves to the color gauge group $`SU(2)`$ and dynamical gluons; only an external (fermionic) charge density $`\rho _m`$ is considered here.

Since the $`A_+^a`$ coordinates have no momenta conjugate to them, the Weyl gauge $`A_+^a=0`$ is the starting point for a canonical formulation. The canonical momenta of the dynamical fields $`A_{}^a,A_i^a`$ are given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{F_+^a}}=F_+^a,`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{F_{+i}^a}}=F_i^a+\eta ^2F_{+i}^a.`$ (8)
¿From this, we get the Weyl gauge Hamiltonian density

$$_W=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^a\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^a+\frac{1}{2}F_{12}^aF_{12}^a+\frac{1}{2\eta ^2}\underset{i=1,2}{}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_i^aF_i^a\right)^2.$$
(9)
The Hamiltonian has to be supplemented by the original Euler–Lagrange equation for $`A_+`$ as constraints on the physical states (Gauss’ Law constraints)

$`G^a(x_{},x^{})|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(D_{}^{ab}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^b+D_{}^{ab}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^b+g\rho _m^a\right)|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\left(D_{}^{ab}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^b+G_{}^a\right)|\mathrm{\Phi }=0.`$
In order to obtain a Hamiltonian formulated in terms of unconstrained variables, one has to resolve the Gauss’ Law constraint. Via unitary gauge fixing transformations  a solution of Gauss’ Law with respect to components of the chromo–electric field $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$ can be accomplished. This gives a Hamiltonian independent of the conjugate gauge fields $`A_{}`$, i.e. the latter become cyclic variables. Classically this would correspond to the light front gauge $`A_{}=0`$. However, this choice is not legitimate if we want to consider the theory in a finite box. Instead, the (classical) Coulomb light front gauge $`_{}A_{}=0`$ is compatible with gauge invariance and periodic boundary conditions. The reason is that $`A_{}`$ carries information on the (gauge invariant) eigenvalues of the spatial Polyakov line matrix

$$\widehat{𝒫}(x_{})=P\mathrm{exp}\left[ig𝑑x^{}A_{}(x_{},x^{})\right],$$
(11)
which can be written in terms of a diagonal matrix with the zero mode field $`a_{}^3(x_{})\frac{\tau _3}{2}=a_{}(x_{})`$

$$\widehat{𝒫}(x_{})=V\mathrm{exp}\left[igLa_{}(x_{})\right]V^{}.$$
(12)
Obviously we have to keep these ‘zero modes’ $`a_{}(x_{})`$ as dynamical variables, while the other components of $`A_{}`$ are eliminated. The zero mode degrees of freedom are independent of $`x^{}`$ and, therefore, correspond to quantities with zero longitudinal momentum $`p_{}`$.

In order to eliminate the momentum $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$, conjugate to $`A_{}`$, by means of Gauss’ Law, one needs to ‘invert’ the covariant derivative $`D_{}`$ which simplifies to $`d_{}=_{}ig[a_{},..]`$. On the space of physical states one can simply make the replacement222The inversion of $`d_{}`$ can be explicitly performed in terms of its eigenfunctions, cf. (10).

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(x_{},x_{})p_{}(x_{})\left(d_{}^1\right)G_{}(x_{},y^{}).$$
(13)
The operator $`p_{}(x_{})`$ is also diagonal and $`p_{}^3(x_{})`$ is the momentum conjugate to the zero mode $`a_{}^3(x_{})`$. It has eigenvalue zero with respect to $`d_{}`$, i.e. $`d_{}p_{}=0`$, and is therefore not constrained.

The appearance of the zero modes implies a residual Gauss’ Law, which arises from the $`x_{}`$ integration over eq. (10) for the $`a=3`$ component using periodic boundary conditions in the $`x_{}`$ direction. This constraint on two dimensional fields can be handled in full analogy to QED, since it concerns the diagonal part of color space. A further Coulomb gauge fixing in the $`SU(2)`$ 3–direction eliminates the color neutral, $`x^{}`$–independent, two–dimensional longitudinal gauge field in favor of a neutral chromo–electric field

$$e_{}(x_{})=g_{}𝑑y^{}𝑑y_{}d(x_{}y_{})\left\{f^{3ab}A_{}^a(y_{},y^{})\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^b(y_{},y^{})+\rho _m^3(y_{},y^{})\right\}\frac{\tau ^3}{2}.$$
(14)
Here we use the periodic Greens function of the two dimensional Laplace operator

$$d(z_{})=\frac{1}{L^2}\underset{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{0}}{}\frac{1}{p_n^2}e^{ip_nz_{}},p_n=\frac{2\pi }{L}\stackrel{}{n},$$
(15)
where $`\stackrel{}{n}=(n_1,n_2)`$ and $`n_1,n_2`$ are integers.

As a remnant of the local Gauss’ Law constraints, a global condition

$$Q^3|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=𝑑y^{}𝑑y_{}\left\{f^{3ab}A_{}^a(y_{},y^{})\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^b(y_{},y^{})+\rho _m^3(y_{},y^{})\right\}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=0$$
(16)
emerges. The physical meaning of this equation is that the neutral component of the total color charge, including external matter as well as gluonic contributions, must vanish in the sector of physical states. It can be shown (see ) that there must be $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{12}(x_{})=0`$ everywhere in transverse space in order to avoid an infinite Coulomb energy. The two conditions together suggest that physical states have to be color singlets.

The final Hamiltonian density in the physical sector explicitly reads (in terms of unconstrained $`A_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$ obtained after a shift is made by subtracting averages)

$``$ $`=`$ $`\text{tr}\left[_1A_2_2A_1ig[A_1,A_2]\right]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta ^2}}\text{tr}\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_{}\left(_{}A_{}ig[a_{},A_{}]\right)\right]^2`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta ^2}}\text{tr}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}e_{}_{}a_{}\right]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L^2}}p_{}^3(x_{})p_{}^3(x_{})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2}}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑z^{}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑y^{}{\displaystyle \underset{p,q,n}{\overset{^{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_{qp}(x_{},z^{})G_{pq}(x_{},y^{})}{\left[\frac{2\pi n}{L}+g(a_q(x_{})a_p(x_{}))\right]^2}}e^{i2\pi n(z^{}y^{})/L},`$
where $`p`$ and $`q`$ are matrix labels for rows and columns, $`a_q=(a_{})_{qq}`$ and the prime indicates that the summation is restricted to $`n0`$ if $`p=q`$. The operator $`G_{}(x_{},x^{})`$ is defined as

$$G_{}=_{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}+gf^{abc}\frac{\tau ^a}{2}A_{}^b\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^c\frac{1}{L}e_{}^c\right)+g\rho _m.$$
(18)
The last two terms of the Weyl gauge Hamiltonian come from the original term $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^2`$ with squared electric field strengths in $`x^{}`$ direction. After elimination of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$ the zero mode part and the light cone Coulomb energy in the axial gauge remain. In the Coulomb term one sees the role of the zero mode fields as infrared regulators of the spatial momenta $`p_{}=2\pi n/L`$ which are quantized due to the compact interval $`L`$. Since the two dimensional theory has been Coulomb gauge fixed, the electric field $`\stackrel{}{e}_{}`$ replaces the canonical momentum of the longitudinal, neutral gauge field which has been eliminated.

We note that the terms containing $`\stackrel{}{e}_{}`$ and the momentum $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}`$, have the pre-factor $`1/\eta ^2`$. Physically this pre-factor signals the increase of transverse electric energies with the boost factor $`\gamma =(\sqrt{2}\eta )^1`$. The boost also couples transverse electric fields with transverse magnetic fields. In the light-cone limit the pre-factor diverges and the adjacent brackets become constraint equations. This reflects the corresponding reduction of the number of degrees of freedom if one goes exactly on the light cone. We do not follow this procedure, but keep a finite $`\eta `$ as a kind of Lagrange parameter.

A characteristic feature of an exact light-cone formulation is the triviality of the ground state. This may simplify explicit calculations, e.g. of the hadron spectrum. However, the light cone vacuum is definitely not trivial in the zero mode sector. In fact, already in ref  we have shown strong and weak coupling solutions of the zero mode Hamiltonian. Massless modes influence the dynamics in the light cone limit, whereas massive modes decouple when $`\eta 0`$. In contrast to earlier work, we solve the zero mode Hamiltonian in this paper numerically showing the transition from the massive phase to the massless phase.

The zero mode degrees of freedom $`a_{}`$ couple to the transverse three dimensional gluon fields $`A_i`$ via the second magnetic term in $``$, the Coulomb term and directly via the electric field $`\stackrel{}{e}_{}`$. We remark that the transverse electric fields $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{e}_{}`$ are dual to the magnetic fields $`_{}A_{}`$ and $`_{}a_{}`$. This duality is typical for the light cone and is absent in the equal time case. Since duality plays an important role in supersymmetric QCD its role in light cone theories should deserves to be investigated in greater detail.

In the following we neglect the couplings between the three and two dimensional fields and consider the pure zero mode Hamiltonian

$$h=d^2x\left[\frac{1}{2L}p_{}^3(\stackrel{}{x}_{})p_{}^3(\stackrel{}{x}_{})+\frac{L}{2\eta ^2}(_{}a_{}^3)^2\right].$$
(19)
The global constraint, eq. (16), does not contain $`a_{}`$ and $`p_{}`$ and, consequently, is irrelevant for the time being. Even at this level of severe approximations the zero mode Hamiltonian differs from the corresponding one in QED. The reason is the hermiticity defect of the canonical momentum $`p^{}`$. In the Schrödinger representation eq. (19)

$$h=d^2x\left[\frac{1}{2L}\frac{1}{J(a_{}^3(\stackrel{}{x}_{}))}\frac{}{a_{}^3(\stackrel{}{x}_{})}J\left(a_{}^3(\stackrel{}{x}_{})\right)\frac{}{a_{}^3(\stackrel{}{x}_{})}+\frac{L^2}{2\eta ^2}(_{}a_{}^3)^2\right],$$
(20)
contains the Jacobian $`J(a_{})`$ which equals the Haar measure of $`SU(2)`$

$$J\left(a_{}^3(\stackrel{}{x}_{})\right)=\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{gL}{2}a_{}^3(\stackrel{}{x}_{})\right).$$
(21)
It stems from the gauge fixing procedure, effectively introducing curvilinear coordinates. It also appears in the functional integration volume element for calculating matrix elements. It is convenient to introduce dimensionless variables

$$\phi (\stackrel{}{x}_{})=\frac{gLa_{}^3(\stackrel{}{x}_{})}{2},$$
(22)
which vary in a compact domain $`0\phi \pi `$. We regularize the above Hamiltonian $`h`$ by introducing a lattice spacing $`a`$ between transversal lattice points $`\stackrel{}{b}`$. Next we appeal to the physics of the infinite momentum frame and factorize the reduced true energy from the Lorentz boost factor $`\gamma =\sqrt{2}/\eta `$ and the cut off by defining $`h_{\mathrm{red}}`$

$$h=\frac{1}{2\eta a}h_{\mathrm{red}}$$
(23)
In the continuum limit of the transverse lattice theory we let $`a`$ go to zero. For small lattice spacing we obtain the reduced Hamiltonian

$$h_{\mathrm{red}}=\underset{\stackrel{}{b}}{}\left\{g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2\frac{1}{J}\frac{}{\phi (\stackrel{}{b})}J\frac{}{\phi (\stackrel{}{b})}+\frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}\underset{i=1,2}{}\left(\phi (\stackrel{}{b})\phi (\stackrel{}{b}+\stackrel{}{e}_i)\right)^2\right\}.$$
(24)
with the effective coupling constant

$$g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=\frac{g^2L\eta }{4a}$$
(25)
The first part of the Hamiltonian contains the kinetic (electric) energy of the $`SU(2)`$ rotators on a half circle at each lattice point and the second part gives the potential (magnetic) energy of these rotators due to the differences of angles at nearest neighbor sites. For further discussion we define these electric and magnetic parts as:

$`h_{\mathrm{red}}`$ $`=`$ $`h_\mathrm{e}+h_\mathrm{m}`$ (26)
$`h_\mathrm{e}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{b}}{}}h_\stackrel{}{b}^\mathrm{e}`$
$`h_\mathrm{m}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{b}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}h_{\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{b}+\stackrel{}{e}_i}^\mathrm{m}`$
In the strong coupling domain where we have analytical solutions of the zero mode Hamiltonian, the numerical Hamiltonian lattice theory agrees with the analytical solutions for the mass gap. The real question concerns the continuum limit of the zero mode system which occurs outside of the strong coupling region. For this purpose we have to find the region of vanishing mass gap for the lattice Hamiltonian.

## 3 Lattice Calculation of the Zero Mode Hamiltonian

We solve the equivalent lattice theory in a Euclidean formulation. The zero mode Hamiltonian represents a $`2+1`$ dimensional theory in two spatial and one time direction. The lattice has $`N_xa=N_ya`$ extensions in transverse space and $`N_T\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =T`$ extension in near light cone time. To set up the density matrix one has to write down the Trotter formula for the given Hamiltonian. Using $`h_{\mathrm{red}}=h_\mathrm{e}+h_\mathrm{m}`$ we have

$$\mathrm{exp}(Th_{\mathrm{red}})=\underset{N_T\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau h_\mathrm{m}/2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau h_\mathrm{e}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau h_\mathrm{m}/2\right)\right]^{N_T},$$
(27)
where each time evolution step $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ can be separately done for the electric and magnetic part of the Hamiltonian. For definiteness, we choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =a/2`$ in all the following. In the Appendix we show that this choice of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ optimizes the updating procedure since it generates approximately equal widths for the weight functions resulting from the kinetic and potential energies. The different time slices will labeled with the index $`l`$. The electric Hamiltonian can be evaluated by inserting products of complete set single site eigenfunctions $`C_{n_l}`$ (cf. ). Practically a maximal number $`N_{\mathrm{max}}=100`$ of eigenfunctions is fully sufficient to reach convergence in the interval of couplings we need.

$$\phi _{l+1}|h^\mathrm{e}|\phi _l=\underset{n_{l+1},n_l}{}\phi _{l+1}|n_{l+1}n_{l+1}|h^\mathrm{e}|n_ln_l|\phi _l\underset{n_l=0}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}C_{n_l}(\phi _{l+1})g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2n_l(n_l+2)C_{n_l}(\phi _l)$$
(28)
with the (single site) eigenfunctions and eigenvalues given as:

$`C_{n_l}(\phi _l)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left((n_l+1)\phi _l\right)}{\mathrm{sin}\phi _l}}\right\},`$ (29)
$`h^\mathrm{e}C_{n_l}(\phi _l)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2n_l(n_l+2)C_{n_l}(\phi _l).`$ (30)
The eigenfunctions form an orthonormal set with respect to a scalar product which contains the Jacobian in the measure. The Jacobian $`J\left(\phi (\stackrel{}{b})\right)`$ has been defined above (21). The magnetic part is diagonal in $`\{\phi (\stackrel{}{b})\}`$ i.e. local in time:

$$\{\phi _l(\stackrel{}{b})\}|h_\mathrm{m}|\{\phi _l(\stackrel{}{b})\}=h_\mathrm{m}(\{\phi _l(\stackrel{}{b})\})=\underset{\stackrel{}{b}}{}\underset{i=1,2}{}h_{\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{b}+\stackrel{}{e}_i}^\mathrm{m}\left(\phi _l(\stackrel{}{b})\phi _l(\stackrel{}{b}+\stackrel{}{e}_i)\right).$$
(31)
The full partition function is given by an integral over all time slices

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`\text{tr}\mathrm{exp}\left[Th_{\mathrm{red}}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{b}}{}\left(J(\phi (\stackrel{}{b}))d\phi (\stackrel{}{b})\right)\{\phi (\stackrel{}{b})\}|\mathrm{exp}\left[Th_{\mathrm{red}}\right]|\{\phi (\stackrel{}{b})\}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{b},l}{}\left(J(\phi (\stackrel{}{b}))d\phi (\stackrel{}{b})\underset{n_l=0}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}C_{n_l}(\phi _{l+1}(\stackrel{}{b}))\mathrm{exp}\left[g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2n_l(n_l+2)\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \right]C_{n_l}(\phi _l(\stackrel{}{b}))\right)}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[h_\mathrm{m}(\{\phi _l(\stackrel{}{b})\})\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \right].`$
Because of the Jacobian the dominant contributions to the partition function come from $`\phi _l`$ values around $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$. The Hamiltonian is invariant under reflections $`\phi _l\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{\pi }{2}\phi _l`$. In the strong coupling limit, where $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ is large, the half rotators act almost independently on each lattice site producing a large mass gap. The system is disordered. For decreasing coupling constant $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ the movement of the individual rotators becomes locked from one site to the next. Long range correlations develop. The order parameter (or “magnetization”) of the system is the expectation value of the trace of the Polyakov line (11), which on the lattice has the form

$$P=\overline{\frac{1}{2}tr\widehat{𝒫}}=\frac{1}{N^3}\underset{\stackrel{}{b},\tau }{}\mathrm{cos}\phi (\stackrel{}{b},\tau ).$$
(33)
The order parameter is odd under the above symmetry operation. Operator expectation values are evaluated with the density matrix defined by $`h_{\mathrm{red}}`$ and $`T`$:

$$O=\frac{1}{Z}\text{tr}O\mathrm{exp}[Th_{\mathrm{red}}].$$
(34)
At each particular $`\beta _g`$

$$\beta _g1/g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2$$
(35)
we simulate lattice sizes with equal number of sites in all directions $`N=N_x=N_y=N_T`$ and $`N=4,6,8,12,16`$. A Metropolis algorithm is used for updating with the steps size and the number of hits adapted to $`\beta _g`$. In order to tabulate the Boltzmann weights related to the timelike links we also discretized the continuous angle variables to a system of $`N_\phi =60`$ orientations: $`\phi _j=j\pi /N_\phi `$, $`j=[0,N_\phi ]`$.

In this explorative investigation we generated between $`5000`$ and $`50000`$ uncorrelated configurations depending on the $`\beta _g`$ and lattice size. All our calculations were done on a cluster of AlphaStations with the single site Metropolis updating algorithm sketched above, so the accuracy can be improved using a more powerful algorithms and/or more computing resources.

We calculate the $`\beta _g`$ dependence of the following quantities: average electric energy $`\epsilon _\mathrm{e}`$ and magnetic energy $`\epsilon _\mathrm{m}`$ per site, the average of the absolute value of the order parameter $`|P|`$, the susceptibility $`\chi `$ and the normalized fourth cumulant $`g_r`$ (which gives the deviation of the moments of the Polyakov expectation value from a pure Gaussian behavior):

$`\epsilon _{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{m}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}h_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{m}}`$ (36)
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`N^3\left(P^2P^2\right)`$ (37)
$`g_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P^4}{P^2^2}}3.`$ (38)
Firstly we calculated the ground state energy for strong couplings $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ and compared with the exact calculation . The obtained results from the lattice agree with the analytical result. For higher values of $`\beta _g`$ the lattice calculation agrees within $`1020\%`$ with the previous effective double site calculation for the energy per site. The ultraviolet regularization with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ influences the final lattice result. The energies are measured with high accuracy and practically do not depend on the infrared cutoff, i.e. on the total lattice size for $`N8`$. The situation for other variables is different.

In order to see the emergence of a massless phase, we investigated the (connected) time correlation functions of the (trace of the) Polyakov line operators:

$`K(0,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{b^{}}}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\phi (\stackrel{}{b},0))\mathrm{cos}(\phi (\stackrel{}{b}^{},\tau ))|P|^2.`$ (39)
The correlation masses are obtained from a fit of the time correlation functions $`K(0,\tau )|_{\tau =n\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }`$ to a parameterization taking the periodicity in time into account

$$K(0,n\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )=c\text{cosh}\left[m\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \left(n\frac{N_T}{2}\right)\right].$$
(40)
The obtained masses for different lattice sizes are shown in Fig.1a. For each fixed $`\beta _g`$ we extrapolated the mass to the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ using a linear $`1/N`$ parameterization

$$m(\beta _g,N)=m_0(\beta _g)+\frac{C(\beta _g)}{N}.$$
(41)
Our data for $`m(\beta _g,N)`$ can be fitted with this linear form (41) for $`\beta _g>3`$. The resulting dependence of $`m_0`$ on $`\beta _g`$ is presented in Fig.1b. The mass vanishes in the infinite volume limit near $`\beta 5`$, which is a first guess for the critical coupling $`\beta _g^{}`$.

In order to extract more exact information on the critical behavior

$$m(\beta _g)\left(\frac{1}{\beta _g}\frac{1}{\beta _g^{}}\right)^\nu .$$
(42)
from our data on small systems we have done a Finite Size Scaling (FSS)  analysis of the variables $`|P|`$, $`\chi `$ and $`g_r`$, searching for the critical coupling $`\beta _g^{}`$ in the interval $`3\beta _g9`$. We could determine the critical indices $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\nu `$ using an approach employed for $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory at the finite temperature transition by Engels et al. . The general form of the scaling relations for a variable $`V`$ ($`V`$ = $`|P|`$, $`\chi `$, $`g_r`$) is

$$V(t,N)=N^{\rho /\nu }F_V(tN^{1/\nu },g_iN^{y_i}),$$
(43)
where $`\rho `$ is the corresponding critical index ($`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, 0) for the respective quantities and $`t`$ is the reduced inverse coupling $`\beta _g`$:

$$t=\frac{\beta _g^{}\beta _g}{\beta _g}.$$
(44)
In practice eq. (43) is computed near $`t=0`$. Expanding up to first order in $`t`$ and taking into account only the largest irrelevant exponent $`y_1\omega `$ one obtains

$$V(t,N)=N^{\rho /\nu }\left[c_0+\left(c_1+c_2N^\omega \right)tN^{1/\nu }+c_3N^\omega \right].$$
(45)
With this parameterization we analyze our data for lattice sizes $`N=4,6,8,12,16`$. The $`\beta _g`$ dependence in eq. (45) is valid near the critical point. The quality of the fit to the data in different intervals on $`\beta _g`$ can serve as a guide to localize the critical point $`\beta _g^{}`$ . We find that in our case this parameterization can be applied for $`|P|`$ and $`\chi `$ only for $`\beta _g>5`$: for smaller $`\beta _g`$ the $`\chi ^2/D.F.`$ becomes too large. Finally we use the parameterization of eq. (45) in the interval $`5\beta _g9`$ (see Fig.2) where $`|t|<0.3`$ and an expansion of first order in $`t`$ still is applicable. In this $`\beta _g`$ interval the fits for $`|P|`$ and $`\chi `$ yield a $`\chi ^2/D.F2`$. To have a reliable error estimate for the extracted parameters we use the jackknife method. The results for $`\beta _c^{}`$ and critical indices $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\nu `$ are presented in Table 1. We use $`\omega =1`$, but in fact the results do not depend on $`\omega `$ in the interval $`0.8\omega 1.2`$.

It should be noticed that the system frequently flips between the two ordered states on a finite lattice. Therefore the expectation value $`P`$ in equation (37) vanishes with good accuracy. Analogously to the treatment of the magnetization in the 3-dimensional Ising model, we should - instead of the expression for $`\chi `$ in eq. (37) - define the susceptibility in the broken phase as $`\chi _{\mathrm{broken}}=N^3\left(P^2|P|^2\right)`$. For the Ising case this susceptibility is supposed to converge towards the correct infinite volume limit. Due to lack of statistics, however, we did not use separate expressions for $`\chi `$ in the two phases. Our data for $`g_r`$ are even much less accurate which excludes the possibility to use them in the FSS analysis.

The values found for the critical indices $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\nu `$ are not far from those of the Ising model ($`D=3`$) (see Table 1). They are much less accurate but also in agreement with a high statistics analysis  of the $`SU(2)`$ deconfinement transition at finite temperature. We interprete the behavior of the light cone zero mode theory as a consequence of the underlying $`Z(2)`$ symmetry of the Hamiltonian. $`Z(2)`$ transformations correspond to reflections of the angle variables $`\phi `$ around $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$. The Hamiltonian and the measure of eq. (17) are invariant under these transformations. The resulting critical behavior is common to Ising like models. The critical coupling itself is a nonuniversal quantity and we have found a rough value. More extended work with the lattice Hamiltonian near the light cone is needed to clarify the continuous transition further.

## 4 Conclusions

The scaling analysis gives indications that there is a second order transition between a phase with massive excitations at strong coupling and a phase with massless excitations in weak coupling. To reach a higher accuracy large scale simulations of the Hamiltonian zero mode system are needed. In this context it is advisable to treat the coupled system of three and two dimensional modes together. A calculation in the epsilon expansion  gives the zero of the $`\beta `$-function as an infrared stable fixed point. This shows that the limit of large longitudinal dimensions $`L`$ is well defined. Using the running coupling constant $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ of the zero mode system we have (cf. (42))

$$ma=\frac{1}{\zeta _0g_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\left(g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2g_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)^\nu $$
(46)
with $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=0.17\pm 0.03`$ and $`\nu =0.56\pm 0.05`$ from our lattice calculations (cf. Table 1). The mass can be interpreted as an inverse correlation length $`ma=a/\xi `$. When the correlation length $`\xi `$ approaches the temporal size of the lattice $`\xi N_Ta/2`$ in the infrared limit we can identify $`ma`$ with $`a/L`$, where $`L`$ is our infrared length scale. Therefore the effective coupling $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=g^2\eta \frac{L}{4a}`$ (cf. (25)) runs with $`a/L`$ in the following way

$$g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=g_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+\left(\zeta _0g_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)^{1/\nu }\left(\frac{a}{L}\right)^{1/\nu }.$$
(47)
The coupling to the three dimensional modes produces the usual evolution of $`g^2`$ in $`SU(2)`$ QCD, where the coupling $`g^2(a)`$ at the lattice scale $`a`$ is related to the coupling $`g_0^2`$ defined at the infrared scale $`L`$ as follows

$$g^2(a)=\frac{g_0^2}{1+\frac{g_0^2}{4\pi ^2}\frac{22}{3}\mathrm{log}\frac{L}{a}}.$$
(48)
Combining the eqs. (47) and (48) we can synchronize the approach to the light cone, i.e. the limit $`\eta 0`$ with the continuum limit $`a0`$. The condition that the three-dimensional evolution of $`g^2`$ has to be compatible with the two-dimensional evolution of $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ towards $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ yields that for $`a0`$ the light cone parameter $`\eta `$ approaches zero as

$$\eta (a)\frac{g_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{\pi ^2}\frac{22}{3}\frac{a}{L}\mathrm{log}\frac{L}{a}.$$
(49)
This relation is similar to the naive scaling result deduced in section $`1`$ from physics arguments besides logarithmic modification. Although at the outset we had as parameters $`N_L=L/a`$ and $`\eta `$ in the Hamiltonian we reduce this multiparameter problem to a problem with one single coupling constant which can be chosen as $`g`$.

We can use the energy and the critical behavior of the Euclidean $`2+1`$ dimensional system to obtain its contribution to the ground state energy of the system in $`3+1`$ dimensions. In our calculations the energy of the zero mode Hamiltonian $`h`$ near the critical coupling is proportional to $`N_{}^2/\eta `$. Using the scaling of $`\eta `$ determined from the compatibility of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional dynamics, we can eliminate $`\eta `$ in favor of $`N_L=L/a`$ and get a zero mode energy which grows linearly with the 3-dimensional volume. That means the zero mode dynamics becomes relevant for the full problem, i.e.

$$haN_LN_{}^2.$$
(50)
In reality the zero mode system is coupled to the $`3+1`$ dimensional system the extension of which is large. So we expect that the couplings of the $`2+1`$ dimensional system can get modified. Because of the universal dynamics near the infrared fixed point this will not change the qualitative form of the volume dependence obtained in eq. (50). The behavior of the zero mode Hamiltonian has to be taken into account when we try to solve for the infinite momentum frame solutions of the complete Hamiltonian. The discussion  until now often centers on the order of limits. In order to guarantee a meaningful limit of the near light cone theory, one first has to take $`L\mathrm{}`$ and then one can take $`\eta 0`$. This is a workable procedure in solvable $`1+1`$ dimensional models. In QCD in $`3+1`$ dimensions it hardly can serve as a prescription. Numerical solutions have to be obtained with a finite cutoff and the continuum limit can only be reached approximately via scaling relations. It is in this case that the role of zero mass excitations will crucially enter the physics. As one sees above the synchronization of the continuum limit with the light cone limit leads to results which are independent of the near light cone parameter $`\eta `$. The independence of the ground state energy near the critical coupling gives us back Lorentz invariance which states that the physics should not depend on the reference frame. The vacuum energy is not allowed to depend on $`\eta `$. There are dynamical zero modes in near light cone QCD which contain the physics of the nonperturbative QCD vacuum, the physics of the gluon and quark condensates. The nontrivial structure of the nonabelian gauge theory enters in our calculation through the kinetic operator of the rotators which at finite resolution have a finite mass gap vanishing only in the continuum limit.

The near light cone description of QCD based on a modified axial gauge $`_{}A_{}=0`$ yields a very natural formulation of high energy scattering. Polyakov variables near the light cone have already entered the calculations of high energy cross sections in two different ways: For the geometrical size of cross sections in ref. the correlations between Polyakov lines along the projectile and target directions are important. For this situation an interpolating gauge may be useful. For the energy dependence of cross sections an evolution equation of Polyakov line correlators approaching the light cone has been discussed in ref.  which generalizes the BFKL- equation. This situation is close to the treatment in this paper. Now the decisive step is to back up our theoretical work on effective transverse QCD dynamics near the light cone with phenomenological consequences for high energy scattering.

## Appendix

A choice of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ is proposed by comparing Monte-Carlo weights $`W_t`$ and $`W_s`$ which link nearest neighbors in time and space respectively

$`W_t(\phi _1,\phi _2)`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _1(x,y,\tau +1)|e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau h^\mathrm{e}}|\phi _2(x,y,\tau )\sqrt{J(\phi _1)J(\phi _2)},`$ (51)
$`W_s(\phi _1,\phi _2)`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _1(x+1,y,\tau )|e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau h^\mathrm{m}}|\phi _2(x,y,\tau ).`$ (52)
The probability distribution for the update of the field $`\phi (x,y,\tau )`$ is given by the product of weights for all links connecting it to neighbors in time and space. So the updating procedure for $`\phi `$ is more effective when $`W_t`$ and $`W_s`$ have similar distributions near the angle $`\phi =\pi /2`$ where the Jacobian has its maximum. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =a/10`$ (cf. Fig. 3a) the spatial weights $`W_s`$ have a much wider distribution than the timelike weights $`W_t`$, whereas for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =a`$ (cf. Fig. 3c) the situation is reverse. For the intermediate case $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =a/2`$ (cf. Fig. 3b) the widths of the distributions are very similar, therefore the updating procedure is optimal.


format: text

text:
# Gravitational Energy-Momentum Density in Teleparallel Gravity

\[

## Abstract

In the context of a gauge theory for the translation group, a conserved energy-momentum gauge current for the gravitational field is obtained. It is a true spacetime and gauge tensor, and transforms covariantly under global Lorentz transformations. By rewriting the gauge gravitational field equation in a purely spacetime form, it becomes the teleparallel equivalent of Einstein’s equation, and the gauge current reduces to the Møller’s canonical energy-momentum density of the gravitational field.

\]

The definition of an energy-momentum density for the gravitational field is one of the oldest and most controversial problems of gravitation. As a true field, it would be natural to expect that gravity should have its own local energy-momentum density. However, it is usually asserted that such a density can not be locally defined because of the equivalence principle . As a consequence, any attempt to identify an energy-momentum density for the gravitational field leads to complexes that are not true tensors. The first of such attempt was made by Einstein who proposed an expression for the energy-momentum density of the gravitational field which was nothing but the canonical expression obtained from Noether’s theorem . Indeed, this quantity is a pseudotensor, an object that depends on the coordinate system. Several other attempts have been made, leading to different expressions for the energy-momentum pseudotensor for the gravitational field .

Despite the existence of some controversial points related to the formulation of the equivalence principle , it seems true that, in the context of general relativity, no tensorial expression for the gravitational energy-momentum density can exist. However, as our results show, in the gauge context, the existence of an expression for the gravitational energy-momentum density which is a true spacetime and gauge tensor turns out to be possible. Accordingly, the absence of such expression should be attributed to the general relativity description of gravitation, which seems to be not the appropriate framework to deal with this problem .

In spite of some skepticism , there has been a continuous interest in this problem . In particular, a quasilocal approach has been proposed recently which is highly clarifying . According to this approach, for each gravitational energy-momentum pseudotensor, there is an associated superpotential which is a hamiltonian boundary term. The energy-momentum defined by such a pseudotensor does not really depend on the local value of the reference frame, but only on the value of the reference frame on the boundary of a region — then its quasilocal character. As the relevant boundary conditions are physically acceptable, this approach validates the pseudotensor approach to the gravitational energy-momentum problem. It should be mentioned that these results were obtained in the context of the general relativity description of gravitation.

In the present work a different approach will be used to re-examine the gravitational energy-momentum problem. Due to the fundamental character of the geometric structure underlying gauge theories, the concept of currents, and in particular the concepts of energy and momentum, are much more transparent when considered from the gauge point of view . Accordingly, we are going to consider gravity as described by a gauge theory . Our basic interest will be concentrated on the gauge theories for the translation group , and in particular on the so called teleparallel equivalent of general relativity . It is important to remark that this equivalence is true only in the absence of spinor matter fields .

Let us start by reviewing the fundamentals of the teleparallel equivalent of general relativity. We use the Greek alphabet $`(\mu ,\nu ,\rho ,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3)`$ to denote indices related to spacetime, and the Latin alphabet $`(a,b,c,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3)`$ to denote indices related to the tangent space (fiber), assumed to be a Minkowski space with the metric $`\eta _{ab}=\text{diag}(+1,1,1,1)`$. A gauge transformation is defined as a local translation of the tangent-space coordinates,

$$\delta x^a=\delta \alpha ^bP_bx^a,$$
(1)
with $`P_a=/x^a`$ the translation generators, and $`\delta \alpha ^a`$ the corresponding infinitesimal parameters. Denoting the gauge potentials by $`A^a_\mu `$, the gauge covariant derivative of a general matter field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is

$$𝒟_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }=h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}_{a}^{}\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(2)
where

$$h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}=_\mu x^a+c^2A^a_\mu $$
(3)
is a nontrivial tetrad field, with $`c`$ the speed of light. From the covariance of $`D_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }`$, we obtain the transformation of the gauge potentials:

$$A^a^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}=A^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}c^2_\mu \delta \alpha ^a.$$
(4)
As usual in abelian gauge theories, the field strength is given by

$$F^a{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=_\mu A^a{}_{\nu }{}^{}_\nu A^a{}_{\mu }{}^{},$$
(5)
which satisfies the relation

$$[𝒟_\mu ,𝒟_\nu ]\mathrm{\Psi }=c^2F^a{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}P_{a}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(6)
It is important to remark that, whereas the tangent space indices are raised and lowered with the metric $`\eta _{ab}`$, the spacetime indices are raised and lowered with the riemannian metric

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{ab}h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}h_{}^{b}{}_{\nu }{}^{}.$$
(7)
A nontrivial tetrad field induces on spacetime a teleparallel structure which is directly related to the presence of the gravitational field. In fact, given a nontrivial tetrad $`h^a_\mu `$, it is possible to define a Cartan connection

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=h_a{}_{}{}^{\rho }_{\nu }^{}h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{},$$
(8)
which is a connection presenting torsion, but no curvature . As a natural consequence of this definition, the Cartan covariant derivative of the tetrad field vanishes identically:

$$_\nu h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}_\nu h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\theta {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}h_{}^{a}{}_{\theta }{}^{}=0.$$
(9)
This is the absolute parallelism condition. The torsion of the Cartan connection is

$$T^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho {}_{\nu \mu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{},$$
(10)
from which we see that the gravitational field strength is nothing but torsion written in the tetrad basis:

$$F^a{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\text{ = }c^2h^a{}_{\rho }{}^{}T_{}^{\rho }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}.$$
(11)
The Cartan connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho _{\mu \nu }`$ and the Levi-Civita connection of the metric (7), denoted by $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}_{}{}^{\rho }_{\mu \nu }`$, are related by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}_{}{}^{\rho }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}+K^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{},$$
(12)
with

$$K^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}(T_\mu {}_{}{}^{\rho }{}_{\nu }{}^{}+T_\nu {}_{}{}^{\rho }{}_{\mu }{}^{}T^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{})$$
(13)
the contorsion tensor.

The gauge gravitational field Lagrangian is given by

$$_G=\frac{hc^4}{16\pi G}S^{\rho \mu \nu }T_{\rho \mu \nu },$$
(14)
where $`h=\mathrm{det}(h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{})`$, and

$`S^{\rho \mu \nu }=S^{\rho \nu \mu }\frac{1}{2}[K^{\mu \nu \rho }g^{\rho \nu }T^{\theta \mu }{}_{\theta }{}^{}+g^{\rho \mu }T^{\theta \nu }{}_{\theta }{}^{}]`$

is a tensor written in terms of the Cartan connection only. As usual in gauge theories, it is quadratic in the field strength. By using relation (12), this lagrangian can be rewritten in terms of the Levi-Civita connection. Up to a total divergence, the result is the Hilbert-Einstein Lagrangian of general relativity

$$=\frac{c^4}{16\pi G}\sqrt{g}\stackrel{}{R},$$
(15)
where the identification $`h=\sqrt{g}`$ has been made.

By performing variations in relation to the gauge field $`A_a^\rho `$, we obtain from the gauge lagrangian $`_G`$ the teleparallel version of the gravitational field equation,

$$_\sigma (hS_a{}_{}{}^{\sigma \rho })\frac{4\pi G}{c^4}(hj_a{}_{}{}^{\rho })=0,$$
(16)
where $`S_a{}_{}{}^{\sigma \rho }h_a{}_{}{}^{\lambda }S_{\lambda }^{}^{\sigma \rho }`$. Analogously to the Yang-Mills theories ,

$$hj_a{}_{}{}^{\rho }\frac{_G}{h^a_\rho }=\frac{c^4}{4\pi G}hh_a{}_{}{}^{\lambda }S_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \rho }T_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu \lambda }{}^{}h_a{}_{}{}^{\rho }_{G}^{}$$
(17)
stands for the gravitational gauge current, which in this case represents the energy and momentum of the gravitational field. The term $`(hS_a{}_{}{}^{\sigma \rho })`$ is called superpotential in the sense that its derivative yields the gauge current $`(hj_a{}_{}{}^{\rho })`$. Because of the anti-symmetry of $`S_a^{\sigma \rho }`$ in the last two indices, $`(hj_a{}_{}{}^{\rho })`$ is conserved as a consequence of the field equation:

$$_\rho (hj_a{}_{}{}^{\rho })=0.$$
(18)
Making use of the identity

$$_\rho hh\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu {}_{\nu \rho }{}^{}=h(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu {}_{\rho \nu }{}^{}K^\nu {}_{\rho \nu }{}^{}),$$
(19)
this conservation law can be rewritten as

$$D_\rho j_a{}_{}{}^{\rho }_\rho j_a{}_{}{}^{\rho }+(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho {}_{\lambda \rho }{}^{}K^\rho {}_{\lambda \rho }{}^{})j_a{}_{}{}^{\lambda }=0,$$
(20)
where $`D_\rho `$ is the teleparallel version of the covariant derivative, which is nothing but the Levi-Civita covariant derivative of general relativity rephrased in terms of the Cartan connection . As can be easily checked, $`j_a^\rho `$ transforms covariantly under a general spacetime coordinate transformation, and is invariant under local (gauge) translation of the tangent-space coordinates. This means that $`j_a^\rho `$ is a true spacetime and gauge tensor. However, it transforms covariantly only under a global tangent-space Lorentz transformation.

Let us now proceed further and find out the relation between the above gauge approach and general relativity. By using Eq. (8) to express $`_\rho h_a^\lambda `$, the field equation (16) can be rewritten in a purely spacetime form,

$$_\sigma (hS_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\sigma \rho })\frac{4\pi G}{c^4}(ht_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\rho })=0,$$
(21)
where now

$$ht_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\rho }=\frac{c^4}{4\pi G}h\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu {}_{\nu \lambda }{}^{}S_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \rho }+\delta _\lambda {}_{}{}^{\rho }_{G}^{}$$
(22)
stands for the teleparallel version of the canonical energy-momentum pseudotensor of the gravitational field. Despite not explicitly apparent, as a consequence of the local Lorentz invariance  of the gauge Lagrangian $`_G`$, the field equation (21) is symmetric in $`(\lambda \rho )`$. Furthermore, by using Eq. (12), it can be rewritten in terms of the Levi-Civita connection only. As expected, due to the equivalence between the corresponding Lagrangians, it is the same as Einstein’s equation:

$$\frac{h}{2}[\stackrel{}{R}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{R}]=0.$$
(23)
The canonical energy-momentum pseudotensor $`t_\lambda ^\rho `$ is not simply the gauge current $`j_a^\rho `$ with the algebraic index “$`a`$” changed to the spacetime index “$`\lambda `$”. It incorporates also an extra term coming from the derivative term of Eq. (16):

$$t_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\rho }=h^a{}_{\lambda }{}^{}j_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\rho }+\frac{c^4}{4\pi G}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu {}_{\lambda \nu }{}^{}S_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \rho }.$$
(24)
We see thus clearly the origin of the connection-term which transforms the gauge current $`j_a^\rho `$ into the energy-momentum pseudotensor $`t_\lambda ^\rho `$. Through the same mechanism, it is possible to appropriately exchange further terms between the derivative and the current terms of the field equation (21), giving rise to different definitions for the energy-momentum pseudotensor, each one connected to a different superpotential $`(hS_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\rho \sigma })`$. Like the gauge current $`(hj_a{}_{}{}^{\rho })`$, the pseudotensor $`(ht_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\rho })`$ is conserved as a consequence of the field equation:

$$_\rho (ht_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\rho })=0.$$
(25)
However, in contrast to what occurs with $`j_a^\rho `$, due to the pseudotensor character of $`t_\lambda ^\rho `$, this conservation law can not be rewritten with a covariant derivative.

Because of its simplicity and transparency, the teleparallel approach to gravitation seems to be much more appropriate than general relativity to deal with the energy problem of the gravitational field. In fact, Møller already noticed a long time ago that a satisfactory solution to the problem of the energy distribution in a gravitational field could be obtained in the framework of a tetrad theory. In our notation, his expression for the gravitational energy-momentum density is

$$ht_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\rho }=\frac{}{_\rho h^a_\mu }_\lambda h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}+\delta _\lambda {}_{}{}^{\rho },$$
(26)
which is nothing but the usual canonical energy-momentum density yielded by Noether’s theorem. Using for $``$ the gauge Lagrangian (14), it is an easy task to verify that Møller’s expression coincides exactly with the teleparallel energy-momentum density appearing in the field equation (21-22). Since $`j_a^\rho `$ is a true spacetime tensor, whereas $`t_\lambda ^\rho `$ is not, we can say that the gauge current $`j_a^\rho `$ is an improved version of the Møller’s energy-momentum density $`t_\lambda ^\rho `$. Mathematically, they can be obtained from each other by Eq. (24). It should be remarked, however, that both of them transform covariantly only under global tangent-space Lorentz transformations. This is, we believe, the farthest one can go in the direction of a tensorial definition for the energy and momentum of the gravitational field. The lack of a local Lorentz covariance can be considered as the teleparallel manifestation of the pseudotensor character of the gravitational energy-momentum density in general relativity. Accordingly, we can say that, if it were possible to define a local Lorentz covariant gauge current in the teleparallel gravity, the corresponding general relativity energy-momentum density would be represented by a true spacetime tensor.

The results can be summarized as follows. In the context of a gauge theory for the translation group, we have obtained an energy-momentum gauge current $`j_a^\rho `$ for the gravitational field which transforms covariantly under spacetime general coordinate transformations, and is invariant under local (gauge) translations of the tangent-space coordinates. This means essentially that $`j_a^\rho `$ is a true spacetime and gauge tensor. By rewriting the gauge field equation in a purely spacetime form, it becomes equivalent to Einstein’s equation of general relativity, and the gauge current $`j_a^\rho `$ reduces to the canonical energy-momentum pseudotensor of the gravitational field, which coincides with Møller’s well-known expression. In the ordinary context of general relativity, therefore, the energy-momentum density for the gravitational field will always be represented by a pseudotensor.

According to the quasilocal approach, to any energy-momentum pseudotensor there is an associated superpotential which is a hamiltonian boundary term . On the other hand, the teleparallel field equations explicitly exhibit both the superpotential and the gravitational energy-momentum complex. We see then that, in fact, by appropriately exchanging terms between the superpotential and the current terms of the field equation (21), it is possible to obtain different gravitational energy-momentum pseudotensors with their associated superpotentials. In this context, our results can be rephrased according to the following scheme. First, notice that the left-hand side of the field equation (21) as a whole is a true tensor, though each one of its two terms is not. Then if we extract the spurious part from the first term — so that it becomes a true spacetime and gauge tensor — and add this part to the second term — the energy-momentum density — it becomes also a true spacetime and gauge tensor. We thus arrive at the gauge-type field equation (16), with $`(hS_a{}_{}{}^{\sigma \rho })`$ as the superpotential, whose corresponding expression for the conserved energy-momentum density for the gravitational field, given by $`j_a^\rho `$, though transforming covariantly only under a global tangent-space Lorentz transformation, is a true spacetime and gauge tensor.

The authors would like to thank FAPESP-Brazil, CAPES-Brazil and CNPq-Brazil for financial support.


text:
# Inclusive jet production on the nucleus in the perturbative QCD with 𝑁_𝑐→∞

## 1 Introduction

In the colour dipole approach of A.H.Mueller  with $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ the interaction with a heavy nucleus is exactly described by the sum of fan diagrams constructed of BFKL pomerons, each of them splitting into two . The equation for this sum \[3-6\] has recently been studied perturbatively in , by asymptotic estmates in  and finally solved numerically in . The results indicate that the cross-section of a particle on the nucleus saturates at high energies to its geometrical value $`2\pi R_A^2`$ corresponding to the scattering on a black disk. In itself this is not a very surprising result: since the days of the old Regge-Gribov theory it has been known that the supercritical pomeron fan diagrams with a triple pomeron vertex lead to a constant cross-section . The new elements in the recent developments is that it has been understood that in the high-colour limit no splitting of the pomeron in more than two occurs and that the fan diagrams seem to be unitary by themselves so that they indeed represent the full scattering amplitude on the nucleus.

An interesting byproduct of the numerical solution in  is the found gluon density of the nucleus in the combined momentum-impact parameter space

$$\frac{xG(x,q,b)}{^2q^2b}=\frac{N_c}{2\alpha _s\pi ^2}h(y,q,b)$$
(1)
where the rapidity $`y`$ is related to $`x`$ by

$$y=\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{x}$$

Function $`h`$ defined via the sum of BFKL fan diagrams below (Section 2) and found in  numerically is a soliton wave in $`y\mathrm{ln}q`$ space moving towards higher rapidities with a constant velocity and preserving its nearly Gaussian shape. A fit to numerical data gives

$$h(y,q,b)=h_0e^{a(\xi \xi _0(y,b))^2}$$
(2)
where $`\xi =\mathrm{ln}q`$, $`h_00.3`$ and $`a0.3`$ are universal and $`\xi _0`$ is nearly linear in $`y`$:

$$\xi _0=c(b)+\mathrm{\Delta }_0y,\mathrm{\Delta }_0=2.3\overline{\alpha }$$
(3)
where we standardly define $`\overline{\alpha }=\alpha _sN_c/\pi `$. The term $`c(b)`$ actually depends on a dimensionless parameter $`B`$:

$$B=\pi \alpha _s^2AT(b)R_N^2$$

where $`R_N`$ is the nucleon radius and $`T(b)`$ is the nucleus profile function. Numerical results for $`c(b)`$ are well described by

$$c(b)=3.11+(2/3)\mathrm{ln}B$$

Actually the gluon density does not really show itself in the total scattering cross-section at high rapidities. As mentioned, the cross-section becomes purely geometrical and insenstive to any dynamics. One expects however that the gluon density will be directly felt in production processes, where it is responsible for hard collisions giving rise to observable jets.

In this paper we study simplest of the production processes: the single and double inclusive jet production in hA collisions. It has to be noted that these observables were also studied for the fan diagrams in the old Regge-Gribov theory. The most important conclusion which was drawn from this study is that the multiplicities are strongly damped, as compared to the naive eikonal result. For hA scattering one obtains a multiplicity independent of $`A`$ (instead of $`A^{1/3}`$). As we shall see this result does not hold for the BFKL fan diagrams: the jet production rate grows with $`A`$ although somewhat slowlier than in the eikonal approach, approximately as $`A^{2/9}`$. The energy dependence remains esentially the same as in older studies: the production rate grows with rapidity $`Y`$ essentially as $`\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{\Delta }Y`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the BFKL intercept. With $`\alpha _s0.2`$ its value is close to 0.5, so that the multiplicities reach very high values at rapidities in the region $`20÷30`$.

## 2 Single jet inclusive production

In the BFKL framework, at fixed impact parameter $`b`$, a single scattering contribution to the forward ampitude for the interaction of the projectile particle with a nucleus has a form

$$𝒜_1(Y,b)=isg^4AT(b)d^2r_1d^2r_2\rho (r)G(Y,r_1,r_2)\rho _N(r_2)2isd^2r_1\rho (r_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(y,r_1,b)$$
(4)
Here $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _N`$ are the colour densities of the projectile and the target nucleon respectively. Function $`G`$ is the forward BFKL Green function  taken at an overall rapidity $`Y`$

$$G(Y,r,r^{})=\frac{rr^{}}{32\pi ^2}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}e^{in(\varphi \varphi ^{})}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\nu e^{Y\omega (\nu )}}{[\nu ^2+(n1)^2/4][\nu ^2+(n+1)^2/4]}(r/r^{})^{2i\nu },$$
(5)
where $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ are the azimuthal angles and

$$\omega (\nu )=\overline{\alpha }(\psi (1)\mathrm{Re}\psi (1/2+i\nu ))$$
(6)
are the BFKL levels. Due to the azimuthal symmetry of the projectile colour density one may retain only the term with zero orbital momenta $`n=0`$ in (5). The corresponding inclusive jet production rate

$$I(y,k,b)\frac{(2\pi )^2\sigma }{y^2k^2b}$$
(7)
is obtained from the imaginary part of (4) divided by $`s`$ after the substitution

$$G(Y,r_1,r_2)d^2rG(y_1,r_1,r)V_k(r)G(y,r,r_2)$$
(8)
where $`r`$’s are relative distances between the gluons and $`V_k(r)`$ is a vertex for the emission

$$V_k(r)=\frac{4N_c\alpha _s}{k^2}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}e^{ikr}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(9)
local in $`r`$ (a differential operator, the arrows shows the direction of its action). The rapidity of the produced jet relative to the projectile is $`y_1=Yy`$.

As mentioned, in the limit $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ the total scattering amplitude which includes multiple interactions in the target is given by the sum of fan diagrams shown in Fig 1. To obtain the corresponding inclusive cross-section, one has to make the substitition (8) in one of the pomerons. However due to the well-known AGK rules all such substitutions in the pomerons below the upper splitting point (Fig. 2a) cancel, since the other branch, counting from the upper point, can be both ”cut” and ”uncut” (i.e. represent both real and virtual processes). The only left contribution is the one with the substitution (8) in the uppermost pomeron (Fig. 2b). It is clearly seen from Fig. 2b that the vertex $`V_k`$ is coupled from below to exactly the full amplitude $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y,r,b)`$ which multiplies the projectile density in Fig. 1 and substitutes the single pomeron exchange contribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(Y,r_1,b)`$ in (4). Thus one obtains the inclusive cross-section for jet production on the nucleus at fixed $`b`$ as

$$I(y,k,b)=2d^2r^{}d^2r\rho (r^{})G(y_1,r^{},r)V_k(r)\mathrm{\Phi }(y,r,b)$$
(10)
The total inclusive production rate as a function of $`y`$ and $`k`$ is obtained from (10) after the integration over $`b`$

Function $`\varphi (y,r,b)=\mathrm{\Phi }(y,r,b)/(2\pi r^2)`$, in the momentum space, satisfies a nonlinear equation

$$\frac{\varphi (y,q,b)}{\stackrel{~}{y}}=H\varphi (y,q,b)\varphi ^2(y,q,b),$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{y}=\overline{\alpha }y`$ and $`H`$ is the BFKL Hamiltonian for the so-called semi-amputated function . As mentioned in the Introduction, this equation was solved numerically in .

The Laplace operator in (9) acting on $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y,r,b)`$ gives

$$_r^2\mathrm{\Phi }(y,r,b)=2\pi _r^2r^2\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}e^{iqr}\varphi (y,q,b)=2\pi _r^2\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}e^{iqr}_q^2\varphi (y,q,b)$$

$$=2\pi \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}e^{iqr}q^2_q^2\varphi (y,q,b)=2\pi h(y,r,b)$$
(12)
Note that in the integration by parts used to obtain the second expression one has to be careful, since function $`\varphi (y,q,b)`$ has a logarithmic singularity at $`q=0`$ of the form $`\mathrm{ln}q`$. As a result, action of the Laplacian operator in $`q`$ generates a $`\delta ^2(q)`$ term which in its turn leads to a constant in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (actually unity). However this term is annihilated by the Laplacian operator in $`r`$, so that no extra term arises from the intergration by parts.

Function $`h(y,q,b)`$, which is the gluon density, up to a trivial factor (Eq. (1)) is just a Fourier transform of $`h(y,r,b)`$:

$$h(y,q,b)=q^2_q^2\varphi (y,q,b)$$
(13)
So we find the inclusive cross-section in the form

$$I(y,k,b)=\frac{16\pi \alpha _sN_c}{k^2}d^2r^{}d^2r\rho (r^{})_r^2G(y_1,r^{},r)e^{irk}h(y,r,b)$$
(14)
We observe that the definition of $`h(y,q,b)`$ as the gluon density introduced in  is supported by its role in the jet production on the nucleus.

Applying the Laplace operator to the Green function (5) (with only $`n=0`$ terms retained) we obtain

$$_r^2G(y_1,r^{},r)=\frac{r^{}}{8\pi ^2r}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\nu e^{y_1\omega (\nu )}}{(\nu +i/2)^2}(r^{}/r)^{2i\nu },$$
(15)
We are going to study the production rate at $`y_1>>1`$, that is far from the projectile fragmentation region. Then we can use the asymptotics of (15) at high $`y_1`$, which comes from $`\nu 0`$. Presenting $`\omega (\nu )`$ in the standard manner

$$\omega (\nu )=\mathrm{\Delta }y\beta \nu ^2$$
(16)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\overline{\alpha }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\mathrm{ln}2,\mathrm{and}\beta =\overline{\alpha }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}14}\zeta (3)$$
(17)
we get for (15)

$$_r^2G(y_1,r^{},r)\frac{r^{}}{2\pi ^2r}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }y_1}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\beta y_1}}$$
(18)
With (18), integration over $`r^{}`$ converts $`r^{}`$ into the average transverse dimension of the projectile $`r_P=R_P`$. Doing the integration over $`r`$ we obtain

$$I(y,k,b)=\frac{8\overline{\alpha }}{k^2}R_Pe^{\mathrm{\Delta }y_1}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\beta y_1}}F(y,k,b)$$
(19)
where

$$F(y,k,b)=\frac{d^2r}{r}e^{ikr}h(y,r,b)=\frac{d^2q}{2\pi }\frac{h(y,q,b}{|k+q|}$$
(20)
As mentioned in the Introduction, the gluon density $`h(y,q,b)`$ has a sharp peak at $`q=q_0(y,b)=\mathrm{exp}\xi _0(y,b)`$ and is practically zero everywhere else. With growing $`y`$ $`q_0(y,b)`$ grows exponentially, so that at high $`y`$ we can safely neglect $`k`$ in the denominator of (20) as compared to $`q`$. Then $`F`$ becomes independent of $`k`$ and given by

$$F(y,b)=\frac{d^2q}{2\pi q}h(y,q,b)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\xi qh(y,q,b)$$
(21)
where $`\xi =\mathrm{ln}q`$. One easily finds that

$$𝑑\xi h(y,q,b)=1$$
(22)
Indeed Eq. (13) can be rewritten as

$$h(y,q,b)=\frac{d^2}{d\xi ^2}\varphi (y,q,b)$$
(23)
Putting (23) into (21) and taking into account that at $`\xi +\mathrm{}`$ $`\varphi =const\xi `$ and at $`\xi +\mathrm{}`$ $`\varphi 0`$ we obtain (22). So (21) in fact has a meaning of the average gluon momentum in the nucleus $`q`$. Since $`h`$ has a sharp maximun at $`\xi =\xi _0(y,b)`$ given by (3) one expects that $`F(y,b)`$ will approximately be given just by $`q_0(y,b)`$. Numerical integration gives more accurate values which are well fitted by the formula similar to (3) but with slightly different parameters:

$$F(y,b)=q_1(y,b)=1.2B^{2/3}\frac{e^{\mathrm{\Delta }_1y}}{R_N\sqrt{y}},\mathrm{\Delta }_1=2.38\overline{\alpha }$$
(24)
With this approximate form of $`F`$ we find the final expression for the inclusive rate production (in (GeV/c)<sup>-2</sup>)

$$I(y,k,b)=1.2\frac{8\overline{\alpha }}{k^2}\frac{R_P}{R_N}[\pi \alpha _s^2AT(b)R_N^2]^{2/3}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Yϵy}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\beta y(Yy)}}$$
(25)
where

$$ϵ=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_1=0.39\overline{\alpha }$$

and is relatively small. As we observe, the inclusive jet production is maximal in nucleus fragmentation region and slowly falls as one moves to higher $`y`$.

Since the total hA cross-section saturates at large $`Y`$ an immediate consequence of (25) is that the multiplicity grows like $`\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{\Delta }Y`$, that is, as the cross-section generated by a single pomeron exchange. This conclusion is also true for the inclusive production from the sum of fan diagrams in the old Regge-Gribov theory with a local pomeron. However this theory predicts a much stronger $`y`$-dependence, corresponding to (25) with $`ϵ=\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

As to the $`A`$-dependence, a novel element in the BFKL fan diagrams is factor $`[\pi \alpha _s^2AT(b)R_N^2]^{2/3}`$. For a nucleus with constant density inside a sphere of radius $`R_A=A^{1/3}R_0`$ its integration over all $`b`$ leads to a factor

$$2\pi R_A^2A^{2/9}\frac{3}{8}\gamma ,\gamma =\left(\frac{3}{2}\frac{R_N^2}{R_0^2}\right)^{2/3}$$
(26)
Since the total hA cross-section at large $`Y`$ saturates to its black-disc limit $`2\pi R_A^2`$ the jet multiplicity results proportional to $`A^{2/9}`$:

$$\mu (y,k)=\frac{1}{\sigma _{hA}^{tot}}d^2bI(y,k,b)=1.2A^{2/9}\frac{3\overline{\alpha }}{k^2}\frac{R_P}{R_N}\gamma e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Yϵy}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\beta y(Yy)}}$$
(27)
So unlike the fan diagrams in the old Regge-Gribov theory, the BFKL model predicts rising of the multiplicities with $`A`$, although somewhat weaker than according to the eikonal model ($`A^{1/3}`$).

Although the gluon distribution in the nucleus results radically changed as compared to the single nucleon, in particular, strongly damped at small momenta, this seems to have no effect on the $`k`$-dependence of the jet production rate at moderate $`k<<q_1(y,b)`$: it remains proportional to $`1/k^2`$ and growing as $`k0`$. The inclusive cross-section integrated over all $`k`$ remains infinite, as for a single BFKL pomeron exchange. Thus discussing the integrated cross-section we have to cutoff the spectrum from below by some $`k_{min}`$. The formal expression for this cross-section can be trivially found integrating (19) over all $`k>k_{min}`$. A simple estimate of its magnitude can be made in the logarithmic approximation in the large parameter $`q_1(y,b)/k_{min}`$. Evidently

$$\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2k^2}F(y,k,b)\theta (kk_{min})=\frac{d^2q}{2\pi }h(y,q,b)\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2k^2}\frac{1}{|k+q|}\theta (kk_{min})$$

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{d^2q}{2\pi q}h(y,q,b)\mathrm{ln}(q/k_{min})=\frac{1}{2\pi }q\mathrm{ln}(q/k_{min})$$
(28)
So, up to factor $`1/2\pi `$, integration over $`k`$ leads to the average value of $`q\mathrm{ln}(q/k_{min})`$ in the nucleus. Approximating it by $`q_1(y,b)\mathrm{ln}(q_1(y,b)/k_{min})`$, so that for fixed $`b`$ one finds

$$I(y,b)\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\theta (kk_{min})=\frac{4\overline{\alpha }}{\pi }R_Pe^{\mathrm{\Delta }(Yy)}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\beta (Yy)}}q_1(y,b)\mathrm{ln}\frac{q_1(y,b)}{k_{min}}$$
(29)
with $`q_1(y,b)`$ given by (24).

At high $`y`$ the logarithmic factor reduces to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1y`$. Its effect, opposite to the exponential, is to flatten the distribution $`I(y)`$ as compared to $`I(y,k)`$. The $`A`$ dependence evidently becomes somewhat stronger. Numerical integration of $`I(k,y,b)`$ with function $`h`$ found in  gives results which more or less agree with this approximate estimates. At $`\overline{\alpha }Y=6`$ for lead ($`A=207`$) we obtain multiplicities which in the region $`2\overline{\alpha }y5`$ very slowly grow from $`\mathrm{1.13\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$ to $`\mathrm{1.26\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$. The found $`A`$ dependence can be fitted by $`A^{0.26}`$. The large magnitude of the multiplicity is due to the exponential factor $`\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{\Delta }Y=\mathrm{exp}(\overline{\alpha }Y4\mathrm{ln}2)`$.

## 3 Double inclusive cross-sections

Passing to double inclusive cross-sections and using the AGK rules we find two contributions schematically shown in Figs. 3 a,b.

A simpler contribution Fig. 3a corresponds to emission of both gluons from the upper pomeron. To obtain it we have to make two insertions (8) in the upper BFKL Green function. We get

$$I_a(y_1,k_1,y_2,k_2,b)\left[\frac{(2\pi )^4\sigma }{y_1^2k_1y_2d^2k_2^2b}\right]_{Fig.3a}$$

$$=2d^2r^{}d^2r_1d^2r_2\rho (r^{})G(Yy_1,r^{},r_1)V_{k_1}(r_1)G(y_1y_2,r_1,r_2)V_{k_2}(r_2)\mathrm{\Phi }(y_2,r_2,b)$$
(30)
where we assumed that $`Y>>y_1>>y_2>>1`$ in the lab. system.

The only new element in this equation is the second BFKL Green function with Laplacians applied in both coordinates. Using (5) we find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2G(y,r_1,r_2)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2r_1r_2}𝑑\nu e^{y\omega (\nu )}\left(\frac{r_1}{r_2}\right)^{2i\nu }$$
(31)
Combining this with (15) for the first Green function (with the integration variable $`\nu _1`$) we find an integral over $`r_1`$:

$$d^2r_1e^{ik_1r_1}r_1^{22i\nu +2i\nu _1}=\pi (k_1/2)^{2i(\nu \nu _1)}\frac{1}{i(\nu _1\nu i0)}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+i\nu _1i\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1i\nu _1+i\nu )}$$
(32)
As before we limit ourserlves with the leading contribution as both $`Yy_1`$ and $`y_1y_2`$ become large, which correspond to small values of both $`\nu `$ and $`\nu _1`$. Correspondingly we put $`\nu =\nu _1=0`$ everywhere except in the exponents $`\omega (\nu _1)(Yy_1)`$ and $`\omega (\nu )(y_1y_2)`$ and in the denominator of (32). We find that only the real part of (32) contributes, which is equivalent to taking

$$\frac{1}{i(\nu _1\nu i0)}\pi \delta (\nu _1\nu )$$

Using (16) we finally get for the double inclusive cross-section (30)

$$I_a(y_1,k_1,y_2,k_2,b)=16\pi R_P\frac{\overline{\alpha }^2}{k_1^2k_2^2}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }(Yy_2)}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\beta (Yy_2)}}F(y_2,k_2,b)$$
(33)
where function $`F(y,k,b)`$ was defined in Section 2 (Eq.(20)). A remarkable feature of this cross-section is that it depends only on the rapidity of the slowlier jet $`y_2`$ and does not depend on $`y_1`$ altogether. In the approximation (24) the dependence on $`y_2`$ results the same as for the single inclusive cross-section, namely $`\mathrm{exp}(ϵy_2)`$, so that the cross-section slowly diminishes as $`y_2`$ increases.

Using approximation (24), integrating over $`b`$ and dividing by $`\sigma _{hA}^{tot}`$ we get the corresponding multiplicity distribution

$$\mu _a(y_1,k_1,y_2,k_2)=1.2A^{2/9}6\pi \frac{R_P}{R_N}\gamma \frac{\overline{\alpha }^2}{k_1^2k_2^2}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Yϵy_2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\beta y_2(Yy_2)}}$$
(34)
where $`\gamma `$ was defined in (26).

The second contribution (Fig. 3b) corresponds to emission of both jets just after the first splitting of the upper pomeron. To write it we first take the contribution from all non-trivial fan diagrams to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(Y,r^{},b)=\frac{g^2N_c}{8\pi ^3}_0^Y𝑑y^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}d^2x_i\delta ^2(x_1+x_2+x_3)$$

$$\frac{x_3^2_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}{x_1^2x_2^2}G(Yy^{},r^{},x_3)\mathrm{\Phi }(y^{},x_1,b)\mathrm{\Phi }(y^{},x_2,b).$$
(35)
where we denoted $`x_i,i=1,2,3`$ the transverse coordinates of the triple pomeron vertex. According to the AGK rules the corresponding contribution to the absorptive part with both lower branches cut is twice (35) with the opposite sign. To finally obtain the double inclusive cross-section we have to insert into both $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s on the right-hand side verteces $`V_k(r)`$ as was done in (10). In this way we obtain the second part of the double inclusive cross-section as

$$I_b(y_1,k_1,y_2,k_2,b)=\frac{g^2N_c}{2\pi ^3}d^2r^{}\rho (r^{})d^2r_1d^2r_2_{y_1}^Y𝑑y^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}d^2x_i\delta ^2(x_1+x_2+x_3)$$

$$\frac{x_3^2_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}{x_1^2x_2^2}G(Yy^{},r^{},x_3)G(y^{}y_1,x_1,r_1)V_{k_1}(r_1)\mathrm{\Phi }(y_1,r_1,b)G(yy_2,x_2,r_2)V_{k_2}\mathrm{\Phi }(y_2,r_2,b).$$
(36)
We again assume $`Y>>y_1>>y_2>>1`$ so that the rapidity of the splitting point $`y^{}`$ varies from $`y_1`$ to $`Y`$.

We easily find

$$x_3^2_3^4G(y,r^{},x_3)=\frac{r^{}}{2\pi ^2x_3}𝑑\nu _3e^{y\omega (\nu _3)}\left(\frac{r^{}}{x_3}\right)^{2i\nu _3}$$
(37)
Using this and representation (15) for the other two BFKL Green functions we find an integral over $`x_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$

$$J(\nu _i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}d^2x_i\delta ^2(x_1+x_2+x_3)\frac{1}{x_1x_2x_3}x_1^{2i\nu _1}x_2^{2i\nu _2}x_3^{2i\nu _3}$$
(38)
This integral diverges at large $`x_i`$’s for real $`\nu `$’s. In fact, presenting the $`\delta `$ function as an integral over momentum $`q`$ we find

$$J=2\pi \underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}2^{2i\nu _l}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2i\nu _l)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2+i\nu _l)}\frac{d^2q}{q^3}q^{2i(\nu _1+\nu _2+\nu _3)}$$
(39)
which does not exist for real $`\nu `$ due to the divergence at $`q=0`$. To overcome this difficulty we have to shift the integration contours in $`\nu `$’s into the lower half-plane, using the fact that integrands are analytic in the strip $`i/2<\mathrm{Im}\nu <+i/2`$. We choose to do it in a symmetric manner putting

$$\nu _i=i/6+\overline{\nu }_i,i=1,2,3$$
(40)
With such a choice we get an extra factor $`q`$ in the integral over $`q`$, which then gives a $`\delta `$ function:

$$J=\pi ^2\underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2i\nu _l)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2+i\nu _l)}\delta (\overline{\nu }_1+\overline{\nu }_2+\overline{\nu }_3)$$
(41)
Now we pass to the integration over the rapidity of the splitting point. The integral is done trivially:

$$_{y_1}^Y𝑑y^{}e^{y(\omega _1+\omega _2\omega _3)}=\frac{e^{Y(\omega _1+\omega _2\omega _3)}e^{y_1(\omega _1+\omega _2\omega _3)}}{\omega _1+\omega _2\omega _3}$$
(42)
where we denote $`\omega _1=\omega (\nu _1)`$ etc. Multiplying by the rest exponential factors we find the overall rapidity factor as

$$\frac{e^{(Yy_1)\omega _1+(Yy_2)\omega _2}e^{(Yy_1)\omega _3+(y_1y_2)\omega _2}}{\omega _1+\omega _2\omega _3}$$
(43)
Note that each of the two terms depends only on two of the three $`\nu `$ variables. Therefore integrating over $`\nu `$’s we can always take as independent variables just those which are present in the exponents in (43).

Having this in mind we again use the fact that all rapidity differences in the exponents are large and use the saddle point method. Athough the initial contours of integration in the independent $`\nu `$’s lie along the lines $`\mathrm{Im}\nu =1/6`$, the saddle points remain at $`\nu =0`$, that is at $`\overline{\nu }=(1/6)i`$. This means that independent $`\nu `$’s will be close to zero, as usual. The only price we have to pay for the shift in the contours of integration will be the value of the dependent $`\nu `$ at the saddle point.

Take the first term in (43), for which $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ are independent variables and $`\nu _3`$ is the dependent one. At the saddle point we shall have $`\nu _1=\nu _2=0`$ and $`\nu _3=(1/6)i\overline{\nu _1}\overline{\nu _2}=(1/2)i`$. Accordingly we put $`\nu _1=\nu _2=0`$ and $`\nu _3=(1/2)i`$ in all terms except in the exponent and the singular $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2i\nu _3)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\nu _1+i\nu _2)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+i\nu _1+i\nu _2)}{i(\nu _1+\nu _2i0)}\frac{1}{i(\nu _1+\nu _2i0)}$$
(44)
Again only the real part contributes, so that (43) actually gives

$$\pi \delta (\nu _1+\nu _2)$$

Using (16) and integrating over $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ we obtain a factor

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }(2Yy_1y_2)}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\beta (2Yy_1y_2)}}$$
(45)
and an extra factor $`r^{}`$ due to the fact that $`\nu _3=(1/2)i`$ at the saddle point.

For the second term in (43) the independent variables are $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _3`$ which are zero at the saddle point. The dependent $`\nu _1`$ is equal to $`(1/2)i`$ at the saddle point. The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ functions in (41) will give $`\pi \delta (\nu _2+\nu _3)`$, so that the integration over $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _3`$ will give a factor

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }(Yy_2)}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\beta (Yy_2)}}$$
(46)
and we shall have an extra factor $`r_1`$ due to $`\nu _1=(1/2)i`$ at the saddle point.

Other factors in (36) are straightforward. Combining all of them we find the expression for the double inclusive cross-section corresponding to Fig. 2b in the form

$$I_b(y_1,k_1,y_2,k_2,b)=\frac{4}{\mathrm{ln}2}\frac{\overline{\alpha }^2}{k_1^2k_2^2}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }(2Yy_1y_2)}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\beta (2Yy_1y_2)}}F(y_2,k_2,r)$$

$$\left[r^2_PF(y_1,k_1,b)R_Pe^{\mathrm{\Delta }(Yy_1)}\sqrt{\frac{2Yy_1y_2}{Yy_2}}h(y_1,k_1,b)\right]$$
(47)
where

$$r^2_P=d^2rr^2\rho (r)$$
(48)
The second term is evidently exponentially small as compared to the first and we can safely neglect it, having in mind all approximation already made. So our final expression is

$$I_b(y_1,k_1,y_2,k_2,b)=$$

$$\frac{4}{\mathrm{ln}2}r^2_P\frac{\overline{\alpha }^2}{k_1^2k_2^2}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }(2Yy_1y_2)}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\beta (2Yy_1y_2)}}F(y_1,k_1,b)F(y_2,k_2,r)$$
(49)
Recalling our expression (19) for the single inclusive cross-section we can rewrite it as

$$I_b(y_1,k_1,y_2,k_2,b)=\frac{1}{16\mathrm{ln}2}\frac{r^2_P}{r_P^2}\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{\pi }\frac{(Yy_1)(Yy_2)}{2Yy_1y_2}}I(y_1,k_1,b)I(y_2,k_2,b)$$
(50)
After the integration over $`b`$ with the approximation (24) we get the corresponding multiplicity distribution:

$$\mu _b(y_1,k_1,y_2,k_2)=1.44A^{4/9}\frac{6}{5\mathrm{ln}2}\frac{r^2_P}{R_N^2}\gamma ^2\frac{\overline{\alpha }^2}{k_1^2k_2^2}e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }Yϵ(y_1y_2)}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\beta y_1y_2(2Yy_1y_2)}}$$
(51)
Evidently at high $`Y`$ the part $`\mu _b`$ dominates due to the factor $`\mathrm{exp}2\mathrm{\Delta }Y`$ as compared with only $`\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{\Delta }Y`$ in $`\mu _a`$

Correlations are determined by the ratio

$$R(Y,y_1,y_2)=\frac{\mu (y_1,k_1,y_2,k_2)}{\mu (y_1,k_1)\mu (y_2,k_2)}$$
(52)
(evidently it does not depend on $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$). Neglecting the part $`\mu _a`$ we find from (27) and (51)

$$R(Y,y_1,y_2)=\frac{2}{15\mathrm{ln}2}\frac{r^2_P}{R_P^2}\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{\pi }\frac{(Yy_1)(Yy_2)}{2Yy_1y_2}}$$
(53)
If the two jets, forward and backward in the c.m. system, are taken symmetric, that is,

$$y_1=\frac{1}{2}Y+y,y_2=\frac{1}{2}Yy$$
(54)
Eq. (53) becomes

$$R(Y,y)=\frac{1}{15\mathrm{ln}2}\frac{r^2_P}{R_P^2}\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{\pi }\left(Y\frac{4y^2}{Y}\right)}$$
(55)
With the rapidity gap between the jet fixed and growing energy the term $`4y^2/Y`$ can be neglected, so that the right-hand side of (55) becomes independent of the gap $`2y`$ and proportional to $`\sqrt{Y}`$. This means that eventually it inevitably becomes greater than unity, so that the correlations become positive. The concrete threshold for this depends on the values of $`\overline{\alpha }`$ and ratio $`r^2/R_P^2`$. With the Yukawa distribution of colour in the projectile the last ratio is equal 2. Taking $`\alpha _s=0.2`$ we get for (55)

$$R0.195\sqrt{Y}$$
(56)
So with these values correlations remain negative up to quite high energies corresponding to $`Y<25`$.

Note that in the framework of the old Regge-Gribov theory, due to the assumed relations between the parameters and smallness of the intercept $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, it was argued that the ratio $`R`$ for the part $`\mu _b`$ is identically equal to unity, so that correlations are entirely generated by the part $`\mu _a`$ . In the present approach this does not hold. Although the factors exponential in rapidities are indeed the same in $`\mu _b`$ and the product $`\mu (y_1,k_1)\mu (y_2,k_2)`$, the power factors are not, so that their final $`Y`$-dependence is different. Also the relation between the coefficients is not fixed but depends on $`\alpha _s`$. As a result the ratio $`R`$ for $`\mu _b`$ is different from unity and depends on energy and $`\alpha _s`$, so that the correlations become mainly determined by $`\mu _b`$ and thus much stronger than assumed in earlier studies.

## 4 Conclusions

We have studied the inclusive jet production off the nucleus in the perturbative QCD with $`N_c`$ infinity, in which the total hA amplitude is exactly given by a sum of fan diagrams constructed of BFKL pomerons. We have used the numerical results obtained for this sum in our earlier paper . Our main results are the following.

Our formulas confirm interpretation of function $`h(y,q,b)`$ defined by Eq. (13) as the gluon density in the nucleus. In  this was done by comparison with the perturbative expression for the structure function, the validity of which for large values of the gluon density can be questioned.

The inclusive jet production rate is found to rapidly grow with energy in the same manner as the cross-section generated by a single pomeron exchange. This result is an immediate consequence of the saturation of the total hA cross-section, and was also found in earlier studies of the fan diagrams with local pomerons.

However in contrast to these older studies, our jet production rate is $`A`$ dependent: jet multiplicities grow roughly as $`A^{2/9}`$. So the $`A`$ dependence is somewhat reduced as compared to the eikonal result $`A^{1/3}`$, but not so strongly as thought before. This result may have direct consequences for particle production in nucleus-nucleus collisions, where we may expect the multiplicities grow as $`A^{10/9}`$ for identical nuclei, less than in the eikonal approach ($`A^{4/3}`$) but greater than in the older fan diagram estimates ($`A^{2/3}`$).

The double inclusive jet production is dominated by the contribution from Fig. 2b. Unlike older studies, this contribution is not cancelled in the correlation function and leads to correlations which start negative at lower energies and then change to positive at a certain (rather high) energy. Their magnitude corresponds to a double pomeron exchange and so grows very large at high energies.

In conclusion we want to remark that since the gluon distribution in the nucleus is strongly shifted to higher momenta, the notorious difficulty of the diffusion towards very small momenta seems to be overcome. This problem always raised doubts of the validity of the perturbative treatment of hadronic amplitudes: even if the initial wave function is centered at high-momenta, its evolution in rapidity inevitably introduces low momentum contributions, for which the perturbative treatment is not valid. The large nucleus seems to damp these small momenta contributions, so that the use of the pertubation theory becomes justified.

## 5 References

1. A.Mueller, Nucl. Phys.,B415 (1994) 373.
2. A.Mueller and B.Patel, Nucl. Phys.,B425 (1994) 471.
3. M.A.Braun and G.P.Vacca, Eur. Phys. J C6 (1999) 147.
4. Yu. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev D60 (1999) 034008.
5. I.Balitsky, hep-ph/9706411; Nucl. Phys. B463 (1996) 99.
6. M.A.Braun, hep-ph/0001268
7. Yu. Kovchegov, preprint CERN-TH/99-166 (hep-ph/9905214).
8. E.Levin and K.Tuchin, preprint DESY 99-108, TAUP 2592-99 (hep-ph/9908317).
9. A.Schwimmer, Nucl. Phys. B94 (1975)445.
10. L.N.Lipatov in: ”Perturbative QCD”, Ed. A.H.Mueller, World Sci., Singapore (1989) 411.

## 6 Figure captions

Fig. 1. The amplitude for hA scattering. Lines denote BFKL pomerons.
Fig. 2. Inclusive jet production from the lower (a) and upper (b) pomerons.
Fig. 3. Double inclusive jet production from the upper pomeron (a) and immediately after the first spliting (b).