1: \documentclass{ws-p8-50x6-00}
2:
3: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
4:
5:
6: \newcommand{\un}{\underline}
7: \newcommand{\ov}{\overline}
8: \newcommand{\bsl}{\boldsymbol}
9: \newcommand{\rcm}{\mathbf{R}_{\text{cm}}}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \title{The doubly heavy baryons in the nonperturbative QCD approach}
14:
15: \author{I.M.Narodetskii and M.A.Trusov}
16:
17: \address{ITEP, Moscow, Russia\\ E-mail: naro@heron.itep.ru}
18:
19: \maketitle
20:
21:
22: \abstracts{ We present some piloting calculations of the masses of
23: the doubly heavy baryons in the framework of the simple
24: approximation within the nonperturbative string approach. The
25: simple analytical results for dynamical masses of heavy and light
26: quarks and eigenvalues of the effective QCD Hamiltonian are
27: presented.}
28:
29:
30:
31:
32: The purpose of this talk is to present the results of the
33: calculation \cite{NT01} of the masses and wave functions of the
34: heavy baryons in a simple approximation within the nonperturbative
35: QCD (see \cite{Si99} and references therein). The starting point
36: of the approach is the Feynman-Schwinger representation for the
37: three quark Green function in QCD in which the role of the time
38: parameter along the trajectory of each quark is played by the
39: Fock-Schwinger proper time. The proper and real times for each
40: quark related via a new quantity that eventually plays the role of
41: the dynamical quark mass. The final result is the derivation of
42: the Effective Hamiltonian, see Eq. (\ref{EH}) below. In contrast
43: to the standard approach of the constituent quark model the
44: dynamical mass $m_i$ is not a free parameter but it is expressed
45: in terms of the current mass $m^{(0)}_i$ defined at the
46: appropriate scale of $\mu\sim 1$~GeV from the condition of the
47: minimum of the baryon mass $M_B$ as function of $m_i$:
48: $\frac{\partial M_B(m_i)}{\partial m_i}=0 $. Technically, this has
49: been done using the einbein (auxiliary fields) approach, which is
50: proven to be rather accurate in various calculations for
51: relativistic systems.
52:
53: This method was already applied to study baryon Regge trajectories
54: \cite{FS91} and very recently for computation of magnetic moments
55: of light baryons \cite{KS00}. The essential point of this talk is
56: that it is very reasonable that the same method should also hold
57: for hadrons containing heavy quarks.
58: %In what follows we will
59: %concentrate on the masses of double heavy baryons.
60: As in
61: \cite{KS00} we take as the universal parameter the QCD string
62: tension $\sigma$ fixed in experiment by the meson and baryon Regge
63: slopes. We also include the perturbative Coulomb interaction with
64: the frozen coupling $\alpha_s(\text{1 GeV})=0.4$.
65:
66: Consider the ground state baryons without radial and orbital
67: excitations in which case tensor and spin-orbit forces do not
68: contribute perturbatively.
69: %Then only the spin-spin interaction
70: 5survives in the perturbative approximation.
71: The EH has the
72: following form
73: \begin{equation}
74: \label{EH}
75: H=\sum\limits_{i=1}^3\left(\frac{m_i^{(0)2}}{2m_i}+
76: \frac{m_i}{2}\right)+H_0+V,
77: \end{equation}
78: where $H_0$ is the non-relativistic kinetic energy operator,
79: $m_i^{(0)}$ are the current quark masses and $m_i$ are the
80: dynamical quark masses to be found from the minimum condition, and
81: $V$ is the sum of the perturbative one gluon exchange potential
82: $V_c$ and the string potential $V_{string}$. The string potential
83: has been calculated in \cite{FS91} as the static energy of the
84: three heavy quarks: $V_{\text{string}}(\bsl{r}_1,\bsl{r}_2,
85: \bsl{r}_3)=\sigma R_{\text{min}}$, where $R_{\text{min}}$ is the
86: sum of the three distances $|\bsl{r}_i|$ from the string junction
87: point, which for simplicity is chosen as coinciding with the
88: center--of--mass coordinate.
