1: %EL CAPITULO DE LAS BD%
2:
3: \section{Introduction}
4:
5: This chapter is devoted to the calculation of different weak
6: observables of pseudoscalar and vector mesons with a heavy quark. These
7: weak observables are of great interest since they help to probe the
8: quark structure of the involved hadrons, and also provide information
9: to determinate the absolute value of elements of the
10: CKM matrix.
11:
12:
13: In Ref.~\cite{Albertus:2004iw}, in which a similar model was
14: used to study the $\Lambda_b^0\to \Lambda^+_c\,l^-\bar{\nu}_l$ and
15: $\Xi_b^0\to \Xi^+_c\,l^-\bar{\nu}_l$ reactions, it was shown that a direct
16: nonrelativistic calculation does not meet HQET constraints.
17: This problem was
18: solved imposing HQET relations among form factors. That led to a
19: determination of the $|V_{cb}|$ CKM matrix element in good agreement
20: with experimental results.
21:
22: One would expect this problem will also show up in this calculation,
23: so that
24: constraints coming from HQET will be included at some point in the
25: calculation in order to improve the results.
26:
27:
28: In the case of mesons with a heavy quark, HQS leads to many model independent
29: predictions. For instance in the HQS limit the masses of the lowest lying (s-wave)
30: pseudoscalar and vector mesons with a heavy quark are degenerate.
31: Nonrelativistic quark models satisfy this constraint: the spin-spin
32: terms, that distinguishes vector from pseudoscalar, are zero if the mass of
33: the heavy quark goes to infinity. HQS also predicts that the
34: masses and leptonic decay constants of pseudoscalars and vector mesons
35: are related via
36: \bea
37: f_P\,m_P\Bigg|_{HQS}=f_V\,m_V\Bigg|_{HQS}
38: \eea
39: relation that is also satisfied in the quark model in the HQS limit.
40: If one looks now at the form factors for the semileptonic $B\to D$ and $B\to
41: D^*$ decays HQS predicts relations among different form factors
42: that are also met by the quark model in the HQS limit. The question is
43: to what extent the deviations from the HQS limit evaluated in the quark model
44: agree with the constraints deduced from HQET. In addition we will make use of
45: these HQET constraints to improve the quark model results and thus come up with
46: reliable predictions.
47:
48:
49: Apart from lattice QCD and QCD sum rules (QCDSR) calculations with which we
50: shall compare our results, and that will be quoted in the following, the different observables analyzed in this work
51: have been studied in
52: the quark model starting with the pioneering work of
53: Ref.~\cite{Isgur:1989qw,Isgur:1988gb,Scora:1995ty} within a non relativistic version, to continue with
54: different versions of the relativistic quark model applied to the
55: determination of decay
56: constants~\cite{Capstick:1989ra,Barik:1993aw,Hwang:1995uy,Hwang:1995vt,Micu:1996hj,AbdEl-Hady:1997rj,Morenas:1997rx,Melikhov:2000yu,Wang:2004xs,DeVito:2004zs},
57: form factors and differential decay
58: widths~\cite{Melikhov:2000yu,DeVito:2004zs,Jaus:1989au,Jaus:1991cy,Jaus:1996np,Faustov:1995xc,Barik:1996xf,Ishida:1997ft,Ebert:1997mg,Ebert:2002qa,Ivanov:1999tv},
59: Isgur-Wise
60: functions~\cite{DeVito:2004zs,Close:1993yk,Kiselev:1994ay,LeYaouanc:1995wv,Morenas:1996bn,Morenas:1997nk,Deandrea:1998uz,Choi:1999nu,Krutov:2000kt}
61: or strong coupling
62: constants~\cite{Melikhov:2000yu,Deandrea:1998uz,Miller:1988tz,O'Donnell:1994ey,Colangelo:1994jc,Becirevic:1999fr}.
63:
64: For calculations in this chapter we have used experimental meson masses taken from Ref. \cite{Eidelman:2004wy}.
65:
66:
67: \section{Meson states}
68: For a meson $M$ we use the following expression for the wave function
69: in the Fock-space representation.
70: \begin{eqnarray}
71: \label{BD_wf}
72: && \hspace{-2.2cm}
73: \left|{M,\lambda\,\vec{P}}\,\right\rangle_{NR}
74: \,=\,\int d^3p \sum_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}\hat{\phi}^{(M,\lambda)}_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}(\,\vec{p}\,)
75: \nonumber\\ && \hspace{-.5cm}
76: \frac{(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}-s_2}}{(2\pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}
77: \sqrt{2E_{f_1}(\vec{p}_1)2E_{f_2}(\vec{p}_2)}}\
78: %\ \nonumber\\
79: %&&\hspace{3cm}
80: \left|\ q,\ \alpha_1\
81: \vec{p}_1=\frac{m_{f_1}}{m_{f_1}+m_{f_2}}\vec{P}-\vec{p}\ \right\rangle
82: \nonumber \\&&\hspace{4.7cm}
83: \left|\ \bar{q},\ \alpha_2\ \vec{p}_2=\frac{m_{f_2}}{m_{f_1}+m_{f_2}}\vec{P}+\vec{p}\
84: \right\rangle
85: \end{eqnarray}
86: where $\vec{P}$ stands for the meson three momentum and $\lambda$ represents
87: the spin projection in the meson center of mass. $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ represent
88: the quantum numbers of spin (s), flavor (f) and color (c)%, $\alpha\equiv
89: %(s,f,c)$, of the
90: \begin{equation}
91: \alpha\equiv(s,f,c)
92: \end{equation}
93: of the
94: quark and the antiquark, while $E_{f_1}(\vec{p}_1),\,\vec{p}_1$ and $E_{f_2}(\vec{p}_2),\,\vec{p}_2$ are their
95: respective energies and three-momenta. $m_f$ is the mass of the quark or
96: antiquark with flavor $f$. The factor $(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}-s_2}$
97: is included in order that the antiquark spin states have the correct relative
98: phase\footnote{Note that under charge conjugation $({\cal C})$ quark and
99: antiquark creation operators are related via \hbox{${\cal
100: C}\,c^{\dagger}_\alpha(\,\vec{p}\,)\,{\cal C}^{\dagger}= (-1)^{\frac{1}{2}-s}\,d^{\dagger}_\alpha(\,\vec{p}\,)
101: $}. This means that the antiquark states with the correct spin relative phase
102: are not $d^{\dagger}_\alpha(\,\vec{p}\,)\,|0\rangle=
103: |\,\bar{q},\ \alpha\ \vec{p}\ \rangle$ but are instead given by
104: $(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}-s}\,d^{\dagger}_\alpha(\,\vec{p}\,)\,|0\rangle=
105: (-1)^{\frac{1}{2}-s}\,|\,\bar{q},\ \alpha\ \vec{p}\ \rangle$.}.
106: The normalization of the quark and antiquark
107: states is
108: \begin{eqnarray}
109: \left\langle\ \alpha^{\prime}\ \vec{p}^{\ \prime}\,|\,\alpha\ \vec{p}\,
110: \right\rangle=\delta_{\alpha^{\prime},\ \alpha}\, (2\pi)^3\, 2E_f(\vec{p})\,\delta(
111: \vec{p}^{\ \prime}-\vec{p}\,)
112: \end{eqnarray}
113: Furthermore, $\hat{\phi}^{\,(M,\lambda)}_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}(\,\vec{p}\,)$ is the
114: momentum space wave
115: function for the relative motion of the quark-antiquark
116: system.
117: Its normalization is given by
118: \begin{equation}
119: \int\, d^3p\ \sum_{\alpha_1\,\alpha_2} \left(
120: \hat{\phi}^{\,(M,\lambda')}_{\alpha_1,\,\alpha_2}(\,\vec{p}\,)
121: \right)^* \hat{\phi}^{\,(M,\lambda)}_{\alpha_1,\,\alpha_2}(\,\vec{p}\,)
122: =\delta_{\lambda',\,\lambda}
123: \end{equation}
124: and, thus, the normalization of our meson states is
125: \begin{equation}
126: \label{BD:eq01}
127: {}_{\stackrel{}{NR}}\left\langle\, {M,\lambda'\,\vec{P}^{\,\prime}}\,|\,{M,\lambda
128: \,\vec{P}}\,\right\rangle_{NR}
129: =\delta_{\lambda',\,\lambda}\,(2\pi)^3\,\delta(\vec{P}^{\,\prime}-\vec{P}\,)
130: \end{equation}
131: For the particular case of ground state pseudoscalar ($P$) and vector ($V$) mesons we can assume the
132: orbital angular momentum to be zero and then we will have
133: \begin{eqnarray}
134: \hat{\phi}^{\,(P)}_{\alpha_1,\,\alpha_2}(\,\vec{p}\,)
135: &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\,\delta_{c_1,\,c_2}\
136: \hat{\phi}^{\,(P)}_{(s_1,\,f_1),\,(s_2,\,f_2)}(\,\vec{p}\,)\nonumber\\
137: &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\,\delta_{c_1,\,c_2}\ (-i)
138: \ \hat{\phi}^{\,(P)}_{f_1,\,f_2}(\,|\vec{p}\,|)\
139: Y_{00}(\,\widehat{\vec{p}}\ )\ \left(\left.\frac{1}{2},\frac12,0\right|s_1,s_2,0\right)\nonumber\\
140: \hat{\phi}^{\,(V,\,\lambda)}_{\alpha_1,\,\alpha_2}(\,\vec{p}\,)
141: &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\,\delta_{c_1,\,c_2}\
142: \hat{\phi}^{\,(V,\,\lambda)}_{(s_1,\,f_1),\,(s_2,\,f_2)}(\,\vec{p}\,)\nonumber\\
143: &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\,\delta_{c_1,\,c_2}\ (-1)\
144: \hat{\phi}^{\,(V)}_{f_1,\,f_2}(\,|\vec{p}\,|)\
145: Y_{00}(\,\widehat{\vec{p}}\ )\
146: \left(\left.\frac12,\frac12,1\right|s_1,s_2,\lambda\right)
147: \end{eqnarray}
148: where $(j_1,j_2,j_3|m_1,m_2,m_3)$ is a Clebsch-Gordan coefficient,
149: $Y_{00}=1/\sqrt{4\pi}$ is the $l=m=0$ spherical harmonic, and
150: $\hat{\phi}^{\,(M)}_{f_1,\,f_2}(|\,\vec{p}\,|)$ is the Fourier
151: transform of the radial coordinate space wave function. The phases
152: are introduced for later convenience.
153:
154: To evaluate the coordinate space wave function
155: we shall use the potentials presented in chapter \ref{cha:potential}.
156: This will provide us with a spread of
157: results that we will consider, and quote, as a theoretical error to
158: the averaged value that we will quote as our central result.
159: Another source of theoretical uncertainty, that we can not account
160: for, is the use of
161: nonrelativistic kinematics in the evaluation of the orbital wave
162: functions and the construction of our states defined above.
163: While this is a very good approximation for mesons with two heavy
164: quarks (as the $B_c$ that will be studied in chapter \ref{cha:Bc}), it is not that
165: good for mesons with a light quark. That notwithstanding note that any
166: nonrelativistic quark model has free parameters in the inter-quark interaction
167: that are fitted to experimental data. In that sense we think that at least
168: part of the ignored relativistic effects are included in an effective way
169: in their fitted values.
170:
171:
172: \section[Leptonic decay of pseudoscalar and vector $B$ and $D$
173: mesons]{Leptonic decay of pseudoscalar and vector $B$ and $D$
174: mesons\sectionmark{Leptonic decay}}
175: \sectionmark{Leptonic decay}
176: \label{sect:leptonic}
177: In this section we will consider the purely leptonic decay of
178: pseudoscalars
179: ($B$, $D$) and vector ($B^*$, $D^*$) mesons. The charged
180: weak current operator for a specific pair of quark flavors $f_1$ and
181: $f_2$ reads
182: \begin{equation}
183: J^{f_1\,f_2}_\mu(0)=J^{f_1\,f_2}_{V\,\mu}(0)-J^{f_1\,f_2}_{A\,\mu}(0)
184: =\sum_{(c_1,\,s_1),\,(c_2,\,s_2)}\,\delta_{c_1,\,c_2}\ \overline{\Psi}_{\alpha_1}(0)\gamma_\mu
185: (1-\gamma_5)\Psi_{\alpha_2}(0)
186: \end{equation}
187: with $\Psi_{\alpha_1}$ a quark field of a definite spin, flavor and
188: color. The hadronic matrix elements involved in the processes can be
189: parametrized in terms of a unique pseudoscalar $f_P$ or vector $f_V$
190: decay constant as
191: \begin{eqnarray}
192: \label{fpv}
193: &&\hspace*{-.7cm}
194: \left\langle 0 \right|\, J_\mu^{f_1\,f_2}(0)\,\left|\, P, \vec{P}\,\right\rangle
195: =\left\langle 0 \right|\, -J_{A\,\mu}^{f_1\,f_2}(0)\,\left|\, P, \vec{P}\,
196: \right\rangle= -iP_\mu\,f_P \nonumber\\
197: %\end{eqnarray}
198: %\begin{eqnarray}
199: %\label{fv}
200: &&\hspace*{-.7cm}
201: \left\langle 0 \right|\, J_\mu^{f_1\,f_2}(0)\,\left|\, V, \lambda\,\vec{P}\,
202: \right\rangle
203: =\left\langle 0 \right|\, J_{V\,\mu}^{f_1\,f_2}(0)\,\left|\, V,\,\lambda\,
204: \vec{P}\,
205: \right\rangle= \varepsilon_{(\lambda)\mu}(\,\vec{P}\,)m_Vf_V
206: \end{eqnarray}
207: where the meson states are normalized such that
208: \begin{equation}
209: \left\langle\, {M,\lambda'\,\vec{P}^{\,\prime}}\,|\,{M,\lambda
210: \,\vec{P}}\,\right\rangle
211: =\delta_{\lambda',\,\lambda}\,(2\pi)^3\,2E_M(\vec{P})\,\delta(\vec{P}^{\,\prime}-\vec{P}\,)
212: \end{equation}
213: with $E_M(\vec{P})$ the energy of the meson.
214:
215: In the first of Eqs.(\ref{fpv}) $P_\mu$ is the four-momentum of the
216: meson, while in the second $m_V$ and
217: $\varepsilon_{(\lambda)}(\,\vec{P}\,)$ are the mass and the
218: polarization vector of the vector meson.
219: In both cases $f_1$ and $f_2$
220: are the flavors of the quark and the antiquark that make up the meson.
221: Expressions for the different
222: polarization vectors used in this memory are presented in appendix \ref{app:epsilon}.
223:
224:
225: Concerns about the experimental determination of the pseudoscalars
226: decay constants have been raised in Ref.~\cite{Burdman:1994ip}. There
227: the effect of radiative decays was analyzed concluding that for $B$
228: mesons the decay constant determination could be greatly affected by
229: radiative corrections. In the vector sector, and as rightly pointed
230: out in Ref.~\cite{Lellouch:1994dy}, the vector decay constants are not
231: relevant from a phenomenological point of view since $B^*$ and $D^*$
232: will decay through the electromagnetic and/or strong interaction. They
233: are nevertheless interesting as a mean to test HQS relations.
234:
235: %\noindent
236: For mesons at rest we will obtain
237: \begin{eqnarray}
238: &&f_P=\frac{-i}{m_P}\,\left\langle 0 \right|\, J_{A\,0}^{f_1\,f_2}(0)
239: \,\left|\, P, \vec{0}\,\right\rangle\nonumber\\
240: &&f_V=\frac{-1}{m_V}\,\left\langle 0 \right|\, J_{V\,3}^{f_1\,f_2}(0)
241: \,\left|\, V,\,0\,
242: \vec{0}\,
243: \right\rangle
244: %&&f_V=\frac{-M_V^2}{\,\left\langle 0 \right|\, J_{V\,3}^{f_1\,f_2}(0)
245: %\,\left|\, V,\,0\,
246: %\vec{0}\,
247: %\right\rangle}
248: \end{eqnarray}
249: with $m_P$ the mass of the pseudoscalar meson.
250: In our model, and due to the different normalization of our meson states, we shall
251: evaluate the decay constants as
252: \begin{eqnarray}
253: &&f_P=-i\,\sqrt{\frac{2}{m_P}}\,\left\langle 0 \right|\, J_{A\,0}^{f_1\,f_2}(0)
254: \,\left|\, P, \vec{0}\,\right\rangle_{NR}\nonumber\\
255: &&f_V=-\sqrt{\frac{2}{m_V}}\,\left\langle 0 \right|\, J_{V\,3}^{f_1\,f_2}(0)
256: \,\left|\, V,\,0\,
257: \vec{0}\,
258: \right\rangle_{NR}
259: %&&f_V=\frac{-M_V^{3/2}}{\sqrt2\,\left\langle 0 \right|\, J_{V\,3}^{f_1\,f_2}(0)
260: %\,\left|\, V,\,0\,
261: %\vec{0}\,
262: %\right\rangle_{NR}}
263: \end{eqnarray}
264: The corresponding matrix elements are given in appendix~\ref{app:lep}.
265:
266:
267: The results that we obtain for the different decay constants appear
268: in Tables~\ref{tab:fp} and ~\ref{tab:fv}. Starting with $f_D$ and $f_{D_s}$ our
269: results are larger that the ones obtained in the lattice by the UKQCD
270: Collaboration~\cite{Bowler:2000xw} or the ones evaluated
271: using QCD spectral sum rules (QSSR)~\cite{Narison:2001pu,Narison:book}. Not only the independent values are larger but
272: also the ratio $f_{D_s}/f_D$ is larger in our case. On the other hand our results
273: are in better agreement with other lattice
274: determinations~\cite{Aubin:2005ar,Wingate:2003gm}. They also compare very well
275: with the experimental measurements of $f_D$ and $f_{D_s}$ in
276: Refs.~\cite{Artuso:2005ym,Chadha:1997zh,Heister:2002fp,Abbiendi:2001nb,Alexandrov:2000ns,Ablikim:2004ry}.
277: % being our $f_{D_s}/f_D$
278: % ratio in very good agreement with the value obtained using recent CLEO Collaboration
279: % data~\cite{Bonvicini:2004gv,Chadha:1997zh}. %OBSOLETO
280: As for $f_B$ and $f_{B_s}$, we find a very good
281: agreement in the case of $f_{B_s}$ between our results and
282: the ones obtained in the lattice or with the use of QSSR. For $f_B$ our result
283: is smaller and then also our ratio
284: $f_{B_s}/f_B$ is larger.
285: \begin{table}[p]
286: \begin{center}
287: {\footnotesize
288: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
289: & $f_D$ [MeV] & $f_{D_s}$ [MeV] & $f_{D_s}/f_D$ \\
290: \hline
291: & & &\\
292: This work & $243^{+21}_{-17}$ & $341^{+7}_{-5}$ & $1.41^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ \\ \hline\\
293: %PDG~\protect\cite{pdg04} & $300^{+180+80}_{-150-40}$~\protect\cite{bai98} &
294: %$266\pm32$ & ---\\
295: Experimental data & & & \\
296: & & &\\
297: CLEO & $222.6\pm16.7^{+2.8}_{-3.4}$~\protect\cite{Artuso:2005ym} %CAMBIADO
298: &$280 \pm19\pm28\pm34$~\protect\cite{Chadha:1997zh} & ---\\
299: ALEPH~\cite{Heister:2002fp} & --- & $285\pm19\pm40$ & ---\\
300: OPAL~\cite{Abbiendi:2001nb} & --- & $286\pm44\pm41$ &---\\
301: BEATRICE~\cite{Alexandrov:2000ns} & --- &$323\pm44\pm 12\pm34$ &--- \\
302: E653~\cite{Kodama:1996xq} & ---&$194\pm35\pm20\pm14$ &---\\
303: BES~\cite{Ablikim:2004ry} & $371^{+129}_{-119}\pm 25$ & --- & ---\\ \hline\\
304: Lattice data & & & \\
305: & & & \\
306: UKQCD~\protect\cite{Bowler:2000xw} & $206(4)^{+17}_{-10}$ & $229(3)^{+23}_{-12}$ &
307: $1.11(1)^{+1}_{-1}$\\
308: Fermilab Lattice~\cite{Aubin:2005ar} & $201\pm3\pm6\pm9\pm13$ &
309: $249\pm3\pm7\pm11\pm10$&---\\ %CAMBIADO
310: M. Wingate {\it et al.}~\cite{Wingate:2003gm} & ---& $290\pm20\pm29\pm29\pm6$ &---\\
311: \hline\\
312: QCD Spectral Sum Rules & & &\\
313: & & &\\
314: S. Narison:~\protect\cite{Narison:2001pu,Narison:book} & $203\pm23$ & $235\pm24$&$1.15\pm0.04$\\
315: \hline
316: & & &\\
317: & & &\\
318: & $f_B$ [MeV] & $f_{B_s}$ [MeV] & $f_{B_s}/f_B$ \\
319: \hline
320: & & &\\
321: This work & $155^{+15}_{-12}$ & $239^{+9}_{-7}$ &
322: $1.54^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ \\ \hline\\
323: Experimental data \\ \\
324: BELLE~\protect\cite{Ikado:2006un} & $229^{+36}_{-31}\,^{+34}_{-37}$
325: &---&---
326: \\
327: \hline \\
328: Lattice data & & &\\
329: & & & \\
330: UKQCD~\protect\cite{Bowler:2000xw} & $195(6)^{+24}_{-23}$& $220(6)^{+23}_{-18}$ &
331: $1.13(1)^{+1}_{-1}$\\
332: M. Wingate {\it et al.}~\cite{Wingate:2003gm} & ---& $260\pm7\pm26\pm8\pm5$ &---\\
333: Lattice world averages & $200\pm30$~\cite{Bernard:2000ki} & $230\pm30$
334: ~\cite{Hashimoto:2004hn} & $1.16\pm0.04$~\cite{Bernard:2000ki}\\ \hline\\
335: QCD Spectral Sum Rules & & &\\ %AKI
336: & & &\\
337: S. Narison~\protect\cite{Narison:2001pu,Narison:book} & $207\pm21$ & $240\pm24$& $1.16\pm0.04$\\
338: \end{tabular}
339: }
340: \end{center}
341: \caption{ Pseudoscalar $f_P$ decay constants for $B$ and $D$ mesons}\vspace{1cm}
342: \label{tab:fp}
343: \end{table}
344: % COPIA DE LA DEL ARTICULO; POR SI ME CARGO LA OTRA
345: %\begin{table}[p]
346: %\begin{center}
347: %{\footnotesize
348: %\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
349: % & $f_D$ [MeV] & $f_{D_s}$ [MeV] & $f_{D_s}/f_D$ \\
350: %\hline
351: %& & &\\
352: %This work & $243^{+21}_{-17}$ & $341^{+7}_{-5}$ & $1.41^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ \\ \hline\\
353: %%PDG~\protect\cite{pdg04} & $300^{+180+80}_{-150-40}$~\protect\cite{bai98} &
354: %%$266\pm32$ & ---\\
355: %Experimental data & & & \\
356: %& & &\\
357: %CLEO & $202\pm41\pm17$~\protect\cite{Bonvicini:2004gv} &
358: %$280 \pm19\pm28\pm34$~\protect\cite{Chadha:1997zh} & ---\\
359: %ALEPH~\cite{Heister:2002fp} & --- & $285\pm19\pm40$ & ---\\
360: %OPAL~\cite{Abbiendi:2001nb} & --- & $286\pm44\pm41$ &---\\
361: %BEATRICE~\cite{Alexandrov:2000ns} & --- &$323\pm44\pm 12\pm34$ &--- \\
362: %E653~\cite{Kodama:1996xq} & ---&$194\pm35\pm20\pm14$ &---\\
363: %BES~\cite{Ablikim:2004ry} & $371^{+129}_{-119}\pm 25$ & --- & ---\\ \hline\\
364: %Lattice data & & & \\
365: %& & & \\
366: %UKQCD~\protect\cite{Bowler:2000xw} & $206(4)^{+17}_{-10}$ & $229(3)^{+23}_{-12}$ &
367: %$1.11(1)^{+1}_{-1}$\\
368: %Fermilab Lattice~\cite{Simone:2004fr} (Preliminary) & $225^{+11}_{-13}\pm21$&
369: %$263^{+5}_{-9}\pm24$&---\\
370: %M. Wingate {\it et al.}~\cite{Wingate:2003gm} & ---& $290\pm20\pm29\pm29\pm6$ &---\\
371: %\hline\\
372: %QCD Spectral Sum Rules & & &\\
373: %& & &\\
374: %S. Narison:~\protect\cite{Narison:2001pu,Narison:book} & $203\pm23$ & $235\pm24$&$1.15\pm0.04$\\
375: %\hline
376: %& & &\\
377: %& & &\\
378: % & $f_B$ [MeV] & $f_{B_s}$ [MeV] & $f_{B_s}/f_B$ \\
379: %\hline
380: %& & &\\
381: %This work & $155^{+15}_{-12}$ & $239^{+9}_{-7}$ & $1.54^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ \\ \hline\\
382: %Lattice data & & &\\
383: %& & & \\
384: %UKQCD~\protect\cite{Bowler:2000xw} & $195(6)^{+24}_{-23}$& $220(6)^{+23}_{-18}$ &
385: %$1.13(1)^{+1}_{-1}$\\
386: %M. Wingate {\it et al.}~\cite{Wingate:2003gm} & ---& $260\pm7\pm26\pm8\pm5$ &---\\
387: %Lattice world averages & $200\pm30$~\cite{Bernard:2000ki} & $230\pm30$
388: %~\cite{Hashimoto:2004hn} & $1.16\pm0.04$~\cite{Bernard:2000ki}\\ \hline\\
389: %QCD Spectral Sum Rules & & &\\ %AKI
390: %& & &\\
391: %S. Narison~\protect\cite{Narison:2001pu,Narison:book} & $207\pm21$ & $240\pm24$& $1.16\pm0.04$\\
392: %\end{tabular}
393: %}
394: %\end{center}
395: %\caption{ Pseudoscalar $f_P$ decay constants for $B$ and $D$ mesons}\vspace{1cm}
396: %\label{tab:fp}
397: %\end{table}
398:
399:
400: %
401: \begin{table}[h!!!]
402: \begin{center}
403: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
404: & $\tilde{f}_{D^*}$ & $\tilde{f}_{D^*_s}$ &
405: $\tilde{f}_{D^*}/\tilde{f}_{D^*_s}$ \\
406: \hline
407: & & &\\
408: This work & $9.1^{+0.9}_{-0.9}$ & $6.5^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$ & $1.41^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ \\
409: UKQCD~\cite{Bowler:2000xw} & $8.6(3)^{+5}_{-9}$ & $8.3(2)^{+5}_{-5}$&
410: $1.04(1)^{+2}_{-2}$\\
411: \hline
412: & & &\\
413: & $\tilde{f}_{B^*}$ [MeV] & $\tilde{f}_{B^*_s}$ [MeV] & $\tilde{f}_{B^*}
414: /\tilde{f}_{B^*_s}$ \\
415: \hline
416: & & &\\
417: This work & $35.6^{+3.4}_{-3.4}$ & $23.0^{+1.0}_{-1.5}$ & $1.55^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ \\
418: UKQCD~\cite{Bowler:2000xw} & $28(1)^{+3}_{-4}$ & $25(1)^{+2}_{-3}$&
419: $1.10(2)^{+2}_{-2}$\\
420: \end{tabular}
421: \end{center}
422: \caption{ $\tilde{f}_V=m_V/f_V$ for $B^*$ and $D^*$ mesons}
423: \label{tab:fv}
424: \end{table}
425: \noindent
426:
427: For the vector meson decay constants we obtain the values
428: \begin{eqnarray}
429: f_{D^*}=223^{+23}_{-19}\, {\mathrm MeV} \hspace{1cm} f_{D_s^*}=326^{+21}_{-17}\, {\mathrm MeV}\nonumber\\
430: f_{B^*}=151^{+15}_{-13}\, {\mathrm MeV} \hspace{1cm} f_{B_s^*}=236^{+14}_{-11}\, {\mathrm MeV}
431: \end{eqnarray}
432: which are very much the same as the values obtained
433: for the decay constants of their pseudoscalar counterparts. This almost equality
434: of pseudoscalar and vector decay constants is expected in HQS in the limit
435: where the heavy quark masses go to infinity where one would have~\cite{Isgur:1989vq,Isgur:1989ed}
436: \begin{eqnarray}
437: f_V\,m_V=f_P\,m_P \hspace{1cm},\hspace{1cm} m_V=m_P
438: \end{eqnarray}
439: Our decay constants satisfy the above relation within 2\%. On the
440: other hand
441: UKQCD lattice data show deviations as large as 20\% for D mesons~\cite{Bowler:2000xw}.
442:
443: In order to compare the values of the vector decay constants with lattice data
444: from Ref.~\cite{Bowler:2000xw} we give in
445: Table~\ref{tab:fv} the quantity
446: $\tilde{f}_V=m_V/f_V$. We find good agreement for
447: $\tilde{f}_{D^*}$ and
448: $\tilde{f}_{B_s^*}$ but not so much for the other two. Also our ratios
449: $\tilde{f}_{D^*}/\tilde{f}_{D_s^*}$ and $\tilde{f}_{B^*}/\tilde{f}_{B_s^*}$
450: are larger than the ones favored by lattice calculations.
451:
452: On the other hand the
453: ratio
454: \begin{eqnarray}
455: \frac{f_{B^*}\sqrt{m_B}}{f_{D^*}\sqrt{m_D}}=1.138^{+0.011}_{-0.008}
456: \end{eqnarray}
457: is in very good agreement with the expectation in Ref.~\cite{Burdman:1993es} where
458: they would get
459: $1.05\sim1.20$ for that ratio.
460:
461: %--------------------------------------------------------------
462: %--------------------------------------------------------------
463:
464:
465:
466: \section[Semileptonic decay of $B$ into $Dl\bar{\nu}$ and $D^*l\bar{\nu}$]
467: {Semileptonic decay of $B$ into $Dl\bar{\nu}$ and
468: $D^*l\bar{\nu}$\sectionmark{Semileptonic decay of $B$ into
469: $D\lowercase{l}\bar{\nu}$ and $D^*\lowercase{l}\bar{\nu}$}}
470: \sectionmark{Semileptonic decay of $B$ into $D\lowercase{l}\bar{\nu}$
471: and $D^*\lowercase{l}\bar{\nu}$}
472: \label{sect:semileptonic}
473: In this case the hadronic matrix elements are parametrized as
474: %
475: %CAMBIADAS LAS EPSILONS 30-01
476: %
477: \begin{eqnarray}
478: \frac{\left\langle\, D,\,\vec{P}^\prime\,\left|\, J^{c\,b}_\mu(0)\,
479: \right| \, B,\,\vec{P}\right\rangle}{\sqrt{m_B
480: m_D}}&=&\frac{\left\langle\, D,\,\vec{P}^\prime\,\left|\, J^{c\,b}_{V\,\mu}(0)\,
481: \right| \, B,\,\vec{P}\right\rangle}{\sqrt{m_B
482: m_D}}\nonumber\\ &=&
483: \left(v+v^\prime\right)_\mu\,h_+(w)+\left(v-v^\prime\right)_\mu\,h_-(w)
484: \end{eqnarray}
485: \begin{eqnarray}
486: \label{bd*}
487: \frac{\left\langle\, D^*,\,\lambda\,\vec{P}^\prime\,\left|\, J^{c\,b}_\mu(0)\,
488: \right| \, B,\,\vec{P}\right\rangle}{\sqrt{m_B
489: m_{D^*}}}&=&-\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\,\left(\varepsilon_{(\lambda)}^\nu
490: (\,\vec{P}^\prime\,)\right)^*\,v^\alpha\,v^{\prime\,
491: \beta}\,h_V(w)\nonumber\\
492: &&\hspace{-.3cm}-\, i\, \left(\varepsilon_{(\lambda)\mu}(\,\vec{P}^\prime\,)\right)^*\,(w+1)
493: \,h_{A_1}(w)\nonumber\\
494: &&\hspace{-.3cm}+\, i\, \left(\varepsilon_{(\lambda)\,
495: }(\,\vec{P}^\prime\,)\right)^*\cdot v\, \left(
496: v_\mu\,h_{A_2}(w)+v^\prime_\mu\,h_{A_3}(w)\right)
497: \nonumber \\
498: \end{eqnarray}
499: where $v=P/m_B$ and $v^\prime=P^\prime/m_{D,\,D^*}$ are
500: the four velocities of the initial $B$ and final $D,\,D^*$ mesons,
501: $w=v\cdot v^\prime\,$ \footnote{ $w$ is related to the four momentum transferred
502: square
503: $q^2$ via
504: \bea
505: q^2&=&m_B^2+m_{D,\,D^*}^2-2\ w\, m_B\,m_{D,\,D^*}
506: \eea
507: } and
508: $\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$ is the fully antisymmetric tensor with
509: $\varepsilon^{0123}=+1$.
510:
511: In the limit of infinite heavy quark masses $m_c,\,m_b\to \infty$
512: HQS reduces the six form factors to a unique universal function
513: $\xi(w)$ known as the Isgur-Wise function~\cite{Isgur:1989vq,Isgur:1989ed}
514: \begin{eqnarray}
515: &&h_+(w)=h_{A_1}(w)=h_{A_3}(w)=h_{V}(w)=\xi(w)\\
516: &&h_{-}(w)=h_{A_2}(w)=0
517: \end{eqnarray}
518: Vector current conservation in the equal mass case implies the normalization
519: \begin{equation}
520: \xi(1)=1
521: \end{equation}
522: Away from the heavy quark limit those relations are modified by QCD corrections
523: so that one has
524: \begin{equation}
525: \label{hiw}
526: h_j(w)=\left( \alpha_j+\beta_j(w)+\gamma_j(w)+{\cal
527: O}(1/m_{c,b}^2)\right)\,\xi(w)
528: \end{equation}
529: The $\alpha_j$ are constants fixed by the behavior of the form factor in the
530: heavy quark limit
531: \begin{eqnarray}
532: &&\alpha_+=\alpha_{A_1}=\alpha_{A_3}=\alpha_{V}=1\nonumber\\
533: &&\alpha_{-}=\alpha_{A_2}=0
534: \end{eqnarray}
535: The different $\beta_j$ account for perturbative radiative corrections~\cite{Neubert:1992hb}
536: while the $\gamma_j$ are non perturbative in nature and are proportional to the inverse
537: of the heavy quark masses~\cite{Neubert:1992tg}. At zero recoil ($w=1$) Luke's
538: theorem~\cite{Luke:1990eg} imposes the restriction.
539: \begin{equation}
540: \gamma_+(1)=\gamma_{A_1}(1)=0
541: \end{equation}
542: so that power corrections to $h_+(1)$ and $h_{A_1}(1)$ are of order
543: ${\cal O}(1/m_{c,b}^2)$. In Tables~\ref{tab:beta}
544: and~\ref{tab:gamma} we collect the values for the different $\beta_j$ and $\gamma_j$
545: in the full interval of $w$ values allowed in the two decays. These two tables have
546: been taken from Ref.~\cite{Neubert:1992tg}.
547: \begin{table}[t]
548: \begin{center}
549: \begin{tabular}{c|r r r r r r}
550: w & $\beta_+$ & $\beta_{-}$ & $\beta_{V}$ & $\beta_{A_1}$ & $\beta_{A_2}$
551: & $\beta_{A_3}$\\
552: \hline
553: %& & & & & &\\
554: 1.0 & 2.6 & $-$5.4 & 11.9 & $-$1.5 & $-$11.0 & 2.2 \\
555: 1.1 & $-$0.3 & $-$5.4 & 8.9 & $-$3.8 & $-$10.3 & $-$0.2 \\
556: 1.2 & $-$3.1 & $-$5.3 & 6.1 & $-$5.9 & $-$9.8 & $-$2.5 \\
557: 1.3 & $-$5.6 & $-$5.3 & 3.5 & $-$7.9 & $-$9.3 & $-$4.6 \\
558: 1.4 & $-$8.0 & $-$5.2 & 1.1 & $-$9.7 & $-$8.8 & $-$6.6 \\
559: 1.5 & $-$10.2 & $-$5.2 & $-$1.1 & $-$11.5 & $-$8.4 & $-$8.5 \\
560: 1.59 & $-$12.1 & $-$5.1 & & & &\\
561: \end{tabular}
562: \end{center}
563: \caption{ QCD corrections $\beta_j(w)$ in \% as evaluated in
564: Ref.~\cite{Neubert:1992tg}}
565: \label{tab:beta}
566: \end{table}
567: \begin{table}[h!!]
568: \begin{center}
569: \begin{tabular}{c|r r r r r r}
570: w & $\gamma_+$ & $\gamma_{-}$ & $\gamma_{V}$ & $\gamma_{A_1}$ & $\gamma_{A_2}$
571: & $\gamma_{A_3}$\\
572: \hline
573: %& & & & & &\\
574: 1.0 & 0.0 & $-$4.1 & 19.1 & 0.0 & $-$23.1 &$-$4.1 \\
575: 1.1 & 2.7 & $-$4.1 & 20.7 & 2.9 & $-$21.4 & $-$0.7 \\
576: 1.2 & 6.2 & $-$4.1 & 23.1 & 6.5 & $-$19.8 & 3.4 \\
577: 1.3 & 10.5 & $-$4.2 & 26.3 & 10.7 & $-$18.3 & 8.0\\
578: 1.4 & 15.3 & $-$4.4 & 30.0 & 15.4 & $-$17.0 &13.0 \\
579: 1.5 & 20.6 & $-$4.5 & 34.3 & 20.5 & $-$15.8 & 18.5 \\
580: 1.59 & 25.7 & $-$4.7\\
581: \end{tabular}
582: \end{center}
583: \caption{ Power corrections $\gamma_j(w)$ in \% as evaluated in
584: Ref.~\cite{Neubert:1992tg}}
585: \label{tab:gamma}
586: \end{table}
587: \subsection{$B\to D\, l\, \bar{\nu}$ decay}%and $B_s\to D_s\, l\, \bar{\nu}$ decays}
588: \label{subsect:btod}
589: Let us start with the $B\to D\, l\, \bar{\nu}$ case. In the center of mass of the $B$ meson and taking $\vec{P}^{\,\prime}=-\vec{q}=-|\vec{q}\,|\,
590: \vec{k}$ in the z
591: direction\footnote{We use $\vec{k}$ for the unit vector in the z
592: direction.}
593: we will have for the form factors $h_+(w)$ and $h_-(w)$\footnote{In this case
594: $w$ is related to $|\vec{q}\,|$ via $|\vec{q}\,|=m_D\,\sqrt{w^2-1}$.}
595: \begin{eqnarray}
596: \label{hpm}
597: h_+(w)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m_B2m_D}}\,\left(
598: V^0(|\vec{q}\,|)+\frac{V^3(|\vec{q}\,|)}{|\vec{q}\,|}\,\left(E_D(-\vec{q})-
599: m_D\right)\right)\nonumber\\
600: h_-(w)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m_B2m_D}}\,\left(
601: V^0(|\vec{q}\,|)+\frac{V^3(|\vec{q}\,|)}{|\vec{q}\,|}\,\left(
602: E_D(-\vec{q})+m_D
603: \right)\right)
604: \end{eqnarray}
605: where $E_D(-\vec{q})=\sqrt{m_D^2+\vec{q}\,^2}$ and $V^\mu(|\vec{q}\,|)$ ($\mu=0,3$)
606: is given by
607: \begin{eqnarray}
608: V^{\mu}(|\vec{q}\,|)=\left\langle\, D,\,-|\vec{q}\,|\,\vec{k}\,\left|\, (J^{c\,b}_V)^\mu(0)\,
609: \right| \, B,\,\vec{0}\right\rangle%\nonumber\\
610: %V^3=\left\langle\, D,\,-|\vec{q}\,|\,\vec{k}\,\left|\, (J^{c\,b}_V)^3(0)\,
611: %\right| \, B,\,\vec{0}\right\rangle
612: \end{eqnarray}
613: In our model $V^\mu(|\vec{q}\,|)$ is evaluated as
614: \begin{eqnarray}
615: \label{vmu}
616: V^\mu(|\vec{q}\,|)&=&\sqrt{2m_B2E_D(-\vec{q})}\ \
617: {}_{\stackrel{}{NR}}\left\langle\, D,\,
618: -|\vec{q}\,|\,{\vec{k}}\,\left|\, (J^{c\,b}_V)^\mu(0)\,
619: \right| \, B,\,\vec{0}\right\rangle_{NR}\nonumber\\
620: \end{eqnarray}
621: which expression is given in appendix~\ref{app:v}.
622:
623: In the case of equal masses $m_b=m_c$ vector current conservation demands that
624: \begin{eqnarray}
625: h_+(1)=1\hspace{1cm};\hspace{1cm}
626: h_-(w)=0
627: \end{eqnarray}
628: In this limit we find that $h_+(1)=1$ %and for $w=1$ ($|\vec{q}\,|=0$) is that
629: so that our value for $h_+(1)$ complies with vector current conservation. On the
630: other hand $h_-(w)\ne 0$
631: violating vector current conservation.
632: \begin{figure}[p]
633: \vspace{1cm}
634: \centering
635: \resizebox{!}{5cm}{\includegraphics{BD_hpml.eps}}\vspace{1.cm}\\
636: \resizebox{!}{5cm}{\includegraphics{BD_hiw.eps}}\vspace{.5cm}\\
637: \resizebox{!}{6cm}{\includegraphics{BD_xiwpot.eps}}
638: %7,4
639: %\resizebox{10cm}{!}
640: % cambio el caption para la nueva posicion
641: \caption{Top panel: $h_+(w)$ and $h_-(w)$ for the $B\to D$
642: transition as obtained from Eqs.~(\ref{hpm}, \ref{vmu}) using
643: the AL1 interquark potential. Middle panel:
644: $h_+(w)$ as before, $\xi_+(w)$ obtained from the values of $h_+(w)$ using
645: Eq.~(\ref{hiw}), $h_-(w)$ obtained from $\xi_+(w)$ using Eq.~(\ref{hiw}). We
646: also show the UKQCD lattice data by Bowler {\it et al.}~\cite{Bowler:2002zh}. Lower
647: panel: Different $\xi_+(w)$ obtained with the above procedure for the different
648: interquark interactions. Lattice data is also shown.}
649: %\caption{Upper left panel: $h_+(w)$ and $h_-(w)$ for the $B\to D$
650: %transition as obtained from Eqs.~(\ref{hpm}, \ref{vmu}) using
651: %the AL1 interquark potential. Upper right panel:
652: %$h_+(w)$ as before, $\xi_+(w)$ obtained from the values of $h_+(w)$ using
653: %Eq.~(\ref{hiw}), $h_-(w)$ obtained from $\xi_+(w)$ using Eq.~(\ref{hiw}). We
654: %also show the UKQCD lattice data by Bowler {\it et al.}~\cite{Bowler:2002zh}. Lower
655: %panel: Different $\xi_+(w)$ obtained with the above procedure for the different
656: %interquark interactions. Lattice data is also shown.}
657: \label{fig:hpml}
658: \end{figure}
659:
660: In the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:hpml} we show the values of
661: $h_+(w)$ and $h_-(w)$ for the $B\to D$
662: transition as obtained from Eqs.~(\ref{hpm}, \ref{vmu}) with the use of the AL1
663: interquark potential. The values for $h_-(w)$
664: are not reliable. Actual calculation shows that they are of the same size as
665: the deviations from zero that
666: one computes in the equal mass case.
667: To improve on this what we shall do instead is to use the
668: form factor $h_+(w)$ and Eq.~(\ref{hiw}) to extract $\xi(w)$ (we shall call it
669: $\xi_+(w)$\,) and from there we can
670: re-evaluate $h_-(w)$ with the use of Eq.~(\ref{hiw}). The results appear
671: in the middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:hpml} where we also show the lattice results
672: for $\xi(w)$ obtained by the UKQCD Collaboration in Ref.~\cite{Bowler:2002zh}.
673: We find good agreement with lattice data. Finally in the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:hpml}
674: we show the different $\xi_+(w)$ obtained with the use of the different interquark
675: potentials. As we see from the figure all $\xi_+(w)$ are very much the same in the
676: whole interval for $w$.
677:
678: The slope at the
679: origin of our Isgur-Wise function is given by
680: \begin{eqnarray}
681: \rho^2=-\frac{1}{\xi_+(w)}\left.\frac{d\,\xi_+(w)}{dw}\right|_{w=1}
682: =0.35 \pm 0.02
683: \end{eqnarray}
684: small compared to the lattice value of $\rho^2=0.81^{+17}_{-11}$ extracted from
685: a best fit to data.
686:
687: \subsubsection{Differential decay width}
688: Neglecting lepton masses the differential decay width for the process
689: $B\to D\,l\,\bar{\nu}$ is given by~\cite{Neubert:1991td}
690: \begin{eqnarray}
691: \frac{d\Gamma}{d w}=\frac{G_F^2}{48\pi^3}\,|V_{cb}|^2\,m_D^3\,
692: (w^2-1)^{3/2}(m_B+m_D)^2\ F_D^2(w)
693: \end{eqnarray}
694: where $G_F=1.16637(1)\times
695: 10^{-5}$\, GeV$^{-2}$~\cite{Eidelman:2004wy} is the Fermi decay constant, $V_{cb}$ is the
696: CKM matrix
697: element for the $b\to c$ weak transition, and $F_D(w)$ is given by
698: \begin{eqnarray}
699: F_D(w)=\bigg[h_+(w)-\frac{1-r}{1+r}\,h_-(w)\bigg]
700: \end{eqnarray}
701: with $r=m_D/m_B$.
702:
703: In Fig.~\ref{fig:fd} we show our calculation for $F_D(w)\ |V_{cb}|$ obtained
704: with the AL1 interquark potential and using three
705: different values of $|V_{cb}|$ corresponding to the
706: central and extreme values of the range for $|V_{cb}|$ favored by the
707: Particle Data Group (PDG),
708: $|V_{cb}|=0.039 \sim 0.044$~\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}. We also show the experimental data
709: for the decays $B^-\to D^0\, l\,\bar{\nu}$ and
710: $\bar{B}^0\to D^+\,l\,\bar{\nu}$ obtained by the CLEO
711: Collaboration~\cite{Bartelt:1998dq}, a fit to CLEO data using the form factors of
712: Boyd {\it et al.}~\cite{Boyd:1997kz}, and the experimental data for the decay
713: $\bar{B}^0\to D^+\,l\,\bar{\nu}$ obtained by the BELLE
714: Collaboration~\cite{Abe:2001yf}. Our results are larger than experimental
715: data for $w >1.2$. Our total integrated width will thus be larger than
716: the experimental one for any reasonable value of $|V_{cb}|$.
717: \begin{figure}[h!!!!]
718: \vspace{1cm}
719: \centering
720: \resizebox{!}{7cm}{\includegraphics{BD_fd2.eps}}
721: \caption{$F_D(r,w)\ |V_{cb}|$ obtained with the AL1 interquark potential.
722: Solid line: our results
723: using $|V_{cb}|=0.0415$. Dashed line: our results
724: using \mbox{$|V_{cb}|=0.044$}. Dotted line: our results
725: using $|V_{cb}|=0.039$.
726: Circles: experimental data by the CLEO Collaboration~\cite{Bartelt:1998dq}.
727: Dashed-dotted line:
728: fit to CLEO data using the form factors of Boyd {\it et al.}~\cite{Boyd:1997kz}.
729: Diamonds: experimental data the by BELLE Collaboration~\cite{Abe:2001yf}.}
730: \label{fig:fd}
731: \end{figure}
732: From our data we
733: extract the slope at $w=1$ given by
734: \begin{eqnarray}
735: \rho_D^2=\left.-\frac{1}{F_D(w)}\frac{d F_D(w)}{d w}\right|_{w=1}=
736: 0.38 \pm 0.02
737: \end{eqnarray}
738: which is small compared to the values extracted from the experimental data:
739: \hbox{$\rho_D^2=0.76\pm0.16\pm0.08$}~\cite{Bartelt:1998dq} and
740: \hbox{$\rho_D^2=0.69\pm0.14$}~\cite{Abe:2001yf} obtained from a linear fit to the
741: data, or
742: $\rho_D^2=1.30\pm0.27\pm0.14$~\cite{Bartelt:1998dq} and
743: $\rho_D^2=1.16\pm0.25$~\cite{Abe:2001yf} obtained using the form factors of Boyd
744: {\it et al.}~\cite{Boyd:1997kz}. Thus, only our
745: results close to $w=1$ seem to be reliable. We can use our prediction for
746: $F_D(1)$ to extract the value of $|V_{cb}|$ from the experimental
747: determination of the quantity $|V_{cb}|F_D(1)$. Different values of that
748: quantity
749: appear in Table~\ref{tab:vcbfd}.
750: \begin{table}[h!!!!]
751: \begin{center}
752: \begin{tabular}{l|c }
753: & $|V_{cb}|\,F_{D}(1)$ \\
754: \hline
755: & \\
756: CLEO Collaboration\hfill ~\protect{\cite{Bartelt:1998dq}} & $\ 0.0416\pm0.0047\pm0.0037$\\
757: BELLE Collaboration\hfill~\protect{\cite{Abe:2001yf}} & $\ 0.0411\pm0.0044\pm0.0052$
758: \end{tabular}
759: \end{center}
760: \caption{ $|V_{cb}|\,F_{D}(1)$ values obtained by different experiments. }
761: \label{tab:vcbfd}
762: \end{table}
763:
764: Our result for $F_D(1)$ is given by (we do not show the theoretical
765: error which
766: is or the order of $10^{-4}$)
767: \begin{eqnarray}
768: F_D(1)=1.04
769: \end{eqnarray}
770: which is in good agreement with other calculations
771: $F_D(1)=0.98\pm0.07$~\cite{Caprini:1995wq}, $F_D(1)=1.04$~\cite{Scora:1995ty} or
772: \hbox{$F_D(1)=1.069\pm0.008\pm0.002\pm0.025$~\cite{Hashimoto:1998ia}}.
773: From our value for $F_D(1)$ and the experimental values for $|V_{cb}|F_D(1)$
774: we can obtain $|V_{cb}|$ in the range
775: \begin{eqnarray}
776: |V_{cb}|=0.040\pm0.006
777: \end{eqnarray}
778: %
779: %This result agrees with our recent determination based on the analysis of the
780: %$\Lambda_b\to\Lambda_c\,l\,\bar{\nu}_l$ reaction from where we got
781: %$|V_{cb}|=0.040\pm0.005$~\cite{Albertus:2004wj}.
782: % Lo cambio que no es muy mio
783: %
784: This result agrees with a recent determination based on the analysis of the
785: \mbox{$\Lambda_b\to\Lambda_c\,l\,\bar{\nu}_l$} reaction using the same
786: model, from where
787: $|V_{cb}|=0.040\pm0.005$ was obtained~\cite{Albertus:2004wj}.
788:
789:
790: \subsection{$B\to D^*\,l\,\bar{\nu}$ decay}
791: \label{subsect:btod*}
792: Working again in the center of mass of the $B$ meson and taking $\vec{P}^{\,\prime}=
793: -\vec{q}=-|\vec{q}\,|\,
794: {\vec{k}}$ in the z
795: direction we will have for the form factors $h_V(w)$, $h_{A_1}(w)$,
796: $h_{A_2}(w)$ and $h_{A_3}(w)$ the expressions
797: \begin{eqnarray}
798: \label{hva123}
799: h_V(w)\hspace{0.0cm}&=&\sqrt2\,\sqrt{\frac{m_{D^*}}{m_B}}\,\frac{V^{(*)}_{-1,\,2}(|\vec{q}\,|)}{|\vec{q}\,|}\nonumber\\
800: %
801: h_{A_1}(w)&=&i\,\frac{\sqrt2}{w+1}\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{m_Bm_{D^*}}}\,
802: A^{(*)}_{-1,\, 1}(|\vec{q}\,|)\nonumber\\
803: %
804: h_{A_2}(w)&=&i\,\sqrt{\frac{m_{D^*}}{m_B}}\,
805: \left(-\frac{A^{(*)}_{0,\, 0}(|\vec{q}\,|)}{|\vec{q}\,|}+
806: \frac{E_{D^*}(-\vec{q})\,A^{(*)}_{0,\, 3}(|\vec{q}\,|)}{|\vec{q}\,|^2}
807: -\sqrt2\,m_{D^*}
808: \frac{A^{(*)}_{-1,\, 1}(|\vec{q}\,|)}{|\vec{q}\,|^2}
809: \right)\nonumber\\
810: %
811: h_{A_3}(w)&=&i\frac{m_{D^*}^2}{\sqrt{m_Bm_{D^*}}}
812: \left(-\frac{A^{(*)}_{0,\, 3}(|\vec{q}\,|)}{|\vec{q}\,|^2}+\,
813: \frac{\sqrt2}{m_{D^*}}
814: \frac{E_{D^*}(-\vec{q})\,A^{(*)}_{-1,\, 1}(|\vec{q}\,|)}{|\vec{q}\,|^2}\right)
815: \end{eqnarray}
816: with $E_{D^*}(-\vec{q})=\sqrt{m_{D^*}^2+\vec{q}\,^2}$, and
817: where $V^{(*)}_{\lambda,\,\mu}(|\vec{q}\,|)$ and
818: $A^{(*)}_{\lambda,\,\mu}(|\vec{q}\,|)$
819: are given by
820: \begin{eqnarray}
821: V^{(*)}_{\lambda,\,\mu}(|\vec{q}\,|)=\left\langle\, D^*,\,\lambda\ -|\vec{q}\,
822: |\,\vec{k}\,\left|\, (J^{c\,b}_V)_\mu(0)\,
823: \right| \, B,\,\vec{0}\right\rangle\nonumber\\
824: A^{(*)}_{\lambda,\,\mu}(|\vec{q}\,|)=\left\langle\, D^*,\,\lambda\ -|\vec{q}\,
825: |\,\vec{k}\,\left|\, (J^{c\,b}_A)_\mu(0)\,
826: \right| \, B,\,\vec{0}\right\rangle
827: \end{eqnarray}
828: In our model $V^{(*)}_{\lambda,\,\mu}(|\vec{q}\,|)$ and
829: $A^{(*)}_{\lambda,\,\mu}(|\vec{q}\,|)$ are evaluated as
830: \begin{eqnarray}
831: \label{va123}
832: V^{(*)}_{\lambda,\,\mu}(|\vec{q}\,|)&=&\sqrt{2m_B2E_{D^*}(-\vec{q})}
833: \ \ {}_{\stackrel{}{NR}}
834: \left\langle\, D^*,\,\lambda\
835: -|\vec{q}\,|\,{\vec{k}}\,\left|\, (J^{c\,b}_V)_\mu(0)\,
836: \right| \, B,\,\vec{0}\right\rangle_{NR}\nonumber\\
837: A^{(*)}_{\lambda,\,\mu}(|\vec{q}\,|)&=&\sqrt{2m_B2E_{D^*}(-\vec{q})}\ \
838: {}_{\stackrel{}{NR}}
839: \left\langle\, D^*,\,\lambda\
840: -|\vec{q}\,|\,{\vec{k}}\,\left|\, (J^{c\,b}_A)_\mu(0)\,
841: \right| \, B,\,\vec{0}\right\rangle_{NR}\nonumber\\
842: \end{eqnarray}
843: with expressions given in appendix~\ref{app:va}.
844:
845: In the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:hva123r12} we show our results for the $h_V(w), h_{A_1}(w),
846: h_{A_2}(w)$ and $h_{A_3}(w)$ form factors, obtained with the AL1 interquark
847: potential and the use of Eq.~(\ref{hva123}). In the lower panel of the same figure we
848: show the ratios
849: \begin{figure}[t]
850: \vspace{1cm}
851: \centering
852: \resizebox{!}{5cm}{\includegraphics{BD_hva123.eps}}\vspace{1cm}
853: \\\resizebox{!}{5cm}{\includegraphics{BD_r12.eps}}
854: \caption{Top panel: $h_V(w)$, $h_{A_1}(w)$, $h_{A_2}(w)$ and $h_{A_3}(w)$ form
855: factors obtained using Eq.~(\ref{hva123}). Lower panel:
856: $R_1(w)$ and $R_2(w)$ ratios. In both panels the AL1 interquark potential has
857: been used. }
858: \label{fig:hva123r12}
859: \end{figure}
860: \begin{eqnarray}
861: &&R_1(w)=\frac{h_V(w)}{h_{A_1}(w)}\nonumber\\
862: &&R_2(w)=\frac{h_{A_3}(w)+r\,h_{A_2}(w)}{h_{A_1}(w)}
863: \end{eqnarray}
864: where now $r=m_{D^*}/m_B$. These ratios are expected to vary very weakly with
865: $w$.
866: We find indeed that this is so in our case being our values of $R_1(w)$
867: and $R_2(w)$
868: within 4\% of unity.
869: In Table~\ref{tab:r12} we give now our results for $R_1(1)$ and $R_2(1)$ and compare
870: them to different experimental\footnote{The experimental
871: results by the CLEO and BABAR Collaborations have been obtained with the
872: assumption that $R_1(w)$ and $R_2(w)$ are constants.} and theoretical
873: determinations. We find discrepancies of
874: the order of $15\sim 33\, \%
875: $
876: for $R_1(1)$ and $13\sim 46\, \%
877: $ for $R_2(1)$.
878:
879: One can understand these discrepancies by evaluating the different $\xi(w)$
880: functions obtained from the form factors with the use of
881: Eq.~(\ref{hiw})
882: and the $\beta$ and $\gamma$ coefficients of Neubert given in
883: Tables~\ref{tab:beta} and \ref{tab:gamma}.
884: The results appear in the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:xiva123}. One can
885: infer from the
886: figure that our results for $h_{A_2}(w)$ are not reliable.
887: %In fact one should
888: %expect for $h_{A_2}(w)$ errors similar in size to the ones encountered in the
889: %evaluation of $h_-(w)$ is subsection~\ref{subsect:btod}. Those errors are of
890: %the same size as the values of $h_{A_2}(w)$ themselves.
891: Also we somehow miss the
892: correct normalization for $h_{V}(1)$. On the other hand the values of
893: $\xi_ {A_1}(w)$ and $\xi_{A_3}(w)$ are equal within 4\% and in reasonable
894: agreement with lattice data from Ref.~\cite{Bowler:2002zh}.
895:
896: To improve the nonrelativistic quark model prediction,
897: and similarly to what we did in subsection~\ref{subsect:btod},
898: we will take $\xi_{A_1}(w)$ as our model determination of the
899: Isgur-Wise function $\xi(w)$ and we will reevaluate the form factors with the
900: use of Eq.~(\ref{hiw}). What we obtain is now depicted in the middle panel of
901: Fig.~\ref{fig:xiva123}. In the lower panel we give the different $\xi_{A_1}(w)$ obtained
902: with the different interquark potentials. They do not show any significant
903: difference.
904:
905: The slope of the $\xi_{A_1}(w)$ function at the origin is given by
906: \begin{eqnarray}
907: \rho^2=0.55 \pm 0.02
908: \end{eqnarray}
909: to be compared to the lattice result $\rho^2=0.93^{+47}_{-59}$~\cite{Bowler:2002zh}.
910: In this case we are within lattice errors, but one
911: can not be very conclusive due to the
912: large value of the latter in this case.
913: \begin{table}[t]
914: \begin{center}
915: {\footnotesize
916: \begin{tabular}{c|c c }
917: & $R_1(1)$ & $R_2(1)$\\
918: \hline
919: %& & & & & &\\
920: This work & $1.01\pm0.02$ & $1.04\pm0.01$\\
921: CLEO~\cite{Adam:2002uw} & $1.18\pm0.30\pm0.12$ & $0.71\pm0.22\pm0.07$ \\
922: BABAR (Preliminary)~\cite{Aubert:2004nz} &\hspace{.5cm}$1.328\pm0.055\pm0.025\pm0.025$\hspace{.5cm} &
923: $0.920\pm0.044\pm0.020\pm0.013$ \\ \hline
924: & &\\
925: Caprini {\it et al.}~\cite{Caprini:1997mu}& 1.27 & 0.80\\
926: Grinstein {\it et al.}~\cite{Grinstein:2001yg}& 1.25& 0.81\\
927: Close {\it et al.}~\cite{Close:1993yk}& 1.15& 0.91
928: \end{tabular}
929: }
930: \end{center}
931: \caption{ $R_1(1)$ and $R_2(1)$ }
932: \label{tab:r12}
933: \end{table}
934: \begin{figure}[p]
935: \vspace{.8cm}
936: \centering
937: \resizebox{!}{5.5cm}{\includegraphics{BD_xiva123.eps}}\vspace{1cm}\\
938: \resizebox{!}{5.5cm}{\includegraphics{BD_xia1hva123.eps}}\vspace{1cm}\\
939: \resizebox{!}{5.5cm}{\includegraphics{BD_xipoten.eps}}
940: \caption{Top panel: different $\xi(w)$ functions obtained from the $h_V(w)$,
941: $h_{A_1}(w)$, $h_{A_2}(w)$ and $h_{A_3}(w)$ form
942: factors
943: using Eq.~(\ref{hiw}) and the AL1 interquark potential. Lattice data by K. C. Bowler {\it et
944: al.} from
945: Ref.~\cite{Bowler:2002zh} are also shown. Middle panel: form factors obtained from
946: $\xi_{A_1}(w)$ with the use of Eq.~(\ref{hiw}). Lower panel: Different
947: $\xi_{A_1}(w)$ obtained with the different interquark potentials.}
948: \label{fig:xiva123}
949: \end{figure}
950:
951: Finally in Fig.~\ref{fig:xipxia1} we give the ratio $\xi_+(w)/\xi_{A_1}(w)$
952: evaluated with the AL1 interquark potential. We
953: see the differences between the two Isgur-Wise functions are at the level of
954: 3-7\%.
955:
956: \begin{figure}[h!!!]
957: \vspace{.8cm}
958: \centering
959: \resizebox{9cm}{7cm}{\includegraphics{BD_xipxia1.eps}}
960: \caption{Ratio of our two Isgur-Wise functions calculated with the AL1
961: interquark potential.}
962: \label{fig:xipxia1}
963: \end{figure}
964:
965:
966: \subsubsection{Differential decay width}
967: Neglecting lepton masses the differential decay width for the process
968: $B\to D^*\,l\,\bar{\nu}$ is given by~\cite{Richman:1995wm}
969: \begin{eqnarray}
970: \hspace{-2cm}
971: \frac{d\Gamma}{d w}=\frac{G_F^2}{48\pi^3}\,|V_{cb}|^2\,(m_B-m_{D^*})^2\,m_{D^*}^3\,
972: \sqrt{(w^2-1)}\,(w+1)^2
973: \nonumber \\ \hspace{5cm} \times
974: \bigg[
975: 1+\frac{4w}{w+1}\ \frac{1-2wr+r^2}{(1-r)^2}
976: \bigg]\ F_{D^*}^2(w)
977: \end{eqnarray}
978: where $F_{D^*}(w)$ is defined as
979: \begin{eqnarray}
980: F_{D^*}(w)=h_{A_1}(w)\sqrt{\frac{\tilde{H}_0^2(w)+\tilde{H}_+^2(w)+
981: \tilde{H}_-^2(w)}
982: {1+\frac{4w}{w+1}\ \frac{1-2wr+r^2}{(1-r)^2}}}
983: \end{eqnarray}
984: The $\tilde{H}_j(w)$ are helicity form factors given in terms of the $R_1(w)$
985: and $R_2(w)$ ratios as
986: \begin{eqnarray}
987: \tilde{H}_0(w)&=&1+\frac{w-1}{1-r}\,[1-R_2(w)]\nonumber\\
988: \tilde{H}_\pm(w)&=&\frac{\sqrt{1-2wr+r^2}}{1-r}\left[
989: 1\mp\sqrt{\frac{w-1}{w+1}}\ R_1(w)
990: \right]
991: \end{eqnarray}
992:
993: \begin{figure}[h!!!]
994: \vspace{1cm}
995: \centering
996: \resizebox{!}{7cm}{\includegraphics{BD_fdstar2.eps}}
997: \caption{$F_{D^*}(r,w)\ |V_{cb}|$ obtained with the AL1 interquark potential.
998: Solid line: our results
999: using $|V_{cb}|=0.0415$. Dashed line: our results
1000: using $|V_{cb}|=0.044$. Dotted line: our results
1001: using $|V_{cb}|=0.039$.
1002: Circles and squares: experimental data by the CLEO Collaboration~\cite{Adam:2002uw}.
1003: Dashed-dotted line: fit to CLEO Collaboration data. Diamonds: experimental data by the
1004: BELLE Collaboration~\cite{Abe:2001yf}.}
1005: \label{fig:fdstar}
1006: \end{figure}
1007:
1008: Similarly to Fig.~\ref{fig:fd}, in Fig.~\ref{fig:fdstar} we show our results
1009: for the quantity $F_{D^*}(w)\
1010: |V_{cb}|$ evaluated with the AL1 interquark potential and using the values of $|V_{cb}|$ corresponding to the central and
1011: extreme values of the range for $|V_{cb}|$ favored by the PDG. We also show the experimental data by the CLEO
1012: Collaboration~\cite{Adam:2002uw} for the $B^-\to D^{*0}\,l\,\bar{\nu}$ reaction
1013: (squares),
1014: and for the $\bar{B}^0\to D^{*+}\,l\,\bar{\nu}$ reaction
1015: (circles) together with a best fit, and the
1016: experimental data by the BELLE Collaboration~\cite{Abe:2001cs} for the $\bar{B}^0\to D^{*+}\,l\,\bar{\nu}$
1017: reaction (diamonds). We find
1018: good agreement
1019: with CLEO data for small $w$ values. Disagreement starts already
1020: at around $w=1.1$ where our results start to go above the experimental data.
1021: BELLE data are systematically below our results.
1022:
1023: Also our slope at the origin
1024: \begin{eqnarray}
1025: \rho^2_{D^*}=-\frac{1}{F_{D^*}(w)}\left.\frac{d F_{D^*}(w)}{d w}\right|_{w=1}
1026: =0.31 \pm 0.02
1027: \end{eqnarray}
1028: is smaller than the value
1029: obtained by the BELLE Collaboration
1030: \hbox{$\rho^2_{D^*}=0.81\pm0.12$} \cite{Abe:2001cs} using a linear fit to their
1031: data.
1032: All this means that our total width would be larger than the
1033: experimental one for any reasonable value of $V_{cb}$. On the other hand
1034: experimentalists are able to extract the value of $|V_{cb}|\,F_{D^*}(1)$.
1035: Different experimental results for that quantity appear in
1036: Table~\ref{tab:vcbfds}.
1037: \begin{table}[h!!!!]
1038: \begin{center}
1039: \begin{tabular}{l|c }
1040: & $|V_{cb}|\,F_{D^*}(1)$ \\
1041: \hline
1042: & \\
1043: (CLEO Coll.)\ \hfill \protect{\cite{Adam:2002uw}} & $\ 0.0431\pm0.0013\pm0.0018$\\
1044: (DELPHI Coll.)\ \hfill\protect{\cite{Abdallah:2004rz}} & $\ 0.0392\pm0.0018\pm0.0023$\\
1045: (BELLE Coll.)\ \hfill\protect{\cite{Abe:2001cs}}& $\ 0.0354\pm0.0019\pm0.0018$\\
1046: (BABAR Coll.)\ \hfill\protect{\cite{Aubert:2004bw}} & $\ 0.0355\pm0.0003\pm0.0016$
1047: \end{tabular}
1048: \end{center}
1049: \caption{ $|V_{cb}|\,F_{D^*}(1)$ values obtained by different experiments. }
1050: \label{tab:vcbfds}
1051: \end{table}
1052:
1053: Our result for $F_{D^*}(1)$ is given by
1054: \begin{eqnarray}
1055: F_{D^*}(1)=h_{A_1}(1)=0.983\pm 0.001
1056: \end{eqnarray}
1057: Comparison with the experimental data for $|V_{cb}|\,F_{D^*}(1)$ allows us to
1058: extract
1059: values for $|V_{cb}|$ in the range
1060: \begin{equation}
1061: |V_{cb}|=0.0333\sim0.0461
1062: \end{equation}
1063: One can not be more conclusive due to the dispersion in the experimental data
1064: for $|V_{cb}|\,F_{D^*}(1)$. From DELPHI data alone we would obtain
1065: $|V_{cb}|=0.040\pm0.003$ in perfect agreement with our determination using
1066: the $B\to D$ reaction data. We
1067: should also say that our value for $F_{D^*}(1)$
1068: is larger than the lattice determination
1069: $F_{D^*}(1)=0.919^{+0.030}_{-0.035}$ by S. Hashimoto {\it et al.}~\cite{Hashimoto:2001nb}
1070: normally used
1071: by experimentalists to extract their $|V_{cb}|$ values. A new unquenched lattice
1072: determination of this quantity by the Fermilab Lattice
1073: Collaboration is in progress~\cite{Hashimoto:2004hn}.
1074:
1075: \section[Strong coupling constants $g_{H^*H\pi}$]{Strong coupling constants $g_{H^*H\pi}$\sectionmark{Strong coupling constants $\lowercase{g}_{H^*H\pi}$}}
1076: \sectionmark{Strong coupling constants $\lowercase{g}_{H^*H\pi}$}
1077: \label{sect:gh*hpi}
1078: In this section we will evaluate the strong coupling constants $g_{H^*H\pi}$
1079: where $H$ stands for a $B$ or $D$ meson. To this end we shall make use of the
1080: partial conservation of the axial current hypothesis (PCAC) which relates the
1081: divergence of the axial current to the pion field as
1082: \begin{eqnarray}
1083: \label{pcac}
1084: \partial^\mu\, J_{A\,\mu}^{d\, u}(x)=\,f_{\pi}\,m_{\pi}^2\, \Phi_{\pi^-}(x)
1085: \end{eqnarray}
1086: where $f_{\pi}=130.7\pm0.1\pm0.36 $\,MeV~\cite{Eidelman:2004wy} is the pion decay constant, \mbox{$m_{\pi}=
1087: 139.57$\,MeV} \cite{Eidelman:2004wy} is the pion mass, and $\Phi_{\pi^-}(x)$ is the charged pion
1088: field that destroys a $\pi^-$ and creates a $\pi^+$. Using the Lehmann-Symanzik-Zimmermann reduction
1089: formula one can relate the matrix element
1090: of the divergence of the axial current to the pion emission amplitude as
1091: \begin{eqnarray}
1092: \label{pcac2}
1093: \langle H,\ \vec{P}^\prime\,|\,q^\mu\, J_{A\,\mu}^{d\, u}(0)\,|
1094: \,H^*,\lambda\,\vec{P}\,\rangle= -i\,f_{\pi}\frac{m_{\pi}^2}{q^2-m_{\pi}^2}\
1095: {\cal A}^{(\lambda)}_{H^*H\pi}(P^\prime,P)
1096: \end{eqnarray}
1097: where $q=P-P^\prime$ and ${\cal A}^{(\lambda)}_{H^*H\pi}(P^\prime,P)$ is
1098: the pion emission amplitude for the process $H^*\to H\pi$ given
1099: by\footnote{Corresponding to the emission of a $\pi^+$.}
1100: \begin{eqnarray}
1101: {\cal A}^{(\lambda)}_{H^*H\pi}(P^\prime,P)=-\,g_{H^*H\pi}(q^2)\,
1102: \left(q\cdot\varepsilon_{(\lambda)}(\vec{P}\,)\right)
1103: \end{eqnarray}
1104: The matrix element on the left hand side of Eq.(\ref{pcac2}) has a pion pole
1105: contribution that can be easily evaluated to be
1106: \begin{eqnarray}
1107: \label{pp}
1108: \langle H,\ \vec{P}^\prime\,|\,q^\mu\, J_{A\,\mu}^{d\, u}(0)\,|
1109: \,H^*,\lambda\,\vec{P}\,\rangle_{pion-pole}= -i\,f_{\pi}\frac{q^2}{q^2-m_{\pi}^2}\
1110: {\cal A}^{(\lambda)}_{H^*H\pi}(P^\prime,P)
1111: \nonumber\\
1112: \end{eqnarray}
1113: so that we can extract a non-pole contribution
1114: \begin{eqnarray}
1115: \label{np}
1116: \langle H,\ \vec{P}^\prime\,|\,q^\mu\, J_{A\,\mu}^{d\, u}(0)\,|
1117: \,H^*,\lambda\,\vec{P}\,\rangle_{non-pole}&=& i\,f_{\pi}\
1118: {\cal A}^{(\lambda)}_{H^*H\pi}(P^\prime,P)\nonumber\\
1119: &=&-i\,f_{\pi}\ g_{H^*H\pi}(q^2)
1120: \,\left(q^{\mu}\,\varepsilon_{(\lambda)\mu}(\vec{P}\,)\right)
1121: \nonumber\\
1122: \end{eqnarray}
1123: which is the one we shall evaluate within the quark model.
1124: For the matrix element on the left hand side of Eq.(\ref{np}) we can use a
1125: parametrization similar to the one used in Eq.({\ref{bd*}})
1126: \begin{eqnarray}
1127: &&\hspace{-2cm}
1128: \langle H,\ \vec{P}^\prime\,|\,q^\mu\, J_{A\,\mu}^{d\, u}(0)\,|
1129: \,H^*,\lambda\,\vec{P}\,\rangle_{non-pole}=
1130: \nonumber\\
1131: &&\hspace{-1cm}
1132: q^\mu\bigg\{-i\,
1133: \varepsilon_{(\lambda)\mu}(\vec{P}\,)\ (w+1)\ h_{A_1}(w)\nonumber\\
1134: &&+i \left(\varepsilon_{(\lambda)}(\vec{P}\,)\cdot v^\prime\right)
1135: \left( v^\prime_\mu\, h_{A_2}(w)+v_\mu\,h_{A_3}(w)
1136: \right)\bigg\} \sqrt{m_H m_{H^*}}
1137: \end{eqnarray}
1138: %
1139: %\begin{eqnarray}
1140: %\langle H,\ \vec{P}^\prime\,|\,q^\mu\, J_{A\,\mu}^{d\, u}(0)\,|
1141: %\,H^*,\lambda\,\vec{P}\,\rangle_{non-pole}=q^\mu\bigg\{\hspace{-.4cm}&&-i\,
1142: %\varepsilon^{(\lambda)}_{\mu}(\vec{P}\,)\ (w+1)\ h_{A_1}(w)\nonumber\\
1143: %&&+i \left(\varepsilon^{(\lambda)}(\vec{P}\,)\cdot v^\prime\right)
1144: %\left( v^\prime_\mu\, h_{A_2}(w)+v_\mu\,h_{A_3}(w)
1145: %\right)\bigg\} \sqrt{M_H M_{H^*}}
1146: %\end{eqnarray}
1147: %
1148: % Antes de cambiarla
1149: %
1150: with the result that
1151: \begin{eqnarray}
1152: g_{H^*H\pi}(q^2)=\frac{1}{f_{\pi}}\bigg\{
1153: (w+1)\,h_{A_1}(w)+w\left(\frac{m_{H^*}}{m_H}\,h_{A_2}(w)-h_{A_3}(w)\right)\nonumber\\
1154: +\left(\frac{m_{H^*}}{m_H}\,h_{A_3}(w)-h_{A_2}(w)\right)
1155: \bigg\} \sqrt{m_H m_{H^*}}
1156: \end{eqnarray}
1157: The evaluation of the form factors is done is a similar way as the one
1158: described in subsection~\ref{subsect:btod*}. The results that we get for
1159: $q^2=0$ are
1160: \begin{eqnarray}
1161: g_{D^*D\pi}(0)=22.1\pm 0.4\hspace{.5cm},\hspace{.5cm}g_{B^*B\pi}(0)=60.5\pm1.1
1162: \end{eqnarray}
1163: to be compared to the experimental determination
1164: $g_{D^*D\pi}(m_\pi^2)=17.9\pm0.3\pm1.9$ by the CLEO Collaboration~\cite{Anastassov:2001cw},
1165: the lattice results
1166: $g_{D^*D\pi}(m_\pi^2)=18.8\pm2.3^{+1.1}_{-2.0}$~\cite{Abada:2002xe}
1167: and $g_{B^*B\pi}(0)=47\pm5\pm8$~\cite{Abada:2003un}, or a recent
1168: determination using QCDSR for which
1169: $g_{D^*D\pi}(m_\pi^2)=14.0\pm1.5$ and
1170: $g_{B^*B\pi}(0)=42.5\pm2.6$~\cite{Navarra:2001ju}. Older QCDSR results give
1171: smaller values for both coupling
1172: constants. For instance, the calculation within QCDSR on the light cone in
1173: Ref.~\cite{Belyaev:1994zk} give
1174: \mbox{$g_{D^*D\pi}(m_\pi^2)=12.5\pm1$} and \mbox{$g_{B^*B\pi}(0)=29\pm3$\ }\footnote{
1175: Values for both coupling
1176: constants obtained prior to 1995 within different approaches can be found
1177: in Ref.~\cite{Belyaev:1994zk} and references therein. }. The latter are
1178: small compared to lattice data or the experimental determination of
1179: $g_{D^*D\pi}(m_\pi^2)$ by the CLEO Collaboration.
1180:
1181: From our results we obtain the ratio
1182: \begin{eqnarray}
1183: R=\frac{g_{B^*B\pi}(0)\ f_{B^*}\,\sqrt{m_D}}
1184: {g_{D^*D\pi}(0)\ f_{D^*}\,\sqrt{m_B}}=1.105\pm 0.005
1185: \label{R}
1186: \end{eqnarray}
1187: in good agreement with HQS that predicts a value of 1
1188: with
1189: $1/m_{c,b}$ corrections appearing in next to leading
1190: order~\cite{Burdman:1993es}
1191: \footnote{Note the strong coupling constant used in
1192: Ref.~\cite{Burdman:1993es}
1193: is given in terms of ours as
1194: $(g_{H^*H\pi}\,f_{\pi})/(2 m_{H^*})$ with $H=B,D$.}. Our result in Eq.(\ref{R}) is also in agreement with the one
1195: obtained combining lattice data for $f_{B^*}$ and $f_{D^*}$ from
1196: Ref.~\cite{Bowler:2000xw}, for $g_{B^*B\pi}(0)$ from Ref.~\cite{Abada:2002xe}, and the
1197: experimental CLEO
1198: Collaboration data for $g_{D^*D\pi}(m_{\pi}^2)$ from Ref.~\cite{Anastassov:2001cw}. In
1199: this case one gets
1200: \begin{equation}
1201: \left.R\right|_{Exp.-Latt.}=1.26\pm0.36
1202: \end{equation}
1203: where we have added errors in quadratures. A calculation using
1204: light cone QCDSR gives~\cite{Belyaev:1994zk}
1205: \begin{equation}
1206: \left.R\right|_{QCDSR}=0.92
1207: \end{equation}
1208: