format: text

text:
# CASIMIR EFFECT FOR A DIELECTRIC WEDGE

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The wedge geometry is an attractive system to study in connection with the Casimir effect, since the geometry is nontrivial enough to exhibit the essentials of phenomenological quantum field theory in continuous media, and yet so simple that it avoids the formal divergences that so often plague specific calculations once curved boundaries are present. An additional bonus from considering a system of this kind is that one experiences an interesting formal analogy with the theory of a straight cosmic string.

In this paper we will consider the Casimir theory of a wedge-shaped region of opening angle $`\alpha `$, when the walls located at angles $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\alpha `$ are perfectly conducting, and the interior region $`0<\theta <\alpha `$ is filled with a homogeneous and isotropic dielectric medium of constant permittivity $`ϵ`$ and permeability $`\mu `$. Figure 1 shows the geometry. The cusp is at the origin.

The present paper is a generalization of earlier work , in which the interior volume was taken to be a vacuum, and is also closely related to Ref. . As for references to the earlier literature, we mention those listed in  and . We may only recall here that our formalism is based upon Schwinger’s source theory, as developed for the strongly related case of cylindrical geometry in  and , and is related to the general formalism given in Stratton’s book . A somewhat different approach is followed by Mostepanenko and Trunov in their book ; their Section 2.3 treats the specific wedge geometry in the vacuum case.

We ought to point out that the formulation of Casimir theory to include material properties in the bulk does not imply merely an almost trivial input of factors $`ϵ`$ and $`\mu `$. The phenomenological electrodynamics is generally quite different from electrodynamics in a vacuum. In particular, the four-momentum of a photon in a medium as constructed on basis of Minkowski’s energy-momentum tensor - or equivalently from the Hamiltonian approach - is spacelike, so it is possible to make the electrodynamic field energy negative by means of a Lorentz transformation. (Physically, it is precisely properties of this sort that are underlying the recent discussions on the so-called analog models of general relativity; cf., for instance, the papers of Leonhardt and Piwnicki  and the conference report in .)

In the following section we derive the expression for the fundamental dyad $`𝚪`$, from which the effective products of the fields can be constructed. The two scalar Green functions, $`F_m`$ and $`G_m`$, are determined. In Section 4, the electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$ is calculated. It is rather remarkable, as shown by Eq. (39), how the formalism conspires so as to give a very simple result: the components of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$ reflect the presence of the medium only through a common prefactor $`1/\sqrt{ϵ\mu }`$. In Section 5 we discuss possibilities for measurements, in particular, how the deflection of an atomic beam in a medium-filled wedge is influenced by the medium. Also, the formal analogy with the theory of cosmic strings is briefly commented upon.

We put $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$, and adopt electromagnetic Heaviside-Lorentz units.

## 2 DYADIC SOLUTION

Referring to the formalism developed in  and  for the vacuum fields in the bulk, we can here be brief. We give only the basic definitions, and write down formulas when they deviate from the vacuum case. The starting point, as always when working with Schwinger’s source theory, is the relationship

$$𝐄\left(x\right)=𝑑x^{}𝚪(x,x^{})𝐏\left(x\right)$$
(1)
between the electric field $`𝐄\left(x\right)`$ and the polarization source $`𝐏\left(x\right)`$. Here $`𝚪(x,x^{})`$ is the basic dyad in the formalism; its Fourier transform $`𝚪(𝐫,𝐫^{},\omega )`$ follows from

$$𝚪(x,x^{})=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }e^{i\omega \tau }\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐫,𝐫^{},\omega ),$$
(2)
with $`\tau =tt^{}`$. Maxwell’s equations lead to the governing equation

$$\times \times 𝚪(𝐫,𝐫^{},\omega )ϵ\mu \omega ^2𝚪(𝐫,𝐫^{},\omega )=\mu \omega ^2\mathrm{𝟏}\delta \left(𝐫𝐫^{}\right),$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the unit dyad. It is advantageous to introduce a new dyad $`𝚪^{}`$ which is divergence-free,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }+\frac{1}{ϵ}\mathrm{𝟏}\delta \left(𝐫𝐫^{}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=0.$$
(4)
The effective electric and magnetic field products are (in addition to \[1-4\] cf., for instance, also ):

$`iE_i\left(𝐫\right)E_j\left(𝐫^{}\right)_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`𝚪_{ij}^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{},\omega ),`$ (5)
$`iH_i\left(𝐫\right)H_j\left(𝐫^{}\right)_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu ^2\omega ^2}}\left(\times 𝚪^{}\times ^{}\right)_{ij}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu ^2\omega ^2}}\epsilon _{ikl}\epsilon _{jmn}_k_m^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{ln}}^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{},\omega ).`$
Angular brackets mean quantum mechanical expectation values. These effective products are to be inserted into the electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor $`S_{\mu \nu }`$. The spatial components of $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ are

$$S_{ik}=E_iD_kH_iB_k+\frac{1}{2}\delta _{ik}\left(𝐄𝐃+𝐇𝐁\right).$$
(7)
As $`𝚪^{}`$ is divergence-free, it can conveniently be expanded in cylindrical coordinates. This implies use of the vector spherical harmonics,

$$𝐗_{lm}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)=\left[l\left(l+1\right)\right]^{1/2}𝐋Y_{lm}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)$$
(8)
As mentioned above we let $`\theta `$ denote the polar angle; the cusp of the wedge coincides with the $`z`$ axis. The boundary conditions are that the electric field is normal, and the magnetic field tangential, at $`\theta =0,\alpha `$ (se Fig.1). We let radii $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐫^{}`$ correspond to $`\theta ,z`$ and $`\theta ^{},z^{}`$ respectively, and introduce new symbols $`\nu _m`$ defined by

$$\nu _m=\frac{m\pi }{\alpha },$$
(9)
with $`m`$ a non-negative integer. A lengthy calculation along the lines of  and  leads to the following integral expressions for the spectral dyad $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ and its double curl:

$`𝚪^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{},\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}^{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}`$
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ\omega ^2}}(\times \widehat{z})(^{}\times \widehat{z})(d_mk^2)F_m(r,r^{})\mathrm{cos}\nu _m\theta \mathrm{cos}\nu _m\theta ^{}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ\omega }}\left(\times \times \widehat{z}\right)\left(^{}\times ^{}\times \widehat{z}\right)G_m(r,r^{})`$
$`\times \mathrm{sin}\nu _m\theta \mathrm{sin}\nu _m\theta ^{}]e^{ik\left(zz^{}\right)},`$ (10)
$`\times 𝚪^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{},\omega )\times ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}^{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}`$
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ\omega ^2}}(\times \times \widehat{z})(^{}\times ^{}\times \widehat{z})(d_mk^2)F_m(r,r^{})\mathrm{cos}\nu _m\theta \mathrm{cos}\nu _m\theta ^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ\omega }}\left(\times \widehat{z}\right)\left(^{}\times \widehat{z}\right)\left(d_mk^2\right)\left(d_m^{}k^2\right)G_m(r,r^{})`$
$`\times \mathrm{sin}\nu _m\theta \mathrm{sin}\nu _m\theta ^{}]e^{ik\left(zz^{}\right)}.`$ (11)
Here $`k`$ $`\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ is the axial wave number, the prime on the summation sign means that the $`m=0`$ term is taken with half weight, $`\widehat{z}`$ is the unit vector in the $`z`$ direction, and $`F_m`$, $`G_m`$ are the two scalar Green functions. Further, $`d_m`$ is the differential operator

$$d_m=\left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{}{r}r\frac{}{r}\frac{\nu _m^2}{r^2}\right).$$
(12)
The scalar Green functions are explicitly

$`F_m(r,r^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{q^2}}\left[𝒢_m^F(r,r^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}J_{\nu _m}\left(qr_<\right)H_{\nu _m}\left(qr_>\right)\right],`$ (13)
$`G_m(r,r^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{q^2}}\left[𝒢_m^G(r,r^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}J_{\nu _m}\left(qr_<\right)H_{\nu _m}\left(qr_>\right)\right],`$ (14)
where

$$q^2=ϵ\mu \omega ^2k^2,$$
(15)
$`J_{\nu _m}`$ and $`H_{\nu _m}`$ being ordinary Bessel and Hankel functions of order $`\nu _m`$. Further, $`𝒢_m^{F,G}`$ are the so-called auxiliary Green functions, given by

$$𝒢_m^{F,G}=\frac{1}{2\nu _m}\left(\frac{r_<}{r_>}\right)^{\nu _m},m>0,$$
(16)
$$𝒢_0^{F,G}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{r_<}{r_>}.$$
(17)
It ought to be noted that the Green functions are derived on the basis of requiring boundedness as $`r0`$, and outgoing wave conditions as $`r\mathrm{}`$.

## 3 EFFECTIVE FIELD PRODUCTS

Using Eqs. (5), (6) and (10), (11) we can now calculate the effective field product within the wedge, assuming that the two spacetime points $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ are separated. In full generality, all coordinates $`\{t,r,\theta ,z\}`$ would be different from $`\{t^{},r^{},\theta ^{},z^{}\}`$. However, we assume henceforth $`t=t^{}`$ and $`z=z^{}`$, so that $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ are separated only spatially, in the radial and azimuthal directions.

It is first to be noted that the functions $`𝒢_0^{F,G}`$ do not contribute to the effective products. The argument runs similarly to that in . As for the auxiliary Green functions we are left only with $`𝒢_m^{F,G}`$ with $`m>0`$.

Now introducing for convenience the operator

$$=\frac{2}{\alpha }\frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}^{},$$
(18)
we obtain for the diagonal effective products

$`iE_\theta (r,\theta )E_\theta (r^{},\theta ^{})=[{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}\{\mu \omega ^2J_{\nu _m}^{}\left(qr_<\right)H_{\nu _m}^{}\left(qr_>\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _m^2k^2}{ϵq^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{rr^{}}}J_{\nu _m}\left(qr_<\right)H_{\nu _m}\left(qr_>\right)\}\mathrm{cos}\nu _m\theta \mathrm{cos}\nu _m\theta ^{}],`$ (19)
$`iH_\theta (r,\theta )H_\theta (r^{},\theta ^{})=[{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}\{ϵ\omega ^2J_{\nu _m}^{}\left(qr_<\right)H_{\nu _m}^{}\left(qr_>\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _m^2k^2}{\mu q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{rr^{}}}J_{\nu _m}\left(qr_<\right)H_{\nu _m}\left(qr_>\right)\}\mathrm{sin}\nu _m\theta \mathrm{sin}\nu _m\theta ^{}],`$ (20)
$`iE_r(r,\theta )E_r(r^{},\theta ^{})=[{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{ϵ}}J_{\nu _m}^{}\left(qr_<\right)H_{\nu _m}^{}\left(qr_>\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _m^2\mu \omega ^2}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{rr^{}}}J_{\nu _m}\left(qr_<\right)H_{\nu _m}\left(qr_>\right)\}\mathrm{sin}\nu _m\theta \mathrm{sin}\nu _m\theta ^{}],`$ (21)
$`iH_r(r,\theta )H_r(r^{},\theta ^{})=[{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu }}J_{\nu _m}^{}\left(qr_<\right)H_{\nu _m}^{}\left(qr_>\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _m^2ϵ\omega ^2}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{rr^{}}}J_{\nu _m}\left(qr_<\right)H_{\nu _m}\left(qr_>\right)\}\mathrm{cos}\nu _m\theta \mathrm{cos}\nu _m\theta ^{}],`$ (22)
$$iE_z(r,\theta )E_z(r^{},\theta ^{})=\left[\frac{i\pi }{2}\frac{q^2}{ϵ}J_{\nu _m}\left(qr_<\right)H_{\nu _m}\left(qr_>\right)\mathrm{sin}\nu _m\theta \mathrm{sin}\nu _m\theta ^{}\right],$$
(23)
$`iH_z(r,\theta )H_z(r^{},\theta ^{})`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{\mu }}J_{\nu _m}\left(qr_<\right)H_{\nu _m}\left(qr_>\right)\mathrm{cos}\nu _m\theta \mathrm{cos}\nu _m\theta ^{}\right].`$ (25)
These are the diagonal products needed to calculate the normal stresses on the surface. There are nondiagonal field products also, $`E_iE_k`$ and $`H_iH_k`$, with $`ik`$. These products do not vanish by themselves, but it is notable that the sum $`ϵE_iE_k+\mu H_iH_k`$, present in the electromagnetic stress tensor, does vanish.

It is also to be noted that the auxiliary Green functions $`𝒢_m^{F,G}`$ with $`m>0`$ do not contribute to the field products. This is because of the relations $`d_m𝒢_m^{F,G}=0`$, as well as

$$\left(d_m+ϵ\mu \omega ^2k^2\right)F_m=\omega ^2𝒢_m^F,$$
(26)
$$\left(d_m+ϵ\mu \omega ^2k^2\right)G_m=\omega 𝒢_m^G.$$
(27)
Finally, one may verify by explicit calculation that the Poynting vector vanishes. This is as one would expect, under stationary conditions.

It is to be emphasized that the differences $`\left(rr^{}\right)`$ and $`\left(\theta \theta ^{}\right)`$ are at the present stage of the calculation arbitrary; they are not necessarily small.

## 4 ENERGY-MOMENTUM TENSOR

We now let the two points $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ approach each other, but keep both $`\left(rr^{}\right)`$ and $`\left(\theta \theta ^{}\right)`$ different from zero. For convenience we write henceforth $`E_r^2`$ instead of $`E_r(r,\theta )E_r(r^{},\theta ^{})_{𝐫𝐫^{}}`$, etc. The azimuthal diagonal component of $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ at an arbitrary position $`𝐫`$ within the wedge is

$`S_{\theta \theta }\left(𝐫\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[ϵE_r^2ϵE_\theta ^2+ϵE_z^2`$ (28)
$`+\mu H_r^2\mu H_\theta ^2+\mu H_z^2].`$
Inserting the effective products above we get

$`S_{\theta \theta }\left(𝐫\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}[\{q^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{rr^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r^{}}}\}`$ (29)
$`\times J_{\nu _m}\left(qr_<\right)H_{\nu _m}\left(qr_>\right)\mathrm{cos}\nu _m(\theta \theta ^{})]_{𝐫𝐫^{}}.`$
From this we have to subtract off the contact term, called $`S_{\theta \theta }^0\left(𝐫\right)`$. As the Casimir effect is caused by the boundaries of the wedge, it follows that the contact term has to be evaluated in the absence of any boundaries at all. In other words, $`S_{\theta \theta }^0\left(𝐫\right)`$ corresponds to a homogeneous dielectric extending over all space. Explicit calculation shows that the contact term becomes equal to the wedge effective product evaluated at $`\alpha =\pi `$:

$$S_{\theta \theta }^0\left(𝐫\right)=S_{\theta \theta }^{\alpha =\pi }\left(𝐫\right).$$
(30)
Altough this is a natural result, it could hardly have been written down beforehand, without explicit calculation.

We perform a complex frequency rotation, $`\omega i\widehat{\omega }`$, implying

$$q=\sqrt{ϵ\mu \omega ^2k^2}\sqrt{\left(ϵ\mu \widehat{\omega }^2+k^2\right)}i\rho .$$
(31)
Then,

$`S_{\theta \theta }\left(𝐫\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha \pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}d\widehat{\omega }{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dk{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}^{}}[\{\rho ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{rr^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r^{}}}\}`$
$`\times I_{\nu _m}\left(\rho r_<\right)K_{\nu _m}\left(\rho r_>\right)\mathrm{cos}\nu _m(\theta \theta ^{})]_{𝐫𝐫^{}},`$ (32)
where $`I_{\nu _m}`$ and $`K_{\nu _m}`$ are modified Bessel functions. We go over to polar coordinates, noting that $`\sqrt{ϵ\mu }d\widehat{\omega }dk\rho d\rho d\varphi `$ since $`\rho `$ is the radius in the $`\sqrt{ϵ\mu }\widehat{\omega },k`$ plane. Integrating over angles $`\varphi `$ from $`0`$ to $`\pi /2`$ we obtain

$`S_{\theta \theta }\left(𝐫\right)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha \sqrt{ϵ\mu }}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}^{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\rho d\rho [\{\rho ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{rr^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r^{}}}\}`$
$`\times I_{\nu _m}\left(\rho r_<\right)K_{\nu _m}\left(\rho r_>\right)\mathrm{cos}\nu _m(\theta \theta ^{})]_{𝐫𝐫^{}}.`$ (33)
We now introduce

$$p=\frac{\pi }{\alpha },$$
(34)
and assume henceforth that $`p`$ is an integer. Therewith $`\nu _m=mp`$ also becomes an integer. This simplifying case is convenient, as it allows us to make use of the generalized Graf addition theorem for modified Bessel functions. The important formula in our context is given by Eq. (B.6) in , and will not be repeated here. By means of it, we get

$`S_{\theta \theta }\left(𝐫\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^2\sqrt{ϵ\mu }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\rho 𝑑\rho `$
$`\times \left[\rho ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{rr^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r^{}}}\right]{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{p1}{}}}K_0\left(\rho R_n\right)|_{𝐫𝐫^{}},`$ (35)
where

$$R_n=\left[r^2+r^22rr^{}\mathrm{cos}\left(\left(\theta \theta ^{}\right)+\frac{2\pi n}{p}\right)\right]^{1/2}.$$
(36)
This expression can be processed further, using Eqs. (56) - (60) in . The regularized energy-momentum tensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }\left(𝐫\right)`$, as defined generally by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }\left(𝐫\right)=S_{\mu \nu }\left(𝐫\right)S_{\mu \nu }^0\left(𝐫\right),$$
(37)
then yields for the $`\theta \theta `$ component

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\theta \theta }\left(𝐫\right)=\frac{3}{720\pi ^2\sqrt{ϵ\mu }r^4}\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{\alpha ^2}+11\right)\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{\alpha ^2}1\right).$$
(38)
Similar considerations can be carried out for the other components of the energy-momentum tensor. If we numerate the components according to $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{rr},\mathrm{\Theta }_{\theta \theta },\mathrm{\Theta }_{zz},w`$ where $`w`$ is the electromagnetic energy density, we get finally

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }\left(𝐫\right)=\frac{1}{720\pi ^2\sqrt{ϵ\mu }r^4}\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{\alpha ^2}+11\right)\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{\alpha ^2}1\right)diag(1,3,1,1).$$
(39)
These expressions all vanish for $`\pi =\alpha `$, as expected.

The simplicity of the expression (39) is rather remarkable. The expression differs from the corresponding expression in vacuum  only through the factor $`\sqrt{ϵ\mu }`$ in the denominator. A value $`n=\sqrt{ϵ\mu }>1`$ of the refractive index $`n`$ thus causes the energy density in the bulk, as well as the normal stress on the plates, to be less than the vacuum value. In the special case of $`ϵ\mu =1`$, a case considered repeatedly in recent years in various contexts (a so-called ”relativistic” medium), one ends up with precisely the same energy-momentum tensor as in vacuum. There seems to be no simple way to see beforehand why the dependence on the properties of the medium should have the special form of Eq. (39).

## 5 ON POSSIBILITIES FOR EXPERIMENTS

We consider first the normal surface density on the lower wall, $`\theta =0`$, as a function of the distance $`r`$ from the cusp. For convenience we will denote this force density by $`\sigma \left(r\right)`$. Since our triplet of basis vectors in the spatial directions $`\{r,\theta ,z\}`$ is orthonormal, $`\sigma \left(r\right)`$ must simply be equal to $`S_{\theta \theta }\left(𝐫\right)`$, taken at the wall. Thus, in dimensional units,

$$\sigma \left(r\right)=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{720\pi ^2\sqrt{ϵ\mu }r^4}\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{\alpha ^2}+11\right)\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{\alpha ^2}1\right).$$
(40)
The force between the walls is attractive, as expected, and it decreases quickly when one moves away from the cusp. The divergence at the cusp is clearly fictitious: the presence of a skin depth $`\delta `$ in the material forbids us to apply the continuum dielectric model at very small distances. Assume copper, for instance, for which the conductivity is $`6.0\times 10^7\left(\mathrm{\Omega }m\right)^1`$. As the most significant frequencies contributing to the Casimir force are of the order $`c/a`$, where $`a`$ is the local separation between the walls, we obtain $`\delta 10nm`$ if $`a1\mu m`$ (the typical separation distance) . The expression (40) is hardly applicable until $`r`$ becomes as large as about $`1\mu m`$.

Assume for definiteness a very narrow wedge, corresponding to $`\alpha =10^4`$rad (0.0057). A local wall separation of $`a=1\mu m`$ then corresponds to $`r=a/\alpha =1cm`$. From Eq. (40) we get

$$\sigma \left(r=1cm\right)=\frac{0.0043}{\sqrt{ϵ\mu }}\frac{dyn}{cm^2}$$
(41)
This is about $`\left(3\sqrt{ϵ\mu }\right)^1`$ of the conventional surface force density $`0.013dyn/cm^2`$ between two parallel perfectly conducting plates at the same separation as above, $`a=1\mu m`$.

It does not seem to be easy to design a surface force experiment of this kind. A more promising possibility might be to consider a variant of the deflection experiment of Sukenik et al. . These authors measured the deflection of a ground-state atomic beam passing through a wedge-shaped cavity of opening angle $`\alpha 10^4rad`$, thus of the same order of magnitude as considered above. Let us assume the wedge region to be completely filled with a fluid, having material constants $`ϵ`$ and $`\mu `$. The transverse force on the beam, causing the deflection, will clearly be $`ϵ`$ and $`\mu `$ dependent. This transverse force is of course the Casimir-Polder rather than the Casimir force in the strict sense, but the two kinds of forces are strongly interrelated.

Let us calculate the interaction energy $`U\left(𝐫\right)`$ for a dipolar particle in the wedge as if the particle were at rest, at position $`𝐫`$. It is natural to assume that retardation effects are not important, so that we can use the material properties of the medium at $`\omega =0`$ with satisfactory accuracy. Thus, we can use the static polarizability $`\alpha \left(0\right)`$ for the particle, and so obtain

$$U\left(𝐫\right)=\frac{1}{2}\alpha \left(0\right)𝐄^2=\frac{1}{2}\alpha \left(0\right)\left[E_r^2+E_\theta ^2+E_z^2\right].$$
(42)
Using Eqs. (19), (21) and (23) we obtain after some calculation, putting $`\theta =\theta ^{}`$,

$`U\left(𝐫\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \left(0\right)}{4\pi \alpha \sqrt{ϵ\mu }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\rho ^3𝑑\rho `$ (43)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}^{}}[I_{mp}^{}\left(mp\theta \right)K_{mp}^{}\left(mp\theta \right)\mathrm{cos}2mp\theta `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2p^2}{\rho ^2rr^{}}}I_{mp}\left(\rho r_<\right)K_{mp}\left(\rho r_>\right)\mathrm{cos}2mp\theta `$
$`2I_{mp}\left(\rho r_<\right)K_{mp}\left(\rho r_>\right)\mathrm{sin}^2mp\theta ].`$
Recall that $`p=\pi /\alpha `$ has been assumed to be an integer. On physical grounds, $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ have to lie close to each other in the expression (43). The expression may be regularized: if one subtracts off a contact term corresponding to $`p=1`$ ($`\alpha =\pi `$), one is left with the wedge-specific contribution, equal to zero in the case of a single plane plate in interaction with the dipole.

The expression (43) has the important property that the influence from the medium turns up only in the prefactor $`\left(\sqrt{ϵ\mu }ϵ\right)^1`$. That is, we can make use of the results derived earlier for the case of a vacuum wedge . Defining $`\xi =r_</r_>`$ and taking $`\left(\xi 1\right)`$ to be small, we obtain using Eq. (3.10) in :

$`U\left(𝐫\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \left(0\right)}{16\pi ^2\sqrt{ϵ\mu }ϵr^4}}`$ (44)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^4}{\mathrm{sin}^4p\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2\left(p^21\right)}{\mathrm{sin}^2p\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{90}}\left(p^2+11\right)\left(p^21\right)\right].`$
Assuming $`\sqrt{ϵ\mu }ϵ>1`$ which is usually the case, we thus find a weaker deflection of the point dipole toward the nearby wall than in the case of a vacuum cavity. In the special case of a plane plate ($`p=1`$), only the first term in (44) survives.

## 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER REMARKS

Let us first summarize:

(1) We assumed nondispersive permittivity $`ϵ`$ and permeability $`\mu `$ in the medium-filled wedge. All calculations were made at zero temperature. The electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$, after regularization, is given by Eq. (39). All components of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$ are independent of the polar angle $`\theta `$ and diminish with distance $`r`$ from the cusp as $`r^4`$. The influence from the medium turns up solely in the prefactor $`\sqrt{ϵ\mu }`$ in the denominator.

(2) There exists to our knowledge no experiment testing the present kind of theory. The most promising possibility seems to be the dielectric variant of the experiment of Sukenik et al. , measuring the deflection of an atomic beam passing through a wedge-shaped cavity of small opening angle $`\alpha `$. If the wedge is filled with a medium, the transverse force on a dipole is given by the gradient of the potential (44), showing that the presence of the medium turns up solely in the prefactor $`\sqrt{ϵ\mu }ϵ`$ in the denominator.

Then a couple of further remarks:

(3) The formulation of the theory at finite temperatures can be carried out in the conventional way, replacing the integral over imaginary frequencies $`\widehat{\omega }`$ by a sum over discrete Matsubara frequencies $`\widehat{\omega }_n=\left(2\pi nk_BT\right)`$, with $`n`$ an integer. This procedure was shown in  in detail for the component $`S_{\theta \theta }\left(𝐫\right)^T`$, thus generalizing the expression (32) above to the case of finite temperatures, and will not be further considered here. Again, the important point in our context is the apperance of the extra factor $`\sqrt{ϵ\mu }`$ in the denominator in the energy-momentum tensor expression.

(4) Finally, it is worth noticing that the interesting formal analogy that exists between a wedge and a straight cosmic string can be carried over to the medium case, only with a slight modification. The line element outside a string is

$$ds^2=dt^2+dr^2+\left(14G\mu \right)^2r^2d\theta ^2+dz^2,$$
(45)
where $`G`$ is the gravitational constant and $`\mu 10^{22}g/cm`$ is the string mass per unit length (GUT scale). Defining the symbol $`\beta =\left(14G\mu \right)^1`$, we can write the electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor as

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{720\pi ^2r^4}\left(\beta ^2+11\right)\left(\beta ^21\right)diag(1,3,1,1).$$
(46)
Comparison with (39) shows that, apart from the extra prefactor $`\sqrt{ϵ\mu }`$ in the denominator of that equation, there is complete analogy between the two cases if the gravitational quantity $`\beta `$ is identified with the wedge quantity $`\pi /\alpha `$.

REFERENCES

 I. Brevik and M. Lygren, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 251 (1996), 157.

 I. Brevik, M. Lygren and V. N. Marachevsky,

Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 267 (1998), 134.

 I. Brevik and G. H. Nyland,

Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 230 (1994), 321.

 L. L. DeRaad, Jr. and K. A. Milton,

Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 136 (1981), 229.

 J. A. Stratton,

”Electromagnetic Theory”, McGraw - Hill, New York, 1941.

 V. M. Mostepanenko and N. N. Trunov,

”The Casimir Effect and its Applications”, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997.

 U. Leonhardt and P. Piwnicki,

Phys. Rev. A 60 (1999), 4301; Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000), 822.

 Workshop on ”Analog models of General Relativity”,

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 2000. Address: www.lafex.cbpf.br/~bscg/analog/

 K. A Milton,

Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 127 (1980), 49.

 C. I. Sukenik, M. G. Boshier, D. Cho, V. Sandoghdar and E. A. Hinds,

Phys Rev. Lett. 70 (1993), 560.

 V. P. Frolov and E. M. Serebriany,

Phys. Rev. D 35 (1987), 3779.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

High-energy exclusive photo- and electroproduction of vector mesons offers a variety of insights into the diffractive mechanism. The choice of different vector mesons and a range of photon virtualities allows one to move from the primarily nonperturbative regime to the primarily perturbative within one framework, and to explore kinematical regions where neither is predominant. Vector-meson production also has the benefit of a high rate, but it has the disadvantage of dependence on the choice of the vertex functions which couple the vector mesons to the $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs. In both respects it differs from deep virtual Compton scattering, which is theoretically better defined but has the disadvantage of a small cross section.

On the basis of the factorisation theorem , exclusive vector meson production can be considered as three separate processes: the fluctuation of the (virtual) photon into a $`q\overline{q}`$ pair; the interaction of the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair with the proton; and the formation of the vector meson from the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair which naturally involves the vector-meson vertex function. It may be argued that the structure of the nonpertubative vector-meson vertex function invalidates the proof of the factorisation theorem as it leads to additional contributions. However it has been shown , at least in a simple model for the vertex function, that gauge invariance ensures that the additional contributions cancel and factorisation is preserved.

The aim of this paper is twofold: to obtain a global description of exclusive vector meson photo- and electroproduction; and to explore the choice of vertex function.

The interaction of the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair with the pomeron is modelled by two-gluon exchange, figure 1, which can be applied both to nonperturbative and perturbative gluon exchange. The former is based on the model of Diehl  and the latter either by utilising the gluon structure function or following the model of Cudell and Royon .

The approach has the advantage of providing a common kinematical structure in which it is possible to separate the part of the vector-meson production amplitude describing the kinematics from the part which describes the dynamics of the process . This separation then allows the nonpertubative and perturbative contributions to be combined at the amplitude level. Thus the approach follows recent ideas about two pomerons and two-component models of diffraction  through , combining “soft” (nonperturbative) and “hard” (perturbative) terms. This is essential for a global approach as neither a nonperturbative nor a perturbative model alone can describe all the observed features of diffractive vector-meson photo- and electroproduction.

In a previous paper  we have successfully applied this approach to calculate $`\rho `$ electroproduction in a model which avoids the vertex function complication, following , by considering open $`q\overline{q}`$-pair production with the invariant mass of the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair restricted to the region of the $`\rho `$ mass. However this method cannot be applied to higher-mass vector mesons: for a $`q\overline{q}`$ with an invariant mass in the region of the $`\rho `$ there are no states available except the $`\rho `$ itself (making a $`10\%`$ allowance for $`\omega `$ production), but this is not true for the $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\psi `$. To obtain a global description of $`\rho `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\psi `$ photo- and electroproduction a kinematical framework involving vector-meson vertex functions has to be used.

In figure 1 the quark lines marked with a cross are off-shell, and the vertex function must necessarily take this into account. We use the prescription of Cudell and Royon  for these vertex functions. They appear very different from the usual on-shell vertex functions, for example those of Brodsky and Lepage . However they are both obtained by a boost of the same vertex function from the vector-meson centre-of-mass and differ only by the imposition or relaxation of the on-shell condition.

Kinematical and dynamical considerations of the two-gluon exchange model are coverd in sections 2 and 3 and the vector-meson vertex functions are discussed in section 4. The model is applied to the data in section 5, and conclusions are given in section 6.

## 2 The Kinematical Framework

The kinematical framework of our gluon exchange models is depicted in figure 1 and was developed by Cudell and Royen . As noted earlier, it involves the vector-meson vertex function $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\mathrm{}\right)`$ with either the quark or the anti-quark off-shell. The various four momenta used in our discussion are also defined in figure 1. In terms of them, the photon virtuality $`Q^2=q^2`$ and the squared centre of mass energy of the photon-proton pair $`W^2=(p+q)^2`$. The traces corresponding to the $`q\overline{q}`$-loop in diagrams (a) and (b) of figure 1 are given by

$`𝒯_𝐚^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\{\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\mathrm{}\right)(\gamma .e)(m_q+\gamma .[\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}V])\gamma ^\nu (m_q+\gamma .[q+k+\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}V])`$ (1)
$`\times `$ $`\gamma ^\mu (m_q+\gamma .[q+\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}V])(\gamma .ϵ)(m_q+\gamma .[\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}V])\}`$
$`𝒯_𝐛^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\{\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\mathrm{}\right)(\gamma .e)(m_q+\gamma .[\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}V])\gamma ^\nu (m_q+\gamma .[q+k+\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}V])`$ (2)
$`\times `$ $`(\gamma .ϵ)(m_q+\gamma .[k+\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}V])\gamma ^\mu (m_q+\gamma .[\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}V])\}.`$
One of the two quark lines emerging from the $`\gamma ^{}q\overline{q}`$ vertex is off-shell with different virtualities in each of the diagrams of figure 1, giving

$`P_𝐚`$ $`=`$ $`\left[q+\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}V\right]^2m_q^2=\mathrm{}.\mathrm{}+2\mathrm{}.q\mathrm{}.Vq.VQ^2m_q^2+\frac{1}{4}M_V^2`$ (3)
$`P_𝐛`$ $`=`$ $`\left[k+\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}V\right]^2m_q^2=k.k+2k.\mathrm{}k.V+\mathrm{}.\mathrm{}\mathrm{}.Vm_q^2+\frac{1}{4}M_V^2`$ (4)
for the denominators of the corresponding propagators. Here we assume the diffractive amplitudes are completely dominated by their imaginary parts, which are evaluated using the cuts shown by the dashed lines in figure 1. The sum of both diagrams for the $`q\overline{q}`$-loop gives

$$𝒯^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{P_0}\left[\frac{𝒯_𝐚^{\mu \nu }}{P_𝐚}+\frac{𝒯_𝐛^{\mu \nu }}{P_𝐛}\right]\left(2\pi \right)^2\delta \left(\left[q+k+\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}V\right]^2m_q^2\right)\delta \left(\left[\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}V\right]^2m_q^2\right)$$
(5)
where the $`\delta `$-functions are due to the on-shell conditions along the cuts of the quark and the anti-quark lines respectively. The denominator

$`P_0=\left[\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}V\right]^2m_q^2=2\mathrm{}^22m_q^2+\frac{1}{2}M_V^2`$ (6)
of the propagator for the off-shell quark forming the vector meson is the same for both diagrams of figure 1. In the Regge limit the proton line gives a contribution $`4p^\alpha p^\beta `$ in amplitude and the intermediate proton state is cut and its mass neglected, yielding $`\delta \left(\left[pk\right]^2\right)`$. The rest of the diagram, including the gluon propagators and the description of the interaction of the pomeron with the proton, is contained within the dynamical part $`𝒫`$, which is model-dependent. Formally it is the (gauge-dependent) gluon propagator that contracts the indices at $`p_\alpha p_\beta `$ and $`𝒯_{\mu \nu }`$. Practically, the leading contribution in the Regge region comes from $`g^{\alpha \mu }g^{\beta \nu }`$ in the gluon propagators. Details of this and of the decompositions of the four-vectors in terms of $`p`$ and $`q`$ for the Regge region, where $`W`$ is significantly greater than any other scale present, can be found in . Here we would only like to note the following points.

It is convenient to use the light-cone variables $`P_t=(P^+,𝐏_t,P^{})`$ in decompositions and in the further derivation, where $`P^\pm P^0\pm P^3`$ and the two-vector $`𝐏_t`$ lies in the transverse plane, defined as the plane perpendicular to the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ axis. The variable $`z`$ is also often used. It is the fraction of the “$`+`$” momentum of the photon carried by the quark, so that $`P_q^+zq^+`$, implying $`P_{\overline{q}}^+=\left(1z\right)q^+`$ for the anti-quark. The decomposition of the gluon four-momenta $`k`$ and $`\left[k\mathrm{\Delta }\right]`$ show  that the gluon four-momenta are predominantly transverse, $`|k^2|𝒌_t^2`$.

For clarity we rewrite equation (21) of  using our notation with the dynamical part $`𝒫`$ and the light-cone variable $`z`$:

$`𝒜^{L,Tr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(4\pi \right)^2\mathrm{f}_q\sqrt{4\pi \alpha _{em}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{k_t}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{2dzd^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_t}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{\Phi }(z,|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_t}|)3𝒫(k,\mathrm{\Delta })\frac{N^{L,Tr}}{D}}`$ (7)
where we have introduced $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_t},\stackrel{~}{k_t}`$ for twice the transverse parts $`\mathrm{}_t,k_t`$ of the four-vectors $`\mathrm{},k`$. For $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ electroproduction, $`\mathrm{f}_q=\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3}`$ corresponding to the charge of the quark forming the vector meson while the linear combination of the $`u\overline{u}`$ and $`d\overline{d}`$ quark anti-quark pairs forming the $`\rho `$ -meson gives $`\mathrm{f}_q=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$. The expressions for $`N^L`$ and $`N^{Tr}`$ are given in  and

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`16(2(2z1)\mathrm{\Delta }_t.\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_t}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_t}.\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_t}+4m_q^24z(1z)M_V^2t(2z1)^2)`$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`\left(4z\left(1z\right)Q^2+4m_q^2t\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_t}+\stackrel{~}{k_t}2\mathrm{\Delta }_t\right].\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_t}+\stackrel{~}{k_t}\right]\right)`$
$`\times `$ $`\left(4z\left(1z\right)Q^2+\left[2\mathrm{\Delta }_t\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_t}\right].\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_t}+4m_q^2t\right).`$
The first line in $`D`$ originates from the denominator of the off-shell quark propagator $`P_0`$, equation (6); similarly, the second and third lines are proportional to $`P_𝐛`$ and $`P_𝐚`$ respectively, equations (4) and (3). The differences from the expression for $`D`$ given in  are due to the fact that we attribute the gluon propagators to the dynamical part of the pomeron exchange.

Assuming $`s`$-channel helicity conservation the differential cross section is given by

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}=\frac{d\sigma ^{Tr}}{dt}+\epsilon _{expt}\frac{d\sigma ^L}{dt}=\frac{1}{16\pi W^4}\left(\left|𝒜^{Tr}\right|^2+\epsilon _{expt}\left|𝒜^L\right|^2\right)$$
(9)
where the polarisation of the photon beam $`\epsilon _{expt}`$ is a known characteristic of the experiment. For HERA, $`\epsilon _{expt}1`$. For fixed-target experiments, it typically lies in the range 0.5 to 0.9 depending on the energy and photon virtuality.

Finally we note that the kinematical expressions in this derivation and in  are valid for the pair of diagrams depicted in figure 1. The other two diagrams differ by reversal of the quark charge flow and thus have different traces, cut conditions and propagators than (1)–(6) leading to different decompositions of the four-vectors $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`k`$. However, the only net difference is a change of sign in front of $`\mathrm{}`$ in all expressions. Because the integral over $`\mathrm{}_t`$ is two dimensional, (7) gives the same answer regardless of the sign in front of $`\mathrm{}`$ and the additional diagrams result in a factor of 2 in front of the final expression for the amplitude.

## 3 The Dynamics of Pomeron Exchange

We investigate two “summation models:” these include both “hard”(perturbative) and “soft”(nonperturbative) components, since neither alone can account for all the data. Before describing these summation models, we first summarise the models for the hard and soft terms on which they are based.

### 3.1 The “soft term”

For this contribution we use the nonperturbative approach of Diehl  based on earlier work by Landshoff and Nachtmann (LN) . In it the gluons are assumed not to interact with each other and a nonperturbative gluon propagator

$$𝒟_{np}\left(k^2\right)=𝒩_{np}\left[1+\frac{k^2}{\left(n1\right)\mu _0^2}\right]^n$$
(10)
is used with $`n=4`$. The normalisation $`𝒩_{np}`$ is determined from the condition

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k^2\left[\alpha _S^{(0)}𝒟_{np}(k^2)\right]^2=\frac{9\beta _0^2}{4\pi }.$$
(11)
The phenomenological parameters $`\beta _0`$, which describes the effective coupling of the pomeron to the proton, and $`\mu _0`$ are determined from the total $`pp`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ cross section data and from deep inelastic scattering: $`\beta _02.0\mathrm{GeV}^1`$ and $`\mu _01.1\mathrm{GeV}`$ . For the nonperturbative couplings of the gluons to the quarks forming the $`\rho `$ a value $`\alpha _S^{(0)}1`$ is taken. Of course the precise value of $`\alpha _S^{(0)}`$ cannot be strictly specified, and as we shall discuss in section 5 there is some flexibility through the interplay with the choice of vertex function for the vector meson.

Landshoff and Nachtmann  have argued that diagrams in which the nonperturbative gluons couple to different valence quarks in the proton, as shown in figure 2, are suppressed and can be disregarded. Hence only the diagrams where both gluons couple to the same valence quark are calculated. Each of the three valence quarks is incorporated into the proton using the Dirac form factor $`F_{1p}(t)`$, where $`t=\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. The energy dependence of the soft pomeron comes via a factor $`x_{IP}^{\alpha _{IP}(t)}`$ in the amplitude, where

$$x_{IP}\frac{M_V^2+Q^2t}{W^2+Q^2m_{proton}^2}$$
(12)
and $`\alpha _{IP}(t)=1.08+0.25t`$ is the soft pomeron trajectory . The coupling $`\alpha _\text{S}`$ at both vertices at the proton end is taken at a nonperturbative scale, i.e. $`\alpha _S^{(0)}`$ is used. For the vertices where the gluons couple to an off-shell quark line the coupling is taken at a perturbative scale $`\lambda ^2=\left(\mathbf{}_t^2+m_q^2\right)\left(Q^2+M_V^2\right)/M_V^2`$ which, as argued in , is a typical scale for the whole upper part of the diagram. Thus for the dynamical part of the nonperturbative approach one has

$`𝒫_{np}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{1p}(t)x_{IP}^{1\alpha _{IP}\left(t\right)}\alpha _S^{(0)}\alpha _\text{S}\left(\lambda ^2\right)𝒟_{np}\left(k^2\right)𝒟_{np}\left(\left[k\mathrm{\Delta }\right]^2\right).`$ (13)
This term alone gives an energy dependence that is too flat at the higher values of $`Q^2`$ due to the soft pomeron intercept.

### 3.2 The “hard term”

Two alternative models, the standard perturbative QCD approach and the Cudell-Royon approach, will be considered.

#### 3.2.1 The “standard” perturbative model

The perturbative QCD approach can only be calculated at $`t=0`$, and is based on the ideas of Martin et al.  who applied it to $`\rho `$ -meson electroproduction. In it the pomeron is modelled as a pair of perturbative gluons, using the perturbative gluon propagator $`𝒟_p\left(k^2\right)=1/k^2`$. The gluons are considered as part of the proton so that there are no $`\sqrt{\alpha _\text{S}}`$ couplings for the two bottom vertices. In principle the gluon flux can be obtained from the unintegrated gluon density $`f(x_{IP},𝒌_t^2)`$, which gives the probability of finding a $`t`$-channel gluon with the momentum squared $`𝒌_t^2`$ in the proton. However, a special treatment of the infrared region is required because the unintegrated gluon density $`f(x_{IP},𝒌_t^2)`$ is undefined as $`𝒌_t^20`$ and numerically unavailable below some value of $`𝒌_t^2=Q_0^2`$, which varies with the parton distribution chosen and is typically in the region from 0.2 to a few $`\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. The linear approximation as suggested in  is used to account for the contribution to the integral from the $`𝒌_t^2<Q_0^2`$ region. This procedure has no direct physical significance. It serves only to provide a continuous integrand and acts as a means of normalisation of the perturbative contribution. A simple cutoff at an appropriate $`Q_0^2`$ would be equally effective but somewhat less elegant.

As no direct physical significance can be attached to the contribution from this infrared part of the perturbative term there is not an element of double counting. The separation between “perturbative” and “nonperturbative” is given uniquely by the energy dependence of the two contributions. An implication of this approach is that the perturbative (hard) term can contribute at $`Q^2=0`$, which is a feature of two-component models.

Thus for the dynamical part of the perturbative approach one has

$`𝒫_p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\sqrt{\alpha _\text{S}\left(k^2\right)\alpha _\text{S}\left(\left[k\mathrm{\Delta }\right]^2\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{f(x_{IP},\sqrt{k^2\left[k\mathrm{\Delta }\right]^2})}{k^2\left[k\mathrm{\Delta }\right]^2}}`$ (14)
where $`f(x_{IP},𝒌_t^2)`$ is related to the gluon distribution $`g(x_{IP},Q^2)`$ by

$$x_{IP}g(x_{IP},Q^2)=^{Q^2}\frac{d𝒌_t^2}{𝒌_t^2}f(x_{IP},𝒌_t^2)$$
(15)
with the inverse

$$f(x_{IP},𝒌_t^2)=𝒌_t^2\frac{(x_{IP},g(x_{IP},𝒌_t^2))}{𝒌_t^2}.$$
(16)
This applies at at $`t=0`$, and the experimental slope or some other ansatz must be used to compare with the integrated cross section. Here we merely note that this term alone gives an energy dependence which is clearly too steep for much of the data.

#### 3.2.2 The Cudell–Royen (CR) model

Cudell and Royen  propose a somewhat different approach to the “hard” contribution. Again perturbative gluon propagators of the form $`1/k^2`$ are used. However, since the cross section is not infrared divergent, it is suggested that the divergencies from diagrams where both gluons couple to the same quark are cancelled in the infrared limit by the divergencies from the diagrams where each gluon couples to a different quark, figure 2. In terms of form factors, the former case is described by the Dirac form factor of the proton $`F_1(t)`$; while for the latter the form factor

$$_2(k,k\mathrm{\Delta })=F_1(k^2+[k\mathrm{\Delta }]^2+ck.[k\mathrm{\Delta }]),$$
(17)
depending on the momenta of both gluons, is applied with $`c1`$ as suggested by Cudell and Nguyen . Unlike the “standard” perturbative approach, this approach does not contain any energy dependence but describes the $`t`$-dependence at a fixed energy. The energy dependence has to be introduced by hand, just as it was for the nonperturbative term, via a factor $`x_{IP}^{1\alpha _{IP_0}}`$. We assume a flat hard-pomeron trajectory $`\alpha _{IP_0}=1.44`$, independent of $`t`$. Further the overall normalization is not uniquely specified as it is not obvious what value of $`\alpha _s`$ should be used for coupling perturbative gluons to bound quarks. Cudell and Royon  introduced an effective factor $``$ in the cross section with $`\alpha _\text{S}^2=0.6`$ , a procedure which we adopt here. In this way we finally obtain

$$𝒫_{CR}=\sqrt{\left\{\alpha _\text{S}^2\right\}\alpha _\text{S}\left(k^2\right)\alpha _\text{S}\left(\left[k\mathrm{\Delta }\right]^2\right)}\frac{F_1(t)_2(k,k\mathrm{\Delta })}{k^2\left[k\mathrm{\Delta }\right]^2}x_{IP}^{1\alpha _{IP_0}}.$$
(18)
### 3.3 The Summation Models

Here we suggest two “summation models” which combine both hard and soft terms at the amplitude level in order to obtain a global description of vector meson production data.

#### 3.3.1 Summation model S1

This model is based on our earlier work , which modelled $`\rho `$ electroproduction by “open pair” production in the region of the $`\rho `$ mass. In particular, a successful description of the data was obtained by combining the nonperturbative amplitude of section 3.1 with the perturbative amplitude of section 3.2.1, using an empirical slope parameter to describe the $`t`$-dependence of the latter. In doing so, we exploited several gluon distributions to calculate the perturbative contribution using the PDFLIB program libraries  for numerical calculations. However, it was found that the best fit to the $`\rho `$ -meson electroproduction data, and especially to the energy dependence of the production cross section, was obtained using the CTEQ4LQ  gluon distribution. We continue to use the CTEQ4LQ gluon distribution in the present paper.

In this paper we explicitly incorporate vertex function effects using (7) in order to treat the $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as well as the $`\rho `$ electroproduction in a common framework. To do this, we again need to extend the perturbative amplitude to $`t0`$. Since the proton in the vector meson production process remains intact, we suggest describing the t-dependence at the proton end by the proton form factor $`F_{1p}(t)`$. In this way we arrive at summation model S1:

$$𝒫_{S1}(s,t,Q^2)=𝒫_{np}(s,t,Q^2)+F_{1p}(t)𝒫_p(s,Q^2),$$
(19)
where $`𝒫_{np},𝒫_p`$ are given by (13), (14) respectively.

#### 3.3.2 Summation model S2

Another possibility is to model the “hard” component with the CR term $`𝒫_{CR}`$,(18). The $`t`$-dependence is thus automatically provided, but the CR approach does not specify the energy dependence. In order to obtain a global description of vector meson production, Regge energy dependence corresponding to the “hard pomeron”  is introduced into the CR term by hand, in much same way that it was introduced in the nonperturbative term using the soft pomeron trajectory. In this way one obtains summation model S2:

$$𝒫_{S2}(s,t,Q^2)=𝒫_{np}(s,t,Q^2)+𝒫_{CR}(s,t,Q^2)$$
(20)
where $`𝒫_{np},𝒫_{CR}`$ are given by (13),(18) respectively.

## 4 Vector Meson Wave Functions

The choice of the vertex function is crucial in vector-meson production models as it determines the virtualities dominating the integral over the $`q\overline{q}`$-loop; the overall normalisation and $`Q^2`$ dependence of the cross section; and the longitudinal to transverse ratios. Unfortunately the detailed forms of the vertex functions are unknown and only their general analytical properties are established from various constraints . Therefore in practice, the chosen vertex functions provide an essentially phenomenological description of the valence quark content of the vector meson. Here we shall consider possible forms for the vertex functions by starting from phenomenological wave functions for vector mesons in their rest frame; and then boosting to the light-cone taking into account the off-shell nature of the quark line.

### 4.1 Wave Functions in Centre-of-Mass Frame

The most popular choice  of vector-meson wave functions is suggested by long distance physics. This tells us that a hadron at rest can be described to a good approximation as a system of constituent quarks moving in a harmonic oscillator potential with a Gaussian wave function

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_G\left(𝐋^2\right)=𝒩_G\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{𝐋^2}{2p_F^2}\right)$$
(21)
where $`𝐋^2`$ is the squared 3-momentum of either the quark or anti-quark, $`p_F`$ is the Fermi momentum and $`𝒩`$ is the normalisation. We investigated five alternatives, the details of which can be found in . The first is the power-law wave function

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{pl}\left(𝐋^2\right)=𝒩_{pl}\left(1+\frac{𝐋^2}{\stackrel{~}{p}_F^2}\right)^n$$
(22)
with $`n=2`$ in our case. This was found not to be an acceptable choice as it was not possible to obtain even a qualitative description of the data, particularly for the longitudinal/transverse ratio for the $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ which are rather sensitive to the wave function details.

The four other wave functions are obtained by solving the non-relativistic Schroedinger equation with four different potentials . The first three of these are:

$``$ a power-law potential

$$a_1^2+a_2^2\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^{0.1}$$
(23)
$``$ a logarithmic potential

$$b_1^2+b_2^2\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)$$
(24)
$``$ a Coulomb-plus-linear potential (the Cornell potential)

$$\frac{c_1^2}{r}+\frac{r}{c_2^2}+c_3^2$$
(25)
where the $`a_i,b_i,c_i`$ are various model-dependent parameters. The fourth is the QCD-inspired potential of Buchmüller and Tye , which has a rather complicated position-space form. It is linear at large distances and quasi-Coulombic at short distances. The deviations from pure Coulombic behaviour reproduce the running of the strong coupling constant, and the global shape of the potential is essentially determined by two parameters — the QCD scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the QCD string tension motivated by the light meson data. Non-relativistic wave functions are reliable only if the meson and both constituent quarks are heavy compared to the average internal momentum, and it is still not clear whether one should use them for the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. In particular Frankfurt, Koepf and Strikman have used wave functions from various non-relativistic potential models to show that the integration region where the quark’s transverse momentum is larger than the charm mass can contribute up to one third of the $`q\overline{q}`$-loop integral in $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production. For the $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ such wave functions can be still be considered as an alternative choice, albeit without any firm foundation.

Finally, all these vector meson wave functions have to be normalised to reproduce the leptonic decay width of the meson $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Ve^+e^{}}`$ in the vector meson rest frame. Furthermore, the normalisation has to be calculated for one quark leg off-shell to reflect the kinematics of the vector meson production models of figure 1. The derivation of the normalisation, and its reduction to the on-shell case in the appropriate limit, has been given by Cudell and Royen. Their final result is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{64\left(\alpha _{em}\mathrm{e}_q\right)^2}{9\pi M_V^3}\left[i\pi 𝒢\left(\left|𝐋\right|_d\right)+P_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{𝒢\left(\left|𝐋\right|\right)}{\left|𝐋\right|\left|𝐋\right|_d}𝑑\left|𝐋\right|\right]^2$$
(26)
where

$$𝒢\left(\left|𝐋\right|\right)=\frac{𝐋^2}{\sqrt{𝐋^2+m_q^2}}\frac{2𝐋^2+3m_q^2}{\left|𝐋\right|+\left|𝐋\right|_d}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐋^2\right),$$
(27)
$$\left|𝐋\right|_d=\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}M_V^2m_q^2}.$$
(28)
and $`m_q`$ is the constituent quark mass. For $`u,d`$ quarks we take $`m_q=0.3`$ GeV, for strange quarks $`m_s=0.45`$ GeV and for charmed quarks $`m_c=1.5`$ GeV.

The next step is to transform the vector meson centre-of-mass wavefunctions into the vertex functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_t}|)`$ used in (7). This is done by first rewriting the centre-of-mass wavefunctions in terms of invariants, which are then re-expressed in terms of the light-cone variables $`z`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_t}`$ to obtain the vertex function. We do this first using the Cudell-Royon prescription  for the quark or antiquark off-shell, and then show that if both are put on-shell it goes over to the Brodsky-Lepage prescription .

### 4.2 The Cudell-Royon prescription

In figure 1 the quark and the meson have four-momenta $`P_q=\left[\frac{1}{2}V+\mathrm{}\right]`$ and $`V`$ respectively. In the meson’s centre-of-mass frame, $`P_q^\mu =(E_q,𝐋)`$ and $`V^\mu =(M_V,\mathbf{0})`$ so that the invariant quantity $`P_q^\mu V_\mu =\left[\frac{1}{2}V^\mu +\mathrm{}^\mu \right]V_\mu `$ becomes $`M_VE_q`$. This gives

$$E_q=\frac{1}{M_V}\left[\frac{1}{2}V+\mathrm{}\right].V$$
(29)
and

$$𝐋^2=E_q^2P_q^\mu P_{q\mu }=\left[\frac{\mathrm{}.V}{M_V}\right]^2\mathrm{}.\mathrm{}$$
(30)
for the squared three momentum of the quark in the centre of mass frame, where no assumption about the on-shell or off-shell nature of the quark has been made. Thus one obtains the relation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{CM}\left(𝐋^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_{LC}(\left[\frac{\mathrm{}.V}{M_V}\right]^2\mathrm{}.\mathrm{}).$$
(31)
between the vector meson wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{CM}`$ expressed in the centre-of-mass variable $`𝐋^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{LC}`$ expressed in terms of appropriate invariants. This is the Cudell-Royen(CR) prescription . One finally has to rewrite the four-vector $`\mathrm{}`$ in terms of the variables $`z`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_t}`$, using equations given by Cudell and Royen In  our $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_t}`$ is denoted by $`l_t`$.  which take account of the fact that the quark is off-shell and the anti-quark is on-shell

$$\left[\frac{1}{2}V\mathrm{}\right]^2=m_q^2\left[\frac{1}{2}V+\mathrm{}\right]^2m_q^2$$
(32)
in the two diagrams of figure 1. The asymmetry between the quark and antiquark results in an asymmetry under the transformation $`z1z`$, which interchanges the “+” momentum carried by the quark and antiquark. However, when calculating vector-meson production, one must also take into account diagrams corresponding to those in figure 1 but with the quark charge flow reversed. The cut conditions then put the quark (instead of the anti-quark) on-shell, giving the reverse of equation (32). Thus the asymmetry present within each pair of diagrams is no longer present once the vector-meson production amplitudes from all four diagrams are summed.

As an illustration, the vertex functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\left|\mathbf{}_t\right|)`$ corresponding to the Gaussian and logarithmic potential vector meson centre-of-mass wave functions (21) are shown in figures 4 and 4, where the asymmetry under $`z1z`$ is clearly seen. One also sees that the vertex functions are centred towards the point $`z=0`$, $`|\mathbf{}_t|=0`$, implying that the most likely configurations are those where the off-shell quark carries only a small fraction $`zq`$ of the meson’s longitudinal momentum, while the on-shell anti-quark carries most of it, namely $`(1z)q`$. However the vertex functions never actually reach the point $`z=0`$, $`|\mathbf{}_t|=0`$, because the region around it is unphysical, corresponding to $`𝐋^2<0`$. The border of this region correspond to $`𝐋^2=0`$, where the quark and anti-quark have no relative momentum in the meson rest frame. In the other case, with the anti-quark off-shell and the quark on-shell, the CR prescription gives similar vertex functions, but centred towards $`z=1`$ and $`|\mathbf{}_t|=0`$ instead of $`z=0`$ and $`|\mathbf{}_t|=0`$ so that the on-shell particle again carries most of the meson’s longitudinal momentum.

In the numerical calculations we focussed mainlyA fuller discussion of the various possible wavefunctions is given in . on Gaussian wavefunctions with values of $`p_F`$ ranging from 0.1 GeV to 0.6 GeV for $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ mesons and from 0.2 GeV to 1.2 GeV for the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The motivation behind these ranges of values is the transverse size of the corresponding vector meson; in particular, that for the light vector mesons is similar to that used in the literature for the pion . As we shall see, our best results for electroproduction were obtained with $`p_F=`$ 0.5,0.6,1.2 GeV for the $`\rho `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ mesons, for which the appropriate values of the normalisation constant are $`𝒩_G=`$ 3.597, 3.226 and 2.905.

### 4.3 Relation to the Brodsky-Lepage prescription

The prescription of Brodsky and Lepage , often found in the literature , connects the wave functions in the centre-of-mass frame and the light-cone frame by equating the off-shell propagator $`\epsilon =\left[M^2\left(_{i=1}^nk_i\right)^2\right]^1`$ in the two frames. In the general case the propagator for a particle of mass $`M`$ whose constituents $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ have masses $`m_i`$ is given by

$$\epsilon ^1=\{\begin{array}{cccc}M^2\left(_{i=1}^nL_i^0\right)^2\hfill & _{i=1}^n𝐋_i=0\hfill & & \hfill [CM]\\ M^2_{i=1}^n\left(\mathbf{}_t^2+m_i^2\right)/z_i\hfill & _{i=1}^n\mathbf{}_{ti}=0\hfill & _{i=1}^nz_i=1\hfill & \hfill [LC]\end{array}$$
(33)
where $`L_i^\mu =(L_i^0,𝐋_i)`$ and $`z_i`$, $`\mathbf{}_{ti}`$ are the centre of mass four momenta and light-cone variables respectively. For a system of two-particles of equal masses this gives $`𝐋_1=𝐋_2`$. The relation $`L_1^0=L_2^0`$ is then used  implying that both constituent particles are on-shell.

According to the Brodsky-Lepage(BL) prescription the propagators in both frames are equated yielding

$$𝐋^2=\frac{\mathbf{}_t^2+m_q^2}{4z\left(1z\right)}m_q^2$$
(34)
and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{CM}\left(𝐋^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_{LC}\left(\frac{\mathbf{}_t^2+m_q^2}{4z\left(1z\right)}m_q^2\right).$$
(35)
Alternatively, one could equate the expressions for invariant mass of the $`q\overline{q}`$-pair in the vector meson centre-of-mass and light-cone frames

$$M_X^2=4\left(𝐋^2+m_q^2\right)=\frac{\mathbf{}_t^2+m_q^2}{z\left(1z\right)}$$
(36)
yielding the same prescription (34). The functions (35) are often called light-cone wave functions; and for quarks and antiquarks of equal mass, the prescription is seen to be explicitly symmetric under $`z1z`$.

The BL prescription is not applicable in the kinematical framework of figure 1, in which the quark (or antiquark) is off-shell. On the other hand the CR prescription (30), which allows for this, reduces to the BL prescription if both both particles are put on-shell

$$\left[\frac{1}{2}V\mathrm{}\right]^2=m_q^2\left[\frac{1}{2}V+\mathrm{}\right]^2=m_q^2$$
(37)
yielding

$$\mathrm{}.V=0\mathrm{}.\mathrm{}=m_q^2\frac{1}{4}M_V^2$$
(38)
but not in general $`\mathrm{}.\mathrm{}=0`$ or $`\mathrm{}^\mu 0`$. Substituting (38) into (30) gives

$$𝐋^2=\frac{1}{4}M_V^2m_q^2.$$
(39)
so that the square of the three-momentum of the quark in meson rest frame is fixed by the mass of the meson $`M_V`$ and by the choice of the mass of the quark $`m_q`$. However, $`𝐋^2`$ is not zero provided the $`m_q`$ is not chosen to be exactly half of the meson mass. Identifying the mass of the vector meson $`M_V`$ with the invariant mass $`M_X`$ of the $`q\overline{q}`$-pair and substituting (36) into (39), one again obtains the BL prescription (34).

If the quark mass is exactly half of the meson mass, Eq.(38) gives

$$\mathrm{}.V=0\mathrm{}.\mathrm{}=0$$
(40)
corresponding to a $`q\overline{q}`$-pair with zero relative momentum in the meson rest frame. The quark and the anti-quark share equally the meson’s four-momentum. In the light-cone variables it reads

$$\delta ^{(2)}\left(\mathbf{}_t\right)\delta \left(z\frac{1}{2}\right)$$
(41)
which has also been used as a very basic light-cone wave function in the literature .

Figures 6 and 6 show vertex functions obtained using the Brodsky-Lepage prescription(i.e. light-cone wavefunctions), to be compared with the vertex functions of Figures 4 and 4 which were obtained using the Cudell-Royon prescription from same centre of mass wavefunctions. As can be seen, Brodsky-Lepage wave functions are symmetric under $`z1z`$ with a maximum at $`z=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`|\mathbf{}_t|=0`$. In other words the most probable configuration is where the quark and antiquark share equally the vector meson’s longitudinal momentum. Further, only one single value(“height”) of the wave function, determined by the value of $`𝐋^2`$, enters in any given vector meson production calculation since the $`𝐋^2`$ is fixed by (39) once the masses of the quarks and the vector meson are fixed. In calculating (7), this can be imposed via a separate condition stating the on-shellness of the quarks. Such a condition, reducing the dimensions of integration, is indeed present in the vector-meson production models exploiting the BL prescription .

## 5 Results

We have already said that the power-law wave function (22) is not appropriate, and we do not discuss it further. The results obtained using the wave functions obtained from the power-law potential (23), the logarithmic potential (24), the Coulomb-plus-linear potential (25) and the Buchmüller-Tye potential  are almost identical. They predict successfully the longitudinal/transverse ratio for each of the $`\rho `$$`\varphi `$ and $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and the correct shape for $`d\sigma /dQ^2`$ in each case. However it is not possible to obtain simultaneously the correct normalisation of all the cross sections. If the normalisation is adjusted to fit the $`\rho `$ cross section, say, then the predicted $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ cross section is too high. Conversely, if the normalisation is adjusted to the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ cross section then the predicted $`\rho `$ cross section is too low. The problem is that there is no flexibility in the wave functions: they are all fixed by the parameters of the potentials. This is not the case for the Gaussian wave function (21) for which the parameter $`p_F`$ can be adjusted independently for each case.

It turns out that the Gaussian wave function corresponding to the best choice of $`p_F`$ is very close to the wave functions obtained from the power-law, logarithmic, Coulomb-plus-linear and the Buchmüller-Tye potentials for the $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ but differs significantly in the case of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. This is shown in figures 8, 8 and 9, from which it is obvious that for the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the model requires a much narrower transverse distribution in configuration space than is provided by the wave functions obtained from solving the Schroedinger equation for specific potentials.

For clarity of presentation we show results only for the Gaussian wave function, and comment on the principal differences in results obtained with the alternative vertex functions. The parameters in our calculation are the $`p_F`$ for each of the $`\rho `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, which control the transverse size of the vector-meson wave functions; the momentum cut-off $`Q_0^2`$ when the gluon structure function is used in the perturbative term, or the overall normalisation of the perturbative term in the Cudell-Royon model. The normalisation of the nonperturbative term is effectively fixed by the $`\rho `$ photoprodution cross section which it dominates . Two sets of results are shown: S1 refers to non-perturbative plus gluon structure function; S2 refers to non-perturbative plus Cudell-Royon. In both cases the same parameters for the two-gluon exchange contributions are used for the $`\rho `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, so that the only difference allowed for different vector mesons is in the value of the relevant $`p_F`$.

We start with the $`\rho `$. The results for $`d\sigma /dQ^2`$ for and $`\sigma _L/\sigma _T`$ with $`p_F=0.5`$ GeV are shown in figures 11, 11 and 12 for S1 and in figures 14, 14 and 15 for S2. The result for $`d\sigma /dQ^2`$ at $`W=75`$ and for $`\sigma _L/\sigma _T`$, which has little energy dependence, are satisfactory, but that for $`d\sigma /dQ^2`$ at $`W=15`$ clearly falls below the data at all $`Q^2`$. This is not surprising as at this lower energy there is a contribution from reggeon exchange which we have not taken into account. The results for $`d\sigma /dQ^2`$, other than the normalisation, are not strongly dependent on the choice of $`p_F`$. The shape is reproduced satisfactorily for $`0.3p_F0.6`$ GeV. However $`\sigma _L/\sigma _T`$ depends very strongly on $`p_F`$, the ratio rising rapidly with decreasing $`p_F`$, and restricting the choice of $`p_F`$ to the upper end of the range. The S2 result is slightly better overall. The results obtained using the wave functions derived from the specific potentials are very close to those shown, and provide an equally satisfactory description.

It is clear from figures 11 and 14 that an increase in normalisation would convert a good description of the data into an excellent one. If we were considering $`\rho `$ meson production in isolation then it would be appropriate to do this by increasing $`\alpha _s^{(0)}`$. However, as we shall see, this would then impact adversely on the cross sections for the $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, particularly on the former by making it too large. The problem of simultaneously obtaining the correct normalisation for the photo- and electroproduction of the $`\rho `$ and the $`\varphi `$ within the constraints of pre-defined wave functions is well-known; for example see .

The results for the $`\varphi `$ with $`p_F=0.6`$ GeV are shown in figures 17, 17 and 18 for S1 and in figures 20, 20 and 21 for S2. The results in both cases are very good. It is particularly satisfying that the description of the low-energy data is good, as in this case there is no reggeon contribution. Once again the results obtained using the wave functions derived from the specific potentials are very close to those shown, and provide an equally good description.

The $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ results are given in figures 23 through 27 with $`p_F=1.2`$, and are again very satisfactory. We have included low-energy data, although they are not very precise and have some contamination from nucleon breakup. Because of the mass of the charm quark the data on $`\sigma _L/\sigma _T`$ ratio do not provide a strong constraint, and even at $`Q^2=50`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> the ratio is still far from its asymptotic value. The S2 results are again to be slightly preferred overall. In the case of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the results obtained using the wave functions derived from the specific potentials do not provide a good description of the data, the cross section being about a factor of three too large. There are also significant differences in $`\sigma _L/\sigma _T`$, the ratio rising almost linearly with increasing $`Q^2`$, and by $`Q^2=50`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> is a factor of two larger than the results shown in figures 24 and 27. However the present data cannot sensibly distinguish between this result and the one shown. That there is a significant difference in the predictions for the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is not surprising given the very different wave function used in the fit compared to those obtained from specific potentials: recall figure 9.

There is very little difference in the energy dependence predicted by models S1 and S2, so we shall show only the latter. The energy dependence at fixed $`Q^2`$ is shown in figures 29 and 29 for the $`\rho `$, in figure 31 for the $`\varphi `$ and in figure 31 for the $`J/\psi `$, in each case for the S2 model. The break in the curves is because of the different value of $`ϵ`$ used at the lower energies. The model succeeds well in reproducing the trends of the data, and is particularly successsful for the $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\psi `$, even at $`Q^2=0`$ in the latter case. The increasing energy dependence with increasing $`Q^2`$ is well represented by the model, reflecting the increasing importance of the hard pomeron as $`Q^2`$ is increased. This is not artifically imposed on the model. It occurs naturally via the loop integrals involving the meson wave function and the gluon propagators. The model also automatically takes account of the increasing importance of the hard pomeron with increasing quark mass. For example, for the $`\rho `$ at $`Q^2=0`$ the soft pomeron contributes $`95\%`$ of the amplitude at $`\sqrt{s}=15`$ GeV and $`85\%`$ of the amplitude at $`\sqrt{s}=75`$ GeV. At $`Q^2=20`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> these have become $`25\%`$ of the amplitude at $`\sqrt{s}=15`$ GeV and $`10\%`$ of the amplitude at $`\sqrt{s}=75`$ GeV. These proportions are very similar for the $`\varphi `$ with a slight increase of the hard component: for example at $`Q^2=0`$ the soft pomeron contributes $`90\%`$ of the amplitude at $`\sqrt{s}=15`$ GeV and $`70\%`$ of the ampitude at $`\sqrt{s}=90`$ GeV. For the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ at $`Q^2=0`$ the soft pomeron contributes $`80\%`$ of the amplitude at $`\sqrt{s}=15`$ GeV and $`35\%`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=250`$ GeV. These results for the soft pomeron proportions at $`Q^2=0`$ are comparable with those obtained in other phenomenological approaches . The same general features, a slow onset of the perturbative region where the hard pomeron dominates, are compatible with those of . In  a theoretical analysis is made of $`\gamma ^{}p\rho ^0p`$ based on the BFKL formalism, and it is concluded that the perturbative term does not dominate until energies and virtualities beyond those currently accessed at HERA. In  an analysis of $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction in a dipole model clearly illustrates the mixing of perturbative and nonperturbative effects in this process.

Finally, examples of the predicted $`t`$-dependence are shown in figures 33 to 35. The data for the $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ are unnormalised, so the theoretical curves have been renormalized to the data. The relative normalisation of S1 and S2 is that given by the models. For the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the data and the predictions are normalised. Clearly the description is again very satisfactory, with the possible exception of the $`\rho `$ where the models predict a somewhat faster decrease with $`t`$ than is observed.

## 6 Conclusions

We have presented a model of vector meson electroproduction, and also for photoproduction in the case of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The model gives a good overall description of the data for $`\rho `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\psi `$ electroproduction with only five adjustable parameters. The dynamical mechanism, with two adjustable parameters, is common to each and the only freedom in going from one vector meson to another is the parameter $`p_F`$ which is related to the “size” of the meson in its rest frame. The values of $`p_F`$ required for each of the $`\rho `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\psi `$ are 0.5 GeV<sup>2</sup>, 0.6 GeV<sup>2</sup> and 1.2 GeV<sup>2</sup> respectively, in accord with what one would expect. Not surprisingly, electroproduction of the $`\rho `$ is primarily non-perturbative at small $`Q^2`$, and an important non-perturbative component is still present at the highest energy and largest $`Q^2`$ for which data exist. In contrast the perturbative contribution dominates in $`J/\psi `$ production at high energy, although at small $`Q^2`$ interference with the non-perturbative contribution remains important. For $`W50`$ GeV, $`Q^220`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ electroproduction can be considered to be exclusively perturbative. We finally note that this type of model could be used to give an excellent description of any of the $`\rho `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\psi `$ if they were to be considered in isolation.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Overseas Research Students Award, a University of Manchester Research Scholarship and by PPARC grant number PPA/G/0/1998.