89:
90:
91: We use the hyper radial approximation (HRA) in the hyper-spherical
92: formalism approach. In the HRA the three quark wave function
93: depends only on the hyper-radius
94: $R^2=\bsl{\rho}^2+\bsl{\lambda}^2$, where $\bsl{\rho}$ and
95: $\bsl{\lambda}$ are the three-body Jacobi variables: $
96: \bsl{\rho}_{ij}=\sqrt{\frac{\mu_{ij}}{\mu}}(\bsl{r}_i-\bsl{r}_j)$,
97: $ \bsl{\lambda}_{ij}=\sqrt{\frac{\mu_{ij,k}}{\mu}}
98: \left(\frac{m_i\bsl{r}_i+m_j\bsl{r}_j}{m_i+m_j}-\bsl{r}_k\right)$,
99: where $\mu_{ij}=\frac{m_im_j}{m_i+m_j}$,
100: $\mu_{ij,k}=\frac{(m_i+m_j)m_k}{m_i+m_j+m_k}$, and $\mu$ is an
101: arbitrary parameter with the dimension of mass which drops off in
102: the final expressions. Introducing the reduced function
103: $\chi(R)=R^{5/2}\psi(R)$ and averaging $V=V_c+ V_{\text{string}}$
104: over the six-dimensional sphere one obtains the Schr\"odinger
105: equation
106: \begin{equation} \label{shr}
107: \frac{d^2\chi(R)}{dR^2}+2\mu\left[E_n+\frac{a}{R}-bR-\frac{15}{8\mu
108: R^2}\right]\chi(R)=0, \end{equation} where
109: \begin{equation} \label{ab} a=\frac{2\alpha_s}{3}\cdot
110: \frac{16}{3\pi}\sum\limits_{i<j}\sqrt{\frac{\mu_{ij}}{\mu}},~~~
111: b=\sigma\cdot\frac{32}{15\pi}\sum\limits_{i<j}\sqrt{\frac{\mu(m_i+m_j)}{m_k(m_1+m_2+m_3)}},
112: \end{equation}
113: We use the same parameters as in Ref. \cite{KN00}:
114: $\sigma=0.17$~GeV, $\alpha_s=0.4$, $m^{(0)}_q=0.009$ GeV,
115: $m^{(0)}_s=0.17$ GeV, $m^{(0)}_c=1.4$ GeV, and $m^{(0)}_b=4.8$
116: GeV. We solve Eq. (\ref{shr}) by the variational method
117: introducing a simple variational Ans\"atz $\chi(R)\sim
118: R^{5/2}e^{-\mu p^2R^2}$, where $p$ is the variational parameter.
119: Then the three-quark Hamiltonian admits explicit solutions for the
120: energy and the ground state eigenfunction:
121: $E\approx\min\limits_pE(p)$, where
122: \begin{equation} E(p)=\langle\chi|H|\chi\rangle=
123: 3p^2-(a\sqrt{\mu})\cdot\frac{3}{4}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}\cdot
124: p+(b/\sqrt{\mu})\cdot\frac{15}{16}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}\cdot
125: p^{-1}. \end{equation}
126:
127: The dynamical masses $m_i$ and the ground state eigenvalues $E_0$
128: are given for various baryons in Table 1 of Ref. \cite{NT01}. The
129: dynamical values of light quark mass
130: $m_q\sim\sqrt{\sigma}|\sim~450-500$ MeV ($q=u,d,s$) qualitatively
131: agree with the results of Ref. \cite{KN00} obtained from the
132: analysis of the heavy--light ground state mesons. For the heavy
133: quarks ($Q~=~c$ and $b$) the variation in the values of their
134: dynamical masses $m_Q$ is marginal. This is illustrated by the
135: simple analytical results for Qud baryons. These results were
136: obtained from the approximate solution of equation $
137: \left.\frac{dE}{dp}\right|_{p=p_0}=0$ in the form of expansion in
138: the small parameters $\xi=\sqrt{\sigma}/m_Q^{(0)}$ and $\alpha_s$.
139: Omitting the intermediate steps one has
140: \begin{align*}
141: E_0&=3\sqrt{\sigma}\left(\frac{6}{\pi}\right)^{1/4}\left(1+A\cdot\xi
142: -\frac{5}{3}B\cdot\alpha_s+\dots\right)\\
143: m_q&=\sqrt{\sigma}\left(\frac{6}{\pi}\right)^{1/4}\left(1-A\cdot\xi+B\cdot\alpha_s+
144: \dots\right),\\
145: m_Q&=m_Q^{(0)}\left(1+2A\cdot\xi^2+\dots\right)
146: \end{align*}
147: where for our variational Anz\"ats
148: $A=\frac{\sqrt{2}-1}{2}\left(\frac{6}{\pi}\right)^{1/4}$,~
149: $B=\frac{4+\sqrt{2}}{18}\sqrt{\frac{6}{\pi}}$. Accuracy of this
150: approximation is illustrated in Table 1.
