text:
# Floquet Analysis of Atom Optics Tunneling Experiments

## Abstract

Dynamical tunneling has been observed in atom optics experiments by two groups. We show that the experimental results are extremely well described by time-periodic Hamiltonians with momentum quantized in units of the atomic recoil. The observed tunneling has a well defined period when only two Floquet states dominate the dynamics. Beat frequencies are observed when three Floquet states dominate. We find frequencies which match those observed in both experiments. The dynamical origin of the dominant Floquet states is identified.

PACS numbers : 03.65.Xp, 03.75.Be, 05.45.Mt, 42.50.Vk

Atom optics experiments recently have been used to investigate the effect of underlying classical chaos on quantum dynamics. The experiments we focus on in this paper have demonstated the existence of dynamic tunneling in momentum space in regimes where the underlying classical phase space contains a mixture of chaotic and regular orbits. We will show that we can accurately reproduce the dominant tunneling frequencies observed in these two very different experiments using Floquet analysis of the quantum dynamics.

Typically, cold sodium or cesium atoms are allowed to interact with laser beams which are detuned away from resonance with two atomic energy levels which have energy spacing, $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$. Two counterpropagating laser beams create a periodically modulated standing wave of light which stimulates absorption and then emission of a photon. This results in a net atomic recoil of $`2\mathrm{}k_L`$, where $`k_L=\omega _L/c`$ is the wave vector of the laser beams and $`\mathrm{}`$ is Planck’s constant. When the laser detuning, $`\delta _L=\omega _0\omega _L`$ is large, this process dominates the dynamics.

A theoretical model which describes the atomic dynamics in such systems was developed by Graham, Schlautmann, and Zoller . Recently, two groups, Steck, Oskay and Raizen  in Texas and Hensinger et.al. at NIST , have performed independent experiments in which dynamic tunneling has been observed. In this letter, we explore the accuracy of the models used to analyse these experiments, and the dynamical origin of the tunneling observed in each experiment. We first discuss the Texas experiment and then the NIST experiment.

In the Texas experiment , the dynamics of non-interacting cold cesium atoms, in an amplitude modulated standing wave of light, was measured. The atomic center-of-mass Hamiltonian (in S.I. units) used to model dynamics of the cesium atoms is

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}2V_o\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{\omega _mt}{2}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(2k_L\widehat{x}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{p}`$, $`\widehat{x}`$, and $`m`$ are the momentum, position, and mass, respectively, of a cesium atom, $`\omega _m=\frac{2\pi }{T}`$ is the modulation frequency, and $`V_o=\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{max}^2}{8\delta _L}`$ is the ac Stark shift amplitude, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{max}=2E_0d/\mathrm{}`$ is the Rabi frequency, $`E_0`$ is the electric field strength, and $`d`$ is the dipole moment of cesium .

In the experiments, the initial state is well localized at discrete momentum states separated by $`2\mathrm{}k_L`$. This quantization of the momentum occurs naturally in the experiment due to the presence of counter propagating laser beams which cause two-photon transitions. Therefore, in our theoretical analysis, we perform a scaling which explicitly quantizes the momentum in units of $`2\mathrm{}k_L`$. As we will see later, this allows us to use Floquet theory rather than Floquet-Bloch theory deals with a continuum of monentum states . Let $`\widehat{\varphi }=2k_L\widehat{x}`$, $`\widehat{p}=2\widehat{n}\mathrm{}k_L`$, $`\omega _r=\mathrm{}k_L^2/2m`$, $`\omega =\omega _m/4\omega _r`$, $`t^{}=4\omega _rt`$, and $`\widehat{H}_{th}=m\widehat{H}/2k_L^2\mathrm{}^2`$, to obtain,

$$\widehat{H}_{th}=\widehat{n}^2\frac{\alpha \omega ^2}{8\pi ^2}\left[\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\varphi })+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\varphi }\omega t^{})+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\varphi }+\omega t^{})\right],$$
(2)
where $`\alpha =8\omega _rT^2V_0/\mathrm{}`$. All quantities are dimensionless and $`\widehat{n}`$ is the dimensionless momentum operator with eigenstates, $`|n`$, and integer eigenvalues, $`\mathrm{}n\mathrm{}`$. (Note that the experimental papers  perform the following scaling, $`\widehat{\varphi }=2k_L\widehat{x}`$, $`\tau =\omega _mt/2\pi =t/T`$, $`\widehat{\rho }=4\pi k_L\widehat{p}/m\omega _m`$, $`\widehat{H}_{exp}=16\pi ^2k_L^2\widehat{H}/m\omega _m^2`$, and Hamiltonian takes the form, $`\widehat{H}_{exp}=\frac{\widehat{\rho }^2}{2}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2(\pi \tau )\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\varphi })`$.) This system has three primary resonances centered at $`(n=0,\varphi =0)`$ and $`(n=\pm \omega /2,\varphi =0)`$. For small values of $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha <1.5`$), the primary resonances have pendulum-like structure, and the resonance at $`n=0`$ has half-width $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_0=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha \omega ^2}{4\pi ^2}}`$, while the resonances at $`n_\pm =\pm \omega /2`$ have half-width $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_\pm =\mathrm{\Delta }n_0/\sqrt{2}`$ . The primary resonance at $`n=0`$ bifurcates at $`\alpha 7.0`$. The two outer primaries remain visible until $`\alpha 13.0`$ when they disappear.

The classical motion is obtained from Hamilton’s equations, $`\dot{n}=\frac{H_{th}}{\varphi }`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }=\frac{H_{th}}{n}`$. In the Texas experiment, $`\omega _r=1.30\times 10^4rad/s`$ and $`T=2\pi /\omega _m=20\mu s`$, which, for small $`\alpha `$, gives a location of $`n_\pm =\pm 3.0`$ for the outer primary resonances. For the field strength $`\alpha =9.7`$, used in the Texas experiment, the pendulum approximation for the half-widths of the two outer primary resonances gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_\pm =2.1`$, while the half-width of the central island is $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_0=3.0`$. Thus the Texas experiment, for $`\alpha =9.7`$, is in the strong field regime, where the primary resonances have overlapped and considerable chaos is expected . A surface of section of the classical phase space for $`\alpha =9.7`$ is shown in Figure (1.a). The central primary resonance has bifurcated and is largely destroyed, and the outer primary resonances have been reduced significantly in size and are centered at momentum values $`n=\pm 4.2`$. Note also that the chaotic region lies in the interval $`5n+5`$, indicating that eleven quantized momentum states determine the dynamics in the chaotic region.

The Texas experiment used atoms prepared initially with a narrow momentum distribution peaked at $`n=4.2`$ (on the upper island). To numerically simulate this initial condition, we solved the Schrodinger equation, $`i\frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }(t^{})}{t^{}}=\widehat{H}_{th}|\mathrm{\Psi }(t^{})`$, using momentum states, $`|n`$, as a basis. A coherent state,

$$n|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)n|\varphi _on_o=\left(\frac{\sigma ^2}{\pi }\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\sigma ^2}{2}\left(nn_o\right)^2i\left(nn_o\right)\varphi _o\right]$$
(3)
centered at ($`n=n_o,\varphi =\varphi _o`$) is used as the initial state, with $`\sigma =1.2`$ which was used in the experiment. In the momentum basis, the Schrodinger equation reduces to a system of coupled first order differential equations for the amplitudes, $`n|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$. This system was truncated, and 81 equations for the states $`n|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ with $`40n40`$ were kept. The time variation of the average momentum, $`n`$, is shown in Figures (2.a), (2.b), and (2.c) for $`\alpha =8.0,9.7,`$ and $`13.0`$, respectively. In all cases, the initial state is ($`n_o=4.2,\varphi _o=0`$). For all three plots, the average momentum oscillates between the outer primary resonances. The plot for $`\alpha =8.0`$ ($`\alpha =9.7`$) has two dominant frequencies, $`f_1=1.95kHz`$ and $`f_2=2.73kHz`$ ($`f_1=2.39kHz`$ and $`f_2=2.88kHz`$), giving rise to a beating effect. The beating effect at $`\alpha =9.7`$ was observed in the Texas experiment , but the experimental error bars were too great to resolve it at $`\alpha =8.0`$. The plot for $`\alpha =13.0`$ shows one dominant frequency, $`f=1.56kHz`$.

It is useful to examine these results using Floquet theory . Because the Hamiltonian, $`\widehat{H}_{th}`$, has time periodic coefficients, the Schrodinger equation has Floquet solutions of the form $`n|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_jt}n|\chi _j(t)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$ is the $`j^{th}`$ Floquet eigenphase and $`|\chi _j(t)`$ is the $`j^{th}`$ Floquet eigenstate and is periodic in time, $`|\chi _j(t)=|\chi _j(t+T)`$ . The Floquet eigenphases, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$, are conserved quantities, and the eigenstates form a complete orthonormal basis which can be used to analyze the dynamics. The states, $`|\chi _j(0)`$, are eigenfunctions of the Floquet matrix, $`\widehat{U}(T)`$, and the phase functions, $`\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_jT}`$, are its eigenvalues. The Floquet matrix is computed by by taking a momentum eigenstate as the initial state and evolving it for one period, $`T`$, using the Schrodinger equation. The resulting vector (in the momentum basis) is a column of the Floquet matrix.

The overlap probabilities, $`P_j|\chi _j(0)|\varphi _on_o(0)|^2`$, give the contribution of each Floquet state to the dynamics. The probability to find the system in momentum state, $`|n`$, at time $`t`$, can be written

$`\left|n|\varphi _on_o\left(t\right)\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_j\mathrm{\Omega }_i\right)t\right)n|\chi _j\left(t\right)\chi _i\left(t\right)|n`$ (5)
$`\times \chi _j\left(0\right)|\varphi _on_o\left(0\right)\varphi _on_o\left(0\right)|\chi _i\left(0\right),`$
with time $`t`$ in seconds and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j/2\pi `$ in Hertz. The oscillation frequencies, $`f_{exp}`$, observed in the experiments can be equated to differences between Floquet eigenphases. The frequency differences, $`f_{exp}=(\mathrm{\Omega }_j\mathrm{\Omega }_i)/2\pi `$, for Floquet eigenstates with overlap probability, $`P_iP_j0.04`$, are plotted in Figure (3) for the range of parameters shown in the Texas experiment . Each curve is a plot of the frequency difference between two Floquet states as a function of $`\alpha `$. At values of $`\alpha `$ where there are multiple curves there are more than two dominant frequencies. The Texas experiment was able to resolve the dominant frequencies, $`f_{exp}<3`$kHz, in the interval between $`\alpha 8.7`$ and $`\alpha 10.3`$. Our analysis exactly reproduces those experimental results. In the amplitude range, $`\alpha 7.6`$ to $`\alpha 11.6`$, we find that two frequencies dominate and give rise to the beats seen in Figures (2.a) and (2.b). In the Texas data , large error bars occur in the regions $`\alpha =7.0`$ and $`\alpha 13.7`$. This may be due to the rapid change in the dominant frequencies in those regions. A fundamental change in the dynamics occurs for $`\alpha >14`$, where a different set of Floquet states begins to dominate the dynamics.

Only eleven Floquet states have support on momentum in the region, $`n=5`$ to $`n=5`$, and determine the dynamics in the chaotic region. In Figures (4.a)-(4.d), we show Husimi plots for the Floquet states which, for $`\alpha =9.7`$, have the largest overlap probability, three of which dominate the dynamics. The dark regions of these plots show the region of the classical phase space where the probability of finding the cesium atoms is largest. The eigenphase differences, $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{4b}\mathrm{\Omega }_{4a})/2\pi =2.89k`$Hz and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{4a}\mathrm{\Omega }_{4c})/2\pi =2.40k`$Hz correspond to the two dominant oscillation frequencies observed by the Texas experiment at $`\alpha =9.7`$. The state in Figure (4.d) has the fourth highest overlap probability, $`P_d=0.045`$, but it lies in the chaotic sea. The state in Fig. (4d) and others not shown contribute to the fine scale structure in these curves.

Let us now consider the NIST experiment , which used a Bose-Einstein condensate of sodium atoms to observe dynamic tunneling. Formation of a condensate with the sodium atoms yields a narrower distribution of initial momenta than the Texas experiment. The Hamiltonian used to describe the experiment can be written in the form

$$\widehat{H}_{th}=\widehat{n}^2+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2\kappa }{2}\left[1+2\nu ϵ\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\omega }t^{})\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi }\nu ϵ\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\omega }t^{})\nu ϵ\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\varphi }+\stackrel{~}{\omega }t^{})\right],$$
(6)
where $`\nu =\pm 1`$. When $`\nu =+1`$ ($`\nu =1`$), Eq. (6), with starting time $`t^{}=0`$, reproduces the dynamics of the NIST experiment which has starting time, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\stackrel{~}{T}/4`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{\tau }=3\stackrel{~}{T}/4`$). This Hamiltonian again discretizes the momentum in units of $`2\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{k}_L`$, which reflects the quantization of momentum due to the two photon transitions. (The Hamiltonian, $`\widehat{H}_{exp}=\frac{\widehat{\rho }^2}{2}+2\kappa \left(1+2ϵ\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_m\stackrel{~}{\tau })\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\widehat{\varphi }}{2}\right)`$, used in the experimental paper is obtained by setting $`\widehat{\rho }=\frac{4\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{k}_L^2}{m\stackrel{~}{\omega }_m}\widehat{n}`$ and $`\widehat{H}_{exp}=\frac{8\stackrel{~}{k}_L^4\mathrm{}^2}{m^2\stackrel{~}{\omega }_m^2}\widehat{H}_{th}`$.)

For small amplitudes, $`\kappa `$ and $`\kappa ϵ`$, the NIST Hamiltonians have three primary resonances. For $`\nu =1`$ they are located at $`(n=0,\varphi =0)`$ and $`(n=\pm \frac{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}{2},\varphi =\pm \pi )`$, while for $`\nu =+1`$ they are located at $`(n=0,\varphi =0)`$ and $`(n=\pm \frac{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}{2},\varphi =0)`$. They have half-widths, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_0=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2\kappa }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_\pm =\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2\kappa ϵ}`$ .

A strobe plot of the classical phase space for the Hamiltonian in Eq. (6) with $`\nu =1`$ and experimental parameters $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_m/2\pi =250`$kHz, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=2.5`$, $`\kappa =1.66`$ and $`ϵ=0.29`$ is shown in Figure (1.b). Seven Floquet states determine the dynamics in the chaotic region between $`n=3`$ and $`n=3`$. For the parameters used in the experiment, the pendulum approximation predicts the primary resonances to lie at $`n=0`$ and $`n=\pm 1.25`$, and have half-widths, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_0=3.2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_\pm =1.7`$. We find that the primary resonances are totally destroyed at $`\kappa 0.2`$, and then new resonances, which resemble the primaries, reappear and disappear repeatedly as $`\kappa `$ is increased. For $`\kappa =1.66`$ and $`ϵ=0.29`$, a large resonance exists at $`(n=0,\varphi =0)`$ and three small pairs of higher order resonances exist at $`(n\pm 1.5,\varphi =\pm \pi )`$, $`(n\pm 3.0,\varphi =0)`$ and $`(n\pm 2.0,\varphi =0)`$.

In Figure (5) we show the time evolution of the momentum expectation value for two different initial conditions for the $`\nu =1`$ Hamiltonian at parameter values, $`\kappa =1.66`$, $`ϵ=0.29`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=2.5`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_m/2\pi =250`$kHz. Figure (5.a), with $`(n_o=1.6,\varphi _o=0)`$, shows a somewhat noisy oscillation with a dominant frequency $`24.9kHz`$ (10.0 modulation periods), which is in good agreement with the experimental result. Figure (5.b) shows the case with $`(n_o=3.0,\varphi _o=0)`$. A clean oscillation with frequency $`18.3kHz`$ (13.7 modulation periods) occurs. This oscillation was not observed in the experiment, but we expect it would show up in a power spectrum of the experimental data.

We now consider a Floquet analysis for both Hamiltonians, $`\nu =\pm 1`$. The Floquet eigenphases for $`\nu =\pm 1`$ are identical, but the Floquet eigenstates associated with each eigenphase are different for the two Hamiltonians. Let us first consider the $`\nu =1`$ Hamiltonian with parameters, $`\kappa =1.66`$, $`ϵ=0.29`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=2.5`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_m/2\pi =250`$kHz. In Figures (6.a) and (6.b), we show the two Floquet states which dominate the dynamics for initial condition, $`(n_o=1.6,\varphi _o=0)`$. They have a frequency difference, $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{6b}\mathrm{\Omega }_{6a})/2\pi =25.0`$kHz. Their frequency difference accounts for the oscillation of 10 modulation periods reported in . These Floquet states are not even-odd pairs as suggested in , and they both lie in the chaotic sea. If the effective Planck’s constant for this experiment were smaller, more Floquet states would be supported by the chaotic region and we would not expect to find this simple oscillation  for this initial condition.

If we take initial condition, $`(n_o=3.0,\varphi _o=0)`$ for $`\nu =1`$, we obtain the oscillation shown in Figure (5.b). This oscillation results from the even-odd Floquet pair shown in Figures (6.c) and (6.d). Figure (6.c) (Fig. (6.d)) is even (odd) under the transformation $`pp`$. They have a frequency difference, $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{6c}\mathrm{\Omega }_{6d})/2\pi =18.3`$kHz. This oscillation appears to result from states sitting the outer-most nonlinear resonance.

We finally consider the $`\nu =+1`$ Hamiltonian with parameters, $`\kappa =1.66`$, $`ϵ=0.29`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=2.5`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_m/2\pi =250`$kHz. We find that the $`25.0kHz`$ (10 modulation periods) oscillation dominates those initial momentum states which are centered at $`\varphi =0`$ and lie in the interval $`n_o=1.7`$ to $`n_o=3.0`$. These oscillations appear to result from the two Floquet states which lie in the chaotic sea. If we change the parameters to $`\kappa =1.82`$ and $`ϵ=0.30`$ and the modulation frequency to $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_m=222kHz`$, the dominant frequency for initial state, $`(n_o=2.0,\varphi _o=0)`$, is $`36.8kHz`$ (6.03 modulation periods), which is in agreement with the NIST experiment.

In conclusion, the model Hamiltonians, with momentum quantized in units of $`2\mathrm{}k_L`$, give extremely good predictions of the experimental results. Because of the momentum quantization imposed by the dynamics of the experiment, we found that it was advantageous to use Floquet theory rather than Floquet-Bloch theory to analyse the experiment. In fact, our results are so good that these models might be used to help calibrate future experiments.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to thank the Welch Foundation, Grant No.F-1051, NSF Grant INT-9602971 and DOE contract No.DE-FG03-94ER14405 for partial support of this work. We also thank the University of Texas at Austin High Performance Computing Center for use of their computer facilities, and we thank Mark Raizen, Dan Steck, Windell Oskay, and Chris Helmerson for useful conversations.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is known that from heavy quark and quarkonium production processes one can obtain unique information on gluon structure function of the proton because of the dominance of the photon-gluon or gluon-gluon fusion subprocess in the framework of QCD . Studying gluon distributions at modern collider energy (such as HERA, Tevatron) is important for prediction of heavy quark and quarkonium production cross sections at future colliders (LHC, THERA). At the energies of HERA and LEP/LHC colliders heavy quark and quarkonium production processes are so called semihard processes \[2–5\]. In such processes by definition the hard scattering scale $`\mu m_Q`$ is large compare to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ parameter but on the other hand $`\mu `$ is much less than the total center-of-mass energy: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}\mu \sqrt{s}`$. The last condition implies that the processes occur in small $`x`$ region: $`xm_Q/\sqrt{s}1`$, and that the cross sections of heavy quark and quarkonium production processes are determined by the behavior of gluon distributions in the small $`x`$ region.

It is also known that in the small $`x`$ region the standard parton model (SPM) assumptions about factorization of gluon distribution functions and subprocess cross sections are broken because the subprocess cross sections and gluon structure functions depend on a gluon transverse momentum $`k_T`$ \[2–5\]. So calculations of heavy quark production cross sections at HERA, Tevatron, LHC and other collider conditions are necessary to carry out in the so called $`k_T`$-factorization (or semihard) QCD approach, which is more preferable for the small $`x`$ region than SPM.

The $`k_T`$-factorization QCD approach is based on Balitsky, Fadin, Kuraev, Lipatov (BFKL)  evolution equations. The resummation of the terms $`\alpha _S^n\mathrm{ln}^n\left(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2\right)`$, $`\alpha _S^n\mathrm{ln}^n\left(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2\right)\mathrm{ln}^n\left(1/x\right)`$ and $`\alpha _S^n\mathrm{ln}^n\left(1/x\right)`$ in the $`k_T`$-factorization approach leads to the unintegrated (dependent from $`𝐪_T`$) gluon distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,𝐪_T^2,\mu ^2)`$ which determine the probability to find a gluon carrying the longitudinal momentum fraction $`x`$ and transverse momentum $`𝐪_T`$ at probing scale $`\mu ^2`$.

To calculate the cross section of a physical process the unintegrated gluon distributions have to be convoluted with off mass shell matrix elements corresponding to the relevant partonic subprocesses \[2–5\]. In the off mass shell matrix element the virtual gluon polarization tensor is taken in the BFKL form \[2–5\]:

$$L^{\mu \nu }\left(q\right)=\frac{q_T^\mu q_T^\nu }{𝐪_T^2}.$$
(1)
Nowadays, the significance of the $`k_T`$-factorization QCD approach becomes more and more commonly recognized . It was already used for the description of a wide class heavy quark and quarkonium production processes \[8–23\]. It is notable that calculations in $`k_T`$-factorization approach provide results which are absent in other approaches, such as the fast growth of total cross sections in comparison with SPM, a broadening of the $`p_T`$ spectra due to extra the transverse momentum of the colliding partons and other polarization properties of final particles in comparison with SPM.

We point out that heavy quark and quarkonium cross section calculations within the SPM in the fixed order of pQCD have some problems. For example, the very large discrepancy (by more than an order of magnitude)  between the pQCD predictions for hadroproduction $`J/\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ mesons and experimental data at Tevatron was found. This fact has resulted in intensive theoretical investigations of such processes. In particular, it was required to use additional transition mechanism from $`c\overline{c}`$-pair to the $`J/\psi `$ mesons, so-called the colour octet (CO) model , where $`c\overline{c}`$-pair is produced in the color octet state and transforms into final colour singlet (CS) state by help soft gluon radiation. The CO model was supposed to be applicable to heavy quarkonium hadro- and leptoproduction processes. However, the contributions from the CO mechanism to the $`J/\psi `$ meson photoproduction contradict the experimental data at HERA for $`z`$ distribution \[27–30\].

Another difficulty of the CO model are the $`J/\psi `$ polarization properties in $`p\overline{p}`$-interactions at the Tevatron. In the framework of the CO model, the $`J/\psi `$ mesons should be transverse polarized at the large transverse momenta $`𝐩_T`$. However, this is in contradiction with the experimental data, too.

The CO model has been applied earlier  in an analysis of the $`J/\psi `$ inelastic production experimental data at HERA . However, the results do not agree with each other . We note that the shapes of the $`Q^2`$, $`𝐩_T^2`$ and $`y^{}`$ distributions are not reproduced by the calculation , and the $`z`$ distributions  contradict the HERA experimental data too. Results obtained within the usual collinear approach and CS model \[34–37\] underestimate experimental data by factor about 2.

The inelastic $`J/\psi `$ production at HERA in the CS model with $`k_T`$-factorization also was considered in . The results  agree with H1 experimental data  both in normalization and shape only at quite small charmed quark mass $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$. The theoretical prediction  are stimulated the experimental analysis of $`J/\psi `$ polarization properties at HERA conditions.

Recently the new experimental data on the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photo- and leptoproduction at HERA were obtained by the H1  and ZEUS  collaborations with increased statistics and precision as compared with previous experimental analyses . Based on the above mentioned results here we will use the CS model and the $`k_T`$-factorization approach for the analysis of the data \[38–40\]. We investigate the dependences of the single differential and double differential $`J/\psi `$ production cross section on different forms of the unintegrated gluon distribution. Special attention is drawn to the unintegrated gluon distributions obtained from BFKL evolution equation which has been applied earlier in our previous papers \[12–16\]. For studying $`J/\psi `$ meson polarization properties we calculate the $`z`$ and $`𝐩_T`$ dependences of the spin aligment parameter $`\alpha `$.

The outline of this paper is as follows. In Section 2 we present, in analytic form, the total and differential cross section for the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photo- and leptoproduction in the CS model with $`k_T`$-factorization, and give the formulas for the relevant partonic subprocess off mass shell matrix elements. In Section 3 we present the numerical results of our calculations and compare them with the H1  and ZEUS  data. Finally, in Section 4, we give some conclusions.

## 2 Analytic results

In this section we calculate total and differential cross section for inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photo- and leptoproduction in the CS model with $`k_T`$-factorization, and give the formulas for the relevant partonic subprocess off mass shell matrix elements.

### 2.1 Kinematics

As indicated in Fig. 1, we denote the 4-momenta of the incoming electron and proton and the outgoing electron, proton remnant, $`J/\psi `$ meson and gluon by $`p_e`$, $`p_p`$, $`p_e^{}`$, $`p_p^{}`$, $`p_\psi `$ and $`p_g`$, respectively. The initial virtual photon and BFKL gluon have a 4-momenta $`q_1=p_ep_e^{}`$ and $`q_2=p_pp_p^{}`$, so that 4-momentum transfer $`Q^2=q_1^2`$. In our analysis below we will use the Sudakov decomposition, which has the following form:

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p_\psi =\alpha _1p_e+\beta _1p_p+p_{\psi T},p_g=\alpha _2p_e+\beta _2p_p+p_{gT},}{q_1=x_1p_e+q_{1T},q_2=x_2p_p+q_{2T},}$$
(2)
where $`p_{\psi T}`$, $`p_{gT}`$, $`q_{1T}`$ and $`q_{2T}`$ are transverse 4-momenta of corresponding particles, and

$$p_\psi ^2=m_\psi ^2,p_g^2=0,q_1^2=q_{1T}^2,q_2^2=q_{2T}^2.$$
(3)
In the $`ep`$ c.m. frame we can write:

$$p_e=\sqrt{s}/2(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}),p_p=\sqrt{s}/2(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1),$$
(4)
where we neglect the masses of the electron and proton. The Sudakov variables are expressed as follows:

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _1={\displaystyle \frac{m_{\psi T}}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(y_\psi \right),\alpha _2={\displaystyle \frac{\left|𝐩_{gT}\right|}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(y_g\right),}{\beta _1={\displaystyle \frac{m_{\psi T}}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}(y_\psi ),\beta _2={\displaystyle \frac{\left|𝐩_{gT}\right|}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}(y_g),}$$
(5)
where $`m_{\psi T}^2=m_\psi ^2+𝐩_{\psi T}^2`$, $`y_\psi `$ and $`y_g`$ are the rapidities of $`J/\psi `$ meson and final gluon respectively in the $`ep`$ c.m. frame. From conservation laws we can easy obtain following conditions:

$$x_1=\alpha _1+\alpha _2,x_2=\beta _1+\beta _2,𝐪_{1T}+𝐪_{2T}=𝐩_{\psi T}+𝐩_{gT}.$$
(6)
Also the variable $`z=\left(p_\psi p_p\right)/\left(q_1p_p\right)`$ is used for a description of quarkonium photo- and leptoproduction processes. In the rest frame of the proton one has $`z=E_\psi /E_\gamma `$.

### 2.2 Inelastic $`J/\psi `$ leptoproduction cross section

In the $`k_T`$-factorization approach the differential cross section for inelastic $`J/\psi `$ leptoproduction may be written as:

$$d\sigma \left(epe^{}J/\psi X\right)=\frac{dx_2}{x_2}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_2,𝐪_{2T}^2,\mu ^2)\frac{d\varphi _2}{2\pi }d𝐪_{2T}^2d\widehat{\sigma }\left(eg^{}e^{}J/\psi g^{}\right),$$
(7)
where $`\varphi _2`$ is initial BFKL gluon azimuthal angle, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x_2,𝐪_{2T}^2,\mu ^2)`$ is an unintegrated gluon distribution in the proton. The $`eg^{}e^{}J/\psi g^{}`$ cross section is given by:

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d\widehat{\sigma }(eg^{}e^{}J/\psi g^{})={\displaystyle \frac{\left(2\pi \right)^4}{2x_2s}}{\displaystyle }|M|_{\mathrm{SHA}}^2(eg^{}e^{}J/\psi g^{})\times }{\times {\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_e^{}}{\left(2\pi \right)^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}p_{}^{}{}_{e}{}^{0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_\psi }{\left(2\pi \right)^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}p_\psi ^0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_g}{\left(2\pi \right)^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}p_g^0}}\delta ^{\left(4\right)}(p_e+q_2p_e^{}p_\psi p_g),}$$
(8)
where $`\left|M\right|_{\mathrm{SHA}}^2\left(eg^{}e^{}J/\psi g^{}\right)`$ is the off mass shell matrix element. In (8) $``$ indicates an averaging over and a sum over the final polarization states. From (7) and (8) we obtain the following formula for the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ leptoproduction differential cross section in the $`k_T`$-factorization approach:

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d\sigma (epe^{}J/\psi X)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{128\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(x_2,𝐪_{2T}^2,\mu ^2)}{\left(x_2s\right)^2\left(1x_1\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z\left(1z\right)}}dy_\psi \times }{\times {\displaystyle }|M|_{\mathrm{SHA}}^2(eg^{}e^{}J/\psi g^{})d𝐩_{\psi T}^2dQ^2d𝐪_{2T}^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _\psi }{2\pi }},}$$
(9)
where $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _\psi `$ are azimuthal angles of the initial virtual photon and $`J/\psi `$ meson respectively.

### 2.3 Inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction cross section

As in leptoproduction case, in the $`k_T`$-factorization approach the differential cross section for inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction may be written as:

$$d\sigma \left(\gamma pJ/\psi X\right)=\frac{dx_2}{x_2}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_2,𝐪_{2T}^2,\mu ^2)\frac{d\varphi _2}{2\pi }d𝐪_{2T}^2d\widehat{\sigma }\left(\gamma g^{}J/\psi g^{}\right).$$
(10)
If we take the limit $`Q^20`$ and $`x_11`$, we easy obtain the following formula for the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction differential cross section in the $`k_T`$-factorization approach by analogy with the leptoproduction case:

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d\sigma (\gamma pJ/\psi X)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi \left(x_2s\right)^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_2,𝐪_{2T}^2,\mu ^2){\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z\left(1z\right)}}\times }{\times {\displaystyle }|M|_{\mathrm{SHA}}^2(\gamma g^{}J/\psi g^{})d𝐩_{\psi T}^2d𝐪_{2T}^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _\psi }{2\pi }},}$$
(11)
We note that formulas for the the differential cross section for inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photo- and leptoproduction in the usual parton model may be obtained from (9) and (11), if we take the limit $`𝐪_{2T}^20`$ and average them over the transverse momentum vector $`𝐪_{2T}`$.

### 2.4 Off mass shell matrix element

There are six Feynman diagrams (Fig. 2) which describe partonic subprocess $`\gamma g^{}J/\psi g^{}`$ at leading order in $`\alpha _S`$ and $`\alpha `$. In the framework of the CS model and the nonrelativistic approximation the production of the $`J/\psi `$ meson is considered as a production of a quark-antiquark system in the colour singlet state with orbital momentum $`L=0`$ and spin momentum $`S=1`$. The binding energy and relative momentum of the quarks in the $`J/\psi `$ meson are neglected, resulting in $`m_\psi =2m_c`$, where $`m_c`$ is charm mass. The amplitude of the process $`\gamma g^{}J/\psi g^{}`$ may be obtained from the amplitude of the process $`\gamma g^{}c\overline{c}g^{}`$ after replacement:

$$v\left(p_{\overline{c}}\right)\overline{u}\left(p_c\right)\widehat{J}\left(p_\psi \right)=\frac{\psi \left(0\right)}{2\sqrt{m_\psi }}\widehat{ϵ}\left(p_\psi \right)\left(\widehat{p}_\psi +m_\psi \right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}},$$
(12)
where $`p_c=p_\psi /2`$, $`ϵ\left(p_\psi \right)`$ is a 4-vector of the $`J/\psi `$ polarization, $`1/\sqrt{3}`$ is the color factor, $`\psi \left(0\right)`$ is the nonrelativistic meson wave function at the origin. The matrix element is:

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M=e_cg^2ϵ_\mu \left(q_1\right)ϵ_\sigma \left(q_2\right)ϵ_\rho \left(p_g\right)\times }{\times Sp\left[\widehat{J}\left(p_\psi \right)\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_c\widehat{q}_1+m_c}{\left(p_cq_1\right)^2m_c^2}}\gamma ^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_c\widehat{p}_g+m_c}{\left(p_cp_g\right)^2m_c^2}}\gamma ^\rho \right]}$$
(13)
\+ 5 permutations of all gauge bosons. Here $`ϵ_\mu \left(q_1\right)`$ and $`ϵ_\mu \left(q_2\right)`$ are polarization vectors of the initial photon and gluon respectively, $`ϵ_\mu \left(p_g\right)`$ is a 4-vector of the final gluon polarization. The summation on the $`J/\psi `$ meson and final gluon polarizations is carried out by covariant formulas:

$$ϵ^\mu \left(p_\psi \right)ϵ^\nu \left(p_\psi \right)=g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{p_\psi ^\mu p_\psi ^\nu }{m_\psi ^2},$$
(14)
$$ϵ^\mu \left(p_g\right)ϵ^\nu \left(p_g\right)=g^{\mu \nu }.$$
(15)
The initial BFKL gluon polarization tensor is taken in form (1). For the photon we use the usual expression

$$ϵ^\mu \left(q_1\right)ϵ^\nu \left(q_1\right)=g^{\mu \nu }$$
(16)
in photoproduction case and the full lepton tensor (including also the photon propagator factor and photon-lepton coupling) in leptoproduction case:

$$ϵ^\mu \left(q_1\right)ϵ^\nu \left(q_1\right)=2\frac{e^2}{Q^2}\left(g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{4p_e^\mu p_e^\nu }{Q^2}\right).$$
(17)
For studying $`J/\psi `$ polarized production we introduce the 4-vector of the longitudinal polarization $`ϵ_L^\mu \left(p_\psi \right)`$ as follows :

$$ϵ_L^\mu \left(p_\psi \right)=\frac{\left(p_\psi p_p\right)}{\sqrt{\left(p_\psi p_p\right)^2m_\psi ^2s}}\left(\frac{p_\psi ^\mu }{m_\psi }\frac{m_\psi p_p^\nu }{\left(p_\psi p_p\right)}\right).$$
(18)
The evaluation of $`\left|M\right|_{\mathrm{SHA}}^2`$ for photo- and leptoproduction cases was done analytically by the REDUCE program. Also in our calculations we have used the JB  and KMS  parametrizations of the unintegrated gluon distributions (see also  for the detail information).

## 3 Numerical results

In this section we present the theoretical results in comparison with recent experimental data taken by the H1  and ZEUS  collaborations at HERA.

There are three parameters which determine the common normalization factor of the cross section under consideration: $`J/\psi `$ meson wave function at the origin $`\psi \left(0\right)`$, charmed quark mass $`m_c`$ and factorization scale $`\mu `$. The value of the $`J/\psi `$ meson wave function at the origin may be calculated in a potential model or obtained from the well known experimental decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}\right)`$. In our calculation we used $`\left|\psi \left(0\right)\right|^2=0.0876\mathrm{GeV}^3`$ as in .

Concerning a charmed quark mass, the situation is not clear: on the one hand, in the nonrelativistic approximation one has $`m_c=m_\psi /2=1.55\mathrm{GeV}`$, but on the other hand there are examples when smaller value of a charm mass $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ is used . However, in our previous paper  we analyzed in detail the influence of charm quark mass on the theoretical results. We found that the main effect of change of the charm quark mass connects with final phase space of $`J/\psi `$ meson, and in the subprocess matrix elements this effect is neglectable. Taking into account that the value of $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ corresponds to the unphysical phase space of $`J/\psi `$ state, in the present paper we will use value of a charm mass $`m_c=1.55\mathrm{GeV}`$ only.

Also the most significant theoretical uncertanties come from the choice of the factorization scale $`\mu _F`$ and renormalization one $`\mu _R`$. One of them is related to the evolution of the gluon distributions $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,𝐪_T^2,\mu _F^2)`$, the other is responsible for strong coupling constant $`\alpha _S\left(\mu _R^2\right)`$. As often done in literature, we set $`\mu _F=\mu _R=\mu `$. In the present paper we used the following choice $`\mu ^2=𝐪_{2T}^2`$ as in .

### 3.1 Inelastic $`J/\psi `$ leptoproduction at HERA

The integration limits in (9) are taken as given by kinematical conditions of the H1 experimental data . One kinematical region333Here we denote the $`J/\psi `$ meson transverse momentum and rapidity in the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ c.m. frame by $`𝐩_{\psi T}^{}`$ and $`y_\psi ^{}`$, respectively. is $`2<Q^2<100\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`50<W<225\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`0.3<z<0.9`$, $`𝐩_{\psi T}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}>1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and other kinematical region is $`12<Q^2<100\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`50<W<180\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`𝐩_{\psi T}^2>6.4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`0.3<z<0.9`$ and $`𝐩_{\psi T}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}>1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. Here and in the following, we used $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=250\mathrm{MeV}`$.

The results of our calculations are shown in Fig. 3—5. Fig. 3 shows the single differential cross sections of the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ meson leptoproduction obtained in the first kinematical region at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$. Curve 1 corresponds to the SPM calculations at the leading order approximation with the GRV (LO) gluon density, curves 2 and 3 correspond to the $`k_T`$-factorization results with the JB (at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$ ) and the KMS unintegrated gluon distributions. One can see that results obtained in the CS model with $`k_T`$-factorization agree very well with the H1 experimental data. The SPM calculation are lower than the data by a factor 2 — 3.

We would like to note the difference in the transverse momenta distribution shapes between curves obtained using the $`k_T`$-factorization approach and the SPM. This difference manifests the $`p_T`$ broadening effect which mentioned earlier. It is visible also that only the $`k_T`$-factorization approach gives a correct description of the $`𝐩_{\psi T}^2`$ spectra. However, we note that the $`𝐩_{\psi T}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ distributions somewhat less well described (in contrast with $`𝐩_{\psi T}^2`$ spectra) at the large values of the $`J/\psi `$ transverse momenta (see Fig. 3d).

Also we point out the good description of the $`z`$ distributions which obtained in the $`k_T`$-factorization approach in contrast with CO model results , except for the region $`z<0.3`$, where the contribution of the resolved photon process may be large .

Fig. 4 shows the single differential cross sections of the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ meson production obtained in the second kinematical region at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$. Curves 1 — 3 are the same as in Fig. 3. We find also good agreement between results obtained in the CS model with $`k_T`$-factorization and H1 data. It is notable that in this kinematical region in contrast with first one the both $`𝐩_{\psi T}^2`$ and $`𝐩_{\psi T}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ transverse momenta distributions agree well with the experimental data.

The double differential cross sections $`d\sigma /dQ^2dz`$ and $`d\sigma /d𝐩_{\psi T}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}dz`$ (Fig. 5) obtained with $`k_T`$-factorization in the different $`z`$ regions $`0.3<z<0.6`$ (Fig. 5a, b), $`0.6<z<0.75`$ (Fig. 5c, d) and $`0.75<z<0.9`$ (Fig. 5e, f) agree with the H1 data. We note that double differential cross sections $`d\sigma /d𝐩_{\psi T}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}dz`$ somewhat less well described at the large $`z`$ (see Fig. 5f). However, in this region the contribution of the diffractive processes may be large. All of these contributions are not in our consideration.

It is interesting to note that results obtained with the JB unintegrated gluon distribution at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$ and the KMS ones, which effectively included about 70% of the full NLO corrections to the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ , coincide practically in a wide kinematical region.

Fig. 3 — 5 show that the $`k_T`$-factorization results for inelastic $`J/\psi `$ leptoproduction with realistic value of a charm mass $`m_c=1.55\mathrm{GeV}`$ agree well with the H1 experimental data without any additional $`c\overline{c}J/\psi `$ fragmentation mechanisms, such as the CO contributions.

### 3.2 Inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction at HERA

The integration limits in (11) are taken as given by kinematical conditions of the H1  and the ZEUS  data. One kinematical region which corresponds to the H1 experiment is $`60<W<240\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`0.3<z<0.9`$, $`1<𝐩_{\psi T}^2<60\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and other kinematical region which corresponds to the ZEUS experiment is $`50<W<180\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`0.4<z<0.9`$, $`𝐩_{\psi T}^2>1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

The results of our calculations are shown in Fig. 6 — 8. Fig. 6 and 7 show the total and single differential cross sections of inelastic $`J/\psi `$ meson photoproduction in comparison with the H1 and ZEUS data, respectively. As in previous section, curve 1 corresponds to the SPM calculations at the leading order approximation with the GRV (LO) gluon density, curves 2 and 3 correspond to the $`k_T`$-factorization results with the JB (at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$ ) and KMS unintegrated gluon distributions.

The $`W`$ dependences of the total $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction cross section at $`0.3<z<0.9`$, $`0.3<z<0.8`$ and $`0.4<z<0.9`$ are plotted in Fig. 6a, Fig. 6b and Fig. 7a respectively. One can see that results obtained in the CS model with $`k_T`$-factorization agree very well with the H1  and the ZEUS  experimental data. The SPM results are lower than the data by a factor 2.

Concerning the shapes of the $`𝐩_{\psi T}^2`$ distribution (Fig. 6c and 7b), one can note a difference between the $`k_T`$-factorization and the SPM curves. As in leptoproduction case, this difference manifests the $`p_T`$ broadening effect which was mentioned earlier. It is visible also that only the $`k_T`$-factorization approach gives a correct description of the H1 data.

The $`z`$ distributions are shown in Fig. 6d, e, f and Fig. 7c, d, e at different $`𝐩_{\psi T}`$ cuts in comparison with the H1 and ZEUS data, respectively. One can see that good agreement between the $`k_T`$-factorization curves and the experimental data is observed. The $`z`$ distribution somewhat are less well described at $`𝐩_{\psi T}>3\mathrm{GeV}`$ (see Fig. 6f). The disperance between the leading order SPM calculations and the experimental data is about factor 2 at $`𝐩_{\psi T}>1\mathrm{GeV}`$ and about order of magnitude at $`𝐩_{\psi T}>3\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`z0.8`$. Also we note that in the region $`z<0.3`$ the contribution of resolved photon process may be large , as in leptoproduction case.

The double differential cross sections $`d\sigma /d𝐩_{\psi T}^2dz`$ (Fig. 8) in the different $`z`$ regions $`0.3<z<0.6`$ (Fig. 8a), $`0.6<z<0.75`$ (Fig. 8b) and $`0.75<z<0.9`$ (Fig. 8c) are well described by the $`k_T`$-factorization approach.

It can be seen that the results obtained with the JB unintegrated gluon distribution with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$ and the KMS ones (which effectively included the main part of the full NLO corrections to the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) practically coincide in a wide kinematical region, as in leptoproduction case.

Fig. 6 — 8 show that the $`k_T`$-factorization results for inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction with realistic value of a charm mass $`m_c=1.55\mathrm{GeV}`$ agree well with the H1 and ZEUS experimental data without any additional $`c\overline{c}J/\psi `$ fragmentation mechanisms, such as CO contributions.

### 3.3 Polarization properties of the $`J/\psi `$ meson at HERA

As it mentioned above, one of differences between the $`k_T`$-factorization approach and the SPM is connected with polarization properties of the final particles. In the present paper for studying $`J/\psi `$ meson polarization properties we calculate the $`𝐩_T`$ and $`z`$ dependences of the spin aligment parameter $`\alpha `$ \[14–16\]:

$$\alpha \left(\omega \right)=\frac{d\sigma /d\omega 3d\sigma _L/d\omega }{d\sigma /d\omega +d\sigma _L/d\omega },$$
(19)
where $`\sigma _L`$ is the production cross section for the longitudinally polarized $`J/\psi `$ mesons, $`\omega =𝐩_{\psi T},z`$. The parameter $`\alpha `$ controls the angular distribution for leptons in the decay $`J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ (in the $`J/\psi `$ meson rest frame):

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}\right)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta .$$
(20)
The cases $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\alpha =1`$ correspond to transverse and longitudinal polarization of the $`J/\psi `$ meson, respectively.

In our previous paper  we analyzed in detail the $`Q^2`$ and $`𝐩_{\psi T}^2`$ dependences of the spin parameter $`\alpha `$ in leptoproduction case. We found that it is impossible to make of exact conclusions about a BFKL gluon contribution to the polarized $`J/\psi `$ production cross section because of large additional contribution from initial longitudinal polarization of virtual photons. However at low $`Q^2`$ and in photoproduction limit these contributions are negligible. This fact should result in observable spin effects of final $`J/\psi `$ mesons, connected with the $`k_T`$-factorization effects. In this paper we have performed such calculations for the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction process.

The results of our calculations are shown in Fig. 9 and 10. Fig. 9 shows the parameter $`\alpha `$ as a function $`z`$ and $`𝐩_{\psi T}`$ in comparison with the H1 experimental data which obtained in the kinematical region $`60<W<240\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`0.3<z<0.9`$ and $`1<𝐩_{\psi T}^2<60\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. Curve 1 corresponds to the SPM calculations in the leading order approximation with the GRV (LO) gluon density, curve 2 corresponds to the $`k_T`$-factorization results obtained with the JB (at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$ ) unintegrated gluon distribution. One can see that the $`z`$ dependence of the spin parameter $`\alpha `$ is not sensitive to the results of different approaches, included the nonrelativistic QCD predictions (see ). However, the behavior of the $`\alpha \left(𝐩_T\right)`$ is different in the $`k_T`$-factorization approach and the SPM (see Fig. 9b). Although the experimental points have large errors they tends to support the $`k_T`$-factorization theoretical predictions.

Fig. 10 shows the $`𝐩_{\psi T}`$ dependence of the spin parameter $`\alpha `$ in comparison with the ZEUS experimental data which obtained in the kinematical region $`50<W<180\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`0.4<z<0.9`$ (Fig. 10a and 10c) and $`0.4<z<1`$ (Fig. 10b and 10d). We note that in Fig. 10a and 10b the quantisation axis is chosen to be opposite of the incoming proton direction in the $`J/\psi `$ rest frame, $`\theta `$ is the opening angle between the quantisation axis and the $`\mu ^+`$ direction of flight in the $`J/\psi `$ rest frame. This frame is known as the ”target frame” . In Fig. 10c and 10d, the quantisation axis was defined as the $`J/\psi `$ direction of flight in the ZEUS coordinate system. This frame is known as the ”helicity basis” . Curves 1 and 2 are the same as in Fig. 9.

It is visible that only the $`k_T`$-factorization approach gives a correct description of the ZEUS data, although the experimental points have large errors. We also have large difference between predictions of the leading order of SPM and the $`k_T`$-factorization approach. The SPM predictions lies somewhat below the data at low $`𝐩_{\psi T}`$ and somewhat above at high $`𝐩_{\psi T}`$. Therefore experimental measurement of polarization properties of the $`J/\psi `$ mesons will be an additional test of BFKL gluon dynamics.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we considered the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ meson photo- and leptoproduction at HERA in the colour singlet model using the standard parton model in leading order in $`\alpha _S`$ and the $`k_T`$-factorization QCD approach. We investigated the total cross section, single differential and double differential cross sections of inelastic $`J/\psi `$ production on different forms of the unintegrated gluon distribution. The $`𝐩_T`$ and $`z`$ dependences of the spin aligment parameter $`\alpha `$ presented also. We compared the theoretical results with recent experimental data taken by the H1 and ZEUS collaboration at HERA. We have found that the $`k_T`$-factorization results (in contrast with the SPM ones) with the JB and KMS unintegrated gluon distributions agree well with the experimental data at realistic value of a charm mass $`m_c=1.55\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\left|\psi \left(0\right)\right|^2=0.0876\mathrm{GeV}^3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=250\mathrm{MeV}`$ without any additional transition mechanism from $`c\overline{c}`$-pair to the $`J/\psi `$ mesons (such as given by the CO model). We also found that results obtained with the JB unintegrated gluon density at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$ and KMS one, which effectively included about 70% of the full NLO corrections to the Pomeron intercept $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, practically coincide in a wide kinematical region for $`J/\psi `$ production processes at HERA conditions. Finally, it is shown that experimental study of a polarization of $`J/\psi `$ meson at low $`Q^2<1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ should be additional test of BFKL gluon dynamics.

## 5 Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank S. Baranov for encouraging interest and useful discussions. A.L. thanks also V. Saleev for the help on the initial stage of work. The study was supported in part by RFBR grant 02–02–17513 and INTAS grant YS 2002 N399.

Fig. 1. Diagram for $`epe^{}J/\psi X`$ process.

Fig. 2. Feynmans diagram used for description partonic process $`\gamma gJ/\psi g^{}`$ process.

Fig. 3. The single differential cross sections of the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ leptoproduction obtained in the kinematical region $`2<Q^2<100\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`50<W<225\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`0.3<z<0.9`$ and $`𝐩_{\psi T}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}>1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$ in comparison with the H1  data. Curve 1 corresponds to the SPM calculations at the leading order approximation with GRV (LO) gluon density, curves 2 and 3 correspond to the $`k_T`$-factorization QCD calculations with JB and KMS unintegrated gluon distribution.

Fig. 4. The single differential cross sections of the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ leptoproduction obtained in the kinematical region $`12<Q^2<100\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`50<W<225\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`𝐩_{\psi T}^2>6.4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`0.3<z<0.9`$ and $`𝐩_{\psi T}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}>1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$ in comparison with the H1  data. Curves 1 — 3 are the same as in Fig. 3.

Fig. 5. The double differential cross sections of the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ leptoproduction obtained in the kinematical region $`2<Q^2<100\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`50<W<225\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`0.3<z<0.9`$ and $`𝐩_{\psi T}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}>1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=314\mathrm{GeV}`$ in comparison with the H1  data. Curves 1 — 3 are the same as in Fig. 3.

Fig. 6. The total and single differential cross sections of the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction obtained in the kinematical region $`60<W<240\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`1<𝐩_{\psi T}^2<60\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`0.3<z<0.9`$ in comparison with the H1  data. Curves 1 — 3 are the same as in Fig. 3.

Fig. 7. The total and single differential cross sections of the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction obtained in the kinematical region $`50<W<180\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`𝐩_{\psi T}^2>1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`0.4<z<0.9`$ in comparison with the ZEUS  data. Curves 1 — 3 are the same as in Fig. 3.

Fig. 8. The double differential cross sections of the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction obtained in the kinematical region $`60<W<240\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`1<𝐩_{\psi T}^2<60\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`0.3<z<0.9`$ in comparison with the H1  data. Curves 1 — 3 are the same as in Fig. 3.

Fig. 9. The parameter $`\alpha `$ as a function $`z`$ and $`𝐩_{\psi T}`$ for the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction process which obtained in the kinematical region $`60<W<240\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`0.3<z<0.9`$ and $`1<𝐩_{\psi T}^2<60\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ in comparison with the H1  data. Curve 1 corresponds to the SPM calculations at the leading order approximation with GRV (LO) gluon density, curve 2 corresponds to the $`k_T`$-factorization QCD calculations with JB unintegrated gluon distribution.

Fig. 10. The parameter $`\alpha `$ as a function $`𝐩_{\psi T}`$ for the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction process which obtained in the kinematical region $`50<W<180\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`0.4<z<0.9`$ (Fig. 10a, c), $`0.4<z<1`$ (Fig. 10b, d) and $`1<𝐩_{\psi T}^2<60\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ in comparison with the ZEUS  data. Curves 1 and 2 are the same as in Fig. 9.


text:
# Polarization analysis of K-edge resonant x-ray scattering of germanium

## Abstract

The polarization of K-edge resonant scattering at the space group “forbidden” $`(006)`$ reflection of $`\mathrm{Ge}`$ was measured as function of the azimuthal angle, $`\psi `$. The experimental results are compared to model calculations based on symmetry analysis of the resonant scattering tensors.

In the last few years the investigation of resonant scattering phenomena has allowed novel studies of antiferromagnetism (through resonant magnetic x-ray scatteringGibbs et al. (1988)) and, more recently, of orbital Murakami et al. (1998); Paolasini et al. (1999); McMorrow et al. (2001); Paixão et al. (2002) and quadrupolar order Hirota et al. (2000). Although much progress has been made in the theory and interpretation of these effects, a large number of open questions concerning the origin of the scattering remains.

A characteristic feature of resonant scattering is its polarization dependence, which differs markedly from that of normal Thompson scattering. Indeed, polarization analysis (PA) has now been developed into a standard tool for the study of the aforementioned effects. In this communication I present a study of resonant x-ray scattering at the $`\mathrm{Ge}`$ K-edge with emphasis on the analysis of polarization effects. Anisotropic tensor susceptibility (ATS) scattering Templeton and Templeton (1985); Dmitrienko (1983, 1984) and orbital/quadrupolar order resonances are intimately related as the scattering arises from the same transitions between core level and valence band electronic states Blume (1994). Therefore systematic studies of a well-known reference system may lead to better understanding of the complex situation in compounds exhibiting orbital order.

One may distinguish three different classes of ATS scattering, depending on the rank of the scattering tensor: The original experiment on $`\mathrm{NaBrO}_3`$ may be described by second rank tensors corresponding to electric dipole (E1) transitions Templeton and Templeton (1985); Dmitrienko (1983, 1984). A later experiment on $`\alpha \mathrm{Fe}_2\mathrm{O}_3`$ evidenced electric quadrupole (E2) transitions, which give rise to fourth rank tensors Finkelstein et al. (1992). Finally, ATS scattering in $`\mathrm{Ge}`$ was attributed to rank three tensors. Two different origins of this tensor were proposed: An E1–E2 mixed resonanceTempleton and Templeton (1994); Elfimov et al. (2002a, b), and an E1–E1 process combined with a displacement of the scattering atom due to thermal motionKokubun et al. (2001); Kirfel et al. (2002). The subject is still under discussionDmitrienko and Ishida (2003); Elfimov et al. (2003).

The azimuthal dependence of the scattered beam intensity was calculated and experimentally verified by Templeton and Templeton Templeton and Templeton (1994), but without polarization analysis. For some selected photon energies, the phase of the $`(006)`$ and $`(222)`$ resonant scattering was determined by Lee et al. Lee et al. (2001) through the interference with Umweg reflections. Finally, Kokubun et al.Kokubun et al. (2001) and Kirfel et al.Kirfel et al. (2002) studied the temperature dependence of the $`(002)`$ and $`(006)`$ resonant scattering. They observed a strong increase of the intensity with increasing temperature, but only minor variations in the line shape of the resonance. They concluded that the dominant origin of resonant scattering lies in anisotropic thermal motion of the $`\mathrm{Ge}`$ atoms.

The aim of the present experiment was to complement the existing body of experimental data to further study resonant x-ray scattering of odd-rank tensors. Presented below are measurements of the resonant line shape and the azimuthal dependence of the polarization of the $`(006)`$ reflection, which is forbidden by the glide-plane extinction rule.

The experiment was performed at the magnetic scattering beamline, ID20, of the ESRF. The scattering geometry was vertical, with incident $`\sigma `$ polarization. A single crystal of $`\mathrm{Ge}`$ with a polished $`(00L)`$ surface normal was mounted in the azimuthal scan configuration which allows to turn the sample about the scattering vector, $`𝐐`$. The diffracted beam was reflected by a $`\mathrm{Au}(333)`$ polarization analyzer (PA) with $`2\theta _{\mathrm{PA}}90^{}`$, which also rejected fluorescence and other diffuse background. The PA may be rotated about the diffracted beam (angle $`\eta `$). $`\eta =0`$ when the diffraction planes of the PA and the sample coincided, i.e. when the PA accepted $`\sigma ^{}`$ polarization.

Fig. 1 (top) shows the intensity of the $`(006)`$ reflection as function of the incident photon energy. For each energy, the intensity was determined by integrating a rocking scan after subtraction of a constant background. To avoid contamination by strong Umweg reflections the energy dependence was measured in several scans at different azimuthal angles. Regions where a marked azimuthal dependence on was observed were rejected. No absorption correction was applied. The fluorescence yield and the intensity of the strong, allowed $`(004)`$ reflection are shown in Fig. 1(bottom) for comparison.

Several features of these data are worth further discussion: Significant intensity is observed below the edge. This scattering may be due to the tails of Umweg reflectionsTischler and Batterman (1986), or to non-resonant ATS scatteringAmara and Morin (1998); Amara et al. (2001). Furthermore, two deep minima (indicated by the arrows in Fig. 1), below and above the main resonance are observed. Such minima are characteristic of a change of sign of the scattering amplitude and might indicate interference between resonant and non-resonant contributions. It would therefore be of interest to determine the phase of the resonant scattering, e.g. through interference with an Umweg reflection of known phaseTischler and Batterman (1986); Lee et al. (2001). Finally, towards higher energies oscillations reminiscent of DAFS (Diffraction Anomalous Fine Structure) set in.

For the polarization measurements discussed in the remainder of this Communication the photon energy was tuned to the maximum of the resonance at $`E=11.096\mathrm{keV}`$.

Fig. 2 shows the detected intensity as a function of the orientation of the PA for different azimuthal angles, $`\psi `$. For each $`\psi `$, the $`\mathrm{Ge}(006)`$ reflection was carefully aligned, and it was verified that there was no Umweg excitation in the immediate vicinity. This requirement resulted in slightly irregular values of $`\psi `$. The sample was then kept in this position while the polarization of the scattered beam was measured by rocking the analyzer crystal for settings of $`\eta `$ between $`0^{}`$ and $`180^{}`$. The integrated intensities of these rocking scans are shown as open circles in Fig. 2. The data for each $`\psi `$ are normalized so that they are independent of the intensity of the scattered beam. Reliable measurements of the intensity of the scattered beam proved difficult in the present experimental setup, as the resolution function is determined by the combined narrow angular acceptances of the sample and the analyzer.

The polarization of an x-ray beam is most conveniently described by the Stokes parameters Lipps and Tolhoek (1954),

$`P_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left|F_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\right|^2\left|F_{\sigma \pi ^{}}\right|^2}{\left|F_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\right|^2+\left|F_{\sigma \pi ^{}}\right|^2}}`$ (1)
$`P_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left|F_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}+F_{\sigma \pi ^{}}\right|^2\left|F_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}F_{\sigma \pi ^{}}\right|^2}{2\left(\left|F_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\right|^2+\left|F_{\sigma \pi ^{}}\right|^2\right)}}`$ (2)
$`P_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left|F_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}+iF_{\sigma \pi ^{}}\right|^2\left|F_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}iF_{\sigma \pi ^{}}\right|^2}{2\left(\left|F_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\right|^2+\left|F_{\sigma \pi ^{}}\right|^2\right)}}`$ (3)
The dependence of the transmission of an idealized linear PA on these is given by

$$I(\eta )\left[1+P_1\mathrm{cos}(2\eta )+P_2\mathrm{sin}(2\eta )\right]$$
(4)
The data presented in Fig. 2 where fitted to eq. 4 in order to determine the dependence of the Stokes parameters, $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$, on $`\psi `$. The results are shown in Fig. 3. While the degree of circular polarization, $`P_3`$, was not directly measured, it vanishes because $`\left|P_3\right|1\sqrt{P_1^2+P_2^2}0`$.

As pointed out above, the dependence of the polarization on the azimuthal angle may be calculated from symmetry principles alone.

In $`\mathrm{Ge}`$ the two sites within the primitive unit cell are related by an inversion center at the midpoint of the covalent bond. As even rank tensors are invariant under space inversion, the aforementioned E1 and E2 resonances do not contribute to scattering at “forbidden” reflections, $`(HKL)`$ with $`H+K+L=4n+2`$. An odd rank tensor is therefore needed to explain resonant scattering observed at forbidden reflections Templeton and Templeton (1994); Elfimov et al. (2002a, b).

The E1–E2 processTempleton and Templeton (1994); Elfimov et al. (2002a, b) directly gives rise to third rank tensors, $`A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$. The resulting atomic scattering amplitude may be written as Blume (1994)

$$F(𝐤,ϵ,𝐤^{},ϵ^{})ϵ_\alpha ^{}ϵ_\beta \left[A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }k_\gamma A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{}k_\gamma ^{}\right]$$
(5)
with

$`A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}B^{(a,b)}(\mathrm{}\omega )C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{(a,b)}`$ (6)
$`A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}B^{(a,b)}(\mathrm{}\omega )C_{\beta \alpha \gamma }^{(a,b)}`$ (7)
$`B^{(a,b)}(\mathrm{}\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_a}{E_aE_b+\mathrm{}\omega +i\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}}`$ (8)
$`C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{(a,b)}`$ $`=`$ $`a\left|r_\alpha \right|bb\left|r_\beta r_\gamma \right|a,`$ (9)
where $`ϵ`$ ($`ϵ^{}`$) and $`k`$ ($`k^{}`$) are the polarization and wave vectors of the incident (scattered) beam. $`|a`$ and $`|b`$ are the initial (=final) and intermediate electronic states. $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ is the photon energy, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the inverse life time of the excited state. $`p_a`$ is the probability that the corresponding state is occupied.

In a system that is invariant under time reversal states which are related by time reversal, $`|\overline{a}=T|a`$, have the same energy, $`E_{\overline{a}}=E_a`$, and probability of being occupied, $`p_{\overline{a}}=p_a`$, so that $`B^{(\overline{a},\overline{b})}=B^{(a,b)}`$. Furthermore, $`\overline{a}\left|r_\alpha \right|\overline{b}=b\left|r_\alpha \right|a`$ and $`\overline{a}\left|r_\beta r_\gamma \right|\overline{b}=b\left|r_\beta r_\gamma \right|a`$, so that $`C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{(\overline{a},\overline{b})}=C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{(a,b)}`$. The sum over $`a`$ and $`b`$ may equally well be carried out over $`\overline{a}`$ and $`\overline{b}`$, therefore Blume (1994)

$`A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}B^{(a,b)}(\mathrm{}\omega )\left[C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{(a,b)}+C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{(\overline{a},\overline{b})}\right]`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}B^{(a,b)}(\mathrm{}\omega )\mathrm{}(C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{(a,b)})`$ (11)
$`A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{\beta \alpha \gamma },`$ (12)
where $`\mathrm{}(x)`$ denotes the real part of $`x`$. With this, eq. 5 reduces to

$`F(𝐤,ϵ,𝐤^{},ϵ^{})`$ $``$ $`ϵ_\alpha ^{}ϵ_\beta \left[A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }k_\gamma A_{\beta \alpha \gamma }k_\gamma ^{}\right]`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_\alpha ^{}ϵ_\beta [(A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }+A_{\beta \alpha \gamma })Q_\gamma `$
$`+(A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }A_{\beta \alpha \gamma })(k_\gamma +k_\gamma ^{})],`$
where $`𝐐=(HKL)=𝐤^{}𝐤`$ is the scattering vector. The first term was already discussed by Templeton and Templeton Templeton and Templeton (1994). The second term does not necessarily vanish in all cases — in fact, for certain symmetries it may lead to x-ray natural circular dichroism, XNCD Goulon et al. (1998).

A different explanation for the origin of resonant scattering in $`\mathrm{Ge}`$, termed Thermal Motion Induced (TMI) scattering, was recently proposed by Dmitrienko and OvchinnikovaDmitrienko and Ovchinnikova (2000). Their theory constructs a rank 3 tensor from E1 transitions combined with a displacement of the scattering atom out of the crystallographic, high symmetry position. These displacements are assumed to be of thermal origin, so that the scattered intensity increases strongly with rising temperature. This increase has indeed been observed experimentally Kokubun et al. (2001); Kirfel et al. (2002).

In K-edge resonances an electron is promoted from a $`1s_{1/2}`$ core level into an *unoccupied* valence band. The E1 and E2 selection rules require $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=2`$, respectively. Consequently, the E1–E2 mixed and TMI resonances differ in their sensitivity to the the conduction band symmetry: The former probes only valence bands with contributions of both $`p`$ and $`d`$ character, while the latter requires $`p`$ character, only. In both cases band structure calculations are needed to obtain the spectral shape of the resonance Elfimov et al. (2002a, b).

However, as pointed out above, detailed knowledge of the matrix elements is not necessary to calculate the polarization properties of the resonances. It suffices to require that $`A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is invariant under the point group of the scattering site, $`T_d`$ for the case of $`\mathrm{Ge}`$. The resulting tensor is $`A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }=DT_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$, where $`D`$ is a complex number depending of the matrix elements, the resonant denominators, the densities of state, etc, but not on the scattering geometry, and the photon polarization and wave vectors. $`T_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is symmetric over all its indices, i.e., $`T_{xyz}=T_{xzy}=T_{yzx}=T_{yxz}=T_{zxy}=T_{zyx}=1`$ and $`0`$ otherwise Kirfel et al. (2002). In particular, $`A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is symmetric in $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, so that the second term in eq. 14 vanishes, whereas the first term gives

$$FDϵ^{}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& L& K\\ L& 0& H\\ K& H& 0\end{array}\right)ϵ.$$
(15)
Eq. 15 describes the third-rank tensor resonant contribution to any Bragg reflection. In general, this contribution is much smaller than the Thompson scattering. For practical purposes this term is therefore significant only when the Thompson contribution vanishes, i.e., at reflections which are “forbidden” due to glide plane or screw axis extinction rules, or structure factor arithmeticTempleton and Templeton (1994).

For $`(00L)`$-type reflections of $`\mathrm{Ge}`$, the anomalous resonant scattering amplitude is proportional to

$$FDQ\left(ϵ_1^{}ϵ_2+ϵ_2^{}ϵ_1\right),$$
(16)
where the polarization vectors have to be transformed into the coordinate system of the crystal, i.e., the dependence on $`\psi `$ is implicit in $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵ^{}`$.

The polarization of the scattered beam is completely described by the scattering amplitudes into the channels with polarization perpendicular ($`\sigma ^{}`$) and parallel ($`\pi ^{}`$) to the scattering plane. For incident $`\sigma `$ polarization they are

$`F_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(\theta ,\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`DQ\mathrm{sin}(2\psi )`$ (17)
$`F_{\sigma \pi ^{}}(\theta ,\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`DQ\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}(2\psi ),`$ (18)
with $`\psi =0`$ when the azimuthal reference vector, chosen as $`𝐡_0=(100)`$, lies within the scattering plane.

Equations 17 and 18 yield the Stokes parameters

$`P_1(\theta ,\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(2\psi )\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )\mathrm{cos}^2(2\psi )}{\mathrm{sin}^2(2\psi )+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )\mathrm{cos}^2(2\psi )}}`$ (19)
$`P_2(\theta ,\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(4\psi )\mathrm{sin}(\theta )}{\mathrm{sin}^2(2\psi )+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )\mathrm{cos}^2(2\psi )}}`$ (20)
$`P_3(\theta ,\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (21)
This result is identical to that of Elfimov et al. Elfimov et al. (2002b), obtained from band structure calculations. Note that $`P_{1,2,3}`$ are independent of the scaling factor, $`D`$, and that $`P_1^2+P_2^2=1`$ for all $`\psi `$. The scattered beam is therefore always linearly polarized. The experimental data, shown in Fig. 3, agree well with the values calculated from eqs. 19 and 20 — bearing in mind that there are no adjustable parameters.

In summary, I have presented measurements of the polarization of ATS scattering at the forbidden $`(006)`$ reflection of $`\mathrm{Ge}`$. The dependence of the Stokes parameters $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ on the azimuthal angle, $`\psi `$, is well described by the model of third-rank scattering tensors. The line shape of the resonance was measured over an extended energy range.

In high symmetry systems such as this one, symmetry analysis of the scattering tensor allows detailed predictions about variation of the scattered intensity and polarization with the azimuthal angle. The technique is therefore particularly well adapted to the study of orbitally ordered systems, where the determination of the symmetry of the order parameter is a problem of fundamental importance.

###### Acknowledgements.

Discussions with E. Lorenzo-Diaz, G. Sawatzky and L. Paolasini are gratefully acknowledged. Furthermore, I thank K. D. Finkelstein for critical reading of the manuscript and helpful comments.


text:
# UTHEP-465UTCCP-P-131 Analysis of unstable particle with the maximum entropy method in 𝑂(4) ϕ⁴ theory on the lattice

## Abstract

We explore applications of the maximum entropy method (MEM) to determine properties of unstable particles using the four-dimensional $`O(4)`$ $`\varphi ^4`$ theory as a laboratory. The spectral function of the correlation function of the unstable $`\sigma `$ particle is calculated with MEM, and shown to yield reliable results for both the mass of $`\sigma `$ and the energy of the two-pion state. Calculations are also made for the case in which $`\sigma `$ is stable. Distinctive differences in the volume dependence of the $`\sigma `$ mass and two-pion energy for the stable and unstable cases are analyzed in terms of perturbation theory.

PACS number(s): 12.38.Gc, 11.15.Ha, 11.80.-m, 13.25.Jx

In contrast to many successes in understanding of stable hadron states by numerical simulations, unstable hadrons and hadronic decay processes are not understood well on the lattice. An important example in QCD is $`\rho \pi \pi `$ decay. There are a number of difficulties in dealing with such decay processes. One of the difficulties is computer power. In full QCD lattice simulations accessible today, the pion is so heavy that the $`\rho `$ meson cannot decay. A more crucial problem is the difficulty first pointed out by Maiani and Testa . Because the $`\rho `$ meson and the $`\pi \pi `$ state in the isospin $`I=1`$ channel have the same quantum numbers, the correlation function of the $`\rho `$ meson behaves as a multi-exponential function corresponding to $`\pi \pi `$ states with various relative momenta as well as the $`\rho `$ meson. In general, it is very difficult to decompose the states and extract the energy of each state from such a correlation function.

In this article we explore application of the maximum entropy method (MEM) to extract the mass of unstable particle and the energies of states to which the unstable particle can decay. MEM has already been applied to extract the ground and first excited states of the stable mesons in QCD . The masses of the two states were simultaneously extracted from the peak positions of the spectral function of the meson. This experience leads us to expect MEM to be useful for the multi-exponential correlation function of unstable particles such as the $`\rho `$ meson.

We employ the four-dimensional $`O(4)`$ $`\varphi ^4`$ theory for the present exploratory study. It is an effective theory of QCD, containing the pion and $`\sigma `$ particle. The $`\sigma `$ can be made either stable or unstable by choice of parameters. In the non-linear formulation with the constraint $`\varphi ^\alpha (x)\varphi ^\alpha (x)=1`$, the action is given by

$$S=\underset{x}{}\left\{\kappa \varphi ^\alpha (x)D\varphi ^\alpha (x)J\varphi ^4(x)\right\},$$
(1)
where $`\varphi ^\alpha (x)=(\pi ^i(x),\sigma (x))`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$, and $`D\varphi (x)=_\mu \varphi (x+\widehat{\mu })+\varphi (x\widehat{\mu })`$. For $`m_\sigma >2m_\pi `$, the $`\sigma `$ particle is unstable and can decay to the $`I=0`$ two-pion state, similarly to the $`\sigma `$ meson in QCD. We examine the efficiency of MEM for extracting the energies of $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ states for both the unstable $`m_\sigma >2m_\pi `$ and stable $`m_\sigma <2m_\pi `$ cases. Very recently a similar study for the three-dimensional four-fermion model has been carried out by Allton et al. .

Numerical simulations are carried out at $`(\kappa ,J)=(0.308,0.0012)`$ and $`(0.30415,0.003)`$, corresponding to $`m_\sigma /m_\pi 3.7`$ and $`m_\sigma /m_\pi 1.8`$, for several spatial lattice sizes in the range $`10^328^3`$ to investigate the volume dependence of the spectral functions and energies. The temporal lattice size is fixed to $`T=64`$. Configurations are generated by the multi-cluster algorithm . The periodic boundary condition is imposed in all directions. We perform $`0.6\times 10^6`$$`1.2\times 10^6`$ iterations per simulation point ($`\kappa ,J`$) and volume.

We calculate the correlation function matrix  given by $`C_{ij}(\tau )=(O_i(\tau )O_i(\tau +1))O_j(0)`$ for $`i,j=\sigma `$ and $`\pi \pi `$, where $`O_i`$ is the interpolating operator either for the $`\sigma `$ or the $`I=0`$ two-pion state with zero momentum, and the subtraction $`O_i(\tau )O_i(\tau +1)`$ is made for eliminating the vacuum contribution. We apply MEM to the diagonal parts of the correlation function matrix $`C_{ii}(\tau )`$.

In Fig. 1 we illustrate the correlation functions in the $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ channels for two volumes in the unstable case. The errors are estimated by the jackknife method with the bin size of 8000 to 16000 iterations. For the smaller volume the $`\pi \pi `$ correlation function exhibits a change of slope at $`t10`$, from a larger slope corresponding to $`\sigma `$ to a smaller one of the $`\pi \pi `$ state. The $`\sigma `$ correlator decays parallel to the latter, indicating dominance of the $`\pi \pi `$ state for small volumes. For the larger volume, the trend is opposite, the $`\pi \pi `$ correlation function showing a change of slope from the $`\sigma `$ particle to $`\pi \pi `$ state at $`t20`$, while the $`\pi \pi `$ correlator is dominated by the $`\pi \pi `$ state. The decrease of “off-diagonal” contributions with increasing volume in the correlation functions can be understood from a perturbative analysis: the overlaps $`|0|\sigma |\pi \pi |^2`$ and $`|0|\pi \pi |\sigma |^2`$ are proportional to $`1/[L^3(m_\sigma E_{\pi \pi })^2]`$ where $`E_{\pi \pi }`$ is the two-pion energy.

The spectral function $`f(\omega )`$ in the $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ channels is defined in terms of the correlation function $`C_{ii}(\tau )`$ ($`i=\sigma ,\pi \pi `$) through

$`L^3C_{ii}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega f_i(\omega )K(\omega ,\tau )},`$ (2)
where $`K(\omega ,\tau )=e^{\tau \omega }(1e^\omega )+e^{\omega (\tau T)}(1e^\omega )`$. In our MEM analysis the model function $`m(\omega )`$ is chosen as $`m(\omega )=A(\omega _0)\omega _0^4/\omega ^4`$, where $`\omega _0`$ is a reference point and $`A(\omega _0)`$ is the perturbative $`\sigma `$ spectral function at a reference point $`\omega _0`$, which is given by

$$A(\omega _0)=\frac{M_I(\omega _0)}{\pi \left[\left(\omega _0^2\stackrel{~}{m}_\sigma ^2+M_R(\omega _0)\right)^2+M_I^2(\omega _0)\right]}/Z_\sigma .$$
(3)
The functions $`M_R(\omega _0)`$ and $`M_I(\omega _0)`$ are defined by

$`M_R(\omega _0)=C[\gamma _\pi (\omega _0)\gamma _\pi (\stackrel{~}{m}_\sigma )+3\gamma _\sigma (\omega _0)],`$ (4)
$`M_I(\omega _0)=C\pi [\beta _\pi (\omega _0)+3\beta _\sigma (\omega _0)],`$ (5)
where $`\gamma _\alpha (\omega _0)=\beta _\alpha (\omega _0)\mathrm{ln}[(1+\beta _\alpha (\omega _0))/(1\beta _\alpha (\omega _0)]`$ and $`\beta _\alpha (\omega _0)=\sqrt{1(4\stackrel{~}{m}_\alpha ^2/\omega _0^2)}\theta (\omega _02\stackrel{~}{m}_\alpha )`$ for $`\alpha =\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$. The constant $`C`$ in Eqs. (4) and (5) is given by $`C=3Z_\pi (\stackrel{~}{m}_\sigma ^2\stackrel{~}{m}_\pi ^2)^2/32\pi ^2v^2`$, where $`v=\sigma `$, and $`Z_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =\sigma ,\pi `$) is the wave function renormalization factor for $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$, respectively. We apply the same model function to the $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ correlation functions.

We choose $`\omega _0=2`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\alpha `$ and $`Z_\alpha `$ in Eq.(3) are fixed to the values estimated from inverse correlation functions in momentum space. The input parameters for the model function are compiled in Table I. The reconstruction is carried out in the region $`0\omega 3`$. We choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =5\times 10^4`$ around the peaks corresponding to the $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ states to determine the energies accurately, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =10^2`$ in other regions. The number of data is taken as large as possible $`0\tau T/2`$. We also check that the final results for the spectral functions do not depend much on the model function.

In Fig. 2 we show the spectral functions for the $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ correlation functions, $`f_\sigma (\omega )`$ and $`f_{\pi \pi }(\omega )`$, in the unstable case. Since energy eigenvalues are discrete on a finite volume, the spectral function is a sum of $`\delta `$ functions. We indeed observe sharp peaks for both spectral functions, which can be identified as the $`\pi \pi `$ state with zero momentum at the first peak and the $`\sigma `$ state at the second peak. The decrease of the peak height for the $`\pi \pi `$ state in $`f_\sigma (\omega )`$ and for the $`\sigma `$ state in $`f_{\pi \pi }(\omega )`$ agrees with the volume dependence of the correlation functions discussed above. In the figure for $`f_\sigma (\omega )`$ the position of peak expected for the $`\pi \pi `$ state with momentum $`p=2\pi /L`$ is indicated by a downward arrow. The absence of peak in our data implies that the overlap of $`\sigma `$ with this state is very small.

Fig. 3 shows the spectral functions in the stable case. For $`f_{\pi \pi }(\omega )`$ the $`\sigma `$ contribution decreases with volume similar to the unstable case. We observe only a single peak in $`f_\sigma (\omega )`$, indicating that $`|0|\sigma |\pi \pi |^2`$ is very small in this case.

The $`\sigma `$ mass $`m_\sigma `$ and the $`\pi \pi `$ state energy $`E_{\pi \pi }`$ obtained from the peak positions of the spectral functions as functions of spatial lattice size $`L`$ are shown in Fig. 4(unstable case) and 5 (stable case) by circles. For larger volumes $`m_\sigma `$ from $`f_{\pi \pi }(\omega )`$ and $`E_{\pi \pi }`$ from $`f_\sigma (\omega )`$ suffer from large errors or are not available. This is because the overlaps $`|0|\sigma |\pi \pi |^2`$ and $`|0|\pi \pi |\sigma |^2`$ decrease as the volume increases.

We have seen in Figs. 2 and 3 that the $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ correlation functions are dominated by the $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ states with zero momentum, and other states are negligible. In this case we can apply the diagonalization method  to the 2$`\times `$2 correlation function matrix $`C(\tau )`$ for extraction of the energy eigenvalues of these states. We diagonalize the matrix $`D(\tau ,\tau _0)=C^{1/2}(\tau _0)C(\tau )C^{1/2}(\tau _0)`$ at each $`\tau `$, where $`\tau _0`$ is some reference time chosen to be $`\tau _0=0`$ in this work. The eigenvalue of $`D(\tau ,\tau _0)`$ is given by $`\lambda _\nu (\tau ,\tau _0)=K(W_\nu ,\tau )/K(W_\nu ,\tau _0)`$ with $`K(W_\nu ,\tau )=e^{\tau W_\nu }(1e^{W_\nu })+e^{W_\nu (\tau T)}(1e^{W_\nu })`$, where $`W_\nu `$ is the energy of the states $`\nu =\sigma ,\pi \pi `$.

The energies obtained by the diagonalization method are plotted by cross symbols in Figs. 4 and 5. The errors are estimated by the jackknife method with 8000 to 16000 eliminations. The results for $`m_\sigma `$ and $`E_{\pi \pi }`$ are consistent with those with MEM, but the statistical error with the diagonalization method is much smaller. This is because the diagonalization makes full use of the $`2\times 2`$ correlation function matrix while MEM utilizes on the diagonal element.

For the application of the diagonalization method, it is essential that the dominant states in the correlation functions are known. Otherwise we need to consider the correlation function matrix of all possible states with the same quantum numbers, which is a difficult task. MEM is useful for identifying the dominant states, as exemplified with our example.

Comparing Fig. 4 with Fig. 5 we find an essential difference in the volume dependence of the $`\sigma `$ mass and $`\pi \pi `$ energy between the unstable and stable cases. In the unstable case, the $`\pi \pi `$ energy increases and the $`\sigma `$ mass decreases as the volume increasing, while an opposite trend is seen in the stable case.

The volume dependence of the $`\sigma `$ mass expected from perturbation theory is given by

$`m_\sigma (L,m_\sigma ,g_R)`$ $`=`$ $`m_\sigma +g_R(\mathrm{\Delta }m_\sigma (L)\mathrm{\Delta }m_\sigma (\mathrm{})).`$ (6)
Here $`m_\sigma `$ is the $`\sigma `$ mass for infinite volume, $`g_R`$ is the renormalized coupling constant, and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\sigma (L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m_\sigma L^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{p}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\pi ,\sigma }{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{D}{W_\alpha (p)}}+A_\alpha C_\alpha (p)\right],`$ (7)
with $`A_\alpha =2,6`$ for $`\alpha =\pi ,\sigma `$, $`D=13(m_\sigma ^2m_\pi ^2)/m_\sigma ^2`$, and

$$C_\alpha (p)=\frac{m_\sigma ^2m_\pi ^2}{W_\alpha (p)(m_\sigma ^2W_\alpha ^2(p))},$$
(8)
where $`W_\alpha (p)=2\sqrt{m_\alpha ^2+4_{i=1}^3\mathrm{sin}^2(p_i/2)}`$ with $`p_i`$ being the spatial momenta.

We fit our results for the $`\sigma `$ mass obtained by the diagonalization method to Eq.(6), taking $`m_\sigma `$ and $`g_R`$ as fit parameters and setting $`m_\pi `$ to the value obtained from the pion correlation function at $`L=28`$. The fit curves are plotted in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 for each case, where the data at $`L=10`$ are excluded from the fitting. The fit parameters and $`\chi ^2`$ are compiled in Table II. The fits agrees quite well with the simulation results. We then realize that the different volume dependence between the unstable and stable cases originates from an opposite sign of $`C_\pi (p)`$ in Eq.(7) in the two cases.

In order to understand the volume dependence of the $`\pi \pi `$ energy, we consider the scattering length $`a_0`$. It is related to the energy shift of the two-pion state through Lüscher’s formula  given by

$$E_{\pi \pi }2m_\pi =\frac{4\pi a_0}{m_\pi L^3}\left(1+c_1\frac{a_0}{L}+c_2\frac{a_0^2}{L^2}\right),$$
(9)
where $`c_1=2.837297,c_2=6.375183`$. The results for $`a_0`$ obtained from $`E_{\pi \pi }`$ calculated with the diagonalization method are tabulated in Table III in the column entitled “Simu. diago.”. Here $`m_\pi `$ is fixed to the value at $`L=28`$. The sign of $`a_0`$ differ in the two cases, which reflects the difference in the volume dependence of $`E_{\pi \pi }`$.

We can estimate the scattering length in perturbation theory. From results for the perturbative phase shift  we obtain

$$a_0=\frac{g_Rm_\pi }{96\pi m_\sigma ^2}\left(7R^2+8\right)\frac{1}{R^24},$$
(10)
where $`R=m_\sigma /m_\pi `$. To evaluate the right handside, we use the fit result for $`m_\sigma `$ given in Table II. The coupling constant $`g_R`$ is obtained in two ways, either from the perturbative definition  denoted as $`g_R(\mathrm{def}.)=3Z_\pi (m_\sigma ^2m_\pi ^2)/v^2`$ or from the fit of the volume dependence of the $`\sigma `$ mass given in Table II denoted as $`g_R`$(fit). For $`m_\pi `$, $`Z_\pi `$ and $`v`$ we use the results at $`L=28`$ as before.

In Table III the simulation results for $`a_0`$ are compared with the two estimates using the perturbative formula Eq. (10). While we cannot claim a precise agreement, we observe consistency in the value and sign obtained with simulation and perturbation theory for both the unstable and stable cases. Thus it is the factor of $`R^24`$ in the perturbative formula which leads to the the opposite volume dependence of the $`\pi \pi `$ energy in the two cases found by the simulation.

In this paper, we have investigated the efficiency of the maximum entropy method for study of unstable particle systems using the four-dimensional $`O(4)`$ $`\varphi ^4`$ theory. We have demonstrated that the $`\sigma `$ mass and $`\pi \pi `$ energy can be obtained from the $`\sigma `$ correlation function alone. We have also explained that the difference in the volume dependences of the $`\sigma `$ mass and $`\pi \pi `$ energy between the unstable and stable cases can be understood by perturbation theory. It is an advantage of MEM that only the single particle correlation function of the unstable particle is needed to analyze both the particle itself and the multi-particle decaying states. Furthermore it works even when the dominant states in the correlation functions are not known. We expect the MEM analysis to play a useful role in future studies of unstable particles and decays in lattice QCD.

This work is supported in part by Grants-in-Aid of the Ministry of Education No. 12740133.