1: % Article on singlet bbbar states: S. Godfrey and J. Rosner
2: \documentstyle[epsfig,12pt]{article}
3: \def \bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
4: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
5: \def \br{${\cal B}$}
6: \def \bra#1{\langle #1 |}
7: \def \eea{\end{eqnarray}}
8: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
9: \def \gto{\stackrel{\gamma}{\to}}
10: \def \ket#1{| #1 \rangle}
11: \def \mat#1#2{\langle #1 | #2 \rangle}
12: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
13: \def \st{\sqrt{3}}
14: \def \sx{\sqrt{6}}
15: \def \ups{\Upsilon}
16: \textwidth 6.1in
17: \hoffset -0.3in
18: \voffset -0.5in
19: \textheight 9in
20: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
21: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Roman{table}}
22: \begin{document}
23: %
24: \Large
25: \centerline {\bf Production of singlet P-wave $c\bar{c}$ and $b \bar
26: b$ states\footnote{Enrico Fermi Institute preprint EFI 02-79,
27: hep-ph/0205255.
28: Submitted to Physical Review D.}}
29: \normalsize
30: \bigskip
31:
32: \centerline{Stephen Godfrey~\footnote{godfrey@physics.carleton.ca}}
33: \centerline{\it Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Physics}
34: \centerline{\it Department of Physics, Carleton University}
35: \centerline{\it 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada}
36: \smallskip
37: \centerline{and}
38: \smallskip
39: \centerline{Jonathan L. Rosner~\footnote{rosner@hep.uchicago.edu}}
40: \centerline {\it Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics}
41: \centerline{\it University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637}
42: \bigskip
43:
44: \begin{quote}
45:
46: No spin-singlet $b \bar b$ quarkonium state has yet been observed. In this
47: paper we discuss the production of the singlet P-wave $b\bar{b}$ and $c\bar{c}$
48: $^1P_1$ states $h_b$ and $h_c$. We consider two possibilities. In the first
49: the $^1P_1$ states are produced via the electromagnetic cascades $\ups(3S) \to
50: \eta_b(2S) + \gamma \to h_b + \gamma \gamma \to \eta_b +\gamma\gamma\gamma$
51: and $\psi'\to \eta_c' + \gamma \to h_c + \gamma \gamma \to \eta_c +
52: \gamma\gamma\gamma$. A more promising process consists of single pion
53: transition to the $^1P_1$ state followed by the radiative transition to the
54: $1^1S_0$ state: $\ups(3S)\to h_b + \pi^0 \to \eta_b + \pi^0 +\gamma$ and
55: $\psi' \to h_c + \pi^0 \to \eta_c + \pi^0 +\gamma$. For a million
56: $\ups(3S)$ or $\psi'$'s produced we expect these processes to produce
57: several hundred events.
58:
59: \end{quote}
60: \bigskip
61:
62: \noindent
63: PACS Categories: 14.40.Gx, 13.20.Gd, 13.40.Hq, 12.39.Ki
64:
65: \bigskip
66:
67: The study of bound states of heavy quarks has provided important tests of
68: quantum chromodynamics (QCD) \cite{revs}. The heavy quarkonium $c\bar{c}$ and
69: $b\bar{b}$ resonances have a rich spectroscopy with numerous narrow $S$, $P$,
70: and $D$-wave levels below the production threshold of open charm and beauty
71: mesons. The spin-triplet $S$-wave states, $\psi(nS)$ and
72: $\ups(nS)$ with $J^{PC}=1^{--}$, are readily produced by virtual
73: photons in $e^+e^-$ or hadronic interactions, and then undergo
74: electric dipole (E1) transition to the spin-triplet $P$-wave levels.
75: Previous studies have discussed the production of the spin-triplet $D$-wave
76: $b\bar{b}$ states \cite{KR,GRdw} and there has been some discussion of
77: how one might produce the $1^1P_1 \; c\bar{c}$ state
78: \cite{suzuki02,kuang02,tuan,ko,CDQ93,QY}.
79: Up to now, the only observed heavy quarkonium spin-singlet state has been
80: the $\eta_c(1^1S_0)$, but the Belle Collaboration \cite{Beletac} has just
81: announced the discovery of the $\eta_c'(2^1S_0)$ in $B$ decays at a mass
82: of $(3654 \pm 6 \pm 8)$ MeV/$c^2$.
83: There have also been a few measurements suggesting the $1^1P_1
84: (c\bar{c})$ state in $\bar{p}p$ annihilation experiments
85: \cite{r704,e760,e771} but these results have yet to be confirmed.
86: No $b\bar{b}$ spin-singlet states have yet been seen.
87:
88: The mass predictions for the singlet states are an important test of
89: QCD motivated potential models \cite{GI,MR83,LPR92,OS82,MB83,GRR86,IO87,%
90: GOS84,PJF92,HOOS92} and the applicability of perturbative quantum
91: chromodynamics to the heavy quarkonia $c\bar{c}$ and $b\bar{b}$ systems
92: \cite{NPT,PTN86,PT88,FY}, as well as the more recent NRQCD \cite{NRQCD}
93: approach. For QCD-motivated potential models the triplet-singlet splittings
94: test the Lorentz nature of the confining potential with different combinations
95: of Lorentz scalar, vector, etc., giving rise to different orderings of the
96: triplet-singlet splittings in the heavy quarkonium P-wave mesons. Furthermore,
97: the observation of $c\bar{c}$ and $b\bar{b}$ states and the measurement of
98: their masses is an important validation of lattice QCD calculations
99: \cite{davies94,davies98,eicker98,bali,manke,okamoto}, which will lead to
100: greater confidence in their application in extracting electroweak quantities
101: from hadronic processes. Under the assumption of a Fermi-Breit Hamiltonian
102: and only vector-like and scalar-like components in the central potential,
103: Stubbe and Martin \cite{SM} predicted that the $n^1P_1$ mass lies no lower than
104: the spin-averaged $^3P_J$ masses (weighted with the factors $2J+1$), denoted by
105: $n^3P_{\rm cog}$. Violation of these bounds would indicate a significant
106: underestimate by \cite{SM} of relativistic effects.
107:
108: In Table \ref{tab:hfs} we summarize some predictions for hyperfine mass
109: splittings for P-wave $c\bar{c}$ and $b\bar{b}$ levels. The wide variation in
110: the predicted splittings demonstrates the need for experimental tests of the
111: various calculational approaches.
112:
113: % This is Table I
114: \begin{table}
115: \caption{Predictions for hyperfine splittings $M(n^3P_{\rm cog}) -
116: M(n^1P_1)$ for $c\bar{c}$ and $b \bar b$ levels.
117: \label{tab:hfs}}
118: \begin{center}
119: \begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
120: Reference & Approach & $n=1$ $c\bar{c}$ & $n=1$ $b\bar{b}$ & $n=2$ $b\bar{b}$
121: \\ & & (MeV) & (MeV) & (MeV) \\ \hline
122: GI85 \cite{GI} & a & 8 & 2 & 2 \\
123: MR83 \cite{MR83} & b & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
124: LPR92 \cite{LPR92} & c & 4 & 2 & 1 \\
125: OS82 \cite{OS82} & d & 10 & 3 & 3 \\
126: MB83 \cite{MB83} & e & $-5$ & $-2$ & $-2$ \\
127: GRR86 \cite{GRR86} & f & $-2$ & $-1$ & $-1$ \\
128: IO87 \cite{IO87} & g & $24.1\pm 2.5$ & $3.73 \pm 0.1$ & $3.51 \pm 0.02$ \\
129: GOS84 $\eta_s=1$ \cite{GOS84} & h & 6 & 3 & 2 \\
130: GOS84 $\eta_s=0$ \cite{GOS84} & h & 17 & 8 & 6 \\
131: PJF92 \cite{PJF92} & i & $-20.3 \pm 3.7$ & $-2.5\pm 1.6$ & $ -3.7\pm 0.8$ \\
132: HOOS92 \cite{HOOS92} & j & $-0.7\pm 0.2$ & $-0.18\pm 0.03$ & $-0.15 \pm 0.03$ \\
133: PTN86 \cite{PTN86} & j & $-3.6$ & $-0.4$ & $-0.3$ \\
134: PT88 \cite{PT88} & j & $-1.4$ & $-0.5$ & $-0.4$ \\
135: SESAM98 \cite{eicker98} & k & -- & $\sim -1$ & -- \\
136: CP-PACS00 \cite{manke} & l & 1.7--4.0 & 1.6--5.0 & -- \\
137: \hline \hline
138: \end{tabular}
139: \end{center}
140: \leftline{\qquad $^a$ Potential model with smeared short range
141: hyperfine interaction. }
142: \leftline{\qquad (The splittings are based on masses
143: rounded to 1 MeV, not the results}
144: \leftline{\qquad rounded to 10 MeV as given in Ref.\ \cite{GI}.)}
145: \leftline{\qquad $^b$ Potential model with long range
146: longitudinal color electric field.}
147: \leftline{\qquad $^c$ Potential model with PQCD corrections to short
148: distance piece.}
149: \leftline{\qquad $^d$ Potential model with smeared hyperfine interaction.}
150: \leftline{\qquad $^e$ Potential model with smeared hyperfine
151: interaction and relativistic corrections}
152: \leftline{\qquad $^f$ Potential model includes 1-loop QCD corrections.}
153: \leftline{\qquad $^g$ Potential model with short distance from 2-loop
154: PQCD calculation.}
155: \leftline{\qquad Results shown for $\Lambda_{\bar{MS}}=200$~MeV.}
156: \leftline{\qquad $^h$ Potential model with confining potential with
157: both Lorentz scalar and vector.}
158: \leftline{\qquad $\eta_s$ gives the fraction of the
159: confining potential that is pure Lorentz scalar}
160: \leftline{\qquad versus Lorentz vector.}
161: \leftline{\qquad $^i$ Potential model. Solution is for Richardson potential and
162: $m_c=1.49\pm 0.1$~GeV.}
163: \leftline{\qquad Other solutions given in Ref.\ \cite{PJF92} are
164: consistent with this result within errors.}
165: \leftline{\qquad $^j$ PQCD}
166: \leftline{\qquad $^k$ Unquenched nonrelativistic lattice QCD.}
167: \leftline{\qquad $^l$ Lattice QCD; the result is dependent on the
168: value used for $\beta$ and $m_Q$.}
169: \end{table}
170: \bigskip
171:
172: There are two possibilities for producing spin-singlet states. In the
173: first, the system undergoes a magnetic dipole (M1) transition from
174: a spin-triplet state to a spin-singlet state. The predictions
175: for $M1$ transitions from the $\ups(n^3S_1)$ levels to the
176: $\eta_b (n'^1S_0)$ states, for both favored $M1$ transitions and
177: hindered $M1$ transitions with changes of the principal quantum
178: number, have been reviewed in Ref. \cite{GRetab}. The second route
179: begins with a hadronic transition, from a $n^3S_1$ state to a
180: $^1P_1$ state, emitting one or more pions, followed by the electromagnetic
181: decay of the $^1P_1$ state.
182:
183: In this paper we examine the production of the spin-singlet $P$-wave $c\bar{c}$
184: and $b\bar{b}$ states. We examined the decay chains that start with the $M1$
185: transition from the $\psi'$ to the $\eta_c'$ in the $c\bar{c}$ system and from
186: the $\ups(3S)$ to either the $\eta_b(3S)$ or $\eta_b(2S)$ state in the
187: $b\bar{b}$ system. In both cases the $M1$ transition is followed by an $E1$
188: transition to the spin-singlet $2P$ or $1P$ state. This is in turn followed by
189: a second $E1$ transition to a $n^1S_0$ state. In addition, the $2^1P_1$ $b
190: \bar{b}$ state can undergo an $E1$ transition to the $1^1D_2$ state. However,
191: with the current CLEO data set, the only decay chain which has any hope of
192: being seen in the $b\bar{b}$ system is $\ups(3S)\to \eta_b(2S)\gamma \to h_b
193: (1P) \gamma\gamma$. We therefore only present results relevant to this set of
194: decays.
195:
196: The decay chains originating with the hadronic transitions are more promising.
197: We therefore include estimates of branching ratios for chains originating with
198: the direct hadronic transition $\ups(3S) \to h_b(^1P_1) + \pi^0$ discussed
199: by Voloshin \cite{voloshin} followed by the radiative decay $h_b(^1P_1)\to
200: \eta_b(1S) +\gamma$ and the analogous transitions in the charmonium system
201: $\psi'(2S) \to h_c(^1P_1) + \pi^0 \to \eta_c(1S) \gamma \pi^0$. Kuang and Yan
202: \cite{ky} have also considered the related spin-flip transition $\ups(3S)
203: \to h_b(^1P_1)+\pi\pi$ which may provide an additional path to the $h_b$.
204:
205: Searches for the $^1P_1$ states have taken on renewed interest because of the
206: current data-taking runs of the CLEO Collaboration at the Cornell Electron
207: Storage Ring (CESR), which are expected to significantly increase their
208: sample of data at the $\ups(3S)$ resonance, and the proposed
209: CLEO-c project which will study physics in the charmonium system.
210:
211: We begin with the $b\bar{b}$ mesons and decay chains involving only radiative
212: transitions. To estimate the number of events expected from these decay chains
213: we need to estimate the radiative partial decay widths between states and the
214: hadronic partial widths of the appropriate $^1S_0$ and $^1P_1$ states.
215:
216: The $M1$ transitions from the $\ups(3S)$ to the $\eta_b(3S)$ and
217: $\eta_b(2S)$ were studied in detail in Ref.\ \cite{GRetab}, which we will use
218: in what follows. The $E1$ transitions are straightforward to work out
219: \cite{KR} and in the nonrelativistic limit are given by
220: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:stop}
221: \Gamma(^1S_0 \to {^1P_1} + \gamma) = \frac{4}{3} \alpha \; e_Q^2 \;
222: \omega^3 \; |\langle ^1P_1 | r | ^1S_0 \rangle |^2
223: \end{equation}
224: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:ptos}
225: \Gamma(^1P_1 \to {^1S_0} + \gamma) = \frac{4}{9} \alpha \; e_Q^2 \;
226: \omega^3 \; |\langle ^1S_0 | r | ^1P_1 \rangle |^2
227: \end{equation}
228: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:ptod}
229: \Gamma(^1P_1 \to ^1D_2 + \gamma) = \frac{8}{9} \alpha \; e_Q^2 \;
230: \omega^3 \; |\langle ^1D_2 | r | ^1P_1 \rangle |^2
231: \end{equation}
232: where $\alpha = 1/137.036$ is the fine-structure constant, $e_Q$ is the
233: quark charge in units of $|e|$ ($-1/3$ for $Q=b$), and $\omega$ is the
234: photon's energy. The photon energies, overlap integrals, and partial widths
235: for the $E1$ transitions between $^1P_1$ and $^1S_0$ levels are given in Table
236: \ref{tab:E1} and summarized in Fig.\ 1, along with the relevant $M1$
237: transitions. The $n^1S_0$ masses were obtained by subtracting the predictions
238: of Ref.\ \cite{GI} for the $n^3S_1 - n^1S_0$ splittings from the measured
239: $n^3S_1$ masses, while the $n^1P_1$ masses were obtained by subtracting the
240: predictions for the $n^3P_{\rm cog}-n^1P_1$ splittings of Ref.\ \cite{GI} from
241: measured $n^3P_{\rm cog}$ values. The overlap integrals,
242: $\langle r \rangle \equiv \langle ^1L'_{L'} | r | ^1L_L \rangle$,
243: were evaluated using the wavefunctions of Ref.\ \cite{GI}. We found
244: that the relativistic effects considered in
245: Ref. \cite{GI} reduce the partial widths by a few percent at most.
246: Somewhat larger matrix elements were obtained in an inverse-scattering
247: approach \cite{KR}, except for the highly suppressed $3S \to 1P$ transition,
248: whose matrix element is very sensitive to details of wave functions
249: \cite{GR}.
250:
251: % This is Figure 1
252: \begin{figure}
253: \centerline{\epsfysize = 7in \epsffile{m1.eps}}
254: \caption{Radiative transitions in the $b\bar{b}$ system. The dashed
255: lines represent $M1$ transitions, the solid lines $E1$ transitions and
256: the dotted lines single $\pi^0$ emission. The transitions are labelled with
257: their partial widths given in keV.
258: \label{fig:m1-trans}}
259: \end{figure}
260:
261: % This is Table II
262: \begin{table} \label{tab:e1}
263: \caption{Radiative electric dipole transitions involving $h_b(1^1P_1)$ and
264: $h'_b(2^1P_1)$ $b \bar b$ states.
265: The details of the calculation are given in the text.
266: \label{tab:E1}}
267: \begin{center}
268: \begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
269: Transition & $M_i$ & $M_f$ & $\omega$ & $\langle r \rangle$ & $\Gamma$ \\
270: & (MeV) & (MeV) & (MeV) & (GeV$^{-1}$) & (keV) \\ \hline
271: $3^1S_0 \to 2^1P_1 $ & 10337 & 10258 & 78.7 & $-2.46$ & 3.2 \\
272: $3^1S_0 \to 1^1P_1 $ & 10337 & 9898 & 430 & 0.126 & 1.4 \\
273: $2^1P_1 \to 1^1D_2 $ & 10258 & 10148 & 109 & $-1.69$ & 2.7 \\
274: $2^1P_1 \to 2^1S_0 $ & 10258 & 9996 & 259 & 1.57 & 15.4 \\
275: $2^1P_1 \to 1^1S_0 $ & 10258 & 9397 & 825 & 0.222 & 10.0 \\
276: $2^1S_0 \to 1^1P_1 $ & 9996 & 9898 & 97.5 & $-1.53$ & 2.3 \\
277: $1^1P_1 \to 1^1S_0 $ & 9898 & 9397 & 488 & 0.940 & 37 \\
278: \hline \hline
279: \end{tabular}
280: \end{center}
281: \end{table}
282:
283: To estimate the number of events in a particular decay chain requires branching
284: fractions which depend on knowing all important partial decay widths.
285: Inclusive strong decays to gluon and quark final states generally make large
286: contributions to the total width and have been studied extensively
287: \cite{stogg,bgr,ss-gg,chanowitz,KMRR,novikov}. The relevant theoretical
288: expressions, including leading-order QCD corrections \cite{bgr}, are
289: summarized in Ref.\ \cite{KMRR}:
290: \begin{equation}
291: \Gamma(^1S_0\to gg)= {{8\pi\alpha_s^2}\over{3m_Q^2}} |\psi(0)|^2
292: %(1+4.4 {{\alpha_s}\over{\pi}} )
293: \end{equation}
294: with a multiplicative correction factor of $(1+4.4 {{\alpha_s}\over{\pi}})$ for
295: $b\bar{b}$ and $(1+4.8 {{\alpha_s}\over{\pi}} )$ for $c\bar{c}$,
296: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:sp1}
297: \Gamma(^1P_1 \to ggg) = \frac{20\alpha_s^3}{9\pi m_Q^4} |R_P'(0)|^2 \ln
298: (m_Q\langle r \rangle )
299: \end{equation}
300: and
301: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:sp1g}
302: \Gamma(^1P_1 \to gg+\gamma ) = {{36}\over 5} e_q^2 {\alpha \over
303: \alpha_s } \Gamma(^1P_1 \to ggg)
304: \end{equation}
305: where we also include the decay $^1P_1\to gg + \gamma$.
306:
307: Considerable uncertainties arise in these expressions from the model-dependence
308: of the wavefunctions and possible relativistic contributions \cite{GI}. In
309: addition, the logarithm in the decay $\Gamma(^1P_1 \to ggg) $ is a measure of
310: the virtuality of the quark emitting the gluon. Different choices have been
311: proposed for its argument, introducing further uncertainty.
312: Rather than evaluating these expressions in a specific potential model,
313: we can obtain less model-dependent estimates of strong decays by relating
314: ratios of theoretical predictions, in which much of the theoretical
315: uncertainties factor out, to experimentally measured widths. Although we
316: expect the wavefunction at the origin to be slightly larger for the singlet
317: state than the triplet state, we expect this difference to be much smaller than
318: the uncertainties mentioned above.
319:
320: To make our estimates, we will need in addition to Eqs.\ (3)--(5), the
321: following expressions \cite{KMRR}:
322: \begin{equation}
323: \Gamma(^3S_1\to ggg)=
324: {{40(\pi^2-9)\alpha_s^3}\over{81m_Q^2}} |\psi(0)|^2
325: %(1-4.9 {{\alpha_s}\over{\pi}} ).
326: \end{equation}
327: with a multiplicative correction factor of $(1-4.9 {{\alpha_s}\over{\pi}})$
328: for $b\bar{b}$ and $(1-3.7 {{\alpha_s}\over{\pi}} )$ for $c\bar{c}$,
329: \begin{equation}
330: \Gamma(^3S_1\to\gamma + gg)=
331: {{32(\pi^2-9) e_Q^2 \alpha \alpha_s^2}\over{9m_Q^2}} |\psi(0)|^2
332: \end{equation}
333: with a multiplicative correction factor of $(1-7.4 {{\alpha_s}\over{\pi}})$
334: for $b\bar{b}$ and $(1-6.7 {{\alpha_s}\over{\pi}} )$ for $c\bar{c}$,
335: and
336: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:tp1}
337: \Gamma(^3P_1 \to q\bar{q}+g) = \frac{8\alpha_s^3 n_f}{9\pi m_Q^4} |R_P'(0)|^2
338: \ln (m_Q\langle r \rangle )~,
339: \end{equation}
340: where the QCD correction factor for the last expression is not known. Taking
341: account of decays of the $2^3S_1$ and $3^3S_1$ states to $\pi \pi
342: \ups(nS)$, lepton pairs, and $\chi_b(nP) \gamma$, as quoted in Ref.\
343: \cite{PDG}, we find total branching ratios to non-glue final states, and
344: assume glue to constitute the remainder. Using branching ratios and total
345: widths quoted in Ref.\ \cite{PDG}, we then arrive at the estimates summarized
346: in Table \ref{tab:nSglue} for $\Gamma[\ups(nS) \to {\rm glue}] \equiv \Gamma
347: [\ups(nS) \to {\rm hadrons}] + \Gamma[\ups(nS) \to \gamma + {\rm hadrons}]$.
348:
349: % This is Table III
350: \begin{table}
351: \begin{center}
352: \caption{Ingredients in estimates of $\Gamma[\ups(nS) \to {\rm glue}]$.
353: \label{tab:nSglue}}
354: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
355: $\ups(nS)$ & ${\cal B}(\rm{non-glue})$ & ${\cal B}(\rm{glue})$ & $\Gamma({\rm
356: tot})$ & $\Gamma({\rm glue})$ \\
357: state & (\%) & (\%) & (keV) & (keV) \\ \hline
358: $\ups(2S)$ & $49.1 \pm 1.5$ & $50.9 \pm 1.5$ & $44 \pm 7$ & $22.4 \pm 3.6$ \\
359: $\ups(3S)$ & $44.9 \pm 1.4$ & $55.1 \pm 1.4$ & $26.3 \pm 3.5$ & $14.5 \pm
360: 2.0$ \\ \hline \hline
361: \end{tabular}
362: \end{center}
363: \end{table}
364:
365: %JR | |
366: Using Eqs.\ (7) and (8), $\alpha_s(\ups _{2S}) = 0.181$, and $\alpha_s(\ups
367: _{3S})=0.180$ we find $\Gamma[\ups(2S) \to {\rm hadrons})] = 21.8 \pm
368: 3.5$~keV and $\Gamma[\ups(3S) \to {\rm hadrons})] = 14.1\pm 2.0$~keV. The
369: %JR | |
370: ratio of the widths from Eqs.\ (4) and (7):
371: \begin{equation}
372: \Gamma(^1S_0\to gg)={{27\pi}\over{5(\pi^2-9)}} {1\over{\alpha_s}}
373: {{(1+4.4 {{\alpha_s}\over{\pi}} )}\over{(1-4.9{{\alpha_s}\over{\pi}} )}}
374: \times \Gamma(^3S_1\to ggg)
375: \end{equation}
376: results in $\Gamma[\eta_b(2S) \to {\rm hadrons})] = 4.1 \pm 0.7$~MeV
377: and $\Gamma[\eta_b(3S) \to {\rm hadrons})] = 2.7 \pm 0.4$~MeV.
378:
379: We follow the same procedure to estimate the hadronic width for the $^1P_1$
380: states, although in this case we need to make use of a theoretical estimate
381: for the partial width $^3P_1 \to {^3S_1} \gamma$. Here we have \cite{KMRR}
382: \begin{equation}
383: \Gamma(^1P_1\to {\rm hadrons})={5\over{2n_f}} \times \Gamma(^3P_1 \to {\rm
384: hadrons})
385: \end{equation}
386: where $n_f$ is the number of light quark flavours in the final state
387: which we will take to be 3,
388: ignoring the kinematically suppressed charm-anticharm channel. This results
389: in a conservative upper limit for $\Gamma(^1P_1\to {\rm hadrons})$ and hence
390: a lower limit for the branching ratio of this state to $\gamma + \eta_b$.
391: As mentioned, the QCD corrections to these widths are not known. The large
392: uncertainties arising from the wavefunction and logarithms in Eqs.\ (5) and
393: (9) cancel out.
394:
395: The only branching ratios quoted in Ref.\ \cite{PDG} for the $n^3P_1$ states
396: are for decays to $n'{^3S_1} \gamma$. Using quark model predictions for the
397: radiative transitions and assuming that hadronic decays dominate the
398: remainder of the total widths, we can estimate the hadronic partial
399: widths of these states. The results are summarized in Table \ref{tab:strong2}.
400:
401: % This is Table IV
402: \begin{table}
403: \caption{Partial widths of $^3P_1$ and $^1P_1$ states.
404: The details of the calculation are given in the text.
405: \label{tab:strong2}}
406: \begin{center}
407: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
408: $^3P_1$ & $\sum_n{\cal B}(^3P_1 \to n^3S_1 \gamma)^a$
409: & $\Gamma(^3P_1\to{^3S_1}\gamma)$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}
410: {$\Gamma(\to {\rm hadrons})$} \\
411: state & (\%) & (keV) & $^3P_1$ (keV) & $^1P_1$ (keV) \\
412: \hline
413: $1^3P_1(b\bar{b})$ & $35 \pm 8$ & 32.8$^b$ & 60.9 & 50.8 \\
414: & & 28.9$^c$ & 53.7 & 44.7 \\
415: $2^3P_1(b\bar{b})$ & $29.5 \pm 4.2$ & 25.2$^b$ & 60.2 & 50.2 \\
416: & & 16.8$^c$ & 40.1 & 33.4 \\
417: \hline \hline
418: \end{tabular}
419: \end{center}
420: $^a$ Particle Data Group \cite{PDG}
421:
422: $^b$ Kwong and Rosner \cite{KR}
423:
424: $^c$ Godfrey and Isgur \cite{GI}
425: \end{table}
426:
427: The branching ratios obtained by combining the partial widths given in Tables
428: \ref{tab:E1} and \ref{tab:strong2} are summarized in Table \ref{tab:br}.
429:
430: % This is Table V
431: \begin{table}
432: \caption{Partial widths and branching ratios for spin-singlet $b \bar b$
433: states. The details of the calculation are given in the text.
434: \label{tab:br}}
435: \begin{center}
436: \begin{tabular}{l r r r } \hline \hline
437: Initial & Final & Width & ${\cal B}$ \\
438: state & state & (keV) & (\%) \\ \hline
439: $3^1S_0$ & $2^1P_1 \gamma $ & 3.2 & 0.12 \\
440: & $1^1P_1 \gamma $ & 1.4 & 0.05 \\
441: & $gg$ & 2700 & 99.8 \\
442: $2^1P_1$ & $2^1S_0 \gamma $ & 15.4 & 19.3 \\
443: & $1^1S_0 \gamma $ & 10.0 & 12.5 \\
444: & $1^1D_2 \gamma $ & 2.7 & 3.4 \\
445: & $ggg$ & 50.2$^a$ & 62.8 \\
446: & $\gamma gg$ & 1.6 & 2.0 \\
447: $2^1S_0$ & $1^1P_1 \gamma $ & 2.3 & 0.057 \\
448: & $gg$ & 4100 & 99.9 \\
449: $1^1P_1$ & $1^1S_0 \gamma $ & 37.0 & 41.4 \\
450: & $ggg$ & 50.8$^a$ & 56.8 \\
451: & $\gamma gg$ & 1.6 & 1.8 \\
452: \hline \hline
453: \end{tabular}
454: \end{center}
455: \leftline{\qquad $^a$ Based on the partial width for $^3P_1 \to {^3S_1}
456: \gamma$ of Ref.\ \cite{KR} in Table \ref{tab:strong2}.}
457: \end{table}
458:
459: To study the singlet $P$-wave $b\bar{b}$ states we considered the two-photon
460: inclusive transitions $3^3S_1 \gto 3^1S_0 \gto 2^1P_1$ or $\gto 1^1P_1$
461: and $3^3S_1 \gto 2^1S_0 \gto 1^1P_1$. In all cases the $^1P_1$ states can
462: undergo further $E1$ radiative transitions to $^1S_0$ states. It may be that
463: this last photon provides a useful tag to distinguish the cascade of interest
464: from other possible decays involving triplet $P$ and $D$-wave $b\bar{b}$
465: states. We use the branching ratios predicted in Ref.\ \cite{GRetab}
466: for the initial $M1$ transitions, ${\cal B} (\Upsilon(3S) \to \eta_b(3S) +
467: \gamma) = 0.10 \times 10^{-4}$ and ${\cal B} (\Upsilon(3S) \to \eta_b(2S) +
468: \gamma) = 4.7\times 10^{-4}$, which correspond to the GI mass-splittings and
469: wavefunctions \cite{GI} and where the latter result takes into account
470: relativistic corrections. Combined with the branching ratios for the
471: %JR |
472: subsequent $E1$ transitions given in Table V the only decay chain that might
473: yield enough events to be observed is $3^3S_1 \gto 2^1S_0 \gto 1^1P_1$ which
474: yields roughly 0.3 events per million $\Upsilon(3S)$ states produced.
475:
476: A more promising approach is the decay chain $\Upsilon(3S)\to {^1P_1} \pi^0$
477: followed by the $E1$ radiative transition $^1P_1 \to {^1S_0} \gamma$. Voloshin
478: estimates ${\cal B} (\Upsilon(3S) \to 1^1P_1 +\pi^0) =0.10 \times 10^{-2}$
479: \cite{voloshin}. Thus, ${\cal B}[\Upsilon(3S) \to 1^1P_1 +\pi^0 \to 1^1S_0
480: \gamma] \simeq 4 \times 10^{-4}$, which would yield $\simeq 400$ events per
481: million $\Upsilon(3S)$ produced.
482: This signature should be easily seen by the CLEO detector, which has excellent
483: photon detection capabilities. Since the recoil of the $1^1P_1$ state is
484: relatively small, the $488$~MeV photon from the $1^1P_1\to 1^1S_0$ decay
485: (suitably Doppler-shifted by up to $\pm$ 20 MeV) should provide a useful tag.
486: Kuang and Yan predict \cite{ky} the partial width for the hadronic transition
487: $\Upsilon(3S)\to h_b (1^1P_1) + \pi \pi$ to be 0.1--0.2~keV, giving a
488: branching ratio of $\sim (3.8$--$7.6)\times 10^{-3}$. This is substantially
489: higher than the value for ${\cal B} (\Upsilon(3S) \to 1^1P_1 +\pi^0)$
490: quoted above so it could provide an alternative path to the $h_b$. However,
491: Voloshin \cite{voloshin} does not obtain such a favorable branching ratio for
492: this process, finding instead $< 10^{-4}$.
493:
494: We now turn to the charmonium system. The search for the $h_c$ was discussed
495: recently by Kuang \cite{kuang02} so we will be brief in our analysis,
496: emphasizing aspects that are different from Kuang \cite{kuang02}.
497: As in the case of $b\bar{b}$ there are two routes to the $h_c$. The
498: first is the decay chain $\psi' \to \eta_c' \gamma \to h_c \gamma$ and
499: the second is through the hadronic transition $\psi' \to h_c \pi^0$.
500:
501: For the first case we need the various radiative widths. The expression for
502: the $E1$ width is given by Eq.\ (1), while the rates for magnetic dipole
503: transitions are given in the nonrelativistic approximation by
504: \begin{equation}
505: \Gamma(^3S_1 \to {^1S_0} + \gamma) = {{4 \alpha e_Q^2}\over{ 3 m_Q^2}}
506: \omega^3 |\langle f | j_0 (kr/2) | i \rangle |^2
507: \end{equation}
508: \begin{equation}
509: \Gamma(^1S_0 \to {^3S_1} + \gamma) = {{4 \alpha e_Q^2}\over{ m_Q^2}}
510: \omega^3 |\langle f | j_0 (kr/2) | i \rangle |^2
511: \end{equation}
512: where we take $m_c=1.628$~GeV. The results, using the wavefunctions
513: and $1^1 P_1$ mass of Ref.\ \cite{GI}, are summarized in Table \ref{tab:ccbr}.
514: To calculate $\Gamma(\psi' \to \eta_c' \gamma)$, we
515: took $M(\eta_c') = 3654$~MeV, the central value quoted in Ref.\
516: \cite{Beletac}. Note that the widths for the hindered $M1$ transitions
517: are very sensitive to the wave functions. The hadronic widths for the
518: $\eta_c'$ and $h_c$ given in Table \ref{tab:ccbr} were obtained using the
519: same procedure used for the $b\bar{b}$ hadronic widths: We relate theoretical
520: expressions for ratios of the widths to a known measured width and take
521: $\alpha_s(\psi')=0.236$. (In contrast to the $b \bar b$ system, the total
522: width of the $1^3P_1$ $c \bar c$ meson is known \cite{PDG}: $\Gamma_{\rm tot}
523: (\chi_{c1}) = 0.88 \pm 0.14$ MeV.) The predicted result for $h_c \to
524: {\rm hadrons}$ is consistent with the NRQCD result obtained by
525: Bodwin, Braaten and Lepage \cite{bodwin}. Combining these results we find that
526: ${\cal B}(\psi' \to \eta_c' \gamma) \times {\cal B} (\eta_c' \to h_c \gamma)
527: \sim 10^{-6}$, which would yield a modest number of $h_c$ mesons at best.
528:
529: % This is Table VI
530: \begin{table}
531: \caption{Partial widths and branching ratios for spin-singlet $c\bar{c}$
532: states. In column 5, ${\cal O}$ represents the operator relevant to
533: the particular electromagnetic transition; ${\cal O}= r$ (GeV$^{-1}$)
534: for $E1$ transitions and ${\cal O}=j_0(kr/2)$ for $M1$ transitions.
535: The details of the calculation are given in the text.
536: \label{tab:ccbr}}
537: \begin{center}
538: \begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c } \hline
539: Initial & Final & $M_i$ & $M_f$ & $\omega$ & $\langle f | {\cal O}
540: | i \rangle$ & Width & ${\cal B}$ \\
541: state & state & (MeV) & (MeV) & (MeV) &
542: & (keV) & (\%) \\ \hline
543: $2^3S_1$ & $2^1S_0 \gamma $ & 3686 & 3654 & 31.8 & 0.982
544: & 0.051 & 0.018 \\
545: & $1^1S_0 \gamma $ & 3686 & 2980 & 638 & 0.151
546: & 9.7 & 3.5 \\
547: $2^1S_0$ & $1^1P_1 \gamma $ & 3654 & 3517 & 134.4 & $-2.21$
548: & 51.3 & 0.69 \\
549: & $1^3S_1 \gamma$ & 3654 & 3097 & 515 & $-0.0973$
550: & 6.3 & 0.084 \\
551: & $gg$ & & & &
552: & 7400 & 99.2 \\
553: $1^1P_1$ & $1^1S_0 \gamma $ & 3517 & 2980 & 496 & 1.42
554: & 354 & 37.7 \\
555: & $ggg$ & & & &
556: & 533 & 56.8 \\
557: & $\gamma gg$ & & & &
558: & 52 & 5.5 \\
559: \hline
560: \end{tabular}
561: \end{center}
562: \end{table}
563:
564: As in the case of the $h_b$, a more promising avenue is the single pion
565: transition $\psi' \to h_c \pi^0$ followed by the radiative transition
566: $h_c \to \eta_c \gamma$, where the photon is expected to have an energy
567: very close to 496~MeV and can be used to tag the event. Using the
568: branching ratio of ${\cal B} (\psi' \to h_c \pi^0)=0.1 \% $ predicted
569: by Voloshin \cite{voloshin} (see also Ref.\ \cite{ko,ky}) and the branching
570: ratio given for $h_c \to \eta_c \gamma$ in Table \ref{tab:ccbr}, we obtain
571: ${\cal B}(\psi' \to h_c \pi^0) \times {\cal B} (h_c \to \eta_c \gamma) =
572: 3.8 \times 10^{-4}$, which is substantially larger than the decay chain
573: proceeding only via radiative transitions. In his recent paper Kuang
574: \cite{kuang02} finds $h_c$ production to be sensitive to $^3S_1-{^3D_1}$
575: mixing, so that a measurement of ${\cal B}(\psi' \to h_c \pi^0)$ would be a
576: useful test of detailed mixing schemes between the $\psi'$ and the $\psi(3770)
577: \equiv \psi''$, some of which are discussed in Ref.\ \cite{JRmix,GKO}.
578:
579: Another promising approach for the detection of the $h_c$ has recently
580: been proposed by Suzuki \cite{suzuki02}. He suggests looking for the
581: $h_c$ by measuring the final state $\gamma\eta_c$ of the cascade $B\to
582: h_c K/K^* \to \gamma \eta_c K/K^*$. This channel is especially timely
583: given the announcement by the Belle Collaboration of the discovery of
584: the $\eta_c'(2^1S_0)$ in $B$ decays \cite{Beletac} and, previously, the
585: observation of the related decay, $B\to \chi_0 K$ \cite{belle01}.
586:
587: In the case of the S-wave ($^1S_0$) states, one should also bear in mind
588: that $\gamma \gamma$ collisions have been used to observed the $\eta_c$ in
589: several experiments (see \cite{PDG}). One candidate for $\gamma \gamma \to
590: \eta_b$ with mass $9.30 \pm 0.02 \pm 0.02$ GeV/$c^2$ (consistent, however, with
591: background) has been reported by the ALEPH Collaboration \cite{ALetab}.
592:
593: To conclude, we have explored different means of looking for the
594: $^1P_1$ states in heavy quarkonium. In both the $b\bar{b}$ and
595: $c\bar{c}$ systems the $1^1P_1$ state can be reached via the chain
596: $^3S_1 \to {^1S_0} + \gamma \to 1^1P_1 +\gamma\gamma$. However, in both
597: systems one only expects of the order of a few events per million
598: $\Upsilon(3S)$ or $\psi'$ produced. In both systems, a more promising
599: avenue is the transition $^3S_1 \to {^1P_1} + \pi^0$ followed by the
600: $E1$ radiative transition to the $1^1S_0$ state which would yield
601: several hundred events per million $\Upsilon(3S)$ or $\psi'$'s produced.
602: The alternative suggestion \cite{ky} of searching for the transitions
603: $^3S_1 \to {^1P_1} + \pi \pi$ also is worth pursuing.
604:
605: One of us (J.L.R.) thanks Steve Olsen and San Fu Tuan for informative
606: discussions. The authors thank Christine Davies for helpful communications.
607: This work was supported in part by the United
608: States Department of Energy through Grant No.\ DE FG02 90ER40560
609: and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
610:
611: % Journal and other miscellaneous abbreviations for references
612: % Phys. Rev. D format
613: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.\ J. Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
614: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
615: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.\ Polonica {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
616: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
617: \def \art{and references therein}
618: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
619: \def \cn{Collaboration}
620: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,
621: Singapore, 1989)}
622: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No.\ }
623: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
624: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and
625: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by
626: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
627: Batavia, IL, 1979}
628: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and
629: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel
630: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl.\ Phys.\ B, Proc.\ Suppl., vol.\ 3) (North-Holland,
631: Amsterdam, 1988)}
632: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
633: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
634: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High
635: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,
636: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,
637: IL, 1972)}
638: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
639: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
640: \def \jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
641: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.\ Phys.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
642: \def \lg{{\it Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on
643: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, August 9--14 1999,
644: edited by J. Jaros and M. Peskin (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)}
645: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of
646: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --
647: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore,
648: 1987)}
649: \def \kdvs#1#2#3{{Kong.\ Danske Vid.\ Selsk., Matt-fys.\ Medd.} {\bf #1},
650: No.\ #2 (#3)}
651: \def \ky85{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and
652: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.
653: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}
654: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
655: \def \nat#1#2#3{Nature {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
656: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
657: \def \nima#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth. A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
658: \def \np#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
659: \def \npbps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
660: \def \os{XXX International Conference on High Energy Physics, Osaka, Japan,
661: July 27 -- August 2, 2000}
662: \def \PDG{Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom \ite, \epjc{15}{1}{2000}}
663: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP
664: Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}
665: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
666: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
667: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
668: \def \pr#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
669: \def \prc#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
670: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
671: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
672: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
673: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
674: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
675: \def \rp#1{~~~~~\ldots\ldots{\rm rp~}{#1}~~~~~}
676: \def \rpp#1#2#3{Rep.\ Prog.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
677: \def \sing{{\it Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on High Energy
678: Physics, Singapore, Aug. 2--8, 1990}, edited by. K. K. Phua and Y. Yamaguchi
679: (Southeast Asia Physics Association, 1991)}
680: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of
681: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),
682: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}
683: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on
684: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.
685: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}
686: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary
687: Particle Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.
688: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}
689: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the
690: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass, Colorado),
691: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}
692: \def \tasi{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990
693: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,
694: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker
695: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}
696: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\
697: {\bf #1}, #4 (#3)]}
698: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\
699: Phys.\ - JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}
700: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
701: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
702:
703: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
704:
705: \bibitem{revs} For reviews see W. Kwong, J. L. Rosner, and C. Quigg,
706: \arnps{37}{325}{1987}; W. Buchm\"uller and S. Cooper, in {\it High
707: Energy Electron--Positron Physics,} edited by A. Ali and P. S\"oding,
708: World Scientific, Singapore, 1988, p.~412; D. Besson and T. Skwarnicki,
709: \arnps{43}{333}{1993}; E. Eichten and C. Quigg, \prd{49}{5845}{1994}.
710:
711: \bibitem{KR} W. Kwong and J. L. Rosner, \prd{38}{279}{1988}.
712:
713: \bibitem{GRdw} S. Godfrey and J. L. Rosner, \prd{64}{097501}{2001}.
714:
715: \bibitem{suzuki02}
716: M. Suzuki, hep-ph/0204043.
717:
718: \bibitem{kuang02}
719: Y. P. Kuang, hep-ph/0201210.
720:
721: \bibitem{tuan} S. F. Tuan, Commun.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 26}, 381 (1996).
722:
723: \bibitem{ko}
724: P. Ko, \prd{52}{1710}{1995}.
725:
726: \bibitem{CDQ93}
727: K.-T. Chao, Y.-B. Ding, and D.-H. Qin, \plb{301}{282}{1993}.
728:
729: \bibitem{QY} C.-F. Qiao and C. Yuan, \prd{63}{014007}{2001}.
730:
731: \bibitem{Beletac}
732: Belle \cn, K. Abe \ite, presented at FPCP Conference, Philadelphia, PA,
733: May 16--18, 2002.
734:
735: \bibitem{r704} C. Baglin \ite, \plb{171}{135}{1986}.
736:
737: \bibitem{e760} T. A. Armstrong \ite, \prl{69}{2337}{1992}.
738:
739: \bibitem{e771} L. Antoniazzi \ite, \prd{50}{4258}{1994}.
740:
741: \bibitem{GI} S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, \prd{32}{189}{1985}.
742:
743: \bibitem{MR83} P. Moxhay and J. L. Rosner, \prd{28}{1132}{1983}.
744:
745: \bibitem{LPR92}
746: D. B. Lichtenberg, E. Predazzi, and R. Rocaglia, \prd{45}{3268}{1992}.
747:
748: \bibitem{OS82}
749: S. Ono and F. Sch\"oberl, \plb{118}{419}{1982}.
750:
751: \bibitem{MB83}
752: R. McClary and N. Byers, \prd{28}{1692}{1983}.
753:
754: \bibitem{GRR86}
755: S. N. Gupta, S. F. Radford and W. W. Repko, \prd{34}{201}{1986}.
756:
757: \bibitem{IO87}
758: I. Igi and S. Ono, \prd{36}{1550}{1987}.
759:
760: \bibitem{GOS84}
761: H. Grotch, D. A. Owen, and K. J. Sebastian, \prd{30}{1924}{1984}.
762:
763: \bibitem{PJF92}
764: P. J. Franzini, \plb{296}{199}{1992}.
765:
766: \bibitem{HOOS92}
767: F. Halzen, C. Olson, M. G. Olsson, and M. L. Stong, \plb{283}{379}{1992}.
768:
769: \bibitem{NPT}
770: Y. J. Ng, J. Pantaleone, and S.-H. H. Tye, \prl{55}{916}{1985}.
771:
772: \bibitem{PTN86}
773: J. Pantaleone, Y. J. Ng, and S.-H. H. Tye, \prd{33}{777}{1986}.
774:
775: \bibitem{PT88}
776: J. Pantaleone and S.-H. H. Tye, \prd{37}{3337}{1988}.
777:
778: \bibitem{FY} F. J. Yndur\'ain, Lectures at the XVII International
779: School of Physics ``QCD: Perturbative or Nonperturbative'', Lisbon,
780: 1999, hep-ph/9910399.
781:
782: \bibitem{NRQCD} G. P. Lepage and B. A. Thacker, \npbps{4}{199}{1988};
783: B. A. Thacker and G. P. Lepage, \prd{43}{196}{1991}.
784:
785: \bibitem{davies94} C. T. H. Davies \ite, \prd{50}{6963}{1994}.
786:
787: \bibitem{davies98} C. T. H. Davies \ite, \prd{58}{054505}{1998}.
788:
789: \bibitem{eicker98} N. Eicker \ite, \prd{57}{4080}{1998}.
790:
791: \bibitem{bali} G. S. Bali, K. Schilling, and A. Wachter, \prd{56}{2566}{1997}.
792:
793: \bibitem{manke} T. Manke \ite, \prd{62}{114508}{2000}.
794:
795: \bibitem{okamoto}
796: M. Okamoto \ite, hep-lat/0112020.
797:
798: \bibitem{SM}
799: J. Stubbe and A. Martin, \plb{271}{208}{1991}.
800:
801: \bibitem{GRetab} S. Godfrey and J. L. Rosner, \prd{64}{074011}{2001}.
802:
803: \bibitem{voloshin}
804: M. B. Voloshin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 43}, 1011 (1986);
805: M. B. Voloshin and V. I. Zakharov, \prl{45}{688}{1980}.
806:
807: \bibitem{ky}
808: Y. P. Kuang and T. M. Yan, \prd{24}{2874}{1981};
809: T. M. Yan, \prd{22}{1652}{1980};
810: Y. P. Kuang, S. F. Tuan and T. M. Yan, \prd{37}{1210}{1988}.
811:
812: \bibitem{GR} A. Grant and J. L. Rosner, \prd{46}{3862}{1992}.
813:
814: \bibitem{stogg}
815: T. Appelquist and H. D. Politzer, \prl{34}{43}{1975};
816: A. De Rujula and S. L. Glashow, \prl{34}{46}{1975}.
817:
818: \bibitem{bgr}
819: R. Barbieri, R. Gatto, and E. Remiddi, \plb{61}{465}{1976}.
820:
821: \bibitem{ss-gg}
822: R. Barbieri, G. Curci, E. d'Emilio, and E. Remiddi, \np{B154}{535}{1979}.
823:
824: \bibitem{chanowitz}
825: M. Chanowitz, \prd{12}{918}{1975}.
826:
827: \bibitem{KMRR} W. Kwong, P. B. Mackenzie, R. Rosenfeld, and J. L. Rosner,
828: \prd{37}{3210}{1988}.
829:
830: \bibitem{novikov}
831: V. A. Novikov, L. B. Okun, M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, M. B. Voloshin,
832: and V. I. Zakharov, \prp{41}{1}{1978}.
833:
834: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom \ite, \epjc{15}{1}{2000}.
835:
836: \bibitem{bodwin}
837: G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, \prd{46}{R1914}{1992}.
838:
839: \bibitem{JRmix} J. L. Rosner, \prd{64}{094002}{2001}.
840:
841: \bibitem{GKO}
842: S. Godfrey, G. Karl, and P. J. O'Donnell, \zpc{31}{77}{1986}.
843:
844: \bibitem{belle01}
845: Belle \cn, K. Abe \ite, hep-ex/0107050.
846:
847: \bibitem{ALetab} ALEPH \cn, A. Heister \ite, \plb{530}{56}{2002}.
848:
849: \end{thebibliography}
850: \end{document}
851: #!/bin/csh -f
852: # this uuencoded Z-compressed file created by csh script uufiles
853: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
854: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
855: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., m1.uu
856: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
857: # then say csh m1.uu
858: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
859: # uudecode m1.uu ; uncompress m1.eps.Z ;
860: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
861: # filename in "begin" line below to m1.eps_Z , then execute
862: # uudecode m1.uu
863: # compress -d m1.eps_Z
864: #
865: uudecode $0
866: chmod 644 m1.eps.Z
867: uncompress m1.eps.Z
868: rm $0
869: exit
870:
871: