1: \documentstyle[sprocl]{article}
2:
3: \font\eightrm=cmr8
4:
5: \input{psfig}
6:
7:
8: \bibliographystyle{unsrt} %for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by
9: %order of first citation.
10:
11: \arraycolsep1.5pt
12:
13: %\def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
14: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #4 (#3)}
15:
16: % Some useful journal names
17: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
18: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.} B}
19: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
20: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
21:
22:
23:
24: \begin{document}
25:
26: \title{GLUEBALLS, HYBRID AND EXOTIC MESONS AND STRING BREAKING}
27:
28: \author{C. MICHAEL}
29:
30: \address{Theoretical Physics Division, Dept. of Math. Sci.,\\
31: University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 2BX, U.K. \\ E-mail:
32: c.michael@liv.ac.uk}
33:
34:
35: \maketitle\abstracts{ We review lattice QCD results for glueballs
36: (including a discussion of mixing with scalar mesons), hybrid mesons
37: and exotic mesons (such as $B_s B_s$ molecules). We also discuss
38: string breaking as a mixing between colour flux states and $B \bar{B}$
39: states. }
40:
41: \section{Introduction}
42:
43:
44:
45: The most systematic approach to non-perturbative QCD is via lattice
46: techniques.
47: Lattice QCD needs as input the quark masses and an overall scale
48: (conventionally given by $\Lambda_{QCD}$). Then any Green function can
49: be evaluated by taking an average of suitable combinations of the
50: lattice fields in the vacuum samples. This allows masses to be studied
51: easily and matrix elements (particularly those of weak or
52: electromagnetic currents) can be extracted straightforwardly.
53: Unlike experiment, lattice QCD can vary the quark masses and can also
54: explore different boundary conditions and sources. This allows a wide
55: range of studies which can be used to diagnose the health of
56: phenomenological models as well as casting light on experimental data.
57:
58: One limitation of the lattice approach to QCD is in exploring
59: hadronic decays because the lattice, using Euclidean
60: time, has no concept of asymptotic states. One feasible strategy is to
61: evaluate the mixing between states of the same energy - so giving some
62: information on on-shell hadronic decay amplitudes.
63:
64: For comparison with models and for ease of computation, the special
65: case of infinitely heavy sea quarks (namely neglect of quark effects in
66: the vacuum: the quenched approximation) is often used. We shall also
67: present results from including sea quark effects - usually two flavours
68: of degenerate sea quark of mass equivalent to strange quarks or
69: heavier.
70:
71:
72: The quark model gives a good overall description of hadronic spectra.
73: Here I will discuss lattice results for states which go beyond the
74: quark model: glueballs, exotic mesons and hybrid mesons. I also discuss
75: the related phenomenon of string breaking.
76:
77:
78: \section{Glueballs}
79:
80: Glueballs are defined to be hadronic states made primarily from gluons.
81: The full non-perturbative gluonic interaction is included in quenched
82: QCD. In the quenched approximation, there is no mixing between such
83: glueballs and quark - antiquark mesons. A study of the glueball
84: spectrum in quenched QCD is thus of great value. This will allow
85: experimental searches to be guided as well as providing calibration for
86: models of glueballs. A non-zero glueball mass in quenched QCD is the
87: ``mass-gap'' of QCD. To prove this rigourously is one of the major
88: challenges of our times. Here we will explore the situation using
89: computational techniques.
90:
91: In principle, lattice QCD can study the meson spectrum as the sea quark
92: mass is decreased towards experimental values. This will allow the
93: unambiguous glueball states in the quenched approximation to be tracked
94: as the sea quark effects are increased. It may indeed turn out that no
95: meson in the physical spectrum is primarily a glueball - all states are
96: mixtures of glue, $q \bar{q}$, $q \bar{q} q \bar{q}$, etc. We shall
97: later discuss lattice results on the mixing of glueballs and scalar
98: mesons (ie $q \bar{q}$ states).
99:
100: In lattice studies, dimensionless ratios of quantities are obtained. To
101: explore the glueball masses, it is appropriate to combine them with
102: another very accurately measured quantity to have a dimensionless
103: observable. Since the potential between static quarks is very accurately
104: measured from the lattice, it is now conventional to use $r_0$ for this
105: comparison. Here $r_0$ is implicitly defined by $r^2 dV(r)/dr = 1.65$
106: at $r=r_0$ where $V(r)$ is the potential energy between static quarks
107: which is easy to determine accurately on the lattice. Conventionally
108: $r_0 \approx 0.5$ fm.
109:
110:
111:
112: Theoretical analysis indicates that for Wilson's discretisation of
113: the gauge fields in the quenched approximation, the dimensionless ratio
114: $mr_0$ will differ from the continuum limit value by corrections of
115: order $a^2$. Thus in fig.~1 the mass of the $J^{PC}$=$0^{++}$ glueball
116: is plotted versus the lattice spacing $a^2$. The straight line then
117: shows the continuum limit obtained by extrapolating to $a=0$. As can be
118: seen, there is essentially no need for data at even smaller $a$-values
119: to further fix the continuum value. The value shown corresponds to
120: $m(0^{++})r_0=4.33(5)$. Since several lattice
121: groups~\cite{DForc,MTgl,ukqcd,gf11} have measured these quantities, it
122: is reassuring to see that the purely lattice observables are in
123: excellent agreement. The publicised difference of quoted $m(0^{++})$
124: from UKQCD~\cite{ukqcd} and GF11~\cite{gf11} comes entirely from
125: relating quenched lattice measurements to values in GeV.
126:
127:
128:
129: \begin{figure}[bt]
130: \vspace{7cm} %
131: \special{psfile=gbr0.ps voffset=-15 hoffset=40 hscale=55 vscale=40}
132: \caption{ The value of mass of the $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ glueball state
133: from quenched data ($N_F=0$){\protect\cite{DForc,MTgl,ukqcd,gf11}}
134: in units of $r_0$ where $r_0 \approx 0.5$ fm. The straight line shows a
135: fit describing the approach to the continuum limit as $a \to 0$.
136: Results~{\protect\cite{sesam,bali,lat99}} with $N_F=2$ flavours of sea
137: quarks are also shown.
138: }
139: \end{figure}
140:
141:
142: In the quenched approximation, different hadronic observables differ
143: from experiment by factors of up to 10\%. Thus using one quantity or
144: another to set the scale, gives an overall systematic error. Here I
145: choose to set the scale by taking the conventional value of the string
146: tension, $\sqrt{\sigma}=0.44$ GeV, which then corresponds to
147: $r_0^{-1}=373$ MeV. An overall systematic error of 10\% is then to be
148: included to any extracted mass. This yields $m(0^{++})=1611(30)(160)$
149: MeV where the second error is the
150: systematic scale error. Note that this is the glueball mass in the
151: quenched approximation - in the real world significant mixing with $q
152: \bar{q}$ states could modify this value substantially.
153:
154:
155: In the Wilson approach, the next lightest glueballs
156: are~\cite{MTgl,ukqcd} the tensor $m(2^{++})r_0=6.0(6)$ (resulting in
157: $m(2^{++})=2232(220)(220)$ MeV) and the pseudoscalar $m(2^{++})r_0=
158: 6.0(1.0)$. Although the Wilson discretisation provides a definitive
159: study of the lightest ($0^{++}$) glueball in the continuum limit, other
160: methods are competitive for the determination of the mass of heavier
161: glueballs. Namely, using an improved gauge discretisation which has
162: even smaller discretisation errors than the $a^2$ dependence of the
163: Wilson discretisation, so allowing a relatively coarse lattice spacing
164: $a$ to be used. To extract mass values, one has to explore the time
165: dependence of correlators and for this reason, it is optimum to use a
166: relatively small time lattice spacing. Thus an asymmetric lattice
167: spacing is most appropriate. The results~\cite{mpglue} are shown in
168: fig.~2 and for low lying states are that $m(0^{++})r_0=4.21(11)(4)$,
169: $m(2^{++})r_0=5.85(2)(6)$, $m(0^{-+})=6.33(7)(6)$ and
170: $m(1^{+-})r_0=7.18(4)(7)$. Another recent study~\cite{nrw} has used an
171: improved discretisation based on the perfect action approach (without a
172: space-time asymmetry) and obtains results consistent with earlier work.
173:
174:
175:
176: One signal of great interest would be a glueball with $J^{PC}$ not
177: allowed for $q \bar{q}$ - a spin-exotic glueball or {\em oddball} -
178: since it would not mix with $q \bar{q}$ states. These states are
179: found~\cite{MTgl,ukqcd,mpglue} to be high lying: considerably above
180: $2m(0^{++})$. Thus they are likely to be in a region very difficult to
181: access unambiguously by experiment.
182:
183:
184:
185: Within the quenched approximation, the glueball states are unmixed
186: with $q \bar{q},\ q \bar{q} q \bar{q}$, etc. Furthermore, the $q
187: \bar{q}$ states have degenerate flavour singlet and non-singlet states
188: in the quenched approximation. Once quark loops are allowed in the
189: vacuum, for the favour-singlet states of any given $J^{PC}$, there will
190: be mixing between the $s \bar{s}$ state, the $u \bar{u}+d \bar{d}$
191: state and the glueball.
192: One way to explore this is to measure directly the scalar mass
193: eigenstates in a study with $N_f=2$ flavours of sea-quark.
194: Most studies show no significant change of the glueball spectrum as
195: dynamical quark effects are added - but the sea quark masses used are
196: still rather large~\cite{sesam,bali}. A recent study~\cite{lat99},
197: however, does find evidence for a reduced mass, albeit with a rather
198: large lattice spacing, see fig.~1.
199: This effect could be due to mixing of scalar mesons and glueballs, as
200: we discuss below, or might just be a sign of an enhanced order $a^2$
201: correction at the relatively large lattice spacing used.
202:
203: Let us now discus the mixing of the scalar glueball and scalar mesons.
204: The mass spectrum of $q \bar{q}$ states has been determined on a
205: quenched lattice and the scalar mesons are found to lie somewhat
206: lighter than the tensor states~\cite{livhyb}. These $2^{++}$ mesons are
207: experimentally almost unmixed and so will be quite close to the
208: quenched mass determination. This suggests that the quenched scalar
209: masses from the lattice are at around 1.2 GeV and 1.5 GeV (for $n
210: \bar{n}$ and $s \bar{s}$ respectively). An independent
211: study~\cite{weinss,weinssg} suggests that the scalar $s \bar{s}$ state
212: is about 200 MeV lighter than the glueball which is a broadly compatible
213: conclusion. Thus the glueball, at around 1.6 GeV, lies heavier than the
214: lightest $q\bar{q}$ scalar states. This information can then be combined
215: with mixing strengths to give the resulting scalar spectrum.
216:
217: It is possible to measure the mixing strength on a quenched lattice even
218: though no mixing actually occurs. On a rather coarse lattice ($a^{-1}
219: \approx 1.2$ GeV), two groups have attempted this~\cite{weinssg,lat99}.
220: Their results expressed as the mixing for two degenerate quarks of mass
221: around the strange quark mass are similar, namely $E \approx 0.3$
222: GeV~\cite{weinssg} and 0.5 GeV~\cite{lat99}. From this evaluation of the
223: mixing strength, one can use a mass matrix to estimate the mass shift
224: induced in the glueball and scalar meson.
225: The relevant mass matrix is (in a glueball, $q \bar{q}$ basis in GeV
226: units):
227:
228: \begin{math}
229: \left( \begin{array}[h]{cc}
230: 1.2 & 0.5 \\
231: 0.5 & 1.8 \\
232: \end{array} \right)
233: \end{math}
234:
235: \noindent which would give a downward shift of the glueball mass by
236: 20\%.
237: This is in qualitative agreement with our direct determination with
238: $N_f=2$ flavours of sea-quark that the lightest scalar mass is reduced
239: significantly at this lattice spacing as shown in fig.~1.
240:
241:
242: Note that at this coarse lattice spacing the quenched glueball mass is
243: reduced (see fig.~1) below the canonical value of 1.6 GeV. Thus a study
244: at smaller lattice spacing is needed. An exploratory attempt to
245: extrapolate to the continuum~\cite{weinssg} gave a very small mixing of
246: 86(64) MeV, while the other determination~\cite{lat99} uses clover
247: improvement so order $a$ effects in the extrapolation to the continuum
248: are suppressed and one would not expect a significant decrease in going
249: to the continuum limit.
250: What this discussion shows is that precision studies of the mixing on
251: a lattice have not yet been achieved.
252:
253:
254:
255: \begin{figure}[t]
256: \psfig{figure=continuum_glueballs.eps,height=7cm,width=9cm}
257: \vspace{-0.5cm}
258: \caption{ The continuum glueball spectrum{\protect\cite{mpglue}}.
259: }
260: \label{gbr0}
261: \end{figure}
262:
263:
264:
265: As well as this mixing of the glueball with $q \bar{q}$ states, there
266: will be mixing with $q \bar{q} q \bar{q}$ states which will be
267: responsible for the hadronic decays. A first attempt to study
268: this~\cite{gdecay} yields an estimated width for decay to two
269: pseudoscalar mesons from the scalar glueball of order 100 MeV. A more
270: realistic study would involve taking account of mixing with the $n
271: \bar{n}$ and $s \bar{s}$ scalar mesons as well.
272:
273:
274: \section{Exotic states}
275:
276:
277: By exotic state we mean any state which is not dominantly a $q \bar{q}$
278: or $qqq$ state. Such examples have been known for a long time: the
279: deuteron is a proton-neutron molecule for example. It is very weakly
280: bound (2 MeV) and is quite extended. Similar molecular states involving
281: two mesons have been conjectured.
282:
283: One case which is relatively easy to study is the $BB$ system,
284: idealised as two static quarks and two light quarks. Then a potential
285: as a function of the separation $R$ between the static quarks can be
286: determined. Because the static quark spin is irrelevant, the states can
287: be classified by the light quark spin and isospin. Lattice
288: results~\cite{cmpp} (using a light quark mass close to strange) have
289: been obtained for the potential energy for $I_q=0,1$ and $S_q=0,1$. For
290: very heavy quarks, a potential below $2M_B$ will imply binding of the
291: ${BB}$ molecules with these quantum numbers and $L=0$. For the
292: physically relevant case of $b$ quarks of around 5 GeV, the kinetic
293: energy will not be negligible and the binding energy of the ${ BB}$
294: molecular states is less clear cut. One way to estimate the kinetic
295: energy for the ${ BB}$ case with reduced mass circa 2.5 GeV is to use
296: analytic approximations to the potentials found. For example the
297: $I_q,S_q$=(0,0) case shows a deep binding at $R=0$ which can be
298: approximated as a Coulomb potential of $-0.1/R$ in GeV units. This will
299: give a di-meson binding energy of only 10 MeV. For the other
300: interesting case, $(I_q,S_q)$=(0,1), a harmonic oscillator potential in
301: the radial coordinate of form $-0.04[ 1- (r-3)^2/4]$ in GeV units leads
302: to a kinetic energy which completely cancels the potential energy
303: minimum, leaving zero binding. This harmonic oscillator approximation
304: lies above the estimate of the potential, so again we expect weak
305: binding of the di-meson system.
306:
307: Because of these very small values for the di-meson binding energies,
308: one needs to retain corrections to the heavy quark approximation to
309: make more definite predictions, since these corrections are known to
310: be of magnitude 46 MeV from the $B$, $B^*$ splitting. It will also be
311: necessary to extrapolate the light quark mass from strange to
312: the lighter $u,\ d$ values to make more definite predictions
313: about the binding of $BB$ molecules.
314:
315: Models for the binding of two $B$ mesons involve, as in the case of the
316: deuteron, pion exchange. The lattice study~\cite{cmpp} is able to make a
317: quantitative comparison of lattice pion exchange with the data
318: described above and excellent agreement is obtained at larger $R$
319: values, as expected.
320:
321:
322:
323: \section{Hybrid Mesons}
324:
325:
326: By hybrid meson, I mean a meson in which the gluonic degrees of freedom
327: are excited non-trivially.
328: I first discuss hybrid mesons with static heavy quarks where the
329: description can be thought of as an excited colour string. I then
330: summarise the situation concerning light quark hybrid mesons.
331:
332:
333: Consider $Q \bar{Q}$ states with static quarks in which the gluonic
334: contribution may be excited. We classify the gluonic fields according
335: to the symmetries of the system. This discussion is very similar to the
336: description of electron wave functions in diatomic molecules. The
337: symmetries are (i) rotation around the separation axis $z$ with
338: representations labelled by $J_z$ (ii) CP with representations labelled
339: by $g(+)$ and $u(-)$ and (iii) C$\cal{R}$. Here C interchanges $Q$ and
340: $\bar{Q}$, P is parity and $\cal{R}$ is a rotation of $180^0$ about the
341: mid-point around the $y$ axis. The C$\cal{R}$ operation is only relevant
342: to classify states with $J_z=0$. The convention is to label states of
343: $J_z=0,1,2$ by $ \Sigma, \Pi, \Delta$ respectively. The ground state
344: ($\Sigma^+-g$) will have $J_z=0$ and $CP=+$.
345:
346: The exploration of the energy levels of other representations has a
347: long history in lattice studies~\cite{liv,pm}. The first excited state
348: is found to be the $\Pi_u$. This can be visualised as the symmetry of
349: a string bowed out in the $x$ direction minus the same deflection in
350: the $-x$ direction (plus another component of the two-dimensional
351: representation with the transverse direction $x$ replaced by $y$),
352: corresponding to flux states from a lattice operator which is the
353: difference of U-shaped paths from quark to antiquark of the form $\,
354: \sqcap - \sqcup$.
355:
356:
357:
358:
359: Recent lattice studies~\cite{jkm} have used an asymmetric space/time
360: spacing which enables excited states to be determined comprehensively.
361: These results confirm the finding that
362: the $\Pi_u$ excitation is the lowest lying and hence of most relevance
363: to spectroscopy.
364:
365: From the potential corresponding to these excited gluonic states, one
366: can determine the spectrum of hybrid quarkonia using the Schr\"odinger
367: equation in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. This approximation will
368: be good if the heavy quarks move very little in the time it takes for
369: the potential between them to become established. More quantitatively,
370: we require that the potential energy of gluonic excitation is much
371: larger than the typical energy of orbital or radial excitation. This is
372: indeed the case~\cite{liv}, especially for $b$ quarks. Another nice
373: feature of this approach is that the self energy of the static sources
374: cancels in the energy difference between this hybrid state and the
375: $Q \bar{Q}$ states. Thus the lattice approach gives directly the
376: excitation energy of each gluonic excitation.
377:
378: The $\Pi_u$ symmetry state corresponds to excitations of the gluonic
379: field in quarkonium called magnetic (with $L^{PC}=1^{+-}$) and
380: pseudo-electric (with $1^{-+}$) in contrast to the usual P-wave orbital
381: excitation which has $L^{PC}=1^{--}$. Thus we expect different quantum
382: number assignments from those of the gluonic ground state. Indeed
383: combining with the heavy quark spins, we get a degenerate set of 8
384: states with $J^{PC}=1^{--}$, $ 0^{-+}$, $ 1^{-+}$, $ 2^{-+}$ and
385: $1^{++},\ 0^{+-},\ 1^{+-},\ 2^{+-}$ respectively. Note that of these,
386: $J^{PC}= 1^{-+},\ 0^{+-}$ and $2^{+-}$ are spin-exotic and hence
387: will not mix with $Q\bar{Q}$ states. They thus form a very attractive
388: goal for experimental searches for hybrid mesons.
389:
390:
391: The eightfold degeneracy of the static approach will be broken by
392: various corrections. As an example, one of the eight degenerate hybrid
393: states is a pseudoscalar with the heavy quarks in a spin triplet. This
394: has the same overall quantum numbers as the S-wave $Q \bar{Q}$ state
395: ($\eta_b$) which, however, has the heavy quarks in a spin singlet. So
396: any mixing between these states must be mediated by spin dependent
397: interactions. These spin dependent interactions will be smaller for
398: heavier quarks. It is of interest to establish the strength of these
399: effects for $b$ and $c$ quarks. Another topic of interest is the
400: splitting between the spin exotic hybrids which will come from the
401: different energies of the magnetic and pseudo-electric gluonic
402: excitations.
403:
404:
405: One way to go beyond the static approach is to use the NRQCD
406: approximation which then enables the spin dependent effects to be
407: explored. One study~\cite{jkm} finds that the $L^{PC}=1^{+-}$ and
408: $1^{-+}$ excitations have no statistically significant splitting
409: although the $1^{+-}$ excitation does lie a little lighter. This would
410: imply, after adding in heavy quark spin, that the $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$
411: hybrid was the lightest spin exotic. Also a relatively large spin
412: splitting was found~\cite{cppacs} among the triplet states considering,
413: however, only
414: magnetic gluonic excitations.
415:
416:
417:
418: \begin{figure}[th]
419: \psfig{file=pot1575.ps,height=7cm,width=9cm}
420: \vspace{-0.5cm}
421: \caption{The potential energy for quenched and 2 flavours of sea quark
422: for the ground state and first excited gluonic
423: state~{\protect\cite{bali}}.
424: }
425: \label{balif}
426: \end{figure}
427:
428:
429:
430: Confirmation of the ordering of the spin exotic states also comes from
431: lattice studies with propagating quarks~\cite{livhyb,milc,sesamhyb}
432: which are able to measure masses for all 8 states. We discuss this
433: evidence in more detail below.
434:
435: Within the quenched approximation, the lattice evidence for
436: $b\bar{b}$ quarks points to a lightest hybrid spin exotic with
437: $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ at an energy given by $(m_H-m_{2S})r_0$ =1.8 (static
438: potential~\cite{pm}); 1.9 (static potential~\cite{jkm},
439: NRQCD~\cite{cppacs}); 2.0 (NRQCD~\cite{jkm}). These results can be
440: summarised as $(m_H-m_{2S})r_0=1.9 \pm 0.1$.
441: Using the experimental mass of the $\Upsilon(2S)$, this implies that
442: the lightest spin exotic hybrid is at $m_H=10.73(7)$ GeV including a
443: 10\% scale error. Above this energy there will be many more hybrid
444: states, many of which will be spin exotic. A discussion of hybrid decay
445: channels has been given~\cite{hf8}.
446:
447:
448: The excited gluonic static potential has also been determined
449: including sea quarks ($N_f=2$ flavours) and no significant difference
450: is seen~\cite{bali}- see fig.~\ref{balif}. Thus the quenched estimates
451: given above are not superseded.
452:
453:
454:
455: I now focus on lattice results for hybrid mesons made from light
456: quarks using fully relativistic propagating quarks. There will be no
457: mixing with $q \bar{q}$ mesons for spin-exotic hybrid mesons and these
458: are of special interest. The first study of this area was by the UKQCD
459: Collaboration~\cite{livhyb} who used operators motivated by the heavy
460: quark studies referred to above to study all 8 $J^{PC}$ values coming
461: from $L^{PC}=1^{+-}$ and $1^{-+}$ excitations. The resulting mass
462: spectrum gives the $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ state as the lightest spin-exotic
463: state. Taking account of the systematic scale errors in the lattice
464: determination, a mass of 2000(200) MeV is quoted for this hybrid meson
465: with $s \bar{s}$ light quarks. Although not directly measured, the
466: corresponding light quark hybrid meson would be expected to be around
467: 120 MeV lighter.
468:
469:
470:
471: A second lattice group has also evaluated hybrid meson spectra with
472: propagating quarks from quenched lattices. They obtain~\cite{milc}
473: masses of the $1^{-+}$ state with statistical and various systematic
474: errors of 1970(90)(300) MeV, 2170(80)(100)(100) MeV and 4390(80)(200)
475: MeV for $n \bar{n}$, $s \bar{s}$ and $c \bar{c}$ quarks respectively.
476: For the $0^{+-}$ spin-exotic state they have a noisier signal but
477: evidence that it is heavier. They also explore mixing matrix elements
478: between spin-exotic hybrid states and 4 quark operators.
479:
480: A first attempt has been made~\cite{sesamhyb} to determine the hybrid
481: meson spectrum using full QCD. The sea quarks used have several
482: different masses and an extrapolation is made to the limit of physical
483: sea quark masses, yielding a mass of 1.9(2) GeV for the lightest
484: spin-exotic hybrid meson, which again is found to be the $1^{-+}$. In
485: principle this calculation should take account of sea quark effects
486: such as the mixing between such a hybrid meson and $q \bar{q} q
487: \bar{q}$ states such as $\eta \pi$, although it is possible that the sea
488: quark masses used are not light enough to explore these features.
489:
490:
491: The three independent lattice calculations of the light hybrid spectrum
492: are in good agreement with each other. They imply that the natural
493: energy range for spin-exotic hybrid mesons is around 1.9 GeV. The
494: $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ state is found to be lightest. It is not easy to
495: reconcile these lattice results with experimental
496: indications~\cite{expt} for resonances at 1.4 GeV and 1.6 GeV,
497: especially the lower mass value. Mixing with $q \bar{q} q \bar{q}$
498: states such as $\eta \pi$ is not included for realistic quark masses in
499: the lattice calculations. This can be interpreted, dependent on one's
500: viewpoint, as either that the lattice calculations are incomplete or
501: as an indication that the experimental states may have an important
502: meson-meson component in them.
503:
504:
505:
506: \section{String breaking}
507:
508:
509: Although not directly related to exotic states as such, a discussion of
510: string breaking is relevant to a study of the confinement mechanism.
511: Here I concentrate on the situation of a static quark and antiquark at
512: separation $R$ with a gluonic field in a given representation labelled
513: by $J_z$ and $CP$ where the separation axis is $z$. The ground state
514: gluonic configuration has $J_z=0$ and $CP=+$ (also $C \cal{R}=+$, see
515: discussion above).
516:
517:
518:
519: If a light quark and antiquark are to be produced, they must respect
520: these symmetries. When these light quarks have no angular momentum
521: about the separation axis, they will either be in a singlet state
522: ($S_z=0,\ CP=-$) or a triplet state ($S_z=0 \ {\rm or}\ S_z=1, \
523: CP=+$). Thus the only possible transition is to the $S_z=0$ triplet
524: state. This is known as the $^3P_0$ model, although here it is exact.
525: Having established the allowed transitions, I now discuss their
526: strength.
527:
528: Consider the energy of a static $Q \bar{Q}$ versus $R$ for two different
529: situations: (i) a gluonic flux in the ground state (this is the static
530: potential $V(R)$) and (ii) the energy of two ground state mesons ($Q
531: \bar{q}$ plus $\bar{Q}q$) at separation $R$ (ie as $B$ and $\bar{B}$
532: mesons but with static heavy quark). We expect (i) to be lowest lying
533: at small $R$ and (ii) to be lowest lying at large $R$. Where these
534: energies become degenerate is the string-breaking separation $R_B$.
535: This is around 1.2 fm - see fig.~\ref{balif}. As has been emphasised in
536: a study of adjoint string breaking~\cite{cmadj}, the lattice enables
537: string breaking to be studied as a mixing phenomenon.
538:
539:
540: In the quenched approximation there will be no string breaking but the
541: matrix element can be estimated. In full QCD studies with sea quarks,
542: string breaking is enabled and there will be mixing between these
543: states. If this mixing were substantial, the ``potential energy''
544: determined from Wilson loops should show a saturation at energy
545: $V(R)=2m_{Q\bar{q}}$ for $R > R_B$. Unfortunately, this effect has not
546: yet been seen directly in lattice studies.
547:
548: A comprehensive lattice study~\cite{cmppsb} has been made with static
549: quarks and light quarks of mass around the strange mass. This study
550: finds that observation of the direct splitting at $R \approx R_B$ has
551: errors too large to be conclusive. The magnitude of the mixing matrix
552: element can, however, be evaluated with adequate accuracy. This suggests
553: that indeed the mixing is weak (energy mixing strength of a few tens of
554: MeV only). Such a weak mixing would explain why no direct evidence has
555: been seen for string breaking from lattice studies of Wilson loops.
556:
557: This discussion of string breaking can be extended~\cite{hf8} to cover
558: hybrid meson decays as well.
559:
560:
561: \section{Conclusions}
562:
563: Quenched lattice QCD is well understood and accurate predictions in the
564: continuum limit are increasingly becoming available. The lightest
565: glueball is scalar with mass $m(0^{++})=1611(30)(160)$ MeV where the
566: second error is an overall scale error. The excited glueball spectrum is
567: known too. The quenched approximation also gives information on
568: quark-antiquark scalar mesons and their mixing with glueballs. This
569: determination of the mixing in the quenched approximation also sheds
570: light on results for the spectrum directly in full QCD where the
571: mixing will be enabled. There is also some lattice information on the
572: hadronic decay amplitudes of glueballs.
573:
574:
575: Evidence exists for a possible $B_s B_s$ molecular state.
576:
577: For hybrid mesons, there will be no mixing with $q \bar{q}$ for
578: spin-exotic states and these are the most useful predictions. The
579: $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ state is expected at 10.73(7) GeV for $b$ quarks,
580: 2.0(2) GeV for $s$ quarks and 1.9(2) GeV
581: for $u,\ d$ quarks. Mixing of spin-exotic hybrids with
582: $q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ or equivalently with meson-meson is allowed and
583: will modify the predictions from the quenched approximation.
584:
585: String breaking at a separation of 1.2 fm has been studied and the
586: breaking matrix element is found to be weak.
587:
588:
589:
590: \section*{References}
591: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
592:
593: %glueball
594:
595: \bibitem{DForc} P. De Forcrand et al., {\em Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B152},
596: 107 (1985).
597:
598: \bibitem{MTgl} C. Michael and M. Teper, {\em Nucl.\ Phys.} {\bf B314},
599: 347 (1989).
600:
601: \bibitem{ukqcd} UKQCD collaboration, G. Bali, et al.,
602: {\em Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B309}, 378 (1993).
603:
604: \bibitem{gf11} H. Chen et al.,
605: {\em Nucl.\ Phys. B (Proc.\ Suppl.)} {\bf 34}, 357 (1994);
606: A. Vaccarino and D. Weingarten, \Journal{\PRD}{60}{1999}{114501}.
607:
608: \bibitem{sesam}G. Bali et al.,
609: {\em Nucl.\ Phys. B (Proc.\ Suppl.)} {\bf 63}, 209 (1998).
610:
611: \bibitem{lat99} C. Michael, M. S. Foster and C. McNeile,
612: {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf 83-84}, 185 (2000).
613:
614: \bibitem{mpglue} C. Morningstar and M. Peardon, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf
615: D56}, 4043 (1997); {\em ibid.}, {\bf D60}, 034509 (1999) .
616:
617:
618: \bibitem{nrw} F. Niedermeyer, P. R\"ufenacht and U. Wenger,
619: hep-lat/0007007.
620:
621: \bibitem{livhyb} UKQCD Collaboration,
622: P. Lacock, C. Michael, P. Boyle and P. Rowland,
623: {\em Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D54}, 6997 (1996);
624: {\em Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B401}, 308 (1997);
625: {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf 63}, 203 (1998).
626:
627: \bibitem{weinss} W. Lee and D. Weingarten, {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.
628: Suppl)} {\bf 53}, 236(1997); {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.
629: Suppl)} {\bf 73}, 249 (1999).
630:
631: \bibitem{weinssg} W. Lee and D. Weingarten, {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.
632: Suppl)} {\bf 63}, 194 (1998); hep-lat/9805029;
633: \Journal{\PRD}{61}{2000}{014015}.
634:
635: \bibitem{gdecay} J. Sexton, A. Vaccarino and D. Weingarten,
636: {\em Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.)} {\bf 42}, 279 (1995).
637:
638: \bibitem{cmpp} C. Michael and P. Pennanen, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D60},
639: 054012(1999).
640:
641: %hybrid
642:
643: \bibitem{liv} L.A. Griffiths, C. Michael and P.E.L. Rakow,
644: {\em Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B129}, 351 (1983).
645:
646: \bibitem{pm} S. Perantonis and C. Michael, {\em Nucl.\ Phys.} {\bf B347},
647: 854 (1990) .
648:
649: \bibitem{jkm} K. Juge , J. Kuti and C. Morningstar,
650: \Journal{\PRL}{82}{4400}{1999}; {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl)} {\bf
651: 83}, 304 (2000),hep-lat/9909165.
652:
653: \bibitem{cppacs}CP-PACS Collaboration, T. Manke et al.,
654: \Journal{\PRL}{82}{1999}{4396}; {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl)} {\bf
655: 86}, 397 (2000), hep-lat/9909038; {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl)} {\bf
656: 83}, 319 (2000), hep-lat/9909133.
657:
658: \bibitem{milc} C. Bernard et al., {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)}
659: {\bf 53}, 228 (1996); {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D56}, 7039 (1997);
660: {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf 73}, 264 (1999), hep-lat/9809087.
661:
662: \bibitem{sesamhyb} P. Lacock and K. Schilling,
663: {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)}
664: {\bf 73}, 261 (1999),
665: hep-lat/9809022
666:
667: \bibitem{bali} SESAM and T{$\chi$}L Collaboration,
668: G. Bali et al., hep-lat/0003012.% hep-lat/9901023
669:
670: \bibitem{expt} D. Thompson et al., \Journal{\PRL}{ 79}{1997} {1630};
671: S. U. Chung et al., \Journal{\PRD}{60}{1999}{092001};
672: D. Adams et al., \Journal{\PRL}{81}{1998}{5760}
673:
674: \bibitem{cmadj} C. Michael, {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)}
675: {\bf 6}, 417 (1992).
676:
677: \bibitem{cmppsb} P. Pennanen and C. Michael, hep-lat/0001015
678:
679: \bibitem{hf8} C. Michael, {\em Proceedings of Heavy Flavours 8},
680: Southampton 1999, JHEP, hep-ph/9911219.
681:
682: \end{thebibliography}
683:
684: \end{document}
685:
686: #!/bin/csh -f
687: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
688: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
689: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
690: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., figs.uu
691: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
692: # then say csh figs.uu
693: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
694: # uudecode figs.uu ; uncompress figs.tar.Z ;
695: # tar -xvf figs.tar
696: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
697: # filename in "begin" line below to figs.tar_Z , then execute
698: # uudecode figs.uu
699: # compress -d figs.tar_Z
700: # tar -xvf figs.tar
701: #
702: uudecode $0
703: chmod 644 figs.tar.Z
704: zcat figs.tar.Z | tar -xvf -
705: rm $0 figs.tar.Z
706: exit
707:
708: