text:
# Quantum mechanics on Riemannian Manifold in Schwinger’s Quantization Approach III

## 1 Introduction

The purpose of the present paper is to continue a series of our works devoted to a generalization of Schwinger’s quantization approach for the case of a Riemannian manifold with a group structure (determined by its metric).

In this paper we turn to the most problematic case (in physical meaning) of the formulation of quantum mechanics on a Riemannian manifold $`M`$ with the intransitive group of isometries $`G`$. Partially our consideration is based on our previous results , . But, in contradiction to them, the main feature of the present paper is the fact that the dimension of the manifold $`M`$ is bigger then the dimension of the group of isometries $`G`$. This leads to the decomposition of degrees of freedom describing a point particle on $`M`$ into two sets, related to the group $`G`$ and to the quotient space $`M/G`$. The last manifold has not a global group structure in a general case. Due to this reason it happens that the quantum mechanics is completely defined only on submanifolds of $`M`$, which are isomorphic to $`G`$ (the orbits of action of $`G`$ on $`M`$). The dynamical equations for the other degrees of freedom, connected with $`M/G`$, can be unequivocally determined after introducing some new assumptions expanding Schwinger’s scheme from outside, that are similar to canonical quantization postulates and can not be motivated logically. Nevertheless, having introduces them, we find that in quantum mechanics there is an abelian gauge field of $`\mathrm{}`$ (or higher) order, that remains undetermined and vanishes in the classical limit $`\mathrm{}0`$.

## 2 Structure of Manifold with Non-transitive Group of Isometries

Let us consider $`p`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold $`M`$ equipped with the metric $`\{\eta _{MN}:M,N=\overline{1,p}\}`$ in which the action of $`n`$-dimensional intransitive group of isometries $`G`$ is given ($`n<p`$). This means, according to , that the Killing equations

$$v^P_P\eta _{MN}+\eta _{MP}_Nv^P+\eta _{PN}_Mv^P=0$$
(2.1)
have $`n`$ independent solutions $`\{v_A^N:N=\overline{1,p};A=\overline{1,n}\}`$.

The set of vector fields $`\{v_A^M_M:A=\overline{1,n}\}`$ describes the representation of the Lie algebra $`\mathrm{Lie}(G)`$ of the Lie Group $`G`$ acting on $`M`$. Due to this fact each the vector from this set obeys the equation

$$v_A^N_Nv_B^Mv_B^N_Nv_A^M=C^C{}_{AB}{}^{}v_{C}^{M},$$
(2.2)
where $`C^C_{AB}`$ are the structure constants of $`G`$. This equality provides the following equation to have $`m=pn`$ independent solutions

$$v_A^N_N\phi (x)=0.$$
(2.3)
Let us consider a new coordinate system

$$\overline{x}^N:=(\phi ^\alpha (x),x^\mu )$$
(2.4)
$$N=\overline{1,p},\alpha =\overline{1,m},\mu =\overline{m+1,p}$$

where $`\{\phi ^\alpha (x):\alpha =\overline{1,m}\}`$ denote independent solutions of (2.3). In these coordinates the Killing vectors take the form:

$$\overline{v}_A^N=(v_A^M_N\phi ^\alpha ,v_A^\mu )(0,v_A^\mu ).$$
(2.5)
Further we will assume that such a coordinate system denoted by $`\{x^N\}`$ on $`M`$ is given and all the geometrical objects are expressed in terms of it. The Killing vector can be rewritten as

$$v_i^M=\delta _\mu ^Mv_i^\mu ,$$
(2.6)
where the group index $`i=\overline{m+1,p}`$ is used instead of $`A=\overline{1,n}`$ (the indices $`i`$, $`j`$, $`k`$, …play the same role as $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, …).

We introduce the inverse of the matrix $`\{v_i^\mu :\mu =\overline{m+1,p},i=\overline{m+1,p}\}`$ as

$$e_\mu ^iv_j^\mu =\delta _j^i,e_\mu ^iv_i^\nu =\delta _\mu ^\nu .$$
(2.7)
Using (2.2), (2.6), (2.7) one can prove that the matrix $`\{e_\mu ^i\}`$ obeys the Maurer-Cartan equation

$$_\mu e_\nu ^i_\nu e_\mu ^i=C^i{}_{jk}{}^{}e_{\mu }^{j}e_\nu ^k.$$
(2.8)
It is easy to obtain the following equations by differentiating

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill D_Mv_i^\mu & =& _Mv_i^\mu +\mathrm{\Lambda }_{M\nu }^\mu v_i^\nu =0\hfill \\ \hfill D_Me_\mu ^i& =& _Me_\mu ^i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{M\mu }^\nu e_\nu ^i=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.9)
where the object

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{M\nu }^\mu =v_i^\mu _Me_\nu ^i$$
(2.10)
corresponds to the right group connection on $`M`$ (see ).

Using (2.7), (2.8) one can easily prove the following property of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{M\nu }^\mu `$:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }^\sigma \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\nu \mu }^\sigma =C_{jk}^iv_i^\sigma e_\mu ^je_\nu ^k.$$
(2.11)
Using the relations obtained above we can write down the functional features of the metric in the special coordinate system, described by (2.4). To do it we transform the Killing equation (2.1) into new coordinate description:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _\mu \eta ^{\alpha \beta }& =& 0,\hfill \\ \hfill _\mu \eta _{\alpha \nu }& =& \eta _{\alpha \sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\nu \mu }^\sigma \eta _{\nu \sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \mu ,}^\sigma \hfill \\ \hfill _\mu \eta _{\alpha \beta }& =& \eta _{\alpha \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\beta \mu }^\nu +\eta _{\beta \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \mu }^\nu .\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.12)
The matrix $`\{\eta _{\mu \nu }:\mu ,\nu =\overline{m+1,p}\}`$ have the sense of the metric on the orbit of the action of $`G`$ on $`M`$, that is isomorphic to $`G`$.

Making an assumption that $`\{\eta _{\mu \nu }\}`$ is non-degenerate matrix we introduce the following objects:

$$A_\alpha ^\mu =g^{\mu \nu }\eta _{\alpha \nu },g^{\mu \nu }\eta _{\nu \sigma }=\delta _\sigma ^\mu .$$
(2.13)
Then $`\eta _{\alpha \mu }=g_{\mu \nu }A_\alpha ^\nu `$ and

$$D_\mu A_\alpha ^\nu =_\mu A_\alpha ^\nu +\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \sigma }^\nu A_\alpha ^\sigma =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \mu }^\nu ,$$
(2.14)
as it follows from (2.12).

Due to (2.13), (2.14) the second equation in (2.12) is equivalent to

$$_\mu (\eta _{\alpha \beta }g_{\mu \nu }A_\alpha ^\mu A_\beta ^\nu )=0.$$
(2.15)
Hence, the matrix

$$g_{\alpha \beta }=\eta _{\alpha \beta }g_{\mu \nu }A_\alpha ^\mu A_\beta ^\nu $$
(2.16)
depends only on coordinates $`\{x^\alpha :\alpha =\overline{1,m}\}`$ and is independent on $`\{x^\mu :\mu =\overline{m+1,p}\}`$. The metric tensor $`\{\eta _{MN}\}`$, describing the manifold $`M`$ can be rewritten in terms of objects $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`A_\alpha ^\mu `$, $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ as follows

$$\{\eta _{MN}\}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{\alpha \beta }+g_{\rho \sigma }A_\alpha ^\rho A_\beta ^\sigma & g_{\mu \rho }A_\beta ^\rho \\ A_\alpha ^\rho g_{\rho \nu }& g_{\mu \nu }\end{array}\right),$$
(2.17)
$$\{\eta ^{MN}\}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g^{\alpha \beta }& A_\gamma ^\mu g^{\gamma \beta }\\ g^{\alpha \gamma }A_\beta ^\nu & g^{\mu \nu }+g^{\gamma \delta }A_\gamma ^\mu A_\delta ^\nu \end{array}\right).$$
(2.18)
This decomposition is similar to Kaluza-Klein one. In (2.18) $`\{g^{\alpha \beta }\}`$ denotes the inverse of $`\{g_{\alpha \beta }\}`$. If $`\{\eta _{MN}\}`$ and $`\{g_{\mu \nu }\}`$ are non-degenerate matrices the matrix $`\{g^{\alpha \beta }\}`$ exists due to the following property

$$\mathrm{det}\{\eta _{MN}\}=\mathrm{det}\{g_{\alpha \beta }\}\mathrm{det}\{g_{\mu \nu }\}$$

The functional properties of the metric (2.17) are determined by the following equations

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _\mu g_{\alpha \beta }& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill _\rho g_{\mu \nu }& =& g_{\mu \sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\rho \mu }^\sigma +g_{\nu \sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\rho \nu }^\sigma \hfill \\ \hfill _\mu A_\alpha ^\nu & =& \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \mu }^\nu A_\alpha ^\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\rho \mu }^\nu \hfill \end{array}$$
(2.19)
By its written form, the matrices (2.17), (2.18) correspond to analogous ones in , but their meaning is different.

From the geometrical point of view the construction we are considering corresponds to the principal bundle with a total space $`M`$, a base space $`M/G`$ and a structure group $`G`$. The coordinates $`\{x^\alpha \}`$ from the set $`\{x^M\}=\{x^\alpha ,x^\mu \}`$ describes the local coordinate system in $`M/G`$, the matrix $`\{g_{\alpha \beta }\}`$ — the metric tensor of $`M/G`$.

The projection map of the principal bundle $`(M/G)(M,G)`$ has the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}p:M& & M/G\\ \{x^\alpha ,x^\mu \}& & \{x^\alpha \}.\end{array}$$

The vector fields

$$\widehat{D}_i=v_i^\mu _\mu ,\widehat{D}_\alpha =_\alpha A_\alpha ^\mu _\mu $$
(2.20)
form the bases of vertical and horizontal fields correspondingly. One can observe it from

$$\mathrm{d}p(\widehat{D}_i|_{\{x^\alpha ,x^\mu \}})=0,\mathrm{d}p(\widehat{D}_\alpha |_{\{x^\alpha ,x^\mu \}})=_\alpha |_{\{x^\alpha \}}.$$
(2.21)
The objects $`\{A_\alpha ^\mu \}`$ defined above correspond to the $`\mathrm{Lie}(G)`$-valued connection 1-form on $`M`$:

$$\omega ^i=e_\mu ^i\left(\mathrm{d}x^\mu +A_\alpha ^\mu \mathrm{d}x^\alpha \right).$$
(2.22)
Now we write down some useful relations for the Riemannian geometry on $`M`$, which describe its features explicitly.

Let $`_\alpha `$ be a standard covariant derivative constructed with the metric $`\{g_{\alpha \beta }\}`$. Define the operator on $`M/G`$ that generalize the operator $`\widehat{}_\alpha `$ as

$$\widehat{}_\alpha B_\beta =\widehat{D}_\alpha B_\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\gamma {}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}B_{\gamma }^{}$$
(2.23)
for some vector field $`B_\alpha `$ on $`M/G`$ depending on coordinates $`\{x^\mu \}`$. Then

$$[\widehat{}_\alpha ,\widehat{}_\beta ]B_\gamma =[\widehat{D}_\alpha ,\widehat{D}_\beta ]B_\gamma R^\delta {}_{\alpha \beta \gamma }{}^{}B_{\delta }^{},$$
(2.24)
where $`R^\delta _{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is the curvature tensor for the metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$.

The explicit expression for the commutator $`[\widehat{D}_\alpha ,\widehat{D}_\beta ]`$ can be obtained from its action on a scalar function $`f(x^\alpha ,x^\mu )`$. Performing the simple calculation we can observe that

$$[\widehat{D}_\alpha ,\widehat{D}_\beta ]f=(_\alpha A_\beta ^\mu _\beta A_\alpha ^\mu )_\mu f+(A_\alpha ^\mu _\mu A_\beta ^\nu A_\beta ^\mu _\mu A_\alpha ^\nu )_\nu f.$$
(2.25)
Using (2.19) in (2.25):

$$A_\alpha ^\mu _\mu A_\beta ^\nu A_\beta ^\mu _\mu A_\alpha ^\nu =C^i{}_{ik}{}^{}A_{\alpha }^{j}A_\beta ^kv_i^\nu +(_\alpha A_\beta ^\nu _\beta A_\alpha ^\nu )+(_\alpha A_\beta ^i_\beta A_\alpha ^i)v_i^\nu ,$$
(2.26)
where

$$A_\alpha ^i=e_\mu ^iA_\alpha ^\mu ,_\mu A_\alpha ^i=C^i{}_{jk}{}^{}e_{\mu }^{j}A_\alpha ^k+_\alpha e_\mu ^i.$$
(2.27)
Due to (2.26), (2.27) the expression (2.25) can be rewritten as

$$[\widehat{D}_\alpha ,\widehat{D}_\beta ]f=F_{\alpha \beta }^i\widehat{D}_if,\widehat{D}_i=v_i^\mu _\mu .$$
(2.28)
$$F_{\alpha \beta }^i=_\alpha A_\beta ^i_\beta A_\alpha ^i+C^i{}_{jk}{}^{}A_{\alpha }^{j}A_\beta ^k.$$
(2.29)
Observing (2.28)-(2.29) we can draw a conclusion that the objects $`\{A_\alpha ^i\}`$ can be interpreted as gauge fields defined on $`M/G`$ with the strength tensor $`F_{\alpha \beta }^i`$.

The other relations between the basic fields have the form

$$[\widehat{D}_i,\widehat{D}_j]=C^k{}_{ij}{}^{}\widehat{D}_{k}^{},[\widehat{D}_\alpha ,\widehat{D}_i]=0.$$

At the end of this section we consider classes of coordinate transformations $`x^\mu \overline{x}^\mu `$ preserving the form of the metric (2.17)-(2.18) and its functional structure. Evidently, one such a class consists of coordinate transformations on the orbit of the action of $`G`$:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \overline{x}^\alpha & =& x^\alpha \hfill \\ \hfill \overline{x}^\mu & =& \overline{x}^\mu (x^\nu )\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.30)
Under such a transformation $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`A_\alpha ^\mu `$ behave as a tensor and a covariant vector correspondingly (the geometric properties are described by $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$, …). In the same time $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ transforms as a scalar.

The coordinate change on $`M/G`$

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \overline{x}^\alpha & =& \overline{x}^\alpha (x^\beta )\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{x}^\mu & =& x^\mu \hfill \end{array}$$
(2.31)
is of the same class.

The objects $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`A_\alpha ^\mu `$ transform as a tensor and a contravariant vector correspondingly (the geometric properties are described by $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, …), while $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ transforms as a scalar.

The third class of transformations is described by

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \overline{x^\alpha }& =& x^\alpha \hfill \\ \hfill \overline{x}^\mu & =& x^\mu +\phi ^\mu (x^\alpha )\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.32)
The main geometrical objects transform under (2.32) as

$$\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }(\overline{x})=g_{\mu \nu }(x),\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta }(\overline{x})=g_{\alpha \beta }(x),\overline{A}_\alpha ^\mu (\overline{x})=A_\alpha ^\mu _\alpha \phi ^\mu (x^\alpha ).$$

An arbitrary vector $`F_M`$ on $`M`$ can be decomposed into two objects that are invariant under the transformation (2.32):

$$_\alpha =F_\alpha A_\alpha ^\mu F_\mu ,_\mu =F_\mu .$$

This decomposition means the extraction of the horizontal part of $`F_M`$.

## 3 Lagrangian and Variational Principle

Constructing the quantum mechanics on a Riemannian manifold $`M`$ with the non-transitive group of isometries $`G`$ in terms of variational principle, as in our previous papers, we assume that the coordinate operators $`x^M`$ form the total set of commuting observables.

The quantum Lagrangian can be written as

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}^M\eta _{MN}(x)\dot{x}^NU_q(x),$$
(3.33)
where $`U_q(x)`$ is some function that provides the scalar transformation law of $`L`$ under a general non-degenerate coordinate transformation $`x\overline{x}=\overline{x}(x)`$ (see , ). As it has been pointed out in , its explicit expression can be determined in the case when the commutator $`[x^M,\dot{x}^N]`$ is the function of only $`\{x^M\}`$. This is a standard assumption in the formulation of the quantum mechanics on a Riemannian manifold (see  and motivation in ). The function $`U_q`$ appears as the value of $`\mathrm{}^2`$-order.

In the special coordinate system, introduced in (2.4), the metric tensor $`\{\eta _{MN}\}`$ receives the form that is similar to one appearing in Kaluza-Klein theories. The Lagrangian can be written as

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\left(\dot{x}^\mu +\dot{x}^\alpha A_\alpha ^\mu \right)g_{\mu \nu }\left(\dot{x}^\nu +A_\beta ^\nu \dot{x}^\beta \right)+\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}^\alpha g_{\alpha \beta }\dot{x}^\beta U_q(x).$$
(3.34)
The Euler-Lagrange dynamical equations, according to , can be derived from the action principle in the form of the variational equation $`\delta L=0`$, that corresponds to the infinitesimal coordinate variation $`x^Mx^M+\delta x^M(x)`$.

As it has been developed in , the equality $`\delta L=0`$ holds if and only if the variations $`\delta x^M`$ are Killing vectors. In the present case, in contradiction to one investigated in  and , the dimension of the manifold $`M`$ is less than the number of linear independent Killing vectors $`\{v_A^M:M=\overline{1,p},A=\overline{1,n}\}`$ (i.e. $`n<p`$).

Extracting the total time derivative, as in , we can rewrite the Lagrangian as

$$\delta L=\frac{d}{dt}\left(p_M\delta x^M\right)\dot{p}_M\delta x^M+\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}^M\left(\delta x^P_P\eta _{MN}\right)\dot{x}^N\delta x^M_MU_q+\frac{1}{2}[\delta x^M,\frac{d}{dt}[\dot{x}^N,\eta _{MN}]],$$
(3.35)
where $`p_M=\eta _{MN}\dot{x}^N`$ means the momentum operator on $`M`$.

In accordance with , the object

$$G=p_M\delta x^M$$
(3.36)
have the sense of the generator of permissible variations.

Further we decompose the variation $`\delta x^M`$ in terms of the basis of linear independent Killing vectors (2.6):

$$\delta x^M=v_i^M\epsilon ^i,\epsilon ^i=\mathrm{const},$$
(3.37)
This allow us to rewrite (3.36) as

$$G=\left(p_Mv_i^M\right)\epsilon _i=p_i\epsilon ^i,p_i:=p_Mv_i^M.$$
(3.38)
In the special coordinate system (2.4) the objects $`\{p_i\}`$ have the form

$$p_i=p_\mu v_i^\mu ,p_\mu =\eta _{\mu M}\dot{x}^M=g_{\mu \nu }\left(\dot{x}^\nu +A_\alpha ^\nu \dot{x}^\alpha \right).$$
(3.39)
## 4 Algebra of Commutation Relations

Following the procedure presented in , we derive the commutation relations for quantum theory on $`M`$ performing investigation of the properties of permissible variations connected with action of the group $`G`$ of isometries on $`M`$. From the definition of permissible variations in terms of the representation of $`G`$ on $`M`$ (in the special coordinate system) we have

$$\delta _ix^\mu =v_i^\mu =\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[x^\mu ,p_i].$$
(4.40)
$$\delta _ix^\alpha =0=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[x^\alpha ,p_i].$$
(4.41)
(here $`\delta x^\mu =\epsilon ^i\delta _ix^\mu `$). Using the assumption about the commutativity of the coordinates $`\{x^M\}`$ and taking into account the fact that the matrix $`\{v_i^\mu \}`$ is non-degenerate (i.e. $`\mathrm{det}v_i^\mu 0`$), we can conclude from (4.40), (4.41) that

$$[x^\mu ,p_\nu ]=i\mathrm{}\delta _\nu ^\mu ,[x^\alpha ,p_\mu ]=0.:$$
(4.42)
The variation of the arbitrary function $`f`$ which depends on the coordinates $`\{x^M\}`$ can be defined as follows

$$\delta _if(x)=v_i^\mu _\mu f(x)=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[f,p_\mu ].$$
(4.43)
Hence

$$[f(x),p_\mu ]=i\mathrm{}_\mu f(x).$$
(4.44)
The variations of the velocity operators are

$$\delta _i\dot{x}^\mu =\frac{dv_i^\mu }{dt}=\dot{x}^M_Mv_i^\mu =\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[\dot{x}^\mu ,p_i],$$
(4.45)
$$\delta _i\dot{x}^\alpha =\frac{dv_i^\alpha }{dt}=0=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[\dot{x}^\alpha ,p_i].$$
(4.46)
Using (3.38), (3.39) we can express the velocity operators $`\{\dot{x}^\mu \}`$ in (4.45) in terms of the momentum operators $`\{p_\mu \}`$. Finally, we have

$$[p_\mu ,p_i]=i\mathrm{}p_\nu _\mu v_i^\nu .$$
(4.47)
The commutator (4.47) can be presented in another form, taking into account (2.2)

$$[p_i,p_j]=i\mathrm{}C^i{}_{ik}{}^{}p_{k}^{}.$$
(4.48)
Similarly, due to (2.2) and (4.44), we can write

$$[p_\mu ,p_\nu ]=0.$$
(4.49)
The commutators (4.42), (4.44), (4.48) and (4.49) completely define quantum mechanics on the orbit of the action of $`G`$ on $`M`$, that has been analyzed in .

Further, returning to the manifold $`M/G`$, we define the momentum operator

$$p_\alpha =\eta _{\alpha M}\dot{x}^M$$
(4.50)
and the auxiliary operator

$$\pi _\alpha =g_{\alpha \beta }\dot{x}^\beta =p_\alpha A_\alpha ^\mu p_\mu .$$
(4.51)
Due to $`_\mu g_{\alpha \beta }=0`$, the objects $`p_\mu `$ and $`\pi _\mu `$ are connected by the following commutation relations

$$[p_\alpha ,p_i]=i\mathrm{}_\alpha v_i^\mu ,[\pi _\alpha ,p_i]=0.$$
(4.52)
These are all the commutators which can be obtained immediately from the generator of permissible variations (3.38). Note, that presented above commutation relations are form-invariant under a general coordinate transformation $`x^M\overline{x}^M=\overline{x}^M(x)`$. The derivation of the remaining commutators requires the usage of operator equalities and introducing some additional assumptions.

It follows from the basic assumptions that the commutator between coordinate and momentum operators on $`M`$ is the function of only $`\{x^M\}`$, i.e.

$$[x^M,p_N]=i\mathrm{}B_N^M(x).$$
(4.53)
Due to the commutation relations obtained above the parts of the matrix $`B`$ is already defined, namely $`B_\nu ^M=\delta _\nu ^M`$. Then we can write

$$B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}B_\beta ^\alpha & B_\beta ^\mu \\ 0& \delta _\nu ^\mu \end{array}\right)$$
(4.54)
where the unknown functions $`B_\beta ^\alpha `$, $`B_\beta ^\mu `$ can be written in the following form motivated by the correspondence principle

$$B_\beta ^\alpha =\delta _\beta ^\alpha +b_\beta ^\alpha ,B_\alpha ^\mu =b_\alpha ^\mu .$$
(4.55)
The new unknown objects $`b_\beta ^\alpha `$ and $`b_\alpha ^\mu `$ in (4.54) are the functions of $`x`$ of $`\mathrm{}^2`$ (or higher) order. To derive their operator properties we can use the commutator of the structure equation

$$v_i^\mu _\mu v_j^\nu v_j^\mu _\mu v_i^\nu =C^k{}_{ij}{}^{}v_{k}^{\nu }$$
(4.56)
with the momentum operator $`p_\alpha `$. Using the relation

$$[v_i^\mu ,p_j]=i\mathrm{}\widehat{D}_jv_i^\mu $$
(4.57)
(the “long derivative” $`\widehat{D}_i`$ was introduced in (2.20), (2.21)) we can rewrite (4.56) as

$$[v_i^\mu ,p_j][v_j^\mu ,p_i]=C^k{}_{ij}{}^{}v_{k}^{\mu }.$$
(4.58)
Therefore, using the Jacobi identity, we arrive to the following operator equality

$$[[v_i^\mu ,p_j],p_\alpha ]=\mathrm{}^2_\nu v_i^\mu _\alpha v_j^\nu +i\mathrm{}\widehat{D}_j[v_i^\mu ,p_\alpha ].$$
(4.59)
Further, taking the antisymmetrization of (4.59) with respect to the indices $`i`$, $`j`$ we can find the equation

$$\widehat{D}_i\phi ^\mu {}_{j\alpha }{}^{}\widehat{D}_j\phi ^\mu {}_{i\alpha }{}^{}=C^k{}_{ij}{}^{}\phi _{k\alpha }^{\mu }$$
(4.60)
where we introduce the unknown function of coordinates defined as

$$\phi ^\mu {}_{i\alpha }{}^{}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[v_i^\mu ,p_\alpha ]_\alpha v_i^\mu .$$
(4.61)
Taking into account the structure of the operator $`\widehat{D}_i`$ we can conclude that the solution of (4.60) has the form

$$\phi ^\mu {}_{i\alpha }{}^{}=\widehat{D}_i\phi _\alpha ^\mu ,$$
(4.62)
where $`\phi _\alpha ^\mu `$ is a new unknown function of $`\{x^M\}`$.

Making the substitution $`p_iv_i^\mu p_\mu `$ into (4.52) we obtain

$$[p_\alpha ,p_\mu ]=i\mathrm{}_\mu \phi _\alpha ^\nu p_j.$$
(4.63)
Now we are going to show the relation between the objects $`\phi _\alpha ^\mu `$ and $`B_\alpha ^\nu `$. To do it let us write down the Jacobi identities including the coordinate operators $`x^M`$ and momentum operators $`p_\alpha `$, $`p_\mu `$:

$$\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[x^\alpha ,[p_\beta ,p_\mu ]]0=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}\left([[x^\alpha ,p_\beta ],p_\mu ][[x^\alpha ,p_\mu ],p_\beta ]\right)=i\mathrm{}_\mu B_\beta ^\alpha .$$
(4.64)
$$\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[x^\mu ,[p_\alpha ,p_\nu ]]i\mathrm{}_\nu \phi _\alpha ^\mu =\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}\left([[x^\mu ,p_\alpha ],p_\nu ][[x^\mu ,p_\nu ],p_\alpha ]\right)=i\mathrm{}_\nu B_\alpha ^\mu .$$
(4.65)
From (4.64) we can draw a conclusion about the independence of $`B_\beta ^\alpha `$ (and, in consequence, $`b_\beta ^\alpha `$) on $`x^\mu `$, because

$$_\mu B_\beta ^\alpha =_\mu b_\beta ^\alpha =0.$$
(4.66)
At the same time, it follows from (4.65) that the differential connection between $`\phi _\alpha ^\mu `$ and $`B_\alpha ^\mu `$ (and, in consequence, $`b_\beta ^\alpha `$) is

$$_\mu \phi _\alpha ^\nu =_\mu B_\alpha ^\nu =_\mu B_\alpha ^\nu .$$
(4.67)
The object $`\phi _\alpha ^\mu `$ appears in all the formulae we deal with under the derivative operator $`_\mu `$. Hence, using (4.67) we can identify $`\phi _\alpha ^\mu `$ with $`b_\alpha ^\mu `$, i.e. take

$$\phi _\alpha ^\mu (x)=b_\alpha ^\mu (x).$$
(4.68)
Due to the structure equation the commutator for $`v_i^\mu `$ and $`p_\alpha `$ reads

$$\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[v_i^\mu ,p_\alpha ]=_\alpha v_i^\mu +v_i^\nu _\nu b_\alpha ^\mu .$$
(4.69)
On the other hand, in accordance with (4.53), this commutator is equal to

$$\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[v_i^\mu p_\alpha ]=B_\alpha ^M_Mv_i^\mu =_\alpha v_i^\mu +b_\alpha ^M_Mv_i^\mu .$$
(4.70)
By comparing the equations (4.69) and (4.70) we obtain the equation for the objects $`\{b_\alpha ^M\}`$:

$$v_i^M_Mb_\alpha ^\mu b_\alpha ^Mv_i^\mu =0,_\mu b_\beta ^\alpha =0.$$
(4.71)
This equation has the transparent geometrical meaning. In accordance with , the object $`\{b_\alpha ^M\}`$ determines vector fields on $`M`$, that generate the one-parametric group of coordinate transformations, commuting with isometries (isometric transformations). In a general case these transformations does not form the representation of an $`pn`$-dimensional group.

As the solutions of (4.71), the objects are not determined unequivocally. If $`b_\alpha ^M`$ denotes the solution of (4.71), its linear combination

$$\overline{b}_\alpha ^M(x)=\epsilon _\alpha ^\beta (x^\gamma )b_\beta ^M(x)$$
(4.72)
also obeys the equation (4.71) for arbitrary functions $`\epsilon _\alpha ^M=\epsilon _\alpha ^M(x^\gamma )`$.

Therefore, the remaining commutation relations are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& [x^\alpha ,p_\beta ]=& i\mathrm{}\left(\delta _\beta ^\alpha +b_\beta ^\alpha \right),\hfill \\ & [x^\mu ,p_\beta ]=& i\mathrm{}b_\beta ^\mu ,\hfill \\ & [p_\mu ,p_\alpha ]=& i\mathrm{}_\mu b_\alpha ^\nu p_\nu ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.73)
where $`b_\alpha ^M`$ obeys the equation (4.71).

In order to construct the self-contained algebra of commutation relations for quantum mechanics on $`M`$ we have to obtain the explicit form of $`[p_\alpha ,p_\beta ]`$. In a general case we can write

$$[p_\alpha ,p_\beta ]=i\mathrm{}(F^M{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}p_M+\phi _{\alpha \beta }),$$
(4.74)
where $`F^M_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\phi _{\alpha \beta }`$ are unknown tensors of coordinates on $`M`$. To determine these objects we use the Jacobi identities for operators $`x^\alpha `$, $`p_\beta `$, $`p_\gamma `$ and $`x^\mu `$, $`p_\alpha `$, $`p_\beta `$. After simple calculation we find that

$$F^\gamma {}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}B_{\gamma }^{\delta }=\left(B_\alpha ^\gamma _\gamma B_\beta ^\delta B_\beta ^\gamma _\gamma B_\alpha ^\delta \right),$$
(4.75)
$$F^\mu {}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}+B_\gamma ^\mu F_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma =(B_\alpha ^M_MB_\beta ^\mu B_\beta ^M_MB_\alpha ^\mu ).$$
(4.76)
These equations allow us to define $`F_{\alpha \beta }^M`$ as a function of $`B_\alpha ^M`$.

To investigate the functional properties of the object $`\phi _{\alpha \beta }(x)`$ it is convenient to introduce the following operators

$$\overline{p}_\alpha =p_\alpha b_\alpha ^\mu p_\mu .$$
(4.77)
According (4.74), the operators (4.77) satisfy the following commutation relations

$$[\overline{p}_\alpha ,p_\mu ]=0,[\overline{p}_\alpha ,\overline{p}_\beta ]=i\mathrm{}(F^\gamma {}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}\overline{p}_\gamma +\phi _{\alpha \beta }).$$
(4.78)
From the relations

$$[p_\mu ,[\overline{p}_\alpha ,\overline{p}_\beta ]]=0,_\mu F^\gamma {}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}=0,$$
(4.79)
obtained from (4.77), (4.78) we can conclude that

$$_\mu \phi _{\alpha \beta }=0,$$
(4.80)
i. e. $`\phi _{\alpha \beta }`$ are the functions only of the coordinates on the quotient space $`M/G`$.

The further development of a theory can be performed only due to additional assumptions about the structure of the matrix $`B_N^M`$, that cannot be described in terms of the basic principles, having made a base of our quantization scheme.

Let $`B_N^M`$ has the simplest form $`B_N^M=\delta _N^M`$. In this case, as it follows from obtained above, the quantum mechanics is described by

$$[x^M,p_N]=i\mathrm{}\delta _N^M,[x^M,\dot{x}^N]=i\mathrm{}\eta ^{MN}.$$
(4.81)
The relations (4.81) can be divided into two parts. The first one corresponds to quantum mechanics on the orbit,

$$[x^\mu ,p_\nu ]=i\mathrm{}\delta _\nu ^\mu ,[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=0,[p_\mu ,p_\nu ]=0,$$
(4.82)
While the second one describes the quantum mechanics on the quotient space $`M/G`$:

$$[x^\alpha ,x^\beta ]=0,[x^\alpha ,\pi _\beta ]=i\mathrm{}\delta _\beta ^\alpha ,[\pi _\alpha ,\pi _\beta ]=i\mathrm{}(p_\mu F^\mu {}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}+\phi _{\alpha \beta }).$$
(4.83)
The remaining commutation relations, containing in (4.81) have the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& [x^\alpha ,x^\mu ]=0,\hfill & [\pi _\alpha ,p_\mu ]=i\mathrm{}_\mu A_\alpha ^\nu p_\nu ,\hfill \\ & [x^\mu ,\pi _\alpha ]=i\mathrm{}A_\alpha ^\mu ,\hfill & [x^\alpha ,p_\mu ]=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.84)
It is essential, that the features of quantum mechanics on $`M/G`$ depend on the tensor $`\phi _{\alpha \beta }`$, which cannot be determined i our quantization scheme.This object can be viewed as the strength tensor of some abelian gauge field. To show this, we have to take into account that the commutator (4.74) can be rewritten in the simpler form due to the restriction $`B_N^M=\delta _N^M`$, namely

$$[p_\alpha ,p_\beta ]=i\mathrm{}\phi _{\alpha \beta }(x^\gamma ).$$
(4.85)
Using (4.85) we find from the Jacobi identities for the operators $`p_\alpha `$, $`p_\beta `$, $`p_\gamma `$ that $`\phi _{\alpha \beta }`$ obeys the relation

$$_\alpha \phi _{\beta \gamma }+_\beta \phi _{\gamma \alpha }+_\gamma \phi _{\alpha \beta }=0.$$
(4.86)
Then, the evident solution of (4.86) is

$$\phi _{\alpha \beta }=_\alpha A_\beta _\beta A_\alpha ,$$
(4.87)
where $`A_\alpha `$ is some unknown abelian gauge field.

## 5 Quantum Lagrangian on $`M`$

Following  we introduce the following operator as the Lagrangian of a point particle with the unit mass

$$L(x,\dot{x}):=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{x},\dot{x})=\frac{1}{2}(p,p).$$
(5.88)
Here $`(,)`$ means the scalar product on $`M`$ that is invariant under a general coordinate transformation $`x\overline{x}(x)`$. Its constructing has been detally discussed in . In the present paper we modify this definition for the case

$$[x^M,p_N]=i\mathrm{}B_N^M(x),$$
(5.89)
where $`B_N^M\delta _N^M`$. One can simply show that $`B_N^M`$ is the tensor field on $`M`$ (and, consequently, $`b_N^M=B_N^M\delta _N^M`$ is the tensor field too).

Under a general coordinate transformation $`x\overline{x}(x)`$ on $`M`$ the momentum operator transforms as

$$p_M\overline{a}_M^Np_N=\overline{a}_M^Np_N+\frac{1}{2}[p_N,\overline{a}_M^N]=\overline{a}_M^Np_N\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}(_N\overline{a}_M^N+b_M^P_P\overline{a}_M^N),$$
(5.90)
$$p_M\overline{a}_M^Np_N=p_N\overline{a}_M^N\frac{1}{2}[p_N,\overline{a}_M^N]=p_N\overline{a}_M^N+\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}(_N\overline{a}_M^N+b_M^P_P\overline{a}_M^N),$$
(5.91)
Taking into account the transformation law of the Christoffel symbols $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MN}^P`$, constructed with the metric $`\eta _{MN}`$, we can write down the derivatives of the transformation matrices as

$$_N\overline{a}_M^N=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_M+\overline{a}_M^N\mathrm{\Gamma }_N,\mathrm{\Gamma }_N=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MN}^M,$$
(5.92)
$$_N\overline{a}_M^P=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{LM}^S\overline{a}_N^L\overline{a}_S^P\overline{a}_M^S\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NS}^P.$$
(5.93)
Let us introduce the notation

$$W_M=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MN}^Lb_L^N.$$
(5.94)
This object transforms under a general coordinate transformation on $`M`$ as

$$\overline{W}_M=\overline{a}_M^NW_N+b_L^N_N\overline{a}_M^L.$$
(5.95)
Hence, taking into account the transformation laws of $`p_M`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$ and $`W_M`$ we can define the following “left” and “right” parts of the momentum operator

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \pi _M& =& p_M\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_M+W_M),\hfill \\ \hfill \pi _M^{}& =& p_M+\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_M+W_M),\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.96)
that transform as

$$\pi _M^{}\overline{\pi }_M^{}=\overline{a}_M^N\pi _N^{},\pi _M\overline{\pi }_M=\pi _N\overline{a}_M^N.$$

Following  we define the scalar norm of the momentum operator $`p_M`$ on $`M`$ in terms of the operators $`\pi _M^{}`$ and $`\pi _M`$ as

$$(p,p)=\pi _M\eta ^{MN}\pi _N^{}.$$
(5.97)
Using the obtained above, the Lagrangian can be written in the form

$$L=\frac{1}{2}(\pi _\alpha \pi _\mu A_\alpha ^\mu )g^{\alpha \beta }(\pi _\beta ^{}A_\beta ^\mu \pi _\beta ^{})+\frac{1}{2}\pi _\mu g^{\mu \nu }\pi _\nu ^{}.$$
(5.98)
In the simplest case $`B_N^M=\delta _N^M`$ we can write it as

$$L=\frac{1}{2}(p_M\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M)\eta ^{MN}(p_M+\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M)=\frac{1}{2}p_M\eta ^{MN}p_N+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}\left(_M\mathrm{\Gamma }^M+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\mathrm{\Gamma }^M\right),$$
(5.99)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_M=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MN}^N,\mathrm{\Gamma }^M=\eta ^{MN}\mathrm{\Gamma }_N.$$
(5.100)
The further analyzes will be performed in the restriction $`B_N^M=\delta _N^M`$. Define the metric on the group manifold $`G`$:

$$\eta _{ij}=g_{\mu \nu }v_i^\mu v_j^\nu ,_M\eta _{ij}=0.$$
(5.101)
The norm of the momentum operator on $`G`$

$$𝒫|_G=\{v_i^\mu p_\mu :i=\overline{m=1,p}\}$$

is defined as

$$(𝒫|_G,𝒫|_G)=p_i\eta ^{ij}p_j.$$
(5.102)
From the Killing equations in the form $`_Mv^M=0`$ it follows that

$$_Mv_A^M_\mu v_A^\mu =\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu v_A^\mu .$$
(5.103)
In the same time we conclude from (2.10) that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =e_\mu ^i_\nu v_i^\nu =v_i^\nu _\nu e_\mu ^i=\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu {}_{\nu \mu }{}^{}.$$
(5.104)
Performing a direct calculation, one can obtain that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N\alpha }^M=\frac{1}{2}g^{\beta \gamma }_\alpha g_{\beta \gamma }+\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\alpha g_{\mu \nu },$$
(5.105)
Finally, due to (5.104), (5.105) the definition (5.102) can be written as

$$(𝒫|_G,𝒫|_G)=\left(p_\mu \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \right)g^{\mu \nu }\left(p_\mu +\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \right),$$
(5.106)
i. e. the norm of a group momentum coincides with the double Lagrangian for a free particle on the orbit of $`G`$ on $`M`$.

Using (5.96) we can transform the Lagrangian into another form

$$L=\frac{1}{2}p_jg^{ij}p_j+\frac{1}{2}\left(p_\alpha p_\mu A_\alpha ^\mu \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\alpha \right)g^{\alpha \beta }\left(p_\alpha A_\alpha ^\mu p_\mu +\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\alpha \right),$$
(5.107)
where

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha A_\alpha ^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu .$$

So we can rewrite (5.106) in terms of $`\pi _\alpha =p_\alpha A_\alpha ^\mu p_\mu `$ as

$$L=\frac{1}{2}p_i\eta ^{ij}p_j+\frac{1}{2}\left(\pi _\alpha \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha \right)g^{\alpha \beta }\left(\pi _\alpha +\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha \right),$$
(5.108)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha =\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\alpha _\mu A_\alpha ^\mu .$$

In order to simplify (5.108) we have to present the object $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$ in the explicit form. Using the structure equation we obtain

$$_\mu A_\alpha ^\mu =A_\alpha ^\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\nu \mu }^\mu +\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \mu }^\mu ,$$
(5.109)
and, consequently,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha +A_\alpha ^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{[\mu \nu ]}^\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \mu }^\mu =\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha +v_i^\mu _\alpha e_\mu ^i+C^i{}_{ij}{}^{}A_{\alpha }^{j},$$
(5.110)
where

$$A_\alpha ^i=e_\mu ^iA_\alpha ^\mu .$$

Further, taking into account (2.18) and the equality

$$\mathrm{det}\{\eta _{AB}\}=\mathrm{det}\{g_{\alpha \beta }\}\mathrm{det}\{v_i^\mu \},$$
(5.111)
we arrive to the final expression for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha =\gamma _\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{ij}_\alpha \eta _{ij}+C^i{}_{ij}{}^{}A_{\alpha }^{j},$$
(5.112)
where $`\gamma _\alpha =\gamma ^\beta _{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\gamma ^\alpha _{\beta \gamma }`$ denotes the Christoffel symbol constructed with the metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ of the quotient space.

The formulae (5.108) and (5.112) completely determine the final expression for the Lagrangian for freely moving particle on $`M`$ in the restriction $`B_N^M=\delta _N^M`$. The first term in (5.108) corresponds to quantum theory on the orbits of the action of $`G`$ on $`M`$, While the second one describes the theory on the quotient space $`M/G`$. It is essential to point out here that the degrees of freedom $`\{x^\mu \}`$ determine the quantum mechanics on $`M/G`$ by means of the last terms in (5.108).

## 6 Equations of Motion for Dynamics on Riemannian Manifold

In this section we restrict the function $`B_N^M`$ to be equal to $`\delta _N^M`$. The way of determining the dynamical equations of motion describing the particle moving on the manifold with an intransitive group of isometries differs from one introduced in  only in details. From the condition $`\delta L=0`$ of permissible variations we find that

$$v_A^M\left(\dot{p}_M+\frac{1}{2}p_L_M\eta ^{LN}p_N+_MU\right)=0,$$
(6.113)
here

$$U=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}\left(_M\mathrm{\Gamma }^M+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\mathrm{\Gamma }^M\right)$$
(6.114)
where we have substituted the Lagrangian (5.99).

Using the condition $`v_i^\mu e_\nu ^i=0`$, where $`\{e_\mu ^i\}`$ is the inverse of $`\{v_i^\mu \}`$ we obtain the equations of motion of the free particle for degrees of freedom connected with the orbits of the action of $`G`$ on $`M`$ in the following form

$$\dot{p}_\mu =\frac{1}{2}p_M_\mu \eta ^{MN}p_N_\mu U.$$
(6.115)
This equation is equivalent to the conservation law $`\dot{p}_i=0`$ for the group momentum $`p^i`$.

As to the other degrees of freedom associated with $`M/G`$, its dynamical equations in Euler-Lagrange form must be equivalent to ones in Heisenberg form

$$\dot{p}_M=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[p_M,H].$$
(6.116)
The explicit expression of the Hamiltonian can be obtained by comparison (6.115) with (6.116) taking $`M:=\mu `$. The Hamiltonian operator derived in such a way has the following form

$$H=\frac{1}{2}p_M\eta ^{MN}p_N+U+u_q(x^\alpha ),$$
(6.117)
where $`u_q=u_q(x^\alpha )`$ is some function that does not appear in (6.115) (because $`_\mu u_q0`$). The detail calculation allow us to put $`u_q=0`$ (see the remark below).

Hence, we can transform (6.113) into the following form

$$\dot{p}_M=\frac{1}{2}p_L_M\eta ^{LN}p_N_MU\left(\eta ^{LN}\phi _{MN}\right)p_L,$$
(6.118)
where

$$\phi _{MN}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[p_M,p_N].$$

The restriction of $`M`$ to $`\mu `$ reduces (6.118) to (6.115), as it must be.

To prove the fact that (6.118) is correctly defined, we consider the operator $`H`$ as the generator of time shifts $`t\overline{t}=t+\delta t(t)`$, where $`\delta t(t)`$ are permissible time variations. The result of the time variation of $`L`$ must be in agreement with the equations of motion in Euler-Lagrange form (6.118).

The time shift causes the following variations of coordinate and velocity operators

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \delta x& =& \overline{x}(\overline{t})x(t)=\dot{x}(t),\hfill \\ \hfill \delta \dot{x}& =& \frac{d}{dt}\delta x\dot{x}\frac{d\delta t}{dt}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.119)
Using the commutation relations we obtain

$$[x^M,\delta x^N]=i\mathrm{}\eta ^{MN}\delta t,[\dot{x}^M,\delta x^N]=[\dot{x}^M,\dot{x}^N]\delta t,$$
(6.120)
where

$$[\dot{x}^M,\dot{x}^N]=i\mathrm{}\phi ^{MN}+i\mathrm{}f_L^{MN}\dot{x}^L,$$
(6.121)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \phi ^{MN}& =& \eta ^{ML}\eta ^{NS}\phi _{LS},\hfill \\ \hfill f^{MN}_P& =& \left(\eta ^{MS}\eta ^{NL}\eta ^{NS}\eta ^{ML}\right)_S\eta _{LP}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.122)
The variation of the Lagrangian caused only by the time shift appears in the variation of the action functional in the following combination

$$\delta W=\underset{t_2}{\overset{t_1}{}}\delta _tL𝑑t,\delta _tL=\delta L+L\frac{d\delta t}{dt}.$$
(6.123)
The expression $`\delta _tL`$ reduces to

$$\delta _tL=\frac{d(L\delta t)}{dt}.$$
(6.124)
only due to the commutation relations.

On the other hand, extracting the total time derivative we obtain

$$\delta L=\frac{d}{dt}\left(H\delta t\right)+\frac{dL}{dt}(\dot{p}_M\frac{1}{2}p_N_M\eta ^{NL}p_L_MUp_N\phi ^\mu {}_{M}{}^{})\delta x^N,$$
(6.125)
here $`H`$ means the Hamiltonian. Hence, we can write

$$H=L,\frac{dH}{dt}=0,$$
(6.126)
after comparing (6.124) with (6.125). Note that if we define the Hamiltonian with an additional term $`u_q(x)`$, we obtain after such a comparison that $`u_q=0`$ (otherwise the equation (6.124) and (6.125) are not agreed). Therefore, we can see that the equations (6.118) are consistent with other conclusions.

The equations of motion for degrees of freedom representing the orbits of the action of $`G`$ on $`M`$ are introduced above (see (6.115)). To write down the other dynamical equations describing the motion on $`M/G`$ it is sufficient to assume $`M\alpha \overline{1,m}`$. In terms of $`\pi _\alpha `$ they are found in the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \dot{\pi }_\alpha & =\hfill & \frac{1}{2}\pi _\beta _\alpha g^{\beta \gamma }\pi _\gamma +\frac{1}{2}\left(\pi _\beta g^{\beta \gamma }F^\mu {}_{\alpha \gamma }{}^{}p_{\mu }^{}+p_\mu g^{\beta \gamma }F^\mu {}_{\alpha \gamma }{}^{}\pi _{\beta }^{}\right)\hfill \\ & & \frac{1}{2}p_\mu \left(g^{\mu \sigma }_\sigma A_\alpha ^\nu +g^{\nu \sigma }_\sigma A_\alpha ^\mu \right)p_\nu +p_M\phi _\alpha ^M\widehat{D}_\alpha U\hfill \\ & & +\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}\widehat{D}_\gamma \left(_\alpha g^{\beta \gamma }_\mu A_\beta ^\mu \right)\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8}_\alpha g^{\beta \gamma }\left(_\mu A_\beta ^\mu _\nu A_\gamma ^\nu \right)\hfill \\ & & +\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}_\mu \left(F^\mu {}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}g_{}^{\beta \gamma }_\nu A_\gamma ^\nu \right)+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}_M\left(\eta ^{MN}_M_\mu A_\alpha ^\mu \right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.127)
The equations (6.115), (6.127) completely describe the motion of a particle on the manifold with an intransitive group of motions. It appears that dynamics is decomposed into two parts. The first one corresponds to the motion on the orbits of the action of $`G`$ on $`M`$, the equations of motion have the form of conservation laws for the group momenta $`\{p_i:i=\overline{m+1,p}\}`$. The second one is related to the motion on $`M/G`$, where the dynamics of a particle is governed by Lorentz-type forces. The first one is caused by non-abelian gauge field $`A_\alpha ^\mu `$ with the strength $`F^\mu _{\alpha \beta }`$, that has a purely geometrical origin, while the second one is related to the abelian gauge field $`\phi _\alpha `$ with the strength $`\phi _{\alpha \beta }`$ and appears due to quantum-mechanical nature of a theory (in the classical limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ this object vanishes). As to terms in (6.127) with the factor $`\mathrm{}^2`$, they describes rather the operator orderings in the first terms in the r. h. s. of (6.127) than the features of dynamics.

## 7 Hilbert Space of States

Following the scheme introduced in  we chose the set of eigenvectors of coordinate operators $`\{x^M\}`$ as the basis of the Hilbert space for a point particle on $`M`$, namely

$$\widehat{x}^M|x^{}=x^M|x^{}.$$
(7.128)
with the following normalization condition

$$x^{}|x^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime }):=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta (x)}}\delta (x^{}x^{\prime \prime }),$$
(7.129)
where $`\eta (x)=\mathrm{det}(\eta _{MN}(x))`$. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-function has the following properties

$$f(x^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })=f(x^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime }),$$
(7.130)
$$f(x^{})_M^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })=_M^{}f(x^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime }),$$
(7.131)
$$_M^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })=_M^{}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta (x^{})}}\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_M(x^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })_M^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime }).$$
(7.132)
In terms of coordinate decomposition $`x^M=\{x^\alpha ,x^\mu \}`$ the equation (7.132) takes the form

$$\left(\widehat{D}_\alpha ^{}+\widehat{D}_\alpha ^{\prime \prime }+\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\alpha (x^{})\right)\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })=_\mu ^{}A_\alpha ^\mu (x^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime }),$$
(7.133)
where

$$\widehat{D}_\alpha =_\alpha A_\alpha ^\mu _\mu ,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha A_\alpha ^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu .$$

To construct the coordinate representation of the operators describing the quantum mechanics on $`M`$ one have to calculate the matrix elements of coordinate and momentum operators $`x^M`$ and $`p_M`$.

In order to simplify this task we use previously defined operators

$$\overline{p}_M=\{\overline{p}_\alpha ,\overline{p}_\mu \},\overline{p}_\alpha :=p_\alpha \phi _\alpha ,\overline{p}_\mu :=p_\mu ,$$
(7.134)
that obey the following commutation relations

$$[x^M,x^N]=0,[x^M,\overline{p}_N]=i\mathrm{}\delta _N^M,[\overline{p}_M,\overline{p}_N]=0.$$
(7.135)
Using the results of  we can write

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x^{}\left|x^M\right|x^{\prime \prime }& =& i\mathrm{}x^Mx^{}|x^{\prime \prime },\hfill \\ \hfill x^{}\left|\overline{p}_M\right|x^{\prime \prime }& =& i\mathrm{}\left(_M^{}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M(x^{})\right)\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime }).\hfill \end{array}$$
(7.136)
Returning to the operators $`p_M`$, we find that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}x^{}\left|p_\alpha \right|x^{\prime \prime }& =& i\mathrm{}\left(_\alpha ^{}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (x^{})\right)\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })+\phi _\alpha (x^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime }),\hfill \\ x^{}\left|p_\mu \right|x^{\prime \prime }& =& i\mathrm{}\left(_\mu ^{}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (x^{})\right)\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime }),\hfill \\ x^{}\left|x^M\right|x^{\prime \prime }& =& x^{\prime \prime M}\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime }).\hfill \end{array}$$
(7.137)
Using these expressions we can write the matrix element of the operator $`\pi _\alpha `$ in the form

$$x^{}\left|\pi _\alpha \right|x^{\prime \prime }=i\mathrm{}\left(\widehat{D}_\alpha +\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\alpha _\mu A_\alpha ^\mu )\right)\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })+\phi _\alpha (x^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{}x^{\prime \prime }).$$
(7.138)
The coordinate representation of the operator $`A`$ can be constructed in terms of wave functions $`\psi (x^{})=x^{}|\psi `$ representing the state $`|\psi `$ by the usual way:

$$(\widehat{A}\psi )(x^{}):=x^{}\left|A\right|x^{\prime \prime }x^{\prime \prime }|\psi 𝑑x^{\prime \prime }.$$
(7.139)
Therefore, following  we find the representations for the coordinate and momentum operators in the following form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{x}^M\psi (x^{})& =& x^M\psi (x^{}),\hfill \\ \widehat{p}_\alpha \psi (x^{})& =& i\mathrm{}\left(_\alpha ^{}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (x^{})\right)\psi (x^{})+\phi _\alpha (x^{})\psi (x^{}),\hfill \\ \widehat{p}_\mu \psi (x^{})& =& i\mathrm{}\left(_\mu ^{}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (x^{})\right)\psi (x^{}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(7.140)
The coordinate representation of the Hamiltonian can be obtained in terms of the operators

$$\pi _M=p_M\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M,\pi _M^{}=p_M+\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M,$$
(7.141)
namely,

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\pi }_M\widehat{\eta }^{MN}\widehat{\pi }_N^{}.$$
(7.142)
Using the decomposition of the coordinates of $`M`$ we can write

$$\pi _\alpha =i\mathrm{}\left(_\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha \right)+\phi _\alpha ,\pi _\mu =i\mathrm{}\left(_\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \right),$$
(7.143)
$$\pi _\alpha ^{}=i\mathrm{}_\alpha +\phi _\alpha ,\pi _\mu ^{}=i\mathrm{}_\mu .$$
(7.144)
Hence, the formal part of the formulation of the quantum mechanics on the Riemannian manifold with an intransitive group of isometries is solved. Nevertheless, the other one, that contains the meaning and interpretation of these results, requires the special discussion.

## 8 Discussion

We have examined in the present paper and in ,  the generalization of Schwinger’s action principle for the case of Riemannian manifolds with a group structure, determined by isometric transformations.

The obtained results show fundamental unity between geometrical properties of a manifold $`M`$ and the algebra of quantum-mechanical operators, describing a point particle on $`M`$. The key role in the formulation of quantum mechanics is played by geometrical aspects of a symmetry, expressed in terms of Killing vectors. These vectors also determine the integrals of motion on $`M`$ and their algebraic properties.

It appears that a general quantization problem is conditionally reduced into three cases. The first one we have considered in  is related to the class of manifolds with a simply transitive group of isometries. Here the dimension of this group (which coincides with the number of Killing vectors) is exactly equals to the dimension of the manifold. The quantum mechanics receives its traditional form, investigated in , .

The second case contains the investigation of homogeneous manifolds with non-simply transitive group of isometries, where the dimension of a group exceeds the dimension of a manifold. There appears a non-abelian gauge structure, that is similar to one in Kaluza-Klein theories. This structure is related to the isotropy subgroup of $`G`$ and plays the role of gauge group. This case has been analyzed in . The obtained results are in accordance with , where the method of study somewhat differs from ours.

The remaining third case, analyzed in the present paper, is related to Riemannian manifolds with the intransitive group of isometries $`G`$. In this case the dimension of the manifold $`M`$ is bigger than the dimension of the group $`G`$. From the geometrical point of view $`M`$ can be considered as a total space of the principal fiber bundle with the base space $`M/G`$ and the structure group $`G`$. In terms of this construction $`M`$ can be covered by the set of submanifolds (the orbits of $`G`$-action) and $`G`$ acts simply transitively in each of them. Quantum mechanics on such a submanifold is developed in . The other degrees of freedom, related to the quotient space $`M/G`$ have not uniquely determined dynamics. In order to determine it unequivocally we have to assume something new and external in respect to Schwinger’s scheme. There are two types of arbitrary factors in the formulation of quantum mechanics on $`M`$. Some of them have geometrical nature (the functions $`b_N^M`$), while the others are quantum mechanical objects (the abelian gauge field $`\phi _\alpha `$ that vanishes when $`\mathrm{}0`$). It is important to point out here, that the last structure can not be obtained in the framework of canonical quantization procedure, it is caused by geometrical properties of the manifold and algebraic relation between geometrical objects.

The formal results of the present paper bring up the more complicated question about its interpretation. We suppose that it can be done in the following manner. There are some degrees of freedom, describing a quantum system, which have partially undetermined properties (as it can be treated in the traditional meaning). The geometry of space is determined by energy-momentum of the matter distribution. It is substantiated to search the connection between geometrical structures corresponding to undetermined dynamics and forbidden spatial zones for the system with discrete energy spectrum (in the manner of “layers” between the Bohr orbits in the hydrogen atom). Nevertheless, the question about the interpretation of quantum theory on a general Riemannian manifold remains an open one and requires more detailed discussion and further development.

As the logical continuation of our series of papers we thought the generalization of Schwinger’s quantization approach on the case of a supermanifold, that we are going to present in the forthcoming paper.


format: text

text:
# Non-linear evolution and parton distributions at LHC and THERA energies

## 1 Introduction

The standard perturbative QCD approach to deep inelastic scattering processes is based on two main ideas:

* the DGLAP evolution equations  for the leading twist parton distributions;
* the belief that if we start QCD evolution from sufficiently high $`Q^224GeV^2`$ the higher twist contributions are small.

The DGLAP evolution has two principal difficulties. First, the evolution predicts a steep growth of parton distributions in the region of low $`x`$ which contradicts the unitarity constraints . Hence, we can expect large corrections to the DGLAP evolution equation, at least in the region of low $`x`$. The second problem is of a general nature for perturbative QCD. It is well known that any perturbative series is a asymptotic one. Therefore, the correct estimates for the errors in the pQCD approach is the value of the next order term. Practically, this means that if we calculated the leading order gluon density distribution, say $`xG^{LO}`$, and the next to leading order one $`xG^{NLO}`$, then the correct estimates for the errors will be $`\mathrm{\Delta }xG=xG^{NLO}xG^{LO}`$, provided that the very same initial conditions are used. Such errors are large, especially at low $`x`$111The widely held opinion that the NLO parton distributions describe the experimental data better is based on the fact that we can change the initial parton distribution drastically and achieve a better description..

It has been shown over the last two decades, that the generally held view on higher twist contributions is not correct . Taking into account only two terms in Operator Product Expansion for a parton distribution ($`xG`$) we have

$$xG(x,Q^2)=xG^{LT}(x,Q^2)+\frac{M^2}{Q^2}xG^{HT}(x,Q^2)+O(\frac{M^4}{Q^4}),$$

with the high twist term $`xG^{HT}(x,Q^2)\left(xG^{LT}(x,Q^2)\right)^2`$ in the region of low $`x`$ . The leading twist function $`xG^{LT}(x,Q^2)`$ sharply increases at $`x\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. Hence, we cannot conclude that the higher twist contributions are small in the whole kinematic region even if they are small for the initial value of $`Q^2=Q_0^2`$. The scale $`M`$ is introduced for dimensional reasons.

In this paper, we suggest a remedy for these two difficulties. First, we propose solving a nonlinear evolution equation which takes into account the most significant higher twist contributions and which specifies a high energy (low $`x`$) behavior of the parton densities, which are in accordance with the unitarity constraints. The parton distributions which we obtain are then amended by adding to the solution of the nonlinear equation $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$, a correcting function $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ such that $`N=\stackrel{~}{N}+\mathrm{\Delta }N`$. We then write a linear DGLAP-type equation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ in our approach vanishes at low $`x`$ we expect this function to be small and concentrated in the region of moderate $`x`$. Consequently, this function should be free from all difficulties inherent in the usual scheme solutions of the DGLAP equation. We would like to mention here that our approach is very close to that of Kimber, Kwiecinski and Martin . However, our treatment differs in the practical way that the programme is realized.

An extrapolation of the available parton distribution to the region of lower $`x`$ is a practical problem for LHC energies. We need to know the parton distribution both for estimates of the background of all interesting processes at the LHC, such as Higgs production, and for the calculation of the cross sections of the rare processes which the LHC is likely to measure. In this paper we will show that non-linear evolution will provide a considerable taming of the parton distribution in the LHC range of energies, by a factor of two - three in comparison with predictions based on the DGLAP linear evolution. We show here that the non-linear evolution considerably diminishes the value of the gluon density at $`x=10^5÷10^6`$ which is the energy range of the THERA electron - proton collider . Therefore, our calculations provide the first estimates for the possible collective effects of high parton density QCD at THERA based on the correct non-linear evolution equation.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we formulate our approach and write a nonlinear equation for $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and linear equation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$. Section 3 is devoted to a numerical solution of the nonlinear equation. The following Section 4 presents some estimates of the corrections induced by the DGLAP kernel. The linear BFKL equation is discussed in Section 5. In the Section 6 we summarize our results and mention our plans for the future.

## 2 A new approach to DIS

The DGLAP equation describes the gluon radiation which leads to an increase in the number of partons. However, when the parton density becomes large, annihilation processes become active and they suppress the gluon radiation and, so, they tame the rapid increase of the parton densities at a new saturation scale $`Q_s(x)`$ . The theoretical approach as well as understanding the physics of parton saturation is one of the most challenging problem of QCD which has stimulated the development of new methods , surprisingly, all approaches lead to the same nonlinear evolution equation.

$`\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}},Y;b)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}},Y_0;b)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2C_F\alpha _S}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\rho ^2}}\right)(YY_0)\right]+`$ (2.1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _S}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{Y_0}^Y}dy\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{2C_F\alpha _S}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\rho ^2}}\right)(Yy)]\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _\rho }`$ $`d^2𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}},y;𝐛{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}})\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}},y;𝐛{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}})\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}},y;𝐛{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}})\right)`$
The equation is written for $`N(r_{},x;b)=Ima_{dipole}^{el}(r_{},x;b)`$ where $`a_{dipole}^{el}`$ is the amplitude for elastic scattering for a dipole of size $`r_{}`$. The total dipole cross section is given by

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}(r_{},x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}d^2bN(r_{},x;b).$$
(2.2)
The deep inelastic structure function $`F_2`$ is related to the dipole cross section

$$F_2(x,Q^2)=\frac{Q^2}{4\pi }d^2r_{}𝑑z|\mathrm{\Psi }^\gamma ^{}(Q^2;r_{},z)|^2\sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}(r_{},x),$$
(2.3)
where the QED wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\gamma ^{}`$ of the virtual photon are well known . The meaning of Eq. (2.3) is simple since it describes the two stages of DIS. The first stage is the decay of a virtual photon into a colorless dipole ($`q\overline{q}`$ -pair) which is described by wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\gamma ^{}`$ in Eq. (2.3). The second stage is the interaction of the dipole with the target ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}`$ in Eq. (2.3)). This equation is the simplest manifestation of the fact that the correct degrees of freedom at high energies in QCD, are color dipoles .

In the equation (2.1), the rapidity $`Y=\mathrm{ln}x`$ and $`Y_0=\mathrm{ln}x_0`$. The ultraviolet cutoff $`\rho `$ is needed to regularize the integral, but it does not appear in physical quantities. In the large $`N_c`$ limit (number of colors) $`C_F=N_c/2`$.

Eq. (2.1) has a very simple meaning: the dipole of size $`𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}`$ decays in two dipoles of sizes $`𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ and $`𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}}`$ with the decay probability given by the wave function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2=\frac{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$. These two dipoles then interact with the target. The non-linear term takes into account the Glauber corrections for such an interaction.

The linear part of Eq. (2.1) is the BFKL equation, which describes the evolution of the multiplicity of the fixed size color dipoles with respect to the energy $`Y`$. The nonlinear term corresponds to a dipole splitting into two dipoles and it sums the high twist contributions. Note, that the linear part of Eq. (2.1) (the BFKL equation) also has higher twist contributions and vise versa, the main contribution of the non-linear part is to the leading twist (see Ref.  for general arguments and Ref.  for explicit calculations).

Eq. (2.1) was suggested in the momentum representation by Gribov, Levin and Ryskin  and it was proved in the double log approximation of perturbative QCD by Mueller and Qiu , in Wilson Loop Operator Expansion at high energies by Balitsky , in color dipole approach  to high energy scattering in QCD by Kovchegov  and in the effective Lagrangian approach for high parton density QCD by Iancu, Leonidov and McLerran (see Ref.  and Refs.  for previous efforts). Therefore, it gives a reliable tool for an extrapolation of the parton distribution to the region of low $`x`$.

One can see that Eq. (2.1) does not depend explicitly on the target222This independence is a direct indication that the equation is correct for all targets ( hadron and nuclei ) in the regime of high parton density. and all such dependence comes from the initial condition at some initial value $`x_0`$. For a target nucleus it was argued in Ref.  that the initial conditions should be taken in the Glauber form:

$$\stackrel{~}{N}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}},x_0;b)=N_{GM}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}},x_0;b),$$
(2.4)
with

$$N_{GM}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}},x;b)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\alpha _S\pi 𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{2N_cR^2}xG^{DGLAP}(x,4/𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐})S(𝐛)\right].$$
(2.5)
The equation (2.5) represents the Glauber-Mueller (GM) formula which accounts for the multiple dipole-target interaction in the eikonal approximation . The function $`S(b)`$ is a dipole profile function inside the target. The value of $`x_0`$ is chosen within the interval

$$\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{\alpha _S})x_0\frac{1}{2mR},$$
(2.6)
where $`R`$ is the radius of the target. In this region the value of $`x_0`$ is small enough to use the low $`x`$ approximation, but the production of the gluons (color dipoles) is still suppressed as $`\alpha _S\mathrm{ln}(1/x)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. Therefore, in this region we have the instantaneous exchange of the classical gluon fields. Hence, an incoming color dipole interacts separately with each nucleon in a nucleus (see Mueller and Kovchegov paper in Ref. ).

For the hadron, however, we have no proof that Eq. (2.4) is correct. As far as we understand the only criteria in this problem (at the moment) is the correct description of the experimental data. We described almost all available HERA data using Eq. (2.4) , and we feel confident using Eq. (2.4) as an initial condition for Eq. (2.1). In our model we use the Gaussian $`S(b)=e^{b^2/R^2}`$ form for the profile function of the hadron. The parameter $`R`$ is a phenomenological input, while the gluon density $`xG^{DGLAP}`$ is a solution of the DGLAP equation. For $`x_0`$ we have Eq. (2.6) for a hadron target as well, but practically we choose $`x_0=10^2`$ which satisfies Eq. (2.6) and for which we much experimental data exists to check our initial conditions.

Solutions to the equation (2.1) were studied in asymptotic limits in Ref. . A first numerical attempt to solve an equation similar to the equation (2.1) was reported in Ref. . However, the solution was only obtained for nuclei, and the main emphasize was put on extremely small values of $`x`$. In the following section we report on our approach to find a numerical solution of the equation (2.1) which differs completely from the one adopted in , as we use the coordinate representation in which the initial conditions are of a very simple form (see Eq. (2.4)). The second reason for using the coordinate representation is the fact that all physical observables can be expressed in terms of the amplitude for the dipole-target interaction in the coordinate representation (see below for $`xG`$).

Unfortunately, equation (2.1) is an approximate one. It sums large $`\mathrm{ln}x`$ contributions only. The situation can be improved at small distances, as the exact $`x`$ dependence of the kernel is known as this is the DGLAP kernel. An attempt to obtain the elastic amplitude $`N`$ based on elements of both the equation (2.1) and DGLAP equation was presented in Ref. . The authors of that paper first solve a generalized DGLAP-BFKL linear equation , and then add to the solution a nonlinear perturbation of the form presented in the equation (2.1). This approach actually incorporates the high twist contributions in the standard way, treating them as corrections to the leading one.

We suggest a different approach to the problem. First, all twist contributions should be summed by solving equation (2.1). We denote by $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ a solution of equation (2.1). Second, we add to the obtained solution a correcting function $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$, which will account for the DGLAP kernel:

$$N=\stackrel{~}{N}+\mathrm{\Delta }N.$$
(2.7)
Assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ to be small relatively compared to $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$, we propose the following linear equation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N(r_{},x;b)=r_{}^2B(2/r_{},x;b)`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dB(Q,x;b)}{d(\mathrm{ln}Q^2)}}={\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _S}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{x/x_0}^1}P_{gg}(z)B(Q,{\displaystyle \frac{x}{z}};b)𝑑z`$ (2.8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2C_F\alpha _S}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{x/x_0}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}\stackrel{~}{N}(2/Q,{\displaystyle \frac{x}{z}};b)B(Q,{\displaystyle \frac{x}{z}};b)+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2C_F\alpha _S}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{x/x_0}^1}\left(P_{gg}(z){\displaystyle \frac{2}{z}}\right)\stackrel{~}{N}(2/Q,{\displaystyle \frac{x}{z}};b)𝑑z`$
Here $`P_{gg}(z)`$ stands for the usual gluon splitting function:

$$P_{gg}(z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left[\frac{1z}{z}+\frac{z}{(1z)_+}+z(1z)+\left(\frac{11}{12}\frac{n_f}{18}\right)\delta (1z)\right].$$
(2.9)
Equation (2.8) is a linear equation valid in the leading $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$ approximation, with $`Q^2=4/r_{}^2`$. The last term in the equation represents the correction which is due to the substitution of the BFKL kernel $`1/z`$ by the correct DGLAP kernel. The first term on the right hand side of the equation (2.8) is the DGLAP evolution for the correcting function $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$, while the second term is the ‘nonlinear “interaction” of the solutions. The initial condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }N(r_0,x;b)=N(r_0,x;b)\stackrel{~}{N}(r_0,x;b)`$ is a phenomenological input at some initial distance $`r_0=2/Q_0`$ to be specified. In the present paper we report on our solution of equation (2.1), while leaving the question of the determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ to another paper.

## 3 Numerical solution of the nonlinear equation

In this section we report on the exact numerical solution of the equation (2.1) with the initial condition (2.4). For the transverse hadron size the value $`R^2=10(\mathrm{GeV}^2)`$ is taken, this corresponds to the value which is obtained from “soft” high energy phenomenology  and is in agreement with HERA data on J/$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photo-production . For $`xG^{DGLAP}(x,Q^2)`$ we use the GRV’94 parameterization and the leading order solution of the DGLAP evolution equation . The kinematic region where the solution of (2.1) is found, ranges in $`x`$ from $`10^2`$, where the initial conditions are set, to $`x`$ = $`10^7`$. The maximal distance is taken to be one fermi. The value of the ultraviolet cutoff $`\rho `$ is $`2\times 10^4(\mathrm{GeV}^1)`$. The numerical solutions obtained are checked to be independent of this choice. In all previous studies of equation (2.1) the formal dependence on the impact parameter $`b`$ was omitted. As our first step we too will neglect the $`b`$-dependence. Later we will consider the impact parameter dependence.

### 3.1 Solution without $`b`$-dependence.

In this subsection we assume that both sides of the equation (2.1) do not depend on the impact parameter $`b`$. In a sense, the assumption formally corresponds to the $`b=0`$ case, though the whole approach is based on the dipole picture where the impact parameter is larger than the dipole sizes.

We propose to solve the equation (2.1) by the method of iterations. Equation (2.1) can be rewritten

$`\stackrel{~}{N}_{i+1}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}},Y)\stackrel{~}{N}_{i+1}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}},Y;b=0)=\stackrel{~}{N}_i(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}},Y_0)e^{\frac{2C_F\alpha _S}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\rho ^2}\right)(YY_0)}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _S}{\pi ^2}}\times `$
(3.10)
$`{\displaystyle _{Y_0}^Y}𝑑ye^{\frac{2C_F\alpha _S}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\rho ^2}\right)(Yy)}{\displaystyle _\rho }d^2𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\stackrel{~}{N}_i(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}},y)\stackrel{~}{N}_i(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}},y)\stackrel{~}{N}_i(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}},y)\right)`$
We stop the iterations when the relative error between two iterations $`|(\stackrel{~}{N}_{i+1}\stackrel{~}{N}_i)/\stackrel{~}{N}_i|1`$ in the kinematic region of the interest333 A formal question of the iteration convergence may certainly arise. Namely, when two iterations are sufficiently close it does not formally mean that a limit has been reached and even if that the limit exists at all. As a counter-example one can consider the sum of the series $`1/n`$, which diverges though every step decreases. We have to stress that we completely ignore this question. Since a solution to the equation exists and its asymptotics are known, we are confident about correct convergence of our procedure.. Practically, the iteration is stopped when the maximal relative error between last two iterations is smaller than one percent, which is of the same order as our numerical accuracy. As a zero iteration the initial condition (2.4) is taken, which is a $`x`$ independent function.

Convergence of the solution for the constant value $`\alpha _S=0.25`$ is shown in the Fig. (1). As we go to smaller values of $`x`$ the number of iterations required for the convergence increases. For $`x=10^7`$ the solution is obtained after about 25 iterations. The convergence is very slow because the zero iteration taken is far from the true solution. Table (1) presents the maximal relative errors for various number of performed iterations.

In fact, the number of iterations can be dramatically decreased by guessing a better zero iteration. The GM formula (2.5) provides a reasonable choice. This formula happens to be a good approximation to the solution, thus significantly reducing the process of convergence. Taking the GM formula as the zero iteration, the same solution is obtained again after about a dozen iterations. Table (2) shows the iteration convergence.

Equation (2.1) as well as the BFKL equation is derived for a constant strong coupling $`\alpha _S`$. Though some attempts were made to introduce a running coupling constant into the BFKL equation it has not yet been done in a self consistent way. However, the use of the running coupling constant in equation (2.1) is justified in the double logarithmic approximation. Motivated by this fact, a solution of equation (2.1) with running $`\alpha _S`$ is also obtained.

It is interesting to compare the solutions found with two of the widely used saturation models. The first one is the GM formula (2.5). The second one is the Golec-Biernat and Wusthoff (GW) saturation model . In that model the effective dipole cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}^{GW}(x,r_{})`$ describing the interaction of the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair with a nucleon has the form:

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}^{GW}(x,r_{})=\sigma _0N_{GW}(x,r_{});N_{GW}(x,r_{})=[1\mathrm{exp}(r_{}^2/(4R_0^2(x)))];`$ (3.11)
$`R_0(x)=(x/x_0)^{\lambda /2}(\mathrm{GeV}^1);\sigma _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}23.03}(\mathrm{mb});\lambda =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.288};x_0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.04}\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^4.`$
The cross section $`\sigma _0`$ is a dimension-full parameter which properly normalizes the dipole cross section. A natural comparison is between our function $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and the dimensionless saturation function $`N_{GW}`$ of the GW model. The Fig. (2) shows the comparison between our solutions, GM formula, and GW model. It can be seen that the correct numerical solution is obtained between the GM formula and GW model. At large distances GW $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ GM, while at small distances the inverse situation is realized GM $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ GW. We would like to remind the reader that by construction the GM formula is a DGLAP solution at small distances.

We would like to add a comment on the behavior of the GM formula at large distances. At fixed $`x`$ this function has a maximum and then decreases. Such a behavior is certainly unphysical and is just an artifact of using the GRV parameterization which itself possesses a similar behavior.

One of the goals of the present research is to determine the saturation scale $`Q_s(x)`$. Despite many attempts, no exact mathematical definition of $`Q_s(x)`$ has so far has been found. However, some reasonable estimates can be obtained from the function $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$. As can be seen from the figures (1,2) $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ behaves in a step like manner as a function of distance: at small distances it tends to zero, while at large distances the saturation value one is approached. For such a step-like kind of function it is natural to define the saturation scale as a position where $`\stackrel{~}{N}=1/2`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{N}(2/Q_s,x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2.$$
(3.12)
The equation (3.12) defines the saturation scale $`Q_s`$ as a function of $`x`$ (Fig. (3,a)). The saturation scale of the GW model defined as $`1/R_0(x)`$ is also displayed in the Fig. (3,a).

We have to comment that the accepted definition of the saturation scale (3.12) is not quite consistent with the estimates obtained from the GM formula. In the latter approach $`Q_s(x)`$ is deduced from the requirement that the gluon packing factor in a cascade should be equal to unity. For large values of $`x`$ ($`10^2`$ \- $`10^4`$) the saturation scale thus obtained is somewhat larger than that shown in the Fig. (3,a).

### 3.2 $`b`$-dependence of the solution.

In this subsection we deal with the $`b`$-dependence of the equation (2.1). The proposed iteration method can in fact be applied, but in this case the computational time increases dramatically. Instead, we assume that solution of the equation (2.1) preserves the very same $`b`$-dependence as introduced by the initial conditions (2.4):

$$\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x;b)=(1e^{\kappa (x,r_{})S(b)}),$$
(3.13)
where $`\kappa `$ is related to the $`b=0`$ solution

$$\kappa (x,r_{})=\mathrm{ln}(1\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x,b=0)).$$
(3.14)
Of course, the assumption requires verification. In order to verify that (3.13) is a solution of (2.1) we should check if it indeed satisfies (2.1). So, we plug $`\stackrel{~}{N}(\text{3.13})`$ into the rhs of (2.1) and then compare it with $`\stackrel{~}{N}(lhs(\text{2.1}))`$. Fig. (4) shows the comparison as a function of the impact parameter $`b`$. A good fit is found. The matching becomes worse in the region close to saturation. This happens mainly due to problematic numerical behavior of $`\kappa `$.

In order to make an additional estimate of the accuracy of the anzatz (3.13), a solution of the equation (2.1) is obtained for a single value of the impact parameter. The only simplification which is made in this computation is the assumption that the impact parameter $`b`$ is much larger than the dipole sizes:

$$𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}b;𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}}b.$$
(3.15)
In this case the $`b`$-dependence of the rhs of (2.1) is significantly simplified. This is actually the very same approximation that was used in the previous subsection. Figure (5) presents the comparison of the anzatz (3.13) with numerically computed solution for $`b^2=10\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

The match is quite good at moderate $`x`$, though it becomes worse at smaller $`x`$. Note, however, from figures (4) and (5) we see that the curve of the anzatz (3.13) is actually squeezed by the two curves it was compared to. This provides an indication of the overall uncertainty of the approximation, which we would roughly estimate not to exceed 10%-20%.

The above procedure cannot be claimed to be a proof of the $`b`$-factorization. Moreover, an analytic derivation of the equation (3.13) does not seem to be feasible. However, the solution in the form (3.13) is clearly a satisfactory approximation of the true solution of the equation (2.1).

We can proceed now with the evaluation of the dipole cross section

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}(x,r_{})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}d^2b\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x,b).$$
(3.16)
Having assumed (3.13), the dipole cross section has the form

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi R^2\left[\mathrm{ln}(\kappa )+E_1(\kappa )+\gamma \right].$$
(3.17)
In equation (3.17) $`\gamma `$ denotes for the Euler constant, while $`E_1`$ is the exponential integral function. The expression (3.17) predicts the $`\mathrm{ln}\kappa `$ growth of the dipole cross section, which is in agreement with the conclusions presented in Ref. . Fig. (6) presents a comparison between $`\sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}`$ from (3.17) and the GW model (3.11).

From Fig. (6) it can be seen that the ratio $`\sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}^{GW}`$ grows with decreasing $`x`$. This is in agreement with the logarithmic growth of the dipole cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}`$, while the $`\sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}^{GW}`$ is saturated at small values of $`x`$.

We define the gluon density $`xG`$ by using the Mueller formula. It relates the gluon density to the dipole cross section:

$$xG(x,Q^2)=\frac{4}{\pi ^3}_x^1\frac{dx^{}}{x^{}}_{4/Q^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dr^2}{r^4}\sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}(x^{},r).$$
(3.18)
Fig. (7) presents the comparison between the gluon density obtained by (3.18) and the DGLAP input value in the GRV parameterization. At small $`x`$ DGLAP predicts steep growth of the gluon density (power law). As was expected, the shadowing corrections suppress the growth, and the $`x`$ growth of the function $`xG`$ is logarithmic which does not contradict unitarity.

The gluon density $`xG`$ defined as in (3.18) grows with decreasing $`x`$. In a sense, this observation contradicts the “super-saturation” of Ref.  where the density is predicted to vanish in the large rapidity limit. However, the gluon density definition accepted in Ref.  differs from ours, and hence the functions are not compatible.

It is worth making an additional comment about the saturation scale $`Q_s(x)`$. In the previous subsection we defined it through the equation (3.12). Here we propose an alternative definition similar to the one adopted in the GM formula. Namely:

$$2\kappa (x,2/Q_s)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(3.19)
The above definition corresponds to $`\stackrel{~}{N}(2/Q_s,x,b=0)0.4`$, and it predicts a somewhat larger saturation scale $`Q_s(x)`$ (Fig. (3,b)) than the equation (3.12). Comparing the four curves of both figures (3,a) and (3,b) an uncertainty in the $`Q_s(x)`$ determination can be estimated. It is about 30%-40% through a very large range of $`x`$, though reaching 100% uncertainty at $`x=10^7`$.

## 4 DGLAP correction - consistency check

In this section we would like to make some comments regarding the consistency of our approach. It was argued previously that it is necessary to add a correction term $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ to the solution $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ of the nonlinear equation (2.1) which we found. In turn, the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ is a solution of the evolution equation (2.8).

Consistency of the approach requires the support of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ only at moderate $`x`$. The function $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ should give vanishing contributions at very small $`x`$. We also expect this function to decrease with $`Q^2`$. In order to check the above conditions some asymptotic estimates can be made without explicitly solving the equation (2.8).

At very small $`x`$ and large distances the function $`\stackrel{~}{N}1`$. For this case equation (2.8) can be rewritten:

$$\frac{dB(Q,x)}{d(\mathrm{ln}Q^2)}=\frac{C_F\alpha _S}{\pi }_{x/x_0}^1\left(P_{gg}(z)\frac{2}{z}\right)\left(\frac{Q^2}{4}\stackrel{~}{N}(2/Q,\frac{x}{z})+B(Q,\frac{x}{z})\right)𝑑z.$$
(4.20)
The main observation is that the evolution kernel entering the equation (4.20) is actually negative. Hence the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ is a decreasing function of $`Q`$.

We illustrate the point in a model where the anomalous dimension has the form

$$\gamma (\omega )=\frac{\alpha _SN_c}{\pi }\left(\frac{1}{\omega }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right),$$
(4.21)
where the anomalous dimension is defined by the Mellin transform of the splitting function $`P_{gg}`$:

$$\gamma (\omega )=\frac{\alpha _SC_F}{\pi }_0^1𝑑zP_{gg}(z)z^\omega .$$
(4.22)
We represent the functions $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ through their inverse Mellin transforms:

$$B(Q,x)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_C𝑑\omega x^\omega B(Q,\omega );\stackrel{~}{N}(2/Q,x)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_C𝑑\omega x^\omega \stackrel{~}{N}(2/Q,\omega ).$$

The equation (4.20) can be now expressed in the following form:

$$\frac{dB(Q,\omega )}{d(\mathrm{ln}Q^2)}=\frac{\alpha _SN_c}{\pi }\left[\frac{Q^2}{4}\stackrel{~}{N}(2/Q,\omega )+B(Q,\omega )\right].$$
(4.23)
The solution of the equation (4.23) is:

$$B(Q,\omega )=(Q^2)^{\overline{\alpha }_S}\left[\frac{\overline{\alpha }_S}{4}_{Q_0^2}^{Q^2}\stackrel{~}{N}(2/Q^{},\omega )(Q^2)^{\overline{\alpha }_S}𝑑Q^2+C(\omega )\right],$$
(4.24)
with $`\overline{\alpha }_S=\alpha _SN_c/\pi `$. The function $`C(\omega )`$ should be determined by initial conditions at $`Q=Q_0`$. At very small $`x`$ and not too large $`Q`$ the function $`N1`$ and it is a slowly varying function of $`Q`$. Hence, it can be taken outside of the integral in (4.24) and we obtain the solution

$$B(Q,\omega )\frac{\overline{\alpha }_S/4}{1+\overline{\alpha }_S}\stackrel{~}{N}(2/Q,\omega )Q^2+\frac{C(\omega )}{(Q^2)^{\overline{\alpha }_S}}.$$
(4.25)
As a result for the correcting function $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ we have:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N(2/Q,x)\frac{\overline{\alpha }_S}{1+\overline{\alpha }_S}\stackrel{~}{N}(2/Q,x)+\frac{4C(x)}{(Q^2)^{1+\overline{\alpha }_S}}.$$
(4.26)
Recall that in the large $`Q^2`$ limit $`r_{}^2=4/Q^2`$. The solution found in (4.26) is in agreement with assumptions made. The function $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ decreases at small distances and is of size $`O(\alpha _S)`$ compared to $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$. The argument presented above only aimed to prove the self consistency of our approach. However, the complete numerical solution of the equation (2.8) is still valid for phenomenological reasons. The initial conditions for the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ should be chosen to fit the experimental data.

## 5 Numerical solution of the BFKL equation

In this section we report on the numerical solution of the BFKL equation, which is the linear part of the equation (2.1):

$`N_{\mathrm{BFKL}}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}},Y)=N_{\mathrm{BFKL}}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}},Y_0)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2C_F\alpha _S}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\rho ^2}}\right)(YY_0)\right]+`$ (5.27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _S}{\pi ^2}}\times {\displaystyle _{Y_0}^Y}𝑑y\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2C_F\alpha _S}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\rho ^2}}\right)(Yy)\right]{\displaystyle _\rho }d^2𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}N_{\mathrm{BFKL}}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}},y).`$
We restrict our analysis to $`b=0`$ case only. The initial conditions are assumed to be proportional to the gluon density at $`x_0=10^2`$:

$$N_{\mathrm{BFKL}}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}},x_0)=\frac{\alpha _S\pi 𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{6R^2}xG(x_0,4/𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}).$$
(5.28)
In order to obtain a solution of the equation (5.27) the same method of iterations is applied. However, for this case the convergence of the iterations is extremely slow. Dozens of iterations are required in order to get a final result. Fig. (8) presents solutions of the BFKL equation for $`\alpha _S=0.25`$ and for running $`\alpha _S`$ compared with the solutions of the equation (2.1) as well as of the DGLAP equation.

It is seen from the Fig. (8) that the BFKL equation predicts a very steep growth of the cross section as $`x`$ decreases. The function $`N_{\mathrm{BFKL}}`$ rapidly diverges from the solutions of the equation (2.1) and of the DGLAP equation. This numerical observation is in fair agreement with previous theoretical considerations about the dynamics of the BFKL equation. The solution of the BFKL equation touches the unitarity bound.

However, the results of BFKL dynamics is unlikely ever to be seen. The nonlinear effects accounted for in the equation (2.1) set in at very small distances thus suppressing the BFKL divergence.

## 6 Summary

In the present work we suggested a new approach to DIS based on first summing all twist contributions in the leading $`\mathrm{ln}x`$ approximation. Then, we wrote down a linear evolution equation for the correcting function which incorporates the correct DGLAP kernel in the leading $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$ approximation.

The method of iterations was successfully applied to the solution of the nonlinear integral equation (2.1). A key observation is the nonlinearity of the equation, and that a good choice for the zero iteration, insures a rapid convergence.

The BFKL equation is solved numerically. Its solution blows up for low values of $`x`$, and this is the origin for the possible violation of unitarity. However, the nonlinear effects suppress the growth of the cross section. These effects set in at such small distances that we do not actually ever expect to see the BFKL dynamics.

The nonlinear BFKL-type equation (2.1) is solved numerically. The solution predicts a saturation of the function $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ at large distances. The dipole cross section obtained is not saturated as a function of $`x`$. Due to $`b`$ integration it grows logarithmically with decrease of $`x`$. Fig. (6) shows that the solution to the non-linear evolution equation generates a dipole cross section which is quite different from the predictions of the Golec-Biernat and Wusthoff model . This model is widely used for estimating saturation effects at HERA, and our calculations demonstrate that we should be very careful with the conclusions based on such estimates especially at lower $`x`$.

We demonstrated that the solution to the non-linear equation is quite different from the models that have been used for estimates of the saturation effects  (see Fig. (2)). However, all these models can be used as a first iteration of the non-linear equation which leads to faster convergence of the numerical procedure.

We found that the non-linear effects are very important for the extrapolations of improved knowledge on the parton distributions to higher energies such as the THERA and LHC energies. Fig. (7) shows that damping due to non-linear effects leads to suppression of a factor of $`2÷3`$ in comparison with the linear DGLAP evolution.

The solution found for the nonlinear equation was used to estimate the saturation scale $`Q_s(x)`$. In spite of considerable uncertainty in the value of the saturation scale we predict that it grows with decreasing $`x`$ starting from about 1(GeV) at $`x=10^3`$ and reaching around 10(GeV) at $`x=10^7`$, in accordance with the theoretical expectations .

We proved that the correcting function $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ is concentrated at the moderate values of $`x`$. This fact demonstrates the self-consistency of our approach, as $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ cannot be large and can be treated using the linear DGLAP-type of equations. The full phenomenological study of the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ and its $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ dependence will be published elsewhere.

We hope that our approach will be useful for the extrapolation of the HERA parton distributions to higher energies (lower $`x`$). Of course much further work will be required before this area of QCD is fully understood.

Acnowledgements: The authors are very much indebted to our coauthors and friends with whom we discussed our approach on a everyday basis Ian Balitsky, Jochen Bartels , Krystoff Golec Biernat, Larry McLerran, Dima Kharzeev, Yuri Kovchegov and Al Mueller for their help and fruitful discussions on the subject. E.G. , E. L. thank BNL Nuclear Theory Group and DESY Theory group for their hospitality and creative atmosphere during several stages of this work.

This research was supported in part by the BSF grant $`\mathrm{\#}`$ 9800276, by the GIF grant $`\mathrm{\#}`$ I-620-22.14/1999 and by Israeli Science Foundation, founded by the Israeli Academy of Science and Humanities.