151:
152: \begin{table}
153: \label{mytab} \caption{Comparison of results of analytical and
154: numerical variational calculations for $\Lambda_b$ and $\Lambda_c$
155: baryons (all quantities are in units of GeV)}
156: \begin{center}
157: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
158: \hline Baryon & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$\Lambda_b$} &
159: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$\Lambda_c$}\\ \hline & Numerical &
160: Analytical & Numerical & Analytical \\ & calculation &
161: calculation & calculation & calculation \\ \hline $E_0$ & 1.06 &
162: 1.08 & 1.18 & 1.16
163: \\ \hline $m_q$ & 0.56 & 0.56 & 0.52 & 0.53 \\ \hline $m_Q$ & 4.84
164: & 4.82 & 1.50 & 1.47 \\ \hline
165: \end{tabular}
166: \end{center}
167: \end{table}
168:
169:
170:
171: To calculate hadron masses we, as in Ref. \cite{FS91}, first
172: renormalize the string potential: $V_{\text{string}}\to
173: V_{\text{string}}+\sum\limits_iC_i$, where the constants $C_i$
174: take into account the residual self-energy (RSE) of quarks. In
175: what follows we adjust the RSE constants $C_i$ to reproduce the
176: center-of-gravity for baryons with a given flavor. As a result we
177: obtain $ C_q=0.34,~~~C_s=0.19,~~~C_c\sim C_b\sim 0.$
178:
179: We keep these parameters fixed to calculate the masses given in
180: Table 2, namely the spin--averaged masses (computed without the
181: spin--spin term) of the lowest double heavy baryons. In this Table
182: we also compare our predictions with the results obtained using
183: the additive non--relativistic quark model with the power-law
184: potential \cite{BDGNR94}, relativistic quasipotential quark model
185: \cite{E97}, the Feynman-Hellmann theorem \cite{LRP95} and with the
186: predictions obtained in the approximation of double heavy diquark
187: \cite{LO99}.
188:
189: In conclusion, we have employed the general formalism for the
190: baryons, which is based on nonperturbative QCD and where the only
191: inputs are $\sigma$, $\alpha_s$ and two additive constants, $C_q$
192: and $C_s$, the residual self--energies of the light quarks. Using
193: this formalism we have also performed the calculations of the
194: spin--averaged masses of baryons with two heavy quarks. One can
195: see from Table 2 that our predictions are especially close to
196: those obtained in Ref. \cite{BDGNR94} using a variant of the
197: power--law potential adjusted to fit ground state baryons.
198:
199: \begin{table}
200: \label{tab2} \caption{Masses of baryons containing two heavy
201: quarks}
202: \begin{center}
203: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
204: \hline State & present work & Ref. \cite{BDGNR94} & Ref.
205: \cite{E97} & Ref. \cite{LRP95} & Ref. \cite{LO99}\\
206: \hline $\Xi\{qcc\}$ & 3.69 & 3.70 & 3.71 & 3.66 & 3.48\\
207: $\Omega\{scc\}$ & 3.86 & 3.80 & 3.76 & 3.74 & 3.58\\ \hline
208: $\Xi\{qcb\}$ & 6.96 & 6.99 & 6.95 & 7.04 & 6.82 \\
209: $\Omega\{scb\}$ & 7.13 & 7.07 & 7.05 & 7.09 & 6.92 \\ \hline
210: $\Xi\{qbb\}$ & 10.16 & 10.24 & 10.23 & 10.24 & 10.09
211: \\ $\Omega\{sbb\}$ & 10.34 & 10.30 & 10.32 & 10.37 & 10.19
212: \\ \hline
213: \end{tabular}
214: \end{center}
215: \end{table}
216:
217:
218:
219: \section*{Acknowledgements}
220: This work was supported in part by RFBR grants \#\# 00-02-16363
221: and 00-15-96786.
222:
223:
224: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
225: \bibitem{NT01} I.M.Narodetskii and M.A.Trusov, Yad. Fiz., {\bf 65}, in press
226: [hep-ph/0104019]
227: \bibitem{Si99} Yu.A.Simonov,
228: Lectures given at the XVII International School of Physics "QCD:
229: Perturbative or Nonperturbative", Lisbon 1999 [hep-ph /9911237]
230: \bibitem{FS91} M.Fabre de la Ripelle and Yu.A.Simonov, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) {\bf 212}, 235
231: (1991).
232: \bibitem{KS00} B.O.Kerbikov, Yu.A.Simonov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62},
233: 093016 (2000).
234: \bibitem{KN00} Yu.S.Kalashnikova and A.Nefediev, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 492}, 91 (2000).
235: \bibitem{BDGNR94} E.Bagan {\it et al.} Z.Phys. C {\bf 64}, 57 (1994).
236: \bibitem{E97} D.Ebert {\it et al.}, Z. Phys. C {\bf 76}, 111
237: (1997).
238: \bibitem{LRP95} R.Roncaglia {\it et al.}, Phys.
239: Rev. D {\bf 52}, 1248 (1995).
240: \bibitem{LO99} A.K.Likhoded and A.I.Onishchenko, hep-ph/9912425
241: \end{thebibliography}
242:
243: \end{document}
244: