1: \documentclass{article}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}%style pour inserer figures en eps

3: \usepackage{here}%pour inserer figures et tables a emplacement 

4: \textwidth 16.5cm

5: \textheight 25.1cm

6: \topmargin -1.5cm

7: \oddsidemargin +0.cm

8: \evensidemargin -1.0cm

9: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

10: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

11: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

12: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

13: \def\bq{\begin{quote}}

14: \def\eq{\end{quote}}

15: \def\ve{\vert}

16:  

17: \def\nnb{\nonumber}

18: \def\ga{\left(}

19: \def\dr{\right)}

20: \def\aga{\left\{}

21: \def\adr{\right\}}

22: \def\lb{\lbrack}

23: \def\rb{\rbrack}

24: \def\rar{\rightarrow}

25: \def\lrar{\Longrightarrow}

26: \def\nnb{\nonumber}

27: \def\la{\langle}

28: \def\ra{\rangle}

29: \def\nin{\noindent}

30: \def\ba{\begin{array}}

31: \def\ea{\end{array}}

32: \def\bm{\overline{m}}

33: \def\ind{\indexentry}

34: \def\c{\clubsuit}

35: \def\s{\spadesuit}

36: \def\b{\bullet}

37: 

38: \def\als{\alpha_s}

39: \def\as{\ga\frac{\bar{\alpha_s}}{\pi}\dr}

40: \def\asr{\ga\frac{{\alpha_s}}{\pi}\dr}

41: \def\gg{ \la\alpha_s G^2 \ra}

42: \def\ggg{g^3f_{abc}\la G^aG^bG^c \ra}

43: \def\gggg{\la\als^2G^4\ra}

44: \def\lnu{\log{-\frac{q^2}{\nu^2}}}

45: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

46: \begin{document}

47: %\pagestyle{empty}

48: \begin{flushright}

49: %PM/03-xx\\ 

50: \end{flushright}

51: \vspace*{5mm}

52: %\begin{center}

53: \section*{Open Charm and Beauty Chiral Multiplets in  QCD}

54: \vspace*{1.cm}

55: {\bf Stephan Narison}

56: \\

57: %\vspace{0.3cm}

58: Laboratoire de Physique Math\'ematique et Th\'{e}orique,

59: UM2, Place Eug\`ene Bataillon,

60: 34095 Montpellier Cedex 05, France

61: \\ Email: narison@lpm.univ-montp2.fr

62: \\

63: 

64: \vspace*{.5cm}

65: %{\bf Abstract} \\ 

66: %\end{center}

67: %\vspace*{2mm}

68: \noindent

69: We study the dynamics of the the spin zero open charm and beauty mesons using QCD spectral sum rules (QSSR), where

70: we observe the important r\^ole of the chiral condensate $\la \bar \psi\psi\ra $ in the mass-splittings between the

71: scalar-pseudoscalar mesons. Fixing the sum rule parameters for reproducing the well-known $D(0^-)$ and $D_s(0^-)$ masses,

72: we re-obtain the running charm quark mass: $\bar m_c(m_c)=1.13^{+0.08}_{-0.04}$ GeV, which confirms our recent estimate from this

73: channel \cite{SNC}. Therefore, using sum rules {\it with no-free parameters}, we deduce $M_{D_s(0^+)}\simeq (2297\pm 113)$ MeV, which is

74: consistent with the observed $D_s(2317)$ meson, while a small $SU(3)$ breaking of about $25$ MeV

75: for the $D_s(0^+)-D(0^+)$ mass-difference has been obtained. We extend our analysis to the $B$-system and find $M_{B(0^+)}-

76: M_{B(0^-)}\simeq (422\pm 196)$ MeV confirming our old result from moment sum rules \cite{SNSP}. Assuming an approximate

77: (heavy and light) flavour and spin symmetries of the mass-splittings as indicated by our results, we also deduce

78: $M_{D^*_s(1^+)}\simeq (2440\pm 113)$ MeV in agreement with the observed

79: $D_{sJ}(2457)$.

80: We also get:

81: $f_{D(0^+)}\simeq (217\pm 25)$ MeV much bigger than $f_\pi$=130.6 MeV, while the size of the $SU(3)$ breaking

82: ratio $f_{D_s(0^+)}/f_{D(0^+)}\simeq 0.93\pm 0.02$ is opposite to the one of the $0^-$

83: channel of about 1.14. 

84: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

85: \section{Introduction}

86: The recent BABAR, BELLE and CLEO observations of two new states $D_{sJ}(2317)$ and $D_{sJ}(2457)$ \cite{BONDI} in the $D_s\pi$, $D_s\gamma$

87: and

88: $D_s\pi\gamma$ final states have stimulated a renewed interest in the spectroscopy of open

89: charm states which one can notice from different recent theoretical attempts to identify

90: their nature \cite{BONDI}. In this paper, we will try to provide the answer to this

91: question from QCD spectral sum rules \`a la Shifman-Vainshtein-Zakharov \cite{SVZ}. In fact, we have

92: already addressed a similar question in the past \cite{SNSP}, where we have predicted using QSSR the

93: mass splitting of the $0^+-0^-$ and $1^--1^+~\bar bu$ mesons using double ratio of moments sum rules

94: based on an expansion in the inverse of the $b$ quark mass. We found that the value of the

95: mass-splittings between the chiral multiplets were about the same and approximately independent of the spin

96: of these mesons signaling an heavy quark-type approximate symmetry:

97: \beq\label{eq: bsplit}

98: M_{B{(0^+)}}-M_{B{(0^-)}}\approx M_{B^*{(1^+)}}-M_{B^*{(1^-)}}\approx (417\pm 212)~{\rm MeV}~.

99: \eeq

100: The effect and errors on the mass-splittings are mainly due to the chiral condensate $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$ and to the value of

101: the $b$ quark mass.

102: In this paper, we shall use an analogous approach to the open charm states. However, the same

103: method in terms of the $1/m_c$ expansion and some other nonrelativistic sum rules will be dangerous here

104: due to the relatively light value of the charm quark mass. Instead, we shall work with relativistic

105: exponential sum rules used successfully in the light quark channels for predicting the meson masses and QCD parameters \cite{SNB}

106: and in the

107: $D$ and

108: $B$ channels for predicting the (famous) decay constants $f_{D,B}$ \cite{SNC,SNB,SNFB} and the charm and bottom quark masses

109: \cite{SNC,SNB,SNFB,SNM,QMASS}.

110: \section{The QCD spectral sum rules}

111:  We shall work here with the (pseudo)scalar

112: two-point correlators: 

113: \bea

114: \psi_{P/S}(q^2) &\equiv& i \int d^4x ~e^{iqx} \

115: \la 0\vert {\cal T}

116: J_{P/S}(x)

117: J^\dagger _{P/S}(0) \vert 0 \ra ,

118: \eea

119: built from the (pseudo)scalar and (axial)-vector heavy-light quark currents:

120: \beq

121: J_{P/S}(x)=(m_Q\pm m_q)\bar Q(i\gamma_5)q,~~~~~ J^\mu_{V/A}=\bar Q\gamma^\mu(\gamma_5)q~.

122: \eeq

123: If we fix $Q\equiv c$ and $q\equiv s$, the corresponding mesons

124: have the quantum numbers of the $D_s(0^-)$, $D_s(0^+)$ mesons. $m_Q$ 

125: and $m_s$ are the running

126: quark masses. 

127: In the (pseudo)scalar channels, the relevant sum rules for our problem are the

128: Laplace transform sum rules:

129: \beq

130: {\cal L}^H_{P/S}(\tau)

131: = \int_{t_\leq}^{\infty} {dt}~\mbox{e}^{-t\tau}

132: ~\frac{1}{\pi}~\mbox{Im} \psi^H_{P/S}(t),~~~{\mbox {and}}~~~

133: {\cal R}^H_{P/S}(\tau) \equiv -\frac{d}{d\tau} \log {{\cal L}^H_{P/S}(\tau)},

134: \eeq

135: where $t_\leq$ is the hadronic threshold, and H denotes the corresponding meson. The latter sum  rule,

136:  or its slight modification, is useful, as it is equal to the 

137: resonance mass squared, in  

138:  the simple duality ansatz parametrization of the spectral function:

139: \beq

140: \frac{1}{\pi}\mbox{ Im}\psi^H_P(t)\simeq f^2_DM_D^4\delta(t-M^2_D)

141:  \ + \ 

142:  ``\mbox{QCD continuum}" \Theta (t-t_c),

143: \eeq

144: where the ``QCD continuum comes from the discontinuity of the QCD

145: diagrams, which is expected to give a good smearing of the

146: different radial excitations \footnote{At

147: the optimization scale, its effect is negligible, such that a more

148: involved parametrization is not necessary.}. The decay constant $f_D$ is

149: analogous to $f_\pi=130.6$ MeV;

150: $t_c$ is the QCD continuum threshold, which is, like the 

151: sum rule variable $\tau$, an  (a priori) arbitrary 

152: parameter. In this

153: paper, we shall impose the

154: $\tau$- and $t_c$-stability criteria for extracting our optimal

155: results. The corresponding $t_c$ value also agrees with the FESR duality constraints \cite{RAF,SNB} and very roughly indicates

156: the position of the next radial excitations. However, in order to have a conservative result, we take a largest range of $t_c$ from the

157: beginning of $\tau$- to the one of $t_c$-stabilities. \\

158: The QCD expression of the correlator

159: is well-known to two-loop accuracy

160: (see e.g. \cite{SNB} and the explicit expressions given in \cite{SNC,SNFB}),

161: in terms  of the perturbative pole mass $M_Q$, and including the non-perturbative

162: condensates of dimensions less than or equal to six

163: \footnote{We shall

164: include the negligible contribution from the dimension six four-quark condensates, while we shall neglect an eventual

165: tachyonic gluon mass correction term found to be negligible in some other channels  \cite{ZAK}. }. For a

166: pedagocial presentation, we write the sum rule in the chiral limit ($m_s=0$), where the expression 

167: is more compact. In this way,  one can understand qualitatively the source of the mass splittings. The sum rule reads

168: to order $\alpha_s$:

169: \bea

170: {\cal L}^H_{P/S}(\tau)

171: &=& M^2_Q\Bigg{\{}\int_{M^2_Q}^{\infty} {dt}~\mbox{e}^{-t\tau}~\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\Bigg{[} 3 t(1-x)^2\Big{[}

172: 1+\frac{4}{3}\as f(x)\Big{]}+{\cal O}(\alpha_s^2) \Bigg{]}\nnb\\

173: &&~\,\, +C_4\la O_4\ra_{P/S} +\tau C_6\la

174: O_6\ra_{P/S}~\mbox{e}^{-M^2_Q\tau}\Bigg{\}}~,

175: \eea

176: The different terms are \footnote{Notice a missprint in the expression given in \cite{SNSP,SNC}

177: which does not affect the result obtained there.}:

178: \bea

179: x&\equiv& M^2_Q/t,\nnb\\

180: f(x)&=&\frac{9}{4}+2\rm{Li}_2(x)+\log x \log (1-x)-\frac{3}{2}\log (1/x-1)\nnb\\

181: & & -\log (1-x)+ x\log (1/x-1)-(x/(1-x))\log x, \nnb\\

182: C_4\la O_4\ra_{P/S}&=&\mp M_Q\la \bar dd\ra~\mbox{e}^{-M^2_Q\tau} +\la \als G^2\ra\ga {3\over 2}-M_Q^2\tau\dr/12\pi\nnb\\

183: C_6\la O_6\ra_{P/S}&=&\mp\frac{M_Q}{2}\ga 1-\frac{M^2_Q\tau}{2}\dr

184: g\la\bar d\sigma_{\mu\nu}\frac{\lambda_a}{2}G_a^{\mu\nu}d\ra

185: \\ &&-\ga\frac{8\pi}{27}\dr\ga 2-\frac{M^2_Q\tau}{2}-\frac{M^4_Q\tau^2}{6}\dr\rho\als \la \bar

186: \psi\psi\ra^2~,

187: \eea

188: where we have used the contribution of the gluon condensate given in \cite{GEN}, which is IR finite

189: when letting $m_q\rar 0$ \footnote{The numerical change is negligible compared with the original expression obtained in \cite{NOVIKOV}.}.

190: The previous sum rules can be expressed in terms of the running mass $\bar{m}_Q(\nu)$

191: %\footnote{It is clear that, for the non-perturbative terms which are known to leading order

192: %of perturbation theory, one can use either the running or the pole mass. However~, we shall see

193: %that this distinction

194: %does not affect notably the present result.},

195:  through the perturbative  two-loop relation \cite{TARRACH}:

196: \bea\label{relation}

197: M_{Q}&=&\bar m_Q(p^2)\Bigg{[}1+\ga\frac{4}{3}+\ln{\frac{p^2}{M_Q^2}}\dr\as

198: +{\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)\Bigg{]}~,

199: \eea 

200: where $M_Q$ is the pole mass. 

201: Throughout this paper we

202: shall use the values of the QCD parameters given in Table 1. 

203: \begin{table}[H]

204: \begin{center}

205: % space before first and after last column: 1.5pc

206: % space between columns: 3.0pc (twice the above)

207: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{.28pc}

208: % -----------------------------------------------------

209: % adapted from TeX book, p. 241

210: \newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 1.5}

211: %\catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}

212: % -----------------------------------------------------

213: \caption{QCD input parameters used in the analysis.}

214: %\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}rrrrr}

215: \begin{tabular}{ll}

216: \\

217: \\

218: \hline 

219: %\hline

220:   \\

221: Parameters& References\\

222: \\

223: \hline 

224: \\

225: $\Lambda_4=(325\pm  43)$ MeV&\cite{SNB}\\

226: $\Lambda_5=(225\pm 30)$ MeV&\cite{SNB}\\

227: $\bar m_b(m_b)=(4.24\pm 0.06)$ GeV&\cite{SNB,QMASS,SNC,HEAVYQUARK}\\

228: $\bar m_s(2~{\rm GeV})= (111\pm 22)$ MeV&\cite{SNB,QMASS,SNMS,JAMINA}\\

229: %$\bar m_c(m_c)=(1.23\pm 0.05)$ GeV&\cite{SNB,QMASS,SNC}\\

230: $\la \bar dd\ra^{1/3}$(2 GeV)=$-(243\pm 14)$ MeV&\cite{SNB,QMASS,DOSCHSN}\\

231: $\la \bar ss\ra /\la \bar dd\ra=0.8\pm 0.1$&\cite{SNB,SNP2}\\

232: $\la \alpha_s G^2\ra=(0.07\pm 0.01)$ GeV$^4$&\cite{SNB,SNG}\\

233: $M^2_0=(0.8\pm 0.1)$ GeV$^2$&\cite{SNB,SNSP}\\

234: $\alpha_s\la\bar\psi\psi\ra^2=(5.8\pm 2.4)\times 10^{-4}~$GeV$^6$&\cite{SNB,SNG,LNT}\\

235: %&\\

236: \\

237: \hline 

238: %\hline

239: \end{tabular}

240: \end{center}

241: \end{table}

242: \nin

243: We have used for the mixed condensate the

244: parametrization:

245: \bea

246: g\la\bar d\sigma_{\mu\nu}\frac{\lambda_a}{2}G_a^{\mu\nu}d\ra&=&M^2_0\la\bar dd\ra,

247: \eea

248: and deduced the value of the QCD scale $\Lambda$ from the value of $\alpha_s(M_Z)=(0.1184\pm 0.031)$

249: \cite{PDG,BETHKE}. We have taken the mean value of $m_s$ from recent reviews \cite{SNB,QMASS,JAMINA}.

250: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

251: \section{Calibration of the sum rule from the $D(0^-)$ and $D_s(0^-)$ masses

252: and re-estimate of $\bar m_c(m_c)$}

253: \begin{figure*}[hbt]

254: \begin{center}

255: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{mdsa.eps}

256: \includegraphics[width=6cm]{mdsb.eps}

257: \caption{$\tau$ in GeV$^{-2}$-dependence of the a) $M_D(0^-)$ in GeV for $\bar m_c(m_c)=1.11$ GeV and b) $M_{D_s(0^-)}$ in GeV for $\bar

258: m_c(m_c)=1.15$ GeV at a given value of $t_c=7.5$ GeV$^2$. The dashed line is the result including the leading

259: $\la \bar \psi\psi\ra$ contribution. The full line is the one including non-perturbative effects up to dimension-six.} 

260: \end{center}

261: \end{figure*}

262: \nin

263: This analysis has been already done in previous papers to order $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_s^2$ and has served to fix the running charm quark

264: mass. We repeat this analysis here to order $\alpha_s$ for a pedagogical purpose. We show in Fig. 1a), the $\tau$-dependence of the $D(0^-)$

265: and in Fig 1b) the one of the

266: $D_s(0^-)$ masses for a given value of $t_c$, which is the central value of the range:

267: \beq

268: t_c=(7.5\pm 1.5)~{\rm GeV}^2~,

269: \eeq

270: where the lowest value corresponds to  the beginning of $\tau$-stablity  and the highest one to the beginning of $t_c$ stability obtained by 

271: \cite{SNC,SNFB,SNB} in the analysis of $f_D$ and $f_{D_s}$. This range of $t_c$-values covers the different choices of $t_c$ used in the sum

272: rule literature. As mentioned previously, the one of the beginning of $t_c$-stability co\"\i ncides, in general, with the value obtained

273: from FESR local duality constraints \cite{RAF,SNB}. Using the input values of QCD parameters in Table 1,  the best fits of

274: $D(0^-)$ (resp.

275: $D_s(0^-))$ masses for a given value of

276: $t_c=7.5$ GeV$^2$ correspond to a value of $\bar m_c(m_c)$ of 1.11 (resp. 1.15) GeV. Taking the mean value as an estimate, one can deduce:

277: \beq\label{cmass}

278: \bar m_c(m_c^2)=(1.13^{+0.07}_{- 0.02}\pm 0.02\pm 0.02\pm 0.02)~{\rm GeV}~,

279: \eeq

280: where the errors come respectively from $t_c$, $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$, $\Lambda$ and the mean value of $m_c$

281: required from fitting the 

282: $D(0^-)$ and $D_s(0^-)$ masses. 

283: This value is perfectly consistent with the one obtained in  \cite{SNC,SNFB} obtained to the same order and to order $\alpha_s^2$,

284: indicating that, though the $\alpha_s^2$ corrections are both large in the two-point function and $m_c$ \cite{CHET2}, it does not affect

285: much the final result from the sum rule analysis. In fact, higher corrections tend mainly to shift the

286: position of the stability regions but affect slightly the output value of $m_c$. This value of

287: $m_c$ is in the range of the current average value

288: $(1.23\pm 0.05)$ GeV reviewed in \cite{SNB,QMASS,PDG}. However, it does not favour higher values of $m_c$ allowed in some other channels and

289: by some non relativistic sum rules and approaches. However, these non relativistic approaches might be quite inaccurate due to

290: the relative smallness of the charm quark mass. Higher values of $m_c$ would lead to an overestimate of the

291: $D(0^-)$ and $D_s(0^-)$ masses.  In the following analysis, we shall use the central value $\bar m_c(m_c)=1.11$ (resp. 1.15) GeV for the

292: non-strange (resp. strange) meson channels.

293: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

294: \section{The $0^+-0^-$ meson mass-splittings}

295: \begin{figure}[hbt]

296: \begin{center}

297: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{mdss.eps}

298: \caption{Similar to Fig. 1 but $\tau$-behaviour of $M_{D_s(0^+)}$ for given values of  $t_c=7.5$ GeV$^2$ and $m_c(m_c)=1.15$ GeV.} 

299: \end{center}

300: \end{figure}

301: \nin

302: \begin{itemize}

303: \item We study in Fig. 2), the $\tau$-dependence of the $D_s(0^+)$ mass at the values of $t_c$ and $m_c$ obtained

304: previously.  In this way, we obtain:

305: \beq\label{eq: dssp}

306: M_{D_s{(0^+)}}\simeq (2297^{+81+63}_{- 98-70}\pm 11\pm 2\pm 11)~{\rm MeV}~~~~~\lrar~~~~~ M_{D_s{(0^+)}}-M_{D_s{(0^-)}} = (328\pm 113)~{\rm MeV}~,

307: \eeq

308: where the errors come respectively from $t_c$, $m_c$, $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$, $m_s$, and $\Lambda$. 

309: We have used the experimental value of $M_{D_s{(0^-)}}$.

310:  The reduction of the theoretical error needs

311: precise values of the continuum threshold  \footnote{The range of $t_c$ values 6-9 GeV$^2$ obtained previously for the $D(0^-)$ mesons

312: co\"\i ncides a posteriori with the corresponding range for the $D(0^+)$ meson if one assumes that the splitting between the radial

313: excitations is the same as the one between the ground states, i.e about 300 MeV. We have cheked during the analysis that this effect is

314: unimportant and is inside the large error induced by the range of $t_c$ used.} and of the charm quark mass which are not within the present

315: reach of the estimate of these quantities. Further discoveries of the continuum states will reduce the present error in the splitting. One

316: should also notice that in the ratio of sum rules with which we are working, we expect that perturbative radiative corrections are

317: minimized though individually large in the expression of the correlator and of the quark mass.

318: \item 

319: The value of the mass-splittings obtained previously is comparable with the one of the $B(0^+)$-$B(0^-)$ given in Eq. (\ref{eq:

320: bsplit}), and suggests an approximate heavy-flavour symmetry of this observable.

321: \item

322: We also derive the result in the limit of $SU(3)_F$ symmetry where the strange quark

323: mass is put to zero, and where the $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$ condensate is chirally symmetric ($\la\bar

324: ss\ra=\la\bar dd\ra$). In this case, one can predict an approximate degenerate