1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%%%%%% Charm and Bottom Quark Mass %%%%%%%%%%%%
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4:
5: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
6:
7: \usepackage{graphicx}
8: \usepackage{cite}
9: % \bibliographystyle{physics}
10:
11: \newcommand{\figwidth}{13.0cm}
12: \newcommand{\figheight}{7cm}
13:
14: \unitlength1cm
15: \pagestyle{plain}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: \begin{titlepage}
20:
21: \begin{flushright}
22: {\small IFIC/02-48\\FTUV/02-1017} \\[15mm]
23: \end{flushright}
24:
25: \begin{center}
26: {\LARGE\bf Quark-hadron-duality in the charmonium and upsilon system}\\[10mm]
27:
28: {\normalsize\bf Markus Eidem\"uller} \\[4mm]
29:
30: {\small\sl Departament de F\'{\i}sica Te\`orica, IFIC,
31: Universitat de Val\`encia -- CSIC,}\\
32: {\small\sl Apt. Correus 22085, E-46071 Val\`encia, Spain} \\[15mm]
33: \end{center}
34:
35: \begin{abstract}
36: \noindent
37: In this work we discuss the practical and conceptual issues related to
38: quark-hadron-duality in heavy-heavy systems.
39: Recent measurements in the charmonium region allow a direct test of
40: quark-hadron-duality.
41: We present a formula for non-resonant background production in
42: $e^+ e^- \to D{\overline D}$ and extract the resonance parameters of the
43: $\psi(3S)-\psi(6S)$. The obtained results are used to investigate
44: the upsilon energy range.
45: \end{abstract}
46:
47: \vfill
48:
49: % keywords here, in the form: keyword \sep keyword
50: \noindent
51: {\it Keywords}: Quark-hadron-duality, charmonium, QCD sum rules\\
52: % PACS codes here, in the form: \PACS code \sep code
53: {\it PACS}: 11.55.Fv, 12.38.Aw, 13.65.+i
54:
55: \end{titlepage}
56:
57: \newpage
58: \setcounter{page}{1}
59:
60: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
61: \newcommand{\kev}{\mbox{\rm keV}}
62: \newcommand{\mev}{\mbox{\rm MeV}}
63: \newcommand{\gev}{\mbox{\rm GeV}}
64: \newcommand{\eqn}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
65: \newcommand{\MSb}{{\overline{MS}}}
66: \newcommand{\ep}{\epsilon}
67: \newcommand{\IM}{\mbox{\rm Im}}
68: \newcommand{\Li}{\mbox{\rm Li}_2}
69: \newcommand\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
70: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}
71: \newcommand\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
72: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}
73:
74: \newcommand{\jhep}[3]{{\it JHEP }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
75: \newcommand{\nc}[3]{{\it Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
76: \newcommand{\npb}[3]{{\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
77: \newcommand{\npps}[3]{{\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} {\it(Proc. Suppl.)} (#2) #3}
78: \newcommand{\plb}[3]{{\it Phys. Lett. }{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
79: \newcommand{\pr}[3]{{\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
80: \newcommand{\prd}[3]{{\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf D #1} (#2) #3}
81: \newcommand{\prl}[3]{{\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
82: \newcommand{\prep}[3]{{\it Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
83: \newcommand{\rpp}[3]{{\it Rept. Prog. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
84: \newcommand{\zpc}[3]{{\it Z. Physik }{\bf C #1} (#2) #3}
85: \newcommand{\epjc}[3]{{\it Eur. Phys. J. }{\bf C #1} (#2) #3}
86: \newcommand{\sjnp}[3]{{\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
87: \newcommand{\jetp}[3]{{\it Sov. Phys. JETP }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
88: \newcommand{\jetpl}[3]{{\it JETP Lett. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
89: \newcommand{\ijmpa}[3]{{\it Int. J. Mod. Phys. }{\bf A #1} (#2) #3}
90: \newcommand{\hepph}[1]{{\tt hep-ph/#1}}
91: \newcommand{\hepth}[1]{{\tt hep-th/#1}}
92: \newcommand{\heplat}[1]{{\tt hep-lat/#1}}
93: \newcommand{\hepex}[1]{{\tt hep-ex/#1}}
94:
95:
96: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
97: % Beginning of the paper
98: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
99:
100:
101:
102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Introduction %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
103:
104: \section{Introduction}
105:
106: Quantum Chromodynamics describes the strong interactions of quarks of gluons.
107: Nevertheless, these particles are not experimentally detected as the physical
108: states are formed by hadrons. Few methods link the description in terms of
109: QCD parameters
110: to the properties of the hadronic bound states. Among these are QCD sum rules
111: \cite{svz:79,rry:85,n:89}, lattice QCD \cite{r:92,mm:94}, chiral perturbation theory
112: \cite{gl:85,p:95} and the $1/N_C$-expansion \cite{h:74,w:79}.
113: In this work we focus on the method of QCD sum rules where the notion of
114: quark-hadron-duality (QHD) plays a dominant role.
115:
116: The optical theorem provides the
117: basis for connecting theoretical and phenomenological quantities.
118: It relates physical measurable observables like
119: the cross section for hadron production to theoretical quantities usually
120: expressed by correlators of two- or three-point functions. In the Euclidean domain
121: this correlator can be theoretically
122: calculated by means of the operator product expansion (OPE) \cite{w:69}.
123: The leading terms
124: are given by the perturbative expansion which is supplemented by the condensate
125: contributions. This can be compared to the corresponding quantity extracted
126: from experiment and in this way it is possible to extract information about
127: the system or the QCD parameters.
128: One of the limitations of the sum rules already becomes
129: visible. Approaching from a perturbative side, the correlator does not include
130: real nonperturbative phenomena. Consequently the analysis must be performed in
131: a so-called `sum-rule-window' where the OPE of the
132: correlator is under control and the system still reacts sensitive
133: to the hadronic parameters. Furthermore, in practical applications the experimental
134: spectral density is usually only known for the lowest ground states. To
135: estimate the missing information on the phenomenological side,
136: the integral over the experimental spectral density is then assumed to equal
137: the integral over the theoretical spectral density above a certain threshold
138: energy $s_0$. This is the assumption of global
139: quark-hadron-duality. Though being one of the basic assumptions in QCD sum
140: rules its range of applicability
141: has only been scarcely explored. The foundation of QHD was laid in
142: \cite{pqw:76}. Whereas in semileptonic decays and lepton scattering the
143: concept of duality is under active investigation, e.g.
144: \cite{lu:00,ijmo:01,ci:01,ymmopr:00,papa:01,netal:00},
145: QHD in the context of QCD sum rules has only recently be reinitiated by Shifman,
146: see \cite{s:00} and references therein.
147:
148: In this paper we will discuss both the practical and conceptual aspects related
149: to QHD. The main part will focus on the charmonium system where new
150: measurements from BES \cite{BES:01} in the region between 3.7 GeV and 4.8 GeV
151: have improved the experimental situation significantly. Since also the
152: theoretical spectral density can be calculated this allows a thorough comparison and
153: a stringent test of QHD. We finally extend these investigations to the upsilon
154: system.
155:
156: The following section is dedicated to an estimate of the uncertainty related
157: to the use of QHD. After a discussion of the theoretical contributions we give
158: a description for the threshold parameter $s_0$. The
159: error on $s_0$ indicates the uncertainty related to the assumption of QHD. In section
160: 3 we investigate the charmonium cross section in more detail. Apart from the
161: $\psi$-resonances the non-resonant $D$-production has a significant impact on
162: the cross section. We present a model description for this background and
163: extract the resonance parameters of the $\psi(3)-\psi(6)$. Section 4
164: discusses the more conceptual issues since the notion of QHD in
165: heavy-heavy-systems is far from trivial. The following section concentrates
166: on the upsilon system. In particular, we give an estimate
167: for the threshold parameter $s_0$, present a model for the non-resonant
168: $B$-production and check the validity of the OPE.
169: Finally we summarise the results.
170:
171: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Section 2: QHD in charmonium %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
172:
173: \section{Quark-hadron-duality in the charmonium system}
174:
175: In this work we investigate charm production in $e^+ e^-$-collisions
176: \begin{equation}
177: \label{eq:2.a}
178: R_c(s)=
179: \frac{\sigma(e^+ e^- \to c\overline{c})}
180: {\sigma(e^+ e^- \to \mu^+ \mu^-)}=12\pi\,
181: \IM\, \Pi(s+i\ep)\,.
182: \end{equation}
183: Via the optical theorem, the experimental cross
184: section is related to the imaginary part of the correlator $\Pi(s)$ defined by
185: \begin{equation}
186: \label{eq:2.b}
187: \Pi_{\mu\nu}(q^2) = i \int d^4 x \ e^{iqx}\, \langle
188: T\{j_\mu(x) j_\nu^\dagger(0)\}\rangle
189: = (q_\mu q_\nu-g_{\mu\nu}q^2)\,\Pi(q^2)\,.
190: \end{equation}
191: The charm vector current is given by $j_\mu(x)=e_c(\overline{c}\gamma_\mu c)(x)$
192: where $e_c$ represents the electric charge of the charm quark.
193:
194: In principle one can calculate $\Pi(q^2)$ perturbatively, take the imaginary
195: part and compare it to the measured cross section. However, a perturbative
196: calculation of $\Pi(q^2)$ is valid only in the Euclidean domain. An analytic
197: continuation to the Minkowski region neglects terms which are small in
198: Euclidean but can become important in Minkowski. Thus, with the assumption of
199: global QHD, only smeared quantities can be compared. A further complication
200: arises in the theoretical calculation of $\Pi(q^2)$. In the deep Euclidean
201: domain the perturbative expansion works well. However, usually one is
202: interested in a region closer to threshold. Here the Coulomb-like behaviour of
203: the charmonium system shows up and the theoretical expansion converges
204: badly. These large terms can be resummed with the help of the theory of
205: non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) \cite{cl:86,bbl:95}.
206: Since we will employ the
207: theoretical prediction for $\Pi(q^2)$ and the theoretical spectral density in
208: this and the following chapters, first we briefly discuss these contributions
209: and then return to a discussion of QHD.
210:
211: The theory of NRQCD provides a consistent framework
212: to treat the problem of heavy quark-antiquark production close to
213: threshold.
214: The contributions can be described by a nonrelativistic Schr\"odinger
215: equation and systematically calculated in time-independent perturbation
216: theory.
217: The correlator is expressed in terms of a Green's function
218: $G(k)=G(0,0,k)$ \cite{ps:91,ht:98,pp:99}:
219: \begin{equation}
220: \label{eq:2.c}
221: \Pi(s)=\frac{N_c}{2M_c^2}\left(C_h(\alpha_s)G(k)+\frac{4k^2}{3M_c^2}G_C(k)\right)\,,
222: \end{equation}
223: where $N_c$ is the number of colours, $k=\sqrt{M_c^2-s/4}$ and
224: $M_c$ represents the pole mass. The constant $C_h(\alpha_s)$ is a perturbative coefficient
225: needed for the matching between the full and the nonrelativistic
226: theory. The contributions from NRQCD are summarised in the potential.
227: The Green's function obeys the corresponding Schr\"odinger equation
228: \begin{equation}
229: \label{eq:2.d}
230: \Bigg( -\frac{\Delta_x}{M_c}+V_C(x)+\Delta V(x)
231: +\frac{k^2}{M_c}\Bigg)
232: G({\bf x},{\bf y},k)=\delta^{(3)}({\bf x}-{\bf y}) \,.
233: \end{equation}
234: Here $V_C(x)=-C_F\alpha_s/|{\bf x}|$ represents the Coulomb potential
235: and $\Delta V(x)$ contains the NLO and NNLO corrections.
236: Details on the solution of this equation can be found in \cite{pp:99}.
237: The Green's function contains pole contributions below threshold
238: and a continuum above threshold.
239: In order to construct the theoretical continuum spectral density for the
240: full energy range it is not sufficient to use the spectral density
241: from NRQCD which is only valid for low velocities. In addition, one
242: must include the results from perturbation theory which gives $R(s)$
243: at large velocities. At intermediate velocities one can perform a
244: matching between both regimes. In \cite{e:02} this procedure is
245: described in detail. The resulting theoretical spectral density is shown
246: as a solid line in fig. \ref{fig:2.a} and we denote the spectral density
247: by $R^{theo}(s)$.
248:
249: This spectral density is supposed to give a good approximation to the
250: experimental spectral density at high energies. Decreasing the energy,
251: one approaches the resonance region. Here $R^{theo}(s)$ will fail
252: to reproduce the resonances. But naively assuming QHD, a smearing
253: of $R^{exp}(s)$ over
254: a `sufficiently large' energy range should give a good approximation
255: to the same smearing with $R^{theo}(s)$.
256: In fact, the notion of QHD is more subtle and the naive expectation
257: is not correct. The optical theorem relates
258: the two representations by a dispersion relation which includes all values
259: of the energy. So only the complete phenomenological result can be compared
260: to the full theoretical result which also includes the poles of the
261: Green's function. In section 4 we
262: discuss the concept of QHD in more detail and present quantitative
263: estimates for the individual contributions.
264: \begin{figure}
265: \begin{center}
266: \vspace{5mm}
267: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth, height=\figheight]{fig1.eps}
268: \caption{\label{fig:2.a}
269: Cross section from BES with the perturbative spectral density (solid)
270: and the background contribution (dashed).}
271: \end{center}
272: \end{figure}
273: In fig. \ref{fig:2.a} we have plotted $R^{theo}(s)$
274: and the measured cross section in the energy range between
275: $3.7\ \gev<\sqrt{s}<4.8\ \gev$.
276: At these energies $R^{theo}(s)$ clearly lies above the data points.
277: On the other hand, the contribution from the theoretical poles turns out to be
278: smaller than the contribution from the lowest $\psi$-states.
279:
280: To test the accuracy of QHD from a comparison of the theoretical and
281: phenomenological spectral densities we choose the moments
282: \begin{equation}
283: \label{eq:2.e}
284: W_n(\Delta,s_0,s_1)=\int_{s_0}^{s_1} ds\
285: \frac{R(s)}{(s+\Delta)^{n+1}}\,.
286: \end{equation}
287: The weight function $w(s)=1/(s+\Delta)^{n+1}$
288: corresponds to the one usually used in
289: the moment sum rules to extract the quark masses. Another popular
290: weight function is $w_u(s)=e^{-s/u}$ which is used in the
291: Borel sum rules. Since the analysis and the results are very similar
292: in both cases we will not perform an independent analysis for the
293: Borel sum rules in this work.
294: $\Delta$ and $n$ are free parameters which can be used to move the sum rules
295: to a region convenient for the analysis. Large $\Delta$ will improve the
296: perturbative expansion while for small or even negative $\Delta$ the analysis
297: will react very sensitive to the bound states. Small $n$ will result in a
298: relative flat weight function and high $n$ put the emphasis on the low
299: energy region.
300: As will be discussed in chapter 4, $s_1$ should be taken to infinity to
301: establish a precise relation between the phenomenological and theoretical part
302: where they are connected by an Euclidean quantity. However, in practice the
303: cross section is only measured up to a certain energy so above this energy one
304: has to rely on the theoretical prediction for $R(s)$. When comparing both parts
305: the integral above this energy is then equal.
306:
307: The experimental cross section can be interpreted
308: as non-resonant background production of $D^{(\star)}$-mesons
309: and resonances of Breit-Wigner form. For a comparison to $R^{theo}$
310: it is interesting to separate these two contributions. In the next
311: section we will give a model description of the background production
312: which has been plotted as a dashed line in fig. \ref{fig:2.a}
313: and discuss the charmonium cross section in more detail.
314: In this section we focus our attention on the most important issue
315: in actual sum rule calculations and the basic question of QHD:
316: how well can the experimental cross section be approximated
317: by the theoretical spectral density and how large is the error on
318: $W_n(\Delta,s_0,s_1)$?
319: The BES data have been given directly in terms of $R^{\rm BES}(s)$ and we will
320: use these values as our reference for the experimental cross section.
321: From the measured spectral density the light quark contribution must
322: be subtracted. At these energies the light quarks can safely assumed to
323: be massless and the high energy approximation \cite{c:97} provides a good
324: description.
325: Apart from BES, the resonance properties of the $\psi$-states have been
326: extracted in \cite{betal:78,setal:80} and of the $\Upsilon$-states
327: in \cite{b:85,l:85}.
328:
329: In order to test a typical problem in the sum rules
330: let us now assume that the only information we had from the experimental side
331: were the resonance properties of the first $p$ bound states.
332: With the assumption of QHD, the contribution
333: from the higher states is then given by the integration of the
334: theoretical spectral density $R^{theo}(s)$ above a threshold $s_0$.
335: The above question can then be formulated in a different way:
336: what value of $s_0$ must be taken?
337:
338: Since the QCD sum rules are used to extract the heavy quark masses, the choice of
339: $s_0$ influences the central value of the masses. Furthermore the uncertainty in
340: $s_0$ translates directly to the error of the masses and it is therefore
341: important to have a reliable estimate of this uncertainty. There is no rigorous
342: justification for a particular choice of $s_0$. As a heuristic rule it is
343: usually assumed that $s_0$ should be given by about 250 MeV above the
344: highest included resonance. In
345: this section we want to check if - and to what extend - this rule is valid. It will
346: turn out that particular care must given to a possible background
347: contribution. In chapter 5 we will then apply the results obtained in this
348: section to estimate $s_0$ in the upsilon system where no experimental
349: information is available to fix this parameter.
350:
351: To determine $s_0$ in the charmonium system we now compare the quantities
352: \begin{eqnarray}
353: \label{eq:2.f}
354: \lefteqn{\frac{9\pi}{\alpha^2}\sum_{k=1}^2
355: \frac{\Gamma_{ee,k}\,E_k}{(E_k^2+\Delta)^{n+1}}
356: +\int_{3.7^2}^{4.8^2} ds\ \frac{R^{\rm{BES}}(s)}{(s+\Delta)^{n+1}}}\nn\\
357: &&=\frac{9\pi}{\alpha^2}\sum_{k=1}^p
358: \frac{\Gamma_{ee,k}\,E_k}{(E_k^2+\Delta)^{n+1}}
359: +\int_{s_0^{(p)}}^{4.8^2} ds\ \frac{R^{theo}(s)}{(s+\Delta)^{n+1}}\,,
360: \end{eqnarray}
361: where $\alpha$ is the electromagnetic fine structure constant,
362: $\Gamma_{ee,k}$ is the partial decay width into
363: $e^+e^-$ and $E_k$ is the mass of the $k^{th}$ resonance. We have used the
364: narrow-width approximation for the resonances. The sum over the resonances in
365: the first line extends only over the first 2 resonances since the other known
366: resonances $\psi(3)-\psi(6)$ are included in $R^{\rm{BES}}(s)$.
367: The upper limit of the integration is taken to infinity, $s_1\to \infty$.
368: Since the BES data have only been measured up to 4.8 GeV we assume QHD above
369: this energy so the integral from 4.8 GeV to infinity is identical on
370: both sides and drops out.
371: The first line represents the `exact' result from the data. The second line
372: is a typical phenomenological approximation using the assumptions of QHD in
373: which $s_0$ is left as a free parameter.
374: As mentioned above, it is usually assumed that $s_0$ should be given
375: by the mass of the highest resonance $E_p$ plus about 250 MeV.
376: In table \ref{tab:2.a} we have listed $s_0$ obtained from eq. \eqn{eq:2.f}
377: for different values of $n$ and $\Delta$.
378: \begin{table}
379: \begin{center}
380: \begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
381: \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{$\Delta=0$} \\ \hline
382: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$p$} & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 \\
383: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$E_p/[{\rm GeV}]$} & 3.097 & 3.686 & 3.770
384: & 4.040 & 4.159 & 4.415 \\ \hline
385: & $n=0$ & 3.78 & 4.07 & 4.10 & 4.21 & 4.31 & 4.38 \\
386: $\sqrt{s_0}/[\gev]$ & $n=3$ & 3.65 & 3.99 & 4.03 & 4.14 & 4.25 & 4.30 \\
387: & $n=7$ & 3.59 & 3.92 & 3.99 & 4.08 & 4.17 & 4.20 \\ \hline \hline
388: \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{$\Delta=(4\ \gev)^2$} \\ \hline
389: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$p$} & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 \\ \hline
390: & $n=0$ & 3.82 & 4.09 & 4.12 & 4.22 & 4.32 & 4.39 \\
391: $\sqrt{s_0}/[\gev]$ & $n=3$ & 3.72 & 4.03 & 4.07 & 4.18 & 4.29 & 4.35 \\
392: & $n=7$ & 3.65 & 3.98 & 4.03 & 4.13 & 4.24 & 4.30 \\ \hline
393: \end{tabular}
394: \caption{\label{tab:2.a} $s_0$ for different number of
395: poles $p$ and different values of $n$ and $\Delta$ from eq. \eqn{eq:2.f}.}
396: \end{center}
397: \end{table}
398:
399: Let us first look on the behaviour of $s_0$ on $n$ and $\Delta$.
400: We see that $s_0$ depends on the choice of these
401: parameters. Since $R^{theo}$ lies above the experimental
402: cross section, larger values of $n$ will lower $s_0$. The difference
403: between the largest ($n=0$) and smallest ($n=7$) value varies between
404: $\Delta \sqrt{s_0}=190\ \mev$ for $p=1$ and $\Delta \sqrt{s_0}=110\ \mev$ for
405: $p=3$ at $\Delta=0$. At $\Delta=(4\ \gev)^2$ the analysis is in
406: a more perturbative region. Therefore one expects less impact of $n$ on
407: $s_0$, but still the difference remains sizeable:
408: from $\Delta \sqrt{s_0}=170\ \mev$ for $p=1$ to $\Delta \sqrt{s_0}=80\ \mev$ for
409: $p=5$. This is a remarkable result for applications of the sum rules.
410: In analyses where the threshold $s_0$ has an important impact
411: on the quantity one would like to extract, the change of $s_0$ with
412: $n$ and $\Delta$ might influence the final result.
413:
414: Furthermore we note that the rule `highest resonance plus 250 MeV' is strongly
415: violated. Taking only the lowest pole, $p=1$, this is no surprise.
416: Since the first two poles are very dominant on the experimental side,
417: one cannot hope to give a good description of these poles by
418: the perturbative spectral density without taking into account the
419: pole contributions from the Green's function. Also the reason for
420: the violation of the rule for the higher states is clear:
421: Using only the resonance parameters $E_k$ and $\Gamma_{ee,k}$
422: in the second line of eq. \eqn{eq:2.f} we have neglected the
423: non-resonant $D^{(*)}$-production. There are two ways
424: to estimate this background contribution. The first one is to give
425: a model description for the background as has been depicted in fig. \ref{fig:2.a}.
426: In a second approach one could assume that QHD above the third pole
427: already represents a reasonable description. In this case the phenomenological
428: part is given by `3 poles plus $R^{theo}$ from a threshold of 250 MeV above the
429: $3^{rd}$ pole'. Without background this description also applies to $p$ poles
430: instead of three. Subtracting these two descriptions should therefore give an
431: estimate of the background contribution.
432:
433: The drawback of both methods is clear: in the first one the result
434: is model dependent where in the second one it was assumed
435: that QHD could already be used for states with $p>3$.
436: To include the background contribution one could either add this
437: background explicitly to the second part of eq. \eqn{eq:2.f}
438: and use $\sqrt{s_0}=E_p + 250\ \mev$ or stick to eq. \eqn{eq:2.f}
439: and lower $s_0$ by the appropriate value. Since we want to compare
440: the results with table \ref{tab:2.a}, we use the second method.
441: $s_0$ is then determined from the equation
442: $\int_{s_0}^{s_1}ds\,R^{theo}(s)/(s+\Delta)^{n+1}=\mbox{`background'}$ where
443: $\sqrt{s_1}=E_p+250\ \mev$ and the estimate of the background ranges up to
444: $s_1$. The results for $s_0$ are shown in table \ref{tab:2.b}.
445: In the first row the background has been estimated by the model
446: description from fig. \ref{fig:2.a} and the second row in
447: parentheses shows the result assuming QHD already for $p>3$.
448: \begin{table}
449: \begin{center}
450: \begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
451: \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{$\Delta=0$} \\ \hline
452: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$p$} & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 \\ \hline
453: & $n=0$ & 3.35 & 3.93 & 3.99 & 4.16 & 4.22 & 4.32 \\
454: & & (3.35) & (3.94) & (4.02) & (4.12) & (4.22) & (4.29) \\
455: $\sqrt{s_0}/[\gev]$ & $n=3$ & 3.35 & 3.93 & 3.99 & 4.14 & 4.18 & 4.25 \\
456: & & (3.35) & (3.94) & (4.02) & (4.12) & (4.23) & (4.28) \\
457: & $n=7$ & 3.35 & 3.93 & 3.99 & 4.11 & 4.14 & 4.17 \\
458: & & (3.35) & (3.94) & (4.02) & (4.13) & (4.24) & (4.28) \\ \hline \hline
459: \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{$\Delta=(4\ \gev)^2$} \\ \hline
460: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$p$} & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 \\ \hline
461: & $n=0$ & 3.35 & 3.93 & 3.99 & 4.16 & 4.22 & 4.33 \\
462: & & (3.35) & (3.94) & (4.02) & (4.12) & (4.22) & (4.29) \\
463: $\sqrt{s_0}/[\gev]$ & $n=3$ & 3.35 & 3.93 & 3.99 & 4.15 & 4.21 & 4.29 \\
464: & & (3.35) & (3.94) & (4.02) & (4.12) & (4.22) & (4.28) \\
465: & $n=7$ & 3.35 & 3.93 & 3.99 & 4.14 & 4.18 & 4.24 \\
466: & & (3.35) & (3.94) & (4.02) & (4.12) & (4.23) & (4.28) \\ \hline
467: \end{tabular}
468: \caption{\label{tab:2.b} $s_0$ for different number of
469: poles $p$ and different values of $n$ and $\Delta$ obtained from
470: the description `$\sqrt{s_0}=E_p$ plus 250 MeV minus background'. The numbers
471: in the first row are with a background from fig. \ref{fig:2.a}
472: and the numbers in parentheses with the second estimate of the background
473: as described in the text.}
474: \end{center}
475: \end{table}
476:
477: Let us now compare the `exact' result for $s_0$ from table \ref{tab:2.a} which
478: is needed for a correct description of the experimental moments
479: to the QHD-based estimate of $s_0$ in table \ref{tab:2.b}.
480: For $p=1$ QHD cannot reproduce the correct value.
481: This is expected since the theoretical
482: spectral density will not give a good description for the second
483: resonance.
484: At $p=2,3$ the background has almost no
485: influence on $s_0$ so it essentially lies 250 MeV above the resonance.
486: For a relatively steep weight function, $n=7$, the results are similar
487: to table \ref{tab:2.a},
488: but for $n=0$ they differ up to 160 MeV. The estimates for $s_0$
489: agree well for $p=4$ and for $p=5,6$ they are a bit lower. In general,
490: we see that the assumption of QHD with the corresponding choice for
491: $s_0$ gives a reasonable description of the experimental moments, at least
492: for the higher poles.
493: It is interesting to note that in table \ref{tab:2.b} the change of
494: $s_0$ with $n$ and $\Delta$
495: is relatively small. With the background model it is smaller than in table
496: \ref{fig:2.a} especially for a small number of poles $p$. In the second approach
497: with QHD assumption for $p>3$ the value of $s_0$ remains almost constant.
498: So this variation can easily be underestimated.
499:
500: To summarise, we have estimated the uncertainty connected with the use of QHD.
501: In the charmonium system QHD
502: represents a reasonable good approximation if at least the first two poles
503: are added explicitly to the phenomenological side. The moments can then
504: be determined with the description
505: `poles with resonance parameters plus background plus theoretical spectral
506: density above $s_0$'. The threshold $s_0$ should be given by the energy of the highest
507: pole $E_p$ plus 250-300 MeV. Estimating the uncertainty on $s_0$ one should
508: take into account that the variation with $n$ and $\Delta$ can easily
509: amount to 100 MeV. In addition one should allow a variation of 100 MeV
510: from its value `$E_p$ plus 250-300 MeV'. So we conclude that
511: a reasonable error estimate for $s_0$ is given by
512: $\Delta \sqrt{s_0}= 200\ \mev$ around its central value.
513:
514:
515: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Section 3: Charmonium cross section %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
516:
517: \section{Charmonium cross section}
518:
519: In this section we investigate the charmonium cross section in more detail.
520: The first two resonances are dominating the cross section clearly,
521: the $J/\psi$ at 3.097 GeV with a partial decay width of
522: $\Gamma_{ee}=5.26$ keV and the $\psi'$ at 3.686 GeV with $\Gamma_{ee}=2.19$ keV.
523: Since both resonances lie below open $D$-production
524: their total widths are small, $\Gamma_{tot}=87$ keV and
525: $\Gamma_{tot}=300$ keV \cite{pdg:02} (264 keV \cite{BES:02:2})
526: respectively. At 3.74 GeV open $D\overline{D}$-production starts.
527: In the continuum 4 more resonances have been identified: a relatively
528: small resonance $\psi(3.770)$ just above $D\overline{D}$-threshold and three
529: broader resonances, $\psi(4.040)$, $\psi(4.159)$ and $\psi(4.415)$.
530: From the data it can be seen that in the energy range above 4 GeV the
531: background continuum gives a significant contribution.
532:
533: Now we want to give a model description for the background. Our motivation
534: is twofold. As already seen in the last section, it is interesting to
535: separate the background and resonance contributions to estimate the
536: relative size and the importance of the higher resonances.
537: Furthermore, in practical applications it is more convenient to deal with
538: a smooth approximating function in terms of a few resonance parameters than with
539: a large number of data points.
540:
541: The next channel above $D\overline{D}$ starts at 3.88 GeV with $D\overline{D}^*$
542: and $D^*\overline{D}$-production. At higher energies
543: open the $D_s\overline{D_s}$, $D^*\overline{D}^*$,
544: $D_s\overline{D_s}^*$, and $D_s^*\overline{D_s}^*$
545: channels. Since $D^*$ has three spin directions, the production of
546: $D\overline{D}^*$ and $D^*\overline{D}^*$ is enhanced
547: compared to $D\overline{D}$-production \cite{rgg:76,le:76,egkly:80,rr:95}.
548:
549: One could try to parametrise all these contributions by appropriate
550: form factors. However, neither theory nor experiment provide sufficient information
551: to predict these form factors.
552: As a consequence, this ansatz would depend on many free parameters that had to
553: be fitted from the used data. So the result would strongly depend
554: on the data set and could not be generalised.
555: Therefore we use a different approach based on perturbative QCD
556: and model the non-resonant background production by
557: \begin{eqnarray}
558: \label{eq:3.a}
559: R^{BG}_c(s)&=& \frac{4}{3} \sqrt{1-\frac{M_{thre}^2}{s}}
560: \left(1+\frac{M_{thre}^2}{2s}\right)\nn\\
561: &&\times\left(1+\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}+1.5245\left(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\right)^2-
562: 11.686\left(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\right)^3\right)\,, \nn\\
563: M_{thre}&=&M_{thre}^{DD^*}=3.879\ \mbox{GeV}\,.
564: \end{eqnarray}
565: For $\alpha_s(s)$ we use the three-loop formula with $\Lambda=313\pm 27\ \mev$ which
566: corresponds to $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1172\pm 0.002$ \cite{pdg:02} and three light flavours.
567: This background is plotted as a dashed line in fig. \ref{fig:2.a}.
568: For energies sufficiently above $c\overline{c}$-threshold we expect that
569: the main process will be hard $c\overline{c}$-production which finally
570: turns into $D$-mesons with unit probability.
571: The higher order corrections in eq. \eqn{eq:3.a} are based on perturbation
572: theory in the massless limit \cite{c:97} and show the correct high energy
573: behaviour. For a finite charm quark mass the expansion contains soft gluons
574: which are interchanged between the quarks at threshold.
575: These soft gluon ladders, which can be
576: resummed by means of NRQCD, lead to the formation of the $\psi$-states and are
577: responsible for the resonance effects. Thus they must not be included in the background
578: description.
579:
580: It remains the choice of the threshold
581: $M_{thre}$ which appears in the phase space factor. In a QCD-based picture
582: it is given by the charm pole mass $M_{thre}=2M_c$. However, in this case we
583: describe $D$-meson production, so the phase space should rather be given by the phase
584: space the $D$-meson than that of the charm mass. As described above,
585: the production of $D\overline{D}$ is suppressed to $D\overline{D}^*$. In addition,
586: for higher energies the other heavier thresholds open. Consequently a
587: threshold of $M_{thre}=M^{DD}_{thre}$ would probably overestimate the
588: background in the intermediate energy range. Therefore we fix the threshold
589: parameter to $M_{thre}=M_{thre}^{DD^*}=3.879\ \mbox{GeV}$.
590: One of the limitations of this description is obvious: one cannot expect
591: it to be a good approximation below and directly above the
592: $D\overline{D}^*$-threshold in the range of $3.74\ \gev <\sqrt{s}<4.0\ \gev$.
593: Below $3.88\ \gev$ we obviously miss the small $D\overline{D}$-production
594: which may also have some impact directly above the $D\overline{D}^*$ threshold.
595: However, we expect that \eqn{eq:3.a} gives
596: a good description of the background in the energy region between
597: $4.0\ \gev <\sqrt{s}<4.6\ \gev$. Above $\sqrt{s}\gsim 4.6\ \gev$ the resonance structure
598: seems to level off into a continuum. Here one cannot separate
599: the background and resonances any longer. Thus, instead of the background, one
600: should use the full theoretical result to describe the spectral density for
601: energies above 4.6 GeV.
602:
603: Now we give a description of the cross section in terms of the
604: background and Breit-Wigner resonances:
605: \begin{equation}
606: \label{eq:3.b}
607: R_c(s)=R^{BG}_c(s)+\frac{9s}{\alpha^2}\sum_{k=3}^{6}
608: \frac{\Gamma_{ee}^{k}\,\Gamma_{tot}^{k}}{(s-E_k^2)^2+E_k^2\,
609: \Gamma_{tot}^{k\,2}}\,.
610: \end{equation}
611: We prefer to use a constant total width $\Gamma_{tot}^{k}$
612: instead of a $s$-dependent one since the functional form close to threshold
613: is not clear and the uncertainty connected with the background description is
614: at least of the same order.
615: With this formula one can extract the resonance parameters from
616: the BES data \cite{BES:01} between 3.7 GeV and 4.6 GeV (75 data points).
617: The statistical and systematic error have been added quadratically for each
618: data point. In table \ref{tab:3.a} we have listed our results for
619: $E_k$, $\Gamma_{tot}^{k}$ and $\Gamma_{ee}^{k}$ for the resonances
620: $\psi(3)-\psi(6)$. The fit gives a $\chi^2/dof=1.02$.
621: \begin{table}
622: \begin{center}
623: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}\hline
624: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$k$} &
625: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$E_k/[\gev]$} &
626: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$\Gamma_{tot}^{k}/[\mev]$} &
627: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$\Gamma_{ee}^{k}/[\kev]$} \\ \hline
628: 3 & $3.7727\pm 0.0016$ & $24.4\pm 4.3$ & $0.19\pm 0.025$ \\
629: 4 & $4.0504\pm 0.0043$ & $98.5\pm 12.8$ & $1.03\pm 0.11$ \\
630: 5 & $4.1665\pm 0.0061$ & $55.9\pm 12.3$ & $0.37\pm 0.081$ \\
631: 6 & $4.4294\pm 0.0085$ & $86.0\pm 20.9$ & $0.39\pm 0.074$ \\ \hline
632: \end{tabular}
633: \caption{\label{tab:3.a}
634: $E_k$, $\Gamma_{tot}^{k}$ and $\Gamma_{ee}^{k}$ for the resonances
635: $\psi(3)-\psi(6)$ from eq. \eqn{eq:3.b}
636: and using BES data \cite{BES:01} between 3.7 GeV and 4.6 GeV.}
637: \end{center}
638: \end{table}
639: \begin{figure}
640: \begin{center}
641: \vspace{5mm}
642: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth,height=\figheight,]{fig2.eps}
643: \caption{\label{fig:3.a} Spectral density from \eqn{eq:3.b} with resonance
644: parameters from tab. \ref{tab:3.a} and BES data \cite{BES:01}.}
645: \end{center}
646: \end{figure}
647: In fig. \ref{fig:3.a} we have plotted the resulting spectral density together
648: with the data points. It can be seen that the experimental spectral density is
649: rather well approximated by the theoretical description.
650: We can compare the results to former measurements where the estimate of the
651: non-resonant $D$-production was fitted to the data
652: \cite{betal:78,setal:80,pdg:02}.
653: We see that the masses change only by several MeV.
654: Whereas the change of $\Gamma_{tot}^{k}$ and $\Gamma_{ee}^{k}$
655: for the $\psi(3)$ is mild, these changes are larger for the higher resonances
656: since these parameters are not only based on a different data set but also on a
657: different background description.
658:
659: To investigate closer the dependence of the resonance parameters on the
660: background we now vary the threshold energy $M_{thre}$. We compare to the results
661: obtained from a background with $M_{thre}=3.74\ \gev$ which would correspond to
662: $D\bar{D}$-production and to $M_{thre}=4.0\ \gev$. Compared to the data, the
663: first one seems to overestimate and the second one to underestimate the
664: background.
665:
666: \begin{table}
667: \begin{center}
668: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}\hline
669: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} &
670: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$E_k/[\gev]$} &
671: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$\Gamma_{tot}^{k}/[\mev]$} &
672: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$\Gamma_{ee}^{k}/[\kev]$} \\ \hline
673: $k$ & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}a & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}b & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}a &
674: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}b & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}a & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}b\\ \hline
675: 3 & 3.7715 & 3.7725 & 18.0 & 22.4 & 0.12 & 0.17 \\
676: 4 & 4.0504 & 4.0450 & 75.5 & 138.1 & 0.74 & 1.60 \\
677: 5 & 4.1629 & 4.1701 & 56.4 & 51.5 & 0.36 & 0.32 \\
678: 6 & 4.4296 & 4.4299 & 70.8 & 98.3 & 0.30 & 0.48 \\ \hline
679: \end{tabular}
680: \caption{\label{tab:3.b}
681: Resonance parameters for different backgrounds with $M_{thre}=3.74\ \gev$
682: (a) and $M_{thre}=4.0\ \gev$ (b). The statistical errors are similar to
683: table \ref{tab:3.a}.}
684: \end{center}
685: \end{table}
686: We have listed the results in table \ref{tab:3.b}. The statistical
687: errors are very similar to table \ref{tab:3.a} and have therefore been omitted.
688: The masses remain very stable. The masses of the $\psi(3)$ and $\psi(6)$
689: do not change, $\psi(5)$ changes by $\Delta E_5=\pm 3.5 \ \mev$ and the largest
690: change is of the $\psi(4)$ with $\Delta E_4=-5 \ \mev$ for $M_{thre}=4.0\ \gev$.
691: For $M_{thre}=3.74\ \gev$ the widths of the $\psi(3)$ are reduced since the
692: background already starts below the resonance. The widths of the $\psi(5)$
693: seem to be very stable against variation of the background and the change for
694: the $\psi(6)$ is of a similar size as the statistical errors. The widths of
695: the $\psi(4)$ are the most sensitive to a variation of the background. They
696: show a significant change which is clearly larger than the statistical
697: error. These changes of the resonance parameters are part of the systematic
698: uncertainty connected with the background description and of the difficulty to
699: separate these two contributions. However, the experimental cross section is
700: well approximated by eqs. (\ref{eq:3.a},\ref{eq:3.b}) and the resonance
701: parameters of table \ref{tab:3.a}.
702:
703:
704: %%%%%%%%%%% Section 4: Theory versus Experiment %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
705:
706: \section{Theoretical versus phenomenological moments}
707:
708: QCD sum rules provide a framework which relates a QCD-based description
709: in terms of QCD parameters to measurable quantities in terms of
710: hadron properties. In this section we discuss the different
711: conceptions related to the theoretical and phenomenological description.
712:
713: The advantage of using a weight function as in \eqn{eq:2.e} is that
714: the moments $W_n$ are directly connected with $\Pi(s)$
715: at the Euclidean point $s=-\Delta$:
716: \begin{equation}
717: \label{eq:4.a}
718: W_n(\Delta)=W_n(\Delta,s_{min},\infty)=
719: \frac{12\pi^2}{n!}\frac{d^n}{ds^n}\Pi(s)\Big|_{s=-\Delta}\,,
720: \end{equation}
721: where $s_{min}$ indicates the lowest pole.
722: In the Euclidean region the theoretical expansion is known to be valid
723: by means of the OPE. In addition to the perturbative result, condensates
724: of higher and higher power will appear.
725: In a QCD-based picture the definition of the pole mass provides the natural
726: description for the onset of the continuous spectral density and
727: therefore the threshold is given by $\sqrt{s}=2M_c$.
728: The theoretical expansion depends on the values of $\Delta$
729: and $n$: large values of $\Delta$ and small $n$ move the moments to a safe
730: perturbative region and the expansion in $\alpha_s$ converges well. In
731: principle, $W_n$ could thus be calculated to high accuracy. However, this
732: region is of little phenomenological interest. Usually in sum rules analyses
733: one is interested in extracting information on the ground state or the quark
734: masses. In order to be sensitive to these parameters the analysis must be
735: performed relatively close to threshold. In this case the perturbative
736: expansion does not converge well any more since large terms appear reflecting
737: the Coulombic structure of the charmonium system. These potentially
738: large terms can be resummed with the method of NRQCD which sets up a systematic
739: framework to treat these non-relativistic corrections. The result is expressed
740: in terms of a Green's function and can be directly evaluated at
741: $s=-\Delta$. Its imaginary part shows poles below and a continuum spectral
742: density above threshold.
743:
744: This QCD-based theoretical description has to be confronted to the
745: measured cross section to which it is related by the optical theorem.
746: As described in the last section, its behaviour is very complicated:
747: It contains two sharp resonances and several higher resonances which are
748: shifted into the continuum.
749: It is obvious that the theoretical and phenomenological spectral density
750: do not equal each other. In the Euclidean region the theoretical expansion is
751: truncated -- as a series in $\alpha_s$ and in higher condensates. If one were
752: able to calculate $\Pi(q^2)$ in the Euclidean domain exactly, one could
753: analytically continue the result to the Minkowski domain and take the imaginary
754: part. The theoretical spectral density would equal the hadronic cross
755: section. However, in practice only the truncated expansion is analytically
756: continued to values of positive $q^2$. Small neglected terms in the
757: Euclidean domain can become large in the Minkowski region and change the
758: spectral density significantly. The origin and
759: behaviour of such contributions have been discussed in \cite{s:00}.
760:
761: In the OPE condensates appear, the leading contribution is given by
762: the gluon condensate:
763: \begin{equation}
764: \label{eq:4.b}
765: \Pi_{FF}(s)=\frac{4}{9}\frac{\langle \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}FF\rangle}{16 M_c^4}
766: \left(C_{FF}^{(0)}(s)+\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}C_{FF}^{(1)}(s)\right)\,,
767: \end{equation}
768: the analytic form of the functions $C_{FF}^{(0)}$ and $C_{FF}^{(1)}$
769: can be found in \cite{bbifts:94}. However,
770: its contribution to the moments is small for values of $n$ and $\Delta$
771: used in this analysis. Its contribution grows if one comes very close
772: to threshold, for $\Delta\gsim -4M_c^2$ or for very large $n$ since here the
773: moments test the nonperturbative region.
774:
775: Now we want to compare the size of the individual theoretical and phenomenological
776: contributions. In fact, this comparison is done in QCD sum rules to extract the
777: charm and bottom quark masses since the moments show a strong dependence on the
778: value of the mass.
779: We fix the ${\rm \MSb}$-mass to $m_c(m_c)=1.19\ \gev$ \cite{e:02}.
780: For the comparison we use a range of values for $n$ and $\Delta$ somewhat
781: larger than in typical sum rule applications.
782: In table \ref{tab:4.a} we show the results for the theoretical and experimental
783: moments.
784: \begin{table}
785: \begin{center}
786: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline
787: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{$\Delta=0$} \\ \hline
788: $n$ & $3$ & $7$ & $12$ \\ \hline
789: Theory total & 1.04 & 0.85 & 0.67 \\
790: Theory poles & 0.71 & 0.76 & 0.65 \\
791: Theory continuum & 0.33 & 0.086 & 0.021 \\ \hline
792: Exp. total & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
793: Exp. poles 1+2 & 0.87 & 0.989 & 0.9992 \\
794: Exp. BES data & 0.13 & 0.011 & 0.0008 \\ \hline\hline
795: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{$\Delta=(4\ \gev)^2$} \\ \hline
796: $n$ & $3$ & $7$ & $12$ \\ \hline
797: Theory total & 0.98 & 1.10 & 0.99 \\
798: Theory poles & 0.34 & 0.72 & 0.80 \\
799: Theory continuum & 0.64 & 0.38 & 0.19 \\ \hline
800: Exp. total & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
801: Exp. poles 1+2 & 0.56 & 0.86 & 0.96 \\
802: Exp. BES data & 0.44 & 0.14 & 0.04 \\ \hline
803: \end{tabular}
804: \caption{\label{tab:4.a}
805: Charmonium: Theoretical and phenomenological moments normalised to the total phenomenological
806: moments.}
807: \end{center}
808: \end{table}
809: The moments have been normalised to the total phenomenological
810: moments. The poles represent the dominant contribution and they are even more
811: pronounced on the phenomenological side. It can be clearly seen that small
812: $\Delta$ and large $n$ shift the analysis closer to the poles. For $n=12$ the
813: continuum region is essentially cut off. For this value of the charm mass the moments
814: show a good stability, which is no surprise since this stability criterion
815: was used to extract the
816: value of the charm mass \cite{e:02}. The total theoretical moments differ from the
817: phenomenological ones by about 10\%. The convergence is better for large values
818: of $\Delta$. Only for $\Delta=0$ and $n=12$ they differ significantly, but here
819: the theoretical moments are evaluated close to threshold and one cannot expect
820: a reliable description of these moments.
821:
822: It is interesting to
823: investigate the dependence
824: of the theoretical moments on the mass. With a ${\rm \MSb}$-mass of
825: $m_c(m_c)=1.3\ \gev$ the total theoretical moments normalised to the
826: phenomenological ones for $\Delta=0$ vary from 0.82 (for $n=3$) to 0.21
827: ($n=12$) and from 0.96 ($n=3$) to 0.68 ($n=12$) at $\Delta=(4\ \gev)^2$.
828: For $m_c(m_c)=1.1\ \gev$ the relative theoretical moments for $\Delta=0$ increase
829: from 1.33 ($n=3$) to 2.27
830: ($n=12$) and from 0.97 ($n=3$) to 1.4 ($n=12$) at $\Delta=(4\ \gev)^2$.
831: It can be seen that the sensitivity of the moments on the mass decreases for
832: large values of $\Delta$.
833: The change is due to the pole contribution since the continuum spectral density
834: is practically independent of the mass. These results confirm the
835: significant effect of the mass on the moments and on the stability of the sum rules.
836:
837:
838: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Section 5 : Upsilon system %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
839:
840: \section{Upsilon system}
841:
842: In the upsilon system the experimental situation is unsatisfactory. Apart from
843: the resonance parameters of the 6 $\Upsilon$-states \cite{pdg:02} almost no
844: direct information on the cross section above the $\Upsilon(4)$ is
845: available. Therefore it is not possible to perform a check of QHD as has been
846: done in section 2. However, we can use the results of the last sections to draw
847: some conclusions for this energy region.
848:
849: First we compare the size of resonance and background contribution.
850: Analog to eq. \eqn{eq:3.a} we make the following ansatz:
851: \begin{eqnarray}
852: \label{eq:5.a}
853: R^{BG}_b(s)&=& \frac{1}{3} \sqrt{1-\frac{M_{thre}^2}{s}}
854: \left(1+\frac{M_{thre}^2}{2s}\right)\nn\\
855: &&\times\left(1+\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}+1.4092\left(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\right)^2-
856: 12.805\left(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\right)^3\right)\,, \nn\\
857: M_{thre}&=&M_{thre}^{BB^*}=10.604\ \mbox{GeV}\,.
858: \end{eqnarray}
859: The strong coupling constant at three loop with 4 light flavours
860: is determined from $\Lambda=278\pm 30\ \mev$. Similar to the charm case,
861: we fix the start of the threshold at the energy for $BB^*$-production.
862:
863: We can compare the background to the resonance contribution.
864: \begin{figure}
865: \begin{center}
866: \vspace{5mm}
867: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth,height=\figheight,angle=-0]{fig3.eps}
868: \caption{\label{fig:5.a}
869: $\Upsilon(4)-\Upsilon(6)$ with theoretical spectral density (solid)
870: and background (dashed).}
871: \end{center}
872: \end{figure}
873: \begin{table}
874: \begin{center}
875: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline
876: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{$\Delta=0$} \\ \hline
877: $n$ & $3$ & $7$ & $12$ \\ \hline
878: Theory total & 1.05 & 0.94 & 0.76 \\
879: Theory poles & 0.41 & 0.60 & 0.61 \\
880: Theory continuum & 0.64 & 0.34 & 0.15 \\ \hline
881: Exp. total & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
882: Exp. poles 1+2 & 0.70 & 0.94 & 0.991 \\
883: Exp. BES data & 0.30 & 0.06 & 0.009 \\ \hline\hline
884: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{$\Delta=(10\ \gev)^2$} \\ \hline
885: $n$ & $3$ & $7$ & $12$ \\ \hline
886: Theory total & 1.04 & 1.06 & 0.99 \\
887: Theory poles & 0.22 & 0.45 & 0.58 \\
888: Theory continuum & 0.82 & 0.61 & 0.41 \\ \hline
889: Exp. total & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
890: Exp. poles 1+2 & 0.45 & 0.75 & 0.91 \\
891: Exp. BES data & 0.55 & 0.25 & 0.09 \\ \hline
892: \end{tabular}
893: \caption{\label{tab:5.a}
894: Upsilon: Theoretical and phenomenological moments normalised to the total phenomenological
895: moments.}
896: \end{center}
897: \end{table}
898: In fig. \ref{fig:5.a} we have plotted the background versus the spectral
899: density using the resonance parameters $\Upsilon(4)-\Upsilon(6)$ from \cite{pdg:02}.
900: The data indicate \cite{b:85,l:85}
901: that in the region between $11.0 \ \gev<\sqrt{s_0}<11.2\
902: \gev$ the cross section continues at values around the peak of the
903: $\Upsilon(6)$. It can be seen that
904: the resonance contribution exceeds the background contribution in the range
905: until $\sim 11.05$ GeV.
906: In the resonance region the influence of the background is not as strong
907: as in the charmonium system. Above 11.05 GeV, since no further resonances
908: are measured, one should use the full theoretical spectral density to describe
909: the cross section.
910:
911: An important parameter in sum rule calculations of the bottom mass is the
912: threshold parameter $s_0$. The phenomenological moments are determined from
913: the first six $\Upsilon$-resonances and the theoretical spectral density above
914: $s_0$. With no background production this parameter would be
915: estimated to lie about 250 MeV above the $\Upsilon(6)$. However, the
916: non-resonant background, where it is not already included in the resonance
917: parameters, will effectively lower this threshold.
918: In chapter 2 two ways to estimate this parameter have been discussed,
919: by a model description for the background
920: and by assuming QHD already for states $n> 3$. In the first one
921: we use the background of eq. \eqn{eq:5.a}.
922: In the region between $10.75-11.05\ \gev$ the total cross section
923: is well approximated by the $5^{th}$ and $6^{th}$ resonance.
924: Calculating the background for the remaining interval the effective threshold
925: lowers to $\sqrt{s_0}=11.15-11.20\ \gev$.
926: In the second approach we assume QHD for states with $n>3$.
927: The background from this ansatz would reduce the threshold to
928: $\sqrt{s_0}=11.0-11.05\ \gev$.
929: Therefore, taking the average between both estimates, we suggest that a
930: reasonable estimate for $s_0$ would be given by $\sqrt{s_0}=11.1\pm 0.2\ \gev$.
931:
932: As in section 4 we can compare the contributions from the theoretical and
933: phenomenological moments. Again we evaluate the moments
934: in a region where threshold effects are important.
935: In table \ref{tab:5.a} we have collected the moments from the different
936: sources. As input parameter for the mass we have used $m_b(m_b)=4.24\ \gev$ \cite{e:02}.
937: For the employed values of $n$ and $\Delta$ the dominance of the poles is less
938: pronounced than in the charmonium. The theoretical moments differ by about 5\%
939: from the phenomenological ones. Thus they show a better convergence than in the
940: charmonium system. At $\Delta=0$ and $n=12$ the theoretical calculation of the
941: moments should not be trusted any more.
942:
943: Now we look at the influence of the bottom mass on the
944: moments. With a ${\rm \MSb}$-mass of $m_b(m_b)=4.34\ \gev$ the total
945: theoretical moments for $\Delta=0$ vary
946: from 0.93 (for $n=3$) to 0.47
947: ($n=12$) and from 0.99 ($n=3$) to 0.80 ($n=12$) at $\Delta=(10\ \gev)^2$.
948: For $m_b(m_b)=4.14\ \gev$ the moments for $\Delta=0$ increase
949: from 1.19 ($n=3$) to 1.23
950: ($n=12$) and from 1.1 ($n=3$) to 1.24 ($n=12$) at $\Delta=(10\ \gev)^2$
951: thus showing again the strong influence of the quark mass.
952:
953:
954: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Conclusions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
955:
956: \section{Conclusions}
957:
958: In this work we have explored the cross section of $e^+ e^-$--collisions
959: in the charmonium and upsilon energy region. The experimental situation for the
960: charmonium has significantly improved with the new results from BES
961: \cite{BES:01}. This allows a thorough comparison of the theoretical and
962: experimental description for this energy range.
963: These investigations have been applied to heavy-heavy systems. Apart from
964: the general discussions it is not clear if the concrete results could be
965: generalised to e.g. heavy-light or light-light
966: states since the underlying physical systems are different and their properties
967: are rather determined from the dynamics of the light quarks.
968:
969: The main part of the paper has investigated the charmonium energy range. We have
970: given a prescription for the threshold parameter $s_0$ which is needed to describe
971: the experimental spectral density for large energies. The error on this
972: quantity was estimated to $\Delta \sqrt{s_0}=200\ \mev$ which includes a
973: possible variation of $s_0$ with $n$ and $\Delta$. The phenomenological cross
974: section can be described as Breit-Wigner resonances and a non-resonant
975: background production of $D^{(*)}$-mesons. We have presented a model for this
976: background production based on perturbative QCD. The masses, the hadronic
977: widths and the partial $e^+e^-$--widths of the states $\psi(3)-\psi(6)$ have
978: been extracted from the BES data. So we obtain a direct theoretical
979: description of the experimental cross section in terms of few resonance
980: parameters with a $\chi^2/dof=1.02$.
981: QCD sum rules use the identity of the theoretical and phenomenological moments
982: related by the optical theorem and can be used to extract e.g. the
983: quark masses or the ground state properties. In order to be
984: sensitive to these parameters the moments must be evaluated in a region not too
985: far from threshold. Thus the contributions from NRQCD form an essential part on
986: the theoretical side reflecting the fact that the underlying system is a
987: Coulombic one. The different contributions from the poles and the continuum
988: part have been compared for different values of $n$ and $\Delta$.
989:
990: Section 5 has been devoted to the upsilon system. Here the experimental
991: situation is dissatisfactory. However, the results of the previous sections
992: could be used to investigate several properties of this system: a model
993: description of non-resonant $B^{(*)}$-production has been presented and
994: the threshold parameter $s_0$ estimated.
995: We have compared the different contributions to the theoretical and
996: phenomenological moments and investigated the effect of the bottom mass.
997: Unfortunately the cross section is not well measured in the
998: region above the $\Upsilon(4)$. A more detailed knowledge would allow a better
999: test of QHD in this energy region.
1000:
1001: The two basic pictures of QCD are related by
1002: QHD: the hadronic world and a description based on perturbative QCD in terms
1003: of quarks and gluons. Thus a better understanding of QHD could provide further insight
1004: into the structure and behaviour of nonperturbative contributions.
1005:
1006:
1007: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Acknowledgements %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1008:
1009: \bigskip \noindent
1010: {\bf Acknowledgements}
1011:
1012: \noindent
1013: I would like to thank Antonio Pich for interesting
1014: discussions and reading the manuscript.
1015: This work has been supported in part by TMR, EC
1016: contract No. RTN2-2001-00199, by MCYT (Spain) under grant
1017: FPA2001-3031, and by ERDF funds from the European Commission.
1018: I thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for financial support.
1019:
1020: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Bibliography %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1021:
1022: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1023:
1024: \bibitem{svz:79}
1025: {\sc M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov},
1026: \npb{147}{1979}{385}, \npb{147}{1979}{448}.
1027: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B147,385;%%
1028: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B147,448;%%
1029:
1030: \bibitem{rry:85}
1031: {\sc L.J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki},
1032: \prep{127} {1985}{1}.
1033: %%CITATION = PRPLC,127,1;%%
1034:
1035: \bibitem{n:89}
1036: {\sc S. Narison},
1037: {\it QCD Spectral Sum Rules, World Scientific (1989)}.
1038: %%CITATION = 00327,26,1;%%
1039:
1040: \bibitem{r:92}
1041: {\sc H.J. Rothe},
1042: {\it Lattice gauge theories, World Scientific (1992)}.
1043: %%CITATION = 00327,43,1;%%
1044:
1045: \bibitem{mm:94}
1046: {\sc I. Montvay and G. M\"unster},
1047: {\it Quantum fields on a lattice, Cambridge University
1048: Press (1994)}.
1049:
1050: \bibitem{gl:85}
1051: {\sc J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler},
1052: \npb{250}{1985}{465}.
1053: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B250,465;%%
1054:
1055: \bibitem{p:95}
1056: {\sc A. Pich},
1057: \rpp{58}{1995}{563}.
1058: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9502366;%%
1059:
1060: \bibitem{h:74}
1061: {\sc G.'t Hooft},
1062: \npb{72}{1974}{461}.
1063: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B72,461;%%
1064:
1065: \bibitem{w:79}
1066: {\sc E. Witten},
1067: \npb{160}{1979}{57}.
1068: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B160,57;%%
1069:
1070: \bibitem{w:69}
1071: {\sc K. Wilson},
1072: \pr{179}{1969}{1499}.
1073: %%CITATION = PHRVA,179,1499;%%
1074:
1075: \bibitem{pqw:76}
1076: {\sc E.C. Poggio, H.R. Quinn and S. Weinberg},
1077: \prd{13}{1976}{1958}.
1078: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D13,1958;%%
1079:
1080: \bibitem{lu:00}
1081: {\sc R.F. Lebed and N.G. Uraltsev},
1082: \prd{62}{2000}{094011}.
1083: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006346;%%
1084:
1085: \bibitem{ijmo:01}
1086: {\sc N. Isgur, S. Jeschonnek, W. Melnitchouk and J.W. Van Orden},
1087: \prd{64}{2001}{054005}.
1088: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104022;%%
1089:
1090: \bibitem{ci:01}
1091: {\sc F.E. Close and N. Isgur},
1092: \plb{509}{2001}{81}.
1093: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102067;%%
1094:
1095: \bibitem{ymmopr:00}
1096: {\sc A.~Le Yaouanc, D.~Melikhov, V.~Morenas, L.~Oliver, O.~Pene and J.C.~Raynal},
1097: \plb{488}{2000}{153}.
1098: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005039;%%
1099:
1100: \bibitem{papa:01}
1101: {\sc M.W.~Paris and V.R.~Pandharipande},
1102: \plb{514}{2001}{361}.
1103: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0105076;%%
1104:
1105: \bibitem{netal:00}
1106: {\sc I.~Niculescu et al.},
1107: \prl{85}{2000}{1182}, 1186.
1108: %%CITATION = PRLTA,85,1182;%%
1109: %%CITATION = PRLTA,85,1186;%%
1110:
1111: \bibitem{s:00}
1112: {\sc M. Shifman},
1113: {\it Boris Ioffe Festschrift 'At the Frontier of Particle Physics /
1114: Handbook of QCD', ed. M. Shifman (World Scientific)}, \hepph{0009131}.
1115: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009131;%%
1116:
1117: \bibitem{BES:01}
1118: {\sc J.Z. Bai et al. (BES Collaboration)},
1119: \prl{88}{2002}{101802}.
1120: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102003;%%
1121:
1122: \bibitem{cl:86}
1123: {\sc W.E. Caswell and G.P. Lepage},
1124: \plb{167}{1986}{437}.
1125: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B167,437;%%
1126:
1127: \bibitem{bbl:95}
1128: {\sc G.T. Bodwin, E. Braaten and G.P. Lepage},
1129: \prd{51}{1995}{1125}, Erratum-ibid. {\bf D 55} (1997) 5853.
1130: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9407339;%%
1131:
1132: \bibitem{ps:91}
1133: {\sc M.J. Strassler and M.E. Peskin},
1134: \prd{43}{1991}{1500}.
1135: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,1500;%%
1136:
1137: \bibitem{ht:98}
1138: {\sc A.H. Hoang and T. Teubner},
1139: \prd{58}{1998}{114023}.
1140: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801397;%%
1141:
1142: \bibitem{pp:99}
1143: {\sc A.A. Penin and A.A. Pivovarov},
1144: \npb{549}{1999}{217}.
1145: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807421;%%
1146:
1147: \bibitem{e:02}
1148: {\sc M. Eidem\"uller},
1149: \hepph{0207237}.
1150: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207237;%%
1151:
1152: \bibitem{c:97}
1153: {\sc K.G. Chetyrkin},
1154: \plb{391}{1997}{402}.
1155: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608480;%%
1156:
1157: \bibitem{betal:78}
1158: {\sc R. Brandelik et al.},
1159: \plb{76}{1978}{361}.
1160: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B76,361;%%
1161:
1162: \bibitem{setal:80}
1163: {\sc R.H. Schindler et al.},
1164: \prd{21}{1980}{2716}.
1165: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D21,2716;%%
1166:
1167: \bibitem{b:85}
1168: {\sc D. Besson et al.},
1169: \prl{54}{1985}{381}.
1170: %%CITATION = PRLTA,54,381;%%
1171:
1172: \bibitem{l:85}
1173: {\sc D. Lovelock et al.},
1174: \prl{54}{1985}{377}.
1175: %%CITATION = PRLTA,54,377;%%
1176:
1177: \bibitem{pdg:02}
1178: {\sc K. Hagiwara et al. (Particle Data Group)},
1179: \prd{66}{2002}{010001}.
1180: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
1181:
1182: \bibitem{BES:02:2}
1183: {\sc J.Z. Bai et al. (BES Collaboration)},
1184: \plb{550}{2002}{24}.
1185: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209354;%%
1186:
1187: \bibitem{rgg:76}
1188: {\sc A. De R\'ujula, H. Georgi and S.L. Glashow},
1189: \prl{37}{1976}{398}.
1190: %%CITATION = PRLTA,37,398;%%
1191:
1192: \bibitem{le:76}
1193: {\sc K. Lane and E. Eichten},
1194: \prl{37}{1976}{477}, Erratum-ibid. {\bf 37} (1976) 1105.
1195: %%CITATION = PRLTA,37,477;%%
1196:
1197: \bibitem{egkly:80}
1198: {\sc E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. Lane and T.M. Yan},
1199: \prd{21}{1980}{203}.
1200: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D21,203;%%
1201:
1202: \bibitem{rr:95}
1203: {\sc L. Randall and N. Rius},
1204: \npb{441}{1995}{167}.
1205: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405217;%%
1206:
1207: \bibitem{bbifts:94}
1208: {\sc D.J. Broadhurst, P.A. Baikov, V.A. Ilyin,
1209: J. Fleischer, O.V. Tarasov and V.A. Smirnov},
1210: \plb{329}{1994}{103}.
1211: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403274;%%
1212:
1213: \end{thebibliography}
1214:
1215: \end{document}