text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Ising spin system is undoubtedly one of the most frequently used models of statistical mechanics. Recently, this model has also become the most popular physics export article to ”other branches of science” such as biology, economy or sociology . There are two main reasons for that: first verbalized by Nobel prize winner Peter.B.Medawar - ”physics envy” (quoted e.g. by R. Dawkins in ) \- a syndrome appearing in some researchers who would like to have such beautiful and relatively simple models as physicists have (for example the Ising model). On the other hand, some physicists would like to be better understandable by non-physicists and create theories which could not be so univocally verified or falsified like in the classical areas of physics. It is rather obvious that Ising-type models cannot explain origins of very complicated phenomena observed in complex systems. However, it is believed that these kind of models could describe some universal behaviour connected, for example, with selforganization of systems  or in other words, justify the existence of some power laws, which recently makes many scientists very happy . Between many exotic applications of Ising spin models these referring to the problem of a democratic choice of a one among two possibilities seem to be the most natural .

## 2 Model

Let us consider a community which time and again should take a stand in some matter, for example vote on a president in a two-party system. If each member of the community can take only two attitudes ($`A`$ or $`B`$) then in several votes one expects some difference $`m`$ of voters for $`A`$ and against. We assume three limiting cases:

(i) all members of the community vote for $`A`$ (an ”all $`A`$” state),

(ii) all members of the community vote for $`B`$ (an ”all $`B`$” state),

(iii) 50% vote for $`A`$ and 50% vote for $`B`$,

which should be the stable solutions of our model.

The aim of the paper is to analyze the time evolution of $`m`$. To model the above mentioned system we consider an Ising spins chain ($`S_i;i=1,2,\mathrm{}N`$) with the following dynamic rules:

– if $`S_iS_{i+1}=1`$ then $`S_{i1}`$ and $`S_{i+2}`$ take the direction of the pair (i,i+1), (r1)

– if $`S_iS_{i+1}=1`$ then $`S_{i1}`$ takes the direction of $`S_{i+1}`$ and $`S_{i+2}`$ the direction of $`S_i`$. (r2)

These rules describe the influence of a given pair on the decision of its nearest neighbours. When members of a pair have the same opinion then their nearest neighbours agree with them. On the contrary, when members of a pair have opinions different then the nearest neighbour of each member disagrees with him (her). These dynamic rules lead to the three steady states above. However, the third steady state (50% for $`A`$ and 50% for $`B`$) is realized in a very special way. Every member of the community disagrees with his (her) nearest neighbour (it is easy to see that the Ising model with only next nearest neighbour interaction has such fixed points: ferro- and antiferromagnetic state). This rule is in accordance with the well known sentence ”united we stand divided we fall ”. So, from now on we will call our model - USDF.

## 3 Isolated System

To investigate our model we perform a standard Monte Carlo simulation with random updating. We consider a chain of $`N`$ Ising spins with free boundary conditions. In our simulations we were taking usually $`N=1000`$, but we have done simulations also for $`N=10000`$. We start from a totally random initial state i.e. to each site of the chain we assign an arrow with a randomly chosen direction: up or down (Ising spin). For this case we obtain of course, as a final state, one of the three fixed points (1-3, i.e. AAAA, BBBB, ABAB) with probability 0.25,0.25 and 0.5, respectively. The typical relaxation time for $`N=1000`$ is $`10^4`$ Monte Carlo steps (MCS). The space distribution of spins from the initial to a steady state is shown in Fig. 1. For intermediate states one can see the formation of clusters.

Let us define the decision as a magnetization, i.e.:

$$m=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}S_i.$$
(1)
In Fig. 2 we present typical time evolution of $`m`$ and to compare certain empirical data on ”social mood” . Without any external stimulation decision can change dramatically in a relatively short time. Such strongly non-monotonic behaviour of the change of $`m`$ is typically observed in the USDF model when the system evolves towards the third steady state (total disagreement or in magnetic language the antiferromagnetic state).

To measure the time correlation of $`m`$ we use classical autocorrelation function:

$$G(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\frac{\left(m(t)<m>\right)\left(m(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)<m>\right)}{(m(t)<m>)^2}.$$
(2)
Comparison of simulation results with empirical data is shown in Fig.3.

It seems interesting to follow changes of one particular individual. The dynamic rules we have introduced lead to an amazing effect - if an individual changes his (her) opinion at time $`t`$ he (she) will probably change it also at time $`t+1`$. Like in the Bak Sand-Pile model one change can cause an avalanche . On the other hand an individual can stay for a long time without changing his (her) decision. Let us denote by $`\tau `$ the time needed by an individual to change his (her) opinion. From Fig. 3 it can be seen that $`\tau `$ is usually very short, but sometimes can be very long. The distribution of $`(\tau )`$ ($`P(\tau )`$) follows a power law with an exponent $`3/2`$ (see Fig. 4).

We have also analysed the influence of the initial conditions on the evolution of the system. We have done it in two different ways - randomly and in clusters. In both cases we start from an initial concentration $`c_B`$ of opinion $`B`$. In the random setup $`c_BN`$ individuals are randomly (uniformly) chosen out of all $`N`$ individuals. In the cluster setup simply the first $`c_BN`$ individuals are chosen.

It turns out that the distribution of decision time $`\tau `$ still follows the power law with the same exponent as shown in Fig.4. A non-monotonic behaviour of decision change is still typical and sometimes even much stronger. However, it is obvious that if initially there is more $`A`$’s then $`B`$’s the final state should be more often ”all $`A`$” then ”all $`B`$”. Dependence between initial concentration of $`B`$ and the probability of steady state $`S`$ ($`AAAA`$,$`BBBB`$ or $`ABAB`$) is shown in Fig. 5.

There is no significant difference between the ”cluster” and ”random case”. Although it should be noted that the ”random case” is not well defined, because there is a number of random initial states. However, averaging over different initial random conditions gives a similar result to the ”cluster case”.

Observe that $`c_B>0.7`$ is needed to obtain final state ”all B” with probability grater than $`0.5`$ (see Fig.5). Dependence between $`c_B`$ and the probability of steady state ”all B” is well fitted by a power function with an exponent $`2.12`$.

## 4 Information noise

It is well known that the changes of opinion are determined by the social impact . In the previous section we have considered a community in which a change of an individuals opinion is caused only by a contact with its neighbours. It was the simplest social impact one can imagine. Now, we introduce to our model noise $`p`$ (similar to the ”social temperature” ), which is the probability that an individual, instead of following the dynamic rules, will make a random decision. We start from an ”all $`A`$” state to investigate if there is a $`p(0,1)`$ which does not throw the system out of this state. Time evolution of the decision from the ”all A” state is shown in Fig. 6.

It can be seen that for very small $`p10^6`$ deviations from the steady state are slight and the system is almost totally ordered. If $`p`$ increases than the deviations are of course larger and the system goes to a completely disordered state. This suggests that there is some value of $`p=p^{}`$ below which the system is ordered. However, on the basis of our simulations we can only determine that $`p^{}[10^6,10^5]`$. If we take totally random initial conditions and $`p<p^{}`$ the system will reach, after some relaxation time, one of the three steady states.

In the previous section we have shown that the distribution $`P(\tau )`$ follows a power law with an exponent $`3/2`$. The same distribution for different values of $`p`$ is shown in Fig. 7. In the limit $`p0`$ distribution $`P(\tau )`$ indeed follows a power law, whereas for $`p1`$ the distribution is exponential. Between these two extreme values of $`p`$ the distribution $`P(\tau )`$ consists of two parts - exponential for large values of $`\tau `$ and a power law with exponent $`\omega 3/2`$ for small values of $`\tau `$. Thus we can write:

$$P(\tau )\{\begin{array}{cc}\tau ^\omega \hfill & \text{for }\tau <\tau ^{},\omega \frac{3}{2}\hfill \\ \mathrm{exp}(a\tau )\hfill & \text{for }\tau >\tau ^{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where $`\tau ^{}`$ decreases with increasing $`p`$. For $`p=0`$, $`\tau ^{}=\mathrm{}`$ and for $`p=1`$, $`\tau ^{}=0`$.

## 5 Discussion

We have proposed a simple model called USDF, which can describe a ”black and white” way of making a decision, where unanimity or disagreement of a given pair causes unanimity or disagreement to its nearest neighbours, respectively. If such a mechanism of taking a decision by a community is correct our model leads to the following conclusions:

(i) In a closed (isolated) community there are only two possibilities of a final state: dictatorship or stalemate. After a shorter or longer time our model tends to one of the steady ”ordered” states (1-3). It means either a total unanimity if the system goes to the state 1(2) or inability to take any common decision if it goes to 3. However, small but finite information noise (open community) leads to disorder and the system does not go to any steady state. In this case there is a possibility of taking a common decision in a democratic way.

(ii) A change of opinion is followed by further changes. Periods of frequent changes of opinions are followed by periods of stagnancy.

(iii) A relatively small group (a few percent of the whole population) by a favourable coincidence can bring to a stalemate. But in order to win the group has to be quite large. For example, if the group wants to have a 50% chance of winning it should consist of more than 70% of all individuals. It means that in order to change an existing law (for example that pornography is illegal) usually over 70% of the population have to vote for change. A similar effect was observed by Galam .

(iv) For finite information noise p, there is some characteristic time of a decision change $`\tau `$ which depends on a value of p. For the decision time less than $`\tau `$, the distribution of decision time $`\tau `$ follows a power-law.

(v) The distribution of decision time $`\tau `$ for $`p=0`$ and for $`p<1`$ and $`\tau <\tau `$ follows the ”universal” power-law with exponent $`\omega 3/2`$ independently of the initial conditions (totally random or clustered state).

The proposed very simple rules (r1, r2) leads to a rather complicated dynamics but one can doubt if these rules properly describe real mechanisms of taking a decision. There are of course other possibilities within the Ising spin model. For example, if the members of a given community are less prone to oppose nearest neighbours then one should keep rule (r1) and skip rule (r2). This means that if $`S_iS_{i+1}=1`$ then nothing is changed in the system. In this case there are only two steady states ”all A” and ”all B”. Our simulations suggest that in such a closed community there is a tendency to create two opposite clusters but the final state must be total unanimity (dictatorship). This result is rather obvious, it is easier to carry one’s opinion if the members of the community are peaceable or less active. For a while this can be of profit to the community but finally it must lead to a dictatorship. It should be noted that also in this case the distribution of the decision time follows the same power-law like in the USDF model with $`\omega 3/2`$.

In an other model which we call ”if you do not know what to do, just do nothing” an individual’s opinion depends on opinions of his (her) nearest neighbours. If the opinion of these neighbours is unanimity ($`S_{i1}S_{i+1}=1`$) then the i-th individual agrees with them if not the i-th individual does not change his (her) opinion. In this case the number of steady states is enormous. Namely, each state different than $`ABAB`$ (antiferromagnetic) is a steady state. It means that if we start with a random distribution of opinions A and B there will be a tendency to create small clusters.

It is rather obvious that in a real community all mentioned and many others mechanisms can effect an opinion evolution…

Acknoledgements

We are grateful to Professor Suzanna Moss de Oliveira and Professor Dietrich Stauffer for reading the paper and helpful remarks.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent experiments on high energy two-body photodisintegration of the deuteron - have brought up interesting results: while the $`89^{}`$ and $`69^{}`$ data are consistent with the constituent-quark counting-rule behavior  (i.e. at fixed c.m. angle the differential cross section $`d\sigma /dt_{\gamma dpn}`$ scales as $`s^{11}`$), the $`36^{}`$ and $`52^{}`$ data do not show a scaling behavior at all up to $`4.0`$ GeV photon energy. Thus perturbative QCD (PQCD) cannot be applied at these energies at forward angles and nonperturbative approaches have to be used instead.

Some time ago a nonperturbative approach based on the Quark-Gluon Strings Model (QGSM) has been applied to the analysis of the angular and energy dependence of the differential cross section for the $`\gamma dpn`$ reaction in the few GeV energy region . In the QGSM – proposed in Ref.  for the description of binary hadronic reactions – the amplitude of the reaction $`\gamma dpn`$ is described by the exchange of three valence quarks in the $`t`$-channel with any number of gluon exchanges between them. This process is visualized in Fig. 1, where a) and b) describe the exchange of three valence quarks in the $`t`$\- and $`u`$-channels, respectively.

We recall that the QGSM is based on two ingredients: i) a topological expansion in QCD and ii) the space-time picture of the interactions between hadrons, that takes into account the confinement of quarks. The $`1/N`$ expansion in QCD (where $`N`$ is the number of colors $`N_c`$ or flavors $`N_f`$) was proposed by ’t Hooft ; the behavior of different quark-gluon graphs according to their topology, furthermore, was analyzed by Veneziano  with the result that in the large $`N`$ limit the planar quark-gluon graphs become dominant. This approach based on the $`1/N_f`$ expansion  with $`N_cN_f`$ was used by Kaidalov  in the formulation of the QGSM. Again for sufficiently large $`N_f`$ the simplest planar quark-gluon graphs give the dominant contribution to the amplitudes of binary hadronic reactions. Moreover, it can be shown that in the space-time representation the dynamics described by planar graphs corresponds to the formation and break-up of a quark-gluon string (or color tube) in various intermediate states (see e.g. Refs. ). Here the quark-gluon string can be identified with a corresponding Regge trajectory222In case of Fig.1 we have in the intermediate state a string with a quark and a diquark at the ends which corresponds to a nucleon Regge trajectory. In this sense the QGSM can be considered as a microscopic model of Regge phenomenology and be used for the calculation of different parameters, that have been considered before only on a phenomenological level.

As shown in Refs.  the QGSM describes rather well the experimental data on exclusive and inclusive hadronic reactions at high energy. Moreover, due to the duality property of scattering amplitudes this approach can also be applied at intermediate energies for reactions without explicit resonances in the direct channel. In fact, this model successfully describes the reactions $`ppd\pi ^+`$, $`\overline{p}dMN`$ and $`\gamma dpn`$ at intermediate energies, too, where the diagrams with three valence quark exchanges in the $`t`$-channel were found to be dominant (cf. Refs. ). However, in all those cases the explicit spin structure of the corresponding amplitudes was not taken into account. On the other hand, spin effects and the transversal polarization of the photon lead to a nontrivial angular dependence of the residue of the amplitude for the reaction $`\gamma dpn`$ as discussed in Ref. . In this paper we will use an extended approach to the spin effects in the QGSM as developed in Ref.  with respect to the description of the electromagnetic nucleon form factors $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$.

Another important extension of the QGSM in our study will be the use of nonlinear baryon Regge trajectories. There are phenomenological evidences (see ) as well as theoretical arguments (see e.g.  and references therein) that hadronic Regge trajectories should be nonlinear. This nonlinearity is not important for small momentum transfer (squared) $`t`$, however, in the region of $`t`$, which has already been reached in the experiment , effects of nonlinearity become very essential. We will employ three different forms of nonlinear nucleon Regge trajectories: i) a phenomenological one, which becomes linear at large $`t`$, and two QCD motivated trajectories of ii) logarithmic and iii) square-root type as suggested recently by Brisudová, Burakovsky and Goldman . By extrapolating our amplitudes to large angles we can figure out to what momentum transfer $`t`$ the ’soft QGSM tails’ are still important before the PQCD regime becomes dominant.

In Section 2 we outline the QGSM and its relation to Regge theory and introduce hadron-quark and quark-hadron transition amplitudes that are described by planar graphs. In Section 3 we construct the $`\gamma dpn`$ amplitude taking into account explicit spin variables. In Section 4 we present the results of our calculations in comparison to the data  while Section 5 concludes our present study.

## 2 The Quark-Gluon Strings Model

In order to introduce the basic features of the QGSM we consider the binary reactions $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`N\overline{N}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`p\overline{p}N\overline{N}`$, which at large values of the invariant energy (squared) $`s`$ and finite values of the 4-momentum transfer (squared) $`t`$ can be described by planar diagrams with $`t`$-channel valence-quark exchanges as shown by the diagrams a)-c) in Fig. 2. Here the single and double solid lines correspond to valence quarks and diquarks, respectively, while soft gluon exchanges between these lines are not shown. According to the topological $`1/N_f`$ expansion , these planar diagrams are expected to give the dominant contributions to the corresponding amplitudes in the limit $`N_f1`$ and $`N_c/N_f1`$. In the case of pion and nucleon interactions – as considered here – the exchanges of light $`u`$, $`d`$, and $`s`$ quarks are mainly important and the parameter of the expansion is not small, i.e. $`1/N_f=1/3`$. However, in case of amplitudes for exclusive reactions with specific quantum numbers in the $`t`$-channel, the actual expansion parameter is $`1/N_f^21/9`$ such that the expansion is expected to work.

### 2.1 Transition probabilities

Each planar diagram of the topological expansion has a simple interpretation within the framework of the space-time pattern formulated in terms of a color tube (or color string) . As an example we consider the space-time picture of the binary reaction $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ ( cf. Fig.2 a) ). At high center-of-mass (c.m.) energy $`\sqrt{s}`$, this reaction occurs due to a specific quark configuration in each pion, where (in the c.m. system) one quark (antiquark) takes almost the entire hadron momentum and plays the role of a spectator, while the valence antiquark (quark) is rather slow. The difference in the rapidities $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ between the quark $`q`$ and antiquark $`\overline{q}`$ in each pion is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }y=y_qy_{\overline{q}}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right),$$
(1)
with the scale $`s_01`$ GeV2. Then the two ’slow’ valence partons $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ from $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^0`$ annihilate, and the fast spectator quark and antiquark continue to move in the previous directions and form a color string in the intermediate state. After that, the string breaks due to the production of a $`q\overline{q}`$-pair from the vacuum and formation of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ system in the final state. We note, that the same space-time pattern holds for the diagram of Fig. 2 b) with the only difference, that the string is formed after annihilation of a diquark-antidiquark pair from the $`N\overline{N}`$-system in the initial state. Correspondingly, the graph of Fig. 2 c) shows the formation of the $`q\overline{q}`$ string due to annihilation of the valence diquark-antidiquark pair in the initial state and the production of another diquark-antidiquark pair due to the breaking of the string.

The annihilation of the initial $`q\overline{q}`$ (or $`(qq)(\overline{qq})`$) pair takes place, when the gap in rapidity of the valence $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ (or $`(qq)(\overline{qq})`$) is small (both interacting partons are almost at rest in c.m.s.) and the relative impact parameter $`|𝐛_{}𝐛_0|`$ is less than their interaction radius. It is possible to prove that the probability to find a valence quark with a rapidity $`y_q`$ at impact parameter $`𝐛_{}`$ inside a hadron can be written as

$$w(y_qy_0,𝐛_{}𝐛_0)=\frac{c}{4\pi R^2(s)}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta (y_qy_0)\frac{(𝐛_{}𝐛_0)^2}{4R^2(s)}\right],$$
(2)
where $`c`$ is a normalization constant, $`y_0`$ is the average rapidity, $`𝐛_0`$ is the transverse coordinate of the c.m. system in the impact-parameter representation. Furthermore, it is possible to relate the parameter $`\beta `$ and the effective interaction radius squared $`R^2(s)`$ in (2), that specify the quark distribution inside a hadron, to the phenomenological parameters of a Regge trajectory $`\alpha _i(t)`$ which gives the dominant contribution to the amplitude for the considered planar graph. In this case one gets

$$R^2(s)=R_0^2+\alpha _i^{}(y_qy_0),\beta =1\alpha _i(0),$$
(3)
where $`\alpha _i^{}=\alpha _i^{}(0)`$ is the slope of the dominant Regge trajectory.

Due to the creation of a string in the intermediate state the amplitude of a binary reaction $`abcd`$ has the $`s`$-channel factorization property, i.e. the probability for the string to produce different hadrons in the final state does not depend on the type of the annihilated quarks and is only determined by the flavours of the produced quarks. The same independence also holds for the production of the color string in the intermediate state from the initial hadron configuration: it depends only on the type of the annihilated quarks. This $`s`$-channel factorization has been formulated in Refs. , ,  in terms of transition probabilities as defined by Eq. (2).

### 2.2 Transition amplitudes

Following Ref.  we now generalize this approach by introducing the amplitudes $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{abq\overline{q}}(s,𝐛_{})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{q\overline{q}cd}(s,𝐛_{})`$, that describe the formation and the fission of an intermediate string, respectively. The amplitude for the binary reaction $`abcd`$ described by the planar graph of Fig.1a) ( b) or c)) can be written – employing the $`s`$-channel factorization property – as a convolution of two amplitudes, i.e.

$$A^{abcd}(s,𝐪_{})=\frac{i}{8\pi ^2s}d^2𝐤_{}T^{abq\overline{q}}(s,𝐤_{})T^{q\overline{q}cd}(s,𝐪_{}𝐤_{})$$
(4)
in momentum representation, or as the product

$$\stackrel{~}{A}^{abcd}(s,𝐛_{})=\frac{i}{2s}\stackrel{~}{T}^{abq\overline{q}}(s,𝐛_{})\stackrel{~}{T}^{q\overline{q}cd}(s,𝐛_{})$$
(5)
in impact-parameter representation.

The solution for the quark-hadron transition amplitudes $`T^{q\overline{q}\pi \overline{\pi }}(s,𝐤_{})`$ and $`T^{q\overline{q}N\overline{N}}(s,𝐤_{})`$ at large invariant energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ can be found using single Regge-pole parameterizations of the binary hadronic amplitudes $`A^{\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}}`$, $`A^{N\overline{N}\pi \overline{\pi }}`$ and $`A^{N\overline{N}N\overline{N}}`$

$$\begin{array}{c}A^{\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s,t)=N_M\left(\frac{s}{m_0^2}\right)^{\alpha _M\left(t\right)}\mathrm{exp}\left(R_{0M}^2t\right),\\ A^{N\overline{N}\pi \overline{\pi }}(s,t)=N_B\left(\frac{s}{m_0^2}\right)^{\alpha _B\left(t\right)}\mathrm{exp}\left(R_{0B}^2t\right),\\ \\ A^{N\overline{N}N\overline{N}}(s,t)=N_D\left(\frac{s}{m_0^2}\right)^{\alpha _D\left(t\right)}\mathrm{exp}\left(R_{0D}^2t\right).\end{array}$$
(6)
Here $`\alpha _M\left(t\right)`$, $`\alpha _B\left(t\right)`$ and $`\alpha _D\left(t\right)`$ are the dominant meson, baryon and diquark-antidiquark trajectories while $`N_M`$, $`N_M`$ and $`N_D`$ are normalization constants; $`m_0^2=s_0`$ and $`R_{0i}`$ is the interaction radius for the i-th trajectory. We have the following intercepts and slopes for the dominant Regge trajectories

$$\alpha _M\left(0\right)0.5,\alpha _B\left(0\right)0.5,\alpha _D\left(0\right)1.5$$
(7)
and

$$\alpha _M^{}\left(0\right)\alpha _B^{}\left(0\right)\alpha _D^{}\left(0\right)1.0GeV^2.$$
(8)
Using equations (5) and (6) we can write the amplitudes $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{q\overline{q}\pi \overline{\pi }}(s,𝐛_{})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{q\overline{q}N\overline{N}}(s,𝐛_{})`$ as

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{T}^{q\overline{q}\pi \overline{\pi }}(s,𝐛_{})=N_M^{1/2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }R_M\left(s\right)}\left(\frac{s}{m_0^2}\right)^{\left(\alpha _M\left(0\right)+1\right)/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{𝐛_{}^2}{8R_M^2\left(s\right)}\right),\\ \\ \stackrel{~}{T}^{q\overline{q}N\overline{N}}(s,𝐛_{})=N_D^{1/2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }R_D\left(s\right)}\left(\frac{s}{m_0^2}\right)^{\left(\alpha _D\left(0\right)+1\right)/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{𝐛_{}^2}{8R_D^2\left(s\right)}\right),\end{array}$$
(9)
where $`R_M\left(s\right)`$ and $`R_D\left(s\right)`$ are the effective interaction radii given by

$$\begin{array}{c}R_M^2\left(s\right)=R_{0M}^2+\alpha _M^{}\left(0\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s}{m_0^2}\right),\\ \\ R_D^2\left(s\right)=R_{0D}^2+\alpha _D^{}\left(0\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s}{m_0^2}\right).\end{array}$$
(10)
Now substituting the amplitudes (9) into the factorization formula (5) we get:

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{A}^{N\overline{N}\pi \overline{\pi }}(s,𝐛_{})=\\ \\ \left(N_MN_D\right)^{1/2}\frac{1}{4\pi R_D\left(s\right)R_M\left(s\right)}\left(\frac{s}{m_0^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha _D\left(0\right)+\alpha _M\left(0\right)\right)}\mathrm{exp}\left[𝐛_{}^2\left(\frac{1}{8R_M^2\left(s\right)}+\frac{1}{8R_D^2\left(s\right)}\right)\right].\end{array}$$
(11)
For consistency of eqs. (11) and (6) we have to require the following relations between the Regge parameters and normalization constants ():

$$\begin{array}{c}2\frac{1}{R_B^2\left(s\right)}=\frac{1}{R_M^2\left(s\right)}+\frac{1}{R_D^2\left(s\right)},\\ \\ 2\alpha \left(0\right)_B=\alpha _D\left(0\right)+\alpha _M\left(0\right),\end{array}$$
(12)
$$\left(N_MN_D\right)^{1/2}\frac{1}{R_D\left(s\right)R_M\left(s\right)}=N_B\frac{1}{R_B^2\left(s\right)}.$$
(13)
If only light $`u`$, $`d`$ quarks are involved we can assume that ()

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha _M^{}\left(0\right)=\alpha _B^{}\left(0\right)=\alpha _D^{}\left(0\right)\alpha ^{}\left(0\right),\\ \\ R_{0M}^2\left(0\right)=R_{0B}^2\left(0\right)=R_{0D}^2\left(0\right)R_0^2\left(0\right),\\ \\ \left(N_MN_D\right)^{1/2}=N_B.\end{array}$$
(14)
Then the relations (12) and (13) can be fulfilled at all $`s`$. Otherwise, they can only be satisfied at sufficiently large $`s`$ (cf. Ref. ()).

## 3 Deuteron photodisintegration in the QGSM

Before going over to the case of particles with spin we first present the amplitudes for spinless constituents.

### 3.1 Spinless particles

Using the same approach as in previous Section we now consider the reaction

$$\gamma dpn.$$
(15)
By analogy to Eq. (5) the amplitude corresponding to each quark diagram of Fig. 1 can be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{A}^{\gamma dpn}(s,𝐛_{})=\frac{i}{2s}\stackrel{~}{T}^{\gamma dq(5q)}(s,𝐛_{})\stackrel{~}{T}^{q(5q)pn}(s,𝐛_{}),$$
(16)
where the amplitudes $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{\gamma dq(5q)}(s,𝐛_{})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{q(5q)pn}(s,𝐛_{})`$ are given by (cf. (9))

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{T}^{\gamma dq(5q)}(s,𝐛_{})=N_{M(6q)}^{1/2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }R_{M(6q)}\left(s\right)}\left(\frac{s}{m_0^2}\right)^{\left(\alpha _M\left(0\right)+1\right)/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{𝐛_{}^2}{8R_{M(6q)}^2\left(s\right)}\right),\\ \\ \stackrel{~}{T}^{q(5q)pn}(s,𝐛_{})=N_{D(6q)}^{1/2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }R_{D(6q)}\left(s\right)}\left(\frac{s}{m_0^2}\right)^{\left(\alpha _D\left(0\right)+1\right)/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{𝐛_{}^2}{8R_{D(6q)}^2\left(s\right)}\right).\end{array}$$
(17)
Here the effective interaction radii $`R_{M(6q)}\left(s\right)`$ and $`R_{D(6q)}\left(s\right)`$ are defined as

$$\begin{array}{c}R_{M(6q)}^2\left(s\right)=R_{0M(6q)}^2+\alpha _M^{}\left(0\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s}{m_0^2}\right),\\ \\ R_{D(6q)}^2\left(s\right)=R_{0D(6q)}^2+\alpha _D^{}\left(0\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s}{m_0^2}\right),\end{array}$$
(18)
where $`R_{0M(6q)}^2`$ and $`R_{0D(6q)}^2`$ are, in general, different from $`R_{0M}^2`$ and $`R_{0D}^2`$ in Eq. (10).

### 3.2 Full amplitudes with spin variables

In case of constituents with explicit spin we write the deuteron photodisintegration amplitude in the form

$`p_3,\lambda _p;p_4,\lambda _n|\widehat{T}(s,𝐩_3)|p_2,\lambda _d;p_1,\lambda _\gamma =`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8\pi ^2s}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐤_{}\lambda _p;\lambda _n|\widehat{T}^{q(5q)pn}(s,𝐤_{})|\lambda _q;\lambda _{(5q)}}`$
$`\lambda _q;\lambda _{(5q)}|\widehat{T}^{\gamma dq(5q)}(s,𝐩_3𝐤_{})|\lambda _d;\lambda _\gamma ,`$
where $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$, $`p_3`$, and $`p_4`$ are the 4-momenta of the photon, deuteron, proton, and neutron, respectively, while $`\lambda _i`$ is the $`s`$ channel helicity of the $`i`$-th particle. Furthermore, we make simplifying assumption that the spin of the $`(5q)`$ state is $`1/2`$. Then we can write the amplitude $`\widehat{T}^{\gamma dq(5q)}`$ as

$`\lambda _q;\lambda _{(5q)}|\widehat{T}(s,𝐤_{})|\lambda _d;\lambda _\gamma =`$ (20)
$`\overline{u}_{\lambda _q}(p_q)\widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _\gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{k}+m_q}{k^2m_q^2}}\right)\widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _d}v_{\lambda _{(5q)}}(p_{(5q)})D^{\gamma dq(5q)}(s,𝐤_{}),`$
where $`ϵ_{\lambda _d}`$ and $`ϵ_{\lambda _\gamma }`$ are the deuteron and photon polarization vectors, $`D^{\gamma dq(5q)}(s,𝐤_{})`$ is the scalar amplitude and $`m_q`$ is the quark mass. In analogy to $`q\overline{q}N\overline{N}`$, which was analysed in Ref. , we can describe the spin structure of the amplitude $`\widehat{T}^{q(5q)pn}`$ in terms of eight invariant amplitudes

$`\lambda _p;\lambda _n|\widehat{T}^{q+(5q)pn}(s,𝐤_{})|\lambda _q;\lambda _{(5q)}=`$ (21)
$`D_1(s,𝐤_{})\delta _{\lambda _p\lambda _q}\delta _{\lambda _n\lambda _{(5q)}}+D_2(s,𝐤_{})(\sigma _y)_{\lambda _p\lambda _q}\delta _{\lambda _n\lambda _{(5q)}}+`$
$`D_3(s,𝐤_{})\delta _{\lambda _p\lambda _q}(\sigma _y)_{\lambda _n\lambda _{(5q)}}+D_4(s,𝐤_{})(\sigma _x)_{\lambda _p\lambda _q}(\sigma _x)_{\lambda _n\lambda _{(5q)}}+`$
$`D_5(s,𝐤_{})(\sigma _y)_{\lambda _p\lambda _q}(\sigma _y)_{\lambda _n\lambda _{(5q)}}+D_6(s,𝐤_{})(\sigma _z)_{\lambda _p\lambda _q}(\sigma _z)_{\lambda _n\lambda _{(5q)}}+`$
$`D_7(s,𝐤_{})(\sigma _x)_{\lambda _p\lambda _q}(\sigma _z)_{\lambda _n\lambda _{(5q)}}+D_8(s,𝐤_{})(\sigma _z)_{\lambda _p\lambda _q}(\sigma _x)_{\lambda _n\lambda _{(5q)}},`$
where the $`z`$\- and $`x`$-axes are directed along the photon momentum and the momentum transfer $`𝐤_{}`$, respectively, and the $`y`$-axis is orthogonal to the scattering plane.

Now the experimental data on the proton form factor are in agreement with the assumption, that the dominant contribution stems from the amplitude corresponding to the conservation of the $`s`$-channel helicities (cf. Ref. ). Here we shall use the same assumption and take into account only the amplitude $`D_1(s,𝐤_{})`$. We thus find

$`\lambda _p;\lambda _n|\widehat{T}(s,𝐩_3)|\lambda _d;\lambda _\gamma =`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8\pi ^2s}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐤_{}\overline{u}_{\lambda _p}(p_3)\widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _\gamma }\left(\frac{\widehat{k}+m_q}{k^2m_q^2}\right)\widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _d}v_{\lambda _n}(p_4)}`$
$`\times D^{\gamma dq(5q)}(s,𝐤_{})D_1(s,𝐩_3𝐤_{}).`$
Furthermore, taking into account that at high energy $`p_\gamma \sqrt{s_0}`$ and finite momentum transfer $`t|𝐩_3|^2s_0`$ the momentum $`k`$ is almost transversal $`k=(k_0,𝐤_{},k_z)`$, where $`k_0k_zO\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_0}{2p_\gamma }}\right)`$ and $`d^2𝐤_{}𝐤_{}(\mathrm{})𝐩_3`$, we find the following representation for the spin structure of the $`\gamma dpn`$ amplitude:

$`\lambda _p;\lambda _n|\widehat{T}(s,𝐩_3)|\lambda _d;\lambda _\gamma =`$ (23)
$`\overline{u}_{\lambda _p}(p_3)\widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _\gamma }\left(A(s,t)𝐩_3𝜸+B(s,t)m\right)\widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _d}v_{\lambda _n}(p_4),`$
where

$`A(s,t)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{8\pi ^2s}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐤_{}\frac{𝐤_{}𝐩_3}{|𝐩_3|^2}\frac{1}{k^2m_q^2}}`$
$`\times D^{\gamma dq(5q)}(s,𝐤_{})D_1^{q(5q)pn}(s,𝐩_3𝐤_{}),`$ (24)
$`B(s,t)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{8\pi ^2s}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_q}{m}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐤_{}\frac{1}{k^2m_q^2}}`$
$`\times D^{\gamma dq(5q)}(s,𝐤_{})D_1^{q(5q)pn}(s,𝐩_3𝐤_{}),`$ (25)
and $`m`$ is the nucleon mass. In the case of a Gaussian parametrization for $`D^{\gamma dq(5q)}(s,𝐤_{})`$ and $`D_1`$ (in Eqs. (24,25)) the ratio $`R=A(s,t)/B(s,t)`$ is a smooth function of $`t`$. We, furtheron, assume that it is a constant and consider this constant as a free parameter.

The differential cross section for the reaction $`\gamma dpn`$ then is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{\gamma dpn}^I}{dt}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p_\gamma ^{\mathrm{cm}})^2}}[S_t|B(s,t)|^2+S_u|B(s,u)|^2`$ (26)
$`+(1)^{I+1}2S_{tu}\mathrm{R}e(B(s,t)B(s,u)],`$
where $`I`$ is the isospin of the reaction, i.e. $`I=1`$ (or $`0`$) for isovector (or isoscalar) photons. The kinematical functions $`S_t`$, $`S_u`$, $`S_{tu}`$ in (26) are given by

$`S_t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _\gamma ,\lambda _d}{}}\mathrm{Sp}[\widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _\gamma }(R𝐩_3𝜸+m)\widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _d}(\widehat{p}_4m)`$
$`\times \widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _d}^{}(R𝐩_3𝜸+m)\widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _\gamma }^{}(\widehat{p}_3+m)],`$
$`S_u={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _\gamma ,\lambda _d}{}}\mathrm{Sp}[\widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _d}(R𝐩_3𝜸+m)\widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _\gamma }(\widehat{p}_4m)`$
$`\times \widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _\gamma }^{}(R𝐩_3𝜸+m)\widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _d}^{}(\widehat{p}_3+m)],`$
$`S_{tu}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _\gamma ,\lambda _d}{}}\mathrm{Sp}[\widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _\gamma }(R𝐩_3𝜸+m)\widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _d}(\widehat{p}_4m)`$
$`\times \widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _\gamma }^{}(R𝐩_3𝜸+m)\widehat{ϵ}_{\lambda _d}^{}(\widehat{p}_3+m)].`$ (27)
In order to fix the energy dependence of the amplitude $`B(s,t)`$ we require that

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}t}|_{\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}.m.}=0}\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{2\alpha _N(0)2}.$$
(28)
Taking into account that $`S_ts`$ for $`ss_0`$ we find that

$$B(s,t)\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha _N(0)1/2}.$$
(29)
Moreover, a good approximation for the energy dependence of $`S_t(\theta _{\mathrm{c}.m.}=0)`$ in the region $`p_\gamma =1÷7.5`$ GeV is

$$S_t|_{\theta _{\mathrm{c}.m.}=0}Cp_\gamma ^2$$
(30)
with $`C=(36\pm 3)`$GeV2. Using this approximation we can relate $`B(s,t)`$ to the Regge-pole exchange amplitude as

$$|B(s,t)|^2=\frac{1}{Cp_\gamma ^2}|_{\mathrm{R}egge}(s,t)|^2,$$
(31)
where

$$_{\mathrm{R}egge}(s,t)=F(t)\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha _N(t)}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\frac{\pi }{2}\left(\alpha _N(t)\frac{1}{2}\right)\right].$$
(32)
Here $`\alpha _N(t)`$ is the trajectory of the nucleon Regge pole and $`s_0=4\mathrm{GeV}^2m_d^2`$.

### 3.3 Nonlinear nucleon Regge trajectories

According to the data on $`\pi N`$ backward scattering (see e.g. the review ) the nucleon Regge trajectory has a nonlinearity:

$$\alpha _N(t)=\alpha _N(0)+\alpha _N^{}(0)t+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _N^{\prime \prime }(0)t^2K(t),$$
(33)
where $`\alpha _N(0)=0.5`$, $`\alpha _N^{}(0)=0.9\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ are the intercept and slope of the Regge trajectory, $`\alpha _N^{\prime \prime }(0)=0.20÷0.25\mathrm{GeV}^4`$ is the coefficient of the nonlinear term. In (33) we introduced also a cut-off function $`K(t)`$. In Ref.  it was assumed that $`K(t)=1`$. However, in this case the amplitude will grow very fast with $`s`$ at large $`t`$ which would violate unitarity. To prevent this fast growth it was taken in Ref.  as a powerlike cut-off $`K(t)=(1+t^4/\mathrm{\Lambda }^4)^1`$. Here we choose the exponential form

$$K(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta t^2\right)$$
(34)
with $`\beta =0.008\mathrm{GeV}^4`$. We mention that the small value of $`\beta `$ does not destroy the parameterization of $`\alpha (t)`$ for $`t1.6\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ found in Ref. . Note also that the phenomenological Regge trajectory (33) with a powerlike or exponential cut-off is nonlinear only for moderate values of $`t`$; at large $`t`$ the quadratic term becomes small and the trajectory becomes essentially linear again.

On the other hand, the QCD motivated Regge trajectories as suggested by Brisudová, Burakovsky and Goldman (BBG)  show a different behaviour at large $`t`$. As shown in Ref.  the screened quark-antiquark potential

$$V(R)=\left[\frac{\alpha }{R}+\sigma R\right]\frac{1\mathrm{exp}(\mu R)}{\mu R}$$
(35)
with $`\sigma =`$(400 MeV)2, $`\mu ^1=0.90\pm 0.20`$ fm, $`\alpha =0.21\pm 0.1`$, found in Ref.  to describe the lattice QCD data with dynamical Kogut-Susskind fermions, leads to nonlinear meson Regge trajectories. These trajectories can be parametrized on the whole physical sheet as

$$\alpha (t)=\alpha (0)+\gamma \left[T^\nu \left(Tt\right)^\nu \right]$$
(36)
with $`0\nu 1/2`$. The limiting cases $`\nu =1/2`$ and $`\nu 0`$ ($`\gamma \nu =`$ const) correspond to the square-root trajectory

$$\alpha (t)=\alpha (0)+\gamma \left[\sqrt{T}\sqrt{Tt}\right],$$
(37)
and the logarithmic trajectory

$$\alpha (t)=\alpha (0)(\gamma \nu )\mathrm{ln}\left(1\frac{t}{T}\right)$$
(38)
respectively. Such trajectories arise not only for heavy quarkonia, but also for light-flavour hadrons.

To find the possible form of nonlinear Regge trajectories for mesons composed of light quarks, Brisudová, Burakovsky and Goldman  have considered an analytical model for a string with massless ends and variable string tension. This model describes a colour flux tube stretched between quark and antiquark at the tube ends. The varying string tension was introduced to simulate dynamical effects such as the weakening of the flux tube due to pair ($`q\overline{q}`$) creation. Within this model they were able to recover the form of the underlying potential for a given Regge trajectory. They found potentials leading to “square-root” and “logarithmic” Regge trajectories and demonstrated, that these potentials are very similar to the screened potential of the unquenched lattice QCD calculations. Moreover, they were able to describe very well all the available meson spectra using a square-root Regge trajectory. Nevertheless, the “logarithmic” form of Regge trajectories can not be excluded by now and new data on higher excited states are necessary.

We know from experiment that the slopes of meson and baryon Regge trajectories are almost the same $`\alpha _N^{}\alpha _\rho ^{}0.91`$ GeV-2 (see e.g. the review ). The slope is determimed by the string tension which depends on the colour charges at the string ends. Therefore, the baryon Regge trajectory can be described by the colour flux model with quark and diquark at the ends (cf Ref. ). This means that for the baryon Regge trajectories we can also use the forms suggested by BBG.

When using the QCD motivated trajectories (37) and (38) we take their intercepts and slopes the same as in case of the phenomenological trajectories. Therefore, only a single free parameter will be left. We choose $`T=T_B`$ as this free parameter and fix it by comparing our results to experimental data.

## 4 Cross sections for deuteron photodisintegration in the QGSM

### 4.1 Choice of parameters

The dependence of the residue $`F(t)`$ on $`t`$ can be taken from Refs.  in the form

$$F(t)=B\left[\frac{1}{m^2t}\mathrm{exp}(R_1^2t)+C\mathrm{exp}(R_2^2t)\right],$$
(39)
where the first term in the square brackets contains the nucleon pole and the second term accounts for the contribution of non-nucleonic degrees of freedom in the deuteron. We adopted the following sets of parameters:
i) for the case of the phenomenological nonlinear trajectory

$`\mathrm{Set}\mathrm{K}:B=3.3210^4\mathrm{kb}^{1/2}\mathrm{GeV},C=0.7\mathrm{GeV}^2,`$
$`R_1^2=1\mathrm{GeV}^2,R_2^2=0.1\mathrm{GeV}^2,\alpha _{N(0)}^{\prime \prime }=0.20\mathrm{GeV}^4,`$
$`\mathrm{Set}\mathrm{G}:B=4.0110^4\mathrm{kb}^{1/2}\mathrm{GeV},C=0.7\mathrm{GeV}^2,`$
$`R_1^2=2\mathrm{GeV}^2,R_2^2=0.03\mathrm{GeV}^2,\alpha _{N(0)}^{\prime \prime }=0.25\mathrm{GeV}^4`$ (40)
and the ratio $`R=A(s,t)/B(s,t)=1`$ for both sets K and G. The parameters of the residue (39) in $`\mathrm{Set}\mathrm{K}`$, except the overall normalization factor $`B`$ and $`R_1^2`$, are the same as in Ref.  which were fitted to data on the reaction $`pp\pi ^+d`$ for $`t1.6\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. Therefore, in this case we have only two free parameters of the residue $`B`$ and $`R_1^2`$ which we fixed by the experimental data on deuteron photodisintegration at $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}=36^{}`$. We note that $`\mathrm{Set}\mathrm{G}`$ corresponds to positive values of $`R_2^2`$;
ii) for the case of the QCD motivated Regge trajectories we have used the parameters of the residue from Set G except an overall normalization factor $`B`$ taken as $`B=1.810^4`$ kb$`{}_{}{}^{1/2}`$ GeV for the logarithmic and $`B=2.010^4`$ kb$`{}_{}{}^{1/2}`$ GeV for the square-root trajectory. Furthermore, we choose $`R=A(s,t)/B(s,t)=2`$ for both trajectories (logarithmic and square-root). In order to achieve a good agreement with the data at $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}=36^{}`$ the nonlinearity parameter $`T=T_B`$ was chosen in the interval 1.5-1.7 GeV2.

### 4.2 Energy dependence of the differential cross section

In Fig. 3 we present the energy dependence of $`d\sigma /dts^{11}`$ at different c.m. angles calculated for the case of the phenomenological nonlinear trajectory (33). The experimental points are taken from . The bold solid and dash-dotted lines present results of calculations within the QGSM for parameters of the Set G and Set K, respectively. The thin lines show the results obtained in the case of the linear Regge trajectories with residue parameters from Set G (thin solid line) and Set K (thin dash-dotted line). For $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}=36^{}`$ (see the top-left part) all the curves except the thin solid line are in a reasonable agreement with the data. Therefore, for this angle it is also possible to describe the data using a linear nucleon Regge trajectory. However, at large angles $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}=52^{}`$, $`69^{}`$ and $`89^{}`$ the nonlinearity becomes essential since the thin curves underestimate the experimental points substantially. The use of the nonlinear Regge trajectory instead provides a reasonable description of the existing data and reproduces the scaling behavior of $`d\sigma /dts^{11}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}=69^{}`$ and $`89^{}`$ at energies $`E_\gamma 5`$ GeV. At higher energies all curves drop very fast.

In Fig. 4 the energy dependence of $`d\sigma /dts^{11}`$ at different c.m. angles is calculated for the cases of the square-root (37) (dash-dotted lines) and logarithmic (38) (dashed lines) Regge trajectories. The lower and upper curves were calculated with $`T_B=`$1.7 and 1.5 GeV2, respectively. As noted before, the ratio of the invariant amplitudes $`R=A(s,t)/B(s,t)`$ is taken as $`R`$= 2. It is seen that the result of the square-root trajectory leads to a cross section which underestimates the data for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}52^{}`$, while the logarithmic trajectory provides a reasonable description of the data at all angles (with the exception of a single point at $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}=89^{}`$, $`E_\gamma =4`$ GeV). Therefore, new measurements of $`d\sigma /dt`$ at $`E_\gamma 5`$ GeV will provide a crucial check of the QGSM predictions.

### 4.3 Angular dependence of the cross section

In Fig. 5 we show the angular dependence of the differential cross section as a function of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}`$ calculated for $`E_\gamma `$ =1.6 GeV and 3.98 GeV using the phenomenological nonlinear trajectory (33) with $`\alpha ^{\prime \prime }(0)=0.25`$ GeV-4 and residue parameters of the set G. Here we have assumed isovector photon dominance and therefore obtain a forward-backward symmetric cross sections. Both angular distributions have forward and backward peaks, which are mainly related to the choice $`R=A(s,t)/B(s,t)`$=1 in this case. The agreement between data and calculations is fairly good.

### 4.4 Forward-backward asymmetry

In Fig. 6 we present the angular dependence of $`d\sigma /dts^{11}`$ at different energies for the logarithmic (38) Regge trajectory. The lower and upper parts correspond to $`E_\gamma `$ = 3.98 and 1.6 GeV, respectively. The two dashed curves in each figure were calculated assuming isovector photon dominance. In this case we have a forward-backward symmetry of the differential cross section. At 1.6 GeV the angular distribution has a dip at $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}`$ =0 and 180 which is related to the different choice of the ratio $`R(R=2)`$ as compared to the previous case $`(R=1)`$.

A forward-backward asymmetry arises when we take into account the interference of two amplitudes which describe the contribution of isovector ($`\rho `$ like) and isoscalar ($`\omega `$ like) photons. In this case the differential cross section can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{\gamma dpn}^{\rho +\omega }}{dt}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p_\gamma ^{\mathrm{cm}})^2}}[S_t|B^\rho (s,t)+B^\omega (s,t)|^2+`$ (41)
$`S_u|B^\rho (s,u)B^\omega (s,u)|^2`$
$`+2S_{tu}\mathrm{R}e(B^\rho (s,t)+B^\omega (s,t))^{}(B^\rho (s,u)B^\omega (s,u))].`$
Using the vector dominance model we take

$$B^\omega (s,t)=B^\rho (s,t)/\sqrt{8},B^\omega (s,u)=B^\rho (s,u)/\sqrt{8}.$$
(42)
The data at 1.6 GeV provide an evidence for a forward-backward asymmetry because the values of the differential cross sections at backward angles are smaller than for the corresponding angles in the forward region. The predictions of the simple VDM model with $`\rho \omega `$ interference are in qualitative agreement with the data (long-dashed curves). However, for definite conclusions we will need more systematic data at smaller angles in the forward and also in the backward regions.

## 5 Conclusions

In this work we have analyzed deuteron photodisintegration at GeV energies within the framework of the Quark-Gluon Strings Model with nonlinear Regge trajectories. We have taken into account spin effects assuming the dominance of those amplitudes that conserve $`s`$-channel helicities. We have found that the QGSM provides a reasonable description of the new TJNAF data on deuteron photodisintegration at large momentum transfer $`t`$ and that the energy dependence of $`\mathrm{d}\sigma /\mathrm{d}t`$ at $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}=36÷90^{}`$ provides new evidence for a nonlinearity of the Regge trajectory $`\alpha _N(t)`$. The best agreement with the data can be achieved using the QCD motivated logarithmic form of the Regge trajectory. However, new data at larger energies will be important to further check the energy behaviour of $`d\sigma /dt`$ at fixed c.m. angles as predicted by the QGSM.

We have also investigated the angular dependence of the cross section at different energies. The differential cross section may have a dip at forward angles if the amplitude with a charge-like photon coupling ($`A(s,t)`$ ) is dominant. By introducing the interference of isovector and isoscalar photon contributions we have calculated the forward-backward asymmetry of the cross section, which can be quite pronounced at $`E_\gamma `$ = 1.6 GeV, but will be a decreasing function of energy. New data for small and large angles (forward and backward) will be important to check these predictions.