1: \documentstyle[epsf]{article}

2: 

3: %4-3-03   xxx version

4: 

5: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

6: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

7: 

8: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{\em #1} {\bf #2}, #4 (#3)}

9: 

10: % Some useful journal names

11: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}

12: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.}  B}

13: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}

14: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}

15: 

16: \begin{document}

17: 

18: \begin{flushright}

19: Liverpool Preprint: LTH 550\\

20:  \end{flushright}

21:   

22: \vspace{5mm} \begin{center} {\LARGE \bf Exotics

23:  \footnote{Prepared for {\em World Scientific Publishing Company}

24: (International Review of Nuclear Physics, Vol. 9, Hadronic Physics from

25: Lattice QCD, edited by A. M. Green)}}\\[10mm] 

26: 

27:  

28:  {\bf  C.~Michael \\

29:  %

30: Theoretical Physics Division, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, 

31:           University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK 

32:  }\\[2mm]

33: 

34: \end{center}

35: 

36: \begin{abstract}

37: 

38: We review lattice QCD results for glueballs

39: (including  a discussion of mixing with scalar mesons), hybrid mesons

40: and other exotic states (such  as $B_s B_s$ molecules).

41: \end{abstract}

42: 

43: 

44: \section{Introduction}     %S1-Heads

45:  \label{ex.sect1}

46: 

47:  Quantum Chromodynamics has emerged as the unique theory to 

48: describe hadronic physics. It is formulated in terms of gluonic and quark

49: fields. The only free parameters are the scale of the coupling (usually

50: called $\Lambda_{QCD}$)  and the quark masses defined at some

51: conventional energy scale.

52: 

53:  Where large momentum transfers occur,  the  effective coupling becomes

54: weak and a perturbative treatment is valid: in  this domain the theory

55: has been tested directly by experiment. However, because the effective

56: coupling is weak for these processes that can be  described by

57: perturbation theory, they are necessarily not the dominant hadronic 

58: processes. A typical hadronic process will involve small momentum 

59: transfers and so has to be treated non-perturbatively.

60: 

61:  In this non-perturbative r\'egime, the description of hadrons is quite

62: far removed  from the description of the gluonic and quark fields in the

63: QCD Lagrangian. Because only colour-singlet states survive, the hadrons

64: are  all composites of quarks and gluons. One example emphasises this:

65: the  nucleon has a mass which is very much greater than the sum of the 

66: quark masses of the three valence quarks comprising it. This extra mass 

67: comes from the gluonic interactions of QCD. Another way to view this is

68: that  the na\"{\i}ve quark model is a useful phenomenological tool but

69: has constituent quarks with masses much greater than the QCD masses (ie

70: masses  as defined in the Lagrangian). It is important to understand why

71: this  is approximately what QCD requires and to find where QCD departs

72: from  the na\"{\i}ve quark model.

73: 

74:  One way to characterise the manner in which QCD goes beyond the na\"{\i}ve

75:  quark model is through the concept of exotic states. Here exotic is

76: taken to mean  \lq not included in the na\"{\i}ve quark model\rq. 

77:  In order to discuss exotic states, we need to summarise what the

78: na\"{\i}ve quark  model contains. Basically the degrees of freedom are the

79: valence quarks  (ie quark-antiquark for a meson and 3 quarks for a

80: baryon) with masses and interactions  given by some effective

81: interaction. The consequences of this are that only certain $J^{PC}$

82: values  will exist and that the number of states with different quark

83: flavours is  specified. So, concentrating on mesons made of the three

84: flavours of light quarks ($u,\ d,\ s$),  one expects a nonet of mesons

85: with the flavours ($\bar{u} d, \  \bar{d} u,\  \bar{u} u \pm \bar{d} d,\

86: \bar{s} s,\ \bar{u} s,\ \bar{d} s,\   \bar{s} u,\ \bar{s} d$).  This is

87: indeed  what is found for vector mesons ($\rho,\ \omega,\ \phi,\ K^{*}$). 

88: It is also possible within the quark model for the flavour-singlet states 

89: ($\bar{u} u + \bar{d} d,\  \bar{s} s$) to mix, as found for the pseudoscalar 

90: mesons. What would be exotic is for a tenth state to exist. 

91:   For mesons with orbital angular momentum $L$  between the quark and

92: antiquark the  allowed $J^{PC}$ values are shown below.  Thus spin-parity 

93: combinations such as $0^{--}, 0^{+-}, 1^{-+}, 2^{+-}$ are termed

94: spin-exotic  since they cannot be made from a quark plus antiquark

95: alone. 

96: 

97: \begin{table}

98: \begin{center}

99: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|ccc|} \hline

100:   $L$ &   $J^{PC}$ &$J^{PC}$ &$J^{PC}$ &$J^{PC}$ \\ \hline

101: 0 & $0^{-+}$ &          & $1^{--}$ &           \\

102: 1 & $1^{+-}$ & $0^{++}$ & $1^{++}$ & $ 2^{++}$ \\ 

103: 2 & $2^{-+}$ & $1^{--}$ & $2^{--}$ & $ 3^{--}$ \\ 

104: \hline

105: \end{tabular}

106: \end{center}

107: \end{table}

108: 

109: It has been a considerable challenge to  build a machinery that allows

110: non-perturbative calculations in QCD with all systematic  errors determined.

111:  The most controlled  approach to non-perturbative QCD is via

112: lattice techniques in which space-time is discretized and time is taken

113: as  Euclidean. The functional integral is then evaluated numerically

114: using  Monte Carlo techniques. 

115: 

116:   Lattice QCD needs as input the quark masses and an overall scale

117: (conventionally  given by $\Lambda_{QCD}$). Then any Green function can

118: be evaluated by taking an average of suitable combinations of the

119: lattice fields in the vacuum samples. This allows masses to be studied 

120: easily and matrix elements (particularly those of weak or

121: electromagnetic currents)  can be extracted straightforwardly.

122:   Unlike experiment, lattice QCD can vary the quark masses and can also 

123: explore different boundary conditions and sources. This allows a wide

124: range of  studies which can be used to diagnose the health of

125: phenomenological models as well as casting light on experimental data.

126: 

127: One limitation of the  lattice approach  to QCD is  in exploring

128: hadronic decays because the  lattice, using Euclidean

129: time, has no concept of asymptotic  states. One feasible strategy is to

130: evaluate the mixing between states of the same  energy - so giving some

131: information on on-shell hadronic decay amplitudes.

132: 

133: 

134:  There is an interesting theoretical world in which the quark degrees 

135: of freedom are removed from QCD, leaving pure gluo-dynamics. This is

136: also  known as pure Yang-Mills theory.  It is a self-consistent  theory

137: which has the full non-perturbative gluonic interaction. It turns out

138: that this gluonic interaction does produce the salient features of QCD:

139: asymptotic freedom, confinement,  etc.  It is of interest to explore

140: the spectrum  in this case:  the states are called glueballs. 

141: 

142:  It is also of interest to consider the propagation of quarks  in this

143: gluonic theory. The quarks are treated   as in the Dirac 

144: equation and they propagate through the  gluonic ground state.  This

145: approach is known  as the quenched approximation. Again this turns out

146: to be  a very useful approximation: chiral symmetry breaking occurs for

147: example. This quenched approximation is in contrast to the  full quantum

148: field theory of QCD where there would be quark loop effects in the

149: ground state also. Thus in the quenched approximation there will be

150: inconsistencies:  the theory is not unitary. However, for heavy quarks

151: it will be a good approximation since  heavy quark loops are suppressed 

152: and it may be adequate to describe some features of lighter quarks.  

153: Moreover, many phenomenological models are appropriate to the quenched case 

154: and so can be compared with quenched QCD.

155: 

156: \section{Glueballs and scalar mesons}

157:  \label{ex.sect2}

158: 

159: \subsection{Glueballs in quenched QCD}

160:  \label{ex.sect2.1}

161: 

162: Glueballs are defined to be hadronic states made primarily from gluons.

163: The full non-perturbative gluonic interaction is included in quenched

164: QCD.  A study of the glueball spectrum in quenched QCD  is thus of great

165: value. This will allow experimental searches to be  guided as well as

166: providing calibration for models of glueballs. A non-zero glueball mass

167: in quenched QCD is the  ``mass-gap'' of QCD. To prove this rigourously

168: is one of the major challenges  of our times. Here we will explore the

169: situation using computational techniques.

170: 

171: 

172: In lattice studies, dimensionless ratios of  quantities are obtained. To

173: explore the glueball masses $m$, it is appropriate to combine  them with

174: another very accurately measured quantity to have a dimensionless 

175: observable. Since the potential between static quarks is very accurately

176: measured from the lattice, it is now conventional~\cite{sommer} to use

177: $r_0$ for this comparison.  Here $r_0$ is implicitly defined by $r^2

178: dV(r)/dr = 1.65$ at $r=r_0$ where $V(r)$ is  the potential energy

179: between static quarks which is easy to determine accurately  on the

180: lattice.  Conventionally  $r_0 \approx 0.5$ fm.

181: 

182: 

183:  Theoretical analysis  indicates that for  Wilson's discretisation of

184: the gauge fields in the quenched approximation,  the dimensionless ratio

185: $mr_0$ will differ from the continuum  limit value by corrections of

186: order $a^2$.  Thus in fig.~\ref{ex.fig1} the mass of the

187: $J^{PC}$=$0^{++}$  glueball is plotted versus the lattice spacing $a^2$.

188: The straight line then shows the continuum limit obtained  by

189: extrapolating to $a=0$. As can be seen, there is essentially no need for

190: data  at even smaller $a$-values to further fix the continuum value. The

191: value shown  corresponds to $m(0^{++})r_0=4.33(5)$.  Since several

192: lattice groups~\cite{DForc,MTgl,ukqcd,gf11} have measured these 

193: quantities, it is reassuring to see that the purely lattice observables

194: are in  excellent agreement. The publicised difference of quoted

195: $m(0^{++})$ from  UKQCD~\cite{ukqcd} and GF11~\cite{gf11} comes entirely

196: from relating quenched lattice  measurements to values in GeV.

197: 

198: 

199: 

200: \begin{figure}[bt] 

201: \vspace{-2.0cm}  % was -3.5

202: \epsfxsize=10cm\epsfbox{ch3-gbr0.ps}

203: %\resizebox{1.00\textwidth}{!}{  %    was 0.75

204: %  \includegraphics{ch3-gbr0.ps}

205: 

206: %\vspace{7cm} %

207: %\special{psfile=gbr0.ps voffset=-15 hoffset=40 hscale=55 vscale=40}

208:  \caption{ The value of mass of the  $J^{PC}=0^{++}$  glueball state

209: from quenched data ($N_F=0$){\protect\cite{DForc,MTgl,ukqcd,gf11}}

210: in units of $r_0$ where $r_0 \approx 0.5$ fm. The straight line  shows a

211:  fit describing the  approach to the continuum limit as $a \to 0$.

212:   Results~{\protect\cite{sesam,cmcm176,cmcm202}}

213: for the lightest scalar meson  with $N_F=2$ flavours of sea quarks

214: are also shown.

215:    }

216:  \label{ex.fig1}

217: \end{figure}

218:    

219: 

220: In the quenched approximation, different hadronic observables differ

221: from experiment  by factors of up to 10\%. Thus using one quantity or

222: another to set the scale, gives an overall systematic error.  Here  the

223: scale is set by taking the conventional value of the string tension

224: (determined  from potential models and from hadronic lattice studies),

225: $\sqrt{\sigma}=0.44$ GeV, which then corresponds to $r_0^{-1}=373$ MeV

226: (or $r_0 = 0.53$ fm). An overall systematic error of 10\% is then to be

227: included to any  extracted mass. This yields $m(0^{++})=1611(30)(160)$

228: MeV where the second error is the systematic  scale error. Note that

229: this is the  glueball mass in the quenched approximation -  in the real

230: world significant mixing with $q \bar{q}$ states etc may modify this

231: value substantially, as we discuss below.

232: 

233: 

234: In the Wilson approach, the next lightest glueballs

235: are~\cite{MTgl,ukqcd} the tensor $m(2^{++})r_0=6.0(6)$  (resulting in  

236: $m(2^{++})=2232(220)(220)$ MeV) and the pseudoscalar $m(0^{-+})r_0=

237: 6.0(1.0)$. Although the Wilson discretisation provides a definitive

238: study of the lightest ($0^{++}$)  glueball in the continuum limit, other

239: methods are competitive for the determination of the mass  of heavier

240: glueballs.  Namely, using an improved gauge discretisation which has 

241: even smaller discretisation errors than the $a^2$ dependence of the

242: Wilson discretisation,  so allowing a relatively coarse lattice spacing

243: $a$ to be used. To extract mass values, one has to explore the time

244: dependence of correlators and for this reason,  it is optimum to use a

245: relatively small time lattice spacing. Thus an asymmetric  lattice

246: spacing is most appropriate.  The  results~\cite{mpglue}  are shown in

247: fig.~\ref{ex.fig2} and for low lying states are that

248: $m(0^{++})r_0=4.21(11)(4)$,  $m(2^{++})r_0=5.85(2)(6)$,

249: $m(0^{-+})r_0=6.33(7)(6)$ and $m(1^{+-})r_0=7.18(4)(7)$. It will be very

250: difficult to identify experimentally states corresponding  to these

251: heavier glueballs since the spectrum is rich in $q \bar{q}$ states of

252: those  quantum numbers at those  mass values and there will thus be

253: considerable mixing. 

254: 

255: 

256: \begin{figure}[t]

257: \epsfxsize=10cm\epsfbox{ch3-continuum_glueballs.eps}

258: %\psfig{figure=ch3-ps,height=9cm,width=9cm}

259: %\vspace{-0.5cm}

260:  \caption{ The continuum glueball spectrum{\protect\cite{mpglue}}. 

261:  }

262:  \label{ex.fig2}

263: \end{figure}

264: 

265: 

266: 

267: One signal of great interest would be  a glueball with $J^{PC}$ not

268: allowed for $q \bar{q}$ - a spin-exotic glueball or {\em oddball} -

269: since it would  not mix with $q \bar{q}$ states. These states are

270: found~\cite{MTgl,ukqcd,mpglue} to be  high lying: considerably above

271: $2m(0^{++})$. Thus they are  likely to be in a region around 4 GeV where

272: it is very difficult to separate states unambiguously by experiment. 

273: 

274: As well as the mass of a glueball, it is possible to study their

275: physical size. In principle this is determined by measuring the matrix

276: element  $ \langle G | J | G  \rangle $ where $J$ is some local current

277: which couples to the glueball.  Since glueballs have no flavour, the

278: energy-momentum tensor is the most  appropriate choice. A preliminary

279: study has been made, albeit with large  systematic errors~\cite{tickle}

280: and finds a radius $0.9\pm 0.3$ fm. This approach should be contrasted

281: with what has come to be called the Bethe-Saltpeter wavefunction  which

282: is obtained from $ \langle G|L|0 \rangle $ where $L$ is the lattice

283: operator used to create a glueball state from  the vacuum. Within a

284: lattice calculation, it is easy to measure the dependence of this 

285: overlap on the spatial extent of $L$~\cite{glue:bs}, but difficult to

286: interpret the result.  

287: 

288:  Related information can be obtained  from a study of the gluelump: the

289: state with one static colour source in the octet representation  with a

290: gluonic field making it a colour singlet. This would be of physical 

291: relevance should a massive gluino exist: it would be the glueballino, a 

292: gluino-gluon bound state. The spectrum~\cite{fm} and spatial

293: distribution~\cite{jorysz}  have been studied. 

294: 

295:  Another topic which is of mainly theoretical interest is the glueball 

296: mass (as a dimensionless ratio to the string tension) as the number of

297: colours $N_c$ is varied from 3. The SU(2) Yang-Mills  theory has often

298: been studied, especially as  it is computationally simpler. Recently a

299: study of SU(N) for N=4 and 5 has been made.  The summary~\cite{ncgb} is

300: that N=$\infty$ is relatively close to N=3. This  has theoretical

301: implications since the N=$\infty$ theory is formally simpler. 

302:  For a comparison of these lattice results with ADS supergravity 

303: see ref.~\cite{brower}.

304: 

305: 

306: \subsection{Scalar mesons in quenched QCD}

307:  \label{ex.sect2.2}

308: 

309:  In quenched QCD the flavour singlet ($f_0$) and non-singlet ($a_0$) 

310: scalar mesons are degenerate. In full QCD this degeneracy is split  by

311: disconnected quark diagrams but these are omitted from the quenched

312: approximation. This same feature of the quenched approximation implies

313: that the  $\eta$ meson is wrongly treated - it will be degenerate with

314: the $\pi$. This implies that the scalar meson propagation can have the

315: wrong sign~\cite{fnal} because the $\eta \pi$  intermediate state is

316: mistreated (once quark loops are allowed in the vacuum then this 

317: anomaly is  removed). For light quarks of mass corresponding to the

318: strange quark or heavier, it is expected that this  anomaly is

319: relatively unimportant.  Thus the  measurement of the mass of the  $q

320: \bar{q}$ scalar meson can be particularly  unreliable in the quenched

321: approximation. 

322: 

323: 

324: Even though the mixing of the glueball and  $q \bar{q}$ states is not

325: implemented  in the quenched approximation, one can determine the mixing

326: matrix element. This can then be used to estimate the result of the

327: mixing by  hand (by using a mass matrix for example). On a rather coarse

328: lattice ($a^{-1}  \approx 1.2$ GeV), two groups  have attempted to

329: measure  this mixing~\cite{weinssg,cmcm176}. Their results expressed as

330: the mixing for two degenerate quarks of mass around the strange quark

331: mass  are similar, namely $E \approx 0.3$ GeV~\cite{weinssg} and 0.5

332: GeV~\cite{cmcm176}.  This is a relatively large mixing (if the glueball

333: and scalar meson states  were degenerate they would be split by $\pm E$).

334: 

335:  An exploratory attempt to extrapolate this mixing to  the

336: continuum~\cite{weinssg} gave a very small mixing of 61(45) MeV, while

337: the  other determination~\cite{cmcm176} uses clover improvement so order

338: $a$ effects in the extrapolation to the continuum are suppressed and one

339: would not expect a significant decrease in going to  the continuum

340: limit. 

341:  What this discussion shows is that precision studies of the mixing on 

342: a quenched lattice have not yet been achieved. Furthermore the problems

343: with the  scalar meson propagation in the quenched approximation

344: discussed above also limit progress.

345: 

346: As well as this mixing of the glueball with $q \bar{q}$ states, there

347: will be  mixing  with $q \bar{q} q \bar{q}$ states which will be

348: responsible for the  hadronic decays. A first attempt to study

349: this~\cite{gdecay}  at a coarse lattice spacing yields an estimated

350: width for decay to two pseudoscalar mesons from the scalar glueball of

351: order 100 MeV.  A more realistic study  would involve taking account of

352: mixing with the $n \bar{n}$ and $s \bar{s}$ scalar mesons as  well.

353: 

354: \subsection{Scalar mesons in full QCD}

355:  \label{ex.sect2.3}

356: 

357:  It is now feasible to explore the flavour-singlet scalar meson spectrum

358: including the quark loops in the vacuum, ie in full QCD.  From dynamical

359: fermion studies with $N_f=2$, one can determine the  flavour singlet and

360: non-singlet mass spectrum.  What is found~\cite{cmcm176,cmcm202} is that

361: the lightest flavour-singlet scalar  meson ($f_0$) is lighter than the

362: lightest flavour non-singlet ($a_0$). 

363: 

364: 

365: The interpretation of this study is hampered by the same issue that

366: hampers the interpretation of experimental data, namely, the  mass

367: eigenstates are not distinguished as \lq glueball\rq\ or as \lq

368: quark-antiquark\rq. What one can do is explore the  output spectrum and

369: deduce what mixing might have occurred. To give an example, where we

370: restrict here to $N_f=2$  flavours of degenerate quarks, the $f_0$

371: masses will be $m_0$ and ${m_0}'$ where the  latter is the first excited

372: state and the flavour non-singlet $a_0$ mass will be  $m_1$. Results for

373: $m_0$ are given in fig.~\ref{ex.fig1}.  Then one would expect in a

374: simple $2 \times $2 mixing scenario (ie glueball and $q \bar{q}$ meson)

375: a mass matrix 

376: 

377: \begin{center}

378: \begin{math} 

379:  \left( \begin{array}[h]{cc}

380:     m_G  &    E \\

381:     E  &   m_1 \\

382: \end{array} \right)

383: \end{math}

384:  \end{center}

385: 

386: \noindent where $m_G$ is the glueball mass and $E$ the mixing matrix

387: element. This will have  two mass eigenstates which can be identified

388: with $m_0$ and ${m_0}'$ so determining the  two free parameters in the

389: matrix. This approach  explains what is going on but obtains  two

390: numbers with two parameters, so there is no cross-check.

391: 

392: 

393:  One can directly address the issue of the mass of the lightest scalar

394: singlet meson  from the lattice with $N_f=2$. It is advantageous to use 

395: as full a basis of lattice operators as possible, including Wilson loops

396: and  quark-antiquark loops. Including the latter can in practice lead to

397: a lower value  the ground state  scalar meson mass - see

398: refs.\cite{ht,cmcm202}.

399:  Most studies have shown no significant change of the scalar glueball

400: mass as dynamical quarks are included~\cite{sesam}.  However the larger

401: lattice spacing result~\cite{cmcm176} shows a significant  reduction in

402: the lightest scalar mass, as shown in fig.~\ref{ex.fig1}.

403:  Before concluding that this implies a lower scalar mass in  the

404: continuum limit, one needs to check whether  an enhanced order $a^2$ 

405: correction might be present. The origin of the large coefficient of

406: $a^2$  in quenched glueball studies is usually ascribed to the presence

407: of  a critical point in the fundamental-adjoint coupling plane  which is

408: close by in the  usual Wilson approach with zero adjoint coupling. The

409: extent to which this will be enhanced/reduced when dynamical quarks are

410: introduced is not clear.  Studies using the same approach  at a finer

411: lattice spacing~\cite{ht,cmcm202} do suggest that this  large order

412: $a^2$ effect is significant for dynamical quarks, but studies even

413: nearer to the continuum  or with improved actions are needed to resolve

414: this fully.

415: 

416:  A further complication is that as the quark mass is reduced towards the

417: physical light quark mass,  the decay to $\pi \pi$ becomes energetically

418: allowed. The study of unstable  particles is a difficult problem in a

419: Euclidean time formalism~\cite{cmdecay}.  We return to this topic later.

420: 

421: 

422: 

423: 

424: \subsection{Experimental evidence for scalar mesons}

425:  \label{ex.sect2.4}

426:  

427:  In full QCD,  for the favour-singlet states of any given $J^{PC}$, 

428: there will be mixing between the  $s \bar{s}$ state, the  $u \bar{u}+d

429: \bar{d}$ state  and the glueball as well as with multi-meson channels.

430:   It may indeed turn out that no scalar meson in the physical spectrum

431: is primarily a glueball - all states are  mixtures of glue,  $q

432: \bar{q}$, $q \bar{q} q \bar{q}$, etc.

433: 

434:  To help with understanding the experimental situation~\cite{pdg}, we

435: first discuss the  flavour non-singlet states, the $a_0$ with isospin

436: 1. The observed states are  at 980 and 1450 MeV. The lighter state has

437: dynamics which appears to be closely associated with the  $K \bar{K}$

438: threshold. The heavier state is not yet very well established but seems

439: to be a candidate  for a state mostly comprised of $q \bar{q}$, while

440: the lighter state would  be $q \bar{q} q \bar{q}$. 

441: 

442:  The flavour singlet states ($f_0$) are more numerous. There is a very

443: broad enhancement  in the $\pi \pi$ S-wave phase shift around 700 MeV

444: (sometimes called the  $\sigma$), there is a state near the $K \bar{K}$

445: threshold at 980 MeV  and there are more states at 1370, 1500 and 1710

446: MeV. Again assuming that the state at 980 MeV is predominantly  $q

447: \bar{q} q \bar{q}$, this suggests that the three states in the 1300-1750

448: MeV  energy range are admixtures of the glueball,   $u \bar{u}+d

449: \bar{d}$ and  $s \bar{s}$. The fact that there are indeed three states

450: in this energy  region close to the quenched glueball mass of 1600 MeV

451: is the  strongest evidence for the presence of a glueball.   This has

452: led to several phenomenological attempts~\cite{weinssg,mixing}  to

453: describe these three observed states in terms of the lattice input.

454: 

455:  As we emphasised above, in full QCD on a lattice one just obtains 

456: values for the $a_0$ and $f_0$ masses. In the simplified case of $N_f=2$

457: flavours of degenerate quark, one does indeed  find~\cite{cmcm202} two

458: $f_0$ states, and they can be interpreted as mixtures of the  $q

459: \bar{q}$ and glueball states with the $q \bar{q}$ state having the

460: properties  found for the $a_0$. 

461: 

462: One useful lattice input would be a determination  of the $a_0$ mass as

463: the quark mass is varied in full QCD, especially because of the problems

464: of determining  the $a_0$ mass in the quenched approximation.  At

465: present, the  full QCD studies~\cite{cmcm176,cmcm202}  are limited to

466: relatively coarse lattice spacing, so the continuum  limit is not close.

467: Furthermore, as the quark mass is reduced the  $a_0$ can decay (to $\pi

468: \eta$) and this will influence the lattice analysis~\cite{milc_a0}. 

469: 

470: 

471: 

472:  \section{Hybrid Mesons}

473:  \label{ex.sect3}

474: 

475:  A hybrid meson is a meson in which the gluonic degrees of freedom are 

476: excited non-trivially. The most direct sign of this would be  a

477: spin-exotic meson, since that could not be created from  a $q \bar{q}$

478: state with unexcited glue. A spin-exotic meson  could, however,  be  a

479: $q \bar{q}q \bar{q}$ or meson-meson state and that possibility will be

480: discussed.

481:  We first discuss hybrid mesons with static heavy quarks where the

482: description  can be thought of as an excited colour string.  The

483: situation  concerning light quark hybrid mesons is then summarised 

484: 

485: \subsection{Heavy quark hybrid mesons}

486:  \label{ex.sect3.1}

487: 

488: 

489: \begin{figure}[bt] 

490: %\vspace{-3.5cm}  % was -3.5

491: %\resizebox{0.8\textwidth}{!}{  %    was 0.75

492: \epsfxsize=8cm\epsfbox{ch3-pm.ps}

493: %  \includegraphics{ch3-pm.ps}

494: 

495:  \caption{ The potential energy between static quarks at separation $R$

496: (in units of  $r_0 \approx 0.5$ fm)~{\protect\cite{pm}}. The symmetric

497: gluonic field  configuration is shown by the lower points while the

498: $\Pi_u$ excited gluonic configuration is shown above. The energy levels

499: in these potentials for  $b$ quarks are shown using the adiabatic

500: approximation. 

501:    }

502: \end{figure}

503: 

504: 

505: Consider $Q \bar{Q}$ states with static quarks  in which the gluonic

506: contribution may be excited. We  classify the gluonic fields according

507: to the symmetries of the system.  This discussion is very similar to the

508: description of electron wave functions in  diatomic molecules. The

509: symmetries are  (i) rotation around the separation axis $z$ with

510: representations labelled by $J_z$ (ii) CP with representations labelled

511: by $g(+)$ and $u(-)$ and (iii) C$\cal{R}$. Here  C interchanges $Q$ and

512: $\bar{Q}$, P is parity and $\cal{R}$ is a rotation  of $180^0$ about the

513: mid-point around the $y$ axis. The C$\cal{R}$ operation is only relevant

514:  to classify states with $J_z=0$. The convention is to label states of

515: $J_z=0,1,2$ by $ \Sigma, \Pi, \Delta$  respectively. The ground state

516: ($\Sigma^+_g$) will have $J_z=0$ and $CP=+$.

517: 

518:  The exploration of the energy levels  of other representations has a

519: long history in lattice studies~\cite{liv,pm}. The first excited state

520: is found  to be the $\Pi_u$.  This can be visualised  as the symmetry of

521: a string bowed out in the $x$ direction minus the same  deflection in

522: the $-x$ direction (plus another component of  the two-dimensional

523: representation with the transverse direction $x$ replaced by $y$),

524: corresponding to flux  states from a lattice  operator which is the

525: difference of U-shaped paths from quark to antiquark of the form $\,

526: \sqcap - \sqcup$. 

527: 

528: The picture of the gluon flux between the static  quarks suggests that

529: the excited states of this string may approximate the excited potentials

530: found from the lattice. In the simplest string  theory, the first

531: excited level has $\Pi_u$ symmetry and is at energy $\pi/R$ above the

532: ground state.  This is indeed  approximately valid and a closer

533: approximation  is to use a relativistic version~\cite{phm} (namely

534: $E_m(R)=(\sigma^2 R^2+2\pi\sigma (m-1/12))^{1/2}$ for the $m$-th level),

535: see also ref.~\cite{jkm} for a recent comparison of this expression.

536: 

537: 

538: 

539: Recent lattice studies~\cite{jkm}  have used an asymmetric space/time

540: spacing which enables excited states to be  determined comprehensively.

541:  These results confirm the finding that 

542: the $\Pi_u$ excitation is the lowest lying and hence of most relevance 

543: to spectroscopy.

544: 

545:  From the potential corresponding to these excited gluonic states, one

546: can  determine the spectrum of hybrid quarkonia using the Schr\"odinger

547: equation in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation.  This approximation will

548: be good if the heavy quarks move very little in the  time it takes for

549: the potential between them to become established. More  quantitatively,

550: we require that the potential energy of gluonic excitation is much

551: larger than the typical energy of orbital or radial excitation.  This is

552: indeed the case~\cite{liv}, especially for $b$ quarks. Another nice

553: feature of this approach is that the  self energy of the static sources

554: cancels in the energy difference between this  hybrid state and the

555: $Q \bar{Q}$ states. Thus the lattice approach gives directly the

556: excitation energy  of each gluonic excitation.

557: 

558:   The $\Pi_u$ symmetry state corresponds to  excitations of the gluonic

559: field in quarkonium called magnetic (with $L^{PC}=1^{+-}$) and

560: pseudo-electric (with $1^{-+}$) in contrast to the usual  P-wave orbital

561: excitation which has $L^{PC}=1^{--}$. Thus we expect different quantum

562: number assignments from those of the gluonic ground state. Indeed

563: combining with the heavy quark spins, we get a degenerate  set of 8

564: states:

565: 

566: \begin{table}

567: \begin{center}

568: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|ccc|} \hline

569:   $L^{PC}$ &   $J^{PC}$ &$J^{PC}$ &$J^{PC}$ &$J^{PC}$ \\ \hline

570: $1^{-+}$ & $1^{--}$ & $0^{-+}$ & $1^{-+}$ & $ 2^{-+}$ \\ 

571: $1^{--}$ & $1^{++}$ & $0^{+-}$ & $1^{+-}$ & $ 2^{+-}$ \\ 

572: \hline

573: \end{tabular}

574: \end{center}

575: \end{table}

576: 

577: \noindent  Note that of these,  $J^{PC}=  1^{-+},\ 0^{+-}$ and  

578: $2^{+-}$  are spin-exotic and hence will not mix with $Q\bar{Q}$ states.

579: They thus form a very attractive goal for experimental searches for

580: hybrid  mesons.

581: 

582: 

583: 

584:  The eightfold degeneracy of the static approach will be broken by 

585: various corrections. As an example, one of the eight degenerate  hybrid

586: states is a pseudoscalar with the heavy quarks in a spin triplet.  This

587: has the same overall quantum numbers as the S-wave  $Q \bar{Q}$ state

588: ($\eta_b$) which, however, has the heavy quarks in a spin singlet. So

589: any  mixing between these states must be mediated by spin dependent

590: interactions.  These spin dependent interactions will be smaller for

591: heavier quarks. It is  of interest to establish the strength of these

592: effects for $b$ and $c$ quarks. Another topic of interest is the

593: splitting  between the spin exotic hybrids which will come from the

594: different  energies  of the magnetic and pseudo-electric gluonic

595: excitations.

596: 

597: 

598:  One way to go beyond the static approach is to use the NRQCD

599: approximation which then enables  the spin dependent effects to be

600: explored.  One study~\cite{jkm} finds that the  $L^{PC}=1^{+-}$ and

601: $1^{-+}$ excitations  have no statistically significant splitting 

602: although the $1^{+-}$  excitation does lie a little lighter. This would

603: imply, after adding in heavy quark spin, that  the $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$

604: hybrid was the lightest spin exotic. Also a relatively large spin

605: splitting was found~\cite{cppacs} among the triplet states considering,

606: however,   only  magnetic gluonic excitations.

607:  Another study~\cite{hyb-mix} explores the mixing of non spin-exotic

608: hybrids  with regular quarkonium states via a spin-flip interaction 

609: using lattice NRQCD. 

610: 

611: 

612: \begin{figure}[th]

613: 

614: \epsfxsize=10cm\epsfbox{ch3-pot1575.ps}

615: %\psfig{file=ch3-pot1575.ps,height=7cm,width=9cm}

616: %\vspace{-0.5cm}

617:  \caption{The potential energy for quenched and 2 flavours of sea quark

618: for the ground state and first excited gluonic

619: state~{\protect\cite{sesam}}.

620:  }

621:  \label{ex.balif}

622: \end{figure} 

623: 

624: 

625:  

626:  Confirmation of the ordering of the spin exotic states also comes from

627:  lattice studies with propagating quarks~\cite{livhyb,milc,sesamhyb}

628: which  are able to measure masses for all 8 states. We  discuss that

629: evidence in more detail below.

630: 

631:  Because of the similarity of the lightest hybrid wavefunction with 

632: that of the 2S state (which has $L=1$), it is convenient to 

633: quote mass differences between these states.  

634: Within the quenched approximation,  the lattice evidence  for

635: $b\bar{b}$ quarks points to a  lightest hybrid spin exotic with

636: $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ at an energy given by $(m_H-m_{2S})r_0$ =1.8 (static

637: potential~\cite{pm}); 1.9 (static potential~\cite{jkm},

638: NRQCD~\cite{cppacs}); 2.0 (NRQCD~\cite{jkm}). These results can be

639: summarised as       $(m_H-m_{2S})r_0=1.9 \pm 0.1$. 

640:  Using the experimental mass of the $\Upsilon(2S)$, this implies that

641: the lightest spin exotic  hybrid is at $m_H=10.73(7)$ GeV including a

642: 10\% scale error.  Above this energy there will be many more hybrid 

643: states, many of which will be spin exotic.

644: 

645:  The results from a study  with $N_f=2$ flavours of sea-quarks show very

646: little change in the static potential (see  fig.~\ref{ex.balif}) and

647: relatively little change in NRQCD determinations~\cite{cppacs} of mass

648: ratios such  as $(m_H-m_{2S})/(m_{1P}-m_{1S})$.

649:  Expressed in terms of $r_0$  (using $r_0=1.18/\sqrt{\sigma}$) this gives

650: $(m_H-m_{2S})r_0=2.4(2)$, however.  This is significantly larger than

651: the quenched result and, using the $1P-1S$  mass difference to set the

652: scale, yields a prediction~\cite{cppacs} for the lightest hybrid mass  of

653: 11.02(18) GeV. 

654: 

655: 

656: 

657: 

658: 

659: \subsection{Hybrid meson decays}

660:  \label{ex.sect3.2}

661: 

662:  Within this static quark framework, one can explore the decay

663: mechanisms.  One special feature is that the symmetries of the quark and

664: colour fields about the static quarks must be preserved exactly in

665: decay.  This has the consequence that the decay from a $\Pi_u$ hybrid

666: state to the open-$b$ mesons ($B \bar{B},\   B^* \bar{B},\  B

667: \bar{B^*},\ B^* \bar{B^*}$) will be forbidden~\cite{hdecay} if the 

668: light quarks in the $B$ and $B^*$ mesons are in an S-wave relative to

669: the heavy quark (since the final state will have the light quarks in

670: either a triplet  with the wrong $CP$ or a singlet with the wrong $J_z$

671: where $z$ is the interquark axis). The decay to $B^{**}$-mesons with

672: light quarks in a P-wave is allowed by symmetry but not energetically. 

673: 

674:   

675: The only allowed decays are when the hybrid state de-exites to a 

676: non-hybrid state with the emission of a light quark-antiquark pair.

677: Since the  $\Pi_u$ hybrid state has the heavy quark-antiquark in a

678: triplet P-wave state,  the resulting non-hybrid state must also  be in a

679: triplet P-wave since the heavy  quarks do not change their state in the

680: limit of very heavy quarks. Thus the decay for $b$ quarks will be  to

681: $\chi_b +M$ where $M$ is  a light quark-antiquark meson in a flavour

682: singlet. This proceeds by a disconnected  light quark diagram and it

683: would be expected~\cite{vall} that the scalar or pseudoscalar meson 

684: channels are the most important (ie they have the largest relative

685: OZI-rule  violating contributions).  Lattice estimates~\cite{hdecay} of

686: these  transitions have been made and the dominant mode (with a width of

687: around 100 MeV) is found to  be with $M$ as a scalar meson, namely $H

688: \to \chi_b + f_0$.

689: 

690: 

691: 

692:  These estimates are in the static quark limit, in which the spin-exotic

693: and non spin-exotic hybrid  mesons are degenerate. For the latter,

694: however,  the interpretation of any observed states is less clear cut,

695: since they  could be conventional quark antiquark states. Moreover, the

696: non spin-exotic  hybrid mesons can mix directly (ie without emission of

697: any meson $M$) with conventional quark antiquark states once  one takes

698: into account corrections (of order $1/M_Q$) to the static approximation 

699: applicable for  heavy quarks with physical masses. 

700: 

701:  It is encouraging that the decay width comes out as relatively 

702: small, so that the  spin-exotic hybrid states should show up 

703: experimentally as sufficiently narrow resonances to be detectable.

704:  This decay analysis does not take into account heavy quark motion or

705: spin-flip  and these effects will be significantly more important for

706: charm quarks than for $b$-quarks. 

707: 

708: 

709: \subsection{Light quark hybrid mesons}

710:  \label{ex.sect3.3}

711: 

712:  I now  focus on lattice results for hybrid mesons made from light

713: quarks using fully relativistic propagating quarks.  There will be no

714: mixing with $q \bar{q}$ mesons for  spin-exotic hybrid mesons  and these

715: are of special interest. The first study of this area was by the  UKQCD

716: Collaboration~\cite{livhyb} who used operators motivated by the  heavy

717: quark studies referred to above to study all 8 $J^{PC}$ values coming

718: from $L^{PC}=1^{+-}$ and $1^{-+}$ excitations. The  resulting mass

719: spectrum  gives the $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ state as the lightest spin-exotic

720: state. Taking account of the systematic scale errors in the lattice

721: determination, a  mass of 2000(200) MeV is quoted for this hybrid meson

722: with $s \bar{s}$ light quarks. Although not directly measured, the

723: corresponding light quark hybrid meson would be expected to be around

724: 120 MeV lighter. 

725: 

726: 

727: 

728: A second lattice group has also evaluated hybrid meson spectra with

729: propagating quarks  from quenched lattices. They obtain~\cite{milc}

730: masses of the $1^{-+}$ state with statistical and various different

731: systematic errors of  1970(90)(300)~MeV,  2170(80)(100)(100)~MeV and

732: 4390(80)(200)~MeV for $n \bar{n}$,  $s \bar{s}$ and $c \bar{c}$ quarks

733: respectively. For the  $0^{+-}$ spin-exotic state they have a noisier

734: signal but evidence that it is heavier. They also explore mixing matrix

735: elements between spin-exotic hybrid  states and 4 quark operators.

736: 

737: 

738: 

739:  The first analysis~\cite{sesamhyb} to determine the hybrid meson

740: spectrum using  full QCD used Wilson quarks. The sea quarks used had

741: several different masses and an extrapolation  was made to the limit of

742: physical sea quark masses, yielding a mass of 1.9(2) GeV for the

743: lightest  spin-exotic hybrid meson, which again was found to be the

744: $1^{-+}$. In principle this  calculation should take account of sea

745: quark effects such as the mixing  between such a hybrid meson and $q

746: \bar{q} q \bar{q}$ states such as $\eta \pi$, although it is possible

747: that the sea quark  masses used are not light enough to explore these

748: features.

749: 

750:  A  recent dynamical quark study from 2+1 flavours of improved staggered

751: quarks has also produced results~\cite{milc2}. They also compare their

752: results with quenched calculations and find  no significant difference,

753: except that the ambiguity in fixing the lattice  energy scale is better

754: controlled in the dynamical simulation since different reference

755: observables are closer to experiment. Their summary result for the

756: $1^{-+}$ hybrid with strange quarks is  $2100 \pm 120$ MeV, in agreement

757: with earlier results. They note that the  energies of  two-meson states

758: (such as $\pi + b_1$ or $K + K(1^{+})$ ) with the hybrid  meson quantum

759: numbers are close to the energies they obtain. This suggests that  these

760: two-particle states, which are allowed to mix in a dynamical quark

761: treatment, may be  influencing the masses determined. A study of hybrid

762: meson transitions to two particle states is needed  to illuminate this

763: area, using techniques such as those used for heavy quark hybrid

764: decay~\cite{hdecay}  and  decays of light quark  vector 

765: mesons~\cite{rhodecay}.

766: 

767: 

768: 

769: 

770: 

771: The lattice calculations~\cite{livhyb,milc,sesamhyb,milc2,ml} of the

772: light hybrid spectrum are  in good agreement with each other. They imply

773: that the natural energy  range for spin-exotic hybrid mesons is around

774: 1.9 GeV. The $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$  state is found to be lightest. It is not

775: easy to reconcile these lattice results  with experimental

776: indications~\cite{expt} for resonances at 1.4 GeV and 1.6 GeV,

777: especially the  lower mass value.  Mixing  with  $q \bar{q} q \bar{q}$

778: states such as $\eta \pi$ is not included for realistic quark masses in

779: the  lattice calculations. Such effects of pion loops (both real and

780: virtual) have been estimated  in chiral perturbation theory based

781: models~\cite{aa} and they could potentially reconcile some of the

782: discrepancy between lattice mass estimates (with light quarks which are

783: too heavy)  and those from experiment. This can be interpreted,

784: dependent on one's viewpoint,  as either that the lattice calculations 

785: are incomplete or as an indication that the experimental states may have

786: an  important meson-meson component in them. 

787: 

788: 

789:  The light quark technique of using relativistic propagating quarks 

790: can also be extended to charm quarks, as was note above~\cite{milc}.

791:  Another group has explored the charm quark hybrid states also using a

792: fully  relativistic action, albeit with an anisotropic  lattice

793: formulation~\cite{manke}. Their quenched study is in agreement with the

794: isotropic lattice result quoted above, finding  a mass value of 

795: 4.428(41) GeV in the continuum limit for the  $1^{-+}$ hybrid where the

796: scale is set by the $^1P_1 - 1S$ mass splitting (458.2 MeV

797: experimentally) in charmonium.  Their result is also consistent with

798: that from NRQCD methods~\cite{cppacs} applied to this case. These 

799: results all have the usual caveat that in quenched evaluations the

800: overall mass scale of the energy difference  from the $1S$ state at

801: 3.067 GeV is uncertain to  10\% or so (for example the

802: $(2S-1S)/(^1P_1-1S)$ is  found to be 15\% higher than experiment) which

803: is a major source of systematic error (approximately $\pm 140$ MeV). 

804: They  also produce estimates for other charmonium spin-exotic states: 

805: $0^{+-}$ at 4.70(17) GeV and $2^{+-}$ at 4.89(9) GeV. The $0^{--}$ state

806: is not resolved.

807: 

808: Thus  masses near 4.4GeV  are found for the  charmonium $1^{-+}$ state

809: using relativistic quarks. The non-relativistic approach using  NRQCD is

810: expected to have big systematic errors for quarks as light as charm, but

811: results~\cite{cppacs} do agree with this value.

812:  The heavy quark effective theory approach has a leading term which

813: corresponds to a static heavy quark,  resulting in an estimate~\cite{pm}

814: of  the spin-exotic charm  state mass of 4.0 GeV.  Here again the 

815: systematic error is potentially large for charm quarks. 

816: 

817: 

818: 

819: 

820: \section{Hadronic molecules}

821:  \label{ex.sect4}

822: 

823:  By exotic state we mean any state which is not dominantly a $q \bar{q}$

824:  or $qqq$ state. For example, a state made from hadrons bound in a molecule 

825: would be exotic.  

826:  Examples of hadronic molecules have been known for a long time: the

827: deuteron  is a proton-neutron molecule for example. It is very weakly

828: bound (2 MeV)  and is quite extended. It is more efficiently described 

829: in terms to a neutron and a proton than as six quarks.

830: 

831:  The residual hadronic interaction, the force between two colour-singlet

832: hadrons, is much weaker than the colour force between quarks. Although

833: it is called a \lq strong interaction\rq, it is relatively weak. At

834: large  distance, it will be dominated by the exchange of the lightest

835: hadrons  allowed (typically one or two pions). For example, the scale of

836: nuclear binding is around 8 MeV whereas the  gluonic forces binding

837: three quarks to make a nucleon contribute most of its  mass of 938 MeV.

838: For this reason lattice methods need to be developed  specially to

839: tackle this problem. Basically, one is interested in binding energies, 

840: so it is the energy difference between the two hadrons and the hadronic

841: molecule that is of interest.  This difference can sometimes  be

842: determined better than the total energy itself. Even so, the detailed

843: dynamics of such molecular states will depend  on the long range forces

844: (typically one or two pion exchange) and this will be  modified

845: considerably in lattice studies with light quark masses which are too

846: heavy (typically  down to 50\% of the strange quark mass only). So only

847: qualitative input  can be obtained from the lattice, but this can still

848: be used to validate   models.

849: 

850: 

851:  Because of the small  binding energy and the dominance of pion exchange

852: in the binding, it is not feasible  to obtain the deuteron binding

853: direct from QCD using lattice methods at present. 

854:   There has been speculation that other di-baryon systems might be more

855: strongly bound: the  H dibaryon (a $\Lambda \Lambda$ state) being the

856: best known. If it were strongly bound then it might be stable to weak

857: decay which might have  astrophysical consequences. The current status

858: of lattice studies~\cite{hdibaryon} is that finite box size effects are

859: large but there is no convincing lattice evidence that this state is

860: bound. At the largest volumes studied, with $L \approx 4$fm,  in

861: quenched simulations  the ratio $(m_H /2 m_{\Lambda}) -1$ is found to be

862: positive  and in the range 5 to 15 \%.

863: 

864: 

865: 

866:  Other molecular states involving two hadrons have been conjectured.

867: Several  meson resonances are known which are closely connected with

868: nearby thresholds:  the $\Lambda(1405)$ which is just below the

869: $\bar{K}N$ threshold and  the $a_0(980)$ and $f_0(980)$  which are close

870: to the $K \bar{K}$ threshold. Another state close to a threshold is the 

871: $N(1535)$ which is just above the $\eta N$ threshold.  Again lattice

872: studies are not able to shed very much light directly on these states

873: since the  quark masses used in the lattice studies are unphysical.

874: However, if they are not produced in a lattice study which explores $q

875: \bar{q}$  and $qqq$ states, this may help to support the conclusion that

876: they  are primarily molecular in structure.

877: 

878: 

879:  One case which is relatively easy to study is the $BB$ system,

880: idealised as two  static quarks and two light quarks. Then a potential

881: as a function of the separation  $R$ between the static quarks can be

882: determined.  Because the static quark spin is irrelevant, the states can

883: be classified by the light quark spin and  isospin.  Lattice

884: results~\cite{cmpp}  (using a light quark mass close to strange) have

885: been obtained for the potential energy for $I_q=0,1$ and $S_q=0,1$. For

886: very  heavy quarks, a potential below $2M_B$  will imply binding of the

887: ${BB}$ molecules with these quantum numbers and $L=0$. For the

888: physically relevant case  of $b$ quarks of around 5 GeV, the kinetic

889: energy will not be negligible and the binding energy of the ${ BB}$

890: molecular states is less  clear cut. One way to estimate the kinetic

891: energy for the ${ BB}$ case with reduced mass circa 2.5 GeV is to use

892: analytic approximations to the  potentials found. For example the

893: $I_q,S_q$=(0,0) case (see fig.~\ref{ex.bb00}) shows a deep  binding at

894: $R=0$ which  can be approximated as a Coulomb potential of $-0.1/R$ in

895: GeV units. This will give a di-meson binding energy of only 10 MeV.  For

896: the other interesting case shown in fig.~\ref{ex.bb01},

897: $(I_q,S_q)$=(0,1), a  harmonic oscillator potential in the radial

898: coordinate of form $-0.04[ 1- (r-3)^2/4]$ in GeV units leads to a

899: kinetic energy  which completely cancels the potential energy minimum,

900: leaving zero  binding. This harmonic oscillator approximation lies above

901: the estimate of  the potential, so again we expect weak binding of the

902: di-meson system.

903: 

904: \begin{figure}[bt] 

905: \vspace{-2.0cm}  % was -4

906: %\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{  %    was 0.75

907: \epsfxsize=10cm\epsfbox{ch3-bb400.ps}

908: %  \includegraphics{ch3-bb400.ps}

909: 

910:  \caption{ The binding energy~{\protect\cite{cmpp}} between two

911: heavy-light mesons (with static heavy quarks and light quarks of mass

912: corresponding to strange) at separation $R$ (in units of  $r_0 \approx

913: 0.5$ fm) with the two light quarks having  I=0 and S=0. 

914:    }

915:  \label{ex.bb00}

916: \end{figure}

917: 

918: \begin{figure}[bt] 

919: \vspace{-2.0cm}  % was -4

920: %\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{  %    was 0.75

921: \epsfxsize=10cm\epsfbox{ch3-bb401.ps}

922: %  \includegraphics{ch3-bb401.ps}

923: 

924:  \caption{ The binding energy~{\protect\cite{cmpp}} between two

925: heavy-light mesons (with static heavy quarks and light quarks of mass

926: corresponding to strange) at separation $R$ (in units of  $r_0 \approx

927: 0.5$ fm) with the two light quarks having  I=0 and S=1. 

928:    }

929:  \label{ex.bb01}

930: \end{figure}

931: 

932: 

933: 

934:  Because of these very small values for the di-meson binding energies, 

935: one needs to retain corrections to the heavy quark approximation to 

936: make more definite predictions, since these corrections are known to 

937: be of magnitude 46 MeV from the $B$, $B^*$ splitting. It will also be 

938: necessary to extrapolate the  light quark mass from strange to 

939: the lighter $u,\ d$ values to make more definite predictions 

940: about the binding of $BB$ molecules.

941: 

942: Models for the binding of two $B$ mesons involve, as in the case of the

943: deuteron,  pion exchange. The lattice study~\cite{cmpp} is able to make

944: a quantitative comparison of lattice pion  exchange with the data

945: described above using lattice determinations of  the $B^{*}B\pi$

946: coupling~\cite{bbpi} and excellent agreement is obtained at larger $R$ 

947: values as shown in fig.~\ref{ex.pirho}, as expected.

948: 

949: \begin{figure}[bt] 

950: \vspace{-2.0cm}  % was -4

951: %\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{  %    was 0.75

952: \epsfxsize=9cm\epsfbox{ch3-pirho.ps}

953: %  \includegraphics{ch3-pirho.ps}

954: 

955:  \caption{ The contribution~{\protect\cite{cmpp}}  to the binding energy

956: for the spin and isospin combinations  corresponding to $\pi$ exchange

957: (octagons) and $\rho$ exchange (fancy squares). The solid line gives the

958: $\pi$ exchange contribution which is normalised by the  $B^{*} B \pi$

959: coupling. The $\rho$ exchange prediction has a free normalisation  and

960: is shown by the dash-dotted line. The results are plotted versus

961: interquark separation R (in units of  $a \approx 0.17$ fm).

962:    }

963:  \label{ex.pirho}

964: \end{figure}

965: 

966: 

967: 

968: \section{Conclusions and Outlook}

969:  \label{ex.sect5}

970: 

971:  Quenched lattice QCD is well understood and accurate predictions in the

972: continuum limit  are increasingly becoming available. The lightest

973: glueball  is scalar with mass  $m(0^{++})=1611(30)(160)$ MeV where the

974: second error is an overall scale error. The excited glueball spectrum is

975: known too. The quenched approximation  also gives information on

976: quark-antiquark scalar mesons and their mixing with glueballs. This

977: determination of the mixing in the quenched approximation  also sheds

978: light on results for the  spectrum directly  in full QCD where the

979: mixing will be enabled. In full QCD, the scalar meson masses are

980: determined directly but there is no concept of a glueball as such, much

981: as  in the experimental case. Additional work is need to reduce the

982: lattice spacing, or use improved actions,  to explore the continuum

983: limit for scalar mesons in full QCD. 

984:   There is also some lattice information  on the hadronic decay 

985: amplitudes of glueballs and this is an area where further study may be

986: anticipated. 

987: 

988: 

989: 

990: 

991:  For hybrid mesons, there will be no mixing with $q \bar{q}$ for 

992: spin-exotic states and these are the most useful predictions. The

993: $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ state is expected in the range 10.7 to 11.0 GeV for $b$ quarks,

994:  2.0(2) GeV for $s$ quarks and 1.9(2) GeV 

995: for $u,\ d$ quarks. Mixing of spin-exotic hybrids with

996: $q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ or equivalently with meson-meson  is  allowed and

997: will modify the  predictions from the quenched approximation.

998:  A first lattice study has been made of hybrid meson decays. For heavy 

999: quarks, the dominant mode is string de-excitation to $\chi + f_0$ where

1000: $f_0$ is  a flavour singlet scalar meson (or possibly two pions in this

1001: state). The magnitude of the decay rate is found to be of order 100 MeV, 

1002: so this decay mode should  still leave a detectably narrow resonance to 

1003: be observed. 

1004: 

1005:  The topic of possible multi-quark bound states is difficult because the

1006:  scale of the expected binding energies is a few MeV and this small

1007: value is  a challenge  for lattice studies.  As an example, some

1008: evidence was presented  for a  possible $B_s B_s$ molecular state.

1009: 

1010: 

1011: 

1012: 

1013: 

1014: %\section*{Acknowledgements}

1015: %\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Acknowledgements}

1016: 

1017: 

1018: 

1019: 

1020: \begin{thebibliography}{000}

1021: 

1022: \bibitem{sommer}R. Sommer,  {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B411}, 839 (1994).

1023: 

1024: %glueball

1025: 

1026: \bibitem{DForc} P. De Forcrand et al., {\em Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B152}, 

1027: 107 (1985).

1028: 

1029: \bibitem{MTgl} C. Michael and M. Teper, {\em Nucl.\ Phys.} {\bf B314},

1030: 347 (1989). 

1031: 

1032: \bibitem{ukqcd}  UKQCD collaboration, G. Bali, et al.,

1033: {\em Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B309}, 378 (1993). 

1034: 

1035: \bibitem{gf11} H. Chen et al.,

1036: {\em Nucl.\ Phys. B (Proc.\ Suppl.)} {\bf 34}, 357 (1994); 

1037: A. Vaccarino and D. Weingarten, \Journal{\PRD}{60}{1999}{114501}.

1038: 

1039:  \bibitem{sesam} SESAM and T{$\chi$}L Collaboration, 

1040:  G. Bali et al., {\em Nucl.\ Phys. B (Proc.\ Suppl.)} {\bf 63} (1998)

1041: 209; \Journal{Phys. Rev. }{D62}{2000}{054503}

1042: 

1043: 

1044:  \bibitem{cmcm176}   C. McNeile and C. Michael, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D63},

1045:  114503 (2001).

1046: 

1047:  \bibitem{ht} UKQCD Collaboration, A. Hart and M. Teper, {\em Phys. Rev.}

1048:  {\bf D65},  034502 (2002).

1049: 

1050:  \bibitem{cmcm202} UKQCD collaboration; A. Hart,  C. McNeile and C.

1051: Michael,hep-lat/0209063.

1052: 

1053: 

1054: \bibitem{mpglue} C. Morningstar and M. Peardon, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf

1055: D56}, 4043 (1997); {\em ibid.}, {\bf D60}, 034509 (1999) .

1056: 

1057: \bibitem{glue:bs} P. de Forcrand and  K.-F. Liu 

1058: {\em  Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 69}, 245 (1992).

1059: 

1060: 

1061: \bibitem{tickle}   C. Michael and G. A. Tickle, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf

1062: B333}, 593 (1990)

1063: 

1064: \bibitem{fm}   UKQCD Collaboration, M Foster and C. Michael,

1065: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59} 094509 (1999) 

1066: 

1067: \bibitem{jorysz}I.H. Jorysz and C. Michael, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf

1068: B302}, 448   (1988) 

1069: 

1070: 

1071: 

1072: \bibitem{weinss} W. Lee and D. Weingarten, {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.

1073: Suppl)} {\bf 53}, 236(1997); {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.  

1074: Suppl)} {\bf 73}, 249 (1999).

1075: 

1076: \bibitem{weinssg}  W. Lee and D. Weingarten, {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.

1077: Suppl)} {\bf 63},  194 (1998);  hep-lat/9805029;

1078: \Journal{\PRD}{61}{2000}{014015}.

1079: 

1080:    \bibitem{gdecay} J. Sexton,  A.  Vaccarino  and D.  Weingarten,

1081: {\em Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.)} {\bf 42},  279 (1995);

1082:  {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 75} 4563 (1995) 

1083:     

1084: 

1085:  \bibitem{fnal} W. Bardeen et al., {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D65}, 014509  (2002).

1086: 

1087: \bibitem{cmdecay} C. Michael, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B327},

1088:          517 (1989).

1089: 

1090:  \bibitem{pdg} K. Hagiwara et al., {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 66}, 010001 (2002).

1091: 

1092:  \bibitem{mixing} F. Close and A. Kirk, {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C21}

1093: 531 (2001)

1094: 

1095: 

1096:  \bibitem{ncgb} B. Lucini and M. Teper,  {\em JHEP} {\bf 06}, 050  (2001). 

1097: 

1098:  \bibitem{brower} R. C. Brower, S. D. Mathur and C.-I. Tan, 

1099: {\em Nucl. Phys. } {\bf B587}, 249 (2000).

1100: 

1101: 

1102: \bibitem{milc_a0} C. W. Bernard et al., (MILC Collaboration),

1103: {\em Phys. Rev. } {\bf D64}, 054506 (2001).

1104: 

1105: 

1106: %hybrid

1107: 

1108: 

1109: 

1110: \bibitem{liv}  L.A. Griffiths, C. Michael and  P.E.L. Rakow,

1111: {\em  Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B129},  351 (1983).

1112: 

1113: \bibitem{phm} S. Perantonis, A. Huntley  and C. Michael, {\em Nucl.\ Phys.}

1114: {\bf B326}, 544 (1989).

1115: 

1116:  \bibitem{pm} S. Perantonis and C. Michael, {\em Nucl.\ Phys.} {\bf B347}, 854

1117: (1990).

1118: 

1119: \bibitem{jkm} K. Juge , J. Kuti and C. Morningstar,  \Journal{Phys. Rev.

1120: Lett.}{82}{4400}{1999}; {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl)} {\bf 83},

1121: 304  (2000); hep-lat/0207004.

1122: 

1123: \bibitem{cppacs}CP-PACS Collaboration, T. Manke et al., 

1124: \Journal{Phys. Rev. Lett.}{82}{1999}{4396}; 

1125: \Journal{Phys. Rev. }{D64}{2001}{097505}; 

1126: 

1127:      

1128: 

1129: \bibitem{livhyb} UKQCD Collaboration,

1130:   P. Lacock, C. Michael, P. Boyle  and P. Rowland, 

1131: {\em Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D54},  6997 (1996); 

1132: {\em Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B401},  308 (1997).

1133: 

1134: 

1135: \bibitem{milc} C. Bernard et al., {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D56},  7039 (1997);

1136: {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf 73}, 264 (1999).

1137: 

1138: \bibitem{milc2} C. Bernard et al.,

1139: {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)} (in press), hep-lat/0209097; 

1140: C. Bernard et al., hep-lat/0301024.

1141: 

1142: \bibitem{manke} X. Liao and T. Manke, hep-lat/0210030.

1143: 

1144: \bibitem{sesamhyb}  P. Lacock and K. Schilling,

1145: {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)}

1146: {\bf  73},  261 (1999).

1147: 

1148: \bibitem{ml} Z.H. Mei and X.Q. Luo, hep-lat/0206012

1149: 

1150: \bibitem{hyb-mix} T. Burch, K. Originos and D. Toussaint, {\em Phys. Rev.} 

1151: {\bf D64}, 074505 (2001).

1152: 

1153: \bibitem{expt}  D. Thompson et al., \Journal{Phys. Rev. Lett.}{

1154: 79}{1997} {1630}; S. U. Chung et al., \Journal{Phys. Rev.

1155: }{D60}{1999}{092001}; D. Adams et al., \Journal{Phys. Rev.

1156: Lett.}{81}{1998}{5760}; E. I. Ivanov et al., \Journal{Phys. Rev.

1157: Lett.}{86}{2001}{3977}

1158: 

1159: \bibitem{aa} A. W. Thomas and A. P. Szczepaniak,

1160: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B526}, 72 (2002).

1161: 

1162: \bibitem{hf8}

1163:  C. Michael,  Proc.  Heavy

1164:  Flavours 8, Southampton, (ed. P. Dauncey and C. Sachrajda), JHEP,

1165:  PRHEP-hf8/001, 1-10 (2000);  hep-ph/9911219.

1166: 

1167:  \bibitem{vall} 

1168:    UKQCD Collaboration, C. McNeile, C. Michael and K.J. Sharkey,

1169: {\em Phys. Rev.}  \textbf{D65},014508  (2002) .

1170: 

1171: 

1172: \bibitem{hdecay} UKQCD Collaboration, C. McNeile, C. Michael and P. Pennanen,

1173: {\em  Phys. Rev.} {\bf D65},  094505 (2002). 

1174: 

1175:  \bibitem{rhodecay} UKQCD Collaboration,  C. McNeile and C. Michael, 

1176: hep-lat/0212020.

1177: 

1178: % meson meson

1179: 

1180: %\bibitem{cmadj}    C. Michael,   {\em   Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)}

1181: %{\bf 6}, 417 (1992).

1182: 

1183:  \bibitem{hdibaryon} A. Pochinsky, J.W. Negele and B. Scarlet,

1184: {\em Nucl. Phys.B (Proc. Suppl)} {\bf 73}, 255 (1999);

1185:        I. Wetzorke, F. Karsch and E. Laermann, {\em Nucl. Phys. (Proc.

1186: Suppl.)}  {\bf 83} 218 (2000);

1187:   I. Wetzorke and F. Karsch, hep-lat/0208029

1188: 

1189: \bibitem{cmpp} C. Michael and P. Pennanen, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D60},

1190: 054012 (1999).

1191: 

1192: 

1193: \bibitem{bbpi}  UKQCD Collaboration, G. M. de Divitiis et al.,

1194: {\em JHEP} {\bf 10},  010 (1998).

1195:  

1196: 

1197: \end{thebibliography}

1198: 

1199: 

1200: 

1201: \end{document}

1202: 

1203: #!/bin/csh -f

1204: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script  uufiles

1205: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html

1206: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:

1207: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., exoticfigs.uu

1208: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)

1209: # then say        csh exoticfigs.uu

1210: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):

1211: #    uudecode exoticfigs.uu ;   uncompress exoticfigs.tar.Z ;

1212: #    tar -xvf exoticfigs.tar

1213: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the

1214: # filename in "begin" line below to exoticfigs.tar_Z , then execute

1215: #    uudecode exoticfigs.uu

1216: #    compress -d exoticfigs.tar_Z

1217: #    tar -xvf exoticfigs.tar

1218: #

1219: uudecode $0

1220: chmod 644 exoticfigs.tar.Z

1221: zcat exoticfigs.tar.Z | tar -xvf -

1222: rm $0 exoticfigs.tar.Z

1223: exit

1224: 

1225: