text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A lot of effort has justifiably been spent on the central detectors of the LHC experiments so that ‘hard’ interactions can be triggered on, and observed, in order to expose New Physics. However the vast majority of interactions are ‘soft’ with particles predominantly going forward, and the physics of this domain is one of the subjects of the Workshop. The relevant processes, forward elastic scattering and ‘soft’ diffraction, are driven by Pomeron (or rather by multi-Pomeron) exchange. They are interesting in their own right, although in the period after the advent of QCD they did not attract so much attention111An exception is Bjorken  who continued to emphasize the importance of experiments to detect complete events, including those in the forward region.. However in the last few years the situation has changed. A stimulus came from the observation of diffractive processes at HERA and the Tevatron, characterised by the presence of rapidity gaps. Moreover, diffractive processes have been proposed as possible ways to identify New Physics. For example, the central production of a Higgs boson with a rapidity gap on either side is advocated as a possible discovery channel at the LHC. The chance that these gaps survive the soft rescattering of the colliding hadrons was one of the topics of discussion.

The second subject of the Workshop was the way to measure the luminosity of the LHC. Three methods were discussed:

* the classic method based on the optical theorem,

$$\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}}{dt}|_{t=0}=\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^2}{16\pi }(1+\rho ^2),$$
(1)
where $`\rho `$ is the ratio of the real to the imaginary part of the forward elastic amplitude (Coulomb effects have been neglected in (1)),
* to measure pure QED $`e^+e^{}`$ or $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ production via photon-photon fusion

$$ppp+\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}+p,$$
(2)
* to measure inclusive $`W`$ or $`Z`$ production.

At first sight it might appear that an accurate measurement of the luminosity is not essential. However, for example, precision measurements in the Higgs sector of accuracy of about 7% require the uncertainty in the measurement of the luminosity to be 5% or less . At this Workshop, Tapprogge  summarised the physics reasons why a precise measurement of the luminosity of the LHC is important.

## 2 Proposed forward $`pp`$ measurements

Bozzo  presented the TOTEM experimental programme, which will take place in the very first runs at the LHC. The plan is to measure $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ by a luminosity-independent method

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{16\pi }{(1+\rho ^2)}\frac{(dN_{\mathrm{el}}/dt)_{t=0}}{N_{\mathrm{el}}+N_{\mathrm{inel}}},$$
(3)
with an absolute error of about 1 mb. The TOTEM inelastic detector will be installed inside the CMS experiment, with the elastic scattering “roman pot” detectors located at distances in the interval 100 to 200 m from the crossing point. The TOTEM measurements need special runs at the ‘low’ initial luminosity, with high $`\beta ^{}`$ optics for an accurate measurement of the small scattering angles. The detector should be efficient to within 2 mm of the beam and can reach down to about $`t=0.01\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. They will collect about 100 events/sec for $`t<1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ at a luminosity $`=10^{28}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. The differential cross section will also be measured in the interval $`1<|t|<10\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ in the high luminosity runs. TOTEM also plans an inclusive trigger for the measurement of single diffraction.

We also heard at the Workshop about the novel microstation concept for forward measurements . The microstation is a light, compact device which could be integrated with the beam pipe. It could be used in situations where there are severe space and mass limitations for the inelastic detector, such as in the ATLAS experiment. The elastic proton measurement would be like that for TOTEM, so again it should be possible to reach down to $`t0.01\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

Piotrzkowski  considered the possibility of using the LHC as a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider, and noted how the present TOTEM layout may be modified to allow the tagging of protons with small energy losses. In principle, this would allow the study of $`\gamma \gamma H`$ etc. in a broad region of $`\gamma \gamma `$ centre-of-mass energy about 200 GeV, with an effective $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity that is reduced by about $`10^3`$$`10^2`$ of that of the LHC.

Guryn  presented the PP2PP experimental physics programme at RHIC. Their main goal is to make a detailed study of the spin dependence of the proton-proton interaction in the kinematic range

$$50<\sqrt{s}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}500}\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{and}4\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^4<|t|<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.5}\mathrm{GeV}^2,$$
(4)
in order to probe features of the Pomeron. At the beginning they will measure $`d\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}/dt`$ down to $`t=0.006\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, and study the $`t`$ dependence of the slope. Later they will explore the Coulomb-nuclear interference region, and determine $`\rho `$. By measuring the spin asymmetries $`A_N,A_{NN},A_{LL}`$ they will obtain information on the five independent $`pppp`$ helicity amplitudes.

Block  discussed the determination of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(pp)`$ at $`\sqrt{s}30`$ TeV from cosmic ray data. He emphasized the importance of the relation between the slope $`B`$ of the elastic scattering distribution and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ for energies well above the accelerator regime, and the reliance on a model of proton-air interactions.

## 3 Extrapolation of $`d\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}/dt`$ to $`t=0`$

Vorobyov  reminded us how at ISR energies, and below, it was possible to make precision measurements of the elastic differential cross section at small momentum transfer down into the Coulomb-nuclear interference region. From these experiments one could make a determination of the local slope

$$B(t)=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}(d\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}/dt)}{dt}$$
(5)
as a function of $`t`$, measure the ratio $`\rho `$ of the real to imaginary part of the forward amplitude and reliably determine the total cross section from the optical point. However the application of this method becomes more and more difficult as we go up to Tevatron and then LHC energies, due to the decrease of the typical scattering angle and the inability to experimentally reach the Coulomb-nuclear interference region.

Figs. 1, 2 and 3 show data at ISR, CERN $`Sp\overline{p}S`$ and Tevatron energies respectively. In the first two plots we see the Coulomb interference spike at very small $`t`$, whereas at the Tevatron the spike is no longer accessible and the data of the two experiments extrapolate to different values at $`t=0`$. Moreover at the ISR we see, from Fig. 1, a change of the local slope with $`t`$,

$$B(0)B(|t|=0.2\mathrm{GeV}^2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mathrm{GeV}^2,$$
(6)
whereas at the Tevatron the data suggest less variation for $`|t|\stackrel{<}{}0.4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, see Fig. 3. A global description of these and other forward data gives the $`t`$ dependence of the local slopes shown in Fig. 4 . The dashed curves should be ignored as they come from a description which does not include high-mass diffraction. The remaining two curves (continuous and dotted) are obtained using two extremum models for high-mass diffraction, and give a measure of the level of the theoretical ambiguity in $`B(t)`$. The predictions at the LHC energy mean that we should be able to extrapolate the TOTEM measurements to $`t=0`$ with an error of less than 0.5% coming from the variation of the local slope. Even if the cross section were measured only in the interval $`0.05<|t|<0.15\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, then the uncertainty at $`t=0`$ would be less than 3% due to the variation of $`B(t)`$.

## 4 The Pomeron and the description of forward data

High energy $`pp`$ scattering at small momentum transfer $`t`$ is driven by Pomeron $`t`$-channel exchange. In fact we were reminded at the Workshop  how in 1960, Gribov startled the community by showing that the behaviour of the $`pp`$ amplitude

$$A(s,t)=isf(t),$$
(7)
which gives the asymptotic behaviour222The $`su`$ crossing invariance is an important ingredient in the second equality in (8), the Pomeranchuk theorem.

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}=\mathrm{constant},\sigma (pp)=\sigma (p\overline{p}),$$
(8)
contradicts $`t`$-channel unitarity. Gribov noted that a possible solution was to introduce the Regge behaviour

$$A(s,t)=is^{\alpha _{IP}(t)}f(t),$$
(9)
with a Pomeron trajectory $`\alpha _{IP}(t)=\alpha _{IP}(0)+\alpha ^{}t`$, with intercept $`\alpha _{IP}(0)=1`$ and slope $`\alpha ^{}>0`$. This is in agreement with $`t`$-channel unitarity, while still giving relations (8). In addition to the Pomeron pole, there are also Regge cuts coming from multiple Pomeron exchange, which led to the development of Gribov’s Reggeon calculus, involving renormalisation of the bare pole, Mandelstam crossed diagrams , AGK cutting rules , etc. This ‘soft’ Pomeron was the subject of the talks by Landshoff  and Kaidalov .

Landshoff  showed that a good description of the available data for high energy $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ and $`d\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}/dt`$ at small momentum transfer is given by a simple effective Pomeron pole trajectory

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}(t)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.08}+\alpha ^{}t$$
(10)
with $`\alpha ^{}=0.25\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. This is a remarkable simplification, but of course it is necessarily incomplete for the reasons that are mentioned below.

Kaidalov  explained that to describe phenomena in the forward region, it is important to extend single-Pomeron exchange so as to explicitly include the multi-Pomeron effects. At very high energy such effects are needed to restore $`s`$-channel unitarity, but, as we will see in a moment, they are also necessary at current energies. Fig. 5 shows examples of typical corrections to the bare Pomeron pole of diagram (a). First, iterations of the pole amplitude via elastic unitarity gives contributions of the type shown in diagram (b). If we take into account the possibility of proton excitations $`(pN^{})`$ in intermediate states, then we must include contributions such as that in diagram (c). These iterations are implemented in terms of a two-channel eikonal formalism . Note that diagrams (b) and (c) are very symbolic — by implication they incorporate the Mandelstam crossed diagrams  and satisfy the AGK cutting rules . The second $`(N^{})`$ channel effectively allows for low mass diffractive dissociation. The excitation into high mass $`(M_X)`$ states is described by the triple-Pomeron graph (d) for single-diffractive dissociation (with cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}`$), and by (e) for double-diffractive dissociation $`(\sigma _{\mathrm{DD}})`$. To be self-consistent, the Pomeron lines in (d) and (e) actually represent the final Pomeron amplitude with all the screening effects included. In addition to (d), there is an equal contribution $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}`$ from dissociation of the lower proton only. The contribution of graphs of the type (b)–(e) are not negligible. Indeed, using the AGK rules, it may be estimated that the correction to (a) is

$$\sigma _D/\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{DD}})/\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.4}$$
(11)
at the LHC. A most convincing way to see the necessity of multi-Pomeron rescattering effects at current energies is to look at the energy behaviour of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}`$. If only the bare Pomeron is used, as in diagram (d), then the cross section grows as

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}s^{2\alpha _{IP}(t)2},$$
(12)
whereas when rescattering effects are included

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}}\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}/\mathrm{ln}s.$$
(13)
The difference is dramatic, as Fig. 6 shows. The physical origin of this result is that the high energy proton-proton interaction reaches the black-disc limit for central values of the impact parameter, and forces inelastic diffraction to come from the peripheral region with $`bc\mathrm{ln}s`$.

A related observation was made by Schlein . He showed that the single diffractive data in the ISR-Tevatron energy range can be described by the triple-Regge formula, provided that the effective intercept $`\alpha _{IP}(0)`$ decreased with increasing $`s`$. Such an $`s`$ dependent behaviour of the effective intercept may be interpreted as a manifestation of the multi-Pomeron exchange effects.The bare Pomeron, together with the multi-Pomeron corrections, should give a global description of all forward phenomena, including $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}},d\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}/dt,\rho ,\sigma _{\mathrm{SD}},\sigma _{\mathrm{DD}}`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{ch}}`$. Several analyses have been undertaken at various levels of sophistication to all or parts of the data. Recent examples are given in . Perhaps the most complete study to date is that of Ref. , which is in the spirit of the much earlier pioneering work of Kaidalov et al. . It describes the forward phenomena in high energy $`pp`$ (and $`p\overline{p}`$) collisions using a multi-Pomeron approach which embodies:

* pion-loop insertions in the bare Pomeron pole, which represent the nearest singularity generated by $`t`$-channel unitarity,
* a two-channel eikonal which incorporates the Pomeron cuts generated by elastic and quasi-elastic (with $`N^{}`$ intermediate states) $`s`$-channel unitarity.
* high mass single and double diffractive dissociation.

The resulting description of $`d\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}/dt`$ data is shown in Figs. 1–3 and the corresponding $`t`$ dependence of the local slope $`B(t)`$ is given in Fig. 4. Surprisingly, the bare Pomeron pole parameters turn out to be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha (0)\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.10},\alpha ^{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(14)
which is to be contrasted to those of the effective pole (10). Thus the shrinkage of the diffraction cone comes not from the bare pole, but rather has components from the three ingredients, (i)–(iii), of the model. That is, in the ISR-Tevatron energy range

$$\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}\mathrm{"}=(0.034+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.15}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.066})\mathrm{GeV}^2$$
(15)
from the $`\pi `$-loop, $`s`$-channel eikonalization and diffractive dissociation respectively. We saw  that at lower energies the fixed target data require $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=0.14\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, which is consistent with (15) since as the energy decreases the effect of the eikonal and higher mass diffractive dissociation reduces. Moreover eikonal rescattering suppresses the growth of the cross section with $`\sqrt{s}`$, so to describe the same data we require $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{eff}}0.08`$.

Another observable difference between the naive effective pole and the multi-Pomeron approach is in the energy behaviour of the slope $`B(0)`$. This is illustrated in Fig. 7, together with the behaviour of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$. It is seen that, while the two approaches give similar values of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ up to LHC energies, the predictions for the slope $`B(0)`$ at the LHC already differ significantly.

In Table 1 we show some predictions for the forward observables at the LHC. Note that the BH predictions  are based on a single-channel eikonal, and do not therefore involve inelastic diffraction. The KMR prediction is an update of .

## 5 Hard diffraction and gap survival probabilities

There is much interest in the survival probability of rapidity gaps which feature in the various hard diffractive and other high energy processes. The rapidity gaps, which naturally occur whenever we have colour-singlet $`t`$-channel exchange , tend to get populated by secondary particles from the soft rescattering processes. A multi-Pomeron analysis incorporates rescattering in some detail and so allows the calculation of the survival probabilities $`S^2`$ of the gaps. Recently attention has focused on the size of $`S^2`$, see for example , because of the possibility of extracting New Physics from hard processes, accompanied by gaps, in an almost background-free environment and, from a theoretical viewpoint, because of its reliance on subtle QCD techniques. The theoretical calculations of $`S^2`$ do not allow for the practical difficulties of isolating rapidity gap processes in the ‘pile-up’ events which may occur at high LHC luminosity.

To calculate $`S^2`$, it is convenient to work in impact parameter space. Let $`(s,b)`$ be the amplitude of the particular hard process of interest at centre-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. Then the probability that there is no extra inelastic interaction is

$$S^2=\frac{||^2e^\mathrm{\Omega }d^2b}{||^2d^2b},$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(s,b)`$ is the opacity (or optical density) of the interaction of the incoming protons. For simplicity we show the formula with the simple one-channel eikonal. In practice the numerator and denominator in (16) are sums over the diffractive eigenstates333States which diagonalize the diffractive part of the $`T`$ matrix and so undergo only elastic scattering., each with their own characteristic opacity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$. The opacities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i(s,b)`$ reach a maximum at the centre of the proton and become small in the periphery. Clearly the survival probability $`S^2`$ depends strongly on the spatial distribution of the constituents of the relevant subprocess, and on the dynamics of the whole diffractive part of the scattering matrix. Contrary to frequent claims in the literature, it is important to note that $`S^2`$ is not universal, but depends on the particular hard subprocess, as well as the kinematical configurations. In particular, $`S^2`$ depends on the nature of the colour-singlet exchange (Pomeron or, possibly, $`W/Z`$ or photon exchange) which generates the gap , as well as on the characteristic momentum fractions carried by the active partons in the colliding hadrons . This leads to a rich structure of the probability of rapidity gaps in processes mediated by colour-singlet $`t`$-channel exchange. The framework was introduced long ago444Reviews can be found, for example, in Refs. . , but only with the advent of rapidity gap events being observed in hard processes at the Tevatron and at HERA, is this rich physics now revealing itself. Clearly it is important to have reliable estimates of the survival probabilities so as to be able to predict the rate for rapidity gap processes at the LHC. Indeed, the possibility of using central Higgs production with a rapidity gap either side as a discovery channel at the LHC was discussed at the Workshop by Khoze .

Examples of estimates of the survival probability for single- and double-diffractive dissociation (SD, DD), and central diffraction (CD) are given in Table 2. By central diffraction we mean a centrally produced state $`X`$ with rapidity gaps on either side. The $`b`$ dependence of the various diffractive processes is

$$||^2\mathrm{exp}(b^2/nB^{}),$$
(17)
where $`n=3,4`$ and 2 for SD, DD and CD respectively and $`B^{}`$ is the slope of the diffractive inclusive cross section . The single channel eikonal model of  gives values of $`S^2`$, very similar to those of the DD column.

An experimental manifestation of the survival probability $`S^2`$ comes from comparing hard diffraction at the Tevatron with that observed at HERA. The relevant plot was presented by Snow , see also . It shows the recent CDF measurements of diffractive dijet production as a function of $`\beta `$, together with the expectations based on convoluting the parton densities of the Pomeron (and those of the proton) with the partonic-level cross sections of the hard subprocess. $`\beta `$ is the momentum fraction of the Pomeron entering the hard subprocess. The parton densities of the Pomeron are determined from diffractive deep-inelastic-scattering data at HERA . The partonic structure of the Tevatron dijet production and HERA diffractive DIS are sketched in Fig. 8. However, as the CDF plot  shows, when the HERA Pomeron densities are used to estimate Tevatron dijet production, the factorized prediction turns out to be about an order of magnitude larger than the data. A key assumption of the factorization estimate is that the survival probability of the rapidity gap, associated with the Pomeron exchange, is the same in Figs. 8(a) and 8(b). Comparison of the diagrams shows that the breakdown of factorization is an inevitable consequence of QCD, and occurs naturally, due to the small probability $`S^2`$ for the rapidity gap to survive the soft rescattering which occurs between the incoming hadrons at the Tevatron, but which is absent between the electron and the proton at HERA. In fact, a detailed study of this comparison, including the $`\beta `$ dependence, tells us about the dependence of the survival probability on the kinematic variables , and opens the door to the application to many other hard processes with rapidity gaps, including those discussed by Khoze .

## 6 The QCD Pomeron and small $`x`$ physics

Lipatov gave a comprehensive survey of the Pomeron before and after QCD . Since he was either close to, or pioneered, all these developments, it was a masterly and informative summary. The Pomeron before QCD was the subject of Section 4. That Pomeron was a Reggeon, even if it has a rather unusual Regge trajectory, which in the time-like ($`t>0`$) region is mixed with the $`f`$ and $`f^{}`$ meson trajectories .

In QCD the gluon and quark $`t`$-channel exchanges are themselves reggeized. The QCD Pomeron (or BFKL Pomeron as it is frequently called) is a compound state of two reggeized gluons. In general it may have multi-gluon components. The BFKL framework allows the behaviour of the scattering of hadronic objects with transverse scale $`Q^2`$ at centre-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ to be predicted in the domain $`sQ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$. In the leading $`\mathrm{log}`$ (LL) approximation the cross section

$$\sigma =\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n(\alpha _S\mathrm{ln}s)^n.$$
(18)
Since $`\alpha _S\mathrm{ln}s1`$ a resummation of the $`\mathrm{log}`$ terms is necessary. BFKL carried out this LL summation about 25 years ago with the result

$$\sigma s^\omega \mathrm{with}\omega =\overline{\alpha }_S\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}\mathrm{ln}2,$$
(19)
where $`\overline{\alpha }_S3\alpha _S/\pi `$, see . Hence we speak of the BFKL or QCD Pomeron. If $`\overline{\alpha }_S0.2`$, then $`\omega 0.5`$. This result appears to be in contradiction with the observed rise of the relevant cross sections at large $`s`$. The data555For example, the behaviour of $`F_2`$ at small $`x=Q^2/s`$, or of forward jets in deep-inelastic scattering at HERA, or of $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ scattering at LEP, or jets separated by a large rapidity gap at the Tevatron. indicate a power growth more like 0.3 than 0.5. It was expected that the resummation of the NLL corrections, that is of the $`\alpha _S(\alpha _S\mathrm{ln}s)^n`$ terms, would remove the discrepancy. Recently the computation of these terms has been completed  and the corrections found to be large, giving

$$\omega =\overline{\alpha }_S\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}\mathrm{ln}2(16.3\overline{\alpha }_S),$$
(20)
which puts the usefulness of the whole perturbative approximation into question. Fortunately it was observed that a major part of remaining higher order corrections may be resummed to all orders . These all-order resummations bring the BFKL programme back under control.

At small Bjorken $`x`$ the gluon distribution, $`f`$, unintegrated over its transverse momentum $`k_t`$, should exhibit BFKL behaviour. That is a characteristic $`f(x,k_t^2)x^\omega `$ growth as $`x0`$, accompanied by diffusion in $`k_t`$. The transverse momenta are not ordered in the small $`x`$ BFKL evolution leading to a Gaussian-type form of $`f`$ in $`\mathrm{ln}k_t^2`$ with a width which grows as $`\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}1/x}`$ as $`x0`$. Ultimately the diffusion will be a problem since it leads to increasingly important contributions from the infrared domain of $`k_t^2`$ where the BFKL equation is not expected to be valid.

Stirling  discussed ways of studying the BFKL Pomeron at the LHC. He concentrated on the original idea of Mueller and Navelet, that is to study the correlations between two jets widely separated in rapidity. It was argued that the best BFKL indicator is the rate of the weakening of the azimuthal (back-to-back type) correlation between the jets, as the rapidity interval increases — a manifestation of the diffusion in $`k_t`$. The Tevatron data show much less decorrelation than predicted by naive BFKL, but a much more realistic Monte Carlo has been developed  which allows the proper constraints on phase space to be imposed. Predictions for the LHC were presented.

De Roeck  discussed the opportunities at the LHC to observe the behaviour of parton densities at very small $`x`$. In particular he emphasized that it may be possible to probe the gluon distribution in the $`x10^610^5`$ and $`Q^25\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ domain by observing either prompt photon production $`(gq\gamma q)`$ or Drell-Yan production at very large rapidities. The latter process involves a convolution to allow for the $`gq\overline{q}`$ transition, which is required for a gluon-initiated reaction; consequently somewhat large values of the gluon $`x`$ are probed. He pointed out that this domain may allow the shadowing corrections to $`xg(x,Q^2)`$ to be studied. Prompted by this talk, a quantitative study was performed using a unified evolution equation which embodies both BFKL and DGLAP behaviour and which incorporates the leading $`\mathrm{ln}1/x`$ triple-Pomeron vertex . The shadowing corrections were found to be small in the HERA domain, but lead to about a factor of two suppression of the gluon in the $`x10^6,Q^24\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ region, which should be accessible in the experiments at the LHC.

## 7 QED $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ production as an LHC luminosity monitor

One possibility to measure the luminosity at the LHC is to observe exclusive lepton-pair production via photon-photon fusion

$$ppp+\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}+p,$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{}=e`$ or $`\mu `$, see . The Born amplitude (Fig. 9(a)) may be calculated within QED , and there are no strong interactions involving the leptons in the final state. The main phenomenological questions concern, first, the size of the absorptive corrections arising from inelastic proton-proton rescattering (sketched symbolically in Fig. 9(b)) and, second, how to suppress the proton dissociation contributions of Fig. 9(c). These questions are addressed in Ref. . The dissociation contributions vanish as $`q_{it}0`$, due to gauge invariance, where the $`q_i`$ are defined in Fig. 9(a). Since it is difficult to measure a leading proton with $`q_t\stackrel{<}{}30`$ MeV, it is proposed  to select events with very small transverse momentum of the lepton pair

$$p_t(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})|𝒒_{\mathrm{}^+t}+𝒒_\mathrm{}^{}t|,$$
(22)
with typically $`p_t(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})\stackrel{<}{}30`$ MeV. Moreover the rescattering correction of Fig. 9(b) is suppressed because the main part of the Born amplitude (Fig. 9(a)) comes from large impact parameters666Even more, the amplitude of Fig. 9(b) is greatly suppressed at small $`b`$ by a $`J_z=0`$ selection rule. $`b`$, whereas the rescattering occurs at smaller $`b`$.

The detection of the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ processes differ. Hence their use as a luminosity monitor is different. First we discuss $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ production . To identify muons (and separate them from $`\pi ^\pm `$ mesons) they have to have rather large transverse energy, $`E_t\stackrel{>}{}5`$ GeV. It is still possible to satisfy the $`p_t(\mu ^+\mu ^{})<30`$ MeV cut, but the cross section is significantly reduced. The main contribution to the rescattering correction comes from the $`Q_tp_t(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ domain, where $`Q`$ is the loop momentum in Fig. 9(b). As a consequence the correction is given by $`C\sigma _{\mathrm{inel}}p_t^2(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$, where $`C`$ is a known, small numerical coefficient . If $`p_t(\mu ^+\mu ^{})=30`$ MeV then the correction is only 0.13%. In addition to the small $`p_t(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ cut, it is proposed  to fit the observed distribution in the muon acoplanarity angle $`\varphi `$ in order to distinguish the elastic mechanism, Fig. 9(a), via its prominent peak at $`\varphi =0`$, from the background processes which are flat in $`\varphi `$. Although the $`E_t`$ and $`p_t(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ cuts reduce the cross section, the muons have the advantage that we may trace the tracks back to the interaction vertex, and hence isolate the interaction in pile-up events. So, in principle, $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ production can act as a luminometer in high luminosity LHC runs. An accuracy of $`\pm 2\%`$ is claimed provided the muon trigger is good enough .

For $`e^+e^{}`$ production we do not need to select events with large $`p_{et}`$, and so we may consider the small $`p_{et}`$ domain where the $`e^+e^{}`$ production cross section is much larger, and where the rescattering correction becomes totally negligible. This will require a dedicated detector in the forward regions for electrons of energy about 5 GeV. If the threshold energy were reduced to 1 GeV then the signal is increased by 15 and the signal-to-background ratio is substantially improved . It is claimed that an absolute luminosity measurment down to $`\pm 1\%`$ is possible for low luminosities $`\stackrel{<}{}10^{32}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, but for high luminosity the $`e^+e^{}`$ method may be limited by pile-up effects.

## 8 $`W`$ and $`Z`$ production as a luminosity monitor

$`W`$ and $`Z`$ production in high energy $`pp`$ collisions have clean signatures through their leptonic decay modes, $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$ and $`Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, and so may be considered as potential luminosity monitors . A vital ingredient is the accuracy with which the cross sections for $`W`$ and $`Z`$ production can be theoretically calculated. The cross sections depend on parton distributions, especially quark densities, in a kinematic region where they are believed to be reliably known. Recent determinations of $`\sigma _{W,Z}`$ at the LHC are shown in Fig. 10. The solid squares and triangles are from the NLO parton analyses of  and the final two predictions are from the NLO and NNLO analyses of . The two major uncertainties appear to be due to the value of $`\alpha _S`$ and to using different parton densities labelled by $`q`$ and $`q`$. The $`\alpha _S`$ and $`\alpha _S`$ values correspond to changing $`\alpha _S(M_Z^2)`$ by $`\pm 0.005`$, which is probably too conservative, so a $`\pm 2\%`$ uncertainty in $`\sigma _{W,Z}`$ is more realistic from this source. The normalisation of the input data used in the global parton analyses is another source of uncertainty in $`\sigma _{W,Z}`$. The HERA experiments provide almost all of the data used in the global analyses in the relevant small $`x`$ domain. The $`q`$ and $`q`$ parton sets correspond to separate global fits in which the HERA data have been renormalized by $`\pm 2.5\%`$ respectively. Allowing for these uncertainties, we conclude that the cross sections of $`W`$ and $`Z`$ production are known to be about $`\pm 4\%`$ at the LHC energy. For a precise measurement allowance should be made for $`W^+W^{}`$ pair production and for $`W`$ bosons produced via $`t`$-quark decays, which produce about $`1\%`$ of the total signal.

Caron  discussed the experimental requirements of using $`W`$ and $`Z`$ production to determine the luminosity at the LHC.

## 9 Summary on luminosity determination

The luminosity determinations based on the measurement of the forward elastic cross section and on two-photon $`e^+e^{}`$ production can only be made in low luminosity runs, and require dedicated forward detectors and triggers. On the other hand, the measurement of $`W`$ or $`Z`$ and two-photon $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ production may be performed at high luminosity with the central detector. The latter process requires a good di-muon trigger with thresholds of $`E_t\stackrel{<}{}5`$ GeV for each muon.

In principle, we may monitor the luminosity using any process, with a significant cross section, which is straightforward to detect cleanly. For example, it could be single-pion production in a given rapidity and $`p_t`$ domain or inclusive $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ production in a well defined kinematic region. In this way we may determine the relative luminosity and calibrate the “monitor” by comparing the number of events detected for the “monitor” reaction with the number of events for a process whose cross section is known. This has the advantage that the calibration may be carried out in a low luminosity run.

The desired goal of measuring the luminosity to better than $`\pm 5\%`$ definitely seems attainable. We note that for applications where it is sufficient to know the parton-parton luminosity, better accuracy can be achieved.

## 10 Final Observations

One view of forward or soft physics, which dominates the interactions at the LHC, is that it is an unfortunate unavoidable complication to the exciting rare events which we hope to see. It may be useful as a luminosity monitor, but the Pomeron is boring.

Another view expressed at the meeting777This viewpoint is also always emphasized by Bjorken , and resulted in the FELIX proposal . is that to avoid the Pomeron is to deny our birthright. Almost all QCD is contained in the Pomeron. The Pomeron indirectly spawned string theory and sent a galaxy of physicists spinning off into higher dimensions. Most of the rich HERA physics is driven by the Pomeron. The ‘soft’ Pomeron in the non-perturbative domain has fascinating Regge properties, leading to glueballs and mixing with $`q\overline{q}`$ states. With the advent of QCD we were reminded that the quark and gluon are not elementary, but Reggeons — and that the ‘hard’ or QCD Pomeron is the compound state of two (or more) Reggeized gluons. The correct interpolation between the hard and the soft regimes is an exciting fundamental problem yet to be solved.

This meeting has offered the opportunity of a wider perspective of these two viewpoints. Moreover, we were able to glimpse the great potential, and the experimental challenges, of the LHC.

It is a special pleasure to thank, on behalf of all of the participants, Dan-Olof Riska, Risto Orava and the other members of the organizing committee, together with Laura Salmi, for arranging such an excellent Workshop, and for their hospitality in Helsinki. I gratefully acknowledge the help that I have received from Aliosha Kaidalov, Valery Khoze, Misha Ryskin and Stefan Tapprogge on the subject of this Workshop.


format: text

text:
# Exclusive decay of 𝐽/Ψ into a lepton pair combined with light hadrons

## Abstract

We study the exclusive decay of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ into a lepton pair combined with light hadrons in the kinematic region, specified by that the total energy of the light hadrons is much smaller than $`m_c`$, the mass of the $`c`$-quark. In this region, the nonperturbaive effect related to $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and that related to the light hadrons can be separated, the former is represented by a NRQCD matrix element, while the later is represented by a matrix element of a correlator of electric chromofields. The results are obtained in a axial gauge by assumming that contributions from two-gluon emmssion are dominant. But we can show that these results can be obtained without the assumption in arbitrary gauges. A discussion of the results are presented.

PACS numbers: 13.20Gd, 12.39.Fe, 14.40.Gx, 14.70.Dj
Key Words: $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ decay, NRQCD, HQET,factorization.

preprint:    AS-ITP-2000-10  preprint:    AS-ITP-2000-10
1. Introduction

Several ten millions $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ events will be collected with Bejing Spectrometer(BES), this provides many opportunities to study different decay modes of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with high statistics. In this work we propose to study the exclusive decay into a lepton pair combined light hadrons with a total energy much smaller than the mass of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, this decay will be studied experimentally at BES

Many interesting properties of QCD can be learned from studies of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ or a quarkonium system. $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ mainly consists of a $`c`$-quark and its antiquark and those quarks move with a small velocity $`v_c`$ inside $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in its rest-frame. Hence an expansion in $`v_c`$ can be employed to describe properties of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ . The expansion can be systematically performed in the framework of nonrelativistic QCD(NRQCD) for inclusive decays and for production rates. In this framework the inclusive decay of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be imagined at the leading order of $`v_c`$ as the following: The $`c`$\- and $`\overline{c}`$\- quark in $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has certain probability to be freed at the same space point and this $`c\overline{c}`$ pair decays subsequently. The probability has a nonperturbative nature and is at order of $`v_c^0`$, while the decay of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair can be treated with perturbative QCD. Various effects at higher order of $`v_c`$ can be taken into account, e.g., relativistic effect, and the effect of that the freed $`c\overline{c}`$ pair does not possess the same quantum numbers as those of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

For the exclusive decay we will study, this interpretation still can be given at the leading order of $`v_c`$. Then the decay is mainly of the decay of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair and it can be thought that the pair emit some soft gluons and annihilates into a virtual photon. The soft gluons will be transmitted into the light hadrons with a total energy which is small. This interpretation implies that the nonperturbative effect related to $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and that related to the light hadrons can be separated, a factorization of the $`S`$-matrix element for the decay can be performed. It should be noted that the factorization here is performed at the amplitude level for the exclusive decay. It is not like the factorization for inclusive decays proposed in . We will assume that the factorization can be performed and then try to obtain a factorized form for the decay amplitude. A proof for the factorization in our case may be done as done for other exclusive process. In our case one may also take the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as a nonrelativistic bound-state of a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair and use a wave-function for the bound-state. Then the wave-function at the origin can be written as NRQCD matrix elements defined in  and our results can be obtained.

For the light hadrons we will first assume that the soft gluons consists only of two gluons and take the gauge $`G^0(x)=0`$, where $`G^\mu (x)`$ is the gluon field. Because the soft gluons have smaller momenta compared with the c-quark mass $`m_c`$, an expansion in $`m_c^1`$ can be used. At the leading order, the S-matrix element for the decay is suppressed by $`m_c^1`$, this may be understood in the framework of HQET. In the axial gauge the leading term of HQET does not contain gluons, hence an emission of one or two gluons is suppressed by $`m_c^1`$. At the leading order of $`m_c^1`$ the decay amplitude can be factorized into three parts: The first part is a NRQCD matrix element representing the bound-state effect of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the second part is a matrix element of a correlator of electric chromofields, which characterize the soft-gluon transition into the light hadrons. The third part consists of some coefficient. However, the assumption of two-gluon-emission is not justified, because it sounds that we use perturbative theory for soft gluons. But we can show that without the assumption one can also obtain the same results only by using the expansion in $`m_c^1`$. Hence the results are nonperturbative and the number of emitted gluons is not restricted in an arbitrary gauge. In our work we only consider the emission of soft gluons which are transmitted into the light hadrons. Effects of gluons exchanged between quarks, between gluons and between quarks and gluons are not considered. If the exchanged gluons are hard, then their effect can be calculated with perturbative theory and it results in a correction to our results at higher orders of $`\alpha _s`$. If the exchanged gluons are soft, their effect is nonperturbative and may be factorized into nonperturbative matrix elements provided that the factorization can be proved. It is beyond this work to consider the effect of exchanging soft gluons.

Typically, the light hadrons are two pions. Hence the decay studied here has similarities comparing with the decay $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }+\pi +\pi `$, which is studied in , where the soft-gluon transition can be described by matrix elements of local fields in the decay width. In our case the transition is characterized by a matrix element of nonlocal fields. However, they are related and we will show this in detail.

Our work is organized as the following: In Sect. 2 we derive our results for the decay with the assumption of the two-gluon emission in the axial gauge and discuss the relation to the decay $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }+\pi +\pi `$. In Sect. 3 we will derive the results in arbitrary gauge and without the assumption, i.e., the number of emitted gluons is not restricted. In Sect. 4 we summarize our work and discuss our approach.

Throughout of our work we take nonrelativistic normalization for the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ state and for $`c`$-quark.

2. The Decay with Two-Gluon Emission

We consider the exclusive decay of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in its rest-frame:

$$J/\mathrm{\Psi }(P)\mathrm{}^+(p_1)+\mathrm{}^{}(p_2)+\mathrm{light}\mathrm{hadrons},$$
(1)
where the momenta are given in the brackets and the light hadrons are specified hadrons with the total momentum $`k`$, whose component is much smaller than $`m_c`$. Typically, they are two soft pions. At the leading order of QED the $`S`$-matrix element for the decay is

$$f|S|i=ie^2Q_cL_\mu \frac{1}{q^2}d^4ze^{iqz}LH|\overline{c}(z)\gamma ^\mu c(z)|J/\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(2)
where $`Q_c`$ is the electric charge of $`c`$-quark in unit of $`e`$, $`c(x)`$ is the Dirac field for $`c`$-quark, $`LH|`$ stands for the final state of the light hadrons and

$`q`$ $`=`$ $`p_1+p_2,`$ (3)
$`L_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p_2)\gamma _\mu v(p_1).`$ (4)
In Eq.(2) we only take the part of $`c`$-quark in the electric current into account. Assuming that only two gluons are emitted by the $`c`$\- or $`\overline{c}`$-quark, we obtain

$`f|S|i`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^2Q_cg_s^2L_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^4ze^{iqz}}`$ (6)
$`LH|T\left[\overline{c}(x)\gamma G(x)c(x)\overline{c}(y)\gamma G(y)c(y)\overline{c}(z)\gamma ^\mu c(z)\right]|J/\mathrm{\Psi },`$
where $`G(x)`$ is the gluon field. Using Wick-theorem we can calculate the $`T`$-ordered product and we only keep those terms in which one c-field and one $`\overline{c}`$-field remain uncontracted. Then the matrix element takes a complicated form and can be written in a short notation:

$`f|S|i`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^2Q_cg_s^2L_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^4zd^4x_1d^4y_1e^{iqz}LH|G_\mu ^a(x)G_\nu ^b(y)|0}`$ (8)
$`0|\overline{c}_j(x_1)c_i(y_1)|J/\mathrm{\Psi }M_{ji}^{\mu \nu \rho ,ab}(x,y,x_1,y_1,z),`$
where $`M_{ji}^{\mu \nu \rho ,ab}(x,y,x_1,y_1,z)`$ is a known function, $`i`$ and $`j`$ stand for Dirac- and color indices, $`a`$ and $`b`$ is the color of gluon field. The above equation can be generalized to emission of arbitrary number of soft gluons, then the $`S`$-matrix element is the sum of the contributions with 2,3, $`\mathrm{}`$ soft gluons and in each contribution there is the same matrix element $`0|\overline{c}_j(x)c_i(y)|J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. For this matrix element the expansion in $`v_c`$ can be now performed, the result is:

$$0|\overline{c}_j(x)c_i(y)|J/\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{6}(P_+\gamma ^{\mathrm{}}P_{})_{ij}0|\chi ^{}\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }e^{ip(x+y)}+𝒪(v_c^2),$$
(9)
where $`\chi ^{}(\psi )`$ is the NRQCD field for $`\overline{c}(c)`$ quark and

$`P_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`(1\pm \gamma ^0)/2,`$ (10)
$`p^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(m_c,0,0,0).`$ (11)
The leading order of the matrix element is $`𝒪(v_c^0)`$, we will neglect the contribution from higher orders and the momentum of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is then approximated by $`2p`$. It should be noted that effects at higher order of $`v_c`$ can be added with the expansion in Eq.(6). Taking the result in Eq.(6) we can write the $`S`$-matrix element as:

$`f|S|i`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}e^2Q_cg_s^2(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(2pkq)L_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}`$ (13)
$`0|\chi ^{}\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }2^4{\displaystyle d^4x\frac{d^4q_1}{(2\pi )^4}e^{i2q_1x}LH|G_\mu ^a(x)G_\nu ^a(x)|0R^{\mu \nu \rho \mathrm{}}(p,k,q_1)}.`$
To obtain the equation we have used the color-symmetry and the translational covariance. The quantity $`R`$ takes the form

$`R^{\mu \nu \rho \mathrm{}}(p,k,q1)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}(P_+\gamma ^{\mathrm{}}P_{})\{\gamma ^\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma (pk)m_c+i0^+}}\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma (p\frac{1}{2}kq_1)m_c+i0^+}}\gamma ^\nu `$ (17)
$`+\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma (p+\frac{1}{2}kq_1)m_c+i0^+}}\gamma ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma (kp)m_c+i0^+}}\gamma ^\rho `$
$`+\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma (p+\frac{1}{2}kq_1)m_c+i0^+}}\gamma ^\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma (p\frac{1}{2}kq_1)m_c+i0^+}}\gamma ^\nu `$
$`+(\mu \nu ,\nu \mu ,q_1q_1)\}`$
The physical interpretation of $`R`$ is that it is the amplitude for a $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ $`c\overline{c}`$ pair emitting two soft gluons and a virtual photon, and c and $`\overline{c}`$ have the same momentum $`p`$. We take the gauge

$$G^0(x)=0,$$
(18)
and in this gauge the electric chromofield is given by:

$$𝐄(x)=𝐄^a(x)T^a=_0𝐆(x).$$
(19)
The quantity $`R`$ depends on $`p,k`$ and $`q_1`$. In the kinematic region we consider, $`k`$ is a small vector. The dominant region for $`q_1`$ integration is characterized by $`k`$ and by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, because the $`x`$-dependence of the matrix element $`LH|\mathrm{}|0`$ is characterized by $`k`$ and by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. Therefore one can expand $`R(p,k,q_1)`$ in $`m_c^1`$. Keeping only the leading order we obtain

$`R^{\mu \nu \rho \mathrm{}}(p,k,q_1)LH|G_\mu ^a(x)G_\nu ^a(x)|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4g^\mathrm{}\rho }{m_ck^0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^0+2q_1^0i0^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^02q_1^0i0^+}}((k^0)^24(q_1^0)^2)`$ (21)
$`LH|𝐆^a(x)𝐆^a(x)|0+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}})`$
Substituting the above expression into the $`S`$-matrix element, the integration over $`𝐪_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and over $`𝐱`$ can be performed. Then we use the following equations

$`{\displaystyle d^4xe^{2iqx}(k+2q)_\rho LH|G_\mu ^a(x)G_\nu ^a(x)|0}`$ $`=`$ $`2i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{2iqx}LH|G_\mu ^a(x)_\rho G_\nu ^a(x)|0}`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle d^4xe^{2iqx}(k2q)_\rho LH|G_\mu ^a(x)G_\nu ^a(x)|0}`$ $`=`$ $`2i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{2iqx}LH|_\rho G_\mu ^a(x)G_\nu ^a(x)|0},`$ (23)
and we obtain

$`f|S|i`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e^2Q_cg_s^2(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(2pkq)L_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{g^\rho \mathrm{}}{q^2}}0|\chi ^{}\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^0)^2}}`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\tau i0^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\tau i0^+}}{\displaystyle }dte^{i\tau k^0t}LH|𝐄^a(t,\mathrm{𝟎})𝐄^a(t,\mathrm{𝟎})|0`$
$`+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}})+𝒪(v_c^2),`$
where $`\tau `$ is related to $`q_1^0`$ by $`2q_1^0=\tau k^0`$. The term with $`g^\rho \mathrm{}`$ is expected in the heavy quark limit. In this limit gluons will not change the spin of $`c`$\- or $`\overline{c}`$ quark. The matrix element $`0|\chi ^{}\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is proportional to the spin of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, hence the spin of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is transferred to the virtual photon. The result is obtained in the axial gauge defined in Eq.(10), to make the $`S`$-matrix element gauge invariant we must add a gauge link between the two operators of the electric chromofield. We define a distribution amplitude for the gluon conversion into the light hadrons:

$$h(\tau )=\frac{g_s^2}{2\pi }𝑑te^{i\tau k^0t}LH|𝐄^a(t,\mathrm{𝟎})\left[P\mathrm{exp}\{ig_s_t^t𝑑x^0G^{0,c}(x^0,\mathrm{𝟎})\tau ^c\}\right]_{ab}𝐄^b(t,\mathrm{𝟎})|0,$$
(27)
where $`P`$ means path-ordering and $`\tau ^c`$ is the generator of $`SU(3)`$ in adjoint representation

$$(\tau ^c)_{ab}=if_{abc}.$$
(28)
The function $`h(\tau )`$ is gauge invariant, it represents the transition of soft gluons into the light hadrons. With the gauge link the transition is of two space-like gluon plus many time-like gluons. It also depends on each individual momentum of each hadron, we denote the dependence as $`h(\tau ,k)`$. Because of the energy conservation $`h(\tau ,k)=0`$ if $`|\tau |>1`$. With this the $`S`$-matrix element can be written:

$`f|S|i`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e^2Q_cg_s^2(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(2pkq)L_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{g^\rho \mathrm{}}{q^2}}0|\chi ^{}\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^0)^2}}`$ (30)
$`T_{LH}(k)+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}})+𝒪(v_c^2),`$
$`T_{LH}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \frac{1}{1+\tau i0^+}\frac{1}{1\tau i0^+}h(\tau ,k)}.`$ (31)
Eq.(15) and Eq.(17) are our main results, derived in the axial gauge with the assumption of two-gluon emission, then we add a gauge link to make the $`S`$-matrix element gauge invariant. This may be unsatisfied, because the assumption of two-gluon emission sounds that we performed an expansion in $`g_s`$ for soft-gluons and we add the gauge link by hand. It is possible that the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair emits soft gluons which are all time-like and form the light hadrons, and this emission is not suppressed by $`m_c^1`$. This type of contributions is excluded with the gauge. Therefore, it is important to have the results derived in an arbitrary gauge without the assumption. In the next section we will show that the results can be obtained without the assumption and the gauge-link is automatically supplied.

Before ending this section we would like to discuss the relation between the decay studied here and the decay $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }+\pi +\pi `$. If we expand the integrand in $`q_1^0`$ in Eq.(12) and then perform the $`q_1^0`$ integration we obtain:

$`f|S|i`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e^2Q_cg_s^2(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(2pkq)L_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{g^\rho \mathrm{}}{q^2}}0|\chi ^{}\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^0)^3}}`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^0)^{2n}}}LH|O_{2n}|0+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}})+𝒪(v_c^2),`$
where $`O_{2n}`$ are well known twist-2 operators

$$O_{2n}=i^{2n}G^{a,0,\mu }(\stackrel{}{}_0)^{2n}G^{a,0,\nu }g_{\mu \nu }$$
(34)
in the axial gauge. With this we can also obtain a series for $`T_{LH}(k)`$:

$$T_{LH}(k)=\frac{g_s^2}{k^0}\underset{n=0}{}\frac{1}{(k^0)^{2n}}LH|O_{2n}|0.$$
(35)
It should be noted that $`T_{LH}`$ is defined at a renormalization scale $`\mu `$, the evolution of the operators $`O_{2n}`$ with $`\mu `$ is well known, hence one can also obtain the evolution of $`T_{LH}`$. The same operators appear in the decay $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}J/\mathrm{\Psi }+\pi +\pi `$, the $`S`$-matrix element for the decay can be written:

$$J/\mathrm{\Psi }+LH|S|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\underset{n=0}{}c_{2n}LH|O_{2n}|0,$$
(36)
where we denote the state of the two pions as $`LH|`$. In this decay the coefficient $`c_n`$ is proportional to $`m_c^n`$. Hence one can truncate the series as an approximation. In our case, the corresponding coefficients are not suppressed by the power of $`m_c^1`$, we can only sum the series into a function $`T_{LH}`$. This also prevents us from giving numerical predictions by knowing several leading terms in the series.

3. An exact derivation of the results

In this section we work in an arbitrary gauge and do not assume of two-gluon emission. The number of emitted soft-gluons is not restricted. With the discussion after Eq.(5) in the last section and after performing the expansion in $`v_c`$, the problem can be formulated as a transition of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair into a virtual photon and the light hadrons. The $`S`$-matrix element can be written as

$`f|S|i`$ $`=`$ $`ie^2Q_cL_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}0|\chi ^{}\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{s_1s_2}{}}\overline{v}(p,s_2)\gamma ^{\mathrm{}}u(p,s_1){\displaystyle d^4ze^{iqz}LH|\overline{c}(z)\gamma ^\mu c(z)|c(p,s_1),\overline{c}(p,s_2)}+𝒪(v_c^2)`$
$`=`$ $`ie^2Q_c(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(2pkq)L_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}0|\chi ^{}\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{s_1s_2}{}}\overline{v}(p,s_2)\gamma ^{\mathrm{}}u(p,s_1)LH|\overline{c}(0)\gamma ^\mu c(0)|c(p,s_1),\overline{c}(p,s_2)+𝒪(v_c^2),`$
where the $`c`$\- and $`\overline{c}`$-quark has same color and the summation over the color is implied, $`s_1`$ or $`s_2`$ is the spin of the $`c`$-quark or of the $`\overline{c}`$-quark, respectively. Now we need to calculate the matrix element $`LH|\overline{c}(0)\gamma ^\mu c(0)|c(p,s_1),\overline{c}(p,s_2)`$. For this we use LSZ reduction formula and obtain:

$`LH|\overline{c}(0)\gamma ^\mu c(0)|c(p,s_1),\overline{c}(p,s_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4ye^{ip(x+y)}\overline{v}(p,s_2)(i\gamma _xm_c)}`$ (42)
$`LH|T\left\{c(x)\overline{c}(0)\gamma ^\mu c(0)\overline{c}(y)\right\}|0(i\gamma \stackrel{}{}_y+m_c)u(p,s_1),`$
where $`Z`$ is the renormalization constant for the field $`c(x)`$. We can evaluate the matrix element with help of the QCD path-integral, and perform first the integration over c-quark field we obtain:

$`LH|\overline{c}(0)\gamma ^\mu c(0)|c(p,s_1),\overline{c}(p,s_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4ye^{ip(x+y)}\overline{v}(p,s_2)(i\gamma _xm_c)}`$ (44)
$`LH|S(x,0)\gamma ^\mu S(0,y)|0(i\gamma \stackrel{}{}_y+m_c)u(p,s_1).`$
In the above equation the average over gluon fields, i.e., the integration over gluon fields, will be taken later, and $`S(x,y)`$ is the c-quark propagator in a background of gluon fields:

$$\frac{1}{i}S(x,y)=0|T\left\{c(x)\overline{c}(y)\right\}|0.$$
(45)
We can define wave-function $`\psi _c(x)`$ and $`\overline{\psi }_{\overline{c}}(x)`$ for the $`c`$\- and $`\overline{c}`$-quark respectively in a background of gluon fields:

$`\psi _c(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4ye^{ipy}\left\{S(x,y)(i\gamma \stackrel{}{}_y+m_c)\right\}u(p,s_1)},`$ (46)
$`\overline{\psi }_{\overline{c}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4ye^{ipy}\overline{v}(p,s_2)(i\gamma _ym_c)S(y,x)}`$ (47)
These wave functions satisfy the Dirac equations

$`(i\gamma Dm_c)\psi _c(x)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (48)
$`\overline{\psi }_{\overline{c}}(x)(i\gamma \stackrel{}{D}+m_c)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (49)
and the boundary conditions

$`\psi _c(x)`$ $``$ $`e^{ipx}u(p,s_1)\mathrm{for}x^0\mathrm{},`$ (50)
$`\overline{\psi }_{\overline{c}}(x)`$ $``$ $`e^{ipx}\overline{v}(p,s_2)\mathrm{for}x^0\mathrm{},`$ (51)
where $`D^\mu =_\mu +ig_sG_\mu (x)`$, $`G_\mu (x)`$ is the background field of gluons and $`\overline{\psi }\stackrel{}{D}_\mu =(D_\mu \psi )^{}\gamma ^0`$. It should be noted that the propagator in Eq.(25) is a Feymann propagator, wave-functions defined in Eq.(26) do satisfy the Dirac equation with a background field of gluons, but they do not have a simple boundary condition like in Eq.(28). However, it was shown  that the Feymann propagator in Eq.(26) can be replaced with a retarded propagator, if the background field varies enough slowly with the space-time. Then one can have solutions of Eq.(27) and they satisfy the boundary conditions in Eq.(28). In our case we will make the expansion in $`m_c^1`$ and in this expansion the c-quark and $`\overline{c}`$ quark are decoupled, and it results in that the Feymann propagator will automatically be a retarted propagator for c and for $`\overline{c}`$. Therefore one can obtain a solution from the Dirac equation and the solution can satisfy the boundary condition in Eq.(28). It should be also noted that the boundary condition in Eq.(28) implies $`G^\mu (x)0`$ for $`x^0\mathrm{}`$.

With the wave-functions we have

$$LH|\overline{c}(0)\gamma ^\mu c(0)|c(p,s_1),\overline{c}(p,s_2)=\frac{1}{Z}LH|\overline{\psi }_{\overline{c}}(0)\gamma ^\mu \psi _c(0)|0$$
(52)
and it is gauge-invariant. If we take c-quark as a heavy quark, we can expand the wave-functions in $`m_c^1`$. The expansion is the same as that in HQET, we write the wave-functions as:

$`\psi _c(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ipx}\left\{h_c(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2m_c}}\gamma D_Th_c+𝒪(m_c^2)\right\},`$ (53)
$`\overline{\psi }_{\overline{c}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ipx}\left\{\overline{h}_{\overline{c}}(x){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2m_c}}\overline{h}_{\overline{c}}(x)\gamma \stackrel{}{D}_T+𝒪(m_c^2)\right\},`$ (54)
where $`D_T^\mu =(0,𝐃)`$. For the functions $`h_c(x)`$ and $`\overline{h}_{\overline{c}}(x)`$ we have

$`(iD_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_c}}(\gamma D_T)^2)h_c(x)`$ $`=`$ $`0+𝒪(m_c^2),`$ (55)
$`\overline{h}_{\overline{c}}(x)(i\stackrel{}{D}_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_c}}(\gamma \stackrel{}{D}_T)^2)`$ $`=`$ $`0+𝒪(m_c^2),`$ (56)
and the boundary condition for these functions can be read from Eq.(28). Giving a background field of gluons we solve the above equations by expanding these functions in $`m_c^1`$. At the leading order c-quark will only interact with time-like gluons and the solution is simple. We define

$$V(x)=P\mathrm{exp}\{ig_s_{\mathrm{}}^{x^0}𝑑tG^0(t,𝐱)\}$$
(57)
and with the solution at the leading order the wave-functions are

$`\psi _c(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ipx}V(x)u(p)+𝒪(m_c^1),`$ (58)
$`\overline{\psi }_{\overline{c}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ipx}\overline{v}(p)V^{}(x)+𝒪(m_c^1).`$ (59)
Because $`V^{}(x)V(x)=1`$ we obtain after averaging the gluon fields:

$$LH|\overline{c}(0)\gamma ^\mu c(0)|c(p,s_1),\overline{c}(p,s_2)=0+𝒪(m_c^1).$$
(60)
That means that the leading order of the $`S`$-matrix element is at $`m_c^1`$ and only time-like gluons will not lead to a contribution to the $`S`$-matrix element at order of $`m_c^0`$. This is in consistency with the results in the last section, where the axial gauge and perturbative theory is used. Here we derive this and the results at order of $`m_c^1`$ in an arbitrary gauge and without using perturbative theory.

To calculate the matrix element at order of $`m_c^1`$, we first make a gauge transformation:

$`\psi _c^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`V^{}(x)\psi _c(x),\overline{\psi }_{\overline{c}}^{}(x)=\overline{\psi }_{\overline{c}}(x)V(x),`$ (61)
$`h_c^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`V^{}(x)h_c^{}(x),\overline{h}_{\overline{c}}^{}(x)=\overline{h}_{\overline{c}(x)}V(x),`$ (62)
$`G_\mu ^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`V^{}(x)G_\mu (x)V(x){\displaystyle \frac{i}{g_s}}V^{}(x)_\mu V(x).`$ (63)
After the transformation we have

$$LH|\overline{c}(0)\gamma ^\mu c(0)|c(p,s_1),\overline{c}(p,s_2)=\frac{1}{Z}LH|\overline{\psi }_{\overline{c}}^{}(0)\gamma ^\mu \psi _c^{}(0)|0.$$
(64)
With this transformation one can show $`G^{}{}_{}{}^{0}(x)=0`$. The wave functions $`\overline{\psi }_{\overline{c}}^{}`$ and $`\psi _c^{}`$ have the same expansion in $`m_c^1`$ as those in Eq.(30), with the replacement that all functions are replaced by functions with a prime. The functions $`h_c^{}(x)`$ and $`\overline{h}_{\overline{c}}^{}(x)`$ satisfy the same equations in Eq.(31), where the covariant derivative is $`D_\mu =_\mu +ig_sG_\mu ^{}(x)`$. Solving these equations with the boundary condition we have

$`h_c^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2m_c}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{x^0}}𝑑t(\gamma D_T(t,𝐱))^2\right\}u(p)+𝒪(m_c^2),`$ (65)
$`\overline{h}_{\overline{c}}^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{v}(p)\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2m_c}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{x^0}}𝑑t(\gamma D_T(t,𝐱))^2\right\}+𝒪(m_c^2).`$ (66)
With these solutions we have

$`\psi _c^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ipx}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2m_c}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{x^0}}𝑑t𝐆^{}(t,𝐱)𝐆^{}(t,𝐱)+\mathrm{}\right\}u(p)+𝒪(m_c^2),`$ (67)
$`\overline{\psi }_{\overline{c}}^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ipx}\overline{v}(p)\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2m_c}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{x^0}}𝑑t𝐆^{}(t,𝐱)𝐆^{}(t,𝐱)+\mathrm{}\right\}+𝒪(m_c^2).`$ (68)
In the above equations $`\mathrm{}`$ in the bracket $`\{\}`$ will not lead to contributions at the order we consider. Using these results we have

$`B^\mathrm{}\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,s_2}{}}\overline{v}(p,s_2)\gamma ^{\mathrm{}}u(p,s_1)LH|\overline{\psi }_{\overline{c}}(0)\gamma ^\mu \psi _c(0)|0`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_s^2g^\mu \mathrm{}}{Zm_c}}LH|𝐆^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(0)𝐆^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(0)|0{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}dte^{ik^0t}+𝒪(m_c^2),`$ (70)
where we have averaged the gluon fields. It should be noted that $`k^0`$ is the total energy of the light hadrons, which forms an asymptotic final state, hence $`k^0`$ should be understood as $`k^0i0^+`$. With this in mind the integration over $`t`$ can be performed. One can also use $`\theta `$-function

$$\theta (t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{ie^{i\omega t}}{\omega +i0^+}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & t0\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & t<0\hfill \end{array}$$
(71)
to perform the integral. For the transformed gauge fields $`G^{}^\mu `$ we have

$$𝐄^{}(x)=𝐄^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(x)T^a=_0𝐆^{}(x),$$
(72)
then the gluon field $`𝐆^{}`$ can be related to $`𝐄^{}`$ by

$$𝐆^{}(t,𝐱)=_{\mathrm{}}^t𝑑\xi 𝐄^{}(\xi ,𝐱)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\theta (t\xi )𝐄^{}(\xi ,𝐱).$$
(73)
Using this relation and translational covariance we have

$`LH|𝐆^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(0)𝐆^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(0)|0`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dtdTe^{ik^0T}\theta (tT)\theta (tT)LH|𝐄^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(t)𝐄^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(t)|0`$ (74)
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}e^{2i\omega t}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \frac{1}{2}k^0+i0^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +\frac{1}{2}k^0i0^+}}`$ (76)
$`LH|𝐄^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(t)𝐄^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(t)|0.`$
Changing the variable $`2\omega =\tau `$ and we obtain:

$`f|S|i`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e^2Q_cg_s^2(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(2pkq)L_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{g^\rho \mathrm{}}{q^2}}0|\chi ^{}\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^0)^2}}`$ (79)
$`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\tau i0^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\tau +i0^+}}{\displaystyle }dte^{i\tau k^0t}LH|𝐄_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(t,\mathrm{𝟎})𝐄_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(t,\mathrm{𝟎})|0`$
$`+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}})+𝒪(v_c^2),`$
Expressing $`𝐄^{}`$ with $`𝐄`$ we realize that the gauge link In Eq.(15) is automatically generated,

$`LH|𝐄^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(t,\mathrm{𝟎})𝐄^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(t,\mathrm{𝟎})|0=`$ (80)
$`LH|𝐄^a(t,\mathrm{𝟎})\left[P\mathrm{exp}\{ig_s{\displaystyle _t^t}𝑑x^0G^{0,c}(x^0,\mathrm{𝟎})\tau ^c\}\right]_{ab}𝐄^b(t,\mathrm{𝟎})|0`$ (81)
while in Eq.(15) and Eq.(17) we sandwich it by hand.

The last factor which needs to be considered is the renormalization constant $`Z`$ for wave-function. Following  we consider the current

$$J^\mu (x)=\overline{c}(x)\gamma ^\mu c(x).$$
(82)
The current $`J^\mu (x)`$ is a conserved current and it will be not renormalized. Hence we have:

$$c(p)|J^\mu (0)|c(p)=\overline{u}(p)\gamma ^\mu u(p).$$
(83)
Using the same techniques in this section, one can derive

$$Z=1+𝒪(m_c^1).$$
(84)
With the results here we find that the $`S`$-matrix element obtained here is exactly the same obtained in the last section. We emphasize here that it is derived here in arbitrary gauge and without the assumption of two-gluon emission. Hence the results are nonperturbative.

With the given $`S`$-matrix element, one can calculate the differential decay width. We obtain for unpolarized $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}=\alpha Q_c^2\frac{8\pi }{9m_c^4}J/\mathrm{\Psi }|O_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|J/\mathrm{\Psi }d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{LH}\delta ((2pk)^2q^2)\frac{1}{(k^0)^4}|T_{LH}(k)|^2,$$
(85)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{LH}`$ is the phase-space integral for the light hadrons and we only keep the leading dependence on momenta of the light hadrons. The formula is only for $`q^2`$ close to $`4m_c^2`$ and the predicted differential width is measurable in experiment. In the calculation we used

$$J/\mathrm{\Psi }|\psi ^{}\sigma ^i\chi |00|\chi ^{}\sigma ^j\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }=J/\mathrm{\Psi }|O_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|J/\mathrm{\Psi }\epsilon ^i(\epsilon ^j)^{}.$$
(86)
In the equation $`\epsilon `$ is the polarization vector of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the matrix element $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }|O_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is defined in  and the average over the spin is implied in the matrix element.

In this section we mainly have considered emission of gluons by a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair, and these gluons are transmitted into light hadrons. Because the kinematic region considered here, these gluons must be soft. That is why we have defined the nonperturbative object $`T_{LH}(k)`$ which includes $`g_s^2`$. However, emission of hard gluons can happen, this can only happen as exchange of hard gluons between $`c`$-, $`\overline{c}`$\- quark and gluons. The effect of the exchange can be calculated with perturbative QCD, it will result in that the coefficient in Eq.(17) will be modified. For example, $`Z`$ in Eq.(48) will be smaller than $`1`$ by neglecting the effect at $`m_c^1`$. For exchange of soft gluons, the effect may be factorized into the NRQCD matrix element and $`T_{LH}`$.

4. Summary and Discussion

In this work we have studied the exclusive $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$-decay into a lepton pair combined with light hadrons, in which the total energy of the light hadrons is much smaller than $`M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$. The light hadrons are formed from soft gluons emitted by the $`c`$-flavored quarks. In the limit $`m_c\mathrm{}`$ the nonperturbative effects related to $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and to the light hadrons can be separated and they are represented by a NRQCD matrix element and by a correlator of electric chromofields. Corrections to the limit and those due to hard gluons may systematically added. We emphasize that our results are obtained without perturbative theory and are gauge invariant, although we firstly have derived them in the axial gauge with perturbative theory. But we have also derived them in an arbitrary gauge without using perturbative theory.

In our approach an expansion in $`v_c`$, the velocity of the $`c`$-quark inside $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in its rest-frame, is used. We have only taken the leading order contributions at $`v_c^0`$. At this order, $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be considered as a bound state of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair in color singlet. The corrections to the leading-order results may also added. However, problems arise at order of $`v_c^4`$. At this order $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has a component in which the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair is in color octet and the component is a bound state of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair with soft gluons. It is unclear how to add corrections from this component at order of $`v_c^4`$. It deserves a further study of these problems to understand a bound state of many dynamical freedoms of QCD.

Our approach applies for a class of decays. The results given here can be directly used for the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ decay and can be generalized to $`B_c^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }+\mathrm{light}\mathrm{hadrons}`$, where the light hadrons also have a total energy which is small. The same correlator appears in these decays to characterize the transition of soft gluons into light hadrons. In that sense the correlator is universal. Our results do not apply for $`B_c`$, because it is a spin-0 meson. However, with the approach presented here one may obtain corresponding predictions for $`B_c`$. Our results do not apply for decays of excited quaukonium $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ states like $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{}^++\mathrm{}^{}+\pi +\pi `$, in this decay after emission of soft gluons, which forms the light hadrons, the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair can be formed into $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, then the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ decays into a lepton pair. This type of contributions is not included in our results. But this type of contributions may be excluded by experimental cuts, through requiring the two leptons are not exactly back-to-back in the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ rest-frame. With this requirement our results may apply.

In this work we are unable to give any numerical result. In our prediction, the nonperturbative effect related to $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is known, e.g., from the leptonic decay of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, while the nonperturbative effect related to the light hadrons is unknown. We currently develope a model for the correlator and will make an attempt to give numerical predictions.

Acknowledgment: The author would like to thank Prof. Y.Q. Chen, Y.B. Dai, C. Liu, D. Soper and Z.X. Zhang for interesting discussions. This work is supported by National Science Foundation of P.R. China and by the Hundred Yonng Scientist Program of Sinica Academia of P.R.China.


text:
# Entangled qutrits violate local realism stronger than qubits –an analytical proof

## Abstract

In Kaszlikowski et al. \[Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4418 (2000)\], it has been shown numerically that the violation of local realism for two maximally entangled $`N`$-dimensional ($`3N`$) quantum objects is stronger than for two maximally entangled qubits and grows with $`N`$. In this paper we present the analytical proof of this fact for $`N=3`$.

Since the formulation of Bell theorem , various forms of so called Bell inequalities, see for instance , have been devised to investigate the possibility (or lack of such possibility) of local realistic description of correlations observed in various quantum systems such as $`M`$ entangled $`N`$ dimensional quantum objects. The main advantage of this approach is its simplicity. The drawback of this method is that, in general, Bell inequalities are only a necessary condition for the existence of local and realistic description of the investigated quantum system. Only in a few cases, see for instance , it has been proved that some Bell inequalities are necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of local realism. All these cases deal with two  or more than two  qubits and two local observables measured at each side of the Bell experiment.

In  a general approach to the problem has been presented. It is possible to find all relevant inequalities that have to be fulfilled by the probabilities obtained by the measurement of any number of local observables on the system consisting of an arbitrary number of quantum objects, each of which described by a Hilbert space of arbitrary dimesnion, so that it can be described in terms of local realism. However, the number of inequalities that have to be examined grows extremely fast with the dimension of the problem, i.e., number of local observables, quantum objects and dimension of Hilbert space describing given objects. This makes the method practically useless, as shown in .

Recent research shows that a different approach is possible. In  methods of numerical linear optimization has been successfully applied to two qubit correlations with up to ten local observables being measured at each side of the experiment  and for two $`N`$-dimensional objects (2 $`N16`$) with two local observables at each side of the experiment . In this approach one does not find Bell inequalities but finds the conditions under which for the given quantum system and quantum observables measured on it there exists a local hidden variable model reproducing quantum results. Additionally, this method can be directly applied to the analysis of experimental data.

The paper  is a good example of how important it is to know necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of local realism in the given case. For instance in , it was shown for two $`N`$-dimensional entangled systems that the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality  is maximally violated by the factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$. The reason for this is that CHSH inequality is not a sufficient condition for the existence of local realism for two entangled objects each described by a Hilbert space of the dimension greater than two. Indeed, the results of  show that violations of local realism increase with the dimension of the systems.

In this paper we prove analytically that the violation of local realism for two maximally entangled qutrits (objects described by a three dimensional Hilbert space) observed via two unbiased three input and three output beamsplitters  is stronger than for two maximally entangled qubits . Earlier numerical computations advocated such a violation but rigorous analytical evidence has so far been lacking except for the trivial case of qubit. Thus it is anticipated that analytical proofs should exist for higher dimensional quantum systems. Our present work on qutrit therefore constitutes the first such attempt to confirm the previous numerical claim. Moreover, we also see that the extension from qubit to qutrit is clearly non-trivival. In fact, a comparison of our results with the separability condition for so called generalised Werner states  can shed a new light on the relation between local realism and separability of bipartite quantum systems.

We consider the Bell type experiment in which two spatially separated observers Alice and Bob measure two non-commuting observables $`A_1,A_2`$ for Alice and $`B_1,B_2`$ for Bob on the maximally entangled state $`|\psi `$ of two qutrits

$`|\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|0_A|0_B+|1_A|1_B+|2_A|2_B),`$ (1)
where $`|k_A`$ and $`|k_B`$ describe k-th basis state of the qutrit $`A`$ and $`B`$ respectively. Such a state can be prepared with pairs of photons with the aid of parametric down conversion (see ), in which case kets $`|k_A`$ and $`|k_B`$ denotes photons propagating to Alice and Bob in mode $`k`$.

Here we consider the special case in which both observers measure observables defined by 6-port (three input and three output ports) beam splitter. The extended theory of such devices can be found in . Here we give only a brief description.

Unbiased $`6`$-port beamsplitter, which is called tritter,  is a device with the following property: if one photon enters into any single input port (out of the $`3`$), its chances of exit are equally split between all $`3`$ output ports. One can always build tritter with the distinguishing trait that the elements of its unitary transition matrix, $`\widehat{T}`$, are solely powers of the $`3`$-rd root of unity $`\alpha =\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi /3),`$ namely $`T_{kl}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\alpha ^{(k1)(l1)}.`$ In front of $`i`$-th input port of the tritter we put a phase shifter that changes the phase of the incoming photon by $`\varphi _i`$. These three phase shifts, which we denote for convenience as a “vector” of phase shifts $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)`$, are macroscopic local parameters that can be changed by the observer. Therefore, tritter together with the three phase shifters performs the unitary transformation $`\widehat{U}(\stackrel{}{\varphi })`$ with the entries $`U_{kl}=T_{kl}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _l)`$.

Alice and Bob measure the following observables

$`A(\varphi _i)=\widehat{U}(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i)|00|\widehat{U}(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i)^{}+\alpha \widehat{U}(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i)|11|\widehat{U}^{}(\stackrel{}{\varphi _i})+\alpha ^2\widehat{U}(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i)|22|\widehat{U}^{}(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i)`$ (2)
$`B(\theta _j)=\widehat{U}(\stackrel{}{\theta _j})|00|\widehat{U}(\stackrel{}{\theta }_j)^{}+\alpha \widehat{U}(\stackrel{}{\theta }_j)|11|\widehat{U}^{}(\stackrel{}{\theta }_j)+\alpha ^2\widehat{U}(\stackrel{}{\theta }_j)|22|\widehat{U}^{}(\stackrel{}{\theta }_j),`$ (3)
where $`i,j=1,2`$ and where, for instance, $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i`$ denotes the vector of local phase shifts for Alice in the $`i`$-th experiment. Please notice that we ascribe complex numbers to the results of measurements, i.e., to the “click” of the $`l`$-th detector we ascribe the number $`\alpha ^l`$. The justification of such an assigment can be found in . It results in a very symmetrical complex correlation function

$`E(\varphi _i,\theta _j)=\psi |A(\varphi _i)B(\theta _j)|\psi `$ (4)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\mathrm{exp}(\varphi _i^1\varphi _i^2+\theta _j^1\theta _j^2)+\mathrm{exp}(\varphi _i^2\varphi _i^3+\theta _j^2\theta _j^3)`$ (5)
$`+\mathrm{exp}(\varphi _i^3\varphi _i^1+\theta _j^3\theta _j^1)),`$ (6)
where, for instance, $`\varphi _i^1`$ denotes the first phase shift at Alice’s side in the $`i`$-th experiment. This correlation function retains the information about the correlations observed in the experiment. In fact, according to quantum mechanics the whole information that is accessible in the experiment are probabilities of coincidence firings of the detectors. It can be easily verified through the knowledge of the correlation function $`E(\varphi _i,\theta _j)`$ one is able to calculate the probabilities of these coincidence “clicks” and in this way obtain the whole information about the correlations observed in the system.

Following  We define the strength of violation of local realism as the minimal noise admixture $`F_{thr}`$ to the state (1) below which the measured correlations cannot be described by local realism for the given observables. Therefore, we assume that Alice and Bob perform their measurements on the following mixed state $`\rho _F`$

$`\rho _F=(1F)|\psi \psi |+F\rho _{noise},`$ (7)
where $`0F1`$ and where $`\rho _{noise}`$ is a diagonal matrix with entries equal to $`1/9`$. This matrix is a totally chaotic mixture (noise), which admits a local and realistic description. For $`F=0`$ (pure maximally entangled state) local realistic description does not exist whereas for $`F=1`$ (pure noise) it does. Therefore, there exists some threshold value of $`F`$, which we denote by $`F_{thr}`$, such that for every $`FF_{thr}`$ local and realistic description does not exist. The bigger the value of $`F_{thr}`$, the stronger is the violation of local realism. The correlation function for the state (7) reads $`E^F(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i,\stackrel{}{\theta }_j)=(1F)E(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i,\stackrel{}{\theta }_j)`$.

Let us now assume that Alice measures two observables defined by the following sets of phase shifts $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_1=(0,\pi /3,\pi /3),\stackrel{}{\varphi }_2=(0,0,0)`$ whereas Bob measures two observables defined by the sets of phase shifts $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_1=(0,\pi /6,\pi /6),\stackrel{}{\theta }_2=(0,\pi /6,\pi /6)`$. From numerical computations it is known  that these sets of phases gives the highest $`F_{thr}`$. Straightforward calculations give the following values of the correlations functions for each experiment: $`E^F(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_1,\stackrel{}{\theta }_1)=E^F(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_2,\stackrel{}{\theta }_2)=Q_1=\frac{2\sqrt{3}+1}{6}i\frac{2\sqrt{3}}{6},E^F(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_1,\stackrel{}{\theta }_2)=Q_1^{},E^F(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_2,\stackrel{}{\theta }_1)=Q_2=\frac{1}{3}(1+2i)`$. From these complex numbers we can create a $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`\widehat{Q}`$ with the entries $`(\widehat{Q})_{ij}=E^F(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i,\stackrel{}{\theta }_j)`$.

Local realism implies the following structure of the correlation function that is to reproduce the quantum correlation function defined above

$$E_{LHV}(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i,\stackrel{}{\theta }_j)=𝑑\lambda \rho (\lambda )A(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i,\lambda )B(\stackrel{}{\theta }_j,\lambda ),$$
(8)
where for trichotomic measurements $`A(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i,\lambda )=\alpha ^m`$ and $`B(\stackrel{}{\theta }_j,\lambda )=\alpha ^n`$, $`(m,n=1,2,3)`$. Three-valued functions $`A(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i,\lambda ),B(\stackrel{}{\theta }_j,\lambda )`$ represent the values of local measurements predetermined by local hidden variables, denoted by $`\lambda `$, for the specified local settings. This expression is an average over a certain local hidden variable distribution $`\rho (\lambda )`$ of certain factorisable matrices, namely those with elements given by $`H_\lambda ^{ij}=A(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i,\lambda )B(\stackrel{}{\theta }_j,\lambda )`$. The symbol $`\lambda `$ may hide very many parameters. However, since the only possible values of $`A(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i,\lambda )`$ and $`B(\stackrel{}{\theta }_j,\lambda )`$ are $`1,\alpha ,\alpha ^2`$ there are only $`9`$ different sequences of the values of $`(A(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_1,\lambda ),A(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_2,\lambda ))`$, and $`9`$ different sequences of the values of $`(B(\stackrel{}{\theta }_1,\lambda ),B(\stackrel{}{\theta }_2,\lambda ))`$, and consequently they form only $`81`$ matrices $`\widehat{H}_\lambda `$.

Therefore the structure of local hidden variable model of $`E_{LHV}(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i,\stackrel{}{\theta }_j)`$ reduces to discrete probabilistic model involving the average of all the $`81`$ matrices $`\widehat{H}_\lambda `$. Therefore, we replace the parameter $`\lambda `$ by index $`k`$ ($`k=1,2,\mathrm{},81`$) to which we ascribe the matrix $`\widehat{H}_k`$ with entries $`H_k^{ij}=\alpha ^{k_i+l_j}`$ ($`i,j=1,2`$), where $`k_1=[(k1)/9]1,k_2=[(k1)/3]1,l_1=1,l_2=k`$ (please notice that $`\alpha ^1=\alpha ^2`$) and where $`[x]`$ denotes the integer part of the number $`x`$. It can be checked that only first $`27`$ matrices are different, which means that it suffices to consider only them. With this notation the correlation function $`E_{LHV}(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i,\stackrel{}{\theta }_j)`$ acquires the following simple form

$$E_{LHV}(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i,\stackrel{}{\theta }_j)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{27}{}}p_kH_k^{ij},$$
(9)
with, of course, the probabilities satisfying $`p_k0`$ and $`_{k=1}^{27}p_k=1`$. From $`E_{LHV}(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_i,\stackrel{}{\theta }_j)`$ we build the matrix $`\widehat{E}_{LHV}`$.

Quantum predictions in form of the matrix $`\widehat{Q}^F`$ can be recovered by local hidden variables if and only if

$`\widehat{Q}^F={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{27}{}}}p_n\widehat{H}_n.`$ (10)
Now, we want to find the minimal possible $`F`$ for which it is still possible to recover matrix $`\widehat{Q}^F`$ using the probability distribution $`p_n`$ and factorizable matrices $`\widehat{H}_n`$. For convenience we define a new parameter $`V=1F`$. Then the minimal $`F`$ refers to maximal $`V`$.

Theorem: The maximal $`V`$ equals $`V_{thr}=\frac{6\sqrt{3}9}{2}`$.

Proof: First we observe that matrix $`\widehat{Q}^V`$ can be written in the following way

$`\widehat{Q}^V=V[{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{3}+1}{6}}i{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{3}}{6}}]I+V[{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{3}1}{6}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{2+\sqrt{3}}{6}}]\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma },`$ (11)
where $`\stackrel{}{n}=(n_x,n_y,n_z)=(\frac{1}{2},\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2},0)`$ (please notice that $`|\stackrel{}{n}|=1`$). One observes that $`\widehat{Q}^V`$ commutes with the matrix $`\widehat{𝒰}=\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$, which has only two nonzero entries $`𝒰_{12}=\alpha ^2,𝒰_{21}=\alpha `$ and is unitary and hermitian. Furthermore, $`\widehat{𝒰}`$ preserves the structure of matrices $`\widehat{H}_n`$ in the sense that for every $`n=1,2,\mathrm{},27`$, $`\widehat{𝒰}\widehat{H}_n\widehat{𝒰}=\widehat{H}_m`$ for some $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},27`$. This is one to one mapping. One can also find that some matrices $`\widehat{H}_n`$ are invariants with respect to transformation $`\widehat{𝒰}`$. For further considerations it is necessary to have the list of pairs $`(n,m)`$

$`\{(1,8),(2,10),(3,24),(4,17),(5,19),(7,26),(9,15),(11,13),(12,27),(14,22),(16,20),(23,25)\}.`$ (12)
By considering the $`i`$-th pair $`(n,m)`$ in the above list, we can define new matrices, $`\widehat{G}_i=\widehat{H}_n+\widehat{H}_m`$. Thus, $`\widehat{G}_1=\widehat{H}_1+\widehat{H}_8`$, $`\widehat{G}_2=\widehat{H}_2+\widehat{H}_{10}`$ and so forth. The remaining invariant matrices are $`\widehat{H}_6,\widehat{H}_{18},\widehat{H}_{21}`$. For convenience, we label them as $`\widehat{G}_{13}`$ to $`\widehat{G}_{15}`$, viz $`\widehat{G}_{13}=\widehat{H}_6,\widehat{G}_{14}=\widehat{H}_{18},\widehat{G}_{15}=\widehat{H}_{21}`$.

Suppose that we have the optimal solution (the solution for which $`V=V_{thr}`$ ), i.e., we have the probability distribution $`p_n`$ so that $`\widehat{Q}^{V_{thr}}=_{n=1}^{27}p_n\widehat{H}_n`$. Acting on both sides of this equation with matrix $`\widehat{𝒰}`$ we get another optimal solution with the same $`V_{thr}`$ (matrix $`\widehat{𝒰}`$ commutes with $`\widehat{Q}^{V_{thr}}`$) but with the new probability distribution $`p_k^{}`$, which can be obtained from the previous one by swapping probabilities belonging to the same pair, for instance, $`p_{10}^{}=p_2`$ and so on. Therefore, due to the above property, we can assume without loosing generality that in the optimal solution the probabilities referring to the same pair are equal. Therefore, we have reduced the number of relevant probabilities from $`27`$ to $`15`$. One can observe that every matrix $`\widehat{G}_k`$ can be expressed by matrices $`\widehat{G}_1,\widehat{G}_{10},\widehat{G}_{13}`$ by multiplying them by $`\alpha `$, $`\alpha ^2`$ and $`1`$. For instance, $`\widehat{G}_6=\alpha \widehat{G}_{10},\widehat{G}_{11}=\widehat{G}_{13}`$ etc. Three matrices are the same: $`\widehat{G}_5=\widehat{G}_3,\widehat{G}_7=\widehat{G}_4,\widehat{G}_{11}=\widehat{G}_9`$, which further reduces the number of relevant probabilities from $`15`$ to $`12`$.

Having in mind the above properties we can write the optimal solution in the new form

$`\widehat{Q}^{V_{thr}}={\displaystyle \underset{k5,7,11}{}}w_k\widehat{G}_k,`$ (13)
remembering that now the normalization condition for probabilities $`w_k`$ reads

$`2(w_1+w_2+w_3+w_4+w_6+w_8+w_9+w_{10}+w_{12})+w_{13}+w_{14}+w_{15}=1.`$ (14)
Due to the fact that all $`\widehat{G}_k`$ can be expressed by $`\widehat{G}_1`$, $`\widehat{G}_{10}`$, $`\widehat{G}_{13}`$, we have

$`\widehat{Q}^{V_{thr}}=(w_1+\alpha w_8+\alpha ^2w_{12})\widehat{G}_1+(w_{10}+\alpha w_6+\alpha ^2w_2)\widehat{G}_{10}`$ (15)
$`+[(w_{13}w_9)+\alpha (w_{14}w_3)+\alpha ^2(w_{15}w_4)]\widehat{G}_{13}.`$ (16)
Notice that $`\widehat{G}_1+\widehat{G}_{10}\widehat{G}_{13}=0`$ so that we have

$`\widehat{Q}^{V_{thr}}=[(w_1+w_{13}w_9)+\alpha (w_8+w_{14}w_3)+\alpha ^2(w_{12}+w_{15}w_4)]\widehat{G}_1`$ (17)
$`+[(w_{10}+w_{13}w_9)+\alpha (w_6+w_{14}w_3)+\alpha ^2(w_2+w_{15}w_4)]\widehat{G}_{10}.`$ (18)
Matrix $`\widehat{G}_1`$ (with entries $`G_1^{11}=2`$, $`G_1^{12}=\alpha ^2`$, $`G_1^{21}=\alpha `$, $`G_1^{22}=2`$) is a sum of matrices $`\widehat{H}_1,\widehat{H}_8`$ whereas matrix $`\widehat{G}_{10}`$ (with entries $`G_{10}^{11}=1`$, $`G_{10}^{12}=2\alpha ^2`$, $`G_{10}^{21}=2\alpha `$, $`G_{10}^{22}=1`$) is a sum of matrices $`\widehat{H}_{14},\widehat{H}_{22}`$. These four matrices are linearly independent so they form a basis in four dimensional space of $`2\times 2`$ complex matrices. The expansion of $`\widehat{Q}^{V_{thr}}`$ in this basis reads

$`\widehat{Q}^{V_{thr}}=\lambda _1\widehat{G}_1+\lambda _{10}\widehat{G}_{10},`$ (19)
where $`\lambda _1=V_{thr}[(\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}})+i(\frac{1}{9}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}})],\lambda _{10}=V_{thr}[(\frac{1}{6}\frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}})+i(\frac{1}{9}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}})]`$. Because both $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _{10}`$ lie on the complex plane between complex numbers $`1`$ and $`\alpha `$, they can be uniquely expressed by these numbers 1 and $`\alpha `$ with positive coefficients, i.e., $`\lambda _1=V_{thr}[\frac{1}{27}(9+2\sqrt{3})+\alpha \frac{1}{27}(92\sqrt{3})]`$ and $`\lambda _{10}=V_{thr}[\frac{1}{27}(92\sqrt{3})+\alpha \frac{1}{27}(9+2\sqrt{3})]`$.

We can rewrite the formula (18) using the indentity $`1+\alpha +\alpha ^2=0`$ in the following form

$`\lambda _1=(w_1+w_4+w_{13}w_9w_{12}w_{15})+\alpha (w_4+w_8+w_{14}w_3w_{12}w_{15}),`$ (20)
$`\lambda _{10}=(w_4+w_{10}+w_{13}w_2w_9w_{15})+\alpha (w_4+w_6+w_{14}w_2w_3w_{15}).`$ (21)
After comparing Eq.(21) and Eq.(19) we have

$`w_1+w_4+w_{13}w_9w_{12}w_{15}={\displaystyle \frac{V_{thr}}{27}}(9+2\sqrt{3}),`$ (22)
$`w_4+w_8+w_{14}w_3w_{12}w_{15}={\displaystyle \frac{V_{thr}}{27}}(92\sqrt{3}),`$ (23)
$`w_4+w_{10}+w_{13}w_2w_9w_{15}={\displaystyle \frac{V_{thr}}{27}}(92\sqrt{3}),`$ (24)
$`w_4+w_6+w_{14}w_2w_3w_{15}={\displaystyle \frac{V_{thr}}{27}}(9+2\sqrt{3})`$ (25)
Because we deal with the optimal solution for which $`V`$ is maximal $`V=V_{thr}`$ all the probabilities with negative sign in (25) must be zero (please notice that none of the probabilities that come into (25) with negative sign appears in any equation with a positive sign). We get

$`w_1+w_4+w_{13}={\displaystyle \frac{V_{thr}}{27}}(9+2\sqrt{3}),`$ (26)
$`w_4+w_8+w_{14}={\displaystyle \frac{V_{thr}}{27}}(92\sqrt{3}),`$ (27)
$`w_4+w_{10}+w_{13}={\displaystyle \frac{V_{thr}}{27}}(92\sqrt{3}),`$ (28)
$`w_4+w_6+w_{14}={\displaystyle \frac{V_{thr}}{27}}(9+2\sqrt{3}).`$ (29)
Now the whole probability distribution consists of $`w_1,w_4,w_6,w_8,w_{10},w_{13},w_{14}`$. By substracting the fourth equation from the second one and the third one from the first one we arrive at

$`w_6w_8={\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{3}}{27}}V_{thr},w_1w_{10}={\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{3}}{27}}V_{thr}.`$ (30)
Again, because $`V_{thr}`$ is maximal, it must be $`w_8=w_{10}=0`$. Thus $`w_1=w_6=\frac{4\sqrt{3}}{27}V_{thr}`$ and the second and the third equation in (25) become

$`w_4+w_{14}={\displaystyle \frac{V_{thr}}{27}}(92\sqrt{3}),w_4+w_{13}={\displaystyle \frac{V_{thr}}{27}}(92\sqrt{3}),`$ (31)
This clearly implies $`w_{13}=w_{14}=q`$. Normalization condition now reads

$`2(w_1+w_4+w_6)+w_{13}+w_{14}=1.`$ (33)
A simple algebra gives

$`q+w_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{3}}{27}}V_{thr}.`$ (34)
However, from (31), we know that $`q+w_4=\frac{V_{thr}}{27}(92\sqrt{3})`$. Therefore

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{3}}{27}}V_{thr}={\displaystyle \frac{V_{thr}}{27}}(92\sqrt{3})`$ (35)
which gives $`V_{thr}=\frac{6\sqrt{3}9}{2}`$. This ends the proof.

We have shown analytically that for the Bell experiment with the four trichotomic observables (3) (two at each side of the experiment) defined by the sets of phase shifts $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_1=(0,\pi /3,\pi /3)`$, $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_2=(0,0,0)`$, $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_1=(0,\pi /6,\pi /6)`$, $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_2=(0,\pi /6,\pi /6)`$ the minimal noise admixture $`F_{thr}`$ above which local and realistic description exists is $`F_{thr}=1V_{thr}=\frac{116\sqrt{3}}{2}`$. For two maximally entangled qubits this number is $`\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{2}<F_{thr}`$. Therefore, two entangled qutrits are more robust against local and realistic description than two entangled qubits.

Although, the presented here proof cannot be easily applied to the set of arbitrary observables defined in (3) as it relies on the symmetry properties of matrix $`\widehat{Q}^F`$ it may be considered as the first step towards the Bell theorem for two entangled qutrits.

MZ thanks Anton Zeilinger and Alipasha Vaziri for discussions. MZ and DK are supported by the University of Gdansk Grant No. BW/5400-5-0032-0 and by KBN grant No. 5 P03B 088 20. This paper is also supported in part under NUS research grant No. R-144-000-054-112.