text:
# Simultaneity and generalized connections in general relativity

## I Introduction

Since the early days of special relativity, the isotropy of the speed of light was considered as conventional, and related to the synchronization convention of distant clocks. The discussion was revived in the last decades by a controversial experimental test of the isotropy of the speed of light will92 ; anderson98  and by arguments which showed the privileged status of the Einstein synchronization convention over other conventions malament77 ; anderson98 . On the other side, some authors anderson98 ; minguzzi02  reconsidered those results proving the independence of the laws of physics from the synchronization convention (simultaneity convention) adopted, and the existence of a set of conventions alternative to the isotropic one. Along these lines, it was shown that the causal structure of Minkowski spacetime follows solely from the constancy of the speed of light over closed paths minguzzi02 ; minguzzi02d . This provided new confidence on the local Minkowski nature of the spacetime manifold, and suggested how to make statements without relying on synchronization conventions. The strategy was to connect convention-free quantities (i.e. independent of the synchronization convention), like the two-way speed of light, to convention-free quantities, like the causal structure. This convention-free approach will prove to be useful in more general situations.

Leaving inertial frames in special relativity things become far more clear. In general it becomes impossible even to synchronize distant clocks using the Einstein synchronization convention and hence no question arises on its predominance over other conventions. One cannot avoid the arbitrariness of the choice of a global synchronization. A formalism would be welcome if it is able to provide quantities independent of the synchronization convention adopted. This formalism is that of gauge theories. The aim of this work is to fix completely the parallelism between conventionality of simultaneity and gauge theories. The need for a gauge formalism was already noticed anderson92 ; minguzzi02 . Here, a coherent exposition in light of Ehresmann’s theory of connections kobayashi63  is given. It has the great advantage of unifying old and new results (see Eq. (29) and its interpretation as a Bianchi identity) in a common formalism which provides new insights on the geometry of spacetime.

We start with stationary frames in general relativity. Our conclusions will have straightforward specializations in usual contexts like the rotating platform in special relativity or the Kerr metric in general relativity. Then we study simultaneity in non-stationary frames showing that it is still described by a gauge theory in a generalized sense already developed by mathematicians michor91 ; mangiarotti84 ; modugno91 . The derivation is short but needs at least some notions of differential geometry of principal fiber bundles kobayashi63 ; wu75 . We shall use the conventions of Kobayashi and Nomizu kobayashi63  apart from the wedge product that here is fixed by $`\alpha \beta =\alpha \beta \beta \alpha `$. The spacetime metric has signature (+ - - -).

## II The geometry of extended reference frames

In everyday experience we deal with reference frames extended over large scales. On the Earth’s surface, physics laboratories communicate to each other considering themselves at rest with respect to the same global reference frame. Such a situation is very different from the local inertial reference frame that can be constructed in the neighborhood of a given free falling, non rotating, observer. There, locally, the usual Minkowski spacetime is recovered and the Euclidean spatial metric (that experienced by rods at rest with respect to the observer) is derived as the projection of the spacetime metric over the simultaneity slice, where the simultaneity of events is defined by the Einstein convention. Things change when a large number of observers are brought together to form an extended reference frame. For instance, the Einstein simultaneity convention is unsuited for rotating systems because clocks cannot be synchronized in that way all around a closed path. The spatial metric can no more be defined as the projection of the spacetime metric over the simultaneity slice because the Einstein synchronization convention, in general, does not work in the large and, therefore, such a slice does not exist. Hence, the spatial metric needs a more general definition (see section III).

Let $`M`$ be the spacetime manifold of metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, and let $`k`$ be a time-like Killing vector field. We shall say that a body is at rest with respect to the stationary frame if its worldline is an integral line of the Killing vector field. Its four-velocity is (we shall use the symbol $`u`$ also to denote the 1-form $`u_\alpha `$; its meaning will be clear from the context)

$$u=\frac{k}{\sqrt{kk}}.$$
(1)
Let $`G=T_1`$ be the one-parameter group of diffeomorphisms generated by the Killing vector field and let $`t`$ be the corresponding parameter, $`k=_t`$. The previous definition identifies a point of space of the stationary frame with an integral curve of the Killing vector field, hence the ”space” is defined by

$$S=M/G,$$
(2)
that is, as the quotient space of $`M`$ under the action of the Lie group $`G`$. Here, we recognize, at least locally, all the ingredients of a principal fiber bundle: $`M`$ is the principal bundle, $`G`$ is the structure group and $`S`$ is the base. We need only to define the right action of $`g=e^tG`$ on $`mM`$ as $`mg\varphi _t(m)`$ where $`\varphi _t`$ sends an event to its evolution after a Killing time $`t`$. The fiber $`F_s`$ over $`sS`$ is given by the integral line identified with $`s`$, and we shall refer to it also as the worldline of $`s`$. For definiteness it is assumed that the projection $`\pi :MS`$ of the bundle onto the base is differentiable. Finally, the principal bundle is trivial because its structure group, the group of translations in one-dimension, is contractible steenrod70 .

The systematic construction of the gauge theory would be complete if we could provide a 1-form $`\omega `$ (the connection) on $`M`$, with the following properties kobayashi63

$`(a)`$ $`\omega (k)=1,`$ (3)
$`(b)`$ $`\varphi _t^{}\omega =\omega .`$ (4)
where $`\varphi _t^{}`$ is the pullback of $`\varphi _t`$. This is accomplished by the choice

$$\omega =\frac{k_\mu \mathrm{d}x^\mu }{kk}.$$
(5)
Statement (a) follows trivially from substitution and statement (b) from the invariance of (5) under translations: $`L_kk=L_kg=0`$. In a given event $`m`$, the tangent space $`T_m`$ splits in two parts, the vertical space $`V_m`$ generated by the Killing vector field, and the horizontal space $`H_m`$ orthogonal to it: $`\omega (X)=0XH`$.

Let us investigate more closely the physical meaning of this gauge theory. An observer at rest in the stationary frame can define, in his neighborhood, a simultaneity slice in compliance with the Einstein synchronization convention.

The coordinates obtained following the Einstein convention, even for events far away from the worldline, are known as Märzke-Wheeler coordinates marzke64 ; pauri00 . Here we are interested only in the trivial result that the worldline is indeed orthogonal to the simultaneity slices. This result should be expected because it is a local statement that holds in special relativity. At least locally this means, as it was emphasized by Robb robb14 ; anderson98 , that the Einstein convention corresponds to taking as simultaneous with $`mM`$ those events in a neighborhood of $`m`$ that lie in the exponential map of the plane perpendicular to $`u`$. From this we see that the horizontal space $`H_m`$ identifies those events which are simultaneous with $`m`$ with respect to an observer at rest in the stationary frame and placed in $`s=\pi (m)`$. In the following we shall refer to $`\omega `$ as the Poincaré connection, because Poincaré poincare04a ; poincare04b  was the first who defined the synchronization convention that, later, was named after Einstein.

Let $`\tau (\lambda )`$ be a curve on $`S`$. The observers, all along $`\tau `$, synchronize the neighboring clocks using the Einstein synchronization convention. Given an event $`\tau ^{}(0)`$, $`\pi (\tau ^{}(0))=\tau (0)`$, they find a curve $`\tau ^{}(\lambda )`$ of simultaneous events. The procedure that we have sketched is the natural one that should be followed in synchronizing clocks, since it is simply obtained by using the prescriptions of the Einstein convention in each point of space. The reader should distinguish between this procedure and the one that leads to the Märzke-Wheeler coordinates since in the latter case an observer is privileged. In order to avoid confusions, in what follows we shall refer to the Einstein synchronization convention as a local procedure to be applied in each point of space. As we shall see this procedure cannot be applied in every circumstance anderson98 . In gauge theory the curve $`\tau ^{}`$ is called the horizontal lift of $`\tau `$; it is the only curve which starts from $`\tau ^{}(0)`$, has horizontal tangent vectors, and projects onto $`\tau `$.

Before we start studying the curvature and its implications, we recall some notions regarding local observers. An observer is identified by a tetrad of orthonormal vectors $`\{u,e_1,e_2,e_3\}`$. A picture of $`e_i`$ may be the following: imagine the local laboratory of the observer to be a cube. The observer, at rest in the cube, stands by one of the corners and the normal vectors $`e_i`$ point towards the next three corners. Since $`e_i`$ points always towards the same corner it must satisfy

$$L_ke_i=0.$$
(6)
Let $`h_\nu ^\mu =\delta _\nu ^\mu u^\mu u_\nu `$ be the projector on the horizontal space of the observer. The evolution of the components of $`e_i`$ with respect to a Fermi transported tetrad (non-rotating reference frame) $`\widehat{e}_\mu `$ is well known hawking73 , the relevant quantities are the vorticity tensor

$$w_{\mu \nu }=h_\mu ^\alpha h_\nu ^\beta u_{[\alpha ;\beta ]},$$
(7)
which represents the angular velocity of the triad $`e_i`$ with respect to gyroscopes ($`\widehat{e}_i`$), and the expansion tensor

$$\theta _{\mu \nu }=h_\mu ^\alpha h_\nu ^\beta u_{(\alpha ;\beta )},$$
(8)
which represents the rate of separation of neighboring points from the worldline. From Eq. (1), after some algebra, we find that the expansion tensor vanishes thus allowing a local rigidity interpretation. The vorticity can be rewritten

$$w_{\mu \nu }=\sqrt{kk}\omega _{[\mu ;\nu ]}=\frac{\sqrt{kk}}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu },$$
(9)
where we have introduced the curvature

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=D\omega =(\mathrm{d}\omega )h=\mathrm{d}\omega .$$
(10)
The translational invariance of spacetime implies that the vorticity, the curvature and the norm of the Killing vector field have a vanishing Lie derivative. As a consequence the angular velocity of an observer at rest in the stationary frame points always in the same direction with the same norm. Its components with respect to $`e_i`$ do not change in time.

Gauge theory tells us that if $`S`$ is paracompact and simply connected the curvature vanishes if and only if the horizontal lifts of closed curves in $`S`$ are closed in $`M`$. In order to make use of the Einstein convention the horizontal lift should be closed, otherwise there would be two simultaneous events placed in the same time-like worldline. In that case, the Einstein convention would be of little use. If the topological requirements are satisfied: the Einstein synchronization convention is applicable if and only if, in every point of the stationary frame, observers at rest do not rotate godel49 . Moreover, if the vorticity is different from zero in a point $`s`$ of space, an observer at rest in that point feels inertial forces because its local reference frame rotates with respect to Fermi transported gyroscopes. These observations assure that the rotating platform in special relativity is indeed quite representative of the general interrelationship between the Einstein convention, inertial forces, and rotation.

Let us study the simple case $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. Gauge theory tells us that, when the curvature vanishes, there exists a foliation of the principal bundle in three-dimensional hypersurfaces with horizontal tangent spaces. They are the hypersurfaces of simultaneity accordingly with the Einstein convention. Those hypersurfaces are orthogonal to the Killing vector field because their tangent spaces are also orthogonal to it. The existence of hypersurfaces orthogonal to a vector field is the object of Frobenius theorem: the necessary and sufficient condition for the vector field $`v^\mu `$ to be hypersurface orthogonal is $`v_{[\alpha }_\beta v_{\gamma ]}=0`$. This condition is indeed coherent with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ because the equations

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (11)
$`k\mathrm{d}k`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (12)
are algebraically the same.

If $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ the Einstein convention is no longer applicable. Here gauge theory suggests a standard procedure to extend coordinates $`\{x^i\}`$ on $`S`$ to the whole principal bundle. First choose a section $`\sigma :SM`$ and then associate to the event $`\sigma (x^i)e^t`$ the coordinates $`\{x^i,t\}`$. This procedure depends on the section (gauge) chosen and, from the physical side, corresponds to taking the events on the hypersurface $`\sigma (S)`$ as simultaneous. A number of different simultaneity conventions can be adopted, each one in correspondence with a particular section. In geometry the change of section is exactly what in physics is a gauge transformation. Hence we pass from one convention to another via gauge transformations. Usually in physics one works with the potential, that is with the pullback $`A_\sigma (x^i)=\sigma ^{}\omega `$. In the coordinates $`\{x^i,t\}`$, the Poincaré connection becomes

$$\omega =\mathrm{d}t+A_\sigma (x^i).$$
(13)
It is invariant under the change of section (gauge transformation)

$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`t\alpha (x^i),`$ (14)
$`A_\sigma ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A_\sigma +\mathrm{d}\alpha (x^i).`$ (15)
It is also convenient to introduce the field strength $`F(x^i)=\sigma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{d}A_\sigma `$. Let us come to a frequent question in gauge theories. If $`\tau (\lambda ):[0,1]S`$ is a closed curve, how much is $`\delta t`$ such that $`\tau ^{}(1)=\tau ^{}(0)e^{\delta t}`$? In order to answer this question we have to recall that $`\tau ^{}`$ has horizontal tangent vectors. Integrating $`\omega `$ over $`\tau ^{}`$ we find

$$\delta t=_\tau A_\sigma .$$
(16)
The physical interpretation of this result is connected with the Sagnac effect sagnac13 ; anandan81 .

## III Space metric and Sagnac effect

Let us define over $`S`$ a metric through the formula moller62 ; gron77 ; landau62 ; weber97

$$\mathrm{d}l^2=h_{ij}\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^ji,j=1,2,3$$
(17)
in the coordinates $`\{x^i,t\}`$ introduced above. From a geometrical perspective this formula for the space metric $`\mathrm{d}l^2`$ can be rewritten

$$\mathrm{d}l^2(X,Y)=g(X^{},Y^{}),$$
(18)
where $`X^{}`$, $`Y^{}`$, are the horizontal lifts of the space vectors $`X`$, $`Y`$. The vectors $`X^{}`$, $`Y^{}`$ belong to the horizontal space of the observer which passes through their origin, and that horizontal space is nothing but the local space of an inertial observer. Hence, from a physical point of view the previous formula says that the space metric is induced from the measurements made by local inertial observers. This statement relies on the fact that, for an inertial observer, the spacetime metric serves also to define the space metric through the formula $`\eta (X^{},Y^{})`$ where $`X^{}`$, $`Y^{}`$ belong to its space. However it is an assumption that for accelerating or rotating observers, space measurements should coincide with those performed by inertial observers. This postulate referred also as the ”surrogate frames postulate” klauber98  is waiting an experimental verification. Actually, in our stationary frame, observers at rest in the frame are not necessarily inertial. To claim that equation (18) describes accurately the space metric as experimented by observers at rest in the frame, would go beyond our knowledge. A number of alternatives, especially for the rotating platform have been suggested strauss74 ; klauber98 . A similar debate raised in the contest of Kaluza-Klein extensions of gravity where two different interpretations of the five dimensional metric were natural: those of Weyl and Pauli overduin97 . This is not accidental as the mathematics involved in the spacetime splitting in time plus space is that of Kaluza -Klein theories. Indeed the spacetime metric can be rewritten

$$g(A,B)=(kk)\omega (A)\omega (B)\mathrm{d}l^2(\pi _{}A,\pi _{}B),$$
(19)
which is a Kaluza-Klein metric in the spacetime manifold. Another useful choice for the space metric is the optical metric abramowicz88 , $`\mathrm{d}\overline{l}=\mathrm{d}l/(kk)`$. Indeed the geodesics of light, and hence their projections, are invariant under conformal transformations of the spacetime metric $`g`$. In the study of light propagation we can reduce the spacetime metric to the form, $`\mathrm{d}\overline{s}^2=\omega ^2\mathrm{d}\overline{l}^2`$ where no conformal factor appears. Now, the projection of a geodesic of a Kaluza-Klein metric with unitary scalar field, $`kk=1`$, satisfies a straightforward generalization of the Lorentz law. In the null case it reads

$$\overline{}_vv^i=F_j^iv^j,$$
(20)
where $`v^i=\mathrm{d}x^i/\mathrm{d}\overline{l}`$ is the tangent vector of the projection and $`\overline{}`$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the optical Levi-Civita connection. Hence, at least light rays, satisfy a Lorentz like equation in the optical metric background. Here we use the optical metric as a tool for finding the dynamic phase(see figure 2).

Let us consider two light beams that leave $`\tau ^{}(0)`$ following the path $`\tau (\lambda )`$, one in the positive direction and the other in the negative direction. Figure 2 shows one of the beam and displays some relevant quantities like the dynamic phase $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and the holonomy $`\delta t`$. As seen from the local inertial frames along $`\tau `$, with respect to their local Einstein synchronized times, the two light beams have the same speed $`c=1`$. Let $`l`$ be the natural parameter of $`\tau `$. The dynamic phase is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=_\tau ^{}dt=_\tau ^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\sqrt{kk}}=_\tau \frac{\mathrm{d}l}{c\sqrt{k(l)k(l)}}=\overline{L}/c.$$
(21)
Where $`\overline{L}`$ is the total optical length of the path $`\tau `$. Coming back to the Sagnac effect, the dynamic phase does not depend on the direction followed by the light beam. On the contrary, the holonomy changes sign; as a consequence the difference of the arrival times of the two beams is twice Eq. (16), and taking into account the time dilation, that is the difference between Killing time and proper time, the Sagnac effect becomes

$$\delta \tau =2\sqrt{kk}_\tau A_\sigma .$$
(22)
This equation is conveniently written in the coordinates $`\{x^i,x^0=t\}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a two-dimensional surface such that $`\tau =\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. From $`k=_t`$ we have $`k_\mu =g_{\mu \nu }k^\nu =g_{\mu 0}`$ and $`A_{\sigma i}=g_{0i}/g_{00}`$, hence ashtekar75

$$\delta \tau =2(g_{00})^{\frac{1}{2}}_\tau \frac{g_{0i}}{g_{00}}dx^i=2(g_{00})^{\frac{1}{2}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }\frac{w_{ij}}{(g_{00})^{\frac{1}{2}}}dx^i\mathrm{d}x^j.$$
(23)
Notice that the worldline of a point at rest in the stationary frame has equation, $`x^i=const.`$. This condition, and the independence of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ of time, selects those systems of coordinates for which the previous equation holds.

We have completed our exposition of the gauge property of simultaneity in stationary frames. The reader familiar with gauge theories can easily recognize the formal similarity with electrodynamics. Both theories have the mathematical structure of a gauge theory over a one-dimensional group. The only relevant difference is that in the stationary frame the structure group is contractible (otherwise there would be closed time-like curves), whereas in electrodynamics, $`U(1)`$, is not. This implies that, in electrodynamics, we can have non trivial principal bundles like monopoles, whereas this is not possible in the present context. Other analogies, like that between the Sagnac effect and the Aharonov-Bohm effect sakurai80 , or like that between magnetic forces and Coriolis forces coisson73 ; semon81 , become self evident in light of the gauge interpretation.

## IV Simultaneity in non-stationary frames

So far we have considered stationary frames. In general, however, the trajectories of the observers which define the frame, are not generated by a Killing vector field. This does not imply that the simultaneity is no more described by a gauge theory, but only that there is no connection preserving structure group. We can still define the space $`S`$ as the manifold of the observer worldlines. Then, discarding some pathological choices for the trajectories, at least in an open set, the space $`S`$ will be a differentiable manifold and there will be a differentiable projection $`\pi :MS`$. Hence, again, $`M`$ can be considered as a fiber bundle over the space $`S`$.

It should be noticed that over this bundle one can define the action of the one-parameter group of diffeomorphisms $`\varphi _\tau ^u`$ generated by the four-velocity field $`u(x)`$. With this right action $`M`$ can be considered, at least locally, as a principal bundle. However, in general, such a structure group does not preserve the simultaneity connection. It is, then, more convenient to treat $`M`$ as a fiber bundle without structure group since the beginning.

The theory of connections, i.e. gauge theory, was developed by mathematicians in this general context michor91 . Generalized connections appeared also in physics in some works on Kaluza-Klein theory and general relativity cho92 ; Yoon99 . In those papers it was shown that most of the usual gauge theory has an analogue in the new setting even from the dynamical side. However, they did not take advantage of the coordinate-independent approach developed by mathematicians.

Let us introduce the generalized connection in a form useful for our purposes. A connection is given by a distribution of planes $`H_x`$, that is, by a differentiable assignment, in each point of the bundle, of a plane that we shall call horizontal. The plane, together with the tangent space of the fiber spans the tangent space at $`x`$. The relevant difference with the usual gauge theory is the absence of a structure group which sends the fiber to itself and horizontal planes to horizontal planes. Many of the features of the usual gauge theory have a generalization. It is still possible to define the horizontal lift, the curvature and the parallel transport. Even the Bianchi identities have a generalization michor91 .

In our case, the fiber bundle M has a natural connection. The horizontal planes are given by $`H_x=\text{ker}(u_\alpha (x)\mathrm{d}x^\alpha )`$ where $`u^\alpha `$ is the four-velocity of the observer. In this way the connection maintains its original meaning: the horizontal plane still selects, locally, those events which are simultaneous accordantly with the Einstein synchronization convention. Analogously, the horizontal lift $`\tau ^{}`$ is obtained by a pointwise Einstein synchronization over $`\tau `$. Notice that the connection $`\omega =u_\alpha \mathrm{d}x^\alpha `$ is defined only up to a spacetime factor, because its ker does not change after such a multiplication. For this reason, in the generalized gauge theory, one works with the vector valued connection $`P_\alpha ^\beta =u^\beta u_\alpha `$, which is the projector of the tangent space onto the vertical subspace. The curvature is defined through the Frölicher-Nijenhuis bracket which acts on a pair of vector valued forms, say $`K`$ and $`L`$ of degree $`k`$ and $`l`$ respectively, giving a vector valued form of degree $`k+l`$. If $`K=\alpha z`$ and $`L=\beta v`$ with $`z`$ and $`v`$ vector fields, the Frölicher-Nijenhuis bracket can be characterized by

$`[\alpha z`$ , $`\beta v]_{FN}=\alpha \beta [z,v]+\alpha L_z\beta v`$
$`(1)^{kl}\beta L_v\alpha z+(1)^ki_v\alpha d\beta z`$
$`(1)^{kl+l}i_z\beta d\alpha v,`$
where $`[,]`$ is the Lie-bracket.

The vector valued curvature $`R`$ (which has nothing to do with the Riemann tensor), and its real counterpart $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are defined through the formula

$$2R=[P,P]_{FN}\text{or}2u^\beta \mathrm{\Omega }=[u^\mu \omega ,u^\nu \omega ]_{FN}.$$
(24)
After some algebra the previous equation reads

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=D\omega ,$$
(25)
that is, the same expression obtained for the usual gauge theory. This expression is invariant under multiplication of the connection and the curvature by the same factor $`f(x)`$. Previously that factor was fixed by the requirement $`\omega (k)=1`$. Here it is fixed by $`\omega (u)=1`$. In this normalization the curvature is linked to the vorticity through the relation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }=2w_{\mu \nu }`$.

Let $`A=/a`$, $`B=/b`$, be two fields over $`S`$ of vanishing Lie bracket, and let $`A^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$ be their horizontal lift. Plugging these fields in Eq. (25) we find

$$[A^{}\mathrm{\Delta }a,B^{}\mathrm{\Delta }b]^\mu u_\mu =2w_{\alpha \beta }A^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }aB^\beta \mathrm{\Delta }b.$$
(26)
The left hand side expresses the holonomy of a closed path $`\tau `$ of sides $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^i=A^i\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^i=B^i\mathrm{\Delta }b`$ in units of proper time. That is, it gives half the Sagnac effect for the path described. The right hand side stands for the product $`2\stackrel{}{\omega }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }S}`$ where $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }S}`$ is the oriented area enclosed by the path $`\tau `$. Hence, Eq. (26) is an infinitesimal, and general relativistic version of the well known formula of the Sagnac effect stedman97

$$\delta \tau =\frac{4\stackrel{}{\omega }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }S}}{c^2}.$$
(27)
Notice that this equation holds only for infinitesimal paths. In the case of a stationary frame, there is an integral version given by Eq. (23).

In the generalized gauge theory the Bianchi identity reads

$$[P,R]_{FN}=0.$$
(28)
After some calculations, and using only the horizontality of the 2-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ one arrives at

$$D\mathrm{\Omega }+a\mathrm{\Omega }=0.$$
(29)
Hence, the Bianchi identity is a non trivial, and quite unexpected, differential relation between the vorticity and the acceleration field. In terms of the vorticity vector

$$w^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }u_\beta w_{\gamma \delta };w_{\alpha \beta }=\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }u^\gamma w^\delta ,$$
(30)
the Bianchi identity takes the form

$$w_{;\nu }^\nu +2w^\nu a_\nu =0.$$
(31)
This identity can be checked directly using Eq. (7) and Eq. (30). The physical meaning follows recalling that in flat spacetime and for a non-relativistic fluid described by a vector field $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ the vorticity vector is $`\stackrel{}{\omega }=\frac{1}{2}\times \stackrel{}{v}`$. Thus in the non-relativistic limit $`\stackrel{}{\omega }=0`$. The Bianchi identity is therefore a generalization of this equation to the relativistic case. It shows that when relativistic effects are taken into account the acceleration becomes a source for the vorticity vector. Restoring $`c`$ one sees that this effect, in the non-relativistic limit, is suppressed by a factor $`1/c^2`$.

Table 1 summarizes the parallelism between simultaneity and gauge theory.

## V Back to the usual gauge theory

One can ask what is the condition that the vector field $`u`$ should satisfy in order for the connection to be principal. In other words, in what circumstance is there a vector field

$$X=\chi (x)u,$$
(32)
whose one parameter group of diffeomorphisms $`\varphi _t^X`$ with $`X=_t`$ sends horizontal planes to horizontal planes? If it exists one can choose

$$\omega _\mu =\frac{X_\mu }{XX},$$
(33)
and Eqs. (3) and (4) become both satisfied. The invariance of the horizontal planes under the group of diffeomorphisms $`\varphi _t^X`$ reads

$$\varphi _t^XH_x=H_{\varphi _t^X(x)}.$$
(34)
Let $`\omega `$ be a real valued connection ($`\text{ker}\omega (x)=H_x`$). The previous equation becomes

$$L_X\omega =f(x)\omega ,$$
(35)
for a suitable function $`f:M`$. Let us begin with $`\omega _\beta =X_\beta `$, we find

$$(L_Xg)_{\beta \nu }X^\nu =fX_\beta .$$
(36)
This equation is equivalent to Eq. (34). It is satisfied, for instance, if $`X`$ is a conformal Killing vector field

$$L_Xg=\frac{X_{;\mu }^\mu }{2}g,$$
(37)
hence our previous treatment of simultaneity in stationary frames can be easily generalized to conformal stationary frames. In both cases the connection is principal, that is, invariant under the action of a structure group. This should have been expected because the relation of orthogonality follows solely from the causal structure of spacetime, that is, it is invariant under conformal transformations of the metric. A conformal Killing vector field, preserving the causal structure, preserves also the orthogonality relation and therefore sends horizontal planes to horizontal planes. Equation (36), however, does not solve our problem because it is not expressed in terms of the four-velocity field $`u(x)`$.

Let $`\omega _\beta =u_\beta `$, plugging this equation in Eq. (35) we find after some algebra

$$_uu_\beta +(\mathrm{ln}\chi )_\beta =u_\beta _u(\mathrm{ln}\chi ).$$
(38)
The projection of this equation to the vertical space is automatically satisfied. It is convenient to introduce the acceleration 1-form $`a_\beta =_uu_\beta `$ and to project the previous equation to the horizontal plane

$$D(\mathrm{ln}\chi )=a.$$
(39)
The problem is solved if we can establish in what circumstances this equation has a solution $`\mathrm{ln}\chi `$ ($`\chi ^1`$ is the acceleration potential ellis71 ) over the fiber bundle). The condition we are seeking is an integrability condition for Eq. (39). It should be noticed that Eq. (39) gives us the value of $`_Y(\mathrm{ln}\chi )`$ only for $`YH_x`$. In order to find $`_u(\mathrm{ln}\chi )`$ we have to use the non integrability of the distribution of horizontal planes. If $`R=0`$, however, the distribution of horizontal planes becomes integrable and the spacetime admits a foliation of simultaneity slices. In that case there is an infinite number of solutions (if any), each one in correspondence with a different time parameterization of the simultaneity slices. The equivalence relation ”$`xy`$ if there exists a piecewise $`C^1`$ horizontal curve which joins $`x`$ and $`y`$”, divides the spacetime manifold into sets $`M_i`$, $`M=_iM_i`$. In each set the equation (39) has a unique solution $`\chi (x)`$ up to a constant factor. Indeed if $`\chi ^{}`$ is another solution of Eq. (39) then $`D\mathrm{ln}(\chi \chi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})=0`$ and hence $`\chi \chi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=c_i`$ in each set $`M_i`$ .

Without losing generality we can restrict ourselves to a region $`M_i`$ where each pair of events can be joined by a horizontal curve. We assume that $`M_i`$ is simply connected. Let us consider the 1-form

$$\sigma =f(x)ua,$$
(40)
where $`f(x)`$ is a real valued function. With a straightforward calculation it is easy to show that $`\mathrm{d}\sigma =0`$ if and only if

$`Da`$ $`=`$ $`fDu,`$ (41)
$`L_ua`$ $`=`$ $`faDf.`$ (42)
In this case, $`\sigma =\mathrm{d}\phi `$ and from Eq. (40), $`f=_u\phi `$ and $`D\phi =a`$. Since $`\phi `$ solves Eq. (39) it is the function $`\mathrm{ln}\chi `$ we are looking for. Conversely if $`\mathrm{ln}\chi `$, solution of (39), exists, it satisfies Eqs. (40-42) with $`f=_u\mathrm{ln}\chi `$.

The system of equations (41) (42) is our necessary and sufficient condition in order to establish whether our connection is principal. The first equation (41) states that the two forms $`Da`$, $`Du`$ must be proportional: the proportionality factor gives the derivative $`f=_u(\mathrm{ln}\chi )`$ that Eq. (39) was unable to determine. The second equation (42) states a condition that can be checked once we substitute $`f(x)`$ as given by Eq. (41). Hence, we can establish whether or not the simultaneity is described by a principal connection looking only at the physical data $`u(x)`$.

If $`a=0`$ the system is solvable with the solution $`\chi (x)=1`$. This result says that, when the congruence of time-like curves is given by geodesics, the simultaneity can be treated as a gauge theory over the group of time translations.

Another interesting case, which generalizes the previous one, is that of a perfect fluid of equation of state $`p=p(\rho )`$. The stress-energy tensor is

$$T^{\mu \nu }=(\rho +p)u^\mu u^\nu pg^{\mu \nu },$$
(43)
The conservation of 4-momentum $`T_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu }`$ leads to the local energy conservation and to the Euler equation

$`\rho _{,u}`$ $`=`$ $`(\rho +p)u`$ (44)
$`(\rho +p)a`$ $`=`$ $`Dp`$ (45)
One can introduce the functions ellis71

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle _{p_0}^p}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}p}{\rho +p}}\right)`$ (46)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle _{\rho _0}^\rho }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\rho }{3(\rho +p)}}\right)=\chi ^{1/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho +p}{\rho _0+p_0}}\right)^{1/3}`$ (47)
which are related to each other and to the pressure. Using the relation between the determinants $`g=\chi ^2h`$, the energy-momentum conservation becomes

$`\left(\mathrm{ln}(R^3|h|^{\frac{1}{2}})\right)_{,u}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (48)
$`a+D\mathrm{ln}\chi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (49)
This last equation says that the flow lines of the perfect fluid define a frame where the simultaneity is described by a gauge theory over the group of time translation. The invariance of the connection $`\omega `$ under time translations (see Eq. (4) and Eq. (13)) implies that the potential $`A_\sigma `$ does not depend on time. Making use of Eqs. (48) (19) (13) and introducing $`\overline{h}_{ij}=R^2h_{ij}`$, the spacetime metric becomes

$$g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{d}x^\mu \mathrm{d}x^\nu =\chi (x)^2(\mathrm{d}t+A_i(x^j)\mathrm{d}x^i)^2+R(x)^2\overline{h}_{ij}(x^k,t)\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^j$$

where the determinant $`\overline{h}`$ does not depend on time. The function $`R(x)`$ can be interpreted as the scale factor of the universe since a volume element scales as $`R^3`$ with time ($`\theta =u=3R_{,u}/R`$). This well known result, already obtained by Ehlers, Taub and others (see ellis71  and references therein) arises here as a natural consequence of a careful analysis of simultaneity in the simple case of a perfect fluid with an acceleration potential.

## VI Conclusions

I have shown that simultaneity is described by the mathematics of gauge theories. The fiber bundle is the spacetime manifold and the fibers are the trajectories which define the frame. The connection is determined by local simultaneous events accordantly with the Einstein convention, and the horizontal lift follows from a pointwise Einstein synchronization. The curvature is the angular velocity of the observers at rest in the frame and the holonomy is the obstruction against the possibility of applying the Einstein synchronization in the large. A global simultaneity convention allows the introduction of a time coordinate on the manifold. A change in the global simultaneity convention is a gauge transformation. The gauge formalism suggested the calculation of the Bianchi identity which turned out to be a differential relation between the acceleration field and the vorticity field.

A necessary and sufficient condition on the vector field $`u(x)`$ in order for the connection to be principal has been given. In that case the fiber bundle admits a structure group $`T_1`$ of time translations which preserves the connection, and the usual gauge theory is recovered. Particular cases are frames of geodesics, frames derived from the flow lines of a perfect fluid and conformal stationary frames. In this last case the Sagnac effect depends straightforwardly on the holonomy of the light path through a generalization of Eq. (23). Apart from these simple cases, in order to appreciate the gauge nature of simultaneity, in the spirit of contemporary physics, the whole machinery of the Frölicher-Nijenhuis algebra is needed.

The gauge picture of simultaneity is expected to be useful in the search for non trivial solutions of the Einstein equations. Moreover, once generalized to higher dimensions, the mathematics involved can prove to be useful in modern Kaluza-Klein theories, since there, the cylinder condition is dropped.

## Acknowledgments

I wish to thank B. Carazza, M. Modugno and C. Destri for support, criticisms and useful discussions. This work was partially supported by INFN.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

With the advent of RHIC, the Drell-Yan(DY) process  can be studied in a new kinematical regime, the so-called Regge regime, where the dilepton mass $`M`$ is small compared to the cm energy $`\sqrt{s}`$, but still much larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. The DY process at RHIC and LHC energies is therefore of similar interest as DIS at HERA, where one can study $`\gamma ^{}`$-proton scattering in the Regge regime. The new experimental possibilities motivate further theoretical investigations of the DY process. First of all, one needs a framework to calculate nuclear shadowing in the DY process, the onset of which can already be observed at fixed-target energy . This is especially important in view of the RHIC heavy ion program. The color dipole formulation of the DY process introduced in  is suitable to address this issue and a considerable amount of work in this direction has been performed -. In addition, the low-$`x_2`$ DY cross sections are sensitive to integrals over the color dipole cross section which are not accessible in DIS . Therefore, future DY data can be used to further constrain this quantity. Most importantly, while the dipole approach has already been used in sophisticated analyses like the extraction of energy loss from E866/NuSea Drell-Yan data , its validity for proton-proton interactions has never been established. This will be remedied with the present work.

In this paper we compare next-to-leading order (NLO) parton model calculations for DY dilepton production in proton-proton ($`pp`$) and proton-deuteron ($`pd`$) collisions with calculations in the dipole approach over a wide energy range. Although the two approaches are believed to be equivalent in a certain kinematical range, the underlying mechanisms appear to be quite different, and there is no known way to prove this equivalence analytically. However, both approaches are supposed to describe the same process, so they should yield similar numerical results222Differences between parton model and dipole approach are seen in the angular distribution of DY pairs, if saturation effects are included in the dipole cross section . When we talk about equivalence of parton model and dipole approach, we mean equivalence up to higher twist effects, which are neglected in the parton model, but (at least partially) included in the phenomenological parameterization of the dipole cross section we employ. .

Before we compare the results of the numerical calculations, the key features of the two approaches are briefly summarized. The well known mechanism for continuum dilepton production, which was first found more than thirty years ago by Drell and Yan , was formulated in a frame where both colliding hadrons are fast moving (infinite momentum frame). According to Feynman’s picture of high energy collisions, the colliding objects can be viewed as collections of noninteracting partons with negligibly small transverse momenta. To lowest order, DY dileptons are produced by quark-antiquark annihilation, and the cross section reads,

$$\frac{d^2\sigma _{DY}}{dM^2dx_F}=\frac{4\pi \alpha _{em}^2}{9M^2s}\frac{1}{x_1+x_2}\underset{f=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}Z_f^2\left[q_f(x_1)\overline{q}_f(x_2)+q_f(x_2)\overline{q}_f(x_1)\right].$$
(1)
The distribution function of a quark (antiquark) of flavor $`f`$ of the target or the projectile is denoted by $`q_f`$ ($`\overline{q}_f`$), $`N_f`$ is the number of active flavors and $`Z_f`$ is the quark charge. The longitudinal momentum fractions of the projectile (target) parton, $`x_1`$ ($`x_2`$), can be expressed in terms of Lorentz invariant scalar products as

$$x_1=\frac{2P_2q}{s};x_2=\frac{2P_1q}{s},$$
(2)
where $`P_1^\mu `$ ($`P_2^\mu `$) is the projectile (target) four momentum, $`q^\mu `$ is the four momentum of the dilepton, $`q^2=M^2>0`$, and $`x_F`$ is the Feynman-$`x`$, $`x_F=x_1x_2`$.

For most qualitative descriptions, it is sufficient to consider the DY process in terms of the lowest order annihilation process, Eq. (1). Calculations with Eq. (1), however, underestimate measured DY cross sections by an overall factor. It is necessary to employ the NLO framework for the DY process, in order to make quantitative predictions, see  for a review. In addition, the DY cross section differential in the dileptons transverse momentum receives huge corrections from higher order processes. Indeed, to lowest order, one would not expect dileptons with large transverse momentum $`q_{}`$, in contrast to what is observed in experiment. Even though the occurrence of perturbatively large transverse momenta can be explained in NLO, it is not straightforward to calculate the shape of the $`q_{}`$-distribution in the parton model. A resummation of large logarithms in $`q_{}/M`$  or alternatively the introduction of an intrinsic transverse momentum  is necessary to avoid the divergence of the differential cross section at $`q_{}=0`$.

In the parton model, all nonperturbative effects are parameterized in the parton distribution functions $`q_f`$, $`\overline{q}_f`$, which evolve according to the DGLAP evolution equations. For DY in nuclear collisions, the parton distribution functions of the proton are simply replaced by empirical nuclear parton distribution functions . This approach does not explain the dynamical origin of the nuclear effects

Nuclear effects, effects from higher orders in perturbation theory, as well as other possible nonperturbative effects, are more readily treated when the Drell-Yan process is viewed in the target rest frame. Note that although cross sections are Lorentz invariant, the partonic interpretation of high energy scattering processes does depend on the reference frame. In the rest frame of the target, the production mechanism for high mass continuum dileptons looks like bremsstrahlung , see Fig. 1. In the high energy limit, when one can neglect terms that are suppressed by a factor $`1/`$energy, each of the two graphs factorizes into a production vertex for the virtual photon times an amplitude for scattering a quark off the target. These scattering amplitudes combine in the squared matrix element in exactly the same way as in DIS, which makes it possible to express the DY cross section in terms of the same cross section $`\sigma _{q\overline{q}}^N`$ for scattering a $`q\overline{q}`$-dipole off a nucleon ($`N`$) as in low-$`x_{Bj}`$ DIS,

$$\frac{d\sigma (qN\gamma ^{}X)}{d\mathrm{ln}\alpha }=d^2\rho \left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}(\alpha ,\rho )\right|^2\sigma _{q\overline{q}}^N(\alpha \rho ,x).$$
(3)
Here, $`\alpha `$ is the light-cone momentum fraction the virtual photon takes away from its parent quark, and $`\rho `$ is the transverse separation between $`\gamma ^{}`$ and final quark. The electromagnetic radiation, $`q\gamma ^{}q`$, is described by the light-cone wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}(\alpha ,\rho )`$, see Eqs. (A.18) – (A.20), which can be calculated perturbatively. Summation over photon polarizations is understood in Eq. (3). The dipole cross section $`\sigma _{q\overline{q}}^N`$ is of nonperturbative origin and has to be taken from phenomenology. The energy scale $`x`$ of the dipole cross section will be discussed in the next section. A detailed derivation of Eq. (3) is given in the appendix.

Using a phenomenological parameterization for the dipole cross section in Eq. (3) is a very economical way to account for higher order and nonperturbative effects. The dipole approach can even be applied at low values of $`M`$ where perturbative QCD is not valid . It was found in a recent analysis  that most of E772 DY data (except some points at low $`M`$) are reasonably well described in the dipole approach without introducing an arbitrary overall normalization factor. In addition it was found that the transverse momentum distribution does not diverge at $`q_{}=0`$, even without intrinsic transverse momentum.

We emphasize that the dipole approach does not describe an additional production mechanism for heavy dileptons. Rather, the two approaches are believed to describe the same physics in different reference frames. Therefore, calculations in the NLO parton model and in the dipole approach should give similar results for the DY cross section. This is what we numerically check in this paper. In the following section, we compare numerical calculations of the DY cross section (integrated over the transverse momentum of the dilepton) in both approaches. In section 3, we also compare the predictions of dipole approach and parton model for the DY transverse momentum distribution at RHIC.

## 2 Numerical comparison of the two approaches

In order to perform calculations that can be compared with experimental data, one has to embed the partonic cross section, Eq. (3), into the hadronic environment. In the infinite momentum frame, the momentum fraction of the projectile quark is $`x_1`$, see Eq. (2). However, when the scalar product defining $`x_1`$ is evaluated in the target rest frame, one finds $`x_1=\alpha z`$, where $`z=x_1/\alpha `$ is the momentum fraction of the incoming proton carried by the projectile quark. The different meanings of $`x_1`$ in the target rest frame and in the infinite momentum frame is a manifestation of the frame dependence of partonic mechanisms. In the target rest frame, $`x_1`$ is the momentum fraction that the lepton pair takes from the projectile proton. Thus, one obtains for the proton-nucleon DY cross section

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma (pNl^+l^{}X)}{dM^2dx_F}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}}{3\pi M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{x_1+x_2}}{\displaystyle _{x_1}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{f=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}}Z_f^2\left[q_f({\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{\alpha }},\stackrel{~}{Q})+\overline{q}_f({\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{\alpha }},\stackrel{~}{Q})\right]`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\rho \left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}(\alpha ,\rho )\right|^2\sigma _{q\overline{q}}^N(\alpha \rho ,x)}.`$
We still need to know the scale $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ at which the projectile parton distributions are probed and the energy $`x`$ at which the dipole cross section enters. These quantities are not known exactly, instead we have to rely on plausible arguments to determine their values. In order to find $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$, note that the transverse distances $`\rho `$ that contribute to the DY cross section are controlled by the extension parameter

$$\eta ^2=(1\alpha )M^2+\alpha ^2m_f^2.$$
(5)
The numerically dominant term in the LC wavefunctions, Eqs. (A.18, A.19), is the one that contains the Bessel function K$`{}_{1}{}^{}(\eta \rho )`$. Since this function decays exponentially at large arguments, the largest distances that can numerically contribute are of order $`1/\eta `$. For fluctuations with $`\alpha 1`$, these distances can become of the order of a typical hadronic radius, in analogy to the aligned jet configurations in DIS . On the other hand, the minimal value of $`\alpha `$ is $`x_1`$, so that the largest virtuality entering the calculation is $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^2=\eta _{\mathrm{max}}^2=(1x_1)M^2`$. We choose this quantity to be the hard scale at which the projectile parton distribution is probed. The parton distribution functions (PDFs) are taken from CERNLIB . The quark mass is set to $`m_f=0`$ in all our calculations, see  for its numerical influence.

For the quark density of the projectile, we employ the leading order parameterization that corresponds to the NLO parameterization used in the parton model calculation. This means e.g. we use CTEQ5L in the dipole approach when comparing it with a NLO parton model calculation using CTEQ5M. One should use leading order PDFs in the dipole approach, because they are scheme independent and have a probabilistic interpretation.

The energy scale $`x`$ of the dipole cross section in Eq. (4) is determined from the analogy to DIS. In DIS, the argument of the dipole cross section is $`x_{Bj}=Q^2/W^2`$, where $`Q`$ is the virtuality of the photon and $`W`$ is the $`\gamma ^{}`$-proton cm energy. Therefore, we choose $`x=M^2/\widehat{s}=\alpha x_2`$, where $`\widehat{s}=sx_1/\alpha `$ is the quark-proton cm energy squared.

Note that in the previous analysis , $`M^2`$ and $`x_2`$, instead of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^2`$ and $`x`$, were used. The different choice of scales in this paper has the effect of increasing the cross section by a factor of up to $`2`$ for dilepton mass $`M4`$ GeV. This is mostly due to the different choice of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^2`$. Using $`\alpha x_2`$ instead of $`x_2`$ is only a $`10\%`$ effect at $`x_2<0.1`$. These uncertainties vanish at larger masses, $`M8`$ GeV.

For the calculations in the dipole approach shown in Figs. 24, we employ the parameterization of the color dipole cross section by Golec-Biernat and Wüsthoff ,

$$\sigma _{q\overline{q}}^N(\rho ,x)=\sigma _0\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\rho ^2Q_s^2(x)}{4}\right)\right],$$
(6)
with $`\sigma _0=23.03`$ mb. This parameterization rises quadratically at small separations $`\rho `$ as demanded by color transparency  and saturates at large separations. The saturation scale that controls the flattening of the dipole cross section is given by

$$Q_s^2(x)=1\text{GeV}^2\left(\frac{0.0003}{x}\right)^{0.288}.$$
(7)
We point out that no DY data have been used to determine the parameters in Eq. (6). Only DIS data from HERA were fitted to extract the dipole cross section.

Note that the parameterization Eq. (6) contains only the Pomeron part of the dipole cross section. As a consequence, the dipole approach predicts identical cross sections for particle and antiparticle induced DY. This is, of course, reproduced in the parton model at low $`x_2`$. In addition to this Pomeron part, there is also a contribution from Reggeon exchange, corresponding to valence quarks in the target . In principle, one could fit a parameterization of this Reggeon part to the data, but the predictive power of such a procedure would be very low, since the Reggeon part, in contrast to the Pomeron part, depends on the colliding hadrons. We therefore do not attempt to determine the Reggeon contribution to the dipole cross section in this paper.

The NLO parton model calculation was performed with the CTEQ code  provided earlier to the E866/Nusea collaboration by W.K. Tung . We use the dilepton mass $`M`$ as hard scale in the strong coupling constant and in the parton distributions. This is the standard choice. The code assumes $`\overline{MS}`$ renormalization scheme.

Fig. 2 shows calculations at fixed target energy in the dipole approach and in the NLO parton model, as well as experimental DY data from E772 . The lowest value of $`x_2`$ that can be reached is about 0.02. Dipole and parton model calculations are very similar at low $`x_2`$, where the dipole approach is supposed to be valid, but strongly deviate as $`x_21`$. Clearly, we cannot apply the dipole approach at large $`x_2`$, since it does not include valence quark contributions to the DY cross section (see  for a more detailed discussion of effects that are taken into account by the dipole approach). Note also that the parameterization Eq. (6) was fitted only to DIS data below $`x_{Bj}<0.01`$, hence the curves shown in Fig. 2 are already an extrapolation of the fit.

In Fig. 2 there are several E772 data points at low $`x_2`$ that exceed the calculations in both the parton model and dipole approaches. This excess was also visible for some points in . Indeed, experiment E772 was not designed to measure the absolute normalization of the DY cross section, but to measure nuclear effects. New data from E866/NuSea will not suffer from such problems. A comparison between preliminary E866/NuSea data and the NLO parton model in  shows good agreement.

The disagreement between the two approaches sets in around $`x_20.1`$ in Fig. 2. Somewhat surprisingly, the dipole approach yields values that exceed the prediction from the parton model (at large $`x_2`$), even though the dipole approach does not include several contributions to the DY cross section. This can be understood, if one observes that the dipole cross section is related to the target gluon density $`G`$. At small separations $`\rho `$ one has

$$\sigma _{q\overline{q}}^N(\rho ,x)=\frac{\pi ^2}{3}\alpha _s\left(\frac{\lambda }{\rho ^2}\right)\rho ^2xG(x,\frac{\lambda }{\rho ^2}).$$
(8)
Eqs. (6) and (7) contain only the part of the gluon density that increases at low $`x`$. At large $`x`$, however, the gluon density decreases like $`G(x)(1x)^5`$ . At high virtuality, the power is even higher than 5, say $`8`$. In order to estimate the uncertainty originating from this effect, we follow  and replace the saturation scale Eq. (7) by

$$Q_s^2(x)Q_s^2(x)(1x)^5.$$
(9)
We refer to this recipe as modified dipole approach and the numerical results are shown by the short dashed curves in Figs. 24. The replacement Eq. (9) has virtually no influence at $`x<0.01`$, where the parameters in Eq. (6) have been fitted in , but at $`x=0.1`$, it reduces the cross section by almost a factor of 2. In fact, in  calculations in the dipole approach were performed employing a dipole cross section calculated from a gluon density that contains saturation effects. For $`\sqrt{s}=38.8\text{GeV}`$, the results of  lie below the ones obtained in  with the saturation model of Golec-Biernat and Wüsthoff  by a factor of $`2`$. We believe this disagreement is largely due to the decreasing gluon density at $`x_2>0.01`$, i.e. due to uncertainties in the dipole cross section.

Apparently, the low-$`x_2`$ range accessible at fixed target energies is very limited, and therefore the dipole formulation is bestowed with several uncertainties. Unfortunately, there are no DY data at really low $`x_2`$. Even CDF data  are at about the same values of $`x_2`$ as the E772 data, because they are mostly in the $`Z`$-boson mass range. At RHIC, however, much lower values of $`x_2`$ will be reached, where the dipole approach can readily be applied. In Fig. 3, we show predictions from the dipole approach and the NLO parton model (using CTEQ5M PDFs) for RHIC energy. Calculations with the modified dipole cross section, Eq. (9), are also shown. The disagreement between dipole approach and parton model sets in around $`x_20.01`$, i.e. around $`x_F0`$. At low $`x_2`$ all three curves are in good agreement, confirming the similarity between the two approaches.

In order to show the uncertainty arising from the choice of PDFs, we did the same calculation, employing GRV98HO , see Fig. 4. In this case, the differences between the two approaches are slightly larger than for CTEQ5M. With GRV98HO, the NLO parton model calculation exceeds the dipole approach by at most a factor of $`1.5`$ for $`x_2<0.01`$; for CTEQ5M, the corresponding value is only about $`1.2`$. The third standard PDF we employed was MRST(c-g) . The results are comparable to GRV98HO and are not shown here, because they do not provide any further insight. For most values of $`x_2`$ and $`M`$, which do not lie at the very edge of the phase space, the NLO calculations are only $`10\%`$$`20\%`$ higher than the dipole approach. In summary, we find that the uncertainty from the choice of PDFs is $`25\%`$ at the low values of $`x_2`$ shown in Figs. 3 and 4.

We also point out that for these low values of $`x_2`$, the DY $`K`$-factor is typically $`1.4`$ to $`1.5`$ and can become even smaller than unity for very low $`x_2`$. In the parton model, the $`K`$-factor is defined as the DY cross section calculated in NLO divided by the same quantity calculated in LO. The $`K`$-factor originates (mostly) from the analytic continuation from the spacelike (DIS) to the timelike (DY) region of $`q^2`$ in the annihilation and virtual corrections at NLO. The QCD Compton process, which dominates at low $`x_2`$ because of the large target gluon density, does (almost) not contribute to the $`K`$-factor. Therefore, in the kinematical region of interest, the $`K`$-factor is considerably below its usually assumed value of $`2`$ to $`3`$.

At this point, we stress that the term “$`K`$-factor” is defined only in the parton model. In the dipole approach, there is no freedom to adjust the overall normalization of the DY cross section as proposed in , because higher order corrections are contained in the parameterization of the dipole cross section.

Most uncertainties in the dipole approach arise from uncertainties in this parameterization. It remains to be seen whether future low $`x_2`$ DY data from RHIC can be accurately described with a (probably improved) phenomenological parameterization of the dipole cross section. We believe that future DY data can serve as an important source of knowledge about the color dipole cross section.

## 3 The DY transverse momentum distribution

The DY cross section differential in the dilepton transverse momentum $`q_{}`$ can provide even more detailed information about the shape of the dipole cross section than the $`q_{}`$-integrated cross section. In the dipole approach, the $`q_{}`$-differential cross section reads ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma (qp\gamma ^{}X)}{d\mathrm{ln}\alpha d^2q_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle d^2\rho _1d^2\rho _2\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{q}_{}(\stackrel{}{\rho }_1\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^{}(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)}`$ (10)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{\sigma _{q\overline{q}}(\alpha \rho _1,x)+\sigma _{q\overline{q}}(\alpha \rho _2,x)\sigma _{q\overline{q}}(\alpha (\stackrel{}{\rho }_1\stackrel{}{\rho }_2),x)\right\},`$
where $`q_{}`$ is the $`\gamma ^{}`$ transverse momentum wrt the direction of the projectile quark. This formula was first published in . We give a detailed derivation in the appendix. The partonic cross section, Eq. (10), has to be embedded into the hadronic environment in the same way as in Eq. (4). Again, the sum over photon polarizations is understood to be contained in the light-cone wavefunctions, see Eq. (A.20).

We would like to compare the transverse momentum distribution calculated in the dipole approach with the same quantity computed in the parton model. Since the CTEQ code used in the previous section is not capable of calculating the DY transverse momentum distribution, we developed our own code based on the formulas given in . Again, we use the dilepton mass $`M`$ as hard scale. It was already mentioned in the introduction, that there are no large transverse momenta in the leading order parton model. The order $`\alpha _s`$ correction yields a transverse momentum distribution that diverges at $`q_{}0`$ and has the wrong shape, when compared to data . This can be remedied by resumming contributions from soft gluon radiation , which yields a good description of the data.

In this paper, however, we follow  and apply a more phenomenological recipe. We introduce a soft, nonperturbative, primordial transverse momentum distribution of the partons in the colliding protons, which we parameterize by a Gaussian,

$$f(k_{}^2)=\frac{1}{4\pi \sigma _q^2}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{k_{}^2}{4\sigma _q^2}}.$$
(11)
The mean transverse primordial momentum squared of a single constituent in the proton is then

$$k_{}^2_{\mathrm{primordial}}=2\sigma _q^2.$$
(12)
The perturbatively calculated $`q_{}`$-distribution is then smeared out by this primordial momentum and the regularized dilepton cross section is given by

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^4\sigma ^{DY}}{dM^2dx_Fd^2q_{}}}\right)_{\mathrm{reg}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2p_{}\left(\frac{d^4\sigma ^{DY}}{dM^2dx_Fd^2p_{}}\right)_{\mathrm{A}+\mathrm{C}}[f((\stackrel{}{q}_{}\stackrel{}{p}_{})^2)f(q_{}^2)]}`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`f(q_{}^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma ^{DY}}{dM^2dx_F}}\right)_{\mathrm{NLO}+\mathrm{LO}}.`$
The subscript $`A+C`$ refers to “annihilation+Compton” correction. The virtual corrections do not contribute to the first term in Eq. (13). With this recipe, the perturbative result is reproduced for large transverse momenta while the divergence at $`q_{}=0`$ is removed. The first term on the rhs of Eq. (13) vanished after integration over $`q_{}`$ and $`d^2q_{}f(q_{})`$ is normalized to unity, so that the total DY cross section is correctly reproduced.

The results of our calculations in the dipole approach and in the parton model are shown in Fig. 5. We performed the parton model calculation for two different values of the smearing parameter $`\sigma _q`$. The lower value, $`\sigma _q=0.48`$ GeV, was used in  to describe ISR data at $`\sqrt{s}=44`$ GeV and $`62`$ GeV. The parameter $`\sigma _q`$ is presumably independent of energy $`s`$. Nevertheless, we also calculated for twice the ISR value of $`\sigma _q`$, because at the low values of $`x`$ reached at RHIC, quarks may have a larger intrinsic transverse momentum. Of course, the choice of $`\sigma _q`$ has the largest influence at small $`q_{}`$, while at very large transverse momentum, the results become independent of this parameter. Note however, that $`\sigma _q`$ still has a rather large impact on the numerical results at intermediate $`q_{}2`$$`3`$ GeV.

No intrinsic transverse momentum is included in the dipole approach, even though one could introduce one. As already pointed out in , the cross section calculated in the dipole approach does not diverge at $`q_{}0`$ because of the flattening of the dipole cross section, see Eq. (6). At $`q_{}=10`$ GeV, dipole approach and parton model differ by about a factor of 5. Employing the modified dipole approach, Eq. (9), brings the curve down by a factor of $`0.9`$ at $`q_{}=10`$ GeV and has no effect at small $`q_{}`$. Therefore, we do not show the corresponding curves. Note that at high transverse momentum, the numerical value of the DY cross section is completely insensitive to the large $`\rho `$ behavior of the dipole cross section. Indeed, it was found in  that an expansion of Eq. (6) to order $`\rho ^2`$ virtually yields the same numerical results at large $`q_{}`$ when employed in Eq. (10). On the other hand, the behavior at $`q_{}0`$ is largely determined by the large $`\rho `$ behavior of the dipole cross section. Therefore, future data on the DY $`q_{}`$-distribution can be important for further constraining the dipole cross section, provided statistics will be high enough.

## 4 Summary

In this paper, we presented a detailed comparison between calculations of the Drell-Yan cross section in the color dipole approach with calculations in the conventional NLO parton model. We also compared both approaches with experimental data when available. The dipole approach and the parton model are believed to represent the same physics, but viewed from different reference frames. The purpose of this paper was to demonstrate the close connection between the two approaches numerically.

First, we compared calculations for the DY cross section integrated over the dilepton’s transverse momentum $`q_{}`$ and found that at low $`x_2`$, where the dipole approach is supposed to be valid, calculations agree well. Since both approaches rely on different nonperturbative inputs, numerical results will not agree exactly. There are several uncertainties from free parameters that can affect the numerical value of the Drell-Yan cross section. In the dipole approach, these uncertainties are:

* Different possible choices of the hard scale $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$, at which the parton distribution of the projecetile is probed, can lead to an uncertainty as large as a factor of $`2`$ for $`M4\text{GeV}`$, even though the dependence on $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is only logarithmic. This uncertainty vanishes with increasing dilepton mass $`M`$. For $`M=8.75\text{GeV}`$ it is only $`10\%`$. Note that a larger value of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ leads to a smaller value of the DY cross section, because the projectile PDF is probed at large momentum fraction.
* For the low values of $`x_2`$ we are interested in, different parameterizations of PDFs lead to variations of the numerical results of up to $`25\%`$. This uncertainty is also present in the parton model.
* The uncertainty arising from possible choices of the energy scale $`x`$ is $`10\%`$. Since the dipole cross section increases with decreasing $`x`$, a lower value of $`x`$ pulls the DY cross section up.
* The dipole approach allows one to introduce a quark mass $`m_f`$. In this work we set $`m_q=0`$. A quark mass $`m_q=200`$ MeV would reduce the numerical value of the DY cross section by less than $`10\%`$ .

The main uncertainty, which is difficult to quantify, arises from the parameterization of the dipole cross section. Future DY data from RHIC will certainly help to better constrain this quantity.

We found that the disagreement between the two approaches is typically of order 20% for $`x_2<0.01`$. We believe that the parameterization of the dipole cross section can be adjusted so that future RHIC data can be described without introducing an arbitrary overall normalization factor for which we cannot find a theoretical justification. For larger values of $`x_2`$, the applicability of the dipole approach is questionable, because this approach neglects several contribution to the DY cross section which might already be important for $`0.01x_20.1`$.

Note that several data points from E772  at low $`x_2`$ are not well described by neither of the approaches. Preliminary E866/NuSea data , however, which were measured in the same kinematical region, are well described by the NLO parton model. Therefore, the agreement between dipole approach and NLO parton model at low $`x_2`$ gives confidence into the applicability of the dipole approach. However, we stress that in order to strictly prove the validity of the dipole approach, one has to reproduce experimental data and not the parton model calculation.

Naturally, the differences between the two approaches are larger when one considers the DY transverse momentum distribution. At low $`q_{}`$, the numerical result in the parton model depends quite strongly on the amount of primordial transverse momentum which is included. This uncertainty is however no longer present at very large transverse momenta, $`q_{}10\text{GeV}`$, where the two calculations differ by a factor of 5 (at $`\sqrt{s}=500\text{GeV}`$) . It will be seen, if RHIC data can distinguish between the two approaches or if the dipole cross section and/or the parton distribution function can both be adjusted to fit the data. We point out that both approaches predict the same asymptotic behavior for the partonic DY cross section, namely $`d\sigma /d^2q_{}1/q_{}^4`$ for large transverse momentum .

Acknowledgments: We are indebted to Fred Cooper, Mikkel Johnson, Boris Kopeliovich and Magno Machado for valuable discussion. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy at Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-ENG-38.

## Appendix A Derivation of the dipole formula for DY

In this appendix, we give a detailed derivation of the formula that expresses the DY cross section in terms of the color dipole cross section, Eq. (3). This formula was first discovered in . Some details of the derivation in the semiclassical approach of  are given in the appendix of . In this paper, we use the framework of covariant Feynman perturbation theory. The calculation can be carried out in a very similar way for DIS.

The differential cross section for dilepton production in the target rest frame, see Fig. 1, is given by

$`d^8\sigma (qNql^+l^{}X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \lambda ^{}}{}}ϵ_\mu ^{}(\lambda )ϵ_\nu (\lambda ^{})\overline{}^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha d^2q_{}d^2p_f}{(2\pi )^58(p_i^0)^2\alpha (1\alpha )}}`$ (A.1)
$`\times `$ $`\alpha _{em}ϵ_\kappa (\lambda )ϵ_\rho ^{}(\lambda ^{})L^{\rho \kappa }{\displaystyle \frac{dM^2d\mathrm{\Omega }}{16\pi ^2M^4}},`$
where $`p_i`$ is the momentum of the projectile quark, $`p_f`$ is the momentum of the final quark and $`q`$ is the momentum of the massive photon, $`q^2=M^2>0`$. The first line describes the bremsstrahlung of a massive photon from a quark (as depicted in Fig. 1), and the second line the decay into the lepton pair $`l^+l^{}`$ into solid angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (not shown in Fig. 1). The electromagnetic coupling constant is denoted by $`\alpha _{em}=e^2/(4\pi )=1/137`$. Furthermore, $`ϵ_\mu (\lambda )`$ is the polarization vector of the photon, $`\lambda \{\pm 1,0\}`$. We sum over all final states $`X`$ and the photon polarizations $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$. The $`\delta `$-function for energy conservation is already integrated over. Furthermore, $`\alpha `$ is the energy fraction the photon takes from its parent quark. It is assumed that only transverse momentum but no energy is exchanged with the target. Then, $`\overline{}^{\mu \nu }`$ is the absolute square of the bremsstrahlungs-amplitude, before contraction with the polarization vector of the photon. There are two contributions to this amplitude,

$$\overline{}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\sigma _f\sigma _i}{}\frac{1}{N_c}\underset{c_fc_i}{}(_s^\mu +_u^\mu )(_s^\nu +_u^\nu ).$$
(A.2)
The $`s`$-channel amplitude $`_s^\mu `$ describes the process where the photon is radiated after the quark has scattered off the target, Fig. 1 (left), and the $`u`$-channel amplitude $`_u^\mu `$ describes the process where the photon is radiated before the quark scatters off the proton, Fig. 1 (right). The bar indicates that the matrix element is summed over helicity $`\sigma _f`$ and color $`c_f`$ of the final quark and averaged over helicity $`\sigma _i`$ and color $`c_i`$ of the initial quark. ($`N_c=3`$ is the number of colors.) Finally, $`p_{l^\pm }`$ are the dilepton momenta and

$$L^{\mu \nu }=4(p_{l^+}^\mu p_l^{}^\nu +p_{l^+}^\nu p_l^{}^\mu g^{\mu \nu }p_{l^+}p_l^{})$$
(A.3)
is the leptonic tensor, summed over helicities.

Different terms in the sum over photon helicities lead to different angular distributions of the lepton pair. In this paper, we integrate over the solid angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=d\varphi d(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, and obtain for the differential DY cross section

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4\sigma (qNl^+l^{}X)}{d\mathrm{ln}\alpha dM^2d^2q_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}}{3\pi M^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma _T(qN\gamma ^{}X)}{d\mathrm{ln}\alpha d^2q_{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma _L(qN\gamma ^{}X)}{d\mathrm{ln}\alpha d^2q_{}}}\right\},`$
where the indices $`T`$ and $`L`$ stand for transverse and longitudinal photons, respectively. We also integrated over the phase space of the final quark. The factor $`\alpha _{em}/(3\pi M^2)`$ originates from the second line of Eq. (A.1) and describes the decay of the $`\gamma ^{}`$ into the lepton pair. The interesting physics resides in the quantities $`d^3\sigma _{T,L}/d\mathrm{ln}\alpha d^2q_{}`$, which are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma _T(qN\gamma ^{}X)}{d\mathrm{ln}\alpha d^2q_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2p_f\underset{X}{}\underset{\lambda \{\pm 1\}}{}\frac{ϵ_\mu ^{}(\lambda )ϵ_\nu (\lambda )\overline{}^{\mu \nu }}{(2\pi )^58(p_i^0)^2(1\alpha )}},`$ (A.4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma _T(qN\gamma ^{}X)}{d\mathrm{ln}\alpha d^2q_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2p_f\underset{X}{}\frac{ϵ_\mu ^{}(\lambda =0)ϵ_\nu (\lambda =0)\overline{}^{\mu \nu }}{(2\pi )^58(p_i^0)^2(1\alpha )}}.`$ (A.5)
Terms with $`\lambda \lambda ^{}`$ in Eq. (A.1) vanish after integration over the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$.

We will now express the $`d^3\sigma _{T,L}/d\mathrm{ln}\alpha d^2q_{}`$ in terms of the $`q\gamma ^{}q`$ light-cone(LC) wavefunctions and the dipole cross section. Consider the $`s`$-channel graph in Fig. 1 (left) where the photon is radiated after the projectile quark has scattered off the target. The propagator of the quark in the intermediate state can be written as

$$\frac{p_f/+q/+m_f}{(p_f+q)^2m_f^2}=\underset{\sigma }{}\frac{u_\sigma (p_f+q)\overline{u}_\sigma (p_f+q)}{(p_f+q)^2m_f^2}\frac{\gamma ^+}{2(p_f^++q^+)}.$$
(A.6)
The $`u_\sigma (p)`$ are Dirac-spinors, $`(p/m_f)u_\sigma (p)=0`$, for on-shell momentum $`p`$ and helicity $`\sigma `$. The $`\gamma ^+`$-term arises, because the intermediate quark is off-shell. In the high energy approximation which we employ, this term is dropped333As already pointed out in , this approximation is equivalent to neglecting the instantaneous vertices in a Hamiltonian light-cone approach to QCD , and violates gauge invariance. The color dipole approach is gauge invariant only in leading log($`x`$) approximation.. This is the crucial step that allows one to write the amplitude as a product of an LC wavefunction and a quark scattering amplitude.

The $`s`$-channel amplitude then turns out to be

$$\mathrm{i}_s^\mu =e\underset{\sigma }{}\frac{\overline{u}_{\sigma _f}(p_f)\gamma ^\mu u_\sigma (p_f+q)}{(p_f+q)^2m_f^2}t_{q,\sigma \sigma _i}((p_f^0+q^0),\stackrel{}{k}_{}).$$
(A.7)
For simplicity, we have set the flavor charge to unity. Here, $`t_{q,\sigma \sigma _i}((p_f^0+q^0),\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ is the amplitude for scattering a quark off a nucleon in the rest frame of the nucleon,

$$t_{q,\sigma \sigma _i}((p_f^0+q^0),\stackrel{}{k}_{})=\overline{u}_\sigma (p_f+q)\gamma ^0V_q(\stackrel{}{k}_{})u_{\sigma _i}(p_i)2p_i^0\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma _i}V_q(\stackrel{}{k}_{}).$$
(A.8)
Note that $`t`$ and $`V`$ are matrices in color space, we suppressed the color indices. Our spinors are normalized to $`u_\sigma ^{}(p)u_\sigma ^{}(p)=2p^0\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}`$. The function $`V_q(\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ will be completely absorbed into the dipole cross section, so that we will never need to specify it. Therefore, the dipole formulation also accounts for some higher order and nonperturbative effects, which are difficult or even impossible to account for in the standard parton model. We write $`V_q`$ only as function of the exchanged transverse momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}=\stackrel{}{p}_f+\stackrel{}{q}_{}\stackrel{}{p}_i`$, because the longitudinal momentum of the projectile quark cannot be changed significantly at high energies. Note that $`V_q`$ also depends on energy, even though we do not write this dependence explicitly. The Kronecker-$`\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma _i}`$ means that the helicity of the quark is not changed by scattering off the proton.

In impact parameter space, the amplitude reads

$`\stackrel{~}{}_s^\mu (\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{\rho })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2l_{}d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{l}_{}\alpha \stackrel{}{\rho }\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{b}}_s^\mu (\stackrel{}{l}_{},\stackrel{}{k}_{})}`$ (A.9)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\sqrt{4\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1\alpha }}{\alpha ^2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^\mu (\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho })2p_i^0\stackrel{~}{V}_q(\stackrel{}{b}),`$ (A.10)
where $`\stackrel{}{l}_{}=\stackrel{}{p}_f(1\alpha )\stackrel{}{q}_{}/\alpha `$ is the transverse momentum of the final quark in a frame where the $`z`$-axis is parallel to the photon momentum. The conjugate variable to $`\stackrel{}{l}_{}`$, namely $`\alpha \stackrel{}{\rho }`$, is then the transverse distance between initial and final quark in that frame. This quantity will become the distance variable the dipole cross section. Furthermore,

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_q(\stackrel{}{b})=\frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{b}}V_q(\stackrel{}{k}_{}).$$
(A.11)
The LC wavefunctions in impact parameter space are related to the quark-photon vertex and the propagator by Fourier transformation,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^\mu (\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho })=\alpha ^3\sqrt{1\alpha }\frac{d^2l_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{l}_{}\alpha \stackrel{}{\rho }}\sqrt{\alpha _{em}}\frac{\overline{u}_{\sigma _f}(p_f)\gamma ^\mu u_{\sigma _i}(p_f+q)}{\alpha ^2l_{}^2+\eta ^2},$$
(A.12)
where $`\eta ^2=(1\alpha )M^2+\alpha ^2m_f^2`$. In our numerical calculations in this paper, we set the quark mass $`m_f=0`$. See  for its influence.

The $`u`$-channel graph can be written in the same way as (A.9), but with a quark scattering amplitude at a shifted impact parameter. This can be seen from the propagators. While the propagator for the $`s`$-channel graph yields

$$\frac{1}{(p_f+q)^2m_f^2}=\frac{\alpha (1\alpha )}{\alpha ^2l_{}^2+\eta ^2},$$
(A.13)
one finds for the $`u`$-channel graph the combination $`\stackrel{}{l}_{}+\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$ instead of $`l_{}`$,

$$\frac{1}{(p_iq)^2m_f^2}=\frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^2(\stackrel{}{l}_{}+\stackrel{}{k}_{})^2+\eta ^2}.$$
(A.14)
One then obtains for the $`u`$-channel amplitude in impact parameter space

$`\stackrel{~}{}_u^\mu (\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{\rho })`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{4\pi }}{\alpha ^2\sqrt{1\alpha }}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^\mu (\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho })2p_f^0\stackrel{~}{V}_q(\stackrel{}{b}+\alpha \stackrel{}{\rho })`$ (A.15)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\sqrt{4\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1\alpha }}{\alpha ^2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^\mu (\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho })2p_i^0\stackrel{~}{V}_q(\stackrel{}{b}+\alpha \stackrel{}{\rho }).`$ (A.16)
and with Eqs. (A.4) and (A.5) for the photon production cross sections

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma _{T,L}(qN\gamma ^{}X)}{d\mathrm{ln}\alpha d^2q_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2p_f\frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}d^2b_1d^2b_2d^2\rho _1d^2\rho _2}`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{l}_{}\alpha (\stackrel{}{\rho }_1\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)+\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{k}_{}(\stackrel{}{b}_1\stackrel{}{b}_2)}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _f\sigma _i}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^\lambda (\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^\lambda (\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}{\displaystyle \underset{c_fc_i}{}}\left\{\stackrel{~}{V}_q(\stackrel{}{b}_1)\stackrel{~}{V}_q(\stackrel{}{b}_1+\alpha \stackrel{}{\rho }_1)\right\}\left\{\stackrel{~}{V}_q^{}(\stackrel{}{b}_2)\stackrel{~}{V}_q^{}(\stackrel{}{b}_2+\alpha \stackrel{}{\rho }_2)\right\},`$
where $`\stackrel{}{l}_{}=\stackrel{}{p}_f(1\alpha )\stackrel{}{q}_{}/\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}=\stackrel{}{p}_f+\stackrel{}{q}_{}\stackrel{}{p}_i`$. In the transverse case ($`T`$), the sum over $`\lambda `$ includes both transverse polarizations, $`\lambda =\pm 1`$, while in the longitudinal case ($`L`$) only one term, $`\lambda =0`$ appears in the sum.

The LC wavefunctions for radiation of transverse and longitudinal photons are readily calculated by contracting Eq. (A.12) with the photon polarization vector ,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^T(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^T(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =\pm 1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _f\sigma _i}{}}ϵ_\mu ^{}(\lambda )\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^\mu (\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_1)ϵ_\mu (\lambda )\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^\mu (\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)`$ (A.18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}}{2\pi ^2}}\{m_f^2\alpha ^4\mathrm{K}_0\left(\eta \rho _1\right)\mathrm{K}_0\left(\eta \rho _2\right)`$
$`+`$ $`[1+(1\alpha )^2]\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\rho }_1\stackrel{}{\rho }_2}{\rho _1\rho _2}}\mathrm{K}_1\left(\eta \rho _1\right)\mathrm{K}_1\left(\eta \rho _2\right)\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^L(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^L(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _f\sigma _i}{}}ϵ_\mu ^{}(\lambda =0)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^{\lambda =0}(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_1)ϵ_\mu (\lambda =0)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^{\lambda =0}(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)`$ (A.19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}}{\pi ^2}}M^2\left(1\alpha \right)^2\mathrm{K}_0\left(\eta \rho _1\right)\mathrm{K}_0\left(\eta \rho _2\right).`$
Often, one needs only the sum over all polarization states of the photon. We denote the corresponding quantity by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^{}(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^T(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^T(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^L(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^L(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_2).$$
(A.20)
Integrating (Appendix A) over the transverse momentum $`q_{}`$ of the photon yields

$$\frac{d\sigma _{T,L}(qN\gamma ^{}X)}{d\mathrm{ln}\alpha }=d^2\rho \left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^{T,L}(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho })\right|^2\sigma _{q\overline{q}}^N(\alpha \rho ),$$

with the dipole cross section

$$\sigma _{q\overline{q}}(\alpha \rho )=\underset{X}{}\frac{1}{N_c}\underset{c_fc_i}{}d^2b\left|\stackrel{~}{V}_q(\stackrel{}{b})\stackrel{~}{V}_q(\stackrel{}{b}+\alpha \stackrel{}{\rho })\right|^2.$$
(A.21)
If one assumes that the quark interacts via one-gluon exchange with the target and expands Eq. (A.21) to first order in $`(\alpha \rho )^2`$, keeping only terms of order $`\alpha _s`$, then the dipole cross section is proportional to the target gluon density

We can also express the transverse momentum distribution of DY pairs in terms of the dipole cross section . The differential cross section is given by the Fourier integral

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma _{T,L}(qN\gamma ^{}X)}{d\mathrm{ln}\alpha d^2q_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle d^2\rho _1d^2\rho _2\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{q}_{}(\stackrel{}{\rho }_1\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^{T,L}(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q}^{T,L}(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)}`$ (A.22)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{\sigma _{q\overline{q}}^N(\alpha \rho _1)+\sigma _{q\overline{q}}^N(\alpha \rho _2)\sigma _{q\overline{q}}^N(\alpha (\stackrel{}{\rho }_1\stackrel{}{\rho }_2))\right\}.`$
To derive this expression, one performs the integration over $`\stackrel{}{p}_f`$ in Eq. (Appendix A) and observes that Eq. (Appendix A) has a real value. This allows one to symmetrize the integrand with respect to $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_2`$. The functions $`V_q`$ combine then to the dipole cross sections in the second line of Eq. (A.22). After integrating Eq. (A.22) over the transverse momentum $`q_{}`$ of the photon, one obviously recovers Eq. (Appendix A).