text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

PP-waves arising from the Penrose limits of AdS$`{}_{p}{}^{}\times S^q`$ spacetime provide simple backgrounds on which to study string and M-theory. The maximally supersymmetric pp-wave with a constant 4-form field strength was first constructed in  for eleven-dimensional supergravity. Recently, the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave in type IIB supergravity with a constant self-dual 5-form field strength was obtained in . These solutions are actually the Penrose limits of $`AdS_p\times S^q`$ spacetimes with $`(p,q)=(4,7),(7,4)`$ and (5,5) respectively . In the type IIB case, the light-cone string action for the pp-wave , is exactly solvable. This makes it possible to study the AdS/CFT correspondence on the level of full string theory in the Penrose limit , which has generated considerable interest recently -.

AdS$`{}_{p}{}^{}\times S^q`$ arises as the near-horizon geometry of non-dilatonic branes or intersecting branes, for $`(p,q)=(4,7)`$, $`(7,4)`$, $`(5,5)`$, $`(3,3)`$, $`(3,2)`$, $`(2,3)`$ and $`(2,2)`$. AdS structure also arises from “non-standard” intersections, for which the harmonic function $`H`$ for each brane component depends on the coordinates of the relative transverse space rather than those of the overall transverse space . The simplest example is the non-standard intersection of two 5-branes plus a string in the common worldvolume, whose near-horizon geometry is AdS$`{}_{3}{}^{}\times S^3\times S^3\times S^1`$ .

In section 2, we perform the Penrose limit on the above solution. Since the product space involves two 3-spheres, there exists a one-parameter family of Penrose limits of this solution, parametrized by the rotation of the two foliating $`S^1`$ within the two 3-spheres. In section 3, we study the supersymmetry of the resulting pp-wave solution. We find that there are 16 standard Killing spinors associated with any pp-wave solution, but supernumerary Killing spinors arise only for a specific choice of the parameter, associated with a 45 degree rotation of the two $`S^1`$. For this case, there are 4 supernumerary Killing spinors, which are all independent of the $`x^+`$ coordinate. Furthermore, 4 out of the 16 standard Killing spinors are also independent of $`x^+`$. We then obtain the supersymmetric light-cone string action in this pp-wave background. In section 4, we T-dualize the pp-wave solution and show that it is related to the D3-brane with one of the world-volume coordinates fibred over the six-dimensional transverse space. In section 5, we obtain the Penrose limits of more examples of non-standard intersections which give rise to AdS2 or AdS3. Again, all of these examples have a one-parameter family of Penrose limits. We conclude our paper in section 6.

## 2 5-5-1 system and Penrose limit

The 5-5-1 system is supported by a 3-form field strength in $`D=10`$. The relevant Lagrangian is given by

$$e^1=R\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{e}^\varphi F_{\left(3\right)}^2.$$
(1)
Since our system involves only the metric, the dilaton and the 3-form field strength, the results apply to types IIA, IIB and heterotic string theories. The solution is given by

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`K^{3/4}(H\stackrel{~}{H})^{1/4}(dt^2+dx^2+KHdy_i^2+K\stackrel{~}{H}d\stackrel{~}{y}_i^2),`$
$`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^\varphi (\stackrel{~}{H}dtdxd^4\stackrel{~}{y}dH^1)+\mathrm{e}^\varphi (Hdtdxd^4yd\stackrel{~}{H}^1)`$
$`+dtdxdK^1,\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}[K/(H\stackrel{~}{H})],K=H\stackrel{~}{H}`$
where $`H`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ are harmonic functions in the relative transverse $`y_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{y}_i`$ spaces respectively. The metric can be represented by the following diagram:

$`t`$ $`x`$ $`y_1`$ $`y_2`$ $`y_3`$ $`y_4`$ $`\stackrel{~}{y}_1`$ $`\stackrel{~}{y}_2`$ $`\stackrel{~}{y}_3`$ $`\stackrel{~}{y}_4`$     5-brane $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$  5-brane $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`H`$  string $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`K`$

Diagram 1. 5-5-1 system

We parametrize the coordinates as $`dy_i^2=dy^2+y^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ and $`d\stackrel{~}{y}_i^2=dy^2+y^2d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2`$. The isotropic solution is then given by

$$H=1+\frac{Q}{y^2},\stackrel{~}{H}=1+\frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}}{\stackrel{~}{y}^2}.$$
(3)
For simplicity, we take $`Q=\stackrel{~}{Q}=\lambda ^2`$. The near-horizon geometry of the solution is $`AdS_3\times S^3\times S^3\times S^1`$ . Expressing the AdS3 in global coordinates, and each $`S^3`$ as a foliation of two circles, we have

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`d\phi ^2+\lambda ^2(\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2+d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\gamma ^2)`$
$`+(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2+d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)+(\mathrm{cos}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }d\stackrel{~}{\psi }^2+d\stackrel{~}{\theta }^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2)),`$
$`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2(ϵ_{\left(3\right)}+2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(3\right)}+2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\left(3\right)}),`$ (5)
where $`ϵ_{\left(3\right)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(3\right)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\left(3\right)}`$ are the volume-forms of the unit AdS(3) and three spheres:

$`ϵ_{\left(3\right)}=\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{sinh}\rho dtd\rho d\gamma ,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(3\right)}=\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta d\psi d\theta d\varphi ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\left(3\right)}=\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }d\stackrel{~}{\psi }d\stackrel{~}{\theta }d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }.`$ (6)
After rotating coordinates as follows,

$$\psi =\mathrm{cos}\alpha \psi _1+\mathrm{sin}\alpha \psi _2,\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\mathrm{sin}\alpha \psi _1+\mathrm{cos}\alpha \psi _2,$$
(7)
the Penrose limit can be taken to be

$`\rho {\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\lambda }},\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\lambda }},\stackrel{~}{\theta }{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}{\lambda }},`$
$`t=x^++{\displaystyle \frac{x^{}}{\lambda ^2}},\psi _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(x^+{\displaystyle \frac{x^{}}{\lambda ^2}}),\psi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _2}{\lambda }},`$ (8)
with the constant $`\lambda `$ sent to infinity. By this means, the solution becomes the pp-wave

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dx^+dx^{}+Hdx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+dz_i^2,`$
$`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)},`$ (9)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}`$ is a constant 2-form, given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}=(2dz_1dz_2+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\alpha dz_3dz_4\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\alpha dz_5dz_6),$$
(10)
and

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}\mu _i^2z_i^2(z_1^2+z_2^2)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha (z_3^2+z_4^2)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha (z_5^2+z_6^2).$$
(11)
The coordinates $`z_i`$ are defined to be

$`z_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\rho \mathrm{cos}\gamma ,z_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\rho \mathrm{sin}\gamma ,z_3=\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,z_4=\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$
$`z_5=\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi },z_6=\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi },z_7=\psi _2,z_8=\phi .`$ (12)
Note that it is straightforward to introduce a parameter $`\mu `$ by scaling $`x^+\mu x^+`$ and $`x^{}x^{}/\mu `$. In this paper we shall set $`\mu =1`$.

The above 5-5-1 system involves only the metric, the dilaton and the 3-form field strength, and is thus valid for the type IIA, type IIB and heterotic theories. It can be further lifted to $`D=11`$ as the 5-5-2 system. The near-horizon structure AdS$`{}_{3}{}^{}\times S^3\times S^3\times S^1`$ given in (2) can also be supported by a 4-form field strength of the type IIA theory; it is given by

$$F_{\left(4\right)}=\lambda ^2(ϵ_{\left(3\right)}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(3\right)}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\left(3\right)})d\phi ,$$
(13)
However, the brane interpretation becomes obscured in this case. The Penrose limit is now supported by the 4-form $`F_{\left(4\right)}=dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}dz_8`$. Performing T-duality on the coordinate $`\phi `$ leads to a solution supported by the the R-R 3-form in type IIB theory.

## 3 Supersymmetry and string actions

### 3.1 Supersymmetry

M-theory and type II viewpoints

A simple way of studying the supersymmetry of the pp-wave solution obtained in the previous section is to lift the solution to $`D=11`$. The resulting pp-wave is supported by the 4-form in $`D=11`$, given by

$$F_{\left(4\right)}=dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}dz_9,$$
(14)
where $`z_9`$ is the 11’th direction.111If we lift the pp-wave supported by the 4-form in $`D=10`$, $`z_9`$ is replaced $`z_8`$, and hence these two solutions are totally equivalent in $`D=11`$. This 4-form configuration is a special case of a general class of M-theory pp-waves considered in  where the supersymmetry of these solutions were discussed. It is straightforward to apply the general formalism of  to our solution. To do so, we introduce

$$W=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij9}=2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{12}+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^{34}\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^{56}.$$
(15)
As discussed in , there are 16 standard Killing spinors associated with a generic pp-wave solution, which satisfy the projection

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}ϵ=0.$$
(16)
In addition, since $`\mu _{8,9}=0`$, supernumerary Killing spinors arise if $`W`$ has zero eigenvalues, which occurs only for

$$\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha =\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha =\frac{1}{2}.$$
(17)
Using the formalism of  we find that, for the above $`\alpha `$, there are four supernumerary Killing spinors, all of which are independent of $`x^+`$ and $`z^i`$ for $`i=7,8,9`$. The 16 standard Killing spinors are also independent of $`z^i`$ for $`i=7,8,9`$, but only 4 out of the 16 are independent of $`x^+`$. For other values of $`\alpha `$, there are no Supernumerary Killing spinors, and all the standard Killing spinors depend on $`x^+`$. For this reason, we mainly focus on the case with $`\alpha `$ given by (17).

Since the Killing spinors are independent of $`z_{7,8,9}`$, we can perform dimensional reduction and T-duality on these directions without breaking any supersymmetry, even at the level of field theory. Thus, the above analysis of supersymmetry carries over to the type IIA and IIB theories.

Heterotic viewpoint

To study the number of Killing spinors of the solution in the heterotic theory, we can use the same Killing-spinor calculations as above. However, we must impose an additional ten-dimensional chirality condition on the Killing spinor:

$$ϵ=\mathrm{\Gamma }_9ϵ,$$
(18)
where $`z_9`$ is our 11’th coordinate. This has the effect of reducing the number of standard Killing spinors down to 8, 2 of which are independent of $`x^+`$. The number of supernumerary Killing spinors is now 2. If we had chosen a different convention for the chirality projection, then there would not be any supernumerary Killing spinors at all. This implies that the sign choice of $`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ is important for the supernumerary Killing spinor in the heterotic theory.

### 3.2 String action

PP-waves for which the function $`H`$ is quadratic in the transverse space coordinates are of particular interest because they provide backgrounds for string theory that are exactly solvable. The light-cone string action of the pp-wave arising from the Penrose limit of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ was studied in . The action associated with the Penrose limit of the D1/D5 system can be found in . In , the Green-Schwarz action for type IIA and IIB strings in an arbitrary bosonic background was derived, in component form up to second-order in the fermionic coordinates. From these, type IIA and IIB string actions were obtained in the light-cone gauge on the background of a large class of pp-wave solutions . Applying the formalism in  to our example, one finds that the solution supported purely by R-R fields is particularly simple. The bosonic string action is given by

$$_B=\frac{1}{2}\dot{z}^2\frac{1}{2}z^2\frac{1}{2}\mu _i^2z_i^2,$$
(19)
where the masses of the bosonic fields $`\mu _i`$’s are defined in (11), given by

$$\mu _i^2=\{1,1,\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{4},0,0\}.$$
(20)
For the solution supported by the type IIA 4-form field strength, the fermionic Lagrangian is given by

$$_F=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(\overline{)}+\mu \varrho _0\mathrm{\Gamma }_8W)\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(21)
where $`\varrho _i`$ with $`i=0,1,2`$ are the world-sheet Dirac matrices, acting on the upper and lower 16 components of the column vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and $`\varrho _2`$ is the chirality operator. The fermionic Lagrangian associated with the type IIB solution supported by the R-R 3-form has a similar structure, given by

$$_F=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(\overline{)}+\mu \varrho _2W)\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(22)
As discussed in , the existence of $`x^+`$-independent supernumerary Killing spinors ensures that the corresponding string action has linearly-realised supersymmetry. In our case, the masses of the bosonic fields $`z_i`$ are given by (20). This precisely matches the masses of the fermonic fields, given by the eigenvalues of $`W`$. This is consistent with the supersymmetry. If we choose a different value of the rotation angle $`\alpha `$, two bosonic scalars remain massless, whilst all the fermions become massive, thereby breaking the supersymmetry. Indeed, for generic values of $`\alpha `$, there are no supernumerary Killing spinors.

For solutions supported by the NS-NS 3-form, the string action is slightly more complicated, since the NS-NS 3-form couples to the worldsheet as well. It is given by

$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}(\frac{1}{2}\dot{z}\frac{1}{2}z^2+\frac{1}{2}\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{ji}z^jz_i^{}\frac{1}{2}\mu _i^2z_i^2)+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\overline{)}+\frac{1}{4}\varrho W)\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (23)
## 4 T-duality and $`S^1`$-wrapped D3-brane

The pp-wave solution in $`D=10`$ has an eight-dimensional transverse space. In our case, the function $`H`$ is independent of the coordinates $`z_{7,8}`$. Thus, the “natural” transverse space of our solution is six-dimensional. We can perform T-duality and S-duality to relate our solution to a D3-brane whose transverse space has six dimensions.

First, we perform T-duality along the $`/x^+`$ Killing direction and obtain an NS-NS string solution given by

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`H^{3/4}(dt^2+(dx+𝒜_{\left(1\right)})^2)+H^{1/4}dz_i^2,`$
$`F_{\left(3\right)}^{\mathrm{NS}}`$ $`=`$ $`d(H^1dt(dx+𝒜_{\left(1\right)}))+\mu (dx+𝒜_{\left(1\right)})\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)},`$
$`d𝒜_{\left(1\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)},\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}H.`$ (24)
Note that, in this solution, the worldsheet coordinate $`x`$ is fibred over the transverse space. This type of $`S^1`$-fibred string solution was first obtained in . Next, we perform S-duality such that the string is supported by the R-R 3-form of type IIB theory. T-dualizing the $`z_{7,8}`$ directions yields an $`S^1`$-wrapped D3-brane given by

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`H^{1/2}(dt^2+(dx_1+𝒜_{\left(1\right)})^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2)+H^{1/2}dz_i^2,`$
$`F_{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`d(H^1dt(dx_1+𝒜_{\left(1\right)})dx_2dx_3)+`$ (25)
$`\mu (dx_1+𝒜_{\left(1\right)})dx_2dx_3\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{dual},`$
$`d𝒜_{\left(1\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}.`$
An $`S^1`$-wrapped D3-brane was first constructed in  in order to resolve the singularity while maintaining the supersymmetry of the associated D3-brane on the resolved conifold. Here, when the D3-brane charge is turned on, the more general solution for $`H`$ is given by

$$H=1+\frac{Q}{r^4}\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}\mu _i^2z_i^2,$$
(26)
where $`r^2=z^iz^i`$. The terms associated with $`\mu _i`$ break the conformal symmetry. They introduce a naked singularity at some finite $`r`$, which can be argued  to be associated with a phase transition from type IIB theory to type IIB theory, introduced in . The solution has 4 Killing spinors for non-vanishing $`Q`$. For $`Q=0`$, or in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$, 4 additional Killing spinors emerge.

## 5 Further examples

In this section, we consider further examples of non-standard intersections that give rise to AdS structure and study their Penrose limits. These examples can be generated from the above AdS$`{}_{3}{}^{}\times S^3\times S^3`$ by noting that AdS3 and $`S^3`$ can be (locally) expressed as a $`U(1)`$ bundle over AdS2 and $`S^2`$ respectively, i.e.

$`ds_{\mathrm{AdS}_3}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}(dz+𝒜_{\left(1\right)})^2+\frac{1}{4}ds_{\mathrm{AdS}_2}^2,d𝒜_{\left(1\right)}=ϵ_{\left(2\right)},`$
$`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}(dz+_{\left(1\right)})^2+\frac{1}{4}d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,d_{\left(1\right)}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(2\right)},`$ (27)
where $`ϵ_{\left(2\right)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(2\right)}`$ are the volume-forms of the unit AdS2 and $`S^2`$ respectively. The bundle can be naturally generated by considering a wave in AdS3 or a Taub-NUT in $`R^4`$. From the $`D=10`$ perspective, the wave and NUT in eleven dimensions become a D0-brane and D6-brane respectively. The intersecting systems of this section can be found in .

### 5.1 Type IIA examples

D0/D4/D4/NS1

The solution for the D0/D4/D4/NS1 system is given by

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`H_0^{7/8}H_4^{3/8}\stackrel{~}{H}_4^{3/8}H_1^{3/4}(dt^2+H_0H_4\stackrel{~}{H}_4dx^2+`$
$`H_0H_4H_1dy_i^2+H_0\stackrel{~}{H}_4H_1d\stackrel{~}{y}_i^2),`$
$`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi }(\stackrel{~}{H}_4dtd^4\stackrel{~}{y}dH_4^1)+\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi }(H_4dtd^4yd\stackrel{~}{H}_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}),`$
$`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`dtdxdH_1^1,F_{\left(2\right)}=dtdH_0^1,`$ (28)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{log}[H_4\stackrel{~}{H}_4H_1^2/H_0^3],H_0=H_1=H_4\stackrel{~}{H}_4,`$
where $`H_4=H_4(y_i)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_4=\stackrel{~}{H}_4(\stackrel{~}{y}_i)`$. The solution can be represented diagrammatically as follows:

$`t`$ $`x`$ $`y_1`$ $`y_2`$ $`y_3`$ $`y_4`$ $`\stackrel{~}{y}_1`$ $`\stackrel{~}{y}_2`$ $`\stackrel{~}{y}_3`$ $`\stackrel{~}{y}_4`$     D0 $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`H_0`$  D4 $`\times `$ $``$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{H}_4`$  D4 $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`H_4`$  NS1 $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`H_1`$

Diagram 4. D0/D4/D4/NS1 system

We parametrize the coordinates as $`dy_i^2=dy^2+y^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ and $`d\stackrel{~}{y}_i^2=d\stackrel{~}{y}^2+\stackrel{~}{y}^2d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2`$, so that $`H_4`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_4`$ are given by (3). For simplicity, we have equal charges. The near-horizon geometry is AdS$`{}_{2}{}^{}\times S^3\times S^3\times T^2`$ , namely

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2(\frac{1}{8}ds_{\mathrm{AdS}_2}^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2)+d\phi _1^2+d\phi _2^2,`$
$`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda ^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(3\right)}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3)d\phi _1,F_{\left(3\right)}=\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{8}}ϵ_{\left(2\right)}d\phi _1,F_{\left(2\right)}=\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{8}}ϵ_{\left(2\right)},`$ (29)
Performing the Penrose limit, we have

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dx^+dx^{}+Hdx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+dz_i^2,`$
$`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)},F_{\left(3\right)}=dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)},F_{\left(2\right)}=dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(1\right)},`$ (30)
where the constant form fields are given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\mathrm{cos}\alpha dz_2dz_3\mathrm{sin}\alpha dz_4dz_5)dz_7,`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`dz_7dz_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(1\right)}=dz_1,`$ (31)
and

$$H=z_1^2\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha (z_2^2+z_3^2)\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha (z_4^2+z_5^2).$$
(32)
It is worth observing that in this pp-wave solution, all the form fields of the type IIA theory are turned on.

Note that we can T-dualize along the $`/x^+`$ Killing direction and obtain a deformed $`S^1`$-wrapped type IIB NS string solution. Then, by T-dualizing along $`z_8`$ and lifting to $`D=11`$, one obtains a deformed $`T^2`$-wrapped M2-brane solution of M-theory given by

$`ds_{11}^2`$ $`=`$ $`H^{2/3}(dt^2+(dx_1+𝒜_{\left(1\right)})^2+(dx_2+_{\left(1\right)})^2)+H^{1/3}dz_i^2,`$
$`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`d\left(H^1dt(dx_1+𝒜_{\left(1\right)})(dx_2+_{\left(1\right)})\right)+[\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}dz_8+\text{8-dim dual}],`$
$`d𝒜_{\left(1\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)},d_{\left(1\right)}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(1\right)}dz_8,`$ (33)
D2/D4/D6/NS5

The D2/D4/D6/NS5 solution is given by

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`H_2^{5/8}H_4^{3/8}H_6^{1/8}H_5^{1/4}(dt^2+dx_1^2+H_4H_5dx_2^2+H_2H_6H_5dy_i^2+H_2H_4dz_j^2),`$
$`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`dtdx_1dx_2dH_2^1+\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi }(dtdx_1d^3ydH_4^1),`$ (34)
$`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^\varphi (dtdx_1d^4zdH_5^1),F_{\left(2\right)}=\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}}\varphi }(dtdx_1dx_2d^4zdH_6^1),`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{log}[H_2H_5^2/(H_4H_6^3)],H_2=H_4(z_j)H(y_i),`$
where $`H_4=H_4(z_j)`$, $`H_6=H_5=H(y_i)`$. The solution can be represented diagrammatically as follows:

$`t`$ $`x_1`$ $`x_2`$ $`y_1`$ $`y_2`$ $`y_3`$ $`z_1`$ $`z_2`$ $`z_3`$ $`z_4`$     D2 $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`H_2`$  D4 $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`H_4`$  D6 $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`H_6`$  NS5 $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`H_5`$

Diagram 2. The D2/D4/D6/NS5 system

The near-horizon geometry is AdS$`{}_{3}{}^{}\times S^3\times S^2\times T^2`$ , given by

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2(\frac{1}{2}dS_{\mathrm{AdS}_3}^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+\frac{1}{4}d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2^2)+d\phi _1^2+d\phi _2^2,`$
$`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2(ϵ_{\left(3\right)}+2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(3\right)})d\phi _1,F_{\left(3\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\lambda \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\left(2\right)}d\phi _1,F_{\left(2\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\lambda \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\left(2\right)}.`$ (35)
The Penrose limit is given by

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dx^+dx^{}+Hdx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+dz_i^2,`$
$`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)},F_{\left(3\right)}=dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)},F_{\left(2\right)}=dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(1\right)},`$ (36)
where the constant form fields are given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`(2dz_1dz_2+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\alpha dz_3dz_4)dz_6,`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\alpha dz_5dz_6,\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(1\right)}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\alpha dz_5,`$ (37)
and

$$H=(z_1^2+z_2^2)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha (z_3^2+z_4^2)2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha z_5^2.$$
(38)
As in the previous example, by T-duality this solution is related to a deformed $`T^2`$-wrapped M2-brane solution of M-theory.

D2/D4/D4/NS1/NS5/NS5

The maximal number of intersecting components that give rise to an AdS structure is six, namely the D2/D4/D4/NS1/NS5/NS5 solution, which is given by

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`H_2^{5/8}H_4^{3/8}\stackrel{~}{H}_4^{3/8}H_1^{3/4}H_5^{1/4}\stackrel{~}{H}_5^{1/4}(dt^2+H_2H_4\stackrel{~}{H}_4dx_1^2+H_4H_1\stackrel{~}{H}_5dx_2^2+`$
$`\stackrel{~}{H}_4H_1H_5dx_3^2+H_2H_4H_1H_5dy_i^2+H_2\stackrel{~}{H}_4H_1\stackrel{~}{H}_5d\stackrel{~}{y}_i^2),`$
$`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`dtdx_2dx_3dH_2^1+\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi }(\stackrel{~}{H}_4dtdx_3d^3\stackrel{~}{y}dH_4^1)+`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi }(H_4dtdx_2d^3yd\stackrel{~}{H}_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}),`$
$`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`dtdx_1dH_1^1+\mathrm{e}^\varphi (\stackrel{~}{H}_5dtdx_1dx_2d^3\stackrel{~}{y}dH_5^1)+`$
$`\mathrm{e}^\varphi (H_5dtdx_1dx_3d^3yd\stackrel{~}{H}_5^1),`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{log}[H_2(H_5\stackrel{~}{H}_5)^2/(H_1^2H_4\stackrel{~}{H}_4)],H_2=H_1=H(y_i)\stackrel{~}{H}(\stackrel{~}{y}_i),`$
where $`H_4=H_5=H(y_i)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_4=\stackrel{~}{H}_5=\stackrel{~}{H}(\stackrel{~}{y}_i)`$. The solution can be represented diagrammatically as follows:

$`t`$ $`x_1`$ $`x_2`$ $`x_3`$ $`y_1`$ $`y_2`$ $`y_3`$ $`\stackrel{~}{y}_1`$ $`\stackrel{~}{y}_2`$ $`\stackrel{~}{y}_3`$     D2 $`\times `$ $``$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`H_2`$  D4 $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`H_4`$  D4 $`\times `$ $``$ $`\times `$ $``$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{H}_4`$  NS1 $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`H_1`$  NS5 $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`H_5`$  NS5 $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $`\times `$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{H}_5`$

Diagram 5. D2/D4/D4/NS1/NS5/NS5 system

We parametrize the coordinates as $`dy_i^2=dy^2+y^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ and $`d\stackrel{~}{y}_i^2=d\stackrel{~}{y}^2+\stackrel{~}{y}^2d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2^2`$, so that

$$H_4=H_5=1+\frac{\lambda }{y},$$
(40)
and likewise for $`\stackrel{~}{H}_4`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_5`$. The near-horizon geometry is $`AdS_2\times S^2\times S^2\times T^4`$ . Explicitly, we have

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}\lambda ^2\left(\frac{1}{2}ds_{\mathrm{AdS}_2}^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(2\right)}^2+d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2^2\right)+d\phi _1^2+d\phi _2^2+d\phi _3^2+d\phi _4^2,`$
$`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(2\right)}d\phi _1d\phi _3+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\left(2\right)}d\phi _1d\phi _4+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}ϵ_{\left(2\right)}d\phi _3d\phi _4),`$
$`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(2\right)}d\phi _4+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2d\phi _3+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}ϵ_{\left(2\right)}d\phi _4).`$ (41)
We find that the Penrose limit of this system is given by

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dx^+dx^{}+Hdx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+dz_i^2,`$
$`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)},F_{\left(3\right)}=dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)},`$ (42)
where the constant form fields are given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(dz_6dz_7dz_1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}\alpha dz_2dz_5dz_6\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\alpha dz_3dz_5dz_7),`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(dz_5dz_1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}\alpha dz_2dz_7\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\alpha dz_3dz_6,`$ (43)
and

$$H=z_1^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha z_2^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha z_3^2.$$
(44)
Note that this solution can be easily lifted to $`D=11`$ as the Penrose limit of the
M2/M2/M5/M5/M5/M5 system. There are six terms in the 4-form field stength in the 11-dimensional pp-wave solution. This is a special case of the general class of M-theory pp-wave solution obtained in .

### 5.2 Type IIB examples

D3/D1/D5/NS1/NS5

The near-horizon geometry of this system is AdS$`{}_{2}{}^{}\times S^3\times S^2\times T^3`$ . Explicitly we find that

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2(\frac{1}{8}ds_{\mathrm{AdS}_2}^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+\frac{1}{4}d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2^2)+d\phi _1^2+d\phi _2^2+d\phi _3^2,`$
$`F_{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(3\right)}d\phi _1d\phi _3+\mathrm{dual},`$
$`F_{\left(3\right)}^{\mathrm{RR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\lambda (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\left(2\right)}d\phi _1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}ϵ_{\left(2\right)}d\phi _3),`$ (45)
$`F_{\left(3\right)}^{\mathrm{NS}}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\lambda (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\left(2\right)}d\phi _3+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}ϵ_{\left(2\right)}d\phi _1).`$
The Penrose limit is given by

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dx^+dx^{}+Hdx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+dz_i^2,`$
$`F_{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(4\right)},F_{\left(3\right)}^{RR}=dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}^{RR},F_{\left(3\right)}^{NS}=dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}^{NS},`$ (46)
where the constant form fields are given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{cos}\alpha dz_2dz_3dz_6dz_8,`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}^{RR}`$ $`=`$ $`dz_1dz_8\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha dz_4dz_6,`$ (47)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}^{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`dz_1dz_6\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha dz_4dz_8),`$
and

$$H=z_1^2\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha (z_2^2+z_3^2)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha z_4^2.$$
(48)
D3/D5/D5/NS5/NS5

The near-horizon geometry of this system is AdS$`{}_{3}{}^{}\times S^2\times S^2\times T^3`$ . Explicitly we have

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2(\frac{1}{2}ds_{\mathrm{AdS}_3}^2+\frac{1}{4}d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2+\frac{1}{4}d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2^2)+d\phi _1^2+d\phi _2^2+d\phi _3^2,`$
$`F_{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2ϵ_{\left(3\right)}d\phi _1\phi _3+\mathrm{dual},`$
$`F_{\left(3\right)}^{\mathrm{RR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(2\right)}d\phi _1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\left(2\right)}d\phi _3),`$ (49)
$`F_{\left(3\right)}^{\mathrm{NS}}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(2\right)}d\phi _3+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\left(2\right)}d\phi _1),`$
The Penrose limit is given by

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dx^+dx^{}+Hdx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+dz_i^2,`$
$`F_{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(4\right)},F_{\left(3\right)}^{RR}=dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}^{RR},F_{\left(3\right)}^{NS}=dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}^{NS},`$ (50)
where the constant form fields are given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`2dz_1dz_2dz_6dz_8,`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}^{RR}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(\mathrm{cos}\alpha dz_3dz_6\mathrm{sin}\alpha dz_4dz_8),`$ (51)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}^{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(\mathrm{cos}\alpha dz_3dz_8\mathrm{sin}\alpha dz_4dz_6),`$
and

$$H=(z_1^2+z_2^2)2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha z_3^22\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha z_4^2.$$
(52)
## 6 Conclusions

We have considered the Penrose limit of $`AdS_3`$ and $`AdS_2`$ spacetimes that arise from various non-standard brane intersections in type IIA, IIB and heterotic theories. We have focused on the non-standard intersection of two 5-branes and one string, whose near-horizon geometry is AdS$`{}_{3}{}^{}\times S^3\times S^3\times S^1`$. A new feature is that the product spacetime involves two 3-spheres. After making an orthogonal rotation of the two foliating circles of the two 3-spheres, we obtain a one-parameter family of Penrose limits. Through the study of the supersymmetry of the resulting pp-wave, we find that supernumerary Killing spinors arise only for a 45 degree rotation. Thus, there are 4 supernumerary Killing spinors in addition to the 16 standard Killing spinors. The existence of the supernumerary Killing spinors ensures that the corresponding light-cone string action has linearly-realised supersymmetry. It is of interest to further investigate the role of the variable rotation parameter for supersymmetry breaking.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mirjam Cvetič and Chris Pope for useful conversations.


format: text

text:
# Signals for black body limit in coherent ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions.

## 1 Introduction

Studies of the coherent interactions of photons with nucleons and nuclei were one of the highlights of the strong interaction studies of the seventies, for the excellent summaries see .

The fundamental question which one can investigate in the coherent processes is how interactions change for different types of projectiles with increase of the size/thickness of the target. Several regimes appear possible. In the case of a hadronic projectile (proton, pion, etc) high-energy interactions with the nucleus rather rapidly approach a black body limit (BBL) in which the total cross section of the interaction is equal to $`2\pi R_A^2`$. Another extreme limit is the interaction of small size projectiles (or wave packages). In this case at sufficiently high energies the system remains frozen during the passage through the nucleus and the regime of color transparency is reached in which the amplitude of interactions is proportional to the gluon density of the nucleus which is somewhat smaller than the sum of the nucleon gluon densities due to the leading twist nuclear shadowing. In this regime the cross section of interaction rapidly grows with energy reflecting the fast increase of the gluon densities at small $`x`$ and large $`Q^2`$ and it may reach ultimately the black limit of interaction from the perturbative domain. (This limit can correspond to quite different perturbative QCD dynamics, in particular it could be reached already at $`x10^3`$ where $`\mathrm{ln}x`$ effects are a small correction.) The BBL for the interaction of the small size dipoles with heavy nuclei represents a new regime of interactions when the leading twist approximation and therefore the whole notion of the parton distributions becomes inapplicable for the description of hard QCD processes in the small $`x`$ regime. Obviously there should exist also many cases when the projectile represents a superposition of configurations of different sizes (leading to fluctuations of the strength of interaction).

In this respect interactions of photons with heavy nuclei provide unique opportunities since the photon wave function contains both the hadron-like configurations (vector meson dominance) and the direct photon configurations (small $`q\overline{q}`$ components). The important advantage of the photon is that at high energies the BBL is manifested in diffraction into a multitude of the hadronic final states (elastic diffraction $`\gamma \gamma `$ is negligible) while in the hadron case only elastic diffraction survives in the BBL and details of the dynamics leading to this regime remain hidden. Spectacular manifestations of BBL in (virtual) photon diffraction include strong enhancement of the large mass tail of the diffractive spectrum as compared to the expectations of the the triple Pomeron limit, large cross section of the high $`p_t`$ dijet production .

In preQCD time V.Gribov explored the complete absorption of hadrons by heavy nucleus to calculate the total cross section of photo(electro)production processes off heavy nuclei through the hadron polarization operator for the photon $`\rho (M^2)`$:

$$F_T(x,Q^2)=\underset{m_0^2}{\overset{2q_0/R_A}{}}𝑑M^2\frac{2\pi R_A^2}{12\pi ^3}\frac{Q^2M^2\rho (M^2)}{(M^2+Q^2)^2},$$
(1)
where $`q_0=\omega _\gamma `$ is the photon energy, $`m_0^2m_\rho ^2`$. The upper cutoff in the integral in the black body limit formulae (the Gribov approximation) comes from the nucleus form factor

$$t_{min}R_A^2/3\left(\frac{M^2+Q^2}{2q_0}\right)^2R_A^2/3<<1.$$
(2)
The distinctive feature of Eq.(1) is that the contribution of large masses in the wave function of projectile photon (a direct photon contribution) is not suppressed. Consequently, Eq. (1) leads to $`\sigma _{\gamma A}^{tot}2\pi R_A^2\alpha _{em}\mathrm{ln}(2q_0/R_Am_\rho ^2)`$ for $`A1`$ (this is qualitatively different from the hadron case where $`\sigma _{hA}^{tot}2\pi R_A^2`$), and grossly violates expectations of the Bjorken scaling for the $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`\sigma _{\gamma A}^{tot}`$.

To overcome this puzzle J.Bjorken suggested a long time ago the aligned jet model in which only $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs with small $`p_t`$ can interact while high $`p_t`$ configurations in the photon wave function remain sterile . Existence of sterile states has been explained later as due to the color transparency phenomenon . More recently it was understood that states which behave as sterile at moderate energies, may interact at high enough energies with a hadron target with cross sections comparable to that for soft QCD phenomena.

Thus the Gribov’s assumptions are justified in QCD for the interaction of a range of hadronic components of the photon wave function with heavy nucleus target. At the same time even at small $`x`$ some components are still small enough, so that they interact with a small cross section \- for these components the color transparency still survives. Hence one needs smaller $`x`$ to reach the BBL than allowed by the cutoff in the integral in Eq.(1). This $`x`$-range was not reached so far experimentally in $`ep`$ collisions.

It is worth emphasizing that the hypothesis of BBL corresponds to the assumption that at sufficiently small $`x`$ partons with large virtuality interact with heavy nuclei without any suppression with a cross sections $`2\pi R_A^2`$. It is this feature of the BBL which is responsible for the gross violation of the Bjorken scaling and for the above mentioned qualitative difference of the energy dependence of $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma A}`$ and $`\sigma _{tot}^{hA}`$.

One of striking features of the BBL regime is the suppression of nondiagonal transitions in the photon interaction with heavy nuclei  111In Ref. it was assumed that one can neglect interference effects for a nucleon target also. In this case in order to preserve the Bjorken scaling one has to make an assumption that the cross section of the interaction of heavy mass configurations with nucleons decreases $`1/M^2`$. . Indeed in the BBL the dominant contribution to the coherent diffraction originates from “a shadow” of the fully absorptive interactions at impact parameters $`bR_A`$ and hence the orthogonality condition is applicable.

Very little is known experimentally so far about coherent photon induced diffractive phenomena due to the problems of separating events where nucleus remained intact in the fixed target experiments and absence of electron-nucleus colliders. New opportunities for the investigation of photon-nucleus interactions become available in ultraperipheral collisions (UPC) of heavy nuclei at RHIC and LHC. These studies will allow to extract the cross section of the coherent $`\gamma A`$ interactions up to $`\sqrt{s}60(15)`$ GeV (LHC/RHIC) due to a possibility to select the events where colliding nuclei remain intact or nearly intact, see e.g. , see Refs. for the recent reviews and extensive lists of references. Recently we investigated possibilities of studying color transparency and perturbative color opacity related to the leading twist gluon shadowing in $`J/\psi `$ UPC and commented on the onset of BBL for $`J/\psi `$ production .

In this paper we will continue studies of the UPC phenomena. Our aim is to evaluate pattern of soft QCD phenomena in the proximity to black body limit, disappearance of color transparency phenomenon in the hard processes with increase of energies. We will study photoproduction of $`\rho `$-mesons and the $`I=1`$ mesonic states with masses $`1.5M^24GeV^2`$ usually generically referred to as a $`\rho ^{}`$-meson in the processes: $`\gamma +AV+A,A+AA+A+V;V=\rho ,\rho ^{}`$. To visualize expected new phenomena we will use generalized vector dominance model which takes into account fluctuations of the interaction strength to show that relative yield of $`\rho `$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ mesons is sensitive to the onset of BBL physics in soft regime. We will argue that the production of two jets in the process $`A+AA+A+2jets`$ in collisions of heavy nuclei provides a new effective method of probing the onset of BBL for the hard QCD phenomena.

## 2 Vector meson production off nuclei in
the generalized vector dominance model

In this section we will use generalized vector dominance model to describe coherent photoproduction of hadronic states of $`M2`$ GeV off nuclei.

The vector dominance model (VDM)  was first suggested as an explanation of the nuclear shadowing in the interactions of photons with nuclei  in a close connection with the Bell discussion of the shadowing in neutrino - nucleus scattering . It was also pointed out in  that at sufficiently high energies heavier states may become important. Importance of extending VDM to include the heavy mass states - Generalized VDM (GVDM) was further emphasized and explored in the late sixties . In particular one needs large mass states to explain the slope of $`Q^2`$ dependence of structure functions at small $`Q^2`$ -$`1/(1+Q^2/0.71)`$ behavior instead of $`1/(Q^2+m_\rho ^2)^2`$ predicted by the VDM.

The main ambiguity in such an extension was the issue of nondiagonal transitions where a photon initially converts into one vector state - $`V_1`$ which through diffractive interactions with a nucleon converts into another state $`V_2`$. Such amplitude would interfere with the process of direct production of $`V_2`$. Such nondiagonal transitions were introduced in a number of GVD models . Physically the importance of such transitions could be justified on the basis of the interpretation of the early Bjorken scaling for moderately small $`x10^2`$ as due to the color transparency phenomenon - presence in the virtual photon of hadron type and point-like type configurations . Presence of nondiagonal transitions is also crucial for ensuring a quantitative matching with perturbative QCD regime for $`Q^2`$ few GeV2. Hence it is reasonable to use GVDM for the modeling of the production of the light states off nuclei.

The amplitude of the vector meson production off a nucleon can be written within the GVDM as

$$A(\gamma +NV_j+N)=\underset{i}{}\frac{e}{f_{V_i}}A(V_i+NV_j+N),$$
(3)
where $`f_{V_i}`$ are connected to the width of decay of the corresponding resonance in the process $`e^+e^{}hadrons`$. In the case of nuclei calculation of the amplitude of the Glauber scattering with production of a meson $`V`$ requires taking into account both the nondiagonal transitions due to the transition of the photon to a different meson $`V^{}`$ in the vertex $`\gamma V^{}`$ and due to change of the meson in multiple rescatterings like $`\gamma VV^{}V`$. This physics is equivalent to inelastic shadowing phenomenon familiar from hadron-nucleus scattering . The Glauber model for the description of these processes is well known, so, we present here only the basic formulae which we will use to calculate the photoproduction cross section222In this calculation we neglect the triple Pomeron contribution which is present at high energies. This contribution though noticeable for the scattering off the lightest nuclei becomes a very small correction for the scattering of heavy nuclei due the strongly absorptive nature of interaction at the central impact parameters.

$$\frac{d\sigma _{\gamma AVA}(t)}{dt}=\pi \left|\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}J_0(p_tb)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)b𝑑b\right|^2$$
(4)
Here $`J_0(z)`$ is the Bessel function, $`p_t=\sqrt{t_{min}t}`$, $`t_{min}=\frac{M_V^4}{4q_0^2}`$ is longitudinal momentum transfer in $`\gamma V`$ transition, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{b})`$ is the nuclear profile function which is obtained in impact parameter space from the solution of the coupled multichannel Glauber equations for production of vector mesons $`\rho ,\rho ^{}`$ which takes into account the finite coherence length effects due to the longitudinal momentum transfers (see e.g.  for the explicit expressions).

In Ref.  the simplest nondiagonal model (which is a truncation of a more general model ) was considered with two states $`\rho `$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ which have the same diagonal amplitudes of scattering off a nucleon and the fixed ratio of coupling constants

$$f_\rho ^{}/f_\rho =\sqrt{3},$$
(5)
while the ratio of the nondiagonal and diagonal amplitudes

$$\frac{A(\rho +N\rho ^{}+N)}{A(\rho +N\rho +N)}=ϵ,$$
(6)
and the value $`\sigma _{\rho N}^{tot}`$ were found from the fit to the forward $`\gamma +A\rho +A`$ cross sections measured at $`\omega _\gamma =`$6.1, 6.6 and 8.8 GeV. It was pointed out that this model with reasonable values of $`\sigma _{\rho N}`$ and $`ϵ`$ allows to bring the value of $`f_\rho `$ determined from the photoproduction of $`\rho `$-mesons off protons assuming approximate equality of the cross sections of $`\rho N`$ and $`\pi N`$ interactions into a good agreement with the $`e^+e^{}`$ data thus removing a long standing 20% discrepancy between two determinations. One should emphasize here that in the logic of GVDM $`\rho ^{}`$-meson approximates the hadron production in the interval of hadron masses $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^22GeV^2`$, so the values of the production cross section refer to the corresponding mass interval.

As a first step we shall refine the model and then compare it with more detailed experimental data. First of all we diminish the dependence on the nuclear structure parameters by calculating the nuclear densities in the Hartree-Fock-Skyrme (HFS) approach. This model not only provided an excellent description (with an accuracy $`2\%`$) of the nuclear root mean square radii and the binding energies of spherical nuclei along the periodical table from carbon to uranium but also was successfully used to describe in the Glauber approximation such detailed characteristics of the nuclear structure as the shell model momentum distributions in the high energy (p,2p) and (e,e’p) reactions. Next, we fixed the values of the total cross section of the $`\rho N`$ interaction and $`\eta _{\rho N}=\frac{\mathrm{}eA_{\rho N}}{\mathrm{}mA_{\rho N}}`$ using the corresponding parameterizations suggested in the Landshoff-Donnachie model. Accounting for the nondiagonal $`\rho \rho ^{}`$ transitions the value of $`ϵ`$ was looked for to provide a best fit to the differential cross section of the $`\rho `$-meson photoproduction off lead at $`\omega _\gamma =6.2`$ GeV and $`p_t^2=0.001`$ $`GeV^2`$. As a result (Fig.1a) we found $`ϵ=0.18`$ which is indeed very close to the lower end of the range $`ϵ=0.2÷0.28`$ suggested in . Note that this value leads to a suppression of the differential cross section of the $`\rho `$-photoproduction in $`\gamma +p\rho +p`$ by a factor of $`(1ϵ/\sqrt{3})^20.80`$ practically coinciding with phenomenological renormalization factor $`R=0.84`$ introduced in  to achieve the best fit of the elementary $`\rho `$-meson photoproduction forward cross section in the VDM which neglects mixing effects.

With all parameters fixed we calculated the differential cross sections of $`\rho `$-production off nuclei and found a good agreement (Fig.1b-f) with available data.

A rather small systematic discrepancy with the data at $`p_t^20.01GeV^2`$ appears to be due to the incoherent $`\rho `$ photoproduction which is strongly suppressed for the very small $`p_t`$ but gives a contribution comparable to the coherent one for $`p_t^20.01GeV^2`$.

We have also checked the description of the A-dependence for the forward $`\rho `$ photoproduction cross section (Fig.2). In difference from Ref. we did not find any evidence for an increase of $`ϵ`$ by almost $`50\%`$ (from 0.2 to 0.28) when the energy of photons is increased from 6.2 GeV up to 8.8 GeV.

As far as we know previously this important check of the Glauber model predictions in the vector meson production off $`A>2`$ nuclei has never been performed in such self-consistent way. In view of a good agreement of the model with the data on $`\rho `$-meson production in the low energy domain we will use this model to consider the $`\rho `$ meson photoproduction at higher energies of photons. The increase of the coherence length with the photon energy leads to a qualitative difference in the energy dependence of the coherent vector meson production off light and heavy nuclei (Fig. 3) and to a change of the A-dependence for the ratio of the forward $`\rho ^{}`$ and $`\rho `$-meson production cross sections between $`\omega _\gamma 10GeV`$ and $`\omega _\gamma 50GeV`$ (Fig.4). The observed pattern reflects the difference of the coherence lengths of the $`\rho `$-meson and a heavier $`\rho ^{}`$-meson which is important for the intermediate photon energies $`30GeV`$

Unfortunately no experimental data are available at the moment on the coherent $`\rho ^{}`$ photoproduction and on the $`\rho `$ photoproduction at energies $``$ 10 GeV. Such studies maybe possible with the HERMES detector at DESY and in the E-160 experiment at SLAC. On the other hand, a very promising way to collect such data would be a study of the coherent light vector meson production in the ultraperipheral ion collisions (UPC) at RHIC and LHC where one can explore the wide range of the quasi-real photon energies.

## 3 Vector meson production in ultraperipheral collisions

Production of vector mesons in ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions can be expressed in the Weizsacker - Williams (WW) approximation through the cross section of the vector meson production in $`\gamma A`$ scattering

$$\frac{d\sigma _{AAAAV}}{dy}=2𝑑\stackrel{}{b}T_{AA}(\stackrel{}{b})n(y,\stackrel{}{b})\sigma _{\gamma AVA}(y).$$
(7)
Here $`y`$ is rapidity of the produced vector meson, $`T_{AA}(\stackrel{}{b})`$ is the thickness function of colliding nuclei on the impact parameter $`\stackrel{}{b}`$, $`n(\stackrel{}{b},y)`$ is the flux of photon with energy $`w=\frac{m_V}{2}e^y`$ emitted by one of nuclei and $`\sigma _{\gamma AVA}(y)`$ we calculated integrating the Eq.(4) over the momentum transfer in the range $`t_{min}t\mathrm{}`$.

As we discussed in Section 2, the GVDM with the value of $`f_\rho `$ fixed to the value determined from the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation gives a better description of the cross section of the coherent $`\rho `$ production from nucleons. We also demonstrated that it gives a very good description of the absolute cross section and $`t`$-dependence of the cross section of the $`\rho `$-meson photoproduction off nuclei. Hence it is natural to expect that it would provide a reliable predictions for production of vector mesons in UPC. In particular, we calculated within this model coherent cross sections of both the $`\rho `$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ mesons. The inelastic diffractive contribution is expected to be rejected using the veto from Zero Degree Neutron Calorimeter which is implemented in the RHIC experiments and is planned for the LHC. This veto is the least effective for the single inelastic diffraction as this process will often result in the events where one nuclear proton is removed and the residual nucleus remains in the ground or a low excitation state. Our calculation of the single inelastic diffraction shown in Fig.6 demonstrates that this background is very small for a wide range of central rapidities.

The results of our calculations for the total cross sections are given in Table 1.

It should be emphasized that we have got the cross sections of the coherent $`\rho `$ production considerably larger than estimates in Ref.  where the first quantitative study of the coherent $`\rho `$-meson production in kinematics of the peripheral ion collisions at RHIC and LHC was presented. In  as well as in  the cross section was calculated as:

$$d\sigma _{\gamma +AV+A}=\frac{\alpha _{em}}{4f_\rho ^2}\sigma _{tot}^2(\rho A)\underset{t_{min}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑tF_A^2(t),$$
(8)
where $`F_A(t)`$ is the nuclear form factor. Further it was assumed in  that $`\sigma _{tot}(\rho A)`$ is given by the classical mechanics formula:

$$\sigma _{tot}(\rho A)=d^2\stackrel{}{b}[1\mathrm{exp}(\sigma _{tot}(\rho N)T(\stackrel{}{b}))],$$
(9)
where $`T(\stackrel{}{b})`$ is the usual thickness function. It’s easy to estimate that this formula leads to a substantially smaller value of the total cross section than the quantum mechanical Glauber expression $`\sigma _{tot}(\rho A)=2d^2\stackrel{}{b}[1\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\sigma _{tot}^{\rho N}}{2}T(\stackrel{}{b}))]`$ \- a factor of two smaller for heavy enough nuclei: $`\sigma _{tot}(\rho A)=\pi R_A^2`$ instead of $`2\pi R_A^2`$. To show explicitly the difference in results we compare in Fig. 5 the rapidity distributions obtained in the VDM+Glauber model with correct accounting for the longitudinal momentum transfer but without nondiagonal terms (solid line) and result of calculations(dashed line) with the same parameters() and the HFS nuclear form factor but in the model based on Eqs. (8,9) used in .

In the follow up paper  authors considered $`p_t`$ distribution of the produced vector mesons and made an interesting observation that the amplitudes of the production of a vector mesons produced when a left moving nucleus emits the photon and when right moving nucleus emits a photon should destructively interfere. Due to the condition that essential impact parameters in AA collisions are larger than $`2R_A`$ a significant interference occurs only for $`p_t1/2R_A`$ corresponding to $`p_t`$ 10 MeV . This $`p_t`$ range constitutes a small fraction of whole permitted phase volume and hence the interference effects can be neglected for the case of the cross sections integrated over $`p_t`$ which were required to calculate the rapidity distributions presented here (Fig.6).

In the case of $`\rho `$ production corrections due to nondiagonal transitions are relatively small ($``$ 15%) for the case of scattering off a nuclei. As a result we find that the GVD cross section is close to the one calculated in the VD model for heavy nuclei as well.

Situation is much more interesting for $`\rho ^{}`$ production. In this case cross section of production of $`\rho ^{}`$ off a nucleon is strongly suppressed as compared to the case when the $`\rho \rho ^{}`$ transitions are switched off. The extra suppression factor is $`0.5`$.

In accordance with the general argument of Gribov the non-diagonal transitions disappear in the limit of large A (black body limit) due to the condition of orthogonality of hadronic wave functions . Hence we expect that in the limit of $`A\mathrm{}`$:

$$\frac{d\sigma (\gamma +AV_1+A)/dt}{d\sigma (\gamma +AV_2+A)/dt}_{|A\mathrm{}}=\left(f_2/f_1\right)^2.$$
(10)
In reality the $`\rho `$-meson is a broad resonance which also interferes with the nonresonance $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ continuum, and $`\rho ^{}`$ represents a set of overlapping resonances and continuum. Also the detectors are likely to be able to detect only some of the final states. Hence it is convenient to use a more general relation for the productions of states $`h_1,h_2`$ of invariant masses $`M_1^2,M_2^2`$:

$$\frac{d\sigma (\gamma +Ah_1+A)/dt}{d\sigma (\gamma +Ah_2+A)/dt}_{|A\mathrm{}}=\frac{\sigma (e^+e^{}h_1)}{\sigma (e^+e^{}h_2)}.$$
(11)
Indeed we have found from calculations that in the case of the coherent photoproduction off lead the nondiagonal transitions becomes strongly suppressed with increase of the photon energy. As a result the $`\rho ^{}/\rho `$ ratio increases, exceeds the ratio of the $`\gamma pVp`$ forward cross sections calculated with accounting for $`\rho \rho ^{}`$ transitions already at $`\omega _\gamma 50`$ GeV and becomes close to the value of $`f_\rho ^2/f_\rho ^{}^2`$ which can be considered as the limit when one can treat the interaction with the heavy nucleus as a black one. The same trend to BBL is seen from A-dependence presented for kinematics at LHC corresponding the value of energy $`W_{\gamma p}=60`$ GeV (Fig.7) .

It is worth noting here that presence of nondiagonal transitions which in terms of the formalism of the scattering eigen states  corresponds to the fluctuations of the interaction cross section leads to a substantial modification of the pattern of the approach to BBL. For example if one would neglect nondiagonal transitions one would have to reduce both $`\rho N`$ and $`\rho ^{}N`$ cross sections in order to keep the values of the production cross sections in $`\gamma +p\rho +p`$ the same as in the considered GVDM. For the $`\rho `$-meson the reduction effect is a small correction $`(1\frac{ϵ}{\sqrt{3}})0.9`$, while the cross section of $`\rho ^{}N`$ interaction is reduced by a substantially larger factor $`(1\sqrt{3}ϵ)0.7`$ This would lead to a noticeable reduction of the total cross section of the $`\rho ^{}A`$ interaction as compared to the BBL value of $`2\pi R_A^2`$ and reduces the $`\rho ^{}/\rho `$ ratio for $`A200`$ by $`10\%`$ as compared to reduction by a factor 0.9 in the original model. At the same time in a number of GVD models it is assumed that $`\sigma _{tot}(VN)1/M^2`$. In such a model the $`\rho ^{}/\rho `$ ratio for $`Pb`$ would be reduced by a factor $`3`$.

The general BBL expression for the differential cross section of the production of the invariant mass $`M^2`$  is

$$\frac{d\sigma _{(\gamma +A\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}M^{\prime \prime }+A)}}{dtdM^2}=\frac{\alpha _{em}}{3\pi }\frac{(2\pi R_A^2)^2}{16\pi }\frac{\rho (M^2)}{M^2}\frac{4\left|J_1(\sqrt{t}R_A)\right|^2}{tR_A^2}.$$
(12)
Hence by comparing the extracted cross section of the diffractive production of states with certain masses with the black body limit result - Eq.(12) one would be able to determine up to what masses in the photon wave function interaction remains black. Onset of BBL limit for hard processes should reveal itself also in the faster increase with energy of cross sections of photoproduction of excited states with that for ground state meson. It would be especially advantageous for these studies to use a set of nuclei - one medium range like $`Ca`$ and another heavy one - one could remove the edge effects and use the length of about 10 fm of nuclear matter.

Note in passing that an interesting change of the low-mass dipion spectrum is expected in the discussed limit. It should be strongly suppressed as compared to the the case of scattering off proton where nonresonance continuum is much larger than in $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ process.

## 4 Diffractive dijet production

For the $`\gamma A`$ energies which will be available at LHC one may expect that the BBL in the scattering off heavy nuclei would be a good approximation for the masses $`M`$ in the photon wave function up to few GeV. This is the domain which is described by perturbative QCD for $`x10^3`$ for the proton targets and larger $`x`$ for scattering off nuclei. The condition of large longitudinal distances - small longitudinal transfer will be applicable in this case up to quite large values of the produced diffractive mass (though it will not hold for masses above 3 GeV or so at RHIC). Really $`x_{eff}=M^2/s_{\gamma N}=M/2E_N`$ will be $`10^3`$ for $`M=4GeV`$ for $`y=0`$. So that the condition $`l_{coh}=1/m_Nx_{eff}2R_A`$ is satisfied.

In the BBL the dominant channel of diffraction for large masses is production of two jets with the total cross section given by Eq.(12) and with a characteristic angular distribution $`(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )`$, where $`\theta `$ is the c.m. angle . On the contrary in the perturbative QCD limit the diffractive dijet production except charmed jet production is strongly suppressed . The suppression is due to the structure of the coupling of the wave function of the real photon wave to two gluons when calculated in the lowest order in $`\alpha _s`$. As a result in the real photon case hard diffraction involving light quarks is connected to production of $`q\overline{q}g`$ and higher states. Thus the dijet photoproduction should be very sensitive to the onset of BBL regime.

Note that in the case of photon nucleon scattering at $`\omega _\gamma 100GeV`$  the normalized differential $`\frac{1}{\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma N}}d\sigma /dM^2`$ for diffraction into large masses ($`2GeV`$) is very similar to that for the pion nucleon scattering and appears to be dominated by the triple Reggeon limit corresponding to the process where a photon first converts to a $`\rho `$ meson and next a large mass is produced in the $`\rho N`$ diffractive scattering. Since the triple Pomeron coupling constant is quite small this process should be a small correction in the BBL. Besides in this limit the triple Pomeron process is screened by the multiple Pomeron exchanges and originates solely from the scattering off the rim of the nucleus. Hence it is suppressed at least by a factor $`A^{1/3}`$ as compared to the process of direct diffraction into heavy masses.

A competing process for photoproduction of dijets off heavy nuclei is production of dijets in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions where the second photon is provided by the Coulomb field of the nucleus. Note that the dijets produced in this process have positive C-parity and hence this amplitude does not interfere with the amplitude of the dijet production in the $`\gamma IP`$ interaction which have negative C-parity.

For the calculation of the cross section of dijet production in $`\gamma +\gamma `$ collisions we use the lowest order perturbative QCD result which coincides up to the number of colors factor and summation over the quark flavors with the well known QED result for the lepton pair production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions:

$$\frac{d\sigma (\gamma +\gamma jet+jet)}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=3\underset{i}{}e_{q_i}^4\alpha _{em}^2\frac{1}{M^2}\left[\frac{2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }1\right].$$
(13)
Here the sum over the quark flavors goes over quarks with $`m_qM/2`$ and $`p_t^{jet}`$ is sufficiently large to suppress non-perturbative contribution. Using the Weizsacker - Williams approximation we evaluate the ratio of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\gamma IP`$ contributions to the dijet production in AA collisions in the BBL with the logarithmic accuracy:

$$R=\frac{d\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }(A+Adijet+A+A)}{d\sigma _{\gamma IP}(A+Adijet+A+A)}=\frac{_ie_{q_i}^4}{_ie_{q_i}^2}\frac{16Z^2\alpha _{em}^2}{M^2R_A^2sin^2\theta }\mathrm{ln}\frac{2q_0}{M^2R_A}.$$
(14)
In the derivation of Eq. (14) we neglected a difference of the energy dependences of the processes. For the kinematics of interest (large $`p_t`$ of jets and region of produced masses $`M\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}GeV`$) $`\theta =90^o`$ in the center of mass of the produced system and we can account for three lightest flavors, hence $`\frac{_ie_{q_i}^4}{_ie_{q_i}^2}=1/3`$. One can easily see that $`R1`$ for production of high $`p_t`$ jets corresponding to $`\mathrm{sin}\theta 1`$, and hence the $`\gamma \gamma `$ contribution can be safely neglected.

It is worth emphasizing that at the energies below the BBL where diffraction of the photon to dijets can be legitimately calculated in the lowest order in $`\alpha _s`$ (cf. calculation of a similar process of dijet production in the pion - hadron scattering in Ref. ) the electromagnetic mechanism is much more important. It is enhanced by a factor $`1/\alpha _s^2`$ and becomes much more prominent with increase of $`p_t`$ of the jet. Also it it enhanced for very small total momentum of the dijet system. Observation of the last effect is hardly feasible, cf. the above discussion of the vector meson production.

## 5 Conclusions

We demonstrated that ultraperipheral AA collisions is effective method of probing onset of BBL regime in hard processes at small $`x`$. We have demonstrated that the Glauber model predicts a significantly larger coherent $`\rho `$-meson production rates than the previous calculations. We predict a significant increase of the ratio of the yields of $`\rho ,\rho ^{}`$ mesons in coherent processes off heavy nuclei due to the blackening of the soft QCD interactions in which fluctuations of the interaction strength are present. An account of nondiagonal transitions leads to a prediction of a significant enhancement of production of heavier diffractive states especially production of high $`p_t`$ dijets. Study of these channels may allow to get an important information on the onset of the black body limit in the diffraction of real photons.

We thank J.Bjorken, S.Brodsky, G.Shaw for useful discussions and GIF, CRDF and DOE for support.