1: \documentstyle[twocolumn,prl,aps]{revtex}
2:
3: \input epsf
4:
5: \begin{document}
6: \title{String breaking in zero-temperature lattice QCD}
7: \author{\em UKQCD Collaboration}
8: \author{P. Pennanen\thanks{E-mail: {\tt petrus@hip.fi}}}
9: \address{Nordita, Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100 Copenhagen \O, Denmark}
10: \author{C. Michael\thanks{\tt cmi@liv.ac.uk}}\address{Theoretical
11: Physics Division, Dept. of Math. Sciences, University of Liverpool,
12: Liverpool, UK.}
13: \maketitle \begin{abstract}
14: The crossing from a static quark-antiquark system to a
15: system of two static-light mesons when the separation of the static
16: quarks is increased is calculated in zero-temperature lattice QCD.
17: The mixing of these two states is extracted from the lattice operators.
18: We also discuss the breaking of an excited string of a hybrid meson. \\
19: PACS numbers: 12.38.Aw 12.38.Gc 13.25.-k 13.75.Lb \end{abstract}
20: \section{Introduction}
21:
22: The breaking of a long flux tube between two static quarks into a
23: quark-antiquark pair is one of the most fundamental phenomena in QCD.
24: Because of its highly non-perturbative nature it has defied
25: analytical calculation, while its large scale, e.g. when compared to
26: the sizes of composite particles in the theory, has caused difficulties in
27: standard nonperturbative methods. Thus string breaking has remained a widely
28: publicized feature of the strong interaction that has never, apart
29: from rough models, been reproduced from the theory.
30:
31: String breaking can occur in hadronic decays of $Q\bar{Q}$ mesons
32: and is especially relevant when this meson is lying close to a
33: meson-antimeson ($Q\bar{q}\bar{Q}q$) threshold. For the heaviest quarks
34: involved in these decays applying heavy quark effective theory is
35: a reasonable approximation.
36:
37: Due to recent advances in both computational hardware and algorithms,
38: much interest in lattice QCD has been devoted to attempts to observe
39: string breaking. The direct approach of trying to see the flattening in
40: the static $Q\bar{Q}$ potential at large separation has been successful
41: only at temperatures close to the critical one~\cite{aok:98,lae:98}.
42: The failure of this Wilson loop method at zero temperature seems to be
43: mainly due to the poor overlap of the operator(s) with the
44: $Q\bar{q}\bar{Q}q$ state~\cite{phi:98b,ste:99}. In much more easily
45: calculable adjoint $SU(2)$ and $SU(2)$+Higgs models without fermions a
46: variational approach with explicit inclusion of both the Wilson loop and
47: scalar bound state operators has worked well
48: \cite{phi:98b,mic:92b,ste:99}. In three-dimensional SU(2) with
49: staggered fermions an improved action approach has been claimed to
50: be successful with just Wilson loops~\cite{tro:98}.
51: In QCD with fermions effective operators for $Q\bar{q}\bar{Q}q $
52: systems are, however, hard to implement; part of the problem is the
53: exhausting computational effort required to get sufficient statistics
54: for light quark propagators with conventional techniques for fermion
55: matrix inversion.
56:
57: A new technique of calculating estimates of light quark propagators
58: using Monte Carlo techniques on pseudo-fermionic field
59: configurations~\cite{div:96} with maximal variance
60: reduction~\cite{mic:98} has been found to be very useful for systems
61: including heavy quarks taken as static, such as single heavy-light
62: mesons and baryons and also two heavy-light mesons~\cite{mic:99,pen:99}. The
63: application of this method to the string breaking problem seems
64: natural.
65:
66: Our previous work \cite{mic:99,pen:99} has concentrated on bound states
67: of two heavy-light mesons and mechanisms of their attraction for
68: various values of light quark isospin $I_q$ and spin $S_q$. Here we
69: continue by studying the $Q\bar{q}\bar{Q}q$ system for $I_q,S_q=(0,1)$
70: together with the $Q\bar{Q}$ system at distances around the string
71: breaking point $r_b\approx 1.2$ fm, where the energies of the two
72: systems are equal if there is no mixing.
73:
74: \section{Quantum numbers and hybrid mesons}
75:
76: When a quark and an antiquark are created from the vacuum they should have the
77: $0^{++}$ quantum numbers of the vacuum. A quark-antiquark pair with
78: $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ has lowest orbital angular momentum $L=1$ and is in a
79: spin triplet. This so-called Quark Pair Creation or $^3P_0$ model
80: was combined with a harmonic oscillator flux tube model by Isgur {\em
81: et al.}~\cite{isg:85b} to describe local breaking (formation) of a flux
82: tube. In our calculation the symmetries of the static approximation for
83: the heavy quark automatically lead to only the light quark spin
84: triplet being nonzero, which can be seen from the Dirac spin structure
85: of the heavy-light diagram in Fig.~\ref{fdiag}.
86:
87: String breaking can also occur for hybrid mesons where the gluon field
88: between two quarks is in an excited state. Table~\ref{texcite} presents
89: the couplings of some low-lying gluonic excitations to the quantum
90: numbers of the resulting meson-antimeson in the static limit for the
91: heavy quarks. In this limit CP and $J_z$, where $z$ is the interquark
92: axis, are conserved. The table lists the representations of these
93: symmetries (with $\Sigma,\Pi, \Delta$ corresponding to $J_z=0,\ 1,\ 2$
94: respectively and $g,\ u$ corresponding to CP=$\pm 1$). For the lowest-lying
95: excitation, which has $\Pi_u$ symmetry with $J_z=1$, only non-zero
96: angular momenta $L+L'$ for the resulting mesons $B_{L'}$, $B_{L}$ would
97: be allowed, as $S_q$ has to be zero to generate a negative $CP$.
98:
99: Here, as for the other symmetries, $I_q=0$ as we need the same flavour
100: for the light quarks. The $I_q=1$ cases do not correspond to
101: spontaneous breaking of a string in vacuum but a correlation of a
102: $Q\bar{Q}$+$q\bar{q}$ system with a $Q\bar{q}$+$\bar{Q}q$ system at
103: different time, i.e. the breaking of a string in the presence of a meson.
104: When the table is extended to nonzero $L$ for the heavy quark plus
105: antiquark (as opposed to $L>0$ for a single meson) the $P,C$ values get
106: multiplied with $(-1)^L$. The energy levels also change; these retardation effects have been found to be
107: relatively small~\cite{jug:99}.
108:
109: Previously string breaking in hybrid mesons has been discussed from a
110: phenomenological point of view using an
111: extension of the approach of Isgur {\em et al.}, i.e. a nonrelativistic
112: flux-tube model with decay operators from strong coupling limit of
113: lattice gauge theory and heavy quark expansion of QCD in Coulomb
114: gauge~\cite{pag:98}.
115: From this model two selection rules were given, the first one agreeing
116: with the $\Pi_u$ case in Table~\ref{texcite}; low-lying hybrids do
117: not decay into identical mesons, the predominant channel being one $s$
118: and one $p$-wave meson.
119: The second rule prohibits decay of spin singlet
120: states into only spin singlets, which is not relevant to our
121: calculation as our heavy quark spin decouples.
122:
123: An important question for hybrid meson phenomenology is the nature of
124: the lowest state for a given set of quantum numbers at a particular
125: heavy quark separation; a hybrid $Q\bar{Q}$ meson, a ground-state
126: $Q\bar{Q}$ meson with a $q\bar{q}$ meson or a system of two heavy-light
127: mesons. It is also useful to know the strength of mixing between these
128: states. This information can be obtained, in principle, from lattice
129: calculations and used to decide what sort of bound states are most
130: likely to exist and what their decays will be (see also Ref.~\cite{mic:99b}).
131:
132: \section{Lattice calculation}
133:
134: We use SU(3) lattice QCD on a $16^3\times 24$ lattice with the Wilson
135: gauge action and the Sheikholeslami-Wohlert quark action with a
136: nonperturbative ``clover coefficient'' $c_{SW}=1.76$ and $\beta=5.2$
137: with two degenerate flavours of both valence and sea quarks. The
138: measurements were performed on 20 gauge configurations. The gauge
139: configurations are the same as in Ref.~\cite{all:98} for
140: $\kappa=0.1395$. With these parameters we get a lattice spacing
141: $a\approx 0.14$ fm and meson mass ratio $M_{PS}/M_V=0.72$.
142:
143: Estimators of propagators of quarks from point $n$ to point $m$ can be
144: obtained from pseudofermion fields $\phi$. For each gauge configuration
145: a sample of the pseudofermion fields is generated, and the propagators
146: are then obtained by Monte Carlo integration~\cite{div:96}. Thus
147: there is one Monte Carlo averaging for the gauge samples, and another
148: one for the pseudofermion samples for each gauge sample. In order to
149: reduce statistical variance of propagators a variance reduction method
150: similar to multi-hit can be used~\cite{mic:98}; such a reduction is
151: essential in practice. Our variance reduction involves division of the
152: lattice in two regions, whose boundary is kept fixed while the
153: $\phi$-fields inside are replaced by their multi-hit averages. We use 24
154: pseudofermionic configurations per each gauge configuration.
155:
156: \begin{figure}[t]
157: \vspace*{-3.6cm}
158: \begin{center}
159: \hspace*{-2cm}\epsfxsize=400pt\epsfbox{picsb.ps}
160: \end{center}
161: \vspace{-13cm}
162: \caption{Diagrams involved in the calculation; the Wilson loop $W$, the
163: heavy-light correlator $U$, the unconnected meson-antimeson $D$ and the
164: box diagram $B$.}
165: \label{fdiag}
166: \end{figure}
167:
168: Figure~\ref{fdiag} shows the diagrams involved in the calculation with
169: the time axis in the horizontal direction. The solid lines are heavy
170: quark propagators, which in the static approximation are just products
171: of gauge field variables. The wiggly lines are light quark
172: propagators, obtained essentially as a product of pseudofermionic
173: variables from each end which have to be in different variance
174: reduced regions~\cite{mic:98}.
175:
176: In the large $T$ limit both the quark-antiquark and two-meson
177: operators should in principle approach $e^{-E_0(R) T}$ with $E_0(R)$
178: being the ground state of the system. In practice the Wilson loop has a
179: very small overlap with the two-meson state, which leads to great
180: practical difficulties in observing the flattening $E_0(R)\rightarrow
181: 2M_{Q\bar{q}}$ from it at large $R$. The heavy-light term $U$
182: is necessary to obtain the correct ground state by explicitly including both
183: quark-antiquark and two-meson states, and allows us to measure their
184: overlap, which is crucial for string breaking to happen.
185:
186: To estimate the ground (and excited) state energy of our observables
187: we always use a variational basis formed from different degrees of
188: spatial {\em fuzzing} of the operators. This allows the use of
189: moderate values of $T$ instead of the infinite time limit to reduce
190: excited state contributions. The resulting correlation
191: matrix $C(R,T)$ is then diagonalised to get the eigenenergies.
192:
193: Due to the variance reduction method dividing the lattice in two
194: halves in the time direction, the box diagram and the heavy-light
195: correlator in Fig.~\ref{fdiag} have to be turned ``sideways'' on the
196: lattice; i.e., the time axis in the diagrams is taken to be one of the
197: spatial axes to keep the light quark propagators going from one
198: variance reduced volume to another. This induces technical
199: complications that greatly increase the memory and CPU demands of the
200: measurement program.
201:
202: For two flavours the $I_q=0$ wavefunction is of the form
203: $(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d})/\sqrt{2}$, which gives factors of $1,\ \sqrt{2},\
204: 2$ for $D,\ U,\ B$ respectively.
205: For light quark spin we get the triplet states as in
206: Ref.~\cite{mic:99}.
207:
208: In this first study we concentrate on the ground state breaking, i.e.
209: the first row of Table~\ref{texcite}. Investigation of the hybrid
210: meson breaking requires diagrams not included in Fig.~\ref{fdiag},
211: which involve the hybrid $Q\bar{Q}$ and $Q\bar{Q}+\bar{q}q$ operators.
212: We estimate that for the $\Pi_u$ excited state the excited string
213: breaking happens in the same distance range as for the ground state
214: due to the non-zero momenta of the resulting mesons (masses taken from
215: Ref.~\cite{mic:98}), which makes it harder to obtain sufficient
216: accuracy as the spatial operators for excitations involve subtractions
217: rather than sums of lattice paths.
218:
219: \section{Results}
220:
221: \subsection{Variational approach}
222:
223: A full variational matrix involving the Wilson loop, heavy-light
224: correlator and the $Q\bar{q}\bar{Q}q$ correlators gives the ground and
225: excited state energies and corresponding operator overlaps as a
226: function of heavy quark separation, in analogue to the approach of
227: Refs.~\cite{mic:92b,ste:99} for the adjoint string breaking and
228: Refs.~\cite{phi:98b} for the SU(2)+Higgs model. We use a local light
229: quark creation (annihilation) operator and an extended version where a
230: fuzzed path of link variables with length two separates the operator
231: from the heavy quark line. For the link variables involved in the
232: $Q\bar{Q}$ operators we have two fuzzing levels. The two $Q\bar{Q}$ and
233: three $Q\bar{q}\bar{Q}q$ basis states then give a $5\times 5$
234: correlation matrix $C(R,T)$ that can be diagonalised. However, for our
235: present statistics the full matrix gives a reasonable
236: signal only for $r<r_b$.
237:
238: In Figure~\ref{fvari} the results from a calculation using just the most
239: fuzzed basis states for both $Q\bar{Q}$ and $Q\bar{q}\bar{Q}q$ (a
240: $2\times 2$ matrix) are shown. At $r_b$ we would expect the ground and
241: excited state energies to be separated by twice the mixing coefficient
242: $x$ (see below). We observe a larger separation which is presumably due
243: to our statistics not being sufficient to give accurate plateaus for the
244: energies.
245:
246: Although this full variational approach is in principle the most direct
247: way to study string breaking, we find that it is possible to focus on string
248: breaking explicitly, as we now discuss.
249:
250: \begin{figure}[t]
251: \begin{center}
252: \epsfxsize=230pt\epsfbox{sbgev.eps}
253: \caption{Ground and excited state from a variational calculation including
254: $Q\bar{Q}$ and $Q\bar{q}\bar{Q}q$ operators. The highest fuzzed basis state
255: for both is used here. The ground state of the Wilson loop and
256: $2m_{Q\bar{q}}$ are also shown. \label{fvari}}
257: \end{center}
258: \end{figure}
259:
260: \vspace*{-0.9cm}
261:
262: \subsection{Mixing matrix element}
263:
264: In full QCD, there is mixing of energy levels between states coupling
265: to Wilson lines (flux tube) and $Q\bar{q}\bar{Q}q$ states. To get the
266: mixing matrix element the correlation between a Wilson line and a
267: $Q\bar{q}\bar{Q}q$ operator has to be considered. In order to study the
268: operator mixing from this heavy-light correlator one needs to use
269: results (energies and couplings) from both diagonal operators
270: separately: thus from the Wilson loop (with ground state contribution
271: given by $W(T)=w^2 \exp[-V(R)T]$) and the unconnected $Q\bar{q}\bar{Q}q$
272: correlator (eg. $D(T)=d^2 \exp[-M(R)T]$ from the ground state)
273: where we use a variational basis to suppress excited states.
274:
275:
276: The ground state contribution to the heavy-light correlator can
277: then be written as
278: \begin{equation}
279: U(T) = x(R) \sum_{t=0}^T w e^{-V(R)t}e^{-M(R)(T-t)} d+O(x^3)
280: \label{ehlcq}
281: \end{equation}
282: In the quenched case the contributions from fermion loops inside the
283: correlator are absent, removing the $O(x^3)$ terms in Eq.~\ref{ehlcq}.
284: The box term is expressed in the same manner as
285: \begin{eqnarray}
286: B(T) & = & x^2(R) \sum_{t_1=0}^T \sum_{t_2 \ge t_1}^T
287: d e^{-V(R)t_1} e^{-M(R)(t_2-t_1)}
288: \nonumber\\
289: & & \times \ e^{-V(R)(T-t_2)} d \ +\ O(x^4) \label{ebcq}
290: \end{eqnarray}
291:
292: The operator mixing coefficient $x$ for the $Q\bar{Q}$ and
293: $Q\bar{q}\bar{Q}q $ states can be extracted from these expressions.
294: Near the string breaking point (where $V(R) =M(R)$), in the infinite
295: time limit, only the ground state contributions survive.
296: We use
297: \begin{eqnarray}
298: x & = & \frac{U(T)}{\sqrt{W(T) D(T)}}\frac{f^{T/2}}{1+\ldots +f^T} +
299: O(x^3) \label{ex1} \\
300: & = & \sqrt{\frac{B(T)}{D(T)}}
301: \frac{f^{T/2}}{\sqrt{1+\ldots+(T+1)f^T}} +O(x^2) \label{ex2}
302: \end{eqnarray}
303: The factors of $f\equiv\exp(V(R)-M(R))$ account for departures from
304: the string breaking point.
305:
306: In the quenched case there is no mixing between the energy levels of
307: the quark-antiquark and two-meson systems, and $x$ can be
308: extracted using Eqs.~\ref{ex1},\ref{ex2}. As $x<<1$ the
309: non-leading terms in the expressions for $x$ are small and we may use
310: also these formulas with our unquenched data - with a resulting decrease
311: in errors compared to the full variational study of the preceeding
312: subsection.
313:
314: Our assumption about neglecting excited state contributions can be
315: tested by obtaining consistent results for $x$ from both relations for
316: several $T$ values. To improve further on our estimate of $x$ we
317: diagonalise separately $W,\ D$ and $B$ to enhance the ground state
318: contributions and use the first two diagonalisations to extract the ground state of
319: $U$. Our results with bootstrap errors can be seen in table~\ref{tx}.
320: Assuming constant $x$ for $0.99 \ {\rm fm} \le r \le 1.31$ fm gives us a best
321: estimate of $x/a=0.033(6)/a=46(8)$ MeV. This is about half of the value
322: of $x=100$ MeV obtained using a strong coupling mixing model and the
323: experimental $\Upsilon(4S)$ decay rate~\cite{dru:98a}.
324:
325: Our analysis shows that the string breaking matrix element is
326: small but non-zero. We are able, however, to find two independent ways
327: to estimate it (using all four diagrams in Fig.~1) and we
328: obtain $x=46(8)$ MeV with light quarks that are around the strange
329: quark mass. This is the first non-perturbative determination from QCD
330: of the string breaking matrix element. Because of its small value,
331: direct observation of string breaking from the spectrum is
332: difficult to achieve.
333:
334: {\bf Acknowledgement}
335:
336: We thank A.M. Green and K. Rummukainen for discussions. Some of the
337: calculations, consuming 70 GB of disk and $2\times 10^{16}$ FLOPs, were
338: performed with the excellent resources provided by the CSC in Espoo, Finland.
339: %343 MFLOP/S w/ R12K
340:
341: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
342:
343: \newcommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\raggedright\begin{thebibliography}{10}
344:
345: \vspace*{-1cm}
346: \bibitem{aok:98}
347: {\bf CP-PACS} Collaboration, S.~Aoki {\em et.~al.}, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.
348: {\bf 73}, 216 (1999), \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9809185}{{\tt
349: hep-lat/9809185}}.
350:
351: \bibitem{lae:98}
352: E.~Laermann, C.~DeTar, O.~Kaczmarek and F.~Karsch, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.
353: {\bf 73}, 447 (1999),
354: \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9809105}{{\tt hep-lat/9809105}}.
355:
356: \bibitem{phi:98b}
357: O.~Philipsen and H.~Wittig, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 4056 (1998),
358: \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9807020}{{\tt hep-lat/9807020}};
359: {\bf ALPHA} Collaboration, F.~Knechtli and R.~Sommer, Phys. Lett. {\bf B440},
360: 345 (1998), \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9807022}{{\tt
361: hep-lat/9807022}}.
362:
363: \bibitem{mic:92b}
364: C.~Michael, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.~{\bf 26}, 417 (1992).
365:
366: \bibitem{ste:99}
367: P.~W. Stephenson, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B550}, 427 (1999),
368: \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9902002}{{\tt hep-lat/9902002}};
369: O.~Philipsen and H.~Wittig, Phys. Lett. {\bf B451}, 146 (1999),
370: \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9902003}{{\tt hep-lat/9902003}};
371: P.~de~Forcrand and O.~Philipsen,
372: \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9912050}{{\tt hep-lat/9912050}}.
373:
374: \bibitem{tro:98}
375: H.~Trottier, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 034506 (1999),
376: \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9812021}{{\tt hep-lat/9812021}}.
377:
378: \bibitem{div:96}
379: G.~M. de~Divitiis, R.~Frezzotti, M.~Masetti and R.~Petronzio, Phys. Lett. {\bf
380: B382}, 393 (1996), \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9603020}{{\tt
381: hep-lat/9603020}}.
382:
383: \bibitem{mic:98}
384: {\bf UKQCD} Collaboration, C.~Michael and J.~Peisa, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58},
385: 034506 (1998), \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9802015}{{\tt
386: hep-lat/9802015}}.
387:
388: \bibitem{mic:99}
389: {\bf UKQCD} Collaboration, C.~Michael and P.~Pennanen, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60},
390: 054012 (1999), \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9901007}{{\tt
391: hep-lat/9901007}}.
392:
393: \bibitem{pen:99}
394: {\bf UKQCD} Collaboration, P.~Pennanen, C.~Michael and A.~M. Green,
395: \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9908032}{{\tt hep-lat/9908032}}.
396:
397: \bibitem{isg:85b}
398: N.~Isgur, R.~Kokoski and J.~Paton, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 54}, 869 (1985).
399:
400: \bibitem{jug:99}
401: K.~J. Juge, J.~Kuti and C.~J. Morningstar,
402: \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9909165}{{\tt hep-lat/9909165}}.
403:
404: \bibitem{pag:98}
405: P.~R. Page, E.~S. Swanson and A.~P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. {\bf D59}, 034016
406: (1999), \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9808346}{{\tt hep-ph/9808346}}.
407:
408: \bibitem{mic:99b}
409: C.~Michael, Proceedings of Heavy Flavours 8, Southampton, UK (1999),
410: \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9911219}{{\tt hep-lat/9911219}}.
411:
412: \bibitem{all:98}
413: {\bf UKQCD} Collaboration, C.~R. Allton {\em et.~al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60},
414: 034507 (1999), \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9808016}{{\tt
415: hep-lat/9808016}}.
416:
417: \bibitem{dru:98a}
418: I.~T. Drummond and R.~R. Horgan, Phys. Lett. {\bf B447}, 298 (1999),
419: \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9811016}{{\tt hep-lat/9811016}}.
420:
421: \end{thebibliography}\endgroup
422:
423: \begin{table}[tb]
424: \begin{center}
425: \begin{tabular}{ll|cc|ccc}
426: $J_z$ & $CP$ & Gluon field symmetry & $\Sigma_{1g}$+$q\bar{q}$ state & $I_q$ & $S_q$ & $L+L'$ \\ \hline
427: 0 & $+$ & $\Sigma_{1g}$ & $\omega$ & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
428: 1 & $-$ & $\Pi_u$ & $h$ & & 0 & 1 \\
429: 0 & $-$ & $\Sigma_{1u}$ & $\eta$ & & 0 & 0 \\
430: 1 & $+$ & $\Pi_g$ & $\omega$ & & 1 & 0 \\
431: 2 & $+$ & $\Delta_{g}$ & $f_2$ & & 1 & 1 \\
432: 2 & $-$ & $\Delta_{u}$ & $\eta_2$ & & 0 & 2 \\
433: \hline
434: 0 & $-$ & -- & $\pi$ & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
435: 0 & $+$ & -- & $\rho$ & & 1 & 0
436: \end{tabular}
437: \caption{Relation of gluonic excitations of a hybrid meson to ground-state
438: properties of the meson pair resulting from string breaking, in the
439: static limit for the heavy quarks. The last three columns refer to the
440: quantum numbers of the light quarks in the meson-antimeson system. \label{texcite}}
441: \end{center}
442: \end{table}
443:
444: \vspace*{-1.1cm}
445:
446: \begin{table}[hb]
447: \begin{center}
448: \begin{tabular}{l|cc}
449: $r$ (fm) & Eq.~\ref{ex1} without $O(x^3)$ & Eq.~\ref{ex2} without $O(x^2)$\\ \hline
450: 0.85 & 0.040(3) & 0.081(8) \\
451: 0.99 & 0.025(4) & 0.045(5) \\
452: 1.14 & 0.025(3) & \\
453: 1.31 & 0.031(15) & 0.040(25) \\
454: \end{tabular}
455:
456: \caption{Operator mixing $x$ extracted using a variational approach with two
457: different formulas. The values are taken at $T=4$ and have bootstrap errors.
458: Physical dimensions are obtained by multiplying with $a^{-1}=1.39$ GeV \label{tx}}
459: \end{center}
460: \end{table}
461: \vspace*{-1cm}
462:
463: \end{document}
464: