1: \documentclass{ws-p10x7}
2: \newcommand{\lesssim}%
3: {\mathop{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}}
4:
5: \renewcommand{\cropmarks}{}
6: \pagestyle{plain}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{$B$ and $D$ Mesons in Lattice QCD \hfill {\rm FERMILAB-CONF-00/256-T}}
11:
12: \author{Andreas S. Kronfeld}
13:
14: \address{Theoretical Physics Department,
15: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
16: Batavia, IL, USA}
17:
18:
19: \twocolumn[\maketitle\abstract{Computational and theoretical
20: developments in lattice QCD calculations of $B$ and $D$ mesons
21: are surveyed.
22: Several topical examples are given: new ideas for calculating the HQET
23: parameters $\bar{\Lambda}$ and $\lambda_1$; form factors needed to
24: determine $|V_{cb}|$ and $|V_{ub}|$; bag parameters for the mass
25: differences of the $B$ mesons; and decay constants.
26: Prospects for removing the quenched approximation are discussed.}
27: \thispagestyle{plain}]
28:
29: \section{Introduction}
30: \label{sec:intro}
31:
32: In the standard model, interactions involving the
33: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix violate $CP$, with strength
34: proportional to the area of the ``unitarity triangle.''
35: Fig.~\ref{fig:utps} shows a recent summary\cite{Plaszczynski:1999xs} of
36: the triangle.
37: \begin{figure}[b]
38: \vskip -12pt
39: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{ut99.eps}
40: \vskip -6pt
41: \caption[fig:utps]{Constraints on the unitarity triangle from $CP$
42: conserving $B$ decays and indirect $CP$ violation in the kaon.
43: From Plaszczynski and Schune.\cite{Plaszczynski:1999xs}}
44: \label{fig:utps}
45: \end{figure}
46: The dominant uncertainties are theoretical, coming from
47: non-perturbative QCD.
48: Each blob shows experimental uncertainties for fixed theoretical
49: inputs, so the range of blobs illustrates the theoretical uncertainties.
50: If measuring the apex $(\bar{\rho},\bar{\eta})$ were the only goal, one
51: might conclude from Fig.~\ref{fig:utps} that the most pressing issue is
52: to reduce the theoretical uncertainties,
53: which would require greater investment in computing for lattice QCD.
54:
55: Measuring $(\bar{\rho},\bar{\eta})$ is not the most exciting goal,
56: however.
57: ``High-energy physics is exciting and will remain
58: exciting, precisely because it exists in a state of permanent
59: revolution.''\@\cite{Lykken:1999gn}
60: That means we would prefer to discover additional, non-KM sources of
61: $CP$ violation.
62: Indeed,
63: ``it is possible, likely, unavoidable, that the standard
64: model's picture of $CP$ violation is incomplete.''\cite{Nir}
65:
66: Lattice QCD can aid the discovery of new sources of~$CP$ violation
67: and may be essential.
68: A lot of information will be necessary to figure out what is going on
69: at short distances.
70: One way to think about this is sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:2t}.
71: \begin{figure}[b]
72: \vskip -12pt
73: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.5pt}
74: \begin{picture}(336,120)(-120,0)
75:
76: \thicklines
77: \put(0,0){\vector(1,4){28}}
78: \put(70,-24){$A=V_{cd}V_{cb}^*$}
79: \put(252,0){\vector(-1,0){252}}
80: \put(-120,56){$B=V_{ud}V_{ub}^*$}
81: \put(12,12){$\gamma$}
82:
83: \thinlines
84: \put(28,112){\line(2,-1){224}}
85:
86: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.55pt}
87: \thicklines
88: \put(-5,-3){\begin{picture}(336,120)
89: \put(28,112){\vector(2,-1){224}}
90: \put(160,66){$C=V_{td}V_{tb}^*$}
91: \put(32,84){$\alpha$}
92: \put(180,9){$\beta$}
93: \end{picture}
94: }
95:
96: \thinlines
97: \put(-5,-3){\begin{picture}(336,120)
98: \put(0,0){\line(1,4){28}}
99: \put(252,0){\line(-1,0){252}}
100: \end{picture}
101: }
102:
103: \end{picture}
104: \vskip 12pt
105: \caption[fig:2t]{Two different unitarity triangles:
106: the tree triangle $B\gamma A$, and
107: the mixing triangle $\alpha C\beta$.}
108: \label{fig:2t}
109: \end{figure}
110: The triangle $B\gamma A$ is determined from (quark-level) tree
111: processes.
112: The side $B$ requires
113: $|V_{ud}|$ from $n\to pe^-\bar{\nu}$, and
114: $|V_{ub}|$ from $B^-\to \rho^0l^-\bar{\nu}$ or
115: $\bar{B}^0\to\pi^+l^-\bar{\nu}$;
116: the angle $\gamma$ requires the $CP$ asymmetry of
117: $B^{\pm}\to D^0_{CP} K^\pm$ (or $B_s\to D_s^\pm K^\mp$);
118: the side $A$ requires $|V_{cd}|$ from $D^0\to\pi^-l^+\nu$, and
119: $|V_{cb}|$ from $B^-\to D^{0(*)}l^-\bar{\nu}$.
120: One could call this the ``tree triangle''.
121: The triangle $\alpha C\beta$ is determined from mixing processes
122: (including interference of decays with and without mixing).
123: The angle $\alpha$ requires the asymmetry of $B\to\rho\pi$;
124: the side $C$ requires
125: $|V_{td}|$ from $\Delta m_{B_d^0}^{ }$, and
126: $|V_{tb}|$ from $t\to W^+b$;
127: the angle $\beta$ requires the asymmetry of $B^0\to J/\psi K_S$.
128: One could call this the ``mixing triangle''.
129:
130: Checking whether the mixing triangle agrees with the tree triangle
131: tests for new physics in the amplitude of
132: $B^0_d$-$\bar{B}^0_d$ mixing.
133: New physics in the magnitude muddles the extraction of $|V_{td}|$, and
134: new physics in the phase muddles the extraction of angles~$\alpha$
135: and~$\beta$.
136: Similarly, taking $\Delta m_{B_s^0}^{ }$,
137: $B_s\to D_s^\pm K^\mp$, and $B_s\to J/\psi\,\eta^{(\prime)}$
138: (or $J/\psi\,\phi$)
139: sorts out new physics in $B^0_s$-$\bar{B}^0_s$ mixing.
140: % In Fig.~\ref{fig:2t}, the mixing triangle is slightly larger.
141:
142: These tests are impossible without knowing the sides accurately,
143: so hadronic matrix elements are needed.
144: In a few cases a symmetry provides it, e.g., isospin cleanly
145: yields the matrix element for $n\to pe^-\bar{\nu}$.
146: For the others, we must ``solve'' non-perturbative QCD and, therefore,
147: \emph{you} need lattice calculations.
148:
149: You are probably tired of waiting and may ask why results should come
150: any time soon.
151: The fastest of today's computers are now powerful enough to eliminate
152: the sorest point: the quenched approximation.
153: Also, (lattice) theorists have slowly developed a culture of
154: estimating systematic uncertainties, which is now not bad and would
155: improve if more non-practitioners became sufficiently informed about
156: the methods to make constructive suggestions.
157:
158: The rest of this talk starts with some theoretical aspects that
159: might make it easier for the outsider to judge the systematic errors
160: of heavy quarks on the lattice.
161: Then I~show recent results needed for the sides $A$, $B$, and~$C$,.
162:
163: \section{Lattice Spacing Effects (Theory)}
164: \label{sec:theory}
165:
166: Lattice QCD calculates matrix elements by computing the functional
167: integral, using a Monte Carlo with importance sampling.
168: Hence, there are statistical errors.
169: This part of the method is well understood and, these days, rarely
170: leads to controversy.
171: When conflicts do arise, they usually originate in the treatment
172: of systematics.
173: The non-expert does not need to know how the Monte Carlo works, but
174: can develop some intuition of how the systematics work.
175: Don't be put off by lattice jargon: the main tool is familiar to all:
176: it is effective field theory.
177:
178: Lattice spacing effects can be cataloged with Symanzik's local
179: effective Lagrangian (LE${\cal L}$).\@\cite{Symanzik:1979ph}
180: Finite-volume effects can be controled and exploited with a general,
181: massive quantum field theory.\@\cite{Luscher:1986dn}
182: The computer algorithms work better for the strange quark than for
183: down or up, but the dependence on $m_q$ can be understood and
184: controlled via the chiral Lagrangian.\@\cite{Gasser:1984yg}
185: Finally, discretization effects of the heavy-quark mass $m_Q$ are
186: treated with HQET\cite{Neubert:1994mb} or NRQCD.\@\cite{Caswell:1986ui}
187: In each case one can control the extrapolation of artificial,
188: numerical data, if one generates numerical data close enough to the
189: real world.
190:
191: Volume effects are unimportant in what follows, and chiral
192: perturbation theory is a relatively well-known subject.
193: Therefore, here I~will focus on the effective field theories that help
194: us control discretization effects.
195:
196: \subsection{Symanzik's LE${\cal L}$}
197:
198: Symanzik's formalism\cite{Symanzik:1979ph} describes the
199: lattice theory with continuum~QCD:
200: \begin{equation}
201: {\cal L}_{\rm lat} \doteq {\cal L}_{\rm cont} +
202: \sum_i a^{s_i} C_i(a;\mu) {\cal O}_i(\mu),
203: \end{equation}
204: where the symbol $\doteq$ means ``has the same physics as''.
205: The LE${\cal L}$ on the right-hand side is defined in, say, the
206: $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme at scale $\mu$.
207: The coefficients $C_i$ describe short-distance physics, so they depend
208: on the lattice spacing~$a$.
209: The operators do not depend on~$a$.
210:
211: If $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}a$ is small enough the higher terms
212: can be treated as perturbations.
213: So, the $a$ dependence of the proton mass is
214: \begin{equation}
215: m_p(a) = m_p + a C_{\sigma F}
216: \langle p|\bar{\psi}\sigma\cdot F\psi|p\rangle,
217: \label{eq:mp}
218: \end{equation}
219: taking the leading operator for Wilson fermions as an example.
220: To reduce the second term one might try to reduce $a$ greatly, but CPU
221: time goes as $a^{-\rm (5~or~6)}$.
222: It is more effective to combine several data sets and extrapolate,
223: with Eq.~(\ref{eq:mp}) as a guide.
224: It is even better to adjust things so $C_{\sigma F}$ is
225: $O(\alpha_s^\ell)$ or $O(a)$, which is called Symanzik improvement of
226: the action.
227: For light hadrons, a combination of improvement and extrapolation is
228: best, and you should look for both.
229:
230: \subsection{HQET for large $m_Q$}
231:
232: The Symanzik theory, as usually applied, assumes $m_qa\ll1$.
233: The bottom and charm quarks' masses in lattice units are at present
234: large: $m_ba\sim1$--2 and $m_ca$ about a third of that.
235: It will not be possible to reduce $a$ enough to make $m_ba\ll1$
236: for many, many years.
237: So, other methods are needed to control the lattice spacing
238: effects of heavy quarks.
239: There are several alternatives:
240: \begin{enumerate}
241: \item static approximation\cite{Eichten:1990zv}
242: \item lattice NRQCD\cite{Lepage:1987gg}
243: \item extrapolation from $m_Q\approx m_c$ up to $m_b$
244: \item[$3'\!.$] combine 3 with 1
245: \item normalize systematically to HQET\cite{El-Khadra:1997mp}
246: \end{enumerate}
247: All use HQET in some way.
248: The first two discretize continuum HQET;
249: method~1 stops at the leading term, and method~2 carries the
250: heavy-quark expansion out to the desired order.
251: Methods~3 and~$3'$ keep the heavy quark mass artificially small and
252: appeal to the $1/m_Q$ expansion to extrapolate back up to $m_b$.
253: Method~4 uses the same lattice action as method~3, but uses the
254: heavy-quark expansion to normalize and improve it.
255: Methods~2 and~4 are able to calculate matrix elements directly at
256: the $b$-quark mass.
257:
258: The methods can be compared and contrasted by \emph{describing} the
259: lattice theories with HQET.\@\cite{Kronfeld:2000ck}
260: This is, in a sense, the opposite of \emph{discretizing} HQET.
261: One writes down a (continuum) effective Lagrangian
262: \begin{equation}
263: {\cal L}_{\rm lat} \doteq
264: \sum_n {\cal C}^{(n)}_{\rm lat}(m_Qa; \mu)
265: {\cal O}^{(n)}_{\rm HQET}(\mu),
266: \label{eq:hqet}
267: \end{equation}
268: with the operators defined exactly as in continuum HQET, so they do
269: not depend on $m_Q$ or~$a$.
270: As long as $m_Q\gg\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ this description makes
271: sense.
272: There are two short distances, $1/m_Q$ and the lattice spacing~$a$,
273: so the short-distance coefficients ${\cal C}^{(n)}_{\rm lat}$ depend
274: on~$m_Qa$.
275: Since all dependence on $m_Qa$ is isolated into the coefficients,
276: this description shows that heavy-quark lattice artifacts arise only
277: from the mismatch of the ${\cal C}^{(n)}_{\rm lat}$ and their continuum
278: analogs~${\cal C}^{(n)}_{\rm cont}$.
279:
280: For methods~1 and~2, Eq.~(\ref{eq:hqet}) is just a
281: Symanzik LE${\cal L}$.
282: For lattice NRQCD we recover the well-known result that some of the
283: coefficients have power-law divergences.\@\cite{Lepage:1987gg}
284: So, to take the continuum limit one must add more and more terms to
285: the action.
286: This leaves a systematic error, which, in practice, is usually
287: accounted for conservatively.
288:
289: Eq.~(\ref{eq:hqet}) is more illuminating for methods~3 and~4, which
290: use Wilson fermions (with an improved action).
291: Wilson fermions have the same degrees of freedom and heavy-quark
292: symmetries as continuum QCD, so the HQET description is admissible for
293: all~$m_Qa$.
294: Method~4 matches the coefficients of Eq.~(\ref{eq:hqet}) term by term,
295: by adjusting the lattice action.
296: In practice, this is possible only to finite order, so there are
297: errors $({\cal C}^{(n)}_{\rm lat}-{\cal C}^{(n)}_{\rm cont})%
298: \langle{\cal O}^{(n)}_{\rm HQET}\rangle$, starting with some $n$.
299: Method~3 reduces $m_Qa$ until the mismatch is of order $(m_Qa)^2\ll 1$
300: (or $\lesssim 1$).
301: This runs the risk of reducing $m_Q$ until the heavy-quark
302: expansion falls apart.
303:
304: The non-expert can get a feel for which methods are most appropriate by
305: asking himself what order in $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b$ is needed.
306: For zeroth order, method~1 will do.
307: For the first few orders, the others are needed, although with
308: method~3 one should check that the calculation's
309: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_Q$ is small enough too.
310:
311: \section{New Results}
312: \label{sec:results}
313:
314: \subsection{$\bar{\Lambda}$ and $\lambda_1$}
315:
316: The matching of lattice gauge theory to HQET provides a new way to
317: calculate matrix elements of the heavy-quark
318: expansion.\@\cite{Kronfeld:2000gk}
319: The spin-averaged $B^*$-$B$ mass is given by\cite{Falk:1993wt}
320: \begin{equation}
321: \bar{M} = m + \bar{\Lambda} - \lambda_1/2m,
322: \label{eq:M}
323: \end{equation}
324: where $m$ is the heavy quark mass,
325: and $\bar{M}=\frac{1}{4}(3M_{B^*}+M_{B})$.
326: The lattice changes the short-distance definition of the
327: quark mass:\cite{Kronfeld:2000ck}
328: \begin{equation}
329: \bar{M}_1 - m_1 = \bar{\Lambda}_{\rm lat} -
330: {\lambda_1}_{\rm lat}/2m_2.
331: \label{eq:M1}
332: \end{equation}
333: Because the lattice breaks Lorentz symmetry, $m_1\neq m_2$, but they
334: are still calculable in perturbation theory.\@\cite{Mertens:1998wx}
335: The lambdas in Eq.~(\ref{eq:M1}) are labeled ``lat'' because
336: they suffer lattice artifacts from the gluons and light quark.
337:
338: After fitting a wide range of lattice data to Eq.~(\ref{eq:M1})
339: \emph{and} taking the continuum limit, we find\cite{Kronfeld:2000gk}
340: $\bar{\Lambda} = 0.68^{+0.02}_{-0.12}~{\rm GeV}$ and
341: $\lambda_1 = -(0.45\pm 0.12)~{\rm GeV}^2$
342: in the quenched approximation.
343: The lambdas appear also in the heavy-quark expansion of inclusive decays.
344: Although the current analysis is thorough, there are several ways to
345: improve it.\@\cite{Kronfeld:2000gk}
346: For example, $\bar{\Lambda}_{\rm lat}$ has an unexpectedly large
347: $a$~dependence, so the analysis should be repeated with an action
348: for which $C_{\sigma F}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:mp}) is~$O(a)$.
349:
350: \subsection{$B\to\pi l\nu$ form factors and $V_{ub}$}
351:
352: It is timely to discuss $\bar{B}^0\to\pi^+l^-\bar{\nu}$,
353: because there are three calculations to compare,
354: using lattice NRQCD (method~2),\cite{Aoki:2000ij}
355: the extrapolation method (method~3),\cite{Bowler:2000xn}
356: and the HQET matching method (method~4).\@\cite{Ryan:2000kx}
357: UKQCD's work is final,\cite{Bowler:2000xn}
358: and the other two are preliminary.\@\cite{Aoki:2000ij,Ryan:2000kx}
359: The decay rate requires a form factor, called~$f_+(E)$, which depends
360: on the pion's energy in the $B$'s rest frame, $E=v\cdot p_\pi$.
361: It is related to the matrix element $\langle\pi|V^\mu|B\rangle$, which
362: can be computed in lattice QCD.
363: The systematics are smallest when the pion's three-momentum is small.
364:
365: The three recent results are compared in Fig.~\ref{fig:b2pi}.
366: %
367: \begin{figure}[b]
368: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{b2pi.eps}
369: \caption[fig:b2pi]{Recent results for the decay $B\to \pi l\nu$.}
370: \label{fig:b2pi}
371: \end{figure}
372: %
373: The error bars shown are statistical only.
374: For NRQCD these are larger than expected.\@\cite{Aoki:2000ij}
375: For the other two, the comparison gives a fair idea of systematics
376: that are not common to both, because
377: the extrapolation of heavy quark mass needed with
378: method~3 amplifies the statistical error.\@\cite{Bowler:2000xn}
379: The other two works\cite{Aoki:2000ij,Ryan:2000kx}
380: compute directly at the $b$ quark mass and, thus, circumvent this
381: problem.
382: The heavy quark masses of UKQCD\cite{Bowler:2000xn} are all below
383: 1.3~GeV, and as low as 500~MeV, so one might worry whether the
384: heavy-quark expansion applies.
385:
386: \subsection{$B^-\to D^{0(*)}l^-\bar{\nu}$ and $V_{cb}$}
387:
388: The form factors ${\cal F}_{B\to D^{(*)}}$ of the decays
389: $B\to D^{(*)}l\nu$ are normalized to unity for infinite quark masses.
390: What is needed from lattice QCD, therefore, is the deviation from
391: the unity for physical quark masses.
392: Hashimoto \emph{et al.}\cite{Hashimoto:2000yp,Simone:2000nv} have
393: devised methods based on double ratios, in which all the uncertainties
394: cancel in the symmetry limit.
395: Consequently, all errors scale as ${\cal F}-1$, not as ${\cal F}$.
396:
397: For $B\to Dl\nu$ they find\cite{Hashimoto:2000yp} (published)
398: \begin{equation}
399: \mathcal{F}_{B\to D}(1) =
400: 1.058 \pm 0.016 \pm 0.003^{+0.014}_{-0.005},
401: \label{eq:D}
402: \end{equation}
403: where error bars are from statistics, adjusting the quark masses,
404: and higher-order radiative corrections.
405: For $B\to D^*l\nu$ they find\cite{Simone:2000nv} (still preliminary)
406: \begin{equation}
407: \begin{array}{r@{\,\pm\,}l}
408: \mathcal{F}_{B\to D^*}(1) =
409: 0.935 & 0.022^{+0.008}_{-0.011} \\ & 0.008 \pm 0.020,
410: \end{array}
411: \label{eq:Dstar}
412: \end{equation}
413: where now the last uncertainty is from $1/m_Q^3$.
414: In both results, an ongoing test of the lattice spacing dependence is
415: not included, but that will probably not be noticeable.
416: More seriously, these results are, once again, in the quenched
417: approximation, but the associated uncertainty are still only
418: a fraction of ${\cal F}-1$.
419: Both results will be updated soon, with calculations at a second
420: lattice spacing and refinements in the radiative corrections.
421:
422: \subsection{$B^0_q$-$\bar{B}^0_q$ mixing: $B_B$, $f_B$, and $V_{tq}$}
423: The mass difference of $CP$ eigenstates is
424: \begin{equation}
425: \Delta m_{B^0_q} = \frac{G_F^2m_W^2S_0}{16\pi^2}
426: |V_{tq}^*V_{tb}|^2
427: \eta_B \langle Q_q^{\Delta B=2}\rangle,
428: \label{eq:BB}
429: \end{equation}
430: where the light quark $q$ is $d$ or~$s$, $S_0$ is an Inami-Lim
431: function, and
432: $\langle Q_q^{\Delta B=2}\rangle$ is
433: \begin{equation}
434: \langle \bar{B}_q^0| Q_q^{\Delta B=2}|B_q^0\rangle =
435: {\textstyle\frac{8}{3}}m^2_{B_q}f^2_{B_q} B_{B_q} .
436: \label{eq:fBBB}
437: \end{equation}
438: The $\mu$ dependence in $\eta_B$ and $Q_q^{\Delta B=2}$ cancels.
439: New physics could compete with the $W$ and $t$ box
440: diagrams and change Eq.~(\ref{eq:BB}).
441:
442: Lattice QCD gives matrix elements, so the basic results are
443: $\langle Q_q^{\Delta B=2}\rangle$ and~$f_{B_q}$.
444: It is often stated that uncertainties in
445: $B_{B_q}$ and $\xi^2=f_{B_s}^2B_{B_s}/f_{B_s}^2B_{B_s}$
446: should be small, because they are ratios.
447: Some cancelation should occur, but only if one can show
448: that the errors are under control.
449: At present there are unresolved issues in method~3,
450: so one should be cautious.
451:
452: With that warning, results for $B_B$ from three groups are in
453: Table~\ref{tab:BB}.
454: %
455: \begin{table}[t]
456: \begin{tabular}{ccl}
457: \hline \hline
458: group & method &
459: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$B_{B_d}$(4.8~GeV)} \\
460: \hline
461: JLQCD\cite{Hashimoto:1999ck} & 2 & $0.85 \pm 0.03 \pm 0.11$ \\
462: APE\cite{Becirevic:2000nv} & 3 & $0.93 \pm 0.08^{+00}_{-06}$ \\
463: UKQCD\cite{Lellouch:1999ym} & 3 & $0.92 \pm 0.04^{+03}_{-00}$ \\
464: \hline \hline
465: \end{tabular}
466: \caption[tab:BB]{Recent quenched results for $B_B$.}
467: \label{tab:BB}
468: \end{table}
469: Note that JLQCD now includes the short-distance part of the $1/m_Q$
470: contribution.\@\cite{Hashimoto:2000eh}
471: APE\cite{Becirevic:2000nv} (final) and UKQCD\cite{Lellouch:1999ym}
472: (preliminary) both extrapolate linearly in $1/m_Q$
473: from charm (e.g., $1.75~{\rm GeV}<m_{``B''}<2.26~{\rm GeV}$ for APE).
474: It is not clear whether the first term of the heavy-quark expansion is
475: adequate here; everyone working in $B$ physics can and should
476: form his or her own opinion.
477: It is also not clear how the $(m_Qa)^2$ lattice artifacts of method~3
478: fare through the $1/m_Q$ extrapolation.
479: It is likely that the systematic error is not well controlled and,
480: thus, possibly underestimated in for the last two rows
481: Table~\ref{tab:BB}.
482: At present one should prefer the JLQCD results.
483:
484: % \subsection{Unquenched calculations}
485:
486: The MILC\cite{Bernard:2000nv} and CP-PACS\cite{AliKhan:2000uq} groups
487: have new, \emph{preliminary} unquenched calculations of the heavy-light
488: decay constants $f_B$, $f_{B_s}$, $f_D$, and~$f_{D_s}$.
489: Both use method~4.
490: Both have results at several lattice spacings,
491: so they can study the continuum limit.
492: The status for Osaka is tabulated in Table~\ref{tab:fB}.
493: %
494: \begin{table}[t]
495: \begin{tabular}{rll}
496: \hline \hline
497: $f_P(n_f)$ &
498: \multicolumn{1}{c}{MILC\cite{Bernard:2000nv}} &
499: \multicolumn{1}{c}{CP-PACS\cite{AliKhan:2000uq}} \\
500: \hline
501: $f_B(0)$ &
502: $171\pm6\pm17^{+21}_{-~4}$ & $190 \pm 3 \pm 9$ \\
503: (2) &
504: $190\pm6^{+20}_{-15}{}^{+9}_{-0}$ & $215 \pm 11 \pm 11$ \\
505: $f_{B_s}(0)$ &
506: $197\pm5\pm23^{+25}_{-~6}$ & $224 \pm 2 \pm 15$ \\ % \pm 6$ \\
507: (2) &
508: $218\pm5^{+26}_{-23}{}^{+11}_{-0}$ & $250 \pm 10 \pm 13$ \\ % \pm 14$ \\
509: $f_D(0)$ &
510: $199\pm6\pm12^{+14}_{-~0}$ & $224 \pm 2 \pm 15$ \\
511: (2) &
512: $213\pm4^{+14}_{-13}{}^{+7}_{-0}$ & $236 \pm 14 \pm 14$ \\
513: $f_{D_s}(0)$ &
514: $222\pm5^{+19}_{-17}{}^{+15}_{-~0}$ & $252 \pm 1 \pm 18$ \\ % \pm 6$ \\
515: (2) &
516: $240\pm4^{+25}_{-23}{}^{+9}_{-0}$ & $275 \pm 10 \pm 17$ \\ % \pm 9$ \\
517: \hline \hline
518: \end{tabular}
519: \caption[tab:fB]{Preliminary unquenched results for $f_B$, etc., in the
520: continuum limit. All values in MeV.}
521: \label{tab:fB}
522: \end{table}
523: %
524: The first error is statistical, the second systematic.
525: MILC also provides an estimate of the error from quenching.
526: (With $n_f=2$ the strange quark is still quenched.)
527: CP-PACS\cite{AliKhan:2000uq} also has results with method~2,
528: which agree very well with method~4.
529: One should not, at this time, take the differences between the two
530: groups' central values very seriously.
531: It is more important to understand the different systematics of
532: methods~2, 3, and~4.
533:
534: \section{Prospects}
535: \label{sec:prospects}
536:
537: For $B$ physics it is important to remove the quenched approximation,
538: more so than to reduce the lattice spacing much further.
539: To do so, we need more computing.
540: Fermilab, MILC, and Cornell are building a cluster of PCs to tackle
541: the problem.\@\cite{pcqcd}
542: Our pilot cluster has 8 nodes with a Myrinet switch.
543: We plan to go up to 48--64 nodes, and then hope to assemble a cluster of
544: thousands of nodes.
545: The large cluster would evolve, by upgrading a third or so of the nodes
546: every year.
547: This is an ambitious plan, but not more ambitious than the experimental
548: effort to understand flavor mixing and $CP$ violation.
549:
550: The last few years have seen significant strides in
551: understanding heavy quarks in lattice~QCD.
552: The progress has been both computational and theoretical, with
553: one guiding the other.
554: Calculations shown here, for $\bar{B}^0\to\pi^+l^-\bar{\nu}$,
555: $D^0\to\pi^-l^+\nu$, $B^-\to D^{0(*)}l^-\bar{\nu}$, and
556: $B_d^0$-$\bar{B}_d^0$ mixing are a subset, but in Fig.~\ref{fig:2t}
557: they are as basic as $A$, $B$, $C$.
558: With the right amount of support from the rest of the community, we hope
559: to obtain the tools needed to resolve the few outstanding problems and
560: to produce excellent unquenched results.
561: Indeed, the example of $f_B$ shows that this is already beginning.
562:
563: \section*{Acknowledgments}
564: I~would like to thank Arifa Ali Khan, Claude Bernard, R\"udi
565: Burkhalter, Tetsuya Onogi, Hugh Shanahan and Akira Ukawa for
566: correspondence.
567: I~have benefited greatly from collaboration with Shoji Hashimoto,
568: Aida El-Khadra, Paul Mackenzie, Sin\'ead Ryan, and Jim Simone.
569: Fermilab is operated by Universities Research Association Inc.,
570: under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy.
571:
572: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
573: %
574: \bibitem{Plaszczynski:1999xs}
575: S.~Plaszczynski and M.~Schune,
576: ``Overall determination of the CKM matrix,''
577: hep-ph/9911280.
578: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911280;%%
579: %
580: \bibitem{Lykken:1999gn}
581: J.~D.~Lykken, ``Physics needs for future accelerators,''
582: hep-ph/0001319.
583: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001319;%%
584: %
585: \bibitem{Nir}
586: Y. Nir, ``Future lessons from $CP$ violation,''
587: {\tt http://www-theory.fnal.gov/ /people/ligeti/Brun2/}
588: (Feb., 2000).
589: %
590: \bibitem{Symanzik:1979ph}
591: K. Symanzik,
592: % ``Cutoff Dependence in Lattice $\phi^4$ in Four-Dimensions Theory,''
593: in \emph{Recent Developments in Gauge Theories},
594: ed.\ G. 't~Hooft \emph{et al}.\ (Plenum, New York, 1980).
595: %
596: \bibitem{Luscher:1986dn}
597: M.~L\"uscher,
598: Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 104}, 177 (1986);
599: %%CITATION = CMPHA,104,177;%%
600: {\bf 105}, 153 (1986).
601: %%CITATION = CMPHA,105,153;%%
602: %
603: \bibitem{Gasser:1984yg}
604: J.~Gasser and H.~Leutwyler,
605: %``Chiral Perturbation Theory To One Loop,''
606: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 158}, 142 (1984).
607: %%CITATION = APNYA,158,142;%%
608: %
609: \bibitem{Neubert:1994mb}
610: For a popular review, see M.~Neubert,
611: %``Heavy quark symmetry,''
612: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 245}, 259 (1994).
613: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9306320;%%%
614: %
615: \bibitem{Caswell:1986ui}
616: W.E. Caswell and G.P. Lepage,
617: % ``Effective Lagrangians for Bound State Problems in QED, QCD,
618: % and Other Field Theories,''
619: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf 167B}, 437 (1986).
620: %%CITATION = PHLTA,167B,437;%%
621: %
622: \bibitem{Eichten:1990zv}
623: E. Eichten, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. {\bf 4}, 170 (1987);
624: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,4,170;%%
625: E. Eichten and B. Hill,
626: % ``An Effective Field Theory for the Calculation of Matrix Elements
627: % Involving Heavy Quarks,''
628: Phys. Lett. {\bf B234}, 511 (1990).
629: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B234,511;%%
630: %
631: \bibitem{Lepage:1987gg}
632: G. P. Lepage and B. A. Thacker,
633: Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. {\bf 4}, 199 (1987);
634: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,4,199;%%
635: B. A. Thacker and G. P. Lepage,
636: % ``Heavy Quark Bound States in Lattice QCD,''
637: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D43}, 196 (1991).
638: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,196;%%
639: %
640: \bibitem{El-Khadra:1997mp}
641: A. X. El-Khadra, A. S. Kronfeld, and P.~B. Mackenzie,
642: % ``Massive fermions in lattice gauge theory,''
643: Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 3933 (1997).
644: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D55,3933;%%
645: %
646: \bibitem{Kronfeld:2000ck}
647: A.~S.~Kronfeld,
648: %``Application of heavy-quark effective theory to lattice QCD.
649: % I: Power corrections,''
650: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D62}, 014505 (2000).
651: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0002008;%%
652: %
653: \bibitem{Kronfeld:2000gk}
654: A.~S.~Kronfeld and J.~N.~Simone,
655: %``Computation of Lambda-bar and lambda(1) with lattice QCD,''
656: hep-ph/0006345.
657: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006345;%%
658: %
659: \bibitem{Falk:1993wt}
660: A. F. Falk and M.~Neubert,
661: Phys. Rev. {\bf D47}, 2965 (1993).
662: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9209268;%%
663: %
664: \bibitem{Mertens:1998wx}
665: B.~P.~Mertens, A.~S.~Kronfeld and A.~X.~El-Khadra,
666: %``The self energy of massive lattice fermions,''
667: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D58}, 034505 (1998).
668: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9712024;%%
669: %
670: \bibitem{Aoki:2000ij}
671: S.~Aoki {\it et al.} [JLQCD Collaboration],
672: %``B --> pi l anti-nu form factors with NRQCD heavy quark and clover
673: % light quark actions,''
674: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 83}, 325 (2000);
675: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9911036;%%
676: T.~Onogi, private communication.
677: %
678: \bibitem{Bowler:2000xn}
679: K.~C.~Bowler {\it et al.} [UKQCD Collaboration],
680: %``Improved B --> pi l nu/l form factors from the lattice,''
681: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B486}, 111 (2000).
682: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9911011;%%
683: %
684: \bibitem{Ryan:2000kx}
685: S.~M.~Ryan {\it et al.},
686: % A.~X.~El-Khadra, A.~S.~Kronfeld, P.~B.~Mackenzie and J.~N.~Simone,
687: %``B and D semileptonic decays to light mesons,''
688: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 83}, 328 (2000).
689: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9910010;%%
690: %
691: \bibitem{Hashimoto:2000yp}
692: S.~Hashimoto {\it et al.},
693: %A.~X.~El-Khadra, A.~S.~Kronfeld, P.~B.~Mackenzie,
694: % S.~M.~Ryan and J.~N.~Simone,
695: %``Lattice {QCD} calculation of anti-B --> D l anti-nu decay form
696: % factors at zero recoil,''
697: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D61}, 014502 (2000).
698: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906376;%%
699: %
700: \bibitem{Simone:2000nv}
701: J.~N.~Simone {\it et al.},
702: % S.~Hashimoto, A.~X.~El-Khadra, A.~S.~Kronfeld,
703: % P.~B.~Mackenzie and S.~M.~Ryan,
704: %``The $B \to D^* \ell \nu$ form factor at zero recoil,''
705: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 83}, 334 (2000).
706: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9910026;%%
707: %
708: \bibitem{Hashimoto:1999ck}
709: S.~Hashimoto {\it et al.},
710: % K.~I.~Ishikawa, H.~Matsufuru, T.~Onogi, S.~Tominaga and N.~Yamada,
711: %``A lattice NRQCD calculation of the B0 anti-B0 mixing parameter B(B),''
712: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D60}, 094503 (1999).
713: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9903002;%%
714: %
715: \bibitem{Hashimoto:2000eh}
716: S.~Hashimoto {\it et al.},
717: % K.~I.~Ishikawa, T.~Onogi, M.~Sakamoto, N.~Tsutsui and N.~Yamada,
718: %``Renormalization of the Delta(B) = 2 four-quark operators in
719: %lattice NRQCD,''
720: hep-lat/0004022.
721: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0004022;%%
722: %
723: \bibitem{Becirevic:2000nv}
724: D.~Becirevic {\it et al.},
725: % D.~Meloni, A.~Retico, V.~Gimenez, L.~Giusti, V.~Lubicz and
726: % G.~Martinelli,
727: %``B0 anti-B0 mixing and decay constants with the non-perturbatively
728: % improved action,''
729: hep-lat/0002025.
730: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0002025;%%
731: %
732: \bibitem{Lellouch:1999ym}
733: L.~Lellouch and C.~J.~Lin [UKQCD Collaboration],
734: %``B0 anti-B0 mixing and decay constants from lattice QCD,''
735: hep-ph/9912322.
736: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912322;%%
737: %
738: \bibitem{Bernard:2000nv}
739: C.~Bernard {\it et al.} [MILC Collaboration],
740: %``Heavy-light decay constants with dynamical gauge configurations and
741: % Wilson or improved valence quark actions,''
742: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 83}, 289 (2000);
743: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9909121;%%
744: C. Bernard, private communication.
745: %
746: \bibitem{AliKhan:2000uq}
747: A. Ali Khan, R. Burkhalter, and H. Shanahan, private communication.
748: %
749: \bibitem{pcqcd}
750: For more details, visit our web-site at
751: {\tt http://www-theory.fnal.gov/pcqcd/}.
752:
753: \end{thebibliography}
754:
755: \newpage
756: \begin{figure*}[ht]
757: \centering
758: \includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{caveman.eps}
759: \vskip 12pt
760: \caption[fig:caveman]{Artist's conception of the author
761: striving to comprehend charm and beauty.
762: (\copyright 2000 Mercedes Kronfeld Jordan.)}
763: \end{figure*}
764:
765: \end{document}
766: