1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %% This is an example file for the Hirschegg Proceedings in Latex %%
3: %% with the standard style-file article.class; %%
4: %% Please use the here defined textwidth and height and also the %%
5: %% command redefinitions for \section and \subsection; %%
6: %% format the title page as given here; all other Latex commands %%
7: %% are available as usual %%
8: %% %%
9: %% PLEASE note that your contribution will be collected as a %%
10: %% postscript file via the web-from: %%
11: %% http://theory.gsi.de/hirschegg/Contribution.html %%
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13: \documentclass[12pt]{article}\pagestyle{empty} %%
14: \textwidth=14cm \textheight=20cm \topmargin=0cm \oddsidemargin=1cm %%
15: \let\section=\subsection \let\subsection=\subsubsection %%
16: \renewcommand\thesubsection{\arabic{subsection}} %%
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Start here your own paper %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19:
20: \usepackage{graphicx}
21: \input{psfig}
22: %\def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
23: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2} (#3) #4}
24:
25: % Some useful journal names
26: \def\NPB{{ Nucl. Phys.} B}
27: \def\PLB{{ Phys. Lett.} B}
28: \def\PRL{ Phys. Rev. Lett.}
29: \def\PRD{{ Phys. Rev.} D}
30:
31:
32: \begin{document}
33: \begin{center}
34: {\large \bf GLUEBALLS, HYBRID AND EXOTIC MESONS}\\[5mm]
35: C.~MICHAEL \\[5mm]
36: {\small \it Theoretical Physics Division, Dept. of Math. Sci.,\\
37: University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 2BX, U.K. \\[8mm] }
38: \end{center}
39:
40:
41: \begin{abstract}\noindent
42: We review lattice QCD results for glueballs
43: (including a discussion of mixing with scalar mesons), hybrid mesons
44: and exotic mesons (such as $B_s B_s$ molecules).
45: \end{abstract}
46:
47: \section{Introduction}
48:
49:
50:
51: The most systematic approach to non-perturbative QCD is via lattice
52: techniques.
53: Lattice QCD needs as input the quark masses and an overall scale
54: (conventionally given by $\Lambda_{QCD}$). Then any Green function can
55: be evaluated by taking an average of suitable combinations of the
56: lattice fields in the vacuum samples. This allows masses to be studied
57: easily and matrix elements (particularly those of weak or
58: electromagnetic currents) can be extracted straightforwardly.
59: Unlike experiment, lattice QCD can vary the quark masses and can also
60: explore different boundary conditions and sources. This allows a wide
61: range of studies which can be used to diagnose the health of
62: phenomenological models as well as casting light on experimental data.
63:
64: One limitation of the lattice approach to QCD is in exploring
65: hadronic decays because the lattice, using Euclidean
66: time, has no concept of asymptotic states. One feasible strategy is to
67: evaluate the mixing between states of the same energy - so giving some
68: information on on-shell hadronic decay amplitudes.
69:
70: For comparison with models and for ease of computation, the special
71: case of infinitely heavy sea quarks (namely neglect of quark effects in
72: the vacuum: the quenched approximation) is often used. We shall also
73: present results from including sea quark effects - usually two flavours
74: of degenerate sea quark of mass equivalent to strange quarks or
75: heavier.
76:
77:
78: The quark model gives a good overall description of hadronic spectra.
79: Here I will discuss lattice results for states which go beyond the
80: quark model: glueballs, exotic mesons and hybrid mesons.
81:
82:
83:
84: \section{Glueballs}
85:
86: Glueballs are defined to be hadronic states made primarily from gluons.
87: The full non-perturbative gluonic interaction is included in quenched
88: QCD. In the quenched approximation, there is no mixing between such
89: glueballs and quark - antiquark mesons. A study of the glueball
90: spectrum in quenched QCD is thus of great value. This will allow
91: experimental searches to be guided as well as providing calibration for
92: models of glueballs. A non-zero glueball mass in quenched QCD is the
93: ``mass-gap'' of QCD. To prove this rigourously is one of the major
94: challenges of our times. Here we will explore the situation using
95: computational techniques.
96:
97: In principle, lattice QCD can study the meson spectrum as the sea quark
98: mass is decreased towards experimental values. This will allow the
99: unambiguous glueball states in the quenched approximation to be tracked
100: as the sea quark effects are increased. It may indeed turn out that no
101: meson in the physical spectrum is primarily a glueball - all states are
102: mixtures of glue, $q \bar{q}$, $q \bar{q} q \bar{q}$, etc. We shall
103: later discuss lattice results on the mixing of glueballs and scalar
104: mesons (ie $q \bar{q}$ states).
105:
106: In lattice studies, dimensionless ratios of quantities are obtained. To
107: explore the glueball masses, it is appropriate to combine them with
108: another very accurately measured quantity to have a dimensionless
109: observable. Since the potential between static quarks is very accurately
110: measured from the lattice, it is now conventional to use $r_0$ for this
111: comparison. Here $r_0$ is implicitly defined by $r^2 dV(r)/dr = 1.65$
112: at $r=r_0$ where $V(r)$ is the potential energy between static quarks
113: which is easy to determine accurately on the lattice. Conventionally
114: $r_0 \approx 0.5$ fm.
115:
116:
117:
118: Theoretical analysis indicates that for Wilson's discretisation of
119: the gauge fields in the quenched approximation, the dimensionless ratio
120: $mr_0$ will differ from the continuum limit value by corrections of
121: order $a^2$. Thus in fig.~1 the mass of the $J^{PC}$=$0^{++}$ glueball
122: is plotted versus the lattice spacing $a^2$. The straight line then
123: shows the continuum limit obtained by extrapolating to $a=0$. As can be
124: seen, there is essentially no need for data at even smaller $a$-values
125: to further fix the continuum value. The value shown corresponds to
126: $m(0^{++})r_0=4.33(5)$. Since several lattice
127: groups~\cite{DForc,MTgl,ukqcd,gf11} have measured these quantities, it
128: is reassuring to see that the purely lattice observables are in
129: excellent agreement. The publicised difference of quoted $m(0^{++})$
130: from UKQCD~\cite{ukqcd} and GF11~\cite{gf11} comes entirely from
131: relating quenched lattice measurements to values in GeV.
132:
133:
134:
135: \begin{figure}[bt]
136: \vspace{7cm} %
137: \special{psfile=gbr0.ps voffset=-15 hoffset=40 hscale=55 vscale=40}
138: \caption{ The value of mass of the $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ glueball state
139: from quenched data ($N_F=0$){\protect\cite{DForc,MTgl,ukqcd,gf11}}
140: in units of $r_0$ where $r_0 \approx 0.5$ fm. The straight line shows a
141: fit describing the approach to the continuum limit as $a \to 0$.
142: Results~{\protect\cite{sesam,bali,lat99}} with $N_F=2$ flavours of sea
143: quarks are also shown.
144: }
145: \end{figure}
146:
147:
148: In the quenched approximation, different hadronic observables differ
149: from experiment by factors of up to 10\%. Thus using one quantity or
150: another to set the scale, gives an overall systematic error. Here I
151: choose to set the scale by taking the conventional value of the string
152: tension, $\sqrt{\sigma}=0.44$ GeV, which then corresponds to
153: $r_0^{-1}=373$ MeV. An overall systematic error of 10\% is then to be
154: included to any extracted mass. This yields $m(0^{++})=1611(30)(160)$
155: MeV where the second error is the
156: systematic scale error. Note that this is the glueball mass in the
157: quenched approximation - in the real world significant mixing with $q
158: \bar{q}$ states could modify this value substantially.
159:
160:
161: In the Wilson approach, the next lightest glueballs
162: are~\cite{MTgl,ukqcd} the tensor $m(2^{++})r_0=6.0(6)$ (resulting in
163: $m(2^{++})=2232(220)(220)$ MeV) and the pseudoscalar $m(2^{++})r_0=
164: 6.0(1.0)$. Although the Wilson discretisation provides a definitive
165: study of the lightest ($0^{++}$) glueball in the continuum limit, other
166: methods are competitive for the determination of the mass of heavier
167: glueballs. Namely, using an improved gauge discretisation which has
168: even smaller discretisation errors than the $a^2$ dependence of the
169: Wilson discretisation, so allowing a relatively coarse lattice spacing
170: $a$ to be used. To extract mass values, one has to explore the time
171: dependence of correlators and for this reason, it is optimum to use a
172: relatively small time lattice spacing. Thus an asymmetric lattice
173: spacing is most appropriate. The results~\cite{mpglue} are shown in
174: fig.~2 and for low lying states are that $m(0^{++})r_0=4.21(11)(4)$,
175: $m(2^{++})r_0=5.85(2)(6)$, $m(0^{-+})=6.33(7)(6)$ and
176: $m(1^{+-})r_0=7.18(4)(7)$. Another recent study~\cite{nrw} has used an
177: improved discretisation based on the perfect action approach (without a
178: space-time asymmetry) and obtains results consistent with earlier work.
179:
180:
181:
182: One signal of great interest would be a glueball with $J^{PC}$ not
183: allowed for $q \bar{q}$ - a spin-exotic glueball or {\em oddball} -
184: since it would not mix with $q \bar{q}$ states. These states are
185: found~\cite{MTgl,ukqcd,mpglue} to be high lying: considerably above
186: $2m(0^{++})$. Thus they are likely to be in a region very difficult to
187: access unambiguously by experiment.
188:
189:
190:
191: Within the quenched approximation, the glueball states are unmixed
192: with $q \bar{q},\ q \bar{q} q \bar{q}$, etc. Furthermore, the $q
193: \bar{q}$ states have degenerate flavour singlet and non-singlet states
194: in the quenched approximation. Once quark loops are allowed in the
195: vacuum, for the favour-singlet states of any given $J^{PC}$, there will
196: be mixing between the $s \bar{s}$ state, the $u \bar{u}+d \bar{d}$
197: state and the glueball.
198: One way to explore this is to measure directly the scalar mass
199: eigenstates in a study with $N_f=2$ flavours of sea-quark.
200: Most studies show no significant change of the glueball spectrum as
201: dynamical quark effects are added - but the sea quark masses used are
202: still rather large~\cite{sesam,bali}. A recent study~\cite{lat99},
203: however, does find evidence for a reduced mass, albeit with a rather
204: large lattice spacing, see fig.~1.
205: This effect could be due to mixing of scalar mesons and glueballs, as
206: we discuss below, or might just be a sign of an enhanced order $a^2$
207: correction at the relatively large lattice spacing used.
208:
209: Let us now discus the mixing of the scalar glueball and scalar mesons.
210: The mass spectrum of $q \bar{q}$ states has been determined on a
211: quenched lattice and the scalar mesons are found to lie somewhat
212: lighter than the tensor states~\cite{livhyb}. These $2^{++}$ mesons are
213: experimentally almost unmixed and so will be quite close to the
214: quenched mass determination. This suggests that the quenched scalar
215: masses from the lattice are at around 1.2 GeV and 1.5 GeV (for $n
216: \bar{n}$ and $s \bar{s}$ respectively). An independent
217: study~\cite{weinss,weinssg} suggests that the scalar $s \bar{s}$ state
218: is about 200 MeV lighter than the glueball which is a broadly compatible
219: conclusion. Thus the glueball, at around 1.6 GeV, lies heavier than the
220: lightest $q\bar{q}$ scalar states. This information can then be combined
221: with mixing strengths to give the resulting scalar spectrum.
222:
223: It is possible to measure the mixing strength on a quenched lattice even
224: though no mixing actually occurs. On a rather coarse lattice ($a^{-1}
225: \approx 1.2$ GeV), two groups have attempted this~\cite{weinssg,lat99}.
226: Their results expressed as the mixing for two degenerate quarks of mass
227: around the strange quark mass are similar, namely $E \approx 0.36$
228: GeV~\cite{weinssg} and 0.44 GeV~\cite{lat99}. From this evaluation of the
229: mixing strength, one can use a mass matrix to estimate the mass shift
230: induced in the glueball and scalar meson.
231: The relevant mass matrix is (in a glueball, $q \bar{q}$ basis in GeV
232: units):
233:
234: \begin{math}
235: \left( \begin{array}[h]{cc}
236: 1.1 & 0.4 \\
237: 0.4 & 1.6 \\
238: \end{array} \right)
239: \end{math}
240:
241: \noindent which would give a downward shift of the glueball mass by
242: 20\%.
243: This is in qualitative agreement with our direct determination with
244: $N_f=2$ flavours of sea-quark that the lightest scalar mass is reduced
245: significantly at this lattice spacing as shown in fig.~1.
246:
247:
248: Note that at this coarse lattice spacing the quenched glueball mass is
249: reduced (see fig.~1) below the canonical value of 1.6 GeV. Thus a study
250: at smaller lattice spacing is needed. An exploratory attempt to
251: extrapolate to the continuum~\cite{weinssg} gave a very small mixing of
252: 86(64) MeV, while the other determination~\cite{lat99} uses clover
253: improvement so order $a$ effects in the extrapolation to the continuum
254: are suppressed and one would not expect a significant decrease in going
255: to the continuum limit.
256: What this discussion shows is that precision studies of the mixing on
257: a lattice have not yet been achieved.
258:
259:
260:
261: \begin{figure}[t]
262: \psfig{figure=continuum_glueballs.eps,height=7cm,width=9cm}
263: \vspace{-0.5cm}
264: \caption{ The continuum glueball spectrum{\protect\cite{mpglue}}.
265: }
266: \label{gbr0}
267: \end{figure}
268:
269:
270:
271: As well as this mixing of the glueball with $q \bar{q}$ states, there
272: will be mixing with $q \bar{q} q \bar{q}$ states which will be
273: responsible for the hadronic decays. A first attempt to study
274: this~\cite{gdecay} yields an estimated width for decay to two
275: pseudoscalar mesons from the scalar glueball of order 100 MeV. A more
276: realistic study would involve taking account of mixing with the $n
277: \bar{n}$ and $s \bar{s}$ scalar mesons as well.
278:
279:
280: \section{Exotic states}
281:
282:
283: By exotic state we mean any state which is not dominantly a $q \bar{q}$
284: or $qqq$ state. Such examples have been known for a long time: the
285: deuteron is a proton-neutron molecule for example. It is very weakly
286: bound (2 MeV) and is quite extended. Similar molecular states involving
287: two mesons have been conjectured.
288:
289: One case which is relatively easy to study is the $BB$ system,
290: idealised as two static quarks and two light quarks. Then a potential
291: as a function of the separation $R$ between the static quarks can be
292: determined. Because the static quark spin is irrelevant, the states can
293: be classified by the light quark spin and isospin. Lattice
294: results~\cite{cmpp} (using a light quark mass close to strange) have
295: been obtained for the potential energy for $I_q=0,1$ and $S_q=0,1$. For
296: very heavy quarks, a potential below $2M_B$ will imply binding of the
297: ${BB}$ molecules with these quantum numbers and $L=0$. For the
298: physically relevant case of $b$ quarks of around 5 GeV, the kinetic
299: energy will not be negligible and the binding energy of the ${ BB}$
300: molecular states is less clear cut. One way to estimate the kinetic
301: energy for the ${ BB}$ case with reduced mass circa 2.5 GeV is to use
302: analytic approximations to the potentials found. For example the
303: $I_q,S_q$=(0,0) case shows a deep binding at $R=0$ which can be
304: approximated as a Coulomb potential of $-0.1/R$ in GeV units. This will
305: give a di-meson binding energy of only 10 MeV. For the other
306: interesting case, $(I_q,S_q)$=(0,1), a harmonic oscillator potential in
307: the radial coordinate of form $-0.04[ 1- (r-3)^2/4]$ in GeV units leads
308: to a kinetic energy which completely cancels the potential energy
309: minimum, leaving zero binding. This harmonic oscillator approximation
310: lies above the estimate of the potential, so again we expect weak
311: binding of the di-meson system.
312:
313: Because of these very small values for the di-meson binding energies,
314: one needs to retain corrections to the heavy quark approximation to
315: make more definite predictions, since these corrections are known to
316: be of magnitude 46 MeV from the $B$, $B^*$ splitting. It will also be
317: necessary to extrapolate the light quark mass from strange to
318: the lighter $u,\ d$ values to make more definite predictions
319: about the binding of $BB$ molecules.
320:
321: Models for the binding of two $B$ mesons involve, as in the case of the
322: deuteron, pion exchange. The lattice study~\cite{cmpp} is able to make a
323: quantitative comparison of lattice pion exchange with the data
324: described above and excellent agreement is obtained at larger $R$
325: values, as expected.
326:
327:
328:
329: \section{Hybrid Mesons}
330:
331:
332: By hybrid meson, I mean a meson in which the gluonic degrees of freedom
333: are excited non-trivially.
334: I first discuss hybrid mesons with static heavy quarks where the
335: description can be thought of as an excited colour string. I then
336: summarise the situation concerning light quark hybrid mesons.
337:
338:
339: Consider $Q \bar{Q}$ states with static quarks in which the gluonic
340: contribution may be excited. We classify the gluonic fields according
341: to the symmetries of the system. This discussion is very similar to the
342: description of electron wave functions in diatomic molecules. The
343: symmetries are (i) rotation around the separation axis $z$ with
344: representations labelled by $J_z$ (ii) CP with representations labelled
345: by $g(+)$ and $u(-)$ and (iii) C$\cal{R}$. Here C interchanges $Q$ and
346: $\bar{Q}$, P is parity and $\cal{R}$ is a rotation of $180^0$ about the
347: mid-point around the $y$ axis. The C$\cal{R}$ operation is only relevant
348: to classify states with $J_z=0$. The convention is to label states of
349: $J_z=0,1,2$ by $ \Sigma, \Pi, \Delta$ respectively. The ground state
350: ($\Sigma^+-g$) will have $J_z=0$ and $CP=+$.
351:
352: The exploration of the energy levels of other representations has a
353: long history in lattice studies~\cite{liv,pm}. The first excited state
354: is found to be the $\Pi_u$. This can be visualised as the symmetry of
355: a string bowed out in the $x$ direction minus the same deflection in
356: the $-x$ direction (plus another component of the two-dimensional
357: representation with the transverse direction $x$ replaced by $y$),
358: corresponding to flux states from a lattice operator which is the
359: difference of U-shaped paths from quark to antiquark of the form $\,
360: \sqcap - \sqcup$.
361:
362:
363:
364:
365: Recent lattice studies~\cite{jkm} have used an asymmetric space/time
366: spacing which enables excited states to be determined comprehensively.
367: These results confirm the finding that
368: the $\Pi_u$ excitation is the lowest lying and hence of most relevance
369: to spectroscopy.
370:
371: From the potential corresponding to these excited gluonic states, one
372: can determine the spectrum of hybrid quarkonia using the Schr\"odinger
373: equation in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. This approximation will
374: be good if the heavy quarks move very little in the time it takes for
375: the potential between them to become established. More quantitatively,
376: we require that the potential energy of gluonic excitation is much
377: larger than the typical energy of orbital or radial excitation. This is
378: indeed the case~\cite{liv}, especially for $b$ quarks. Another nice
379: feature of this approach is that the self energy of the static sources
380: cancels in the energy difference between this hybrid state and the
381: $Q \bar{Q}$ states. Thus the lattice approach gives directly the
382: excitation energy of each gluonic excitation.
383:
384: The $\Pi_u$ symmetry state corresponds to excitations of the gluonic
385: field in quarkonium called magnetic (with $L^{PC}=1^{+-}$) and
386: pseudo-electric (with $1^{-+}$) in contrast to the usual P-wave orbital
387: excitation which has $L^{PC}=1^{--}$. Thus we expect different quantum
388: number assignments from those of the gluonic ground state. Indeed
389: combining with the heavy quark spins, we get a degenerate set of 8
390: states with $J^{PC}=1^{--}$, $ 0^{-+}$, $ 1^{-+}$, $ 2^{-+}$ and
391: $1^{++},\ 0^{+-},\ 1^{+-},\ 2^{+-}$ respectively. Note that of these,
392: $J^{PC}= 1^{-+},\ 0^{+-}$ and $2^{+-}$ are spin-exotic and hence
393: will not mix with $Q\bar{Q}$ states. They thus form a very attractive
394: goal for experimental searches for hybrid mesons.
395:
396:
397: The eightfold degeneracy of the static approach will be broken by
398: various corrections. As an example, one of the eight degenerate hybrid
399: states is a pseudoscalar with the heavy quarks in a spin triplet. This
400: has the same overall quantum numbers as the S-wave $Q \bar{Q}$ state
401: ($\eta_b$) which, however, has the heavy quarks in a spin singlet. So
402: any mixing between these states must be mediated by spin dependent
403: interactions. These spin dependent interactions will be smaller for
404: heavier quarks. It is of interest to establish the strength of these
405: effects for $b$ and $c$ quarks. Another topic of interest is the
406: splitting between the spin exotic hybrids which will come from the
407: different energies of the magnetic and pseudo-electric gluonic
408: excitations.
409:
410:
411: One way to go beyond the static approach is to use the NRQCD
412: approximation which then enables the spin dependent effects to be
413: explored. One study~\cite{jkm} finds that the $L^{PC}=1^{+-}$ and
414: $1^{-+}$ excitations have no statistically significant splitting
415: although the $1^{+-}$ excitation does lie a little lighter. This would
416: imply, after adding in heavy quark spin, that the $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$
417: hybrid was the lightest spin exotic. Also a relatively large spin
418: splitting was found~\cite{cppacs} among the triplet states considering,
419: however, only
420: magnetic gluonic excitations.
421:
422:
423:
424:
425:
426: Confirmation of the ordering of the spin exotic states also comes from
427: lattice studies with propagating quarks~\cite{livhyb,milc,sesamhyb}
428: which are able to measure masses for all 8 states. We discuss this
429: evidence in more detail below.
430:
431: Within the quenched approximation, the lattice evidence for
432: $b\bar{b}$ quarks points to a lightest hybrid spin exotic with
433: $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ at an energy given by $(m_H-m_{2S})r_0$ =1.8 (static
434: potential~\cite{pm}); 1.9 (static potential~\cite{jkm},
435: NRQCD~\cite{cppacs}); 2.0 (NRQCD~\cite{jkm}). These results can be
436: summarised as $(m_H-m_{2S})r_0=1.9 \pm 0.1$.
437: Using the experimental mass of the $\Upsilon(2S)$, this implies that
438: the lightest spin exotic hybrid is at $m_H=10.73(7)$ GeV including a
439: 10\% scale error. Above this energy there will be many more hybrid
440: states, many of which will be spin exotic. A discussion of hybrid decay
441: channels has been given~\cite{hf8}.
442:
443:
444: The excited gluonic static potential has also been determined
445: including sea quarks ($N_f=2$ flavours) and no significant difference
446: is seen~\cite{bali}. Thus the quenched estimates given above are not
447: superseded.
448: %- see fig.~\ref{balif}
449:
450:
451: I now focus on lattice results for hybrid mesons made from light
452: quarks using fully relativistic propagating quarks. There will be no
453: mixing with $q \bar{q}$ mesons for spin-exotic hybrid mesons and these
454: are of special interest. The first study of this area was by the UKQCD
455: Collaboration~\cite{livhyb} who used operators motivated by the heavy
456: quark studies referred to above to study all 8 $J^{PC}$ values coming
457: from $L^{PC}=1^{+-}$ and $1^{-+}$ excitations. The resulting mass
458: spectrum gives the $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ state as the lightest spin-exotic
459: state. Taking account of the systematic scale errors in the lattice
460: determination, a mass of 2000(200) MeV is quoted for this hybrid meson
461: with $s \bar{s}$ light quarks. Although not directly measured, the
462: corresponding light quark hybrid meson would be expected to be around
463: 120 MeV lighter.
464:
465:
466:
467: A second lattice group has also evaluated hybrid meson spectra with
468: propagating quarks from quenched lattices. They obtain~\cite{milc}
469: masses of the $1^{-+}$ state with statistical and various systematic
470: errors of 1970(90)(300) MeV, 2170(80)(100)(100) MeV and 4390(80)(200)
471: MeV for $n \bar{n}$, $s \bar{s}$ and $c \bar{c}$ quarks respectively.
472: For the $0^{+-}$ spin-exotic state they have a noisier signal but
473: evidence that it is heavier. They also explore mixing matrix elements
474: between spin-exotic hybrid states and 4 quark operators.
475:
476: A first attempt has been made~\cite{sesamhyb} to determine the hybrid
477: meson spectrum using full QCD. The sea quarks used have several
478: different masses and an extrapolation is made to the limit of physical
479: sea quark masses, yielding a mass of 1.9(2) GeV for the lightest
480: spin-exotic hybrid meson, which again is found to be the $1^{-+}$. In
481: principle this calculation should take account of sea quark effects
482: such as the mixing between such a hybrid meson and $q \bar{q} q
483: \bar{q}$ states such as $\eta \pi$, although it is possible that the sea
484: quark masses used are not light enough to explore these features.
485:
486:
487: The three independent lattice calculations of the light hybrid spectrum
488: are in good agreement with each other. They imply that the natural
489: energy range for spin-exotic hybrid mesons is around 1.9 GeV. The
490: $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ state is found to be lightest. It is not easy to
491: reconcile these lattice results with experimental
492: indications~\cite{expt} for resonances at 1.4 GeV and 1.6 GeV,
493: especially the lower mass value. Mixing with $q \bar{q} q \bar{q}$
494: states such as $\eta \pi$ is not included for realistic quark masses in
495: the lattice calculations. This can be interpreted, dependent on one's
496: viewpoint, as either that the lattice calculations are incomplete or
497: as an indication that the experimental states may have an important
498: meson-meson component in them.
499:
500:
501:
502: \section{Conclusions}
503:
504: Quenched lattice QCD is well understood and accurate predictions in the
505: continuum limit are increasingly becoming available. The lightest
506: glueball is scalar with mass $m(0^{++})=1611(30)(160)$ MeV where the
507: second error is an overall scale error. The excited glueball spectrum is
508: known too. The quenched approximation also gives information on
509: quark-antiquark scalar mesons and their mixing with glueballs. This
510: determination of the mixing in the quenched approximation also sheds
511: light on results for the spectrum directly in full QCD where the
512: mixing will be enabled. There is also some lattice information on the
513: hadronic decay amplitudes of glueballs.
514:
515:
516: Evidence exists for a possible $B_s B_s$ molecular state.
517:
518: For hybrid mesons, there will be no mixing with $q \bar{q}$ for
519: spin-exotic states and these are the most useful predictions. The
520: $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ state is expected at 10.73(7) GeV for $b$ quarks,
521: 2.0(2) GeV for $s$ quarks and 1.9(2) GeV
522: for $u,\ d$ quarks. Mixing of spin-exotic hybrids with
523: $q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ or equivalently with meson-meson is allowed and
524: will modify the predictions from the quenched approximation.
525:
526:
527: %% Placing of figures:
528: %% If you have problems to place figures appropriately in the text with the
529: %% figure-environment, use this construction:
530: %\begin{center}
531: % \includegraphics[width=6cm,height=5cm,angle=-90]{figure_1.eps}\\
532: % \parbox{14cm}
533: % {\centerline{\footnotesize
534: % Fig.~1: Spectral function (left) of
535: % the $\rho$-meson as a function \dots}}
536: %\end{center}
537:
538:
539: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
540: \itemsep=0cm
541:
542: %glueball
543:
544: \bibitem{DForc} P. De Forcrand et al., { Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B152},
545: (1985) 107.
546:
547: \bibitem{MTgl} C. Michael and M. Teper, { Nucl.\ Phys.} {\bf B314}
548: (1989) 347.
549:
550: \bibitem{ukqcd} UKQCD collaboration, G. Bali, et al.,
551: { Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B309} (1993) 378.
552:
553: \bibitem{gf11} H. Chen et al.,
554: { Nucl.\ Phys. B (Proc.\ Suppl.)} {\bf 34} (1994) 357;
555: A. Vaccarino and D. Weingarten, \Journal{\PRD}{60}{1999}{114501}.
556:
557: \bibitem{sesam}G. Bali et al.,
558: { Nucl.\ Phys. B (Proc.\ Suppl.)} {\bf 63} (1998) 209.
559:
560: \bibitem{lat99} C. Michael, M. S. Foster and C. McNeile,
561: { Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf 83-84} (2000) 185;
562: C. McNeile and C. Michael, LTH487, hep-lat/0010019.
563:
564: \bibitem{mpglue} C. Morningstar and M. Peardon, { Phys. Rev.} {\bf
565: D56} (1997) 4043; { ibid.}, {\bf D60} (1999) 034509.
566:
567:
568: \bibitem{nrw} F. Niedermeyer, P. R\"ufenacht and U. Wenger,
569: hep-lat/0007007.
570:
571: \bibitem{livhyb} UKQCD Collaboration,
572: P. Lacock, C. Michael, P. Boyle and P. Rowland,
573: { Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D54} (1996) 6997;
574: { Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B401} (1997) 308;
575: { Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf 63} (1998) 203.
576:
577: \bibitem{weinss} W. Lee and D. Weingarten, { Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.
578: Suppl)} {\bf 53} (1997) 236; { Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.
579: Suppl)} {\bf 73} (1999) 249.
580:
581: \bibitem{weinssg} W. Lee and D. Weingarten, { Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.
582: Suppl)} {\bf 63}, 194 (1998); hep-lat/9805029;
583: \Journal{\PRD}{61}{2000}{014015}.
584:
585: \bibitem{gdecay} J. Sexton, A. Vaccarino and D. Weingarten,
586: { Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.)} {\bf 42} (1995) 279.
587:
588: \bibitem{cmpp} C. Michael and P. Pennanen, { Phys. Rev.} {\bf D60},
589: (1999) 054012.
590:
591: %hybrid
592:
593: \bibitem{liv} L.A. Griffiths, C. Michael and P.E.L. Rakow,
594: { Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B129} (1983) 351.
595:
596: \bibitem{pm} S. Perantonis and C. Michael, { Nucl.\ Phys.} {\bf B347}
597: (1990) 854.
598:
599: \bibitem{jkm} K. Juge , J. Kuti and C. Morningstar,
600: \Journal{\PRL}{82}{4400}{1999}; { Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl)} {\bf
601: 83} (2000) 304,hep-lat/9909165.
602:
603: \bibitem{cppacs}CP-PACS Collaboration, T. Manke et al.,
604: \Journal{\PRL}{82}{1999}{4396}; { Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl)} {\bf
605: 86} (2000) 397, hep-lat/9909038; { Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl)} {\bf
606: 83} (2000) 319, hep-lat/9909133.
607:
608: \bibitem{milc} C. Bernard et al., { Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)}
609: {\bf 53} (1996) 228; { Phys. Rev.} {\bf D56} (1997) 7039;
610: { Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf 73} (1999) 264, hep-lat/9809087.
611:
612: \bibitem{sesamhyb} P. Lacock and K. Schilling,
613: { Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)}
614: {\bf 73} (1999) 261,
615: hep-lat/9809022
616:
617: \bibitem{bali} SESAM and T{$\chi$}L Collaboration,
618: G. Bali et al., hep-lat/0003012.% hep-lat/9901023
619:
620: \bibitem{expt} D. Thompson et al., \Journal{\PRL}{ 79}{1997} {1630};
621: S. U. Chung et al., \Journal{\PRD}{60}{1999}{092001};
622: D. Adams et al., \Journal{\PRL}{81}{1998}{5760}
623:
624: %\bibitem{cmadj} C. Michael, { Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)}
625: %{\bf 6} (1992) 417.
626:
627: %\bibitem{cmppsb} P. Pennanen and C. Michael, hep-lat/0001015
628:
629: \bibitem{hf8} C. Michael, { Proceedings of Heavy Flavours 8},
630: Southampton 1999, JHEP, hep-ph/9911219.
631:
632: \end{thebibliography}
633:
634: \end{document}
635: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
636: #!/bin/csh -f
637: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
638: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
639: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
640: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., figs.uu
641: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
642: # then say csh figs.uu
643: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
644: # uudecode figs.uu ; uncompress figs.tar.Z ;
645: # tar -xvf figs.tar
646: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
647: # filename in "begin" line below to figs.tar_Z , then execute
648: # uudecode figs.uu
649: # compress -d figs.tar_Z
650: # tar -xvf figs.tar
651: #
652: uudecode $0
653: chmod 644 figs.tar.Z
654: zcat figs.tar.Z | tar -xvf -
655: rm $0 figs.tar.Z
656: exit
657:
658: