1: %\documentclass[preprint,tightenlines,aps,prd,superscriptaddress,showpacs]
2: %\documentclass[twocolumn,aps,prl,groupedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[tightenlines,aps,prd,showpacs]{revtex4}
4:
5: \documentclass[preprint,aps,prd,showpacs,nofootinbib,superscriptaddress,floatfix]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[preprint,tightenlines,aps,prd,showpacs,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
7: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,prd,showpacs]{revtex4}
8: \usepackage{graphicx}
9: \usepackage{amsmath}
10: \usepackage{amssymb}
11: \usepackage{bm}
12: \usepackage{bbm}
13: \setlength\arraycolsep{2pt}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16: \preprint{ANL-HEP-PR-07-79}
17:
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: %Title of paper
20: \title{\mbox{}\\[10pt]
21: Resummation of Relativistic Corrections to
22: $\bm{ e^{+}e^{-}\to J/\psi+\eta_{c}}$
23: }
24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25: \author{Geoffrey T. Bodwin}
26: \affiliation{
27: High Energy Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory,\\
28: 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439, USA}
29:
30: \author{Jungil Lee}
31: \affiliation{
32: High Energy Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory,\\
33: 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439, USA}
34: \affiliation{
35: Department of Physics, Korea University, Seoul 136-701, Korea}
36:
37:
38: \author{Chaehyun Yu}
39: \affiliation{
40: Department of Physics, Korea University, Seoul 136-701, Korea}
41:
42: %\date{\today}
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44: \begin{abstract}
45: We present a new calculation, in the nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD)
46: factorization formalism, of the relativistic corrections to the
47: double-charmonium cross section $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi+\eta_c]$ at the
48: energy of the Belle and BABAR experiments. In comparison with previous
49: work, our calculation contains several refinements. These include the
50: use of the improved results for the nonperturbative NRQCD matrix
51: elements, the resummation of a class of relativistic corrections, the
52: use of the vector-meson-dominance method to calculate the fragmentation
53: contribution to the pure QED amplitude, the inclusion of the effects of
54: the running of $\alpha$, and the inclusion of the contribution that
55: arises from the interference between the relativistic corrections and the
56: corrections of next-to-leading order in $\alpha_s$. We also present a
57: detailed estimate of the theoretical uncertainty. We
58: conclude that the discrepancy between the theoretical prediction for
59: $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi+\eta_c]$ and the experimental measurements has
60: been resolved.
61: \end{abstract}
62:
63: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
64: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
65: \pacs{12.38.-t, 12.39.St, 12.40.Vv, 13.66.Bc}
66: % 12.38.-t Quantum chromodynamics
67: % 12.39.St Factorization
68: % 12.40.Vv Vector-meson dominance
69: % 13.20.Gd Decays of J/psi, Upsilon, and other quarkonia (Leptonic decay)
70: % 13.25.Gv Decays of J/psi, Upsilon, and other quarkonia (Hadronic decay)
71: % 13.66.Bc Hadron production in e-e+ interactions
72: % 14.40.Gx (Properties of specific particles )
73: % Mesons with S=C=B=0, mass > 2.5 GeV (including quarkonia)
74:
75:
76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
77: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this
78: %\keywords{}
79:
80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
81: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract, \pacs, and \keywords
82: \maketitle
83:
84: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
85: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands
86: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands
87:
88: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
89: \section{Introduction\label{intro}}
90: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
91:
92: For a number of years, one of the largest discrepancies in the standard
93: model has been the disagreement between theory and experiment for
94: exclusive double-charmonium process $e^+e^-\to J/\psi+\eta_c$ at the
95: $B$-factory energy of $10.58$~GeV. Initially,
96: the Belle Collaboration reported for the cross section times the
97: branching fraction into four or more charged tracks $\sigma[e^+e^-\to
98: J/\psi+\eta_c]\times B_{\ge 4}=33_{-6}^{+7}\pm 9~\hbox{fb}$
99: (Ref.~\cite{Abe:2002rb}). The first theoretical predictions were based
100: on NRQCD factorization calculations
101: \cite{Bodwin:1994jh} at leading order in $\alpha_s$, the QCD
102: coupling constant, and $v$, the heavy-quark (or antiquark) velocity in
103: the quarkonium rest frame. These predictions were $\sigma[e^+e^-\to
104: J/\psi+\eta_c]=3.78\pm 1.26~\hbox{fb}$ (Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi}) and
105: $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi+\eta_c]=5.5~\hbox{fb}$
106: (Ref.~\cite{Liu:2002wq}).\footnote{The authors of
107: Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi} initially reported a cross section of
108: $2.31\pm 1.09~\hbox{fb}$, but later corrected a sign error in the QED
109: interference term to arrive at the value cited above.} The calculation of
110: Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi} includes QED effects, while that of
111: Ref.~\cite{Liu:2002wq} does not. Other differences between these
112: calculations arise from different choices of the charm-quark mass $m_c$,
113: NRQCD matrix elements, and $\alpha_s$. The sensitivities of the
114: calculations to these choices are indicative of large sources of
115: uncertainty in the theoretical calculations that have not yet been
116: quantified.
117:
118: More recently, the Belle Collaboration has measured the production cross
119: section times the branching fraction into more than two charged
120: tracks and finds that $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi+\eta_c]\times
121: B_{>2}=25.6\pm 2.8\pm 3.4~\hbox{fb}$ (Ref.~\cite{Abe:2004ww}). The BABAR
122: Collaboration has also measured this quantity, and obtains
123: $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi+\eta_c]\times B_{> 2}=17.6\pm 2.8\pm
124: 2.1~\hbox{fb}$ (Ref.~\cite{Aubert:2005tj}). These new experimental
125: results have narrowed the gap between theory and experiment.
126:
127: An important recent theoretical development is the calculation of the
128: corrections of next-to-leading order (NLO) in $\alpha_s$
129: (Ref.~\cite{Zhang:2005ch}). These yield a $K$~factor of about $1.96$.
130: While this $K$~factor is substantial, it does not, by itself, completely
131: remove the discrepancy between theory and experiment.
132:
133: Relativistic corrections to $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi+\eta_c]$ also
134: make a significant contribution to the theoretical prediction. These
135: corrections arise in two ways. First, they appear directly in the
136: corrections of order $v^2$ and higher to the process $e^+e^-\to J/\psi
137: +\eta_c$ itself. Second, they arise indirectly when one makes use of
138: phenomenological determinations of certain NRQCD matrix elements that
139: appear in the expression for $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi +\eta_c]$.
140: For example, the relevant matrix element of leading order in $v$
141: for the $J/\psi$ can be determined phenomenologically from the
142: experimental value for the width for $J/\psi \to e^+e^-$ and the
143: theoretical expression for that process. However, the theoretical
144: expression contains relativistic corrections, which then indirectly
145: affect the calculation of $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi +\eta_c]$.
146: The first relativistic correction appears at order $v^2$. ($v^2\approx
147: 0.3$ for charmonium.) In Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi}, the order-$v^2$
148: correction was calculated and was found to be about
149: $1.95 \langle v^2\rangle_{J/\psi}+ 2.37 \langle v^2\rangle_{\eta_c}$.
150: Here, $\langle v^2\rangle_H$ is the ratio of an
151: order-$v^2$ nonperturbative NRQCD matrix element to the leading-order
152: matrix element in the quarkonium state
153: $H$.
154: The large coefficients in the order-$v^2$
155: correction potentially lead to a relativistic correction. In
156: Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi}, the $K$~factor for the relativistic
157: corrections was found to be $2.0_{-1.1}^{+10.9}$. The large
158: uncertainties arose from large uncertainties in the NRQCD matrix
159: elements.
160:
161: Recently, progress has been made in reducing the uncertainties in the
162: order-$v^2$ NRQCD matrix elements by making use of a potential model to
163: calculate the quarkonium wave function \cite{Bodwin:2006dn}. The results
164: of Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006dn} allow one to make a meaningful
165: prediction for the relativistic corrections to $\sigma[e^+e^-\to
166: J/\psi+\eta_c]$. Making use of these results
167: to compute the relativistic corrections and
168: taking into account the corrections of NLO in $\alpha_s$, the authors of
169: Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006ke} have given the prediction $\sigma[e^+e^-\to
170: J/\psi +\eta_c]=17.5\pm 5.7$~fb.
171:
172: The authors of Ref.~\cite{He:2007te} have taken a different approach,
173: determining the NRQCD matrix elements of leading order in $v$ and of
174: relative order $v^2$ by using $\Gamma[J/\psi\to e^+e^-]$,
175: $\Gamma[\eta_c\to\gamma\gamma]$, and $\Gamma[J/\psi\to \textrm{light
176: hadrons}]$ as inputs. Their result, $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi
177: +\eta_c]=20.04$~fb, is in agreement with the result of
178: Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006ke}. However, as we shall discuss, the values of
179: the individual matrix elements that were used in Ref.~\cite{He:2007te}
180: differ significantly from the values that were used in
181: Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006ke}.
182:
183: The results of Refs.~\cite{Bodwin:2006ke} and \cite{He:2007te} suggest
184: that there is no longer a discrepancy between the experimental
185: measurements and the theoretical prediction. Nevertheless, it is useful
186: to include further refinements that improve the precision of the
187: theoretical prediction and to estimate as precisely as possible the
188: various theoretical uncertainties.
189:
190: In the present paper, we carry out a new calculation of the relativistic
191: corrections to $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi +\eta_c]$. We include the
192: effects of pure QED processes, as well as QCD processes. In the case
193: of the pure QED processes, we incorporate a further refinement by
194: making use of the vector-meson-dominance (VMD) formalism to compute the
195: photon-fragmentation contribution. This approach reduces the theoretical
196: uncertainties that are associated with the pure QED contribution.
197: In our calculation, we make use of the approach of
198: Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006dn} to resum a class of relativistic corrections
199: to all orders in $v$. We also compute the contribution that arises from
200: the interference between the relativistic corrections and the
201: corrections of NLO in $\alpha_s$. Our calculation takes advantage of the
202: new higher-precision determinations of the relevant NRQCD matrix
203: elements in Ref.~\cite{BCKLY}. We make use of the detailed error
204: analysis of Ref.~\cite{BCKLY} to estimate the theoretical uncertainties
205: in our calculation, some of which are highly correlated.
206:
207: The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
208: Sec.~\ref{sec:general-amp}, we discuss the general form of the amplitude
209: for the process $e^+e^-\to J/\psi +\eta_c$, and, in
210: Sec.~\ref{sec:gamma-Q4}, we discuss the corresponding quark-level
211: amplitude. Sec.~\ref{sec:nrqcd_exp} contains the expression for the
212: NRQCD expansion of the amplitude and a discussion of the matching
213: between NRQCD and full QCD. In Sec.~\ref{sec:resummation}, we describe
214: the resummation method that we employ. Sec.~\ref{sec:frame} contains
215: the specifics of the frame and coordinate system that we use in the
216: calculation. We present explicit formulas for the cross section in
217: Sec.~\ref{sec:x-section}. The VMD method for computing the fragmentation
218: contribution to the pure QED amplitude is summarized in
219: Sec.~\ref{sec:VMD}. We specify how we choose quarkonium masses in the
220: calculation in Sec.~\ref{sec:masses}. We present the method that we use
221: to compute the interference between the relativistic corrections and the
222: corrections of NLO in $\alpha_s$ in Sec.~\ref{sec:interference}. We give
223: our numerical results in Sec.~\ref{sec:results} and compare them with
224: the results from previous calculations in Sec.~\ref{sec:comparison}.
225: Finally, we summarize and discuss our results in
226: Sec.~\ref{sec:discussion}.
227:
228: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
229: \section{General Form of the amplitude for
230: $\bm{e^+e^-\to J/\psi+\eta_c}$
231: \label{sec:general-amp}}
232: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
233:
234: Let us consider the amplitude for the exclusive process
235: $\gamma^\ast\to J/\psi(P_1,\lambda)+\eta_c(P_2)$, where $\lambda$ is the
236: helicity of the $J/\psi$. The $S$-matrix element for
237: $e^+(k_2) e^-(k_1)\to J/\psi(P_1,\lambda)+\eta_c(P_2)$
238: can be written as
239: %------------------
240: \begin{equation}
241: %------------------
242: \mathcal{M}(\lambda)=L^\mu \,\mathcal{A}_\mu[J/\psi(\lambda)+\eta_c],
243: \label{em}%
244: %------------------
245: \end{equation}
246: %------------------
247: where the leptonic factor $L^\mu$ is defined by
248: %------------------
249: \begin{equation}
250: %------------------
251: L^\mu=-i\frac{e_c e^2}{s}\bar{v}(k_2)\gamma^\mu u(k_1).
252: \label{L-mu}%
253: %------------------
254: \end{equation}
255: %------------------
256: Here, $e_c$ is the electric charge of the charm quark and
257: $s=4E_{\textrm{beam}}^2$ is the square of the $e^+e^-$
258: center-of-momentum (CM) energy.
259: $\mathcal{A}_\mu[J/\psi(\lambda)+\eta_c]$ in Eq.~(\ref{em}) is
260: the vacuum-to-$J/\psi+\eta_c$ matrix element. It can be expressed in
261: the following form, which derives from the Lorentz invariance of the
262: amplitude and the parity conservation of the strong and electromagnetic
263: interactions~\cite{Braaten:2002fi}:
264: %------------------
265: \begin{equation}
266: %------------------
267: \mathcal{A}_\mu[J/\psi(\lambda)+\eta_c]
268: =
269: \langle J/\psi(P_1,\lambda)+\eta_c(P_2)|J_\mu(0)|0\rangle
270: =
271: iA\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}P_1^\nu P_2^\alpha
272: \epsilon^{\ast\beta}(\lambda),
273: %------------------
274: \label{me}%
275: \end{equation}
276: %------------------
277: where $J_\mu(0)$ is the electromagnetic current,
278: $\epsilon^\ast(\lambda)$ is the polarization four-vector of the
279: $J/\psi$ with helicity $\lambda$ whose components in the $J/\psi$
280: rest frame are $\epsilon^\ast(\lambda)=[0,\bm{\epsilon}^\ast(\lambda)]$.
281: The convention
282: for the antisymmetric tensor in Eq.~(\ref{me}) is chosen so that
283: $\epsilon_{0123}=+1$. We note that $A$ is parity invariant and that
284: $\mathcal{A}^\mu$ transforms as a four-vector under parity.
285:
286: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
287: \section{Amplitude for $\bm{\gamma^\ast\to} \bm{Q}\bar{\bm{Q}}
288: \bm{({}^3S_1)} \bm{+} \bm{Q}\bar{\bm{Q}}\bm{({}^1S_0)}$
289: \label{sec:gamma-Q4}}
290: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
291: The exclusive process $\gamma^\ast\to J/\psi(P_1,\lambda)+\eta_c(P_2)$
292: involves the decay of a virtual photon into two heavy quark-antiquark
293: ($Q\bar Q$) pairs $Q(p_i)\bar{Q}(\bar{p}_i)$ ($i=1\hbox{~or~}2$). Both
294: of the pairs are in color-singlet states. At leading order in
295: $\alpha_s$, the process proceeds through the diagrams shown in
296: Fig.~\ref{fig1}, plus two additional diagrams in which the directions of
297: the arrows on the heavy-quark lines are reversed.
298: \begin{figure}
299: \centerline{
300: \includegraphics[height=3.5cm]{psi-etac-fig1a.eps}
301: \quad\quad
302: \includegraphics[height=3.5cm]{psi-etac-fig1b.eps}
303: }
304: \caption{Feynman diagrams for the process $e^+ e^- \to J/\psi + \eta_c$
305: at leading order in $\alpha_s$. The wavy line represents a photon, the
306: curly line represents a gluon, and the straight lines represent
307: the leptons and heavy quarks. There are six additional diagrams that
308: can be obtained by reversing the directions of the arrows on the
309: heavy-quark lines and/or by replacing the gluon by a photon.}
310: \label{fig1}
311: \end{figure}
312: There are also purely electromagnetic contributions to the process. At
313: leading order in the QED coupling $\alpha$, two types of diagrams
314: contribute to the QED processes. The first type consists of the diagrams
315: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1} (plus two others in which the directions of
316: the arrows on the heavy-quark lines are reversed), but with the gluon
317: replaced by a photon. The second type consists of diagrams in which a
318: photon fragments into a $J/\psi$. One of these diagrams is shown in
319: Fig.~\ref{fig2}. (There is an additional diagram in which the
320: directions of the arrows on the heavy-quark line on the $\eta_c$ side
321: are reversed.)
322: \begin{figure}
323: \centerline{
324: \includegraphics[height=3.5cm]{psi-etac-fig2.eps}
325: }
326: \caption{Feynman diagram for the process $e^+ e^- \to J/\psi + \eta_c$
327: in which a photon fragments into a $J/\psi$.
328: There is an additional diagram that can be obtained by reversing the
329: directions of the arrows on the heavy-quark line on the $\eta_c$ side.}
330: \label{fig2}
331: \end{figure}
332:
333: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
334: \subsection{Kinematics\label{sec:kinematics}}
335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
336:
337: The $Q$ and $\bar{Q}$ that evolve into the charmonium $H_i$ with
338: momentum $P_i$ have momenta $p_i$ and $\bar{p}_i$, where $i=1$
339: denotes the $J/\psi$ and $i=2$ denotes the $\eta_c$.
340: The $Q(p_1)\bar{Q}(\bar{p}_1)$ pair is in a spin-triplet $S$-wave state and
341: the $Q(p_2)\bar{Q}(\bar{p}_2)$ pair is in a spin-singlet $S$-wave state.
342: The four-momenta of the $Q$ and $\bar Q$ in the $i$-th pair
343: are expressed in terms of the total momentum $P_i$ and the relative momentum
344: $q_i$:
345: %------------------
346: \begin{subequations}
347: \begin{eqnarray}
348: %------------------
349: p_i&=&\tfrac{1}{2}P_i+q_i,
350: \\
351: \bar{p}_i&=&\tfrac{1}{2}P_i-q_i.
352: %------------------
353: \end{eqnarray}
354: \label{p-i}%
355: \end{subequations}
356: %------------------
357: $P_i$ and $q_i$ are chosen to be orthogonal: $P_i\cdot q_i=0$.
358: In the rest frame of the $i$-th $Q\bar{Q}$ pair, the explicit components
359: of the momenta listed above are $P_i=[2E(q_i),\bm{0}]$, $q_i=(0,\bm{q}_i)$,
360: $p_i=[E(q_i),\bm{q}_i]$,
361: and $\bar{p}_i=[E(q_i),-\bm{q}_i]$,
362: respectively, where $E(q_i)=\sqrt{m_c^2+\bm{q}^2_i}$ is the energy of
363: the $Q$ or the $\bar{Q}$ in the $Q\bar{Q}$ rest frame.
364:
365: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
366: \subsection{Spin and color projectors\label{sec:spin-projection}}
367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
368:
369: A production amplitude of a $Q(p_i)\bar{Q}(\bar{p_i})$ pair
370: can be expressed in the form
371: %------------------
372: \begin{equation}
373: %------------------
374: \bar{u}(p_i) \mathcal{A} v(\bar{p}_i) =
375: \textrm{Tr} \big[ \mathcal{A} \, v(\bar{p}_i) \bar{u}(p_i) \big],
376: %------------------
377: \label{vbarAu}%
378: \end{equation}
379: %------------------
380: where $\mathcal{A}$ is a matrix that acts on spinors with both
381: Dirac and color indices. The amplitude in Eq.~(\ref{vbarAu})
382: can be projected into a particular spin and color channel by
383: replacing $v(\bar{p}_i)\bar{u}(p_i)$ with a projection matrix.
384: The color projector $\pi_1$ onto a color-singlet state is
385: %------------------
386: \begin{equation}
387: %------------------
388: \pi_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_c}} \mathbbm{1},
389: \label{color-projector}%
390: \end{equation}
391: %------------------
392: where $\mathbbm{1}$ is the $3\times 3$ unit matrix of the fundamental
393: representation of SU(3). The color-singlet projector
394: (\ref{color-projector}) is normalized so that
395: Tr[$\pi_1 \pi_1^\dagger$]=1. The projector of the pair
396: $Q(p_1)\bar{Q}(\bar{p}_1)$ onto a spin-triplet state with helicity $\lambda$
397: and the
398: projector of the pair $Q(p_2)\bar{Q}(\bar{p}_2)$ onto a spin-singlet
399: state
400: are denoted by $\Pi_3(p_1,\bar{p}_1,\lambda)$ and
401: $\Pi_1(p_2,\bar{p}_2)$, respectively. The projectors, valid to all orders
402: in $\bm{q}_i$, are given in Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2002hg}:
403: %------------------
404: \begin{subequations}
405: \begin{eqnarray}
406: %------------------
407: \Pi_3(p_1,\bar{p}_1,\lambda)&=&
408: -\frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}E(q_1)[E(q_1)+m_c\,]}
409: (/\!\!\!\bar{p}_1-m_c)
410: \,/\!\!\!\epsilon^{\,\ast}(\lambda)
411: [\,/\!\!\!\!P_1\!+\!2E(q_1)]
412: (/\!\!\!{p}_1+m_c),
413: \\
414: \Pi_1(p_2,\bar{p}_2)&=&
415: \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}E(q_2)[E(q_2)+m_c\,]}
416: (/\!\!\!\bar{p}_2-m_c)
417: \gamma^5
418: [\,/\!\!\!\!P_2\!+\!2E(q_2)]
419: (/\!\!\!{p}_2+m_c),
420: %------------------
421: \end{eqnarray}
422: \label{spin-projector}%
423: \end{subequations}
424: %------------------
425: where the spin-polarization vector $\epsilon^\ast(\lambda)$
426: satisfies $P_1 \cdot \epsilon^\ast(\lambda)=0$.
427: The spin projectors in Eq.~(\ref{spin-projector}) are normalized so that
428: %------------------
429: \begin{subequations}
430: \begin{eqnarray}
431: %------------------
432: \textrm{Tr}[\Pi_3(p_1,\bar{p}_1,\lambda)
433: \Pi_3^\dagger(p_1,\bar{p}_1,\lambda)]
434: &=& 4 p^0_1 \bar{p}^0_1,
435: \\
436: \textrm{Tr}[\Pi_1(p_2,\bar{p}_2) \Pi^\dagger_1(p_2,\bar{p}_2)]
437: &=& 4 p^0_2 \bar{p}^0_2.
438: %------------------
439: \end{eqnarray}
440: \label{norm-projector}%
441: \end{subequations}
442: %------------------
443: Since we are considering an exclusive process, in which no hadrons are
444: present other than the $J/\psi$ and the $\eta_c$, we consider only the
445: states of the $Q\bar{Q}$ pairs that have the same quantum numbers as the
446: $J/\psi$ and the $\eta_c$. That is, the pair
447: $Q(p_1)\bar{Q}(\bar{p}_1)$ must be in a color-singlet, spin-triplet
448: $S$-wave state, as is the $J/\psi$, and the pair
449: $Q(p_2)\bar{Q}(\bar{p}_2)$ must be in a color-singlet, spin-singlet
450: $S$-wave state, as is the $\eta_c$.
451:
452: The spin projectors in Eq.~(\ref{spin-projector}) can be
453: simplified as follows:
454: %--------------
455: \begin{subequations}
456: \begin{eqnarray}
457: \Pi_3(p_1,\bar{p}_1,\lambda)&=&
458: -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}E(q_1)}
459: \left(\,/\! \! \! \bar{p}_1- m_c \right)
460: \left(
461: \,/\!\!\!\epsilon^{\,\ast}(\lambda)
462: -\frac{(p_1-\bar{p}_1\,)\cdot \epsilon^\ast(\lambda)}
463: {2[E(q_1)+m_c\,]}
464: \right)
465: \left(\,/\! \! \! p_1 + m_c \right),
466: \\
467: \Pi_1(p_2,\bar{p}_2)&=&
468: \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}E(q_2)}
469: \left(\,/\! \! \! \bar{p}_2- m_c \right)
470: \gamma_5
471: \left(\,/\! \! \! p_2 + m_c \right).
472: \end{eqnarray}
473: \label{simple}%
474: \end{subequations}
475: %--------------
476: The spin
477: projectors in Eq.~(\ref{simple}) are also valid to all orders in
478: $\bm{q}_i$.
479:
480: In addition, we provide the following formulas, valid to all order in
481: $\bm{q}_i$, which are useful in this calculation:
482: %--------------
483: \begin{subequations}
484: \begin{eqnarray}
485: \gamma_\alpha\Pi_3(p_1,\bar{p}_1,\lambda)\gamma^\alpha
486: &=&
487: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}E(q_1)}
488: \Bigg[
489: /\! \! \! {p}_1
490: \,/\!\!\!\epsilon^{\,\ast}(\lambda)
491: /\! \! \! \bar{p}_1
492: -m_c^2\,/\!\!\!\epsilon^{\,\ast}(\lambda)
493: +
494: (p_1-\bar{p}_1\,)\cdot \epsilon^\ast(\lambda)
495: \nonumber\\
496: &&
497: \quad \quad \quad
498: \quad \quad
499: \times
500: \left(
501: 2E(q_1)+\frac{m_c(/\! \! \! p_1 - /\! \! \! \bar{p}_1 \,)}
502: {2[E(q_1)+m_c\,]}
503: \right)
504: \Bigg],
505: \\
506: \gamma_\alpha\Pi_1(p_2,\bar{p}_2)\gamma^\alpha&=&
507: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\;\gamma_5
508: \left[4E(q_2)-\frac{m_c}{E(q_2)}\,/\!\!\!\!P_2\right].
509: \end{eqnarray}
510: \label{simple-sum}%
511: \end{subequations}
512: %--------------
513:
514: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
515: \subsection{Projections of the four-quark
516: states\label{sec:s-wave-projection}}
517: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
518:
519: From the full QCD amplitude for
520: $\gamma^\ast\to Q(p_1)\bar{Q}(\bar{p}_1)Q(p_2)\bar{Q}(\bar{p}_2)$,
521: one can project out the amplitude for
522: $\gamma^\ast\to Q\bar{Q}(P_1,q_1,\lambda)+Q\bar{Q}(P_2,q_2)$,
523: where the first pair is in a color-singlet, spin-triplet state
524: with helicity $\lambda$ and the second pair is in a color-singlet,
525: spin-singlet state. Applying the spin projections
526: to both $Q\bar{Q}$ pairs simultaneously, one obtains
527: %------------------
528: \begin{equation}
529: %------------------
530: \mathcal{A}_Q^{\mu}(P_1,q_1,\lambda;P_2,q_2)
531: =
532: \textrm{Tr}\big\{\mathcal{A}^\mu
533: [\gamma^\ast\to Q(p_1)\bar{Q}(\bar{p}_1)Q(p_2)\bar{Q}(\bar{p}_2)]
534: \,
535: [\Pi_3(p_1,\bar{p}_1,\lambda) \otimes \pi_1]
536: \otimes
537: [\Pi_1(p_2,\bar{p}_2) \otimes \pi_1] \big\},
538: %------------------
539: \label{amp-spin-double}%
540: \end{equation}
541: %------------------
542: where
543: $\mathcal{A}^\mu[\gamma^\ast\to Q(p_1)\bar{Q}(\bar{p}_1)%
544: Q(p_2)\bar{Q}(\bar{p}_2)]$ is the full QCD amplitude for
545: $\gamma^\ast\to Q(p_1)\bar{Q}(\bar{p}_1)Q(p_2)\bar{Q}(\bar{p}_2)$,
546: $\mu$ is the vector index of the virtual photon, and
547: $\mathcal{A}_Q^{\mu}(P_1,q_1,\lambda;P_2,q_2)$ is the amplitude
548: for $\gamma^\ast\to Q\bar{Q}(P_1,q_1,\lambda)+Q\bar{Q}(P_2,q_2)$.
549:
550:
551: In the amplitude (\ref{amp-spin-double}), the $Q\bar Q$ pairs are not
552: necessarily in $S$-wave orbital-angular-momentum states. One can
553: project out the $S$-wave amplitude by averaging, for each $Q\bar Q$
554: pair, over the direction of the relative momentum $q_i$ in the
555: $Q\bar{Q}(P_i)$ rest frame. The amplitude for $\gamma^\ast\to
556: Q\bar{Q}({}^3S_1,P_1,\lambda) + Q\bar{Q}({}^1S_0,P_2)$ is
557: %------------------
558: \begin{equation}
559: %------------------
560: \mathcal{A}_Q^{\mu}({}^3S_1,P_1,\lambda;{}^1S_0,P_2)
561: =
562: \overline{\mathcal{A}_Q^{\mu}(P_1,q_1,\lambda;P_2,q_2)},
563: %------------------
564: \label{amp-QQ-fin}%
565: \end{equation}
566: %------------------
567: where the bar on the right side of
568: Eq.~(\ref{amp-QQ-fin}) is the average over the angles of both $q_1$
569: and $q_2$ in the $P_1$ and $P_2$ rest frames, respectively:
570: %------------------
571: \begin{equation}
572: %------------------
573: \overline{\mathcal{A}_Q^{\mu}(P_1,q_1,\lambda;P_2,q_2)}
574: =\int
575: \frac{d\Omega_1 d\Omega_2}{(4\pi)^2}
576: \mathcal{A}_Q^{\mu}(P_1,q_1,\lambda;P_2,q_2).
577: %------------------
578: \label{amp-QQ-angle}%
579: \end{equation}
580: %------------------
581: $d\Omega_i$ is the solid-angle element of $q_i$, defined in
582: the $P_i$ rest frame. Once we have averaged over angles, the $\bm{q}_i$
583: dependence in the amplitude (\ref{amp-QQ-fin}) reduces a dependence only
584: on $\bm{q}_1^2$ and $\bm{q}^2_2$.
585: Note that $P_i$ depends on $\bm{q}_i^2$ implicitly:
586: $P_i^2=4(m_c^2+\bm{q}_i^2)$.
587:
588:
589: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
590: \section{NRQCD expansion of the amplitude and matching
591: \label{sec:nrqcd_exp}}
592: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
593:
594: The NRQCD expansion of Eq.~(\ref{me}) in terms of the vacuum-to-$J/\psi$
595: and vacuum-to-$\eta_c$ matrix elements is
596: \begin{equation}
597: \mathcal{A}^\mu[J/\psi(\lambda)+\eta_c]=
598: \sqrt{2m_1}
599: \sqrt{2m_2}
600: \sum_{m,n}
601: d_{mn}^\mu\langle J/\psi(\lambda)|\mathcal{O}_m| 0\rangle
602: \langle \eta_c|\mathcal{O}_n|0\rangle,
603: \label{nrqcd-exp}
604: \end{equation}
605: where the $d_{mn}^\mu$ are short-distance coefficients and the
606: $\mathcal{O}_m$ and the $\mathcal{O}_n$ are NRQCD operators. The quantities
607: $m_1$ and $m_2$ represent the $J/\psi$ and $\eta_c$ masses,
608: respectively. However, as we shall discuss later, these quantities are
609: not necessarily equal to the physical meson masses, but may
610: instead be expressed as functions of the heavy-quark masses via the
611: nonrelativistic expansion of NRQCD. The factor $\sqrt{2m_1}\sqrt{2m_2}$
612: appears on the right side of Eq.~(\ref{nrqcd-exp}) because we use
613: relativistic normalization for the meson states in
614: $\mathcal{A}^\mu[J/\psi(\lambda)+\eta_c]$, but we use conventional
615: nonrelativistic normalization for the NRQCD matrix elements on the right
616: side of Eq.~(\ref{nrqcd-exp}).
617:
618: Now we approximate the formula (\ref{nrqcd-exp}) by retaining only those
619: operator matrix elements that connect the vacuum to the
620: color-singlet $Q\bar Q$ Fock states of the quarkonia. Then, we
621: have
622: %------------------
623: \begin{eqnarray}
624: %------------------
625: \mathcal{A}^\mu[J/\psi(\lambda)+\eta_c]
626: &=&
627: \sqrt{2m_1}
628: \sqrt{2m_2}
629: \sum_{m=0}^\infty
630: \sum_{n=0}^\infty
631: c^\mu_{mn}(\lambda)
632: \langle J/\psi(\lambda)|
633: \psi^\dagger (-\tfrac{i}{2}\tensor{\bm{D}})^{2m}
634: \bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{\epsilon}(\lambda)\chi|0\rangle
635: \nonumber\\
636: &&
637: \quad\quad\quad
638: \quad\quad\quad
639: \quad\quad\quad
640: \times
641: \langle \eta_c|\psi^\dagger
642: (-\tfrac{i}{2}\tensor{\bm{D}})^{2n}\chi|0\rangle,
643: %------------------
644: \label{A-HH}%
645: \end{eqnarray}
646: %------------------
647: where the short-distance coefficients $c^\mu_{mn}(\lambda)$ are a subset
648: of the short-distance coefficients $d_{mn}^\mu$. $\psi^\dagger$ and
649: $\chi$ are two-component Pauli spinors that create a heavy quark and a
650: heavy antiquark, respectively, $\sigma^i$ is a Pauli matrix, and
651: $\tensor{\bm{D}}$ is the spatial part of the covariant derivative acting
652: to the left and right anti-symmetrically. Note that there is no sum
653: over $\lambda$ on the right side of Eq.~(\ref{A-HH}). All of the
654: three-vector quantities in the NRQCD matrix elements for the $H_i$ are
655: defined in the $P_i$ rest frame. We will clarify below the meaning of
656: the approximation that we have taken to arrive at Eq.~(\ref{A-HH}).
657:
658: The short-distance coefficients $c^\mu_{mn}(\lambda)$ can be
659: obtained from the full QCD amplitude
660: $\mathcal{A}^\mu_{Q}({}^3S_1,P_1,\lambda;{}^1S_0,P_2)$ in
661: Eq.~(\ref{amp-QQ-fin}).
662: The NRQCD expansion of the full QCD amplitude is
663: %------------------
664: \begin{eqnarray}
665: %------------------
666: \mathcal{A}^\mu_{Q}({}^3S_1,P_1,\lambda;{}^1S_0,P_2)
667: &=&
668: \sum_{m=0}^\infty
669: \sum_{n=0}^\infty
670: \,\,
671: c_{mn}^\mu(\lambda)
672: \langle Q\bar{Q}({}^3S_1,\lambda)|
673: \psi^\dagger (-\tfrac{i}{2}\tensor{\bm{D}})^{2m}
674: \bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{\epsilon}(\lambda)
675: \chi|0\rangle
676: \nonumber\\
677: &&
678: \quad \quad \quad
679: \quad \quad \quad
680: \times
681: \langle Q\bar{Q}({}^1S_0)|\psi^\dagger
682: (-\tfrac{i}{2}\tensor{\bm{D}})^{2n}\chi|0\rangle
683: \nonumber\\
684: &=&
685: 8N_cE(q_1)E(q_2)
686: \sum_{m=0}^\infty
687: \sum_{n=0}^\infty
688: c^\mu_{mn}(\lambda) \bm{q}_1^{2m}\bm{q}_2^{2n}.
689: \label{A-QQ}%
690: %------------------
691: \end{eqnarray}
692: %------------------
693: In Eq.~(\ref{A-QQ}), we use relativistic normalization for the $Q$ and
694: $\bar Q$ states in the computation of
695: $\mathcal{A}^\mu_Q({}^3S_1,P_1,\lambda;{}^1S_0,P_2)$ and in the
696: computation of the NRQCD matrix elements. Consequently, a factor
697: $4E(q_1)E(q_2)$ appears in the second equality of Eq.~(\ref{A-QQ}). An
698: additional factor $2N_c$ arises from the spin and color factors of the
699: NRQCD matrix elements. From Eq.~(\ref{A-QQ}), it is straightforward to
700: calculate the short-distance coefficients $c_{mn}^\mu(\lambda)$:
701: %------------------
702: \begin{equation}
703: %------------------
704: c^\mu_{mn}(\lambda)=\frac{1}{m!\, n!}
705: \frac{\partial^m}{\partial \bm{q}_1^{2m}}
706: \frac{\partial^n}{\partial \bm{q}_2^{2n}}
707: \left.
708: \left[
709: \frac{\mathcal{A}^\mu_{Q}({}^3S_1,P_1,\lambda;{}^1S_0,P_2)}
710: {8N_cE(q_1)E(q_2)}
711: \right] \right|_{\bm{q}_1^2=\bm{q}_2^2=0}.
712: \label{cmn-fin}
713: %------------------
714: \end{equation}
715: %------------------
716:
717: Substituting the short-distance coefficients (\ref{cmn-fin})
718: into Eq.~(\ref{A-HH}), one finds that
719: %------------------
720: \begin{eqnarray}
721: %------------------
722: \mathcal{A}^\mu[J/\psi(\lambda)+\eta_c]
723: &=&
724: \sqrt{2m_1}
725: \sqrt{2m_2}
726: \langle J/\psi(\lambda)|\psi^\dagger
727: \bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{\epsilon}(\lambda)\chi|0\rangle
728: \langle \eta_c|\psi^\dagger\chi|0\rangle
729: \nonumber\\&&
730: \times
731: \sum_{m=0}^\infty
732: \sum_{n=0}^\infty
733: c^\mu_{mn}(\lambda)
734: \langle \bm{q}^{2m}\rangle_{J/\psi}
735: \langle \bm{q}^{2n}\rangle_{\eta_c}
736: \nonumber\\
737: &=&
738: \frac{\sqrt{2m_1}\sqrt{2m_2}}{2N_c}
739: \langle J/\psi(\lambda)|\psi^\dagger
740: \bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{\epsilon}(\lambda)\chi|0\rangle
741: \langle \eta_c|\psi^\dagger\chi|0\rangle
742: \sum_{m=0}^\infty
743: \sum_{n=0}^\infty
744: \frac{\langle \bm{q}^{2m}\rangle_{J/\psi}
745: \langle \bm{q}^{2n}\rangle_{\eta_c}}{m!\,n!}
746: \nonumber\\
747: &&
748: \times
749: \left.
750: \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \bm{q}_1^{2}}\right)^m
751: \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \bm{q}_2^{2}}\right)^n
752: \left[
753: \frac{
754: \mathcal{A}_{Q}^\mu({}^3S_1,P_1,\lambda;{}^1S_0,P_2)} {4E(q_1)E(q_2)}
755: \right] \right|_{\bm{q}_1^2=\bm{q}_2^2=0}.
756: %------------------
757: \label{A-HH2}%
758: \end{eqnarray}
759: %------------------
760: Here, the quantities $\langle \bm{q}^{2m}\rangle_H$ are ratios of
761: NRQCD matrix elements:
762: %------------------
763: \begin{subequations}
764: \begin{eqnarray}
765: \langle \bm{q}^{2m}\rangle_{J/\psi}&=&
766: \frac{\langle J/\psi(\lambda)|
767: \psi^\dagger (-\tfrac{i}{2}\tensor{\bm{D}})^{2m}
768: \bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{\epsilon}(\lambda)\chi|0\rangle}
769: {\langle J/\psi(\lambda)|
770: \psi^\dagger \bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{\epsilon}(\lambda)\chi|0\rangle},
771: \label{q2m-psi}
772: \\
773: \langle \bm{q}^{2n}\rangle_{\eta_c}&=&
774: \frac{\langle \eta_c|\psi^\dagger
775: (-\tfrac{i}{2}\tensor{\bm{D}})^{2n} \chi|0\rangle}
776: {\langle \eta_c|\psi^\dagger \chi|0\rangle}.
777: \end{eqnarray}
778: \end{subequations}
779: %------------------
780: We note that $\langle J/\psi(\lambda)|\psi^\dagger
781: \bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{\epsilon}(\lambda)\chi|0\rangle$ and $\langle
782: \bm{q}^{2m}\rangle_{J/\psi}$ are independent of the $J/\psi$ helicity
783: $\lambda$, and there are no sums over $\lambda$ in
784: these quantities.
785:
786: Now we can clarify the meaning of the approximation that was taken to
787: arrive at Eq.~(\ref{A-HH}) and, consequently, to arrive at
788: Eq.~(\ref{A-HH2}). Suppose that we specialize to the Coulomb gauge.
789: Then, we can drop the gauge fields in covariant derivatives in the
790: matrix elements in Eq.~(\ref{A-HH2}), making errors of relative order
791: $v^2$. The matrix elements are then proportional to derivatives of the
792: Coulomb-gauge color-singlet $Q\bar Q$ quarkonium wave function at the
793: origin \cite{Bodwin:1994jh}. That is, $\langle \bm{q}^{2n} \rangle$ is just
794: the $2n$th moment of the momentum-space wave function with respect to
795: the wave-function momentum (the relative momentum of the $Q$ and $\bar
796: Q$). Hence, Eq.~(\ref{A-HH2}) has the interpretation of the convolution
797: of the short-distance amplitude with the momentum-space quarkonium wave
798: functions, where the short-distance coefficients have been Taylor
799: expanded with respect to the wave-function momenta. Therefore, we see
800: that the approximate NRQCD expansion in Eqs.~(\ref{A-HH}) and
801: (\ref{A-HH2}) includes all of the relativistic corrections that are
802: contained in the color-singlet $Q\bar Q$ quarkonium wave function, up to
803: the ultraviolet cutoff of the NRQCD matrix elements.\footnote{We
804: note that, in the case of dimensionally regulated NRQCD matrix elements,
805: pure power ultraviolet divergences in the matrix elements are set to zero.
806: Hence, the effects of pure-power-divergent contributions are absent in the
807: resummation.}
808:
809: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
810: \section{Resummation \label{sec:resummation}}
811: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
812:
813: In Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006dn}, a method was presented for resumming a
814: class of relativistic corrections to the color-singlet
815: $S$-wave amplitudes that appear in the production and decay
816: of $S$-wave quarkonium states. The key to
817: the resummation is an expression that relates the $S$-wave color-singlet
818: matrix elements of higher orders in $v$ to the matrix elements of
819: relative orders $v^0$ and $v^2$:
820: %-------------------
821: \begin{equation}
822: %-------------------
823: \langle \bm{q}^{2n}\rangle_H
824: =\langle \bm{q}^{2}\rangle_H^n.
825: \label{master}%
826: %-------------------
827: \end{equation}
828: %-------------------
829: The relation (\ref{master}) is derived in the approximation in which the
830: $Q$ and $\bar Q$ interact only through the leading
831: spin-independent potential. Consequently, the relation
832: (\ref{master}) is accurate up to corrections of relative order
833: $v^2$.\footnote{The derivation involves specializing to the Coulomb
834: gauge and replacing covariant derivatives in operators with ordinary
835: derivatives. This approximation also introduces errors of relative order
836: $v^2$.}
837:
838: The amplitude (\ref{A-HH2}) is a function of the ratios $\langle
839: \bm{q}^{2m}\rangle_{J/\psi}$ and $\langle \bm{q}^{2n}\rangle_{\eta_c}$.
840: Applying the relation (\ref{master}) to
841: Eq.~(\ref{A-HH}), one obtains the resummed expression
842: %------------------
843: \begin{eqnarray}
844: %------------------
845: \mathcal{A}^\mu[J/\psi(\lambda)+\eta_c]
846: &=&
847: \frac{1}{2N_c}
848: \langle J/\psi(\lambda)|
849: \psi^\dagger \bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{\epsilon}(\lambda)\chi|0\rangle
850: \langle \eta_c|\psi^\dagger \chi|0\rangle
851: \nonumber\\
852: &&\times
853: \left.\left[\frac{\sqrt{2m_1}\sqrt{2m_2}} {2E(q_1)\,2E(q_2)}
854: \mathcal{A}_{Q}^\mu({}^3S_1,P_1,\lambda;{}^1S_0,P_2)
855: \right]\right|_{
856: \bm{q}_1^2=\langle \bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi},\,
857: \bm{q}_2^2=\langle \bm{q}^2\rangle_{\eta_c}}.
858: %------------------
859: \label{A-HH3}%
860: \end{eqnarray}
861: %------------------
862: The expression (\ref{A-HH3}) resums those relativistic corrections
863: that are contained in the $Q\bar Q$ quarkonium wave function in the
864: leading-potential model for the wave function. We note that, because
865: the relation (\ref{master}) is accurate only up to corrections of
866: relative order $v^2$, the use of the resummed expression (\ref{A-HH3})
867: generally does not improve the nominal accuracy over that which one
868: would obtain by retaining only corrections through relative order $v^2$
869: in Eq.~(\ref{A-HH}). The exception to this is the situation in which the
870: short-distance coefficients $c_{mn}^\mu$ in Eq.~(\ref{cmn-fin}) grow
871: rapidly with $m$ or $n$. Then the terms of nominally higher order in $v$
872: in Eq.~(\ref{A-HH}) can have numerical values that are comparable to or
873: larger than the numerical value of the term of nominal order $v^2$. In
874: that situation, the resummed expression can give an improved estimate of
875: the amplitude. The resummed expression may also give an indication of
876: the rate of convergence of the $v$ expansion. In any case, it is
877: generally useful to include a well-defined set of higher-order
878: contributions in a calculation whenever possible.
879:
880: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
881: \section{Choice of frame and co-ordinate system
882: \label{sec:frame}}
883: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
884:
885: In calculating $\mathcal{A}_{Q}^\mu({}^3S_1,P_1,\lambda;{}^1S_0,P_2)$,
886: it is convenient to specialize to the $e^+e^-$ CM frame, to choose a
887: particular coordinate system, and to choose a particular convention for
888: the polarization vectors of the $Q\bar{Q}_1({}^3S_1)$ states
889: for the various helicities. We make these choices as follows:
890: %------------------
891: \begin{subequations}
892: \begin{eqnarray}
893: %------------------
894: k_1&=&\frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}
895: (1,+\sin\theta,0,+\cos\theta),
896: \\
897: k_2&=&\frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}
898: (1,-\sin\theta,0,-\cos\theta),
899: \\
900: P_1^\ast&=&(E_1,0,0,+P_{\textrm{CM}}),
901: \\
902: P_2^\ast&=&(E_2,0,0,-P_{\textrm{CM}}),
903: \\
904: \epsilon^{\ast}(0)&=&
905: \frac{1}{\sqrt{E_1^2-P_{\textrm{CM}}^2}}(P_{\textrm{CM}},0,0,E_1),
906: \\
907: \epsilon^{\ast}(\pm)&=&\mp\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(0,1,\mp i,0).
908: %------------------
909: \end{eqnarray}
910: \label{cmframe}%
911: \end{subequations}
912: %------------------
913: Here, the angle $\theta$ is the scattering angle, four-vectors
914: are written as $v=(v^0,v^1,v^2,v^3)$, and
915: %------------------
916: \begin{subequations}
917: \begin{eqnarray}
918: %------------------
919: P_{\textrm{CM}}&=&
920: \frac{\lambda^{1/2}\big(s,\tilde{m}_1^2,\tilde{m}_2^2\big)}{2\sqrt{s}},
921: \\
922: E_i&=&
923: \sqrt{
924: P_{\textrm{CM}}^2+\tilde{m}_i^2},
925: %------------------
926: \end{eqnarray}
927: \label{PCM}%
928: \end{subequations}
929: %------------------
930: where
931: $\lambda(x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^2-2(xy+yz+zx)$.
932: We have used the notation $P_i^\ast$ to distinguish the particular
933: values of these quantities in the $e^+e^-$ CM frame from the values in
934: the quarkonium rest frame (Sec.~\ref{sec:kinematics}).
935: As with the quantities $m_1$ and $m_2$ in Eq.~(\ref{nrqcd-exp}),
936: $\tilde{m}_1$ and $\tilde{m}_2$ represent the $J/\psi$
937: and $\eta_c$ masses, respectively. We will specify below how these are
938: chosen for various parts of the calculation.
939:
940: Now let us write expressions for the relative momenta $q_1$ and
941: $q_2$ in the $e^+e^-$ CM frame. In the quarkonium rest frame,
942: $q_i$ is given by
943: %--------------
944: \begin{equation}
945: %--------------
946: q_i = |\bm{q}_i|
947: (0, \sin\theta_i\cos\phi_i,
948: \sin\theta_i\sin\phi_i, \cos \theta_i),
949: %--------------
950: \label{q_i}%
951: \end{equation}
952: %--------------
953: where $\theta_i$ and $\phi_i$ are the polar and azimuthal angles
954: of $q_i$. Boosting Eq.~(\ref{q_i}) from the $P_i$ rest frame to
955: the $e^+e^-$ CM frame, one obtains
956: %--------------
957: \begin{subequations}
958: \begin{eqnarray}
959: %--------------
960: q_1^\ast&=&|\bm{q}_1|
961: (+\gamma_1\beta_1 \cos\theta_1,
962: \sin\theta_1\cos\phi_1,
963: \sin\theta_1\sin\phi_1,
964: \gamma_1\cos\theta_1),
965: \\
966: q_2^\ast&=&|\bm{q}_2|
967: (-\gamma_2\beta_2 \cos\theta_2,
968: \sin\theta_2\cos\phi_2,
969: \sin\theta_2\sin\phi_2,
970: \gamma_2\cos\theta_2),
971: %--------------
972: \end{eqnarray}
973: \end{subequations}
974: %--------------
975: where
976: %--------------
977: \begin{subequations}
978: \begin{eqnarray}
979: %--------------
980: \gamma_i &=& E_i/\sqrt{E_i^2-P_{\textrm{CM}}^2},
981: \\
982: \gamma_i \beta_i &=& P_{\textrm{CM}}/\sqrt{E_i^2-P_{\textrm{CM}}^2}.
983: %--------------
984: \end{eqnarray}
985: \label{gamma_i}%
986: \end{subequations}
987: %--------------
988: Note that $|\bm{q}_i|=\sqrt{-q_i^2}$ is the magnitude of the
989: three-vector, not in the $e^+e^-$ CM frame, but in the $P_i$
990: rest frame.
991:
992: It follows from Eq.~(\ref{cmframe}) and the analogue of Eq.~(\ref{me}) for
993: $\mathcal{A}_{Q}^\mu({}^3S_1,P_1,\lambda;{}^1S_0,P_2)$ that
994: %------------------
995: \begin{subequations}
996: \begin{eqnarray}
997: %------------------
998: \mathcal{A}_{Q}^\mu({}^3S_1,P_1,0;{}^1S_0,P_2)
999: &=&0,
1000: \\
1001: \mathcal{A}_{Q}^\mu({}^3S_1,P_1,\pm;{}^1S_0,P_2)
1002: &=&
1003: \pm
1004: A_QP_{\textrm{CM}}\sqrt{s}
1005: \,\epsilon^{\ast \mu} (\pm).
1006: %------------------
1007: \end{eqnarray}
1008: \label{A_Q}%
1009: \end{subequations}
1010: %------------------
1011: It is efficient to determine $A_Q$ by carrying out the computation of the
1012: amplitude $\mathcal{A}_{Q}^\mu({}^3S_1,P_1,\lambda;{}^1S_0,P_2)$ for one
1013: value of $\mu$ and one value of $\lambda$ such that $\epsilon^{\ast \mu}
1014: (\lambda)$ is nonzero.
1015:
1016:
1017: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1018: \section{Cross section \label{sec:x-section}}
1019: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1020:
1021: Making use of Eq.~(\ref{me}) and the explicit choices of helicity
1022: states in Eq.~(\ref{cmframe}), we find that
1023: %------------------
1024: \begin{subequations}
1025: \begin{eqnarray}
1026: %------------------
1027: \mathcal{A}^\mu[J/\psi(0)+\eta_c]
1028: &=&0,
1029: \\
1030: \mathcal{A}^\mu[J/\psi(\pm)+\eta_c]
1031: &=&
1032: \pm
1033: AP_{\textrm{CM}}\sqrt{s}
1034: \,\epsilon^{\ast\mu} (\pm).
1035: %------------------
1036: \end{eqnarray}
1037: \label{A}%
1038: \end{subequations}
1039: %------------------
1040: Comparing Eq.~(\ref{A}) with Eq.~(\ref{A_Q}) and making use of the
1041: resummed NRQCD expansion in Eq.~(\ref{A-HH3}), we see that
1042: %------------------
1043: \begin{equation}
1044: A=\frac{1}{2N_c}
1045: \langle J/\psi(\lambda)|\psi^\dagger
1046: \bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{\epsilon}(\lambda)\chi|0\rangle
1047: \langle \eta_c|\psi^\dagger\chi|0\rangle
1048: \left.\left[\frac{\sqrt{2m_1}\sqrt{2m_2}}{2E(q_1)\, 2E(q_2)}
1049: A_Q\right]\right|_{\bm{q}_1^2=\langle \bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi},\,
1050: \bm{q}_2^2=\langle \bm{q}^2\rangle_{\eta_c}}.
1051: \label{A-A_Q}
1052: \end{equation}
1053: %------------------
1054:
1055: $\mathcal{M}(\lambda)$, the $S$-matrix element for the process
1056: $e^+e^-\to J/\psi + \eta_c$, is defined in Eq.~(\ref{em}).
1057: By making use of Eqs.~(\ref{me}) and (\ref{A}), one can evaluate
1058: $\mathcal{M}(\lambda)$:
1059: %------------------
1060: \begin{subequations}
1061: \begin{eqnarray}
1062: %------------------
1063: \mathcal{M}(0)&=&0,\\
1064: \mathcal{M}(\pm)&=&
1065: \pm AP_{\textrm{CM}}\sqrt{s}\,L\cdot\epsilon^\ast(\pm).
1066: %------------------
1067: \end{eqnarray}
1068: \label{em-simple}%
1069: \end{subequations}
1070: %------------------
1071: The squared helicity amplitudes, summed over the spin states
1072: $s^+=\pm1/2$ and $s^-=\pm1/2$ of the $e^+$
1073: and $e^-$, respectively, can be obtained by using
1074: Eqs.~(\ref{cmframe}) and (\ref{em-simple}):
1075: %------------------
1076: \begin{equation}
1077: %------------------
1078: \sum_{s^\pm=\pm1/2}
1079: |L\cdot\epsilon^\ast(\pm)|^2
1080: =
1081: \frac{e_c^2e^4}{s^2}
1082: \textrm{Tr}[/\!\!\!k_1/\!\!\!\epsilon(\pm)/\!\!\!k_2%
1083: /\!\!\!\epsilon^\ast(\pm)]
1084: =
1085: \frac{e_c^2e^4}{s}(1+\cos^2\theta),
1086: %------------------
1087: \label{LL-ee}
1088: \end{equation}
1089: %------------------
1090: which lead to
1091: %------------------
1092: \begin{subequations}
1093: \begin{eqnarray}
1094: %------------------
1095: \sum_{s^\pm=\pm 1/2}
1096: |\mathcal{M}(0)|^2
1097: &=&0,\\
1098: \sum_{s^\pm=\pm 1/2}
1099: |\mathcal{M}(\pm)|^2
1100: &=&
1101: e_c^2 e^4 |A|^2P_{\textrm{CM}}^2
1102: (1+\cos^2\theta).
1103: %------------------
1104: \end{eqnarray}
1105: \label{em-sq}%
1106: \end{subequations}
1107: %------------------
1108: Averaging the squared helicity amplitude (\ref{em-sq}) over the
1109: lepton spins, dividing by the flux $2s$, and integrating over the
1110: two-body phase space, we obtain the total cross section for
1111: $e^+e^-\to J/\psi+\eta_c$:
1112: %------------------
1113: \begin{eqnarray}
1114: %------------------
1115: \sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi+\eta_c]
1116: &=&
1117: \frac{1}{2s}
1118: \times \frac{1}{4}
1119: \times \Phi_2
1120: \int_{-1}^1\frac{d\cos\theta}{2}
1121: \,
1122: \sum_{\lambda=\pm}
1123: \,\,
1124: \sum_{s^\pm=\pm 1/2}
1125: |\mathcal{M}(\lambda)|^2
1126: \nonumber\\
1127: &=&
1128: \frac{16\pi^2}{3s} e_c^2\alpha^2
1129: |A|^2P^2_{\textrm{CM}}\Phi_2\nonumber\\
1130: &=&\frac{4\pi^2}{3N_c^2 s} e_c^2\alpha^2
1131: P^2_{\textrm{CM}}\Phi_2
1132: \langle\mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}\langle\mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{\eta_c}
1133: \nonumber\\
1134: &&\times\left.\left[\frac{2m_1\,2m_2}{4E^2(q_1)\, 4E^2(q_2)}
1135: |A_Q|^2\right]\right|_{\bm{q}_1^2=\langle \bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi},\,
1136: \bm{q}_2^2=\langle \bm{q}^2\rangle_{\eta_c}},
1137: %------------------
1138: \label{sigma}
1139: \end{eqnarray}
1140: %------------------
1141: where
1142: %------------------
1143: \begin{subequations}
1144: \begin{eqnarray}
1145: \langle\mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}&=&
1146: \left|
1147: \langle J/\psi(\lambda)|\psi^\dagger
1148: \bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{\epsilon}(\lambda)\chi|0\rangle
1149: \right|^2,
1150: \label{psi-me-defn}\\
1151: \langle\mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{\eta_c}&=&
1152: \left|
1153: \langle \eta_c|\psi^\dagger
1154: \chi|0\rangle\right|^2,
1155: \label{etac-me-defn}
1156: \end{eqnarray}
1157: \label{me-defns}%
1158: \end{subequations}
1159: %------------------
1160: and $\Phi_2$ is the two-body phase space
1161: %------------------
1162: \begin{eqnarray}
1163: %------------------
1164: \Phi_2
1165: =
1166: \frac{1}{8\pi s}\lambda^{1/2}(s,m_{J/\psi}^2,m_{\eta_c}^2).
1167: %------------------
1168: \label{Phi2}
1169: \end{eqnarray}
1170: %------------------
1171: Note that we use the physical masses for the $J/\psi$ and the $\eta_c$
1172: in the phase space~(\ref{Phi2}).
1173:
1174: \section{VMD treatment of the photon-fragmentation amplitude
1175: \label{sec:VMD}}
1176: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
1177: In the part of the amplitude that comes from the photon-fragmentation
1178: diagrams of the type in Fig.~\ref{fig2}, we can reduce the theoretical
1179: uncertainty by making use of the VMD method to calculate the
1180: fragmentation of the $\gamma^*$ into $J/\psi$
1181: (Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006yd}). In Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006yd}, the process
1182: $\gamma^*\to J/\psi$ has been calculated using the VMD
1183: method. Using Eq.~(3) of Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006yd}, we find
1184: that the $\gamma^*\to J/\psi$ coupling is
1185: %------------------
1186: \begin{equation}
1187: %------------------
1188: g_{J/\psi}=\left(
1189: \frac{3m_{J/\psi}^3}{4\pi\alpha^2}\Gamma[J/\psi\to \ell^+\ell^-]
1190: \right)^{1/2}.
1191: %------------------
1192: \label{gv}%
1193: \end{equation}
1194: %------------------
1195: In order to implement the VMD calculation we must make the following
1196: substitutions in the NRQCD calculation of the photon-fragmentation
1197: diagrams:
1198: %------------------
1199: \begin{subequations}
1200: \begin{eqnarray}
1201: %------------------
1202: e_c\sqrt{2m_1\langle \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi} }
1203: &\to&
1204: g_{J/\psi},
1205: \label{gv-conversion}%
1206: \\
1207: \frac{\textrm{Tr}\big\{
1208: (\gamma_\mu \otimes \mathbbm{1}
1209: )
1210: [\Pi_3(p_1,\bar{p}_1,\lambda) \otimes \pi_1
1211: ]
1212: \big\}
1213: }{\sqrt{2N_c} \, 2E(q_1)}
1214: &\to&
1215: \epsilon^*_\mu(\lambda),
1216: \label{eps-conversion}%
1217: %------------------
1218: \end{eqnarray}
1219: \label{frag-conversion}%
1220: \end{subequations}
1221: %------------------
1222: where $g_{J/\psi}$ is defined in Eq.~(\ref{gv}).
1223:
1224:
1225: \section{Choice of the quarkonium masses \label{sec:masses}}
1226:
1227: We now specify our choices of the quarkonium masses in our
1228: computation. In computing diagrams involving on-shell quarks, such as
1229: those in Fig.~\ref{fig1}, it is generally necessary, in order to
1230: maintain gauge invariance, to choose the quarkonium masses so as to
1231: respect the on-shell condition. Hence, we generally must choose
1232: $\tilde{m}_i=2E(q_i)=2\sqrt{m_c^2+\bm{q}_i^2}$
1233: in Eq.~(\ref{PCM}) in working out the kinematics.
1234:
1235: An exception to this is in the computation of the photon-fragmentation
1236: diagrams of the type in Fig.~\ref{fig2}. In this case, if we make use of
1237: the VMD method for calculating the amplitude, we can maintain gauge
1238: invariance even if we take $\tilde{m}_1$ to be $m_{J/\psi}$,
1239: the physical $J/\psi$ mass. We still must choose $\tilde{m}_2=2E(q_2)$
1240: for the $\eta_c$ mass, however. Since one generally reduces theoretical
1241: uncertainties by eliminating $2m_c$ in favor of $m_{J/\psi}$, we choose
1242: $\tilde{m}_1=m_{J/\psi}$ in the VMD calculation of the
1243: photon-fragmentation diagrams.
1244:
1245: The factor $\sqrt{2m_1}\sqrt{2m_2}$ in Eq.~(\ref{A-HH3}) arises from the
1246: relativistic normalizations of the states. In this case, we
1247: choose $m_i=2E(q_i)$. It turns out that this
1248: choice leads to a near cancellation of the dependence on $m_c$ in the amplitude
1249: at leading order in $v$ (Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi}). Thus, this choice
1250: reduces the theoretical uncertainties that arise from the uncertainty in
1251: $m_c$.
1252:
1253: As we have already noted, we use the physical quarkonium masses
1254: in computing the phase space in Eq.~(\ref{Phi2}). At first sight, this
1255: choice might appear to be inconsistent with the choice $m_i=2E(q_i)$ in
1256: Eq.~(\ref{A-HH3}), since the factors $m_i$ in Eq.~(\ref{A-HH3}) arise
1257: from the normalizations of the states, which also enter into the phase
1258: space. The choices that we have made amount to multiplying the amplitude
1259: by the factors $\sqrt{2E(q_1)/m_{J/\psi}}$ and $\sqrt{2E(q_2)/m_{\eta_c}}$.
1260: At the level of precision in $v$ to which we work, these factors are
1261: equivalent to unity.
1262:
1263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1264: \section{Interference with the NLO amplitude \label{sec:interference}}
1265: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1266:
1267: As we have mentioned, the corrections to $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi
1268: +\eta_c]$ at NLO in $\alpha_s$ have been calculated in
1269: Ref.~\cite{Zhang:2005ch}. Because the amplitude for the
1270: relativistic corrections has the same phase as the amplitude at leading
1271: order in $v$, we can infer, from the results of Ref.~\cite{Zhang:2005ch},
1272: the contribution to the cross section of the interference between the
1273: amplitude at NLO in $\alpha_s$ and the amplitude for the relativistic
1274: corrections.
1275:
1276: First, let us define some notation. When we discuss cross sections
1277: $\sigma$ and reduced hadronic amplitudes $A$ [Eq.~(\ref{me})], a
1278: subscript $0$ indicates that the quantity is computed at leading order
1279: in $v$, a subscript $v$ indicates that the quantity is resummed to all
1280: orders in $v$, a subscript NLO on $A$ indicates the contribution to $A$
1281: at NLO in $\alpha_s$, and a subscript NLO on $\sigma$ indicates the sum
1282: of the contributions to $\sigma$ through NLO in $\alpha_s$. A
1283: superscript QCD indicates that only QCD contributions to the hadronic
1284: amplitude have been included. The absence of a superscript QCD indicates
1285: that both QCD and pure QED contributions to the hadronic amplitude
1286: have been included. Using this notation, we have
1287: %------------------
1288: \begin{subequations}
1289: \begin{eqnarray}
1290: %------------------
1291: \sigma_0&=&\mathcal{N}|A_0|^2,
1292: \\
1293: \sigma_v&=&\mathcal{N}
1294: |A_v|^2,
1295: \\
1296: \sigma_0^{\textrm{QCD}}&=&\mathcal{N}
1297: |A_0^{\textrm{QCD}}|^2,
1298: \\
1299: \sigma^{\textrm{QCD}}_{0,\,\textrm{NLO}}&=&
1300: \mathcal{N}
1301: \Big[
1302: |A^{\textrm{QCD}}_0|^2
1303: +2\textrm{Re}\big(A^{\textrm{QCD}}_0
1304: A^{\ast\textrm{QCD}}_{\textrm{0,\,NLO}}\big)
1305: \Big],
1306: \label{sigma-NLO}%
1307: %------------------
1308: \end{eqnarray}
1309: \label{sigma_i}%
1310: \end{subequations}
1311: %------------------
1312: where the normalization factor $\mathcal{N}$ is that of Eq.~(\ref{sigma}) and
1313: is defined by
1314: %------------------
1315: \begin{equation}
1316: %------------------
1317: \mathcal{N}
1318: =\frac{16\pi^2}{3s} e_c^2\alpha^2
1319: P^2_{\textrm{CM}}\Phi_2,
1320: %------------------
1321: \label{norm}%
1322: \end{equation}
1323: %------------------
1324: with $P_{\textrm{CM}}$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{PCM}) and $\Phi_2$ defined in
1325: Eq.~(\ref{Phi2}).
1326:
1327: The quantity $\sigma^{\textrm{QCD}}_{0,\,\textrm{NLO}}$ is computed in
1328: Ref.~\cite{Zhang:2005ch}. On the other hand, we wish to compute the
1329: quantity
1330: %------------------
1331: \begin{equation}
1332: %------------------
1333: \sigma_{\textrm{tot}}=
1334: \mathcal{N}
1335: \Big[
1336: |A_v|^2
1337: +2\textrm{Re}\big(A_v
1338: A^{\ast\textrm{QCD}}_{0,\,\textrm{NLO}}\big)
1339: \Big].
1340: %------------------
1341: \label{sigmatot0}
1342: \end{equation}
1343: %------------------
1344: Using the fact that $A_v$ and $A_0^{\textrm{QCD}}$ have the same phase,
1345: we can write
1346: \begin{eqnarray}
1347: 2\textrm{Re}\big(A_v
1348: A^{\ast\textrm{QCD}}_{0,\,\textrm{NLO}}\big)&=&
1349: \frac{A_v}{A^{\textrm{QCD}}_0}\,
1350: 2\textrm{Re}\big(A^{\textrm{QCD}}_0
1351: A^{\ast\textrm{QCD}}_{\textrm{0,\,NLO}}\big)\nonumber\\
1352: &=&
1353: \frac{1}{\mathcal{N}}
1354: \sqrt{\sigma_v}\,
1355: \frac{\sigma^{\textrm{QCD}}_{0,\,\textrm{NLO}}-\sigma_0^{\textrm{QCD}}}
1356: {\sqrt{\sigma_0^{\textrm{QCD}}}}.
1357: \label{NLO-contrib}
1358: \end{eqnarray}
1359: Thus, $\sigma_{\textrm{tot}}$ can be expressed in terms of
1360: $\sigma_v$, $\sigma_0^{\textrm{QCD}}$,
1361: and $\sigma^{\textrm{QCD}}_{0,\,\textrm{NLO}}$:
1362: %------------------
1363: \begin{equation}
1364: %------------------
1365: \sigma_{\textrm{tot}}
1366: =
1367: \sigma_v+
1368: \sqrt{\sigma_v}\,
1369: \frac{\sigma^{\textrm{QCD}}_{0,\,\textrm{NLO}}-\sigma^{\textrm{QCD}}_0}
1370: {\sqrt{\sigma^{\textrm{QCD}}_0}}.
1371: %------------------
1372: \label{sigma-tot}
1373: \end{equation}
1374: %------------------
1375:
1376: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1377:
1378: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1379: \section{Results \label{sec:results}}
1380: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1381:
1382: In this section, we present our numerical results.
1383:
1384: We compute $A_Q$ in Eq.~(\ref{A_Q}) from the Feynman diagrams in
1385: Figs.~\ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2}, making use of the spin and color
1386: projectors, as described in Section~\ref{sec:gamma-Q4}. We then carry
1387: out the projection onto the $S$-wave states by performing the
1388: integration over the angles of $\bm{q}_1$ and $\bm{q}_2$ numerically, as
1389: indicated in Eq.~(\ref{amp-QQ-angle}). We substitute
1390: $A_Q$ into Eq.~(\ref{A-A_Q}) to obtain $A$ and substitute $A$ into
1391: Eq.~(\ref{sigma}) to obtain the cross section $\sigma_v$, which includes
1392: the resummed relativistic corrections. We compute $\sigma_0$,
1393: the cross section at leading order in $v$, by setting $\bm{q}_1^2=\bm{q}_2^2=0$
1394: in the expressions for $\sigma_v$.
1395:
1396: In carrying out this calculation, we make use of the matrix elements
1397: $\langle \mathcal{O}_1 \rangle_{J/\psi}$ and
1398: $\langle \mathcal{O}_1 \rangle_{\eta_c}$
1399: and the ratios of matrix elements $\langle\bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi}$ and
1400: $\langle\bm{q}^2\rangle_{\eta_c}$ from Tables~I and III of
1401: Ref.~\cite{BCKLY}. In Ref.~\cite{BCKLY}, various uncertainties were
1402: associated with these quantities. The uncertainties are correlated to
1403: varying degrees among the quantities. We recount the uncertainties here.
1404:
1405: There are theoretical uncertainties in the values of $\langle
1406: \bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi}$ and $\langle \bm{q}^2\rangle_{\eta_c}$ that
1407: arise from the fact that the leading-potential approximation that is
1408: used in Ref.~\cite{BCKLY} is accurate only up to corrections of relative
1409: order $v^2$. These uncertainties are denoted by $\Delta\langle
1410: \bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi}$ and $\Delta\langle \bm{q}^2\rangle_{\eta_c}$,
1411: respectively. There are uncertainties that arise from the scale
1412: uncertainties in $\alpha_s$ and from neglecting
1413: next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) corrections to
1414: the $J/\psi$ and $\eta_c$ electromagnetic widths. They are denoted by
1415: $\Delta{\rm NNLO}_{J/\psi}$ and $\Delta{\rm NNLO}_{\eta_c}$, respectively.
1416: There are also uncertainties that are associated with the heavy-quark
1417: mass $m_c$, the string tension $\sigma$, and the uncertainties in the
1418: experimental measurements of $\Gamma[J/\psi\to e^+e^-]$ and
1419: $\Gamma[\eta_c\to \gamma\gamma]$. These uncertainties are denoted by
1420: $\Delta m_c$, $\Delta\sigma$, $\Delta\Gamma_{J/\psi}$, and
1421: $\Delta\Gamma_{\eta_c}$, respectively. Finally, there is an uncertainty
1422: that is associated with the use of the heavy-quark spin symmetry to
1423: combine the values of the $\eta_c$ matrix elements that were obtained
1424: from $\Gamma[\eta_c\to \gamma\gamma]$ with those that were obtained from
1425: $\Gamma[J/\psi\to e^+e^-]$. It is denoted by $\Delta v^2$.
1426:
1427: The uncertainty estimates in Ref.~\cite{BCKLY} make use of the
1428: standard NRQCD power-counting (velocity-scaling) rules
1429: \cite{Bodwin:1994jh}. Alternative power-counting rules have been
1430: proposed \cite{Brambilla:1999xf,Pineda:2000sz,Fleming:2000ib}, and
1431: the use of these rules would lead to estimates for $\langle
1432: \bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi}$ and $\langle \bm{q}^2\rangle_{\eta_c}$ that
1433: are of relative order unity. However, lattice
1434: calculations~\cite{bks,Bodwin:2005gg,Bodwin:2004up,Koma:2007jq} support
1435: the notion that the standard NRQCD power-counting rules give an upper
1436: bound on the uncertainties. Therefore, we make use of the uncertainty
1437: estimates of Ref.~\cite{BCKLY}. (See Ref.~\cite{BCKLY} for a more
1438: detailed discussion of these issues.)
1439:
1440: The calculation requires some additional inputs. We take
1441: $\sqrt{s}=10.58$~GeV. In order to maintain consistency with the
1442: calculation at NLO in $\alpha_s$ in Ref.~\cite{Zhang:2005ch}, we
1443: take $m_c$ to be the one-loop pole mass. The specific numerical value
1444: that we use is\footnote{The most recent compilation of the Particle Data
1445: Group \cite{Yao:2006px} suggests that the uncertainty
1446: in $m_c$ may be a factor of two smaller than the uncertainty that we
1447: have used here. However, since it is not clear that the systematic
1448: errors are well understood in the various determinations that enter into
1449: that compilation, we make a conservative choice of error bars here.}
1450: \begin{equation}
1451: m_c=1.4\pm 0.2\hbox{ GeV}.
1452: \end{equation}
1453: This choice of numerical value corresponds to the one in
1454: Ref.~\cite{BCKLY}, and so, in determining the uncertainties that arise
1455: from the uncertainty in $m_c$, we are able to make use of the
1456: dependences of the matrix elements and ratios of matrix elements on
1457: $m_c$ that are computed in Ref.~\cite{BCKLY}. For the electronic width
1458: of the $J/\psi$, which enters into the calculation of the VMD coupling
1459: $g_{J/\psi}$ from Eq.~(\ref{gv}), we take
1460: \begin{equation}
1461: \Gamma[J/\psi\to e^+e^-]=5.55\pm 0.14\pm 0.02~\hbox{keV}.
1462: \label{psi-width-exp}%
1463: \end{equation}
1464: For the strong and electromagnetic couplings we take\footnote{We
1465: compute $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha$ at each scale by making use of the code
1466: GLOBAL ANALYSIS OF PARTICLE PROPERTIES (GAPP)~\cite{Erler:1998sy}.}
1467: \begin{subequations}
1468: \begin{eqnarray}
1469: \alpha_s(10.58/4\hbox{~GeV})&=&0.26,\\
1470: \alpha_s(10.58/2 \hbox{~GeV})&=&0.21,\\
1471: \alpha_s (10.58 \hbox{~GeV})&=&0.17,
1472: \end{eqnarray}
1473: \label{alphas}%
1474: \end{subequations}
1475: and
1476: \begin{subequations}
1477: \begin{eqnarray}
1478: \alpha(10.58/4\hbox{~GeV})&=&(132.9)^{-1},\\
1479: \alpha(10.58/2\hbox{~GeV})&=&(131.9)^{-1},\\
1480: \alpha(10.58 \hbox{~GeV})&=&(130.9)^{-1},\\
1481: \alpha(m_{J/\psi})&=&(132.6)^{-1}.
1482: \end{eqnarray}
1483: \label{alpha}%
1484: \end{subequations}
1485: We determine the central value of the scale for each coupling from the
1486: momentum transfer at the relevant vertex. Let us call the virtual
1487: photon that connects the lepton and $c$-quark lines photon 1, the
1488: non-fragmentation virtual photon that connects $c$-quark lines
1489: in Fig.~\ref{fig1} photon 2, and the virtual photon in the fragmentation
1490: diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig2} photon 3. At virtual-gluon vertices and at
1491: photon-2 vertices, we take the scale to be half the CM energy; at
1492: photon-1 vertices, we take the scale to be the CM energy; at photon-3 vertices,
1493: we take the scale to be the $J/\psi$ mass. In calculating the VMD coupling
1494: $g_{J/\psi}$ from Eq.~(\ref{gv}), we also take the scale of the
1495: virtual-photon vertices to be the $J/\psi$ mass.
1496: These choices are consistent with those in Ref.~\cite{BCKLY}. We also
1497: use $m_{J/\psi}=3.096916$~GeV and $m_{\eta_c}=2.9798$~GeV
1498: \cite{Yao:2006px}.
1499:
1500: In computing the cross section $\sigma_{\textrm{tot}}$, which includes
1501: relativistic corrections, corrections of NLO in $\alpha_s$, and the
1502: interference between them, we make use of Eq.~(\ref{sigma-tot}). We
1503: compute the quantity $(\sigma^{\textrm{QCD}}_{0,\,\textrm{NLO}}-
1504: \sigma^{\textrm{QCD}}_0)/\sqrt{\sigma^{\textrm{QCD}}_0}$ by making use
1505: of results \cite{ZGC} that have been provided by the authors of
1506: Ref.~\cite{Zhang:2005ch}. These results are shown in Table~\ref{table1}.
1507: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1508: \begin{table}[t]
1509: \caption{\label{table1}%
1510: The cross sections in units of fb that were obtained by Zhang, Gao, and
1511: Chao~\cite{Zhang:2005ch,ZGC}.
1512: The first row below the headings contains the cross sections for
1513: central values of $m_c$ and $\mu$. Subsequent rows contain the cross
1514: sections for the plus and minus variations of $m_c$ and $\mu$ with
1515: respect to their uncertainties.
1516: The strong coupling constant was taken to be
1517: $\alpha_s^\textrm{ZGC}(10.6/4~\textrm{GeV})=0.273$,
1518: $\alpha_s^\textrm{ZGC}(10.6/2~\textrm{GeV})=0.211$, and
1519: $\alpha_s^\textrm{ZGC}(10.6~\textrm{GeV})=0.174$~(Ref.~\cite{ZGC}).
1520: }
1521: \begin{ruledtabular}
1522: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
1523: Case & $\sigma_0^\textrm{ZGC}$&
1524: $\sigma^{\textrm{ZGC}}_{0,\,\textrm{NLO}}$\,\\
1525: \hline
1526: central & 5.8& 12.6\\
1527: $+\Delta m_c$ & 4.8& 9.7\\
1528: $-\Delta m_c$ & 6.7& 15.7\\
1529: $+\Delta\mu$ & 3.9& 8.9\\
1530: $-\Delta\mu$ & 9.6& 19.6
1531: \end{tabular}
1532: \end{ruledtabular}
1533: \end{table}
1534: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1535: Here we have introduced an additional uncertainty $\Delta \mu$, which
1536: accounts for effects of the uncertainty in the renormalization scale in
1537: the NLO calculation. This uncertainty is determined by varying the
1538: renormalization scale by a factor of two above and below its central
1539: value of $10.58/2\hbox{~GeV}$.
1540: In making use of the results from the
1541: authors of Ref.~\cite{Zhang:2005ch}, we rescale the values of
1542: $\alpha_s$, $\alpha$, the matrix elements
1543: $\langle\mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}$ and
1544: $\langle\mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{\eta_c}$, and the phase space so that they
1545: conform to our choices. The rescaling is carried out as follows:
1546: %------------------
1547: \begin{equation}
1548: %------------------
1549: \frac{\sigma^{\textrm{QCD}}_{0,\,\textrm{NLO}}-\sigma^{\textrm{QCD}}_0}
1550: {\sqrt{\sigma^{\textrm{QCD}}_0}}
1551: =
1552: \sqrt{\rho}\,
1553: \frac{\sigma^{\textrm{ZGC}}_{0,\,\textrm{NLO}}-\sigma^{\textrm{ZGC}}_0}
1554: {\sqrt{\sigma^{\textrm{ZGC}}_0}},
1555: %------------------
1556: \label{2rho}
1557: \end{equation}
1558: %------------------
1559: where the superscript ZGC indicates the value that was given by the
1560: authors of Ref.~\cite{Zhang:2005ch}. The scaling factor $\rho$ is
1561: defined by
1562: %------------------
1563: \begin{equation}
1564: %------------------
1565: \rho
1566: =
1567: \left(\frac{\alpha(10.58\hbox{~GeV})
1568: =1/130.9}{\alpha^{\textrm{ZGC}}=1/137}\right)^2
1569: \left(\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}
1570: {\alpha_s^{\textrm{ZGC}}(\mu)}\right)^2
1571: \frac{\langle \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}\langle\mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{\eta_c}}
1572: {\left(\langle \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}^{\textrm{ZGC}}\right)^2}
1573: \frac{\Phi_2}{\Phi_2^{\textrm{ZGC}}}.
1574: %------------------
1575: \label{rho}
1576: \end{equation}
1577: %------------------
1578: The values for $\Phi_2^{\textrm{ZGC}}$ and
1579: $\langle \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}^{\textrm{ZGC}}$ are given by
1580: %------------------
1581: \begin{subequations}
1582: \begin{eqnarray}
1583: %------------------
1584: \Phi_2^{\textrm{ZGC}}
1585: &=&
1586: \frac{1}{8\pi}\times\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{4m_c}{\sqrt{s}}\right)^2},
1587: \\
1588: \langle \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}^{\textrm{ZGC}}
1589: &=&\frac{3}{2\pi}\times
1590: 0.978\textrm{\,GeV}^3
1591: =
1592: 0.467\textrm{\,GeV}^3.
1593: %------------------
1594: \end{eqnarray}
1595: \end{subequations}
1596: %------------------
1597:
1598: Our numerical results are shown in Table~\ref{table2}.
1599: The first row below the
1600: headings gives the central values of the matrix elements, ratios of
1601: matrix elements, and the cross sections.
1602: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1603: \begin{table}[ht]
1604: \caption{ The matrix elements $\langle \mathcal{O}_1 \rangle_{J/\psi}$
1605: and $\langle \mathcal{O}_1 \rangle_{\eta_c}$ in units of
1606: $\textrm{GeV}^3$, the ratios of matrix elements $\langle \bm{q}^2
1607: \rangle_{J/\psi}$ and $\langle \bm{q}^2 \rangle_{\eta_c}$ in units of
1608: $\textrm{GeV}^2$, and the cross sections $\sigma_0$, $\sigma_v$, and
1609: $\sigma_\textrm{tot}$ in units of fb. The first row below the headings
1610: contains central values for the matrix elements, the ratios, and the
1611: cross sections. Subsequent rows contain the maximum and minimum values
1612: of each of these quantities that are obtained by varying the input
1613: parameters with respect to each uncertainty.
1614: \label{table2}
1615: }
1616: \begin{ruledtabular}
1617: \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
1618: Case &
1619: $\langle \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi} $&
1620: $\langle\bm{q}^2 \rangle_{J/\psi}$&
1621: $\langle \mathcal{O}_1 \rangle_{\eta_c}$ &
1622: $\langle \bm{q}^2 \rangle_{\eta_c}$ &
1623: $\sigma_0$ &
1624: $\sigma_v$ &
1625: $\sigma_\textrm{tot}$
1626: \\
1627: \hline
1628: central&
1629: 0.440 & 0.441 & 0.437 & 0.442 & 6.4 & 9.3 & 17.6\\
1630: $+\Delta \langle \bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi}$&
1631: 0.450 & 0.573 & 0.437 & 0.442 & 6.5 & 9.8 & 18.4\\
1632: $-\Delta \langle \bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi}$&
1633: 0.430 & 0.308 & 0.437 & 0.442 & 6.3 & 8.8 & 16.7\\
1634: $+\Delta m_c$&
1635: 0.433 & 0.443 & 0.470 & 0.430 & 6.0 & 7.6 & 13.9\\
1636: $-\Delta m_c$&
1637: 0.451 & 0.437 & 0.413 & 0.450 & 6.9 &11.8 & 22.8\\
1638: $+\Delta \sigma$&
1639: 0.443 & 0.482 & 0.444 & 0.482 & 6.6 & 9.7 & 18.3\\
1640: $-\Delta \sigma$&
1641: 0.437 & 0.400 & 0.431 & 0.403 & 6.3 & 8.9 & 16.9\\
1642: $+\Delta \,\textrm{NNLO}_{J/\psi}$&
1643: 0.504 & 0.419 & 0.473 & 0.429 & 7.9 &11.3 & 21.5\\
1644: $-\Delta \,\textrm{NNLO}_{J/\psi}$&
1645: 0.387 & 0.459 & 0.408 & 0.452 & 5.3 & 7.8 & 14.6\\
1646: $+\Delta \Gamma_{J/\psi}$&
1647: 0.451 & 0.437 & 0.443 & 0.440 & 6.7 & 9.6 & 18.2\\
1648: $-\Delta \Gamma_{J/\psi}$&
1649: 0.429 & 0.444 & 0.431 & 0.444 & 6.2 & 9.0 & 16.9\\
1650: $+\Delta v^2$&
1651: 0.440 & 0.441 & 0.511 & 0.417 & 7.5 &10.8 & 20.4\\
1652: $-\Delta v^2$&
1653: 0.440 & 0.441 & 0.364 & 0.467 & 5.3 & 7.8 & 14.7\\
1654: $+\Delta \langle \bm{q}^2\rangle_{\eta_c}$&
1655: 0.440 & 0.441 & 0.461 & 0.574 & 6.8 &10.2 & 19.1\\
1656: $-\Delta \langle \bm{q}^2\rangle_{\eta_c}$&
1657: 0.440 & 0.441 & 0.414 & 0.309 & 6.1 & 8.4 & 16.1\\
1658: $+\Delta \,\textrm{NNLO}_{\eta_c}$&
1659: 0.440 & 0.441 & 0.474 & 0.429 & 7.0 &10.0 & 19.0\\
1660: $-\Delta \,\textrm{NNLO}_{\eta_c}$&
1661: 0.440 & 0.441 & 0.408 & 0.452 & 6.0 & 8.7 & 16.4\\
1662: $+\Delta \Gamma_{\eta_c}$&
1663: 0.440 & 0.441 & 0.487 & 0.425 & 7.2 &10.3 & 19.5\\
1664: $-\Delta \Gamma_{\eta_c}$&
1665: 0.440 & 0.441 & 0.385 & 0.460 & 5.6 & 8.2 & 15.5\\
1666: $+\Delta \mu$&
1667: 0.440 & 0.441 & 0.437 & 0.442 & 4.4 & 6.3 & 12.3\\
1668: $-\Delta \mu$&
1669: 0.440 & 0.441 & 0.437 & 0.442 & 9.5 &13.9 & 25.0 \\
1670: \end{tabular}
1671: \end{ruledtabular}
1672: \end{table}
1673: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1674: Subsequent rows contain the maximum and minimum values of each of these
1675: quantities that are obtained by varying the input parameters with
1676: respect to each of the uncertainties that we have described. The matrix
1677: elements and the ratios, as well as their variations with respect to
1678: each uncertainty, are taken from Tables I and III of Ref.~\cite{BCKLY}.
1679: The deviations from the central values, given in the same order as the
1680: rows in Table~\ref{table2}, are as follows:
1681: %---------------------
1682: \begin{subequations}
1683: \begin{eqnarray}
1684: %---------------------
1685: \sigma_0 &=&
1686: 6.4^{+0.1+0.5+0.1+1.5+0.3+1.1+0.4+0.5+0.7}_{
1687: -0.1-0.5-0.1-1.1-0.2-1.1-0.3-0.4-0.8}~\textrm{fb}
1688: =6.4^{ + 2.1}_{ - 1.9}~\textrm{fb},
1689: \\
1690: \sigma_v &=&
1691: 9.3^{+0.5+2.5+0.4+2.0+0.3+1.5+0.9+0.7+1.0}_{
1692: -0.5-1.7-0.4-1.5-0.3-1.5-0.9-0.6-1.1}~\textrm{fb}
1693: =9.3^{+3.9 }_{ -3.2 }~\textrm{fb},
1694: \\
1695: \sigma_\textrm{tot} &=&
1696: 17.6^{+0.8+5.3+0.7+3.9+0.7+2.8+1.6+1.4+1.9}_{
1697: -0.9-3.7-0.7-3.0-0.7-2.9-1.5-1.1-2.0}~\textrm{fb}
1698: =17.6^{+7.8 }_{ -6.3 }~\textrm{fb}.
1699: %---------------------
1700: \end{eqnarray}
1701: \end{subequations}
1702: %---------------------
1703: In the result for $\sigma_\textrm{tot}$ above, we have not included the
1704: uncertainty $\Delta\mu$ that arises from varying the renormalization
1705: scale. That uncertainty is ${}^{+7.4}_{-5.3}$~fb.
1706: This is, perhaps, an overestimate of the uncertainty from uncalculated
1707: corrections of higher order in $\alpha_s$ and $v^2$, since it assumes
1708: that our choice of renormalization scale may be wrong by as much as a
1709: factor of two. Alternatively, one could estimate the uncertainty that
1710: arises from uncalculated corrections in the following way. One could
1711: take for the uncertainty associated with uncalculated corrections of
1712: NNLO in $\alpha_s$ to be the quantity
1713: $\Delta\hbox{NNLO}=\alpha_s(\sigma_\textrm{0,NLO}^\textrm{QCD}-
1714: \sigma_\textrm{0}^\textrm{QCD})\approx
1715: 1.32 \hbox{~fb}$, and one could take for the uncertainty associated
1716: with uncalculated corrections of NLO in $\alpha_s$ and NLO in $v^2$ the
1717: quantity $\Delta\hbox{NLO-$v^2$}=
1718: v^2(\sigma_\textrm{0,NLO}^\textrm{QCD}-\sigma_\textrm{0}^\textrm{QCD})
1719: \approx 1.89\hbox{~fb}$.
1720: (Uncertainties of relative order $v^4$ are already included in
1721: $\Delta\langle\bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi}$ and
1722: $\Delta\langle\bm{q}^2\rangle_{\eta_c}$.) If we add the uncertainty
1723: $\Delta\mu$ in quadrature with the other uncertainties, then we obtain
1724: \begin{equation}
1725: \sigma_\textrm{tot}=17.6^{+10.7}_{-8.3}\hbox{~fb}.
1726: \label{sigma-delta-mu}
1727: \end{equation}
1728: On the other hand, if we add $\Delta\hbox{NNLO}$ and
1729: $\Delta\hbox{NLO-$v^2$}$ in quadrature with the other uncertainties,
1730: then we obtain
1731: \begin{equation}
1732: \sigma_\textrm{tot}=17.6^{+8.1}_{-6.7}\hbox{~fb}.
1733: \label{sigma-delta-nnlo}
1734: \end{equation}
1735: In addition to the uncertainties that we have included in
1736: Eqs.~(\ref{sigma-delta-mu}) and (\ref{sigma-delta-nnlo}), there are
1737: uncertainties that are associated with the NRQCD factorization
1738: formula. A rigorous proof of NRQCD factorization for $\sigma[e^+e^-\to
1739: J/\psi +\eta_c]$ does not exist. However, it seems likely, on the basis
1740: of existing work on proving NRQCD factorization for other production
1741: processes \cite{Nayak:2005rt}, that the corrections to the factorization
1742: formula are of order $m_H^2/(s/4)\approx 34\%$, where $m_H$ is the mass
1743: of either of the heavy quarkonia.
1744:
1745: The various contributions to $\sigma_\textrm{tot}$ are as follows. The
1746: cross section at leading order in $\alpha_s$ and $v$, $\sigma_0$,
1747: contributes about $6.4$~fb, of which about $1.0$~fb comes from the pure
1748: QED corrections. The direct relativistic corrections that are
1749: associated with the process $e^+e^-\to J/\psi + \eta_c$ contribute
1750: about $2.9$~fb. The corrections of NLO in $\alpha_s$ contribute about
1751: $6.9$~fb, including the interference with the pure QED contribution.
1752: The interference between the relativistic corrections and the
1753: corrections of NLO in $\alpha_s$ contributes about $1.4$~fb.
1754:
1755: We have examined our numerical calculation in the limits $\langle
1756: \bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi}\to 0$ and $\langle \bm{q}^2\rangle_{\eta_c}\to
1757: 0$ and find that it agrees with the analytic results in
1758: Refs.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi} and \cite{He:2007te} for the order-$v^2$
1759: corrections to $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi +\eta_c]$.
1760:
1761: The direct relativistic corrections to the process $e^+e^-\to J/\psi
1762: +\eta_c$ itself are modest in size. $\sigma_v$ is about $45\%$ larger
1763: than $\sigma_0$, but $\sigma_0$ already contains an implicit
1764: relativistic correction factor of $0.96$ that arises from the use of the
1765: hadron masses, rather than $2m_c$, in the phase space. Hence, the
1766: enhancement from the direct relativistic correction is about $40\%$.
1767: If we use the hadron masses in the phase space and keep only the
1768: order-$v^2$ relativistic corrections to the squared amplitude, then we
1769: find that the direct relativistic corrections increase the cross section
1770: by about $45\%$. Thus, we see that the effects of resummation are not
1771: large, suggesting that the velocity expansion of NRQCD is converging
1772: well in this case.
1773:
1774: As we have mentioned previously, the resummed result contains all of the
1775: corrections that are associated with the momentum-space $Q\bar Q$
1776: quarkonium wave function in the leading-potential approximation, up to the
1777: ultraviolet cutoff of the NRQCD matrix elements. Hence, the modest size
1778: of the relativistic corrections supports the conclusion in
1779: Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006dm} that the effects of the finite width of the
1780: momentum-space $Q\bar Q$ wave function are not dramatic, once one excludes
1781: contributions from the large-momentum tails of the wave function. Those
1782: contributions are included in the NRQCD formalism in the corrections of
1783: higher order in $\alpha_s$.
1784:
1785: The use of the VMD method, rather than the NRQCD method, in
1786: calculating the fragmentation amplitude in the pure QED contribution,
1787: has a small effect on the central value of the cross section. The use of
1788: the VMD method shifts the central value of $\sigma_v$ down by about
1789: $3\%$.
1790:
1791: \section{Comparison with previous calculations \label{sec:comparison}}
1792:
1793: Let us now compare our results with some of those from previous
1794: calculations.
1795:
1796: As we have already mentioned, the contribution to $\sigma[e^+e^-\to
1797: J/\psi +\eta_c]$ at leading order in $\alpha_s$ and $v$ was
1798: first calculated in Refs.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi} and \cite{Liu:2002wq}.
1799: There are some differences in these results, owing to different choices of
1800: input parameters and the inclusion of pure QED corrections in
1801: Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi}. Let us focus on Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi},
1802: since the calculation in that paper is closer to the present one in
1803: terms of input parameters and the treatment of pure QED corrections. The
1804: result in Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi} is $\sigma[e^+e^-\to
1805: J/\psi+\eta_c]=3.78\pm 1.26~\hbox{fb}$. This result should be compared
1806: with our result for $\sigma_0$, which is about $70\%$ larger. This
1807: difference arises essentially because we have used the values for
1808: $\langle \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi} $ and $\langle
1809: \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{\eta_c}$ from Ref.~\cite{BCKLY} (see
1810: Table~\ref{table2}), while the authors of Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi}
1811: have used $\langle \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi} =\langle
1812: \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{\eta_c}=0.335\hbox{~GeV}^3$. This substantial
1813: difference in the values of the matrix elements arises largely from the
1814: inclusion of relativistic corrections to the electromagnetic decay widths
1815: of the $J/\psi$ and the $\eta_c$ in analyses of Ref.~\cite{BCKLY}. The
1816: relativistic corrections increase the sizes of $\langle
1817: \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}$ and $\langle\mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{\eta_c}$
1818: by about $31\%$, where we are comparing in both instances with the
1819: matrix element that is extracted from $\Gamma[J/\psi\to e^+e^-]$ in
1820: Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi}. The changes in the values of the matrix elements
1821: lead to a $72\%$ change in the cross section. Other small
1822: differences in our calculation relative to that in
1823: Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi} arise from using the VMD method to calculate
1824: the fragmentation contribution to the pure QED amplitude (about $-8\%$),
1825: from the use of the physical masses for the $J/\psi$ and the $\eta_c$ in
1826: the phase space (about $-4\%$), and from taking into account the effects
1827: of the running of $\alpha$ (about $10\%$). The error bar in the result
1828: of Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi} takes into account only the uncertainty
1829: $\Delta m_c$. It is more than twice the size of the $\Delta m_c$ error bar
1830: in $\sigma_0$ in our calculation. The error bar in our calculation is
1831: reduced because the $\Delta m_c$ uncertainty in the matrix elements in
1832: Ref.~\cite{BCKLY} was reduced by replacing certain factors of $2m_c$
1833: with $m_{J/\psi}$.
1834:
1835: In Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006ke}, a result $\sigma_\textrm{tot}=17.5\pm
1836: 5.7$~fb is given. Our calculation contains a number of refinements in
1837: comparison with that of Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006ke}. Among them are the
1838: use of the improved results for the matrix elements in
1839: Ref.~\cite{BCKLY}, the use of the VMD method to calculate the
1840: fragmentation contribution to the pure QED amplitude, the inclusion of
1841: the effects of the running of $\alpha$, and the precise calculation of
1842: the interference between the relativistic corrections and the
1843: corrections of NLO in $\alpha_s$, rather than the use of an overall
1844: $K$~factor to account for the corrections of NLO in $\alpha_s$. The
1845: effects of these refinements cancel almost exactly in the central value for
1846: the cross section. The error bars in the result of
1847: Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006ke} include only the uncertainties $\Delta m_c$,
1848: $\Delta \langle \bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi}$, and $\Delta \langle
1849: \bm{q}^2\rangle_{\eta_c}$ and are, therefore, somewhat smaller than the
1850: error bars that we report here.
1851:
1852: We can also compare our results with those of Ref.~\cite{He:2007te}. In
1853: that work, the quantities $\langle \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}$, $\langle
1854: \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{\eta_c}$, and
1855: $\langle\bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi}\langle\mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}
1856: =\langle\bm{q}^2\rangle_{\eta_c}\langle\mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{\eta_c}$
1857: were determined by comparing theoretical expressions for
1858: $\Gamma[J/\psi\to e^+e^-]$, $\Gamma[\eta_c\to\gamma\gamma]$, and
1859: $\Gamma[J/\psi\to \textrm{light hadrons}]$ with the experimental
1860: measurements of those widths. The resulting values are $\langle
1861: \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}^\textrm{HFC}=0.573\hbox{~GeV}^3$, $\langle
1862: \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{\eta_c}^\textrm{HFC}=0.432\hbox{~GeV}^3$,
1863: $\langle\bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi}^\textrm{HFC}=0.202\hbox{~GeV}^2$, and
1864: $\langle\bm{q}^2\rangle_{\eta_c}^\textrm{HFC}=0.268\hbox{~GeV}^2$,
1865: where the superscript HFC denotes the value that was given in
1866: Ref.~\cite{He:2007te}. The
1867: value of $\langle \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}$ is about $30\%$
1868: larger than the one that we employ, and the value of $\langle
1869: \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{\eta_c}$ is about $1\%$ smaller. The values of
1870: $\langle\bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi}$ and $\langle \bm{q}^2
1871: \rangle_{\eta_c}$ are smaller than the values that we use by about
1872: $54\%$ and $39\%$, respectively, and are considerably smaller than
1873: expectations from the NRQCD velocity-scaling rules.
1874: As was discussed in Ref.~\cite{BCKLY}, the smaller values of
1875: $\langle\bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi}$ and $\langle
1876: \bm{q}^2 \rangle_{\eta_c}$ arise in Ref.~\cite{He:2007te} because the
1877: theoretical expression for $\Gamma[J/\psi\to \textrm{light hadrons}]$
1878: contains a very large relativistic correction. We regard this as an
1879: indication that the velocity-expansion for that process is not under
1880: control.
1881:
1882: The authors of Ref.~\cite{He:2007te} find that the direct relativistic
1883: corrections to $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi+\eta_c]$ enhance the cross
1884: section by about $26\%$. If we ignore the effects of pure QED contributions
1885: and resummation, we find an enhancement from direct relativistic
1886: corrections of about $56\%$. The difference
1887: presumably arises from the use of smaller values of
1888: $\langle\bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi}$ and $\langle \bm{q}^2
1889: \rangle_{\eta_c}$ in Ref.~\cite{He:2007te}.
1890:
1891: In Ref.~\cite{He:2007te}, the central value for the total cross section
1892: is $\sigma_\textrm{tot}^\textrm{HFC}=20.04$~fb. This result does not
1893: include the pure QED contribution, the contribution from the interference
1894: between the corrections of NLO in $\alpha_s$ and the relativistic
1895: corrections, and the effects of resummation. The corresponding quantity
1896: in our calculation is $14.7$~fb. Thus, we see that the result of
1897: Ref.~\cite{He:2007te} is $37\%$ larger than ours. The main sources of
1898: this difference are the use of a larger value of $\langle
1899: \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}$, which would increase our cross
1900: section by about $30\%$, the use of a larger value of the strong coupling
1901: ($\alpha_s^\textrm{HFC}=0.2592$), which would increase our cross
1902: by about $47\%$,\footnote{In Ref.~\cite{He:2007te} the cross
1903: section at NLO in $\alpha_s$ was computed using $\alpha_s=0.2592$ and
1904: $\mu=3.00\hbox{~GeV}$ (Ref.~\cite{ZGC}). In order to find the effect of this
1905: choice of $\alpha_s$ and $\mu$ on our calculation, we compute
1906: $\sigma^\textrm{ZGC}_0$ and $\sigma^\textrm{ZGC}_{0,\,\textrm{NLO}}$ at
1907: $\alpha_s=0.2592$ and $\mu=3.00$, using the cross sections in the last row
1908: of Table~\ref{table1} as inputs. We then use these values for
1909: $\sigma^\textrm{ZGC}_0$ and $\sigma^\textrm{ZGC}_{0,\,\textrm{NLO}}$
1910: to evaluate Eq.~(\ref{2rho}).} the use of a smaller value of the
1911: electromagnetic coupling ($\alpha^\textrm{HFC}=1/137$), which would
1912: decrease our cross section by about $9\%$, the use of a larger value of
1913: the charm-quark mass ($m_c^\textrm{HFC}=1.5$~GeV), which would decrease
1914: our cross section at fixed values of the NRQCD matrix elements by about
1915: $12\%$, and the use of smaller values of
1916: $\langle\bm{q}^2\rangle_{J/\psi}$ and $\langle \bm{q}^2
1917: \rangle_{\eta_c}$, which would decrease our cross section by about
1918: $9\%$.
1919:
1920: In Ref.~\cite{He:2007te}, the dependence of the cross section on $m_c$
1921: is given. As $m_c$ is varied from $1.4$~GeV to $1.6$~GeV, a change in
1922: the cross section of $+37\%$ is found. In contrast, for this variation in
1923: $m_c$, we find a change in the cross section of $-30\%$.
1924: Presumably the difference arises because, in the method that is used to
1925: determine $\langle \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}$ and $\langle
1926: \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{\eta_c}$ in Ref.~\cite{He:2007te}, those
1927: quantities are proportional to $m_c^2$. In the method that is used in
1928: Ref.~\cite{BCKLY} to determine $\langle \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}$ and
1929: $\langle \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{\eta_c}$, the dependence of those
1930: quantities on $m_c$ is much milder, partly because some factors of
1931: $2m_c$ are replaced with $m_{J/\psi}$ in the theoretical expressions.
1932: The authors of
1933: Ref.~\cite{He:2007te} have not estimated the sizes of uncertainties that
1934: arise from other sources, and so it is not clear whether their method of
1935: calculation leads to a more precise prediction for the cross section
1936: than the one that we have used.
1937:
1938: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1939: \section{Summary and Discussion \label{sec:discussion}}
1940: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1941:
1942: For a number of years, the discrepancy between theoretical predictions
1943: for the exclusive double-charmonium
1944: cross section $\sigma[e^+e^- \to J/\psi + \eta_c]$
1945: and experimental measurements has posed
1946: a significant challenge to our understanding of quarkonium production.
1947: Changes in the measured values of the cross section have reduced the
1948: discrepancy somewhat \cite{Abe:2004ww,Aubert:2005tj}. More recently,
1949: calculations of the corrections of NLO in $\alpha_s$ \cite{Zhang:2005ch}
1950: and relativistic corrections \cite{Bodwin:2006ke,He:2007te} have
1951: increased the theoretical prediction for the cross section by almost an
1952: order of magnitude. The shifts in the theoretical and experimental
1953: central values for the cross section have resolved the outstanding
1954: discrepancy. However, in the absence of an analysis of the theoretical
1955: uncertainties, the meaning of the apparent agreement between theory and
1956: experiment is unclear.
1957:
1958: In this paper, we have carried out a new computation of the relativistic
1959: corrections to $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi + \eta_c]$, with the goals of
1960: adding certain refinements to the calculation and making a more precise
1961: estimate of the theoretical uncertainties. Some of the refinements,
1962: relative to the calculation of Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006ke}, are the use of
1963: the VMD method to calculate the fragmentation contribution to the pure
1964: QED amplitude, the inclusion of the effects of the running of $\alpha$,
1965: and the inclusion of a precise calculation of the interference between
1966: the relativistic corrections and the corrections of NLO in $\alpha_s$,
1967: as opposed to the use of a simple $K$-factor estimate. A further
1968: significant refinement in our calculation is the use of an improved
1969: determination of the relevant NRQCD matrix elements at leading order in
1970: $v^2$ and at NLO in $v^2$ (Ref.~\cite{BCKLY}). This determination
1971: includes an analysis of the correlated uncertainties in the matrix
1972: elements. Our calculation exploits this information to give a much
1973: more complete estimate of the uncertainties than was given in
1974: Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006ke}.
1975:
1976: Our calculation differs from the one in Ref.~\cite{He:2007te} in
1977: that we include pure QED corrections, we take into account the effects
1978: of the running of $\alpha$, we include the interference between the
1979: relativistic corrections and the corrections of NLO in $\alpha_s$, and
1980: we resum a class of relativistic corrections. As we discuss in
1981: Section~\ref{sec:comparison}, the calculation of Ref.~\cite{He:2007te}
1982: makes use of matrix elements that differ significantly in numerical
1983: value from those that we use. Ref.~\cite{He:2007te} includes a
1984: discussion of scale uncertainties and the effect of the uncertainty in
1985: $m_c$, but does not provide an overall error bar for the cross
1986: section.
1987:
1988: In our calculation, the relativistic corrections to
1989: $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi + \eta_c]$ arise from two sources. The first,
1990: direct source consists of the relativistic corrections to the process
1991: $e^+e^-\to J/\psi + \eta_c$ itself. These increase the cross section by
1992: about $40\%$. The second, indirect source of
1993: relativistic corrections derives from the relativistic corrections to
1994: the electromagnetic decay widths of the $J/\psi$ and the $\eta_c$, which
1995: enter into the matrix-element determinations of Ref.~\cite{BCKLY}.
1996: These corrections increase
1997: the cross section by about $88\%$ (Ref.~\cite{BCKLY}).
1998: (Other, smaller
1999: corrections result in a net change in $\langle \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}
2000: \langle \mathcal{O}_1 \rangle_{\eta_c}$
2001: of $72\%$ relative to the value of $\langle \mathcal{O}_1\rangle_{J/\psi}
2002: \langle \mathcal{O}_1 \rangle_{\eta_c}$ that was used in the
2003: calculation of Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi}.)
2004: The inclusion of corrections of NLO in $\alpha_s$ further increases the
2005: cross section by about $89\%$, of which about $15\%$ comes from the
2006: interference between the relativistic corrections and the corrections of
2007: NLO in $\alpha_s$.
2008:
2009: Our principal results are given in Eqs.~(\ref{sigma-delta-mu}) and
2010: (\ref{sigma-delta-nnlo}). In the former result, the uncertainties that
2011: arise from uncalculated higher-order corrections are estimated by
2012: varying the renormalization scale. In the latter result, those
2013: uncertainties are assumed to be given by their nominal sizes, namely,
2014: $\alpha_s$ and $v^2$ times the contribution to the cross section of
2015: NLO in $\alpha_s$. In addition, there are uncertainties that result
2016: from the use of the NRQCD factorization formula for the cross section,
2017: which we estimate to be about $34\%$.
2018:
2019: The central value for $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi + \eta_c]$ that we
2020: obtain is essentially the same as that of Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006ke}.
2021: The effects of the various refinements that we have mentioned largely cancel.
2022: However, some of the refinements allow us to constrain the theoretical
2023: uncertainties more tightly. Because we have included more sources of
2024: uncertainty in our estimates, our error bars are significantly larger
2025: than those in Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006ke}.
2026:
2027: Our results for $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi + \eta_c]$ also agree, within
2028: uncertainties, with the result of Ref.~\cite{He:2007te}. To some extent,
2029: the effects of our use of different values of the matrix elements and
2030: other input parameters are canceled by our inclusion of additional
2031: corrections. In Ref.~\cite{He:2007te}, the dependence of the cross
2032: section on $m_c$ is given. That dependence is similar in magnitude but
2033: opposite in sign to the one that we find, presumably because the authors
2034: of Ref.~\cite{He:2007te} use a method to determine the NRQCD matrix
2035: elements that is quite different from the method in Ref.~\cite{BCKLY}.
2036: The authors of Ref.~\cite{He:2007te} have not estimated other
2037: uncertainties, and so it is not clear whether their method of
2038: calculation yields a result that is more precise or less precise than
2039: ours.
2040:
2041: As we have mentioned, in our calculation, we resum a class of
2042: relativistic corrections to all orders in $v$. These corrections include
2043: all of the relativistic corrections that are contained in the
2044: color-singlet $Q\bar Q$ quarkonium wave function, up to the ultraviolet
2045: cutoff of the NRQCD matrix elements. The effect of the resummation
2046: beyond relative order $v^2$ is small, indicating that the velocity
2047: expansion converges well for this process. The fact that the direct
2048: relativistic corrections are modest in size supports the conclusion in
2049: Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:2006dm} that the effects of the finite width of the
2050: momentum-space $Q\bar Q$ wave function are not dramatic, once one
2051: excludes contributions from the large-momentum tails of the wave
2052: function that are contained in corrections of higher order in $\alpha_s$.
2053:
2054: Let us discuss the prospects for decreasing the
2055: uncertainties in our calculation. The largest uncertainty arises from
2056: the uncalculated terms of relative order $\alpha_s v^2$ and relative
2057: order $\alpha_s^2$. This uncertainty may be as large as
2058: ${}^{+42\%}_{-30\%}$. A complete calculation of the order-$\alpha_s v^2$
2059: corrections, which are the larger ones, seems quite feasible. The
2060: calculation of the corrections of order-$\alpha_s^2$ would be a major
2061: undertaking, but is not out of the question. The next largest source of
2062: uncertainty arises from the use of the NRQCD factorization formalism
2063: itself, which may lead to an uncertainty of about $34\%$.
2064: A more thorough understanding of the issues that are involved in
2065: constructing a rigorous proof of a factorization theorem for
2066: $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi + \eta_c]$ may lead to a different estimate of
2067: these uncertainties. It is also conceivable that one could prove a
2068: ``higher-twist'' factorization theorem that would allow one to carry out
2069: a systematic computation of corrections to the existing NRQCD
2070: factorization formula. The uncertainties that arise from the use of the
2071: NRQCD factorization formalism presumably would decrease as the CM energy
2072: of the process $e^+e^-\to J/\psi + \eta_c$ increases. However, there are
2073: no prospects for measuring $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi + \eta_c]$ at higher
2074: energies in the immediate future. The uncertainty in $m_c$ is the next
2075: most important source of theoretical uncertainty. We estimate the
2076: resulting uncertainty in the cross section to be ${}^{+30\%}_{-21\%}$.
2077: We can expect to see some progress in reducing this uncertainty,
2078: particularly from lattice determinations of $m_c$.
2079:
2080: Our result for $\sigma[e^+e^-\to J/\psi + \eta_c]$ agrees,
2081: within errors, with the measurements of the Belle and BABAR experiments.
2082: The uncertainties in our result are quite large, and, of course, it
2083: would be desirable to reduce these uncertainties, so as to sharpen this
2084: test of the NRQCD factorization approach to quarkonium production.
2085: Nevertheless, it seems fair to conclude that the long-standing
2086: discrepancy between the theoretical prediction for $\sigma[e^+e^-\to
2087: J/\psi + \eta_c]$ and the experimental measurements has been resolved.
2088:
2089: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
2090: \begin{acknowledgments}
2091: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
2092: % put your acknowledgments here.
2093: We thank Kuang-Ta Chao for providing us with numerical values of the
2094: NLO cross section for various values of the input parameters. We
2095: are grateful to Jens Erler for providing us with the latest
2096: version of the code GAPP and for explaining its use.
2097: %
2098: We also thank Taewon Kim for checking the central value of the
2099: cross section.
2100: %
2101: %
2102: JL thanks the High Energy Physics Theory Group at Argonne National
2103: Laboratory for its hospitality while this work was carried out.
2104: %
2105: Work in the High Energy Physics Division at Argonne
2106: National Laboratory is supported by the U.~S.~Department of Energy,
2107: Division of High Energy Physics, under Contract No.~DE-AC02-06CH11357.
2108: %
2109: The work of JL was supported by the Korea Research Foundation
2110: under MOEHRD Basic Research Promotion grant KRF-2004-015-C00092
2111: and by a Korea University Grant.
2112: %
2113: The work of CY was supported by the Korea Research Foundation
2114: under MOEHRD Basic Research Promotion grant KRF-2006-311-C00020.
2115: \end{acknowledgments}
2116:
2117:
2118: %% APPENDIX
2119:
2120: %\appendix
2121:
2122: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
2123: %\section{}
2124: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
2125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2126: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:
2127: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
2128:
2129: \begin{thebibliography}{}
2130: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
2131: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
2132:
2133: %[1]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2134: %\cite{Abe:2002rb}
2135: \bibitem{Abe:2002rb}
2136: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
2137: %``Observation of double c anti-c production in e+ e- annihilation at
2138: %s**(1/2) approx. 10.6-GeV,''
2139: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 142001 (2002)
2140: [arXiv:hep-ex/0205104].
2141: %%CITATION = PRLTA,89,142001;%%
2142:
2143: %[2]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2144: %\cite{Bodwin:1994jh}
2145: \bibitem{Bodwin:1994jh}
2146: G.~T.~Bodwin, E.~Braaten, and G.~P.~Lepage,
2147: %``Rigorous QCD analysis of inclusive annihilation and production of heavy
2148: %quarkonium,''
2149: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51}, 1125 (1995)
2150: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 55}, 5853 (1997)]
2151: [arXiv:hep-ph/9407339].
2152: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D51,1125;%%
2153:
2154: %[3]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2155: %\cite{Braaten:2002fi}
2156: \bibitem{Braaten:2002fi}
2157: E.~Braaten and J.~Lee,
2158: %``Exclusive double-charmonium production in e+ e- annihilation,''
2159: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 054007 (2003)
2160: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 72}, 099901 (2005)]
2161: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211085].
2162: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D67,054007;%%
2163:
2164: %[4]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2165: %\cite{Liu:2002wq}
2166: \bibitem{Liu:2002wq}
2167: K.~Y.~Liu, Z.~G.~He, and K.~T.~Chao,
2168: %``Problems of double charm production in e+ e- annihilation at s**(1/2) =
2169: %10.6-GeV. ((V)),''
2170: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 557}, 45 (2003)
2171: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211181].
2172: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B557,45;%%
2173:
2174: %[5]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2175: %\cite{Abe:2004ww}
2176: \bibitem{Abe:2004ww}
2177: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
2178: %``Study of double charmonium production in e+ e- annihilation at s**(1/2)
2179: %approx. 10.6-GeV,''
2180: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 071102 (2004)
2181: [arXiv:hep-ex/0407009].
2182: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D70,071102;%%
2183:
2184: %[6]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2185: %\cite{Aubert:2005tj}
2186: \bibitem{Aubert:2005tj}
2187: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
2188: %``Measurement of double charmonium production in $e^+e^-$ annihilations at
2189: %$\sqrt{s}=10.6$ GeV,''
2190: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 031101 (2005)
2191: [arXiv:hep-ex/0506062].
2192: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D72,031101;%%
2193:
2194: %[7]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2195: %\cite{Zhang:2005ch}
2196: \bibitem{Zhang:2005ch}
2197: Y.~J.~Zhang, Y.~j.~Gao, and K.~T.~Chao,
2198: %``Next-to-leading order QCD correction to e+ e- --> J/psi + eta/c at
2199: %s**(1/2) = 10.6-GeV,''
2200: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96}, 092001 (2006)
2201: [arXiv:hep-ph/0506076].
2202: %%CITATION = PRLTA,96,092001;%%
2203:
2204: %[8]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2205: \bibitem{Bodwin:2006dn}
2206: G.~T.~Bodwin, D.~Kang, and J.~Lee,
2207: %``Potential-model calculation of an order-v**2 NRQCD matrix element,''
2208: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 014014 (2006)
2209: [arXiv:hep-ph/0603186].
2210: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603186;%%
2211:
2212: %[9]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2213: %\cite{Bodwin:2006ke}
2214: \bibitem{Bodwin:2006ke}
2215: G.~T.~Bodwin, D.~Kang, T.~Kim, J.~Lee, and C.~Yu,
2216: %``Relativistic corrections to e+ e- --> J/psi + eta/c in a potential model,''
2217: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 892}, 315 (2007)
2218: [arXiv:hep-ph/0611002].
2219: %%CITATION = APCPC,892,315;%%
2220:
2221: %[10]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2222: %\cite{He:2007te}
2223: \bibitem{He:2007te}
2224: Z.~G.~He, Y.~Fan, and K.~T.~Chao,
2225: %``Relativistic corrections to $J/\psi$ exclusive and inclusive double charm
2226: %production at B factories,''
2227: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 75}, 074011 (2007)
2228: [arXiv:hep-ph/0702239].
2229: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D75,074011;%%
2230:
2231: %[11]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2232: \bibitem{BCKLY}
2233: G.~T.~Bodwin, H.~S.~Chung, D.~Kang, J.~Lee, and C.~Yu,
2234: %``Improved determination of color-singlet nonrelativistic QCD matrix
2235: %elements for $S$-wave charmonium,''
2236: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 77}, 094017 (2008)
2237: [arXiv:0710.0994 [hep-ph]].
2238: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.0994;%%
2239:
2240:
2241: %[12]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2242: %\cite{Bodwin:2002hg}
2243: \bibitem{Bodwin:2002hg}
2244: G.~T.~Bodwin and A.~Petrelli,
2245: %``Order v**4 corrections to S-wave quarkonium decay,''
2246: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 094011 (2002)
2247: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205210].
2248: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,094011;%%
2249:
2250: %[13]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2251: %\cite{Bodwin:2006yd}
2252: \bibitem{Bodwin:2006yd}
2253: G.~T.~Bodwin, E.~Braaten, J.~Lee, and C.~Yu,
2254: %``Exclusive two-vector-meson production from e+ e- annihilation,''
2255: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 074014 (2006)
2256: [arXiv:hep-ph/0608200].
2257: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,074014;%%
2258:
2259: %[14]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2260: %\cite{Brambilla:1999xf}
2261: \bibitem{Brambilla:1999xf}
2262: N.~Brambilla, A.~Pineda, J.~Soto, and A.~Vairo,
2263: %``Potential NRQCD: An effective theory for heavy quarkonium,''
2264: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 566}, 275 (2000)
2265: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907240].
2266: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B566,275;%%
2267:
2268: %[15]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2269: %\cite{Pineda:2000sz}
2270: \bibitem{Pineda:2000sz}
2271: A.~Pineda and A.~Vairo,
2272: %``The QCD potential at O(1/m**2): Complete spin-dependent and
2273: % spin-independent result,''
2274: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 054007 (2001)
2275: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 64}, 039902 (2001)]
2276: [arXiv:hep-ph/0009145].
2277: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D63,054007;%%
2278:
2279: %[16]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2280: %\cite{Fleming:2000ib}
2281: \bibitem{Fleming:2000ib}
2282: S.~Fleming, I.~Z.~Rothstein, and A.~K.~Leibovich,
2283: %``Power counting and effective field theory for charmonium,''
2284: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 036002 (2001)
2285: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012062].
2286: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D64,036002;%%
2287:
2288: %[17]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2289: \bibitem{bks}
2290: G.~T.~Bodwin, S.~Kim, and D.~K.~Sinclair,
2291: %``Matrix elements for the decays of S and P wave quarkonium:
2292: %An exploratory study,''
2293: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl. {\bf 34}, 434 (1994);
2294: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,34,434;%%
2295: %\bibitem{bks-3}
2296: G.~T.~Bodwin, D.~K.~Sinclair, and S.~Kim,
2297: %``Quarkonium decay matrix elements from quenched lattice % QCD,''
2298: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 77}, 2376 (1996)
2299: [arXiv:hep-lat/9605023];
2300: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9605023;%%
2301: %\bibitem{bks-4}
2302: %G.~T.~Bodwin, D.~K.~Sinclair and S.~Kim,
2303: %``Lattice calculation of quarkonium decay matrix elements,''
2304: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 12}, 4019 (1997)
2305: [arXiv:hep-ph/9609371].
2306: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9609371;%%
2307:
2308: %[18]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2309: %\cite{Bodwin:2005gg}
2310: \bibitem{Bodwin:2005gg}
2311: G.~T.~Bodwin, J.~Lee, and D.~K.~Sinclair,
2312: %``Spin correlations and velocity-scaling in color-octet
2313: % NRQCD matrix elements,''
2314: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 014009 (2005)
2315: [arXiv:hep-lat/0503032].
2316: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D72,014009;%%
2317:
2318: %[19]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2319: %\cite{Bodwin:2004up}
2320: \bibitem{Bodwin:2004up}
2321: G.~T.~Bodwin, J.~Lee, and D.~K.~Sinclair,
2322: %``Spin correlations and velocity-scaling in NRQCD
2323: % matrix elements,''
2324: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 756}, 384 (2005)
2325: [arXiv:hep-lat/0412006].
2326: %%CITATION = APCPC,756,384;%%
2327:
2328: %[20]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2329: %\cite{Koma:2007jq}
2330: \bibitem{Koma:2007jq}
2331: Y.~Koma, M.~Koma, and H.~Wittig,
2332: %``Relativistic corrections to the static potential at O(1/m) and O(1/m^2),''
2333: PoS {\bf LAT2007}, 111 (2007)
2334: [arXiv:0711.2322 [hep-lat]].
2335: %%CITATION = POSCI,LAT2007,111;%%
2336:
2337: %[21]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2338: %\cite{Yao:2006px}
2339: \bibitem{Yao:2006px}
2340: W.~M.~Yao {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
2341: ``Review of particle physics,''
2342: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006)
2343: ($m_{\eta_c}$ is taken from ``The 2007 updates of the Particle Listings''
2344: at http://pdg.lbl.gov).
2345: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G33,1;%%
2346:
2347: %[22]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2348: %\cite{Erler:1998sy}
2349: \bibitem{Erler:1998sy}
2350: J.~Erler,
2351: %``MS-bar scheme calculation of the QED coupling alpha(M(z)),''
2352: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 054008 (1999)
2353: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803453];
2354: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D59,054008;%%
2355: %\cite{Erler:1999ug}
2356: %\bibitem{Erler:1999ug}
2357: % J.~Erler,
2358: %``Global fits to electroweak data using GAPP,''
2359: arXiv:hep-ph/0005084.
2360: %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0005084;%%
2361:
2362: %[23]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2363: \bibitem{ZGC}
2364: K.~T.~Chao, private communication.
2365:
2366: %[24]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2367: %\cite{Nayak:2005rt}
2368: \bibitem{Nayak:2005rt}
2369: See, for example, G.~C.~Nayak, J.~W.~Qiu, and G.~Sterman,
2370: %``Fragmentation, NRQCD and NNLO factorization analysis in heavy quarkonium
2371: %production,''
2372: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 114012 (2005)
2373: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509021].
2374: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D72,114012;%%
2375:
2376: %[25]---------------------------------------------------------------------
2377: %\cite{Bodwin:2006dm}
2378: \bibitem{Bodwin:2006dm}
2379: G.~T.~Bodwin, D.~Kang, and J.~Lee,
2380: %``Reconciling the light-cone and NRQCD approaches to calculating e+ e- -->
2381: %J/psi + eta/c,''
2382: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 114028 (2006)
2383: [arXiv:hep-ph/0603185].
2384: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,114028;%%
2385:
2386: \end{thebibliography}
2387:
2388: \end{document}
2389: