1: \documentstyle[preprint,eqsecnum,aps,epsf,rotate,floats]{revtex}
2:
3: \def\lqcd{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}
4: \def\jp{J/\psi}
5: \def\psip#1{\psi_{\mathbf{#1}}}
6: \def\chip#1{\chi_{\mathbf{#1}}}
7: \def\bsigma{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \preprint{
12: \vbox{\halign{&##\hfil \cr
13: % & hep-ph/0012062 \cr
14: & CMU-0005 \cr
15: & FERMILAB-Pub-00/321-T \cr
16: }}}
17: \title{Power Counting and Effective Field Theory for Charmonium}
18:
19: \author{Sean Fleming and I.~Z.~Rothstein}
20: \address{Department of Physics, Carnegie Mellon University,
21: Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A}
22:
23: \author{Adam K.~Leibovich}
24: \address{Theory Group, Fermilab, P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510, U.S.A.}
25:
26: \maketitle
27:
28: \begin{abstract}
29: \tighten{
30: \noindent\hspace*{-0.34cm} We hypothesize that the correct power
31: counting for charmonia is in the parameter $\lqcd/m_c$, but is not
32: based purely on dimensional analysis (as is HQET). This power counting
33: leads to predictions which differ from those resulting from the usual
34: velocity power counting rules of NRQCD. In particular, we show that
35: while $\lqcd/m_c$ power counting preserves the empirically verified
36: predictions of spin symmetry in decays, it also leads to new
37: predictions which include: A hierarchy between spin singlet and
38: triplet octet matrix elements in the $J/\psi$ system. A quenching of the
39: net polarization in production at large transverse momentum. No end
40: point enhancement in radiative decays. We discuss explicit tests
41: which can differentiate between the traditional and new theories of
42: NRQCD.}
43: \end{abstract}
44: \pacs{}
45:
46: \vfill
47: \tighten{
48: \section{Introduction}
49:
50: Quarkonia have proven to be fruitful in helping us gain a better
51: understanding of QCD. For large enough valence quark masses the system
52: should be dominated by Coulomb exchange in the perturbative regime.
53: Fortunately, the physical valence quark masses seem to be too small
54: for the states to be truly insensitive to non-perturbative effects,
55: and thus give a window on the more interesting aspects of QCD. In
56: order to systematically study these effects we need to separate the
57: long distance from the short distance physics. This can be
58: accomplished by writing down a proper effective field theory to
59: describe the infra-red. The theory should provide a power counting
60: which determines which operators are relevant. In most effective
61: theories this power counting is based upon dimensional
62: analysis. However, for non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) \cite{BBL}
63: this is not the case. Instead, it is an expansion in the parameter
64: $v$, the relative velocity of the valence quarks. This power counting
65: presupposes that the states are Coulombic, at least to the extent that
66: $\alpha_s(mv)\simeq v$, and leads to the result that operators
67: of the same dimension may be of different orders in the power
68: counting. This methodology has been applied to the $J/\psi$ as well
69: as the $\Upsilon$ systems. While it seems quite reasonable to apply
70: this power counting to the $\Upsilon$ system, it is not clear, as we
71: will discuss in more detail below, that it should apply for the
72: $J/\psi$ system. Indeed, we believe that the data is hinting
73: towards the possibility that a new power counting is called for in the
74: charmed system.
75:
76:
77: In Ref.~\cite{BBL}, the authors showed how to utilize NRQCD to predict
78: decay rates as well as production rates in a systematic double
79: expansion in $\alpha_s$ and $v$. These predictions have met with
80: varying degrees of success. For instance, it is possible to explain
81: $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$ production at the Tevatron, though the initial
82: data on the polarization of these states at large transverse momentum
83: \cite{poldata} seems to be at odds with the NRQCD prediction. In
84: addition, there is an unexpected hierarchy of matrix elements in the
85: charmed system which does not seem to be there in the bottom
86: system. Furthermore, there is a discrepancy between theoretical
87: expectations and data for the end point spectrum of inclusive
88: radiative decays. While we do not believe that any one of these
89: pieces of evidence, on their own,
90: is strong enough to warrant introduction of a new theory,
91: it seems to us that the evidence, taken
92: as a whole, seems to be telling us that the effective field theory
93: which best describes the $J/\psi$ system may not be the same theory
94: which best describes the $\Upsilon$. The purpose of this paper is to
95: present an alternative charmonium power counting, first discussed in
96: \cite{martin} and later utilized to study the quark-antiquark
97: potential \cite{Petal}, which leads to predictions which seem to have
98: better agreement with the data.
99:
100: \section{background}
101: A general decay process may be written in factorized form \cite{BBL}
102: \begin{equation}
103: \Gamma_{J/\psi}=\sum C_{^{2S+1} L_J}(m,\alpha_s)\langle \psi \mid
104: O^{(1,8)}(^{2S+1}L_J) \mid \psi \rangle.
105: \end{equation}
106: The matrix element represents the long distance part of the rate and
107: may be thought of as the probability of finding the heavy quarks in
108: the relative state $n$, while the coefficient
109: $C_{^{2S+1}L_J}(m,\alpha_s)$ is a short distance quantity calculable
110: in perturbation theory. The sum over operators may be truncated as an
111: expansion in the relative velocity $v$.
112:
113:
114: Similarly, production cross sections may be written as
115: \begin{equation}
116: \label{prodrate}
117: d\sigma =\sum_n d\sigma_{i+j\rightarrow Q\bar{Q}[n]+X}\langle 0 \mid
118: {\sc O}^H_n
119: \mid 0 \rangle.
120: \end{equation}
121: Here $d\sigma_{i+j\rightarrow Q\bar{Q}[n]+X}$ is the short distance
122: cross section for a reaction involving two partons, $i$ and $j$, in the
123: initial state, and two heavy quarks in a final state, labeled by $n$,
124: plus $X$. This part of the process is calculable in perturbation
125: theory, modulo the possible structure functions in the initial
126: state. The production matrix elements, which differ from those used in
127: the decay processes, describe the probability of the short distance
128: pair in the state $n$ to hadronize, inclusively, into the state of
129: interest. The relative size of the matrix elements in the sum are
130: again fixed by the power counting which we will discuss in more detail
131: below.
132:
133: The formalism for decays is on the same footing as the operator
134: product expansion (OPE) for non-leptonic decays of heavy quarks, while
135: the production formalism assumes factorization, which is only proven,
136: and in some applications of production this is not even the case, in
137: perturbation theory \cite{factor}. The trustworthiness of
138: factorization depends upon the particular application, as we will
139: discuss further in the body of the paper. We have reviewed these
140: results here to emphasize the point that when we test this theory we
141: are really testing both the factorization hypothesis as well the
142: validity of the effective theory as applied to the $J/\psi$ system.
143: Thus, we must be careful in assigning blame when we find that our
144: theory is not agreeing with the data.
145:
146: While NRQCD has allowed for successful fits of the data (in particular
147: we have $J/\psi$ and $\psi^\prime$ production at the Tevatron in mind), its
148: predictive power has yet to stand any stringent test.\footnote{One
149: simple test, which has yet to be performed, is to compare the values
150: of the decay and production singlet matrix elements, which are
151: predicted to be equal at leading order in $v$ \cite{BBL}.
152: To date the production singlet matrix elements have yet to
153: be extracted and compared to the decay singlet matrix elements. These
154: extractions can easily done using the direct $\jp$ production data at
155: CLEO \cite{IR}.} Indeed, one robust prediction of the theory, namely
156: that production at large transverse momentum is almost purely
157: polarized \cite{CW95,BR96b,BL}, seems to be at odds with the initial
158: data.\footnote{The data still has rather large error bars, so we
159: should withhold judgment until the statistics improves.} Other
160: predictions such as the ratio of $\chi_1/\chi_2$ in fixed target
161: experiments and the photon spectrum in inclusive radiative decays also
162: seem to disagree with the data, as we shall discuss in more detail
163: below. We are left with two obvious possibilities: 1) The power
164: counting of NRQCD does not apply to the $J/\psi$ system. 2)
165: Factorization is violated ``badly'', meaning that there are
166: large power corrections.
167: The purpose of this paper is to explore the first possibility.
168:
169: If we assume that NRQCD does not apply to the $J/\psi$ system, then we
170: must ask: is there another effective theory which does correctly
171: describe the $J/\psi$? One good reason to believe that such a
172: theory does exist is that NRQCD, as formulated, does correctly predict
173: the ratios of decay amplitudes for exclusive radiative decays. Using
174: spin symmetry the authors of \cite{CW95} made the following
175: predictions:
176: \begin{eqnarray}
177: &&\Gamma(\chi_{c0}\rightarrow J/\psi+\gamma):
178: \Gamma(\chi_{c1}\rightarrow J/\psi+\gamma):\Gamma(\chi_{c2}\rightarrow
179: J/\psi+\gamma)
180: :\Gamma(h_{c}\rightarrow \eta_c+\gamma) \nonumber \\
181: &&\phantom{\qquad}=0.095:0.20:0.27:0.44\quad (theory)\nonumber \\
182: &&\phantom{\qquad}= 0.092\pm 0.041 :0.24\pm 0.04:0.27\pm
183: 0.03:unmeasured\quad(experiment).
184: \end{eqnarray}
185: Thus, we would like to find an alternative formulation (power
186: counting) of NRQCD which preserves these predictions yet yields
187: different predictions in other relevant processes. Before discussing
188: this alternative power counting, we must briefly review the standard
189: formulation.
190:
191: The rest of this paper is structured as follows. We will first review
192: the standard power counting used for predictions to date. Then we will
193: offer a new power counting and discuss how the two theories differ in
194: their treatment of several relevant observables, as well as how the
195: theories fair against the data. We close with some remarks regarding
196: the validity of factorization in various observables.
197:
198: \subsection{NRQCD power counting}
199:
200: The power counting depends upon the relative size of the four scales
201: $(m,mv,mv^2,\lqcd)$. If we take $m>mv> mv^2\simeq \lqcd$, then the
202: bound state dynamics will be dominated by exchange of Coulombic gluons
203: with $(E\simeq mv^2,\vec{p}=m\vec{v})$. This hierarchy has been
204: assumed in the NRQCD calculation of production and decay rates and is
205: most probably the reasonable choice for the $\Upsilon$ system, where
206: $mv \sim 1.5 {\rm\ GeV}$. However, whether or not it is correct for
207: the $\jp$, where $mv \sim 700 {\rm\ MeV}$ remains to be seen.
208:
209: The power counting can be established in a myriad of different ways.
210: Here we will follow the construction of \cite{LMR}, which we now
211: briefly review. There are three relevant gluonic modes \cite{BSI}: the
212: Coulombic $(mv^2,mv)$, soft ($mv,mv$) and ultrasoft $(mv^2,mv^2)$. The
213: soft and Coulombic modes can be integrated out leaving only ultrasoft
214: propagating gluons. In the process of integrating out these modes we
215: must remove those large modes from the quark field. This is
216: accomplished by rescaling the heavy quark fields by a factor of
217: $\exp(i\vec{p}\cdot \vec{x})$ and labeling them by their three
218: momentum $\vec{p}$. The ultrasoft gluon can only change residual
219: momenta and not labels on fields. This is analogous to HQET, where
220: the four-velocity labels the fields and the non-perturbative gluons
221: only change the residual momenta \cite{MWbook}. This rescaling must
222: also be done for soft gluon fields \cite{HG} which, while they cannot
223: show up in external states, do show up in the
224: Lagrangian.\footnote{Thus the nomenclature is slightly misleading
225: since we have not removed these fields from the Lagrangian.} After
226: this rescaling a matching calculation leads to the following tree
227: level Lagrangian \cite{LMR}
228: \begin{eqnarray}\label{nrqcd:1}
229: {\cal L} &=&
230: \sum_{\mathbf p}
231: \psip p ^\dagger \Biggl\{ i D^0 - {\left({\bf p}
232: \right)^2 \over 2 m} \Biggr\}
233: \psip p - 4 \pi \alpha_s
234: \sum_{q,q^\prime\mathbf p,p^\prime}\Biggl\{{1\over q^0}
235: \psip {p^\prime} ^\dagger \left[A^0_{q^\prime},A^0_q \right]
236: \psip p \nonumber \\
237: && + {g^{\nu 0} \left(q^\prime-p+p^\prime\right)^\mu -
238: g^{\mu 0} \left(q-p+p^\prime\right)^\nu + g^{\mu\nu}\left(q-q^\prime \right)^0
239: \over \mathbf \left( p^\prime-p \right)^2}
240: \psip {p^\prime} ^\dagger \left[A^\nu_{q^\prime},A^\mu_q \right]
241: \psip p \Biggr\}\nonumber \\
242: &&\qquad\qquad + \psi \leftrightarrow \chi,\ T \leftrightarrow \bar T + \sum_{\mathbf p,q}
243: {4 \pi \alpha_s \over \mathbf \left( p-q \right)^2}
244: \psip q ^\dagger T^A \psip p \chip {-q}^\dagger \bar T^A \chip {-p} + \ldots
245: \end{eqnarray}
246: where we have retained the lowest order terms in each sector of the
247: theory. The matrices $T^A$ and $\bar T^A$ are the color matrices for
248: the $\bf 3$ and $\bf \bar 3$ representations, respectively. Notice
249: that the kinetic piece of the quark Lagrangian is just described by a
250: label. This is a result of the dipole expansion \cite{GR} which is
251: used to get a homogeneous power counting. The last term is the
252: Coulomb potential, which is leading order and must be resummed in the
253: four-quark sector, while the other non-local interactions arise from
254: soft gluon scattering.
255:
256: Now all the operators in the Lagrangian have a definite scaling in
257: $v$. The spin symmetry, which will play such a crucial role in the
258: polarization predictions, is manifest. The two subleading interactions
259: which will dominate our discussion are the ``electric dipole'' ($E1$)
260: \begin{equation}
261: {{\cal L}_{E1}}=\psip p ^\dagger \frac{\vec{p}}{m}\cdot \vec{A} \psip p,
262: \end{equation}
263: and ``magnetic dipole'' ($M1$)
264: \begin{equation}
265: {{\cal L}_{M1}}= c_F\, g \psip p ^\dagger {{\bf \bsigma \cdot B} \over 2
266: m}\psip p.
267: \end{equation}
268: The $E1$ interaction is down by a factor of $v$ while the $M1$ is down
269: by a factor of $v^2$. The extra factor of $v$ stems from the fact that
270: the magnetic gluons are ultrasoft,\footnote{One may wonder why the
271: emission of a soft gluon cannot lead to the enhancement of the
272: magnetic transition operator. However, the emission of such a gluon
273: leaves the quark off-shell and contributes a pure counter-term to the
274: matching \cite{martin}.} and the derivative operator therefore picks up
275: a factor of $v^2$. These operators play a crucial role in the so-called
276: octet mechanism.
277:
278:
279: \subsection{New Power Counting}
280: Let us now consider the alternate hierarchy $m>mv\sim \lqcd$. One
281: might be tempted to believe that in this case the power counting
282: should be along the lines of HQET, where the typical energy and
283: momentum exchanged between the heavy quarks is of order $\lqcd$.
284: However, this leads to an effective theory which does not correctly
285: reproduce the infra-red physics. With this power counting, the leading
286: order Lagrangian would simply be
287: \begin{equation}
288: {\cal L_{\rm HQET}}=\psi_v ^\dagger D_0 \psi_v,
289: \end{equation}
290: where the fields are now labeled by their four velocity. This is a
291: just a theory of time-like Wilson lines (static quarks) which does not
292: produce any bound state dynamics. Thus we are forced to the
293: conclusion that the typical momentum is of order $\lqcd$, whereas the
294: typical energy is $\lqcd^2/m$. The dynamical gluons are now all of
295: the type $(\lqcd,\lqcd)$, as the on-shell ultrasoft modes get cut-off by the
296: confinement scale. Therefore, one no longer labels fields by their three
297: velocities. The only label is the four velocity of the heavy
298: quark. However, the $D^2/(2m)$ is still relevant and their is no
299: dipole expansion. We can not resist the temptation of
300: introducing yet another
301: acronym,\footnote{We stole this bit of prose from \cite{BFL*}.} and
302: call this theory NRQCD$_c$, while we will refer to the traditional
303: power counting as NRQCD$_b$ as we assume that it does describe the
304: bottom system.\footnote{In the language of \cite{pNRQCD}, NRQCD$_b$
305: would correspond to pNRQCD and NRQCD$_c$ would correspond to NRQCD. We
306: chose to introduce these new acronyms because calling NRQCD$_c$ NRQCD
307: would be misleading, since the original NRQCD, as defined in
308: \cite{BBL}, is indeed distinct from NRQCD$_c$. We thus believe that
309: our labeling will be the simplest for our purposes and hope the
310: community will indulge us in our, what may be perceived as gratuitous,
311: acronymization.}
312:
313: The power counting of this theory is now along the lines of HQET where
314: the expansion parameter is $\lqcd/m_Q$. However the residual energy of
315: the quarks is order $\lqcd^2/m_Q$, while the residual three momentum
316: is $\lqcd$. Thus one must be careful in the power counting to
317: differentiate between time and spatial derivatives acting on the quark
318: fields. As far as the phenomenology is concerned, perhaps the most
319: important distinction between the power counting in NRQCD$_c$ and
320: NRQCD$_b$ is that the magnetic and electric gluon transitions are now
321: of the same order in NRQCD$_c$. This difference in scaling does not
322: disturb the successes of the standard NRQCD$_b$ formulation but does
323: seem help in some of its shortcomings.
324:
325:
326: \section{Lifetimes}
327:
328: In the case of inclusive decays the use of effective field theory put
329: theoretical calculations on surer footing. Previous to the advent of
330: NRQCD, inclusive decays were written as a product of a short distance
331: decay amplitude and a long distance wave function which was usually
332: taken from potential models \cite{Buch}
333: \begin{equation}
334: \Gamma_{J/\psi}=\mid \psi(0)\mid^2 C(m,\alpha_s).
335: \end{equation}
336: Most of the time this formalism is adequate, however there is the
337: question of the scheme dependence of the potential wave function
338: beyond leading order. Beyond this drawback is the question of how to
339: factor infra-red divergences in $P$ wave decays. Within the
340: effective field theory approach, however, these issues are
341: clarified. The rate is now written as
342: \begin{equation}
343: \Gamma_{J/\psi}=\sum C_{^{2S+1} L_J}(m,\alpha_s)\langle \psi \mid
344: O_{(1,8)}(^{2S+1}L_J) \mid \psi \rangle.
345: \end{equation}
346: The operator matrix element gives the probability to find the quarks
347: within the hadron in the state $^{2S+1} L_J$. The quarks can be either
348: in a relative singlet or octet state, hence the subscript $(1,8)$. The
349: matrix elements are well defined scheme dependent quantities, which
350: can be measured on the lattice, or extracted from the data
351: \cite{bodwin}, and have definite scalings in $v$. For instance,
352: consider the operator $\langle \chi_J \mid O_1(^{3}P_J) \mid \chi_J
353: \rangle$. We would expect this operator to dominate the decay of
354: $\chi$ states, given that the quantum number of the short distance
355: quark pair match the quantum number of the final state. However, this
356: is not the case \cite{pwave}. The operator $\langle \chi_J \mid
357: O_8(^{3}S_1) \mid \chi_J \rangle$ is of the same order. This can be
358: seen from the fact that the $P$ wave operator comes with two spatial
359: derivatives. The octet $S$ operator vanishes at leading order, since
360: there is no $S$ wave component in the leading order hadronic state in
361: the effective theory. The first non-vanishing contribution comes from
362: two insertion of $E1$ operators into time ordered products with
363: $O_8(^{3}S_1)$. Thus both the singlet $P$ wave operator and the octet
364: $S$ wave operator scale as $v^2$. Furthermore, the inclusion of this
365: operator into the rate allows for the proper absorption of infrared
366: divergences in the $P$ wave decays into octet $S$ wave matrix
367: elements. This should be considered a formal success of the effective
368: field theory. Any change in the power counting will not change this
369: success, as the scaling of an operator is independent of its
370: renormalization group properties. Such a change could only effect the
371: relevance of the infra-red divergence, in a technical sense.
372:
373: The advent of NRQCD had little impact on the phenomenology of
374: inclusive decays because it simply justified previous calculations of
375: the total width. However, one novel prediction of NRQCD was found in the
376: end point spectrum of inclusive radiative decays \cite{RW,MW}.
377: Radiative decays, as opposed to hadronic decays,\footnote{We are
378: ignoring photon fragmentation for the moment.} have the advantage that
379: they are subject to an operator product expansion, thus rely less upon
380: local-duality assumptions. The integration over the photon energy
381: smears through resonances and thus one may expect the prediction
382: to be more trustworthy. We may reliably calculate the photon spectrum
383: itself if we smear over regions of phase space which are larger than
384: $\lqcd$ \cite{RW}.
385:
386:
387: In NRQCD, the decay of the $J/\psi$ is dominated by the $^3S_1$
388: singlet operator with the octet operators being suppressed by
389: $v^4\pi/\alpha_s$. However, due to the singular nature of the octet
390: Wilson coefficients (it is a delta function at leading order in
391: $\alpha_s$) they can become leading order near the end point of the
392: spectrum. Of course we do not expect a delta function spike at the
393: end point since the spike should be smeared out due to bound state
394: dynamics, among other effects \cite{wolf}, which can be taken into
395: account by the introduction of structure functions.
396:
397:
398: In \cite{RW} it was shown that if one smeared the photon spectrum over
399: a range of order $mv^2$, then the spectrum would receive a leading
400: order corrections from the octet matrix elements which are peaked at
401: the end point. In the standard hierarchy such a smearing is
402: satisfactory since it corresponds to smearing over $mv$ in hadronic
403: mass which is larger than $\lqcd$. However, in the new power counting
404: this is no longer true and, given that the OPE breaks down in the
405: region where the octet was suppose to dominate, it is no longer true
406: that we can predict any peak with reliability. If we now consider the
407: data, we see that for the $J/\psi$ the data is monotonically
408: decreasing \cite{Jdata}. On the other hand the $\Upsilon$ data does
409: show a bump out at larger values of the photon energy. We wish to take
410: this as support for the new power counting in the $J/\psi$ system. But
411: we must be careful since there are other effects which become
412: important at the end point which we have not taken into account. For
413: instance, near the end point there are large radiative corrections
414: which are known to resum into a Sudakov suppression. However, we
415: would not expect this effect to completely eliminate the bump, just
416: cut it off at larger energies. Nonetheless a complete calculation of
417: the resummed Sudakov effects in the end point spectrum of $\Upsilon$
418: decays is needed.
419:
420:
421:
422:
423:
424:
425:
426: \section{Hadro-Production}
427: As discussed in section II a general production process may be
428: written in the factorized form (\ref{prodrate}). The long distance
429: part of the process involves the hadronization of the heavy quarks in
430: the state $n$ into the hadron of choice $H$. The matrix element in
431: Eq.~(\ref{prodrate}) is written as
432: \begin{eqnarray}
433: \langle 0 \mid O^H_n \mid 0 \rangle &=&
434: \langle 0 \mid \psi^\dagger \Gamma^{n^\prime} \chi \mid\sum_X
435: H+X\rangle \langle H+X \mid \chi^\dagger \Gamma^n \psi \mid
436: 0\rangle\\
437: &\equiv& \langle O^H_n \rangle.\nonumber
438: \end{eqnarray}
439: The tensor $\Gamma^n$ operates in color as well as spin space and also
440: contains possible derivatives. This tensor determines the order of the
441: matrix element. If the quantum numbers $n$ do not match the quantum
442: numbers of the hadron, then the matrix element vanishes, as the
443: hadronic states are those of the effective field theory, and are pure
444: in the sense of a Fock space expansion. To get a non-vanishing result
445: one must insert subleading operators into a time ordered product with
446: the operator $O^H_n$. The number and order of the inserted operators
447: determine the scaling of the matrix element, as we detail below.
448:
449:
450: \subsection{Collider experiments}
451: The leading order contribution to $\psi$ production in the original
452: $v$ power counting scheme is through the color-singlet matrix element
453: $\langle O_1^\psi(^3S_1)\rangle$, since the quantum numbers of the
454: short distance quark pair matches those of the final state. All other
455: matrix elements need the insertion of operators into time ordered
456: products to give a non-zero result. Unlike the case of the $\chi$
457: discussed earlier, all other matrix elements are suppressed compared
458: to the color-singlet matrix element above. For instance, the matrix
459: element $\langle O_8^\psi(^1S_0)\rangle$ vanishes at leading order.
460: The first non-vanishing contribution comes from the insertion of two
461: $M1$ operators into time ordered products, thus giving a $v^4$
462: suppression. The scalings of the relevant matrix elements for $\psi$
463: production in NRQCD$_b$ are shown in Table~\ref{psiMEscaling}. It
464: appears from just the $v$ counting that only the color-singlet
465: contribution is important. But the other contributions can be
466: enhanced for kinematic reasons. At large transverse momentum,
467: fragmentation type production dominates \cite{BY}, and only the
468: $\langle O_8^\psi(^3S_1)\rangle$ contribution is important. Without
469: the color-octet contributions ({\it i.e.}, the Color-Singlet Model),
470: the theory is below experiment by about a factor of 30. By adding the
471: color-octet contribution the fit to the data is very good
472: \cite{BF}. The new power counting must also reproduce this success.
473: \begin {table}[t]
474: \begin {center}
475: \begin {tabular}{c|cccc}
476: \\
477: & $\langle O_1^\psi(^3S_1)\rangle$
478: & $\langle O_8^\psi(^3S_1)\rangle$
479: & $\langle O_8^\psi(^1S_0)\rangle$
480: & $\langle O_8^\psi(^3P_0)\rangle$ \\\\
481: \hline
482: \\
483: NRQCD$_b$ & $v^0$ & $v^4$ & $v^4$ & $v^4$ \\\\
484: \hline
485: \\
486: NRQCD$_c$ & $(\lqcd/m_c)^0$
487: & $(\lqcd/m_c)^4$
488: & $(\lqcd/m_c)^2$
489: & $(\lqcd/m_c)^4$ \\\\
490: \end {tabular}
491: \end {center}
492: \caption{Scaling of matrix elements relevant for $\psi$ production in
493: NRQCD$_b$ and NRQCD$_c$.}
494: \label{psiMEscaling}
495: \end {table}
496:
497: The relative size of the different matrix elements change in
498: NRQCD$_c$. In particular, the $M1$ transition is now the same order
499: as the $E1$ transition. The new scalings are shown in
500: Table~\ref{psiMEscaling} \cite{tab}. Due to the dominance of
501: fragmentation at large transverse momentum, we need to include effects
502: up to order $(\lqcd/m_c)^4$, since the $\langle
503: O_8^\psi(^3S_1)\rangle$ matrix element will still dominate at large
504: $p_T$.
505:
506: Is this consistent? The size of the matrix elements is a clue.
507: Extraction of the matrix elements uses power counting to limit the
508: number of channels to include in the fits. Calculating $J/\psi$ and
509: $\psi'$ production up to order $(\lqcd/m_c)^4$ in NRQCD$_c$ requires
510: keeping the same matrix elements as in NRQCD$_b$. Previous
511: extractions of the matrix elements only involve the linear combination
512: \begin{equation}
513: M_r^\psi = \langle O_8^\psi(^1S_0)\rangle
514: + \frac{r}{m_c^2}\langle O_8^\psi(^3P_J)\rangle,
515: \end{equation}
516: with $r\approx3-3.5$, since the short-distance rates have similar size
517: and shape. In the new power-counting, we can just drop the
518: contribution from $\langle O_8^\psi(^3P_J)\rangle$, since it is down
519: by $(\lqcd/m_c)^2\sim 1/10$ compared to $\langle
520: O_8^\psi(^1S_0)\rangle$. It is the same order as $\langle
521: O_8^\psi(^3S_1)\rangle$, but is not kinematically enhanced by
522: fragmentation effects. The extraction from \cite{BKL00} would then
523: give for the $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$ matrix elements
524: \begin{eqnarray}
525: \langle O_8^{\jp}(^1S_0)\rangle:\langle O_8^{\jp}(^3S_1)\rangle
526: &=& (6.6 \pm 0.7) \times 10^{-2} :(3.9 \pm 0.7) \times 10^{-3}
527: \approx 17 : 1 \,, \nonumber\\
528: \langle O_8^{\psi'}(^1S_0)\rangle:\langle O_8^{\psi'}(^3S_1)\rangle
529: &=& (7.8 \pm 3.6) \times 10^{-3} :(3.7 \pm 0.9) \times 10^{-3}
530: \approx 2 : 1.
531: \end{eqnarray}
532: Other extractions have various values of the hierarchy, ranging from
533: $3:1$ to $20:1$ \cite{hier}. While the relation of the color-octet
534: matrix elements in the $\jp$ system is indeed in agreement with the
535: NRQCD$_c$ power counting, the $\psi'$ does not look to be
536: hierarchical. However, it should be noted that the statistical errors
537: in the $\psi^\prime$ extraction, quoted above, are quite large.
538: Furthermore, there are also large uncertainties introduced in the
539: parton distribution function. The above ratios used the CTEQ5L parton
540: distribution functions. If we take the central values from
541: \cite{BKL00} for the MRST98LO distribution functions, we find the
542: ratio $3:1$. On the other hand, the $J/\psi$ extraction is much less
543: sensitive to the choice of distribution function. Given the
544: statistical and theoretical errors, it clear that the $\psi^\prime$
545: ratio is not terribly illuminating.
546:
547: Let us now consider the extraction of these color-octet matrix
548: elements in the $\Upsilon$ sector~\cite{BFL}, where according to
549: NRQCD$_b$ power counting there is should be no hierarchy:
550: \begin{eqnarray}
551: \langle O_8^{\Upsilon(3S)}(^1S_0)\rangle:
552: \langle O_8^{\Upsilon(3S)}(^3S_1)\rangle &=&
553: (5.4 \pm 4.3^{+3.1}_{-2.2}) \times 10^{-2} :
554: (3.6 \pm 1.9^{+1.8}_{-1.3}) \times 10^{-2}
555: \approx 1 : 1, \\
556: \langle O_8^{\Upsilon(2S)}(^1S_0)\rangle:
557: \langle O_8^{\Upsilon(2S)}(^3S_1)\rangle &=&
558: (-10.8 \pm 9.7^{-3.4}_{+2.0}) \times 10^{-2} :
559: (16.4 \pm 5.7^{+7.1}_{-5.1}) \times 10^{-2}
560: \approx 1 : 1 \nonumber, \\
561: \langle O_8^{\Upsilon(1S)}(^1S_0)\rangle:
562: \langle O_8^{\Upsilon(1S)}(^3S_1)\rangle &=&
563: (13.6 \pm 6.8^{+10.8}_{-7.5}) \times 10^{-2} :
564: (2.0 \pm 4.1^{-0.6}_{+0.5}) \times 10^{-2}
565: \approx 6 : 1. \nonumber
566: \end{eqnarray}
567: For the $\Upsilon(3S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ we observe that there is
568: indeed no hierarchy, while for the $\Upsilon(1S)$ it appears like
569: there may be a hierarchy \cite{BFL}. However, it is not possible to
570: draw any strong conclusions from these data because the errors on the
571: extractions are large. In fact the ratio for the $\Upsilon(1S)$
572: color-octet matrix elements is $1:1$ within the one sigma
573: errors. Furthermore, these matrix elements are those extracted
574: subtracting out the feed down from the higher states. Thus, the
575: extraction of the $\Upsilon(1S)$ matrix elements actually have larger
576: errors since the errors accumulate when we make the subtractions of
577: the feed down components. Finally, we should add that, while
578: phenomenologically it is perfectly reasonable to define the subtracted
579: matrix elements, we believe that, since the matrix elements are
580: inclusive, one should not subtract out the feed down from hadronic
581: decays when checking the power counting. In principle this subtraction
582: should not change things by orders of magnitude, but nonetheless can
583: have a significant effect. Indeed, if one compares the ratios for
584: inclusive matrix elements, which do not have the accumulated error,
585: then the ratios come out to be $1:1$, even for the $\Upsilon(1S)$
586: \cite{BFL}.\footnote{The authors of \cite{DS} have values of the
587: extracted matrix elements that differ from \cite{BFL}. They use
588: PYTHIA to model initial state gluon radiation, and use data at small
589: values of $p_T$ in the extraction. Since we are worried about
590: breakdown of factorization, we prefer to restrict our analysis to data
591: points where factorization should hold.}
592:
593:
594: \subsection{Fixed-target experiments}
595: There are several phenomenological differences between NRQCD$_c$ and
596: NRQCD$_b$ in fixed target experiments \cite{BR96,GS}. Here we will
597: focus on $\psi$ production and the predicted ratio of production cross
598: sections $\sigma(\chi_1)/\sigma(\chi_2)$ in NRQCD$_c$.
599:
600:
601:
602: \begin {table}[t]
603: \begin {center}
604: \begin {tabular}{c|ccccc}
605: \\
606: & $\langle O_1^\chi(^3P_J)\rangle$
607: & $\langle O_8^\chi(^3S_1)\rangle$
608: & $\langle O_8^\chi(^1S_0)\rangle$
609: & $\langle O_8^\chi(^3P_J)\rangle$
610: & $\langle O_8^\chi(^1P_1)\rangle$ \\\\
611: \hline
612: \\
613: NRQCD$_b$ & $v^2$ & $v^2$ & $v^6$ & $v^6$ & $v^6$ \\\\
614: \hline
615: \\
616: NRQCD$_c$ & $(\lqcd/m_c)^2$
617: & $(\lqcd/m_c)^2$
618: & $(\lqcd/m_c)^4$
619: & $(\lqcd/m_c)^6$
620: & $(\lqcd/m_c)^4$\\\\
621: \end {tabular}
622: \end {center}
623: \caption{Scaling of matrix elements relevant for $\chi$ production in
624: NRQCD$_b$ and NRQCD$_c$.}
625: \label{chiMEscaling}
626: \end {table}
627:
628:
629: At order $\alpha_s^2$, $\psi$s are produced via quark-antiquark fusion
630: through the $\langle O_8^\psi(^3S_1)\rangle$ matrix element and
631: through gluon fusion through the $\langle O_8^\psi(^1S_0)\rangle$ and
632: $\langle O_8^\psi(^3P_0)\rangle$ matrix elements, in the linear
633: combination $M_7^\psi$. At fixed-target energies, the contribution to
634: $\psi$ production from $\langle O_8^\psi(^3S_1)\rangle$ is numerically
635: irrelevant because gluon fusion dominates. The difference between the
636: NRQCD$_c$ prediction and the NRQCD$_b$ analysis done in \cite{BR96}
637: lies in the expected size of the matrix elements in $M_7^\psi$ (called
638: $\Delta_8(\psi)$ in \cite{BR96}), since in NRQCD$_c$ the $^3P_0$
639: matrix element is down by $(\lqcd/m_c)^2$. However, since the $^3P_0$
640: matrix element is enhanced by a factor of $7$, it is important to keep
641: this formally subleading contribution. Furthermore, there is a very
642: large scale and PDF dependence in these extractions, so it is not clear
643: whether or not we can learn anything from comparisons with the
644: Tevatron extractions.
645:
646:
647:
648:
649: The $\chi_1/\chi_2$ production ratio has the nice property that it is
650: relatively insensitive to the charmed quark mass \cite{BR96}.
651: $\chi_1$ production is suppressed as it can not be produced at leading
652: order in the singlet channel. The formally leading order $\chi_1$
653: channel is $^3S_1^{(8)}$ through quark-antiquark fusion. In both
654: NRQCD$_b$ and NRQCD$_c$ this formally leading order contribution is
655: actually smaller than the subleading contributions coming from other
656: octet operators ($\langle O_8^{\chi_1}(^3P_0)\rangle$ and $\langle
657: O_8^{\chi_1}(^3P_2)\rangle$ in NRQCD$_b$, and $\langle
658: O_8^{\chi_1}(^1S_0)\rangle$ in NRQCD$_c$) due to the fact that these
659: other channels are initiated by gluon-gluon fusion. The scalings for
660: the $\chi$ matrix elements are shown in Table~\ref{chiMEscaling}. If
661: we ignore the quark initiated process then due to simplicity of the
662: $2\rightarrow 1 $ kinematics we may write the NRQCD$_b$ prediction as
663: \begin{equation}
664: \sigma_{\chi_1}/ \sigma_{\chi_2} \simeq \frac{75}{32}\frac{
665: \langle O_8^{\chi_1}(^1S_0)\rangle m^2_c +
666: 3 \langle O_8^{\chi_1}(^3P_0)\rangle +
667: 4 O_8^{\chi_1}(^3P_2)\rangle }
668: {\langle O_1^{\chi_2}(^3P_2)\rangle} \,,
669: \end{equation}
670: where numerically small contributions have been dropped.
671: This ratio is approximately $1/3$ if we take take $v^2\approx 0.3$.
672: Also, the ratio is independent of the center of mass energy, which
673: agrees with the data within errors \cite{kor}.
674:
675: In NRQCD$_c$ we have (again neglecting the numerically small
676: quark-antiquark initiated processes)
677: \begin{equation}
678: \sigma_{\chi1}/ \sigma_{\chi_2} \simeq \frac{75}{32}
679: \frac{\langle O_8^{\chi_1}(^1S_0)\rangle m^2_c}
680: {\langle O_1^{\chi_2}(^3P_2)\rangle} \,,
681: \end{equation}
682: where, once again, numerically small contributions have been dropped.
683: If we take $\lqcd/m_c\approx 1/3$ we get approximately the same
684: result. This estimate is so crude that it is not clear whether any
685: information can be gleaned from it. However, it does seem that in
686: either description the data \cite{c1c2data} is, on the average, larger
687: than these naive predictions.\footnote{One robust prediction, however
688: is that the ratio should be independent of $s$, which does seem to
689: agree with the data.} This could very well be due to large
690: non-factorizable contributions, which we may expect to be enhanced in
691: NRQCD$_c$ (see the conclusions).
692:
693:
694:
695:
696:
697:
698:
699:
700:
701:
702: \section{Polarization}
703: $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$ are predicted to be transversely polarized at
704: large $p_T$ in NRQCD$_b$. At large transverse momentum, the dominant
705: production mechanism is through fragmentation from a nearly on shell
706: gluon to the octet $^3S_1$ state. The quark pair inherits the
707: polarization of the fragmenting gluon, and is thus transversely
708: polarized \cite{CW95}. In NRQCD$_b$ the leading order transition to
709: the final state goes via two $E1$, spin preserving, gluon emissions.
710: Higher order perturbative fragmentation contributions \cite{BR96b},
711: fusion diagrams \cite{BK97,L97}, and feed-down for the $J/\psi$
712: \cite{BKL00} dilute the polarization some, but the prediction still
713: holds that as $p_T$ increases so should the transverse polarization.
714: Indeed, for the $\psi^\prime$, at large $p_T\gg m_c$, we expect nearly
715: pure transverse polarization.
716:
717: The polarization of $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$ at the Tevatron has recently
718: been measured \cite{poldata} with large error bars. The experimental
719: results show no or a slight longitudinal polarization, as $p_T$
720: increases. If, after the statistics improve, this trend continues,
721: then it will be the smoking gun that leads us to conclude that
722: NRQCD$_b$ is not the correct effective field theory for charmonia.
723:
724:
725:
726: With NRQCD$_c$, the intermediate color-octet $^3S_1$ states hadronize
727: through the emission of either two $E1$ or $M1$ dipole gluons, at the
728: same order in $1/m_c$. Since the magnetic gluons do not preserve
729: spin, the polarization of $\psi$ produced through the $\langle
730: O_8^{\psi}(^3S_1)\rangle$ can be greatly diluted. The net
731: polarization will depend on the ratio of matrix elements
732: \begin{eqnarray}
733: R_{M/E}&&=
734: \nonumber \\
735: &&\frac{\int \prod_{\ell} d^4x_{\ell}
736: \langle 0 \mid T(M_1(x_1)M_1(x_2)\psi^\dagger T^a\sigma_i \chi)
737: \,a_H^\dag\,a_H\,T(M_1(x_3)M_1(x_4)\chi^\dagger T^a\sigma_i \psi)
738: \mid 0\rangle}
739: {\int \prod_{\ell}d^4x_{\ell}
740: \langle 0 \mid T(E_1(x_1)E_1(x_2)\psi^\dagger T^a\sigma_i \chi)
741: \,a_H^\dag\,a_H\,T(E_1(x_3)E_1(x_4)\chi^\dagger T^a\sigma_i \psi)
742: \mid 0\rangle}
743: \end{eqnarray}
744: where
745: \begin{equation}
746: a_H^\dag\,a_H = \sum_X\mid H+X\rangle \langle H+X \mid.
747: \end{equation}
748: The leads to the polarization leveling off at large $p_T$ at some
749: value which is fixed by $R_{M/E}$. In Fig.~\ref{polar}, we show the
750: prediction for $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$ polarization at the Tevatron. The
751: data is from \cite{poldata}. The three lines correspond to
752: different values for $R_{M/E}$=(0 (dashed), 1 (dotted), $\infty$
753: (solid)). The dashed line is also the prediction for NRQCD$_b$. The
754: residual transverse polarization for $J/\psi$ at asymptotically large
755: $p_T$ is due to feed down from $\chi$ states. The non-perturbative
756: corrections to our predictions are suppressed by $\lqcd^4/m^4$.
757:
758: \begin{figure}[ht]
759: \centerline{\epsfxsize 14cm \epsffile{pol.eps}}
760: \caption{Predicted polarization in NRQCD$_c$ for $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$
761: at the Tevatron as a function of $p_T$. The three lines correspond to
762: $R_{M/E}$=(0 (dashed), 1 (dotted), $\infty$ (solid)). The dashed line
763: is also the prediction for NRQCD$_b$.}
764: \label{polar}
765: \end{figure}
766:
767:
768:
769:
770:
771: \section{$B$ decays}
772: Another useful observable for differentiating between NRQCD$_c$ and
773: NRQCD$_b$ is charmonia production in $B$ decays. Assuming perturbative
774: factorization, the $\psi$ production rate from semi-inclusive $B$
775: decays may be written as
776: \begin{equation}
777: \label{factform}
778: \Gamma(B\to H+X) = \sum_n C(b\to c\bar{c}[n]+x)\,\langle O^H_n\rangle.
779: \end{equation}
780: This expression is valid up to power corrections of order
781: $\lqcd/m_{b,c}$, which parameterize the non-factorizable
782: contributions. (To this accuracy it is justified to treat the $B$
783: meson as a free $b$ quark.) The short distance coefficients are
784: determined by the $\Delta B = 1$ effective weak Hamiltonian
785: \begin{equation}
786: H_{eff} = \frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}} \sum_{q=s,d}
787: \left\{V_{cb}^\ast V_{cq} \,
788: \left[ \frac{1}{3} C_{[1]}(\mu) {\cal O}_1(\mu) + C_{[8]}(\mu)
789: {\cal O}_8(\mu) \right] - V_{tb}^\ast V_{tq} \sum_{i=3}^6
790: C_i(\mu) {\cal O}_i(\mu)\right\}
791: \label{eq:Heff}
792: \end{equation}
793: containing the `current-current' operators
794: \begin{eqnarray}
795: {\cal O}_1 &=&
796: [\bar{c} \gamma_{\mu} (1-\gamma_5) c] \,
797: [\bar{b} \gamma^{\mu} (1-\gamma_5) q],
798: \label{eq:opsing} \\
799: {\cal O}_8 &=&
800: [\bar{c}\,T^A \gamma_{\mu} (1-\gamma_5) c]\,
801: [\bar{b}\,T^A \gamma^{\mu} (1-\gamma_5) q],
802: \label{eq:opoct}
803: \end{eqnarray}
804: and the QCD penguin operators ${\cal O}_{3-6}$\ (precise definitions
805: may be found in the review \cite{buras}). For the decays $B\to
806: \mbox{charmonium}\,+X$ it is convenient to choose a Fierz version of
807: the current-current operators such that the $c\bar{c}$ pair at the
808: weak decay vertex is either in a color-singlet or a color-octet
809: state. The coefficient functions are related to the usual $C_\pm$ by
810: \begin{eqnarray}
811: C_{[1]}(\mu) &=& 2 C_+(\mu) - C_-(\mu),
812: \label{eq:c1nlo} \\
813: C_{[8]}(\mu) &=& C_+(\mu) + C_-(\mu).
814: \label{eq:c8nlo}
815: \end{eqnarray}
816: In NRQCD$_b$ a naive power counting leads to the conclusion that the
817: leading order result is fixed by the $\langle O_1(^3S_1)\rangle$ operator
818: as all octet operators are suppressed by $v^4$. However, as pointed
819: out in Ref.~\cite{KLS96}, the fact that the Wilson coefficients
820: evaluated at the low energy scale are numerically hierarchical,
821: $C_1^2/C_8^2\approx 15$, actually leads to octet domination. In
822: NRQCD$_b$ one would then get leading order contributions from all the
823: octet matrix elements, $\langle O^{\jp}_8(^3S_1)\rangle$, $\langle
824: O^{\jp}_8(^1S_0)\rangle$ and $\langle O^{\jp}_8(^3P_0)\rangle$, where
825: the contribution from the other $^3P_J$ states have been written in
826: terms of the $^3P_0$ contribution using spin symmetry.
827:
828: In NRQCD$_c$, the leading order octet contribution comes solely from the
829: $^1S_0$ operator which is suppressed by $\lqcd^2/m_c^2$. Thus, we may
830: get a direct extraction of this matrix element from the decay
831: rate. However, at leading order in $\alpha_s$ the color-singlet
832: contribution is highly scale dependent. This is due to large scale
833: dependence in the value of $C_1(\mu)$. The authors of \cite{BR96}
834: found that the leading order singlet contribution varies by a factor
835: of ten as $\mu$ is varied between 2.5 and 10 GeV. This scale
836: dependence can be drastically reduced by working at next-to-leading
837: order (NLO) and using a combined expansion in $\alpha_s$ and the ratio
838: $C_1/C_8$ \cite{BE94}. Using this expansion a NLO order calculation
839: found that within NRQCD$_b$ power counting one could extract the linear
840: combination \cite{BMR}
841: \begin{equation}
842: \label{central}
843: M_{3.1}^\psi({}^1\!S_0^{(8)},{}^3\!P_J^{(8)})
844: =\left\{\begin{array}{c}
845: \,\,\,1.5\cdot 10^{-2}\,\mbox{GeV}^3\qquad (J/\psi) \\
846: 0.6\cdot 10^{-2}\,\mbox{GeV}^3\qquad (\psi').
847: \end{array}
848: \right.
849: \end{equation}
850: In NRQCD$_c$ the result is all spin singlet and we would thus conclude
851: that $\langle O^{\jp}_8({}^1S_0)\rangle=1.5\cdot 10^{-2}$, which is
852: quite a bit smaller than the Tevatron extraction .
853:
854: We may also consider how the new power counting effects the prediction
855: for the polarization of the $\psi$. In NRQCD$_b$ the prediction for
856: the polarization, at leading order in $\alpha_s$, was given in
857: \cite{FHMN}. The angular distribution in the leptonic $J/\psi$ decay
858: may be written as
859: \begin{equation}
860: \frac{d\Gamma}{d\cos\theta}(\psi\rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-)(\theta)
861: \propto 1+\alpha\, \cos^2\theta,
862: \end{equation}
863: where the angle $\theta$ is defined in the $\jp$ rest frame for which
864: the $z$-axis is aligned with direction of motion of the $\jp$ and
865: \begin{equation}
866: \alpha=\frac{\sigma(+)+\sigma(-)-2 \sigma(0)}{\sigma(+)+\sigma(-)+2 \sigma(0)}.
867: \end{equation}
868: Within NRQCD$_b$ the authors found that $\alpha$ lies within the range
869: $-0.4<\alpha<-0.1$ if the bottom quark mass lies between $4.4$ and
870: $5.0$ GeV and the octet matrix elements are allowed to vary within
871: their errors. This rather crude leading order prediction should be
872: reasonable as long as the scale dependent singlet piece is not
873: dominant, which it is not.
874:
875: In NRQCD$_c$, given the color-octet $^1S_0$ dominance, we would
876: expect a quenching of the polarization, since, as discussed in the
877: case of hadro-production, the spin flipping hadronic transition
878: involved in the matrix element obeys helicial democracy. Using the
879: results of \cite{FHMN} we may write down the order $\alpha_s$
880: NRQCD$_c$ prediction for $\alpha$
881: \begin{equation}
882: \alpha=\frac{-0.39 \langle O^{\jp}_1(^3S_1)\rangle}
883: { \langle O^{\jp}_1(^3S_1)\rangle+61 \langle O^{\jp}_8(^1S_0)\rangle},
884: \end{equation}
885: where we have kept the formally subleading $^1S_0$ contribution in the
886: denominator because of its large coefficient. Since the singlet
887: contribution to the polarization is now leading order, we need to be
888: concerned about the scale dependence discussed above. Indeed, a NLO
889: calculation, in the modified double expansion scheme, is in
890: order. If, as in the case of the polarized rate, the octet
891: dominates, then we would expect only a slight longitudinal
892: polarization. Note that the NRQCD$_c$ polarization prediction has the
893: advantage that it only depends on one unknown matrix element, so once
894: the NLO calculation has been done, the prediction will be
895: comparatively robust.
896:
897:
898:
899: \section{Conclusion}
900:
901: There are several relevant questions to ask. Is there any reason to
902: believe that there is any effective theory to correctly describe the
903: $\jp$? We believe that the spin symmetry predictions for the ratio of
904: $\chi$ decays clearly answers this question in the affirmative.
905: Assuming that such an effective theory exists, then is it NRQCD$_c$ or
906: NRQCD$_b$? As we have shown the two theories do indeed make quite
907: disparate predictions, which in principle should be easy to test.
908: However, these tests can be clouded by the issues of factorization and
909: the convergence of the perturbative expansion.
910:
911:
912:
913: One would be justified to worry about the breakdown of factorization
914: in hadro-production at small transverse momentum. Indeed, in NRQCD$_c$
915: where the time scale for quarkonia formation is assumed to be the same
916: as the time scale for the hadronization of the remnants, it seems
917: quite likely that there could be order one corrections to
918: factorization.\footnote{This may be true as well in $B$
919: decays. However, since most of the time the $\jp$ will be going out
920: back to back with the remnants, one might expect factorization to be
921: more accurate.} Thus any support, or lack thereof, for the theory
922: coming from these processes should be taken with a grain of salt. On
923: the other hand, for large transverse momentum one would expect
924: factorization to hold, with non-factorizable corrections suppressed by
925: powers of $m_c/p_T$.
926:
927: As far as the perturbative expansion is concerned, it seems that for
928: most calculations the next-to-leading order results are indeed smaller
929: than the leading order result \cite{BR96,mp,NLO}. However, the one
930: NNLO calculation performed, in the leptonic decay width \cite{BS}, is
931: not well behaved at this order, which is worrisome. But, to
932: truly test the convergence of the expansion we should take ratios of
933: rates in order to eliminate the renormalon ambiguities \cite{BC}. When
934: this is done, it could very well be that the perturbative expansion is
935: well behaved. Until another rate is calculated at NNLO we will have to
936: be comforted by the fact that such cancellations have been seen to
937: occur explicitly in other heavy quark decays \cite{mren}.
938:
939: With that said, let us gather the evidence in support of NRQCD$_c$ as
940: being the proper theory for the $\jp$. If one is willing to accept
941: that the extraction of the octet matrix elements from
942: CDF,\footnote{This extraction is not free of factorization issues
943: since the fit of the matrix elements involves use of data at rather
944: small values of transverse momentum. However, if a cut at $p_T=5{\rm\
945: GeV}$ is made, then the change in the fit is minimal.} then the fact
946: that the ratio is large for charmonia but seems to be small for bottomonia is
947: rather compelling. If once the statistics in the bottomonia sector
948: improve we find that there really is no hierarchy, then we believe
949: that this would be strong evidence for our hypothesis.
950: The fact that the $\jp$ radiative decay spectrum is
951: monotonically decreasing while one sees a bump at larger energy in
952: bottomonia also seems to lend credence to our hypothesis. However,
953: the true litmus will come from the polarization measurements at large
954: $p_T$. The predictions of nearly 100\% polarization in NRQCD$_b$ is
955: quite robust. Whereas, in NRQCD$_c$ the polarization is diluted from
956: $M1$ transitions of the $O_8(^3S_1)$ operator. Unfortunately, the
957: introduction of another unknown matrix element diminishes our
958: predictive power. However, this is not to say that we can not rule out
959: NRQCD$_c$. Indeed, NRQCD$_c$ also predicts a leveling off of the
960: polarization with positive $\alpha$. So a measurement of longitudinal
961: (or, for $J/\psi$, zero) polarization would indeed negate our
962: hypothesis.
963:
964: We would like to close with a caveat. In particular, it should be
965: pointed out that NRQCD$_c$ does not become exact in any
966: limit. Typically, in an effective field theory, we expect that the
967: ratio of sub-leading to leading contributions should vanish in a given
968: limit of QCD. This gives us confidence that the theory MUST be
969: correct in asymptotia. Whether or not the real world leads to a well
970: behaved expansion though, is another question. For NRQCD$_c$ we might
971: hope that as we take the limit $\lqcd/m\rightarrow 0$, we necessarily
972: get the correct answer. However, in this limit the soft modes become
973: perturbative and the power counting changes. That is, in this limit
974: the state becomes Coulombic and NRQCD$_b$ becomes the correct theory.
975: It may well be the case that in some observables the NRQCD$_c$
976: expansion is well behaved and in others it is not. Given that the
977: expansion parameter is around $1/3$, it seems reasonable to be
978: confident in those predictions for which the corrections are
979: suppressed by at {\it least} $\lqcd^2/m^2$ (modulo the convergence of
980: the perturbative expansion), as are the predictions discussed in this
981: paper.
982:
983:
984: \acknowledgements This work was supported in part by the
985: U.S. Department of Energy under grant numbers DOE-ER-40682-143 and
986: DE-AC02-76CH03000.
987: }
988: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
989:
990: \tighten
991: %\vskip0.3cm
992:
993: \bibitem{BBL}
994: G.~T.~Bodwin, E.~Braaten and G.~P.~Lepage, Phys. Rev. {\bf D51}, 1125 (1995)
995: [Erratum: {\em ibid.} {\bf D55}, 5853 (1997)].
996: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9407339;%%
997:
998: \bibitem{poldata}
999: T.~Affolder {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
1000: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 2886 (2000).
1001: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0004027;%%
1002:
1003: \bibitem{martin}
1004: M. Beneke, hep-ph/9703429.
1005: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703429;%%
1006:
1007: \bibitem{Petal}
1008: N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo, hep-ph/0002250;
1009: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002250;%%
1010: \newline
1011: A. Pineda and A. Vairo, hep-ph/0009145.
1012: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009145;%%
1013:
1014: \bibitem{factor}
1015: See ref. \cite{BBL} and related proofs in, J.~C.~Collins, D.~E.~Soper
1016: and G.~Sterman,{\it Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics}, A.~H.~Mueller
1017: editor, World Scientific (1989).
1018:
1019: \bibitem{IR}
1020: I.~Z. Rothstein, hep-ph/9911276.
1021: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911276;%%
1022:
1023: \bibitem{CW95}
1024: P.~Cho and M.~B.~Wise, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B346}, 129 (1995).
1025: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411303;%%
1026:
1027: \bibitem{BR96b}
1028: M.~Beneke and I.~Z.~Rothstein, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B372}, 157 (1996);
1029: {\em ibid.} {\bf B389}, 7692(E) (1996).
1030: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9509375;%%
1031:
1032: \bibitem{BL}
1033: E. Braaten and J. Lee, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B586}, 427 (2000).
1034: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004228;%%
1035:
1036: \bibitem{LMR}
1037: M. Luke, A. Manohar and I.~Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 074025
1038: (2000).
1039: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910209;%%
1040:
1041: \bibitem{BSI}
1042: M. Beneke and V. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B522}, 321 (1998).
1043: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9711391;%%
1044:
1045: \bibitem{MWbook}
1046: For a review see, A.~V. Manohar and M.~B. Wise, {\it Heavy Quark
1047: Physics}, Cambridge University press (2000).
1048:
1049: \bibitem{HG}
1050: H.~W.~Griesshammer, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 094027 (1998).
1051: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712467;%%
1052:
1053: \bibitem{GR}
1054: P. Labelle, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 091013 (1998);\newline
1055: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608491;%%
1056: B. Grinstein and I.~Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}, 78 (1998).
1057: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703298;%%
1058:
1059: \bibitem{BFL*}
1060: C. Bauer, M. Luke and S. Fleming, hep-ph/0005275.
1061: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005275;%%
1062:
1063: \bibitem{pNRQCD}
1064: N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B566},
1065: 275 (2000).
1066: %CITATION = HEP-PH 9907240;%%
1067:
1068: \bibitem{Buch}
1069: For a review of earlier calculation of decay rates, including higher
1070: order corrections see, {\it Quarkonia}, W. Buchmuller editor, Elsevier
1071: Science Publishers (1992).
1072:
1073: \bibitem{bodwin}
1074: G.~T. Bodwin, D.~K. Sinclair and S. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 2376
1075: (1996).
1076: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9605023;%%
1077:
1078: \bibitem{pwave}
1079: G.~T. Bodwin, E. Braaten and P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. {\bf D46}, 1914 (1992).
1080: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9208254;%%
1081:
1082: \bibitem{RW}
1083: I.~Z. Rothstein and M.~B. Wise, Phys. Lett {\bf B402}, 346 (1997).
1084: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9701404;%%
1085:
1086: \bibitem{MW}
1087: T. Mannel and S. Wolf, hep-ph/9701324.
1088: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9701324;%%
1089:
1090: \bibitem{wolf}
1091: A recent analysis of the end point, including a model for the
1092: structure functions introduced in \cite{RW} was performed in, S. Wolf,
1093: hep-ph/00010217. Higher order corrections and fragmentation
1094: contributions were calculated in \cite{mp}.
1095: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010217;%%
1096:
1097: \bibitem{Jdata}
1098: C.~S. Abrams {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett, {\bf 44}, 114 (1980);\newline
1099: %%CITATION = PRLTA,44,114;%%
1100: B. Nemati {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 5273 (1997).
1101: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9611020;%%
1102:
1103: \bibitem{BY}
1104: E. Braaten and T.~C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 1673 (1993).
1105: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303205;%%
1106:
1107: \bibitem{BF}
1108: E. Braaten and S. Fleming, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74} 3327 (1995).
1109: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411365;%%
1110:
1111: \bibitem{tab} These results reproduce those given in \cite{martin}
1112: when $\lambda$ is taken to be 1 in this reference.
1113:
1114: \bibitem{BKL00}
1115: E.~Braaten, B.~A.~Kniehl and J.~Lee, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D62}, 094005 (2000);
1116: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911436;%%
1117: \newline
1118: B.~A.~Kniehl and J.~Lee, hep-ph/0007292.
1119: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007292;%%
1120:
1121: \bibitem{hier}
1122: P.~Cho and A.~K.~Leibovich, Phys. Rev. {\bf D53}, 150 (1996);
1123: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9505329;%%
1124: {\em ibid.} {\bf D53}, 6203 (1996);
1125: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511315;%%
1126: \newline
1127: B.~Cano-Coloma and M.~A.~Sanchis-Lozano, Nuc. Phys. {\bf B508}, 753 (1997);
1128: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706270;%%
1129: \newline
1130: G.~C. Boyd, A.~K. Leibovich and I.~Z. Rothstein,
1131: Phys. Rev. {\bf D59}, 054016 (1999);
1132: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810364;%%
1133: \newline
1134: B. Kniehl and G. Kramer, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C6}, 493 (1999).
1135: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803256;%%
1136:
1137: \bibitem{BFL}
1138: E.~Braaten, S.~Fleming and A.~K.~Leibovich, hep-ph/0008091.
1139: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008091;%%
1140:
1141: \bibitem{DS}
1142: J.~L.~Domenech and M.~A.~Sanchis-Lozano,
1143: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B476}, 65 (2000).
1144: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911332;%%
1145:
1146: \bibitem{BR96}
1147: M.~Beneke and I.~Z.~Rothstein, Phys. Rev. {\bf D54}, 2005 (1996);
1148: {\em ibid.} {\bf D54}, 7082(E) (1996).
1149: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603400;%%
1150:
1151: \bibitem{GS}
1152: S. Gupta and K. Sridhar, Phys. Rev. {\bf D54}, 5545 (1996).
1153: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9601349;%%
1154:
1155: \bibitem{kor}
1156: V. Koreshev {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {bf 77}, 4294 (1996).
1157: %%CITATION = PRLTA,77,4294;%%
1158:
1159: \bibitem{c1c2data}
1160: For a review of the data see \cite{martin}.
1161:
1162: \bibitem{BK97}
1163: M.~Beneke and M.~Kr\"amer, Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 5269 (1997).
1164: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9611218;%%
1165:
1166: \bibitem{L97}
1167: A.~K.~Leibovich, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D56}, 4412 (1997).
1168: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610381;%%
1169:
1170: \bibitem{buras}
1171: A.~J.~Buras, To appear in 'Recent Developments in Quantum Field
1172: Theory', Springer Verlag, eds. P. Breitenlohner, D. Maison and J.
1173: Wess. hep-ph/9901409.
1174: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901409;%%
1175:
1176: \bibitem{KLS96}
1177: P.~Ko, J.~Lee and H.~S.~Song, Phys. Rev. {\bf D53}, 1409 (1996).
1178: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9510202;%%
1179:
1180: \bibitem{BE94}
1181: L.~Bergstr\"om and P.~Ernstr\"om, Phys. Lett. {\bf B328}, 153 (1994).
1182: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9402325;%%
1183:
1184: \bibitem{BMR}
1185: M. Beneke, F. Maltoni and I.~Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. {\bf D59}, 054003
1186: (1999).
1187: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808360;%%
1188:
1189: \bibitem{FHMN}
1190: S.~Fleming, O.~F.~Hern\'{a}ndez, I.~Maksymyk and
1191: H.~Nadeau, Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 4098 (1997).
1192: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608413;%%
1193:
1194: \bibitem{mp}
1195: F. Maltoni and A. Petrelli, Phys. Rev. {\bf D59} 074006 (1999).
1196: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806455;%%
1197:
1198: \bibitem{NLO}
1199: A. Petrelli {\it et al.}, Nucl.Phys.{\bf B514}, 245 (1998);
1200: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707223;%%
1201: \newline
1202: E. Braaten and Y.~Q. Chen, Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 2693 (1997).
1203: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610401;%%
1204:
1205: \bibitem{BS}
1206: M. Beneke and V. Smirnov, Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 80}, 2535 (1998).
1207: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712302;%%
1208:
1209: \bibitem{BC}
1210: E. Braaten and Y.~Q. Chen, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}, 4236 (1998);
1211: {\em ibid.} {\bf D59}, 079901(E) (1999); \newline
1212: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710357;%%
1213: G.~T. Bodwin and Y.~Q. Chen, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 054008 (1999).
1214: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807492;%%
1215:
1216: \bibitem{mren}
1217: For references and a review of this subject see, M. Beneke,
1218: Phys. Rept. {\bf 317}, 1 (1999).
1219: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807443;%%
1220:
1221: \end{thebibliography}
1222:
1223:
1224:
1225: \end{document}
1226:
1227:
1228:
1229:
1230:
1231:
1232: