1: \documentclass[prd,aps,showpacs,superscriptaddress,twocolumn]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[prd,aps,showpacs,twocolumn]{revtex4}
3:
4: %% revised 21-6-06
5:
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{
11: Properties of light scalar mesons from lattice QCD.}
12: % \hfill \parbox{40mm}{LTH 694}}\\
13:
14:
15: \author{C. \surname{McNeile}}
16: \author{C. \surname{Michael}}
17:
18:
19: \affiliation{Theoretical Physics Division, Dept. Math. Sci., University
20: of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZL, UK.}
21:
22:
23: \collaboration{UKQCD Collaboration}
24: \noaffiliation
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: Lattice QCD with $N_f=2$ flavours of sea quark is used to explore the
28: spectrum and decay of scalar mesons. We are able to determine the
29: $b_1$ - $a_0$ mass difference and this leads to the conclusion
30: that the lightest non-singlet scalar meson ($a_0$) has a mass of
31: 1.01(4) GeV. We determine from the lattice the coupling strength to KK
32: and $\pi \eta$. We compute the leptonic decay constant of the lightest
33: non-singlet scalar meson.
34: We discuss the impact of these lattice results on the interpretation of
35: the $a_0(980)$ state. We also discuss $K^*_0$ states.
36: \end{abstract}
37:
38: \pacs{12.38.Gc, 14.40.Cs, 13.25.-k}
39:
40: \maketitle
41:
42:
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45:
46: The scalar mesons known experimentally do not fit into a tidy pattern,
47: as found for vector or axial mesons, for example. Because the scalar
48: mesons have S-wave decays to light two-body states (two pseudoscalar
49: mesons), then the impact of these two-body channels on the scalar meson
50: can be sizeable. Thus the scalar mesons may have $\bar{q}\bar{q}qq$ as
51: well as $\bar{q}q$ components. For example, there are two $a_0$
52: mesons, $a_0(980)$ and $a_0(1450)$, known~\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}. The
53: $a_0(980)$ meson is closely associated with the $\bar{K}K$ threshold
54: and it has been suggested that this is a molecular state. This is can
55: be explored using lattice techniques. A further complication is that
56: the flavour singlet scalar mesons can mix with scalar glueballs,
57: although here we restrict our investigation to the flavour non-singlet
58: scalar mesons from lattice QCD.
59:
60:
61: There has been a long history of studying the scalar non-singlet mesons
62: on the lattice. These states tend to have a poorer signal to noise ratio
63: than the S-wave mesons~\cite{DeGrand:1992yx} such as the $\rho$ and
64: $\pi$, hence are less commonly studied. Much of the early literature on
65: light P-wave mesons focussed on designing good interpolating operators to
66: create the mesons~\cite{DeGrand:1992yx,Lacock:1996vy}.
67:
68: The quenched studies of the $a_0$ were complicated by the discovery of
69: a ghost state that made the correlator for the $a_0$ particle, which
70: should be positive definite in a unitary quantum field theory, go
71: negative~\cite{Bardeen:2001jm}. If this effect was not taken into
72: account then the chiral extrapolation of correlators was unreliable.
73: Modern studies of this state such as those by Burch et
74: al.~\cite{Burch:2006dg} correct for the effect of the missing
75: contribution to the $0^{++}$ correlator from the $\eta'$ meson.
76: Prelovsek~\cite{Prelovsek:2005rf} has also studied the ghost state in
77: the $a_0$ correlator using 2+1 dynamical staggered fermions and mixed
78: (chiral valence and staggered sea) fermions. In both cases, which are
79: essentially partially quenched, deviant features are discovered.
80:
81:
82:
83: The non-singlet scalar mass is an input into the study of mixing with
84: glueballs in the singlet sector by Weingarten and
85: Lee~\cite{Lee:1999kv}. The ghost state was not taken into account and
86: this led to problems with the chiral extrapolation of the non-singlet
87: $0^{++}$ meson masses. This mixing has also been
88: discussed~\cite{McNeile:2000xx,Hart:2002sp} using unquenched lattices
89: which avoids this problem.
90:
91: Alford and Jaffe~\cite{Alford:2000mm} used quenched QCD with
92: $\overline{q}^2 q^2$ operators relevant to $0^{++}$ mesons. Their study
93: claimed to see evidence for bound states in the $\overline{q}^2 q^2$
94: channel relevant to $0^{++}$ states. The work of Alford and
95: Jaffe~\cite{Alford:2000mm} can be criticised for not taking into account
96: the quenched ghost in the $a_0$ correlator. Only a subset of the
97: correlators required for the singlet channel were computed. This is,
98: perhaps, consistent in quenched QCD but clearly important physics is
99: omitted.
100:
101: The scalar collaboration are starting to use lattice QCD
102: techniques to study the $\kappa$ particle~\cite{Kunihiro:2005vw}.
103:
104: %%
105: %% partially quenched
106: %%
107: Prelovsek et al.~\cite{Prelovsek:2004jp} extended the work of Bardeen
108: et al.~\cite{Bardeen:2001jm} on the effect of the ghost state in the
109: $a_0$ channel to the partially quenched theory. By restricting lattice
110: study to valence quarks heavier than the sea-quarks, Hart et
111: al.~\cite{Hart:2002sp} were able to extrapolate to light quarks with no
112: ghost contributions, obtaining an estimate for the $a_0$ mass of
113: 1.0(2) GeV.
114:
115:
116:
117:
118: In table~\ref{tab:a0quenched} we collect together some recent numbers
119: for the mass of the $a_0$ mass from some modern lattice calculations
120: that take into account the ghost term. None of the calculations in
121: table~\ref{tab:a0quenched} had complete control over all systematic
122: errors, such as finite size effects or the continuum limit, even within
123: quenched QCD. The results for the lightest $0^{++}$ meson are mostly
124: around 1.5 GeV. As we note above, the $a_0$ decays via the strong
125: interaction, so a quenched QCD calculation may give a poor estimate of
126: the particle mass.
127:
128:
129: \begin{table}[tb]
130: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
131: Group & Method & $m_{a_0}$ GeV \\ \hline
132: Bardeen at al.~\cite{Bardeen:2001jm} & quenched & $1.34(9)$ \\
133: Hart et al.~\cite{Hart:2002sp} & $n_f=2$, partially quenched,
134: & $1.0(2)$ \\
135: Prelovsek et al.~\cite{Prelovsek:2004jp} & $n_f=2$, unquenched,
136: & $1.58(34)$ \\
137: Prelovsek et al.~\cite{Prelovsek:2004jp} & partially quenched
138: & $1.51(19)$ \\
139: Burch et al.~\cite{Burch:2006dg} & quenched & $\sim 1.45$ \\
140: \hline
141: \end{tabular}
142: %%% draper_magic \vsbtc
143: \caption{
144: %
145: Some results for the mass of the $a_0$ meson from quenched and
146: partially quenched QCD that include the effect of the ghost
147: state~\cite{Bardeen:2001jm}.
148: %
149: }
150: \label{tab:a0quenched}
151: \end{table}
152:
153:
154: %%
155: %%
156: %%
157: The MILC collaboration reported evidence for $a_0$ decay on the
158: lattice in an unquenched lattice QCD calculation with $2+1$ flavours of
159: improved staggered fermions with a lattice spacing of 0.12
160: fm~\cite{Bernard:2001av}. In MILC's first paper they found the
161: $a_{0}$ mass to be significantly lower than the mass of the $b_1$ and
162: $a_1$ mesons. This was different behaviour from the quenched study with
163: the same parameters.
164: MILC~\cite{Bernard:2001av} found that, for lighter quarks, the mass
165: of the $a_0$ meson was close to the sum of the $\pi$ and $\eta$ masses,
166: where the mass of the $\eta$ was estimated using the Gell-Mann-Okubo
167: formula.
168: As the MILC collaboration~\cite{Aubin:2004wf} ran unquenched
169: calculations with even lighter sea quarks they confirmed that the
170: lightest state in the $a_{0}$ channel lay below the $\pi\eta$
171: threshold. Using independent techniques on a subset of the
172: configurations from MILC, Gregory et al.~\cite{Gregory:2005yr} also
173: found that the lightest state in the $a_0$ channel was below the
174: $\pi\eta$ threshold. Prelovsek~\cite{Prelovsek:2005rf} has studied
175: $a_0$ decay using staggered chiral perturbation theory, concluding that
176: taste violations in the staggered fermion formalism allow a small
177: amplitude for the decay of the $a_0$ state to two pions. The decay $a_0
178: \rightarrow \pi \pi$ is forbidden in the real world because of $G$
179: parity.
180:
181:
182: Since the current state of lattice investigation of scalar mesons is
183: incomplete, more work is needed.
184: In order to make a start in establishing the nature of scalar mesons
185: from first principle in QCD, we address here the flavour non-singlet
186: scalar mesons. As is well known, lattice QCD in the quenched
187: approximation is not a consistent theory and this manifests itself as
188: ghost contributions to the scalar meson propagation - arising from the
189: spurious low-lying threshold in the $\pi \eta$ two-body channel.
190: We use here $N_f=2$ dynamical gauge configurations so that we have a
191: consistent field theory. The physical case, however, also has another
192: light quark (the $s$ quark) and has lighter $u$ and $d$ quarks than we
193: are able to use on a lattice. Thus some extrapolation will be needed to
194: obtain consequences for the physical spectrum.
195:
196: As we approach the limit of physical light quark masses, the scalar
197: mesons become unstable: they are resonances. On dynamical lattices
198: these decay channels are open. Thus we need to have methods to cope
199: with unstable particles on a lattice. The study of hadronic decays
200: from the lattice is not straightforward - see
201: ref.~\cite{Michael:2005kw}. It is possible, however, to evaluate the
202: appropriate hadronic matrix element from a lattice if the transition is
203: approximately on-shell. This allows us to estimate decay widths,
204: provided that the underlying coupling is relatively insensitive to
205: the quark masses.
206: We follow methods generically similar to those used by us to study
207: $\rho$ decay~\cite{McNeile:2002fh} and hybrid meson
208: decay~\cite{McNeile:2006bz}.
209:
210: As well as the hadronic decay, one can also define a {\em decay
211: constant} analogously to that defined for the weak decay of
212: pseudoscalar mesons. We discuss the relevance of this and the
213: determination from the lattice of the scalar decay constant.
214:
215:
216:
217:
218: \section{Spectrum}
219:
220: As a by-product of our study of hybrid mesons, we have accurate lattice
221: measurements of the $a_0$, $b_1$ and $a_1$ mesons from clover-improved
222: lattices with $N_f=2$ degenerate sea-quarks - see Table~\ref{tablat} and
223: Table~\ref{tablatp} for details. Each of these mesons is unstable and
224: in the $N_f=2$ world with two degenerate quarks they have two-body
225: decays to $\pi \eta_2$, $\pi \omega$ and $\pi \rho$ respectively. Here
226: $\eta_2$ is flavour singlet, $(\bar{u}u +\bar{d}d)/\sqrt{2}$, so it is
227: more like the $\eta'$ than the $\eta$ meson. Indeed
228: estimates~\cite{Allton:2004qq} of its mass from a mixture of lattice
229: results and experiment suggest that it is near 0.86 GeV for light
230: quarks of physical mass. Thus, for these light quarks with $N_f=2$, the
231: open decay channel is heavier for the $a_0$ meson than for the $a_1$ and
232: $b_1$ mesons. Hence, in the self-consistent world with $N_f=2$
233: degenerate light quarks, we do not expect the $a_0$ meson to have any
234: peculiar features compared to the other P-wave mesons.
235:
236: This is in contrast to {\em quenched} QCD where the flavour singlet
237: pseudoscalar has the same mass as the pion, but an anomalous coupling.
238: Moreover, quenched QCD allows a contribution (hairpin diagram) to the
239: $a_0$ correlator from this two-body channel which gives significant
240: unphysical effects.
241:
242:
243: The conventional way to extract the mass of a meson is to use lattice
244: simulations at successively smaller quark masses and to extrapolate
245: using an expression based on chiral perturbation theory. For dynamical
246: simulations, which are mandatory here, one has a very limited range of
247: quark mass available. Resorting to partially quenched methods to reach
248: lighter valence quarks is potentially dangerous, if the valence quarks
249: are lighter than the sea quarks. Indeed a study using partially
250: quenched methods on the U355 and U350 data sets has been
251: conducted~\cite{Hart:2002sp} and yielded an estimate of the $a_0$ mass
252: of 1.0(2) GeV. Here we explore a more reliable way to obtain the $a_0$
253: meson mass.
254:
255: Since the decay channels open to the P-wave mesons are quite similar, we
256: propose to focus on the mass differences between them since this will
257: reduce lattice artifacts.
258: The $a_1$ meson is very wide, experimentally, so that it is not a good
259: point of comparison with lattice results. The $b_1$ meson, however is
260: relatively narrow and should be well reproduced on a lattice. Indeed in
261: ref.~\cite{McNeile:2006bz}, we were able to measure from the lattice the
262: decay amplitude for the S-wave decay $b_1 \to \pi \omega$, obtaining
263: agreement with experiment.
264: For lattice U355, for example,the decay threshold is at 0.72(4) for
265: $a_0$ from $\pi \eta_2$ and at 0.883(8) for $b_1$ from $\pi \omega$, in
266: lattice units. These energy values are both above the mass values we
267: report in Table~\ref{tablatp}, so each state is stable on our lattice
268: and they are about equally below the lowest threshold.
269:
270: We show our results from two state fits to a $2\times3$ matrix of
271: correlators ($2\times2$ for U350 and C390) using $t$-range 3-12 (3-10
272: for C390 and C410) in Table~\ref{tablatp}. The methods used are
273: described in more detail in ref.~\cite{McNeile:2006bz}. We use local
274: and extended sources at the source (and two sizes of extension at the
275: sink in some cases). The excited mass values are in all cases
276: significantly higher (by over 50\%) than the ground state values
277: reported and do not correspond to any simple two-body level. Thus the
278: $\pi \eta_2$ threshold level at $aE=0.72$ for U355 does not feature
279: in the fit. As we shall see later, this is consistent with the
280: relatively weak transition amplitude on a lattice between two-body
281: states and the $a_0$.
282:
283: We find that the $a_0$ correlator can have big fluctuations which are
284: apparent at large $t$, most noticeably for U350 where the zero-momentum
285: effective mass decreases at large $t$. The origin of these fluctuations
286: is mixing between the $a_0$ and the pion induced by regions of
287: odd-parity in the vacuum - presumably associated with instantons.
288: See~\cite{Faccioli:2003qz} for a discussion of $a_0-\pi$ mixing in lattice
289: QCD and in the instanton liquid model. With sufficient statistics these
290: odd-parity fluctuations average to zero. Using stochastic methods
291: (all-to-all) helps to reduce these fluctuations
292: as we reported before~\cite{McNeile:2006bz}. Using non-zero momentum
293: can also act as a useful cross-check. This suggests that for U350
294: with zero momentum, we should use a $t$-range from 3-8 to reduce these
295: fluctuation effects and retain consistency with our results from
296: momentum $2 \pi n/L$ where $n=(1,0,0)$ and $(1,1,0)$. The value for U350
297: quoted in Table~\ref{tablatp} is from this analysis.
298:
299: For the $b_1$ meson, at non-zero momentum there can be mixing with the
300: $\rho$ meson (for some spin states). For the non-local (fuzzed)
301: operators there will also be an admixture of $L=2$ (from distortion
302: due to Lorentz boost) and possibly some mixing of opposite C (unless
303: the momentum phase factors are applied symmetrically to the fuzzed
304: operator).
305: For these reasons we rely on zero momentum for the $b_1$ meson.
306:
307: % see scmom.ps for mom=0,1,2 $a_0$ plots ( 355, 350, 410, 390 all 3-8 fits)
308: % see meff.ps for U350 comparison
309:
310: Since the $b_1$ meson has an unambiguous interpretation as
311: predominately a bound state of a quark and anti-quark, we show our
312: spectrum results for it versus quark mass in fig~\ref{fig:mb1}. Here we
313: see that our lattice results are quite consistent with a smooth
314: extrapolation to the experimental mass value for physical light quarks.
315: To have a precision determination of the mass would require a continuum
316: extrapolation as well as an extrpolation in quark mass and we do not
317: have data sufficient to undertake this combined extrapolation.
318:
319: Because of the difficulties in extrapolating to light quarks using
320: lattice results with a range of different lattice spacings, we focus on
321: mass differences. Here we concentrate on the difference $m(b_1)-m(a_0)$
322: which is plotted against the quark mass in fig.~\ref{fig:mba} using
323: $r_0$ determined on the lattices to create a dimensionless comparison.
324:
325:
326: \begin{table}
327:
328: \begin{tabular}{lllllll}
329:
330: Code & no. & $\kappa$ & $m(\pi)r_0$ & $r_0/a $ &
331: $am(\pi)$ & $am(\rho)$ \\
332: \hline
333:
334: C410 & 237 & 0.1410 & 1.29 & 3.01 & 0.427(1) & 0.734(4) \\ %r0=3.014
335: % CPPACS pub values pi rho, rounded
336:
337: C390 & 648 & 0.1390 & 1.93 & 2.65 & 0.729(1) & 0.969(2) \\
338: % CPPACS pub values pi rho r0
339:
340: U355 & 200 & 0.1355 & 1.47 & 5.04 & 0.292(2) & 0.491(7) \\
341:
342: U350 & 151 & 0.1350 & 1.93 & 4.75 & 0.405(5) & 0.579(8) \\
343:
344:
345: \end{tabular}
346:
347: \caption{Lattice gauge configurations U355 and U350 from
348: UKQCD~\cite{Allton:2001sk} and C390 and C410 from
349: CP-PACS~\cite{AliKhan:2001tx} are used, all having spatial extent L=16a.
350: These have $N_f=2$ flavours of sea quark and we use valence quarks of
351: the same mass as the sea quarks.
352: }
353: \label{tablat}
354: \end{table}
355:
356:
357: \begin{table}
358:
359: \begin{tabular}{llll}
360:
361: Code & $am(b_1)$& $am(a_1)$ & $am(a_0)$\\
362: \hline
363:
364: C410 & 1.17(3) & 1.15(2) & 1.03(4) \\ %r0=3.014
365: % Z 237 t3-10 1172(18,32) 1148(19,19) 1029(30,43)
366: % 1 source 490 F2 t3-10 1.246(43,56) 1.184(33,56) .90(24,33)
367: % [ a0 2-10: 1.103(71,168)]
368:
369: C390 & 1.48(4) & 1.39(5) & 1.33(8) \\
370: %3-10 1 source F2 block/4 r0=2.651(42)
371: % (2-10 fits OK too 150(2,2) 144(2,2) 136(3,3) )
372:
373: U355 & 0.77(2) & 0.72(2) & 0.64(4) \\
374: %r0=5.041 3-12 773(15,17), 721(13,10) , 637(24,37)
375:
376:
377: U350 & 0.87(2) & 0.88(2) & 0.75(3) \\ %r0=4.754 mq=3.707 3-12
378: %% 3-10 fit a0 70(4,5) 3.4/24-6 3-8 fit a0 0.75(3) b1 .88(1.4)
379:
380: \end{tabular}
381:
382: \caption{Results for P-wave mesons from the methods of
383: ref.~\cite{McNeile:2006bz} for U355 and C410 and from conventional
384: methods for U350 (with 4 time sources) and C390.
385: }
386: \label{tablatp}
387: \end{table}
388:
389:
390:
391: % \eta 0 .43 (fits .489(80) .432(40) 1358 paper 2-9 at 355)
392: % 1 .582 (.5 -> .636; fit .554(40) 1358 paper 2-9 at 355)
393:
394:
395:
396: \begin{figure}[t]
397: \centering
398: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth] {mb1.ps}
399: \caption{ Mass of the $b_1$ mesons (in
400: units of $r_0 \approx 0.5$fm) versus quark mass.
401: The strange quark mass corresponds to $(m(\pi)r_0)^2 \approx 3.4$.
402: } % r0=.53 fm ->2.69 /GeV eta_ss=.687 (+.008)
403: \label{fig:mb1}
404: \end{figure}
405:
406:
407:
408: \begin{figure}[t]
409: \centering
410: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth] {mba.ps}
411: \caption{ Mass difference of $b_1$ and $a_0$ mesons (in
412: units of $r_0 \approx 0.5$fm) versus quark mass.
413: %The strange quark mass corresponds to $(m(\pi)r_0)^2 \approx 3.4$.
414: } % r0=.53 fm ->2.69 /GeV eta_ss=.687 (+.008)
415: \label{fig:mba}
416: \end{figure}
417:
418:
419: The point in fig.~\ref{fig:mba} labelled $a_0(980)$ assumes that the
420: relevant $a_0$ meson is the lightest with mass 984.7 MeV. The next
421: heaviest with mass 1474 MeV is less well established and would
422: correspond to a point (-0.66) far below the $x$-axis.
423: %r0=2.69 /GeV r0=.5=> 2.53
424: Our lattice results for the mass difference show no significant
425: dependence on the quark mass, and averaging our lattice results gives an
426: estimate (using $r_0=0.5$fm) of $m(b_1)-m(a_0)=221(40)$ MeV. There is
427: an additional systematic error coming from the assumption of a constant
428: difference as the quark mass is decreased, which we are unable to
429: quantify. As discussed above, our lattice masses in Table~\ref{tablatp}
430: are at quark masses around the strange quark mass and at non-zero
431: lattice spacing. They correspond, as expected, to masses somewhat
432: larger than the physical $b_1$ mass of 1230 MeV, but are consistent
433: within the expected systematic errors of the extrapolations necessary.
434:
435:
436:
437: %Mention partially quenched results for $a_0$ as in LAT0x: naively giving
438: %1.0(2) GeV. ref.~\cite{Hart:2002sp}.
439:
440:
441: As discussed above, we do not expect the two-body thresholds to play a
442: significant role in our $N_f=2$ spectra. We do, however, measure these
443: decay transitions to have a more complete analysis.
444:
445:
446: \section{Hadronic decays}
447:
448: For the case of $N_f=2$ degenerate quarks, the matrix elements for
449: decay transitions of a non-singlet scalar meson to two pseudo-scalar
450: mesons are given in Table~\ref{tabdt}, where the quark diagrams are
451: illustrated in fig.~\ref{fig:fd_a0}.
452:
453:
454: \begin{table}
455:
456: \begin{tabular}{lllll}
457:
458: S & $P_1$ & $P_2$ & $T$ & $D$ \\
459: \hline
460: $a_0 $ & $\pi$ & $\eta_2$ & $2^{1/2}$ & $-2^{1/2}$ \\
461:
462: $a_0 $ & K &$\bar{\mathrm{K}}$& 1 & 0 \\
463: $a_0 $ & $\pi$ & $\eta_{ss}$ & 0 & $ -1$ \\
464: $a_0 $ & $\pi$ & $\eta_{8}$ & $(2/3)^{1/2}$ & $ 0$ \\
465: K$^*$ & K$^+$ & $\pi^0$ & $2^{-1/2}$ & 0 \\
466: K$^*$ & K$^0$ & $\pi^+$ & $1$ & 0 \\
467: K$^*$ & K & $\eta_2$ & $2^{-1/2}$ & $-2^{-1/2}$ \\
468: K$^*$ & K & $\eta_{ss}$ & $1$ & $-1$ \\
469:
470: \end{tabular}
471:
472: \caption{Coefficients of transition amplitudes from flavour
473: non-singlet scalar meson S to $P_1 P_2$ for the
474: triangle quark diagram ($T$) and the disconnected quark diagram ($D$).
475: Only the top line is allowed if $N_f=2$ strictly. The other lines are
476: allowed when a valence $s$ quark is added. We define $\eta_2$ as
477: $(\bar{u}u +\bar{d}d)/\sqrt{2}$, $\eta_{ss}$ as $\bar{s}s$ and $\eta_8$
478: as $(\bar{u}u +\bar{d}d-2\bar{s}s)/\sqrt{6}$. We have assumed that the
479: disconnected contributions to the decay to $\eta_8$ cancel.
480: }
481: \label{tabdt}
482: \end{table}
483:
484:
485:
486: \begin{figure}[t]
487: \centering
488: %\special{psfile=fd_a0.ps hoffset=-20 voffset=-100 vscale= 35 hscale=35}
489: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth] {fd_a0.ps}
490: \caption{ Quark diagrams involved in the decays listed in
491: Table~\ref{tabdt}, where $D$ is the disconnected diagram and $T$ is
492: the triangle diagram.
493: }
494: \label{fig:fd_a0}
495: \end{figure}
496:
497:
498:
499: Only one case, $a_0 \to \pi \eta_2$, is allowed staying strictly within
500: $N_f=2$ with valence quarks of the same properties as sea quarks (here
501: $\eta_2$ is the flavour singlet pseudoscalar for $N_f=2$, namely
502: $(\bar{u}u +\bar{d}d)/\sqrt{2}$). This case involves a disconnected
503: diagram (D) and is not directly relevant to phenomenology.
504: In the limit that the strange quark is much heavier than the $u$ and $d$
505: quarks, we expected the neglect of $s$ quarks in the sea to be a good
506: approximation. In that case, decays such as $K_0^* \to K \pi$
507: can be studied from diagram $T$. For the physical case with $s$ quarks of
508: some 80 MeV, $a_0 \to \pi \eta_8$ and $a_0 \to \bar{K} K$ may also be
509: determined adequately from $N_f=2$ lattice study of diagram $T$.
510:
511:
512: With this in mind, we first evaluate the lattice transition amplitude
513: corresponding to the connected triangle diagram $T$. The contribution
514: of $T$ to various decay amplitudes will have the numerical factors
515: listed in Table~\ref{tabdt}. The most relevant cases will be $a_0 \to K
516: \bar{K}$ and $K^* \to K \pi$. This is a partially-quenched
517: evaluation in the sense that we use valence $s$-quarks (of the same mass
518: as our $u$, $d$ sea-quarks) which are not present in the sea. We are
519: able to use similar methods to those used to study $\rho$
520: decay~\cite{McNeile:2002fh} and hybrid meson decay~\cite{McNeile:2006bz}.
521:
522: The lattice results for the connected ($T$) contribution to a generic
523: scalar meson transition to two pseudoscalar mesons are presented as the
524: normalised lattice ratio
525: $$
526: R(t) = { (S \to P_1 P_2 ) \over \sqrt{(S \to S) (P_1 \to P_1) (P_2 \to P_2)} }
527: $$
528: where the three-point correlator is constructed from propagators as
529: illustrated for $T$ in fig.~\ref{fig:fd_a0}. Each two and three-point
530: correlator is taken at the same time separation $t$.
531:
532: Since the $a_0$ mass is approximately twice the pseudoscalar mass (see
533: Table~\ref{tablatp}) at zero momentum, we have an on-shell transition
534: and we expect~\cite{McNeile:2002fh,McNeile:2006bz} the ratio $R(t)$ to
535: be approximately linear with slope $xa$ versus $t$ where $x$ is the
536: lattice transition amplitude. This is indeed observed, as shown in
537: fig.~{fig:xta0}.
538:
539: We first checked that using different operators to create mesons gave
540: essentially the same ratio $R(t)$. We use local or fuzzed operators
541: for each of the three particles involved and in each case the ratio is
542: the same within errors for the $t$ region of interest for the case we
543: studied in most detail, namely with all momenta zero.
544:
545:
546:
547: \begin{figure}[t]
548: \centering
549: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth] {xta0.ps}
550: \caption{ The normalised ratio $R(t)$ for the connected
551: contribution ($T$) to the transition $S \to P_1 P_2$. The contribution
552: of $T$ to particular decays can be read off from Table~\ref{tabdt}. The
553: number of lattice gauge configurations analysed was 90 (U355), 165
554: (C410) and 30 for each U395 case. The dotted line illustrates the
555: expected behaviour with slope $xa$ for C410.
556: }
557: \label{fig:xta0}
558: \end{figure}
559:
560:
561: The most reliable determination of the coupling constant comes from using
562: meson operators which minimise excited state contributions. We use
563: fuzzing with separations of $3a$ (C410) or $5a$ (U355) to achieve this.
564: We extract the slope $xa$ by taking finite differences and relate this
565: lattice transition amplitude to the continuum coupling via Fermi's
566: Golden Rule. The derivation of the phase space factor is described
567: in ref.~\cite{statich}.
568: Then, to compare different lattice data sets, we extract
569: the effective coupling using~\cite{McNeile:2002fh,CMcairns,McNeile:2006bz}
570: $$
571: {g}^2 = {1 \over \pi} (xa)^2 (L/a)^3 { a E(P_1) E(P_2) \over E(P_1)+E(P_2)}
572: $$
573: Here the decay width $\Gamma$ is, for a process with amplitude $T$,
574: given by $\Gamma/k={g}^2$, where $k$ is the centre of mass momentum of
575: the decay products. For particular transitions, the quark coupling
576: coefficients of Table~\ref{tabdt} also enter, squared, in the decay rate.
577:
578: As a first check of this approach, we evaluated the effective coupling
579: from lattices that differ only in spatial size (labelled U395, see
580: ref.~\cite{McNeile:2006bz} for more details) and we found excellent
581: agreement when the spatial volume was changed by a factor of 2.4., as
582: shown in fig.~\ref{fig:xta0}.
583: %L=12 16
584:
585: The coupling extracted, as above, from our higher statistics data-sets
586: is shown in fig.~\ref{fig:a0f}. This shows a coupling $g \approx1$
587: which has implications which we discuss later. The consistency between
588: the two determinations (C410 and U355) which have different spatial
589: volumes and different lattice spacings is satisfactory. As an overall
590: summary we quote a coupling $g=1.0(2)$.
591:
592:
593: \begin{figure}[t]
594: \centering
595: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth] {a0f.ps}
596: \caption{ The effective coupling $g$ extracted from $R(t)$ as
597: described in the text for the triangle graph $T$ for $S \to P_1 P_2$
598: with zero momentum (also some results for non-zero momentum as discussed
599: in the text). The dotted line at $g=1$ is to guide the eye.
600: }
601: \label{fig:a0f}
602: \end{figure}
603:
604:
605: We also have available some results (from 40 gauge configurations for
606: U355 and for 50 for C410) for transitions involving non-zero momentum,
607: especially $S(1) \to P_1(0) + P_2(1)$ where the momentum (in units of
608: $2 \pi/L$) is given in the brackets.
609: These results used the methods of
610: ref.~\cite{McNeile:2002fh,McNeile:2006bz} respectively. The normalised
611: lattice ratio $R(t)$ is shown in fig.~\ref{fig:xta0k1} and the coupling
612: extracted assuming the formulae above is included for C410 (where we
613: used an optimum method to extract ground state contributions) in
614: fig.~\ref{fig:xta0}. As discussed in ref.~\cite{McNeile:2002fh}, the
615: decay in flight poses some problems of normalisation (since it is not
616: quite equivalent to a centre of mass decay with relative momentum
617: $\pi/L$), so must have a somewhat bigger systematic error to compensate.
618: Nevertheless, we see an approximate agreement of the lattice transition
619: amplitude $xa$ and of the coupling $g$ when the decay has momentum
620: release of zero and of $\pi/L$. This is to be expected for an S-wave
621: decay where the effective matrix element should be independent of
622: momentum.
623:
624:
625:
626:
627: \begin{figure}[t]
628: \centering
629: %% \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth] {xstraw.ps}
630: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth] {xta0k1.ps}
631: \caption{ The normalised ratio $R(t)$. Here MOM=0,\ 1 refers to the
632: transition $S(k) \to P_1(0) + P_2(k)$ with momenta $k=2n \pi/L$ with
633: $n=0$ and 1.
634: }
635: \label{fig:xta0k1}
636: \end{figure}
637:
638:
639: %a0 pi eta2 extraction. methods signal problems - skip??
640:
641:
642: \section{Leptonic decay constant}
643:
644:
645: The decay constants of non-singlet $0^{++}$ mesons are not routinely
646: calculated using lattice QCD, although they are of interest for a
647: number of reasons. The value of the decay constant, which is basically
648: the amplitude to find a quark and anti-quark at the origin, can help
649: distinguish between different quark content of the
650: meson~\cite{Maltman:1999jn,Narison:2005wc}. For instance, if the $a_0$
651: was a $\overline{K}K$ molecule, then the decay constant would be small
652: relative to the value of the pion decay constant. The decay constant of
653: the $a_0$ meson is also a theoretical input to study of B meson decays
654: and of $\tau$ decays to final states that include an
655: $a_0$~\cite{Diehl:2001xe,Aubert:2004hs,Couderc:2005cx,Delepine:2005px}.
656:
657: Diehl and Hiller discuss the prospects of determining the value of the
658: decay constant of the $a_0$ mesons from experiment~\cite{Diehl:2001xe}.
659: As we explain below, a direct measurement of the decay $a_0$ constant
660: coupled with computation of a QCD matrix element could be used to
661: compute the mass difference of the up and down quarks.
662:
663:
664: %%
665: %% definition of decay constants
666: %%
667: The decay constant of the light $0^+$ meson can be defined by
668: equation~\ref{eq:VectorDefn}.
669: \begin{equation}
670: \langle 0 \mid V_\mu^{ab} | a_0 \rangle
671: = i p_\mu g_{a_0}
672: \label{eq:VectorDefn}
673: \end{equation}
674: %%
675: where $V_\mu^{ab}$ is the vector current for quark flavours
676: $a$ and $b$.
677:
678: The conservation of the vector current is used to relate the operator
679: in equation~\ref{eq:VectorDefn} to the scalar current.
680: \begin{equation}
681: \partial_\mu ( \overline{q^a} \gamma_\mu q^b ) = i( m_a - m_b) \overline{q^a}
682: q^b
683: \label{eq:vectorCurrent}
684: \end{equation}
685: for light quarks with flavour $a$ and $b$. This motivates
686: a definition of the decay constant such as
687: \begin{equation}
688: i \langle 0 \mid \overline{q^u} q^d \mid a_0 \rangle
689: = \hat{f}_{a_0} m^2_{a_0}
690: \label{eq:anotherDEFN}
691: \end{equation}
692:
693: To compare the size of the decay constant of the $a_0$ to that of the
694: $K^*(1430)$ meson, Maltman~\cite{Maltman:1999jn} defined a new decay
695: constant with a slightly different normalisation.
696:
697: The direct use of equation~\ref{eq:vectorCurrent} is impossible in a
698: lattice calculation with two degenerate flavours of sea quarks. The vector
699: current does not couple to the scalar meson in this case. The decay
700: constant in equation~\ref{eq:anotherDEFN} is non-zero in an unquenched
701: lattice QCD calculation with two flavours of sea quarks.
702:
703: There is another reason for splitting the definition of the
704: $0^{++}$ meson decay constant into a quark mass factor and
705: QCD matrix element.
706: Currently there is a disagreement between the value of the strange quark
707: from unquenched lattice QCD calculations that use different
708: types of fermion for the light quarks~\cite{Rakow:2004vj}.
709: Some recent
710: papers~\cite{DellaMorte:2005kg,Gockeler:2006jt,Mason:2005bj}
711: report summaries of
712: the values for the strange quark mass published around time of
713: the lattice 2005 conference,
714: using different formulations of lattice QCD.
715: Lattice QCD calculations are only just starting to report
716: values for the differences between the masses of the
717: up and down quarks~\cite{Aubin:2004fs}.
718: Hence, we prefer to quote separately our measured
719: matrix element rather than introduce explicit factors of the quark mass.
720: So, it is more natural to
721: define the decay constant using
722: equation~\ref{eq:decayDEFN}.
723: %%
724: \begin{equation}
725: \langle 0 \mid \overline{q} q | a_0 \rangle
726: = m_{a_0} f_{a_0}
727: \label{eq:decayDEFN}
728: \end{equation}
729: %%
730: The relation between $f_{a_0}$ and $g_{a_0}$ is
731: via
732: \begin{equation}
733: g_{a_0} = \frac{m_d - m_u} {m_{a_0}} f_{a_0}
734: \label{eq:connect}
735: \end{equation}
736: %%
737: The explicit factor of the quark masses $(m_d - m_u)$ in
738: equation~\ref{eq:connect} is the reason that
739: Narison~\cite{Narison:1988xi} computes the value of
740: $g_{a_0}$ to be between 1.3 and 1.6 MeV.
741:
742: The matrix element in equation~\ref{eq:decayDEFN} is extracted
743: from the amplitudes in the fits
744: to the correlators (see~\cite{Herdoiza:2006qv} for example).
745: The raw numbers from the lattice calculation need renormalisation. To
746: convert the lattice number to the $\overline{MS}$ scheme we use
747: tadpole improved perturbation theory to one loop order~\cite{Lepage:1992xa}.
748: The
749: renormalisation factor for a scalar current, at the
750: scale $\mu=1/a$,
751: is
752: \begin{equation}
753: Z_S(\mu=1/a) = u_0
754: \left(
755: 1 - \alpha_s S_c
756: \right)
757: \label{eq:ZStad}
758: \end{equation}
759: %%
760: where $u_0$ is the fourth root of the plaquette,
761: and the constant $S_c$ is $1.002$ for the Wilson gauge action~\cite{Bhattacharya:2000pn}
762: and
763: $0.5031$ for the Iwasaki gauge action~\cite{Taniguchi:1998pf,Aoki:1998ar}.
764: %%
765:
766: To remove $O(a)$ terms we also need to use improvement coefficients. We
767: define the renormalisation $\hat{Z}_S$ that includes the improvement
768: factor
769: %%
770: %%
771: \begin{equation}
772: \hat{Z}_S = Z_S \left( 1 + b_S m_q \right)
773: \end{equation}
774: %%%
775: where $m_q$ is the mass of the light quark. We used the one loop
776: expression for $b_S$.
777: \begin{equation}
778: b_S = \left( 1 + \alpha_s b_{sc} \right)
779: \end{equation}
780: where the constant $b_{sc}$ is $1.3722$ for the
781: Wilson action~\cite{Sint:1997dj},
782: and $1.2800$ for the Iwasaki action~\cite{Aoki:1998qd,Aoki:1998ar}.
783: We used the coupling computed in the $\overline{MS}$ scheme. For the
784: UKQCD data set we used the coupling determined on the same data
785: set~\cite{Booth:2001qp}. For the CP-PACS data we used the
786: $\overline{MS}$ coupling quoted in their paper~\cite{AliKhan:2001tx}.
787: The coupling was evaluated at the scale $\mu=1/a$.
788: %%
789: %% other normalisation
790: %%
791: Our results are in table~\ref{tab:OurResults}.
792: As we only have decay constants for two different quark masses
793: with the same action,
794: we do not attempt a chiral extrapolation. The dependence
795: of the decay constant on the pion mass seems small, however.
796: In
797: table~\ref{tab:a0decother} we compare our results to other
798: determinations of the decay constants. The results in
799: table~\ref{tab:OurResults} show that the decay constant
800: $f_{a_0}$ is not suppressed relative to the pion decay
801: constant.
802:
803: \begin{table}[tb]
804: \begin{tabular}{ccc|c}
805: $\kappa$ & a $f_{a_0}/\hat{Z}_S$ & $\hat{Z}_S$ &
806: $f_{a_0}$ MeV \\ \hline
807: .1355 & 0.352(19) & 0.70 & 488(26) \\
808: .1350 & 0.346(30) & 0.71 & 460(40) \\
809: .1410 & 0.474(48) & 0.79 & 478(48) \\
810: .1390 & 0.480(97) & 0.84 & 513(104) \\
811: \hline
812: \end{tabular}
813: %%% draper_magic \vsbtc
814: \caption{
815: %
816: Our results for decay constant of the $a_0$ meson.
817: %
818: }
819: \label{tab:OurResults}
820: \end{table}
821:
822: The decay constant of the $0^{++}$ meson is one of the parameters in
823: the model that gets rid of the ghost state in the scalar $0^{++}$
824: correlator in quenched QCD~\cite{Bardeen:2001jm} and partially-quenched
825: QCD~\cite{Prelovsek:2004jp}, so there are estimates for it. These
826: studies of the $0^{++}$ used another normalisation convention for the
827: scalar decay constant, so we do not tabulate their values here.
828:
829: Chernyak~\cite{Chernyak:2001hs} uses a fit to data with
830: a factorisation assumption to obtain $g_{0^+}$ = $70 \pm 10$ MeV for the
831: $K^*(1430)$. Converting to our normalisation conventions,
832: using a nominal value of the strange quark mass of 100 MeV,
833: this
834: corresponds to $f_{K^*(1430)}$ = $1000 \pm 140$ MeV. The results for the
835: decay constants in table~\ref{tab:OurResults} are larger than
836: the results of UKQCD's recent calculation of the decay
837: constant of the $0^+$ charm-light meson~\cite{Herdoiza:2006qv}.
838:
839: \begin{table}[tb]
840: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
841: Group & Method & $f_{a_0}$ MeV \\ \hline
842: Maltman~\cite{Maltman:1999jn} & sum rule
843: & $298$ \\
844: %%%%
845: Shakin and Wang.~\cite{Shakin:2001sz} & model
846: & $433$ \\
847: Narison.~\cite{Narison:1988xi} & sum rule
848: & $320-390$ \\ \hline
849:
850: \end{tabular}
851: %%% draper_magic \vsbtc
852: \caption{
853: %
854: Some results for decay constant of the $a_0$ meson. We used
855: a value of $m_d - m_u$ of 4 MeV to convert the normalisation
856: of Narison's estimate. The quark masses quoted by
857: Shakin and Wang were used to convert normalisation conventions
858: for other two results.
859: %
860: }
861: \label{tab:a0decother}
862: \end{table}
863:
864:
865: As an aside we note that if the decay constant $g_{0+}$
866: of the $a_0$ or $K^\star(1430)$ was measured experimentally,
867: then it would allow an additional method to measure
868: the quark mass differences $m_u - m_d$, $m_s - m_d$
869: respectively, using lattice estimates of the QCD matrix elements.
870:
871:
872:
873:
874: \section{Discussion}
875:
876:
877: For the non-strange flavour non-singlet scalar meson ($a_0$), our
878: lattice determinations using the self-consistent $N_f=2$ approximation
879: to QCD give clear support for a physical $a_0$ meson lying
880: substantially lighter than the $b_1$. The mass estimates we find are
881: consistent with the observed $a_0$ at 950 MeV but not the heavier
882: state at 1474 MeV.
883:
884: To relate our approach to experiment with an additional strange quark,
885: we can assume that the strange quark pair production is relatively
886: small and so can be neglected. For K$_0^*$ propagation, for example,
887: this amounts to treating the K$\pi$ channel correctly but having an
888: anomalous contribution from K$\eta_{ss}$ intermediate states. Here the
889: $\eta_{ss}$ propagation has a missing piece (just as $\eta_2$ does in
890: the $\eta_2 \pi$ contribution to the $a_0$ propagation in quenched QCD
891: with $N_f=2$) and so will not have a single exponential but two
892: contributions with masses corresponding to (i) the connected
893: pseudoscalar meson with valence quarks of strange mass and (ii) the
894: $\eta_2$ meson. Both of these contributions are not especially light,
895: so we do not expect any major distortion of the K$_0^*$ from using
896: valence $s$-quarks. Similarly the $a_0$ decays to $K\bar{K}$ and
897: $\eta_8 \pi$ are expected to be accessible without major distortion from
898: the neglect of strange quarks in the sea, as we discussed above.
899:
900:
901: %% m_s=m_n D_{ss}=exp(-m(\eta_2)t) - exp(-m(\pi)t) summing bubbles
902: %%% and C_{ss} missing: so can be negative?
903:
904: For the strange scalar mesons, the K$_0^*(1430)$ with mass 1412 MeV is
905: heavier than the corresponding axial mesons (K$_1^*$ with masses 1273
906: and 1402 MeV). These two axial mesons are related to a mixture of the
907: strange partners of the non-strange $b_1$ and $a_1$ mesons since charge
908: conjugation is not a good quantum number for strange mesons. So the
909: interpretation in this case is unclear. As well as this strange scalar
910: meson at 1412 MeV, one might expect a lighter state, about 100-130 MeV
911: heavier (mass split determined from tensor mesons) than the $a_0(980)$.
912: The so-called kappa ($\kappa$) at 700-900 MeV with a very broad width
913: (400 MeV or more) has been claimed by many
914: sources~\cite{Eidelman:2004wy} and a recent analysis~\cite{Bugg:2005xx}
915: gives mass $750^{+30}_{-50}$ MeV. There is no consensus yet on the
916: existence of the kappa, because some analyses of experimental data see
917: no sign of it~\cite{Cherry:2000ut}.
918: Our lattice studies suggest that a scalar K$_0^*$ meson of mass around
919: 1000-1200 MeV would be expected in a theory with $N_f=2$ sea quarks and
920: a strange quark treated as a valence quark. For our case where the
921: valence $s$-quark and $u,d$ sea-quarks have the same mass, the
922: anomalous $K \eta_{ss}$ intermediate state combines with the $K \pi$
923: intermediate state to give only a $K \eta_2$ intermediate state, just
924: like the case of $a_0$ propagation. Hence our lattice treatment does
925: not correctly include the $K \pi$ threshold in the K$_0^*$ meson
926: propagation and so may be less reliable than the $a_0$ propagation.
927:
928:
929:
930: The connected decay diagram ($T$) is appropriate for the decays
931: $a_0 \to K K$, $a_0 \to \pi \eta_8$ and $K_0 \to K \pi$ where the
932: appropriate factors are given in Table~\ref{tabdt}.
933: Then the experimental data~\cite{Eidelman:2004wy} can be used to
934: estimate the coupling (from $\Gamma/k$). For K$_0^*(1430)$, this gives
935: $g^2= 0.32(3)$. While for the $\kappa$, one recent
936: analysis~\cite{Bugg:2005xx} finds a width of $342\pm60$\ MeV which
937: corresponds to $g^2=0.7(2)$.
938: %q=349 Gam=1.5 T^2 gives $g^2=1.0(2)/1.5$.
939: For $a_0(980)$, the state is close to the $\bar{K}K$ threshold which
940: distorts the appearance of the meson. Phenomenological analyses vary
941: but one example quotes~\cite{Achasov:2002ir} a total width of 153 MeV
942: and a coupling given by $g^2= 0.82$ for $\bar{K}K$ and around 0.7 for
943: $\eta \pi$.
944: For $a_0(1450)$, the partial widths are not well known and one can only
945: estimate that the $\bar{K}K$ and $\eta \pi$ decays yield couplings
946: smaller than $g^2= 0.23$ and 0.34 respectively.
947: % KK 265/547 * .88/1.88 eta pi 265/627*1.5/1.88 care omega rho big??
948:
949: Our determination of the coupling which controls decay is also relevant
950: for identification of states.
951: We find a coupling (normalised to diagram $T$ above) given by $g
952: \approx 1$. This favours the lighter $a_0$ and $\kappa$ meson over the
953: heavier states. Our determination of the $a_0$ decay constant
954: disfavours a molecular structure for this state, in agreement with our
955: conclusion from hadronic decays. The only concern is that for the
956: $K^*_0$ meson the experimental evidence gives a $\kappa$ meson lighter
957: than our expectations.
958:
959:
960: \section{Conclusion}
961:
962: We have studied the spectrum and decay of non-singlet scalar mesons from
963: first principles using lattices with a consistent (unitary) field
964: theoretic interpretation for $N_f=2$ flavours of sea-quark. Rather than
965: extrapolate the scalar masses directly, we concentrate on the
966: mass splitting between the $a_0$ and $b_1$ mesons from the lattice. The
967: lattice results are unambiguous and point to a scalar meson which is
968: 221(40) MeV lighter than the $b_1$. Since the experimental mass value
969: of the $b_1$ meson is 1230 MeV, this suggests that the $a_0(980)$ is
970: indeed the lightest non-singlet scalar meson in a theory with $N_f=2$
971: flavours of degenerate quark. Our approach does not include the
972: $K\bar{K}$ channel, so this channel is to be regarded as having an
973: impact on a pre-existing state, rather than as being the dominant
974: component of the state. In other words, we do not find that a
975: $K\bar{K}$ molecule is a good approximation to the $a_0(980)$.
976:
977: Our results for the decay transition amplitude are also consistent with
978: the phenomenological estimates of the coupling of the $a_0(980)$ to
979: $K\bar{K}$ and $\eta \pi$. Overall, we conclude that the $a_0(980)$ is
980: predominantly a conventional meson with normal couplings to $\bar{q}
981: q$.
982:
983: For the $K_0^*$ scalar meson, we expect a mass 100-130 MeV heavier than
984: the $a_0$ (based, for example, on the observed mass splittings of the
985: tensor mesons). This is not easily related to any experimental
986: candidate: the $\kappa$ is too light (700-900 MeV), while the
987: $K_0^*(1430)$ is too heavy. What may help clarification is that we
988: find a decay coupling transition (to $K \pi$) which is comparable to
989: that needed phenomenologically for the $\kappa$ but much larger than
990: that needed for the $K_0^*(1430)$. This suggests that the $\kappa$ is
991: more closely related to the state obtained in $N_f=2$ lattice QCD.
992: A lattice treatment with the strange quark included in the sea would
993: help to clarify further this conclusion.
994:
995:
996: \section{Acknowledgements}
997:
998: The authors acknowledge support from PPARC grant PPA/Y/S/2003/00176.
999: This work has been supported in part by the EU Integrated
1000: Infrastructure Initiative Hadron Physics (I3HP) under contract
1001: RII3-CT-2004-506078.
1002: We acknowledge the ULGrid project of the University of Liverpool for making
1003: available computer resources.
1004: We acknowledge the CP-PACS collaboration~\cite{AliKhan:2001tx} for
1005: making available their gauge configurations.
1006:
1007: \newpage
1008: %\bibliographystyle{h-physrev2}
1009: %\bibliography{lhyb,fa0}
1010: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1011:
1012: \bibitem{Eidelman:2004wy}
1013: Particle Data Group, S.~Eidelman {\em et~al.},
1014: \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B592}, 1 (2004),
1015: \newblock %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%.
1016:
1017: \bibitem{DeGrand:1992yx}
1018: T.~A. DeGrand and M.~W. Hecht,
1019: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D46}, 3937 (1992), hep-lat/9206011,
1020: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9206011;%%.
1021:
1022: \bibitem{Lacock:1996vy}
1023: UKQCD, P.~Lacock, C.~Michael, P.~Boyle, and P.~Rowland,
1024: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D54}, 6997 (1996), hep-lat/9605025,
1025: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9605025;%%.
1026:
1027: \bibitem{Bardeen:2001jm}
1028: W.~A. Bardeen, A.~Duncan, E.~Eichten, N.~Isgur, and H.~Thacker,
1029: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 014509 (2002), hep-lat/0106008,
1030: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0106008;%%.
1031:
1032: \bibitem{Burch:2006dg}
1033: T.~Burch {\em et~al.},
1034: \newblock (2006), hep-lat/0601026,
1035: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0601026;%%.
1036:
1037: \bibitem{Prelovsek:2005rf}
1038: S.~Prelovsek,
1039: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D73}, 014506 (2006), hep-lat/0510080,
1040: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0510080;%%.
1041:
1042: \bibitem{Lee:1999kv}
1043: W.-J. Lee and D.~Weingarten,
1044: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 014015 (2000), hep-lat/9910008,
1045: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9910008;%%.
1046:
1047: \bibitem{McNeile:2000xx}
1048: UKQCD, C.~McNeile and C.~Michael,
1049: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 114503 (2001), hep-lat/0010019,
1050: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0010019;%%.
1051:
1052: \bibitem{Hart:2002sp}
1053: UKQCD, A.~Hart, C.~McNeile, and C.~Michael,
1054: \newblock Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 119}, 266 (2003), hep-lat/0209063,
1055: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0209063;%%.
1056:
1057: \bibitem{Alford:2000mm}
1058: M.~G. Alford and R.~L. Jaffe,
1059: \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B578}, 367 (2000), hep-lat/0001023,
1060: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0001023;%%.
1061:
1062: \bibitem{Kunihiro:2005vw}
1063: Scalar, T.~Kunihiro {\em et~al.},
1064: \newblock PoS {\bf LAT2005}, 034 (2005),
1065: \newblock %%CITATION = POSCI,LAT2005,034;%%.
1066:
1067: \bibitem{Prelovsek:2004jp}
1068: S.~Prelovsek, C.~Dawson, T.~Izubuchi, K.~Orginos, and A.~Soni,
1069: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D70}, 094503 (2004), hep-lat/0407037,
1070: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0407037;%%.
1071:
1072: \bibitem{Bernard:2001av}
1073: C.~W. Bernard {\em et~al.},
1074: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, 054506 (2001), hep-lat/0104002,
1075: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0104002;%%.
1076:
1077: \bibitem{Aubin:2004wf}
1078: C.~Aubin {\em et~al.},
1079: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D70}, 094505 (2004), hep-lat/0402030,
1080: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0402030;%%.
1081:
1082: \bibitem{Gregory:2005yr}
1083: E.~B. Gregory, A.~C. Irving, C.~McNeile, S.~Miller, and Z.~Sroczynski,
1084: \newblock PoS {\bf LAT2005}, 027 (2005), hep-lat/0510066,
1085: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0510066;%%.
1086:
1087: \bibitem{Michael:2005kw}
1088: C.~Michael,
1089: \newblock PoS {\bf LAT2005}, 008 (2005), hep-lat/0509023,
1090: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0509023;%%.
1091:
1092: \bibitem{McNeile:2002fh}
1093: UKQCD, C.~McNeile and C.~Michael,
1094: \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B556}, 177 (2003), hep-lat/0212020,
1095: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0212020;%%.
1096:
1097: \bibitem{McNeile:2006bz}
1098: UKQCD, C.~McNeile and C.~Michael,
1099: \newblock (2006), hep-lat/0603007,
1100: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0603007;%%.
1101:
1102: \bibitem{statich}UKQCD,C.~McNeile et al.,
1103: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 094505 (2002), hep-lat/0201006,
1104: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0201006;%%.
1105:
1106: \bibitem{CMcairns}
1107: C.~Michael,
1108: \newblock Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 128}, 153 (2004), hep-lat/0310010,
1109: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0310010;%%
1110:
1111: \bibitem{Allton:2004qq}
1112: UKQCD, C.~R. Allton {\em et~al.},
1113: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D70}, 014501 (2004), hep-lat/0403007,
1114: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0403007;%%.
1115:
1116: \bibitem{Faccioli:2003qz}
1117: P.~Faccioli and T.~A. DeGrand,
1118: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 182001 (2003), hep-ph/0304219,
1119: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304219;%%.
1120:
1121: \bibitem{Allton:2001sk}
1122: UKQCD, C.~R. Allton {\em et~al.},
1123: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 054502 (2002), hep-lat/0107021,
1124: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0107021;%%.
1125:
1126: \bibitem{AliKhan:2001tx}
1127: CP-PACS, A.~Ali~Khan {\em et~al.},
1128: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 054505 (2002), hep-lat/0105015,
1129: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0105015;%%.
1130:
1131: \bibitem{Maltman:1999jn}
1132: K.~Maltman,
1133: \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B462}, 14 (1999), hep-ph/9906267,
1134: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906267;%%.
1135:
1136: \bibitem{Narison:2005wc}
1137: S.~Narison,
1138: \newblock (2005), hep-ph/0512256,
1139: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512256;%%.
1140:
1141: \bibitem{Diehl:2001xe}
1142: m.~diehl and g.~hiller,
1143: \newblock jhep {\bf 06}, 067 (2001), hep-ph/0105194,
1144: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105194;%%.
1145:
1146: \bibitem{Aubert:2004hs}
1147: BABAR, B.~Aubert {\em et~al.},
1148: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D70}, 111102 (2004), hep-ex/0407013,
1149: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0407013;%%.
1150:
1151: \bibitem{Couderc:2005cx}
1152: BABAR, F.~Couderc,
1153: \newblock (2005), hep-ex/0506031,
1154: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0506031;%%.
1155:
1156: \bibitem{Delepine:2005px}
1157: D.~Delepine, J.~L. Lucio~M., and C.~A. Ramirez,
1158: \newblock Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C45}, 693 (2006), hep-ph/0501022,
1159: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501022;%%.
1160:
1161: \bibitem{Rakow:2004vj}
1162: P.~E.~L. Rakow,
1163: \newblock Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 140}, 34 (2005), hep-lat/0411036,
1164: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0411036;%%.
1165:
1166: \bibitem{DellaMorte:2005kg}
1167: ALPHA, M.~Della~Morte {\em et~al.},
1168: \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B729}, 117 (2005), hep-lat/0507035,
1169: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0507035;%%.
1170:
1171: \bibitem{Gockeler:2006jt}
1172: M.~Gockeler {\em et~al.},
1173: \newblock (2006), hep-lat/0601004,
1174: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0601004;%%.
1175:
1176: \bibitem{Mason:2005bj}
1177: HPQCD, Q.~Mason, H.~D. Trottier, R.~Horgan, C.~T.~H. Davies, and G.~P. Lepage,
1178: \newblock (2005), hep-ph/0511160,
1179: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511160;%%.
1180:
1181: \bibitem{Aubin:2004fs}
1182: MILC, C.~Aubin {\em et~al.},
1183: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D70}, 114501 (2004), hep-lat/0407028,
1184: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0407028;%%.
1185:
1186: \bibitem{Narison:1988xi}
1187: S.~Narison,
1188: \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B216}, 191 (1989),
1189: \newblock %%CITATION = PHLTA,B216,191;%%.
1190:
1191: \bibitem{Herdoiza:2006qv}
1192: UKQCD, G.~Herdoiza, C.~McNeile, and C.~Michael,
1193: \newblock (2006), hep-lat/0604001,
1194: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0604001;%%.
1195:
1196: \bibitem{Lepage:1992xa}
1197: G.~P. Lepage and P.~B. Mackenzie,
1198: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D48}, 2250 (1993), hep-lat/9209022,
1199: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9209022;%%.
1200:
1201: \bibitem{Bhattacharya:2000pn}
1202: T.~Bhattacharya, R.~Gupta, W.-J. Lee, and S.~R. Sharpe,
1203: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 074505 (2001), hep-lat/0009038,
1204: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0009038;%%.
1205:
1206: \bibitem{Taniguchi:1998pf}
1207: Y.~Taniguchi and A.~Ukawa,
1208: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 114503 (1998), hep-lat/9806015,
1209: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9806015;%%.
1210:
1211: \bibitem{Aoki:1998ar}
1212: S.~Aoki, K.-i. Nagai, Y.~Taniguchi, and A.~Ukawa,
1213: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 074505 (1998), hep-lat/9802034,
1214: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9802034;%%.
1215:
1216: \bibitem{Sint:1997dj}
1217: S.~Sint and P.~Weisz,
1218: \newblock Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 63}, 856 (1998), hep-lat/9709096,
1219: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9709096;%%.
1220:
1221: \bibitem{Aoki:1998qd}
1222: S.~Aoki, R.~Frezzotti, and P.~Weisz,
1223: \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B540}, 501 (1999), hep-lat/9808007,
1224: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9808007;%%.
1225:
1226: \bibitem{Booth:2001qp}
1227: QCDSF-UKQCD, S.~Booth {\em et~al.},
1228: \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B519}, 229 (2001), hep-lat/0103023,
1229: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0103023;%%.
1230:
1231: \bibitem{Chernyak:2001hs}
1232: V.~Chernyak,
1233: \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B509}, 273 (2001), hep-ph/0102217,
1234: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102217;%%.
1235:
1236: \bibitem{Shakin:2001sz}
1237: C.~M. Shakin and H.~Wang,
1238: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 074017 (2001),
1239: \newblock %%CITATION = PHRVA,D63,074017;%%.
1240:
1241: \bibitem{Bugg:2005xx}
1242: D.~V. Bugg,
1243: \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B632}, 471 (2006), hep-ex/0510019,
1244: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0510019;%%.
1245:
1246: \bibitem{Cherry:2000ut}
1247: S.~N. Cherry and M.~R. Pennington,
1248: \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf A688}, 823 (2001), hep-ph/0005208,
1249: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005208;%%.
1250:
1251: \bibitem{Achasov:2002ir}
1252: N.~N. Achasov and A.~V. Kiselev,
1253: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D68}, 014006 (2003), hep-ph/0212153,
1254: \newblock %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212153;%%.
1255:
1256: \end{thebibliography}
1257:
1258:
1259: \end{document}
1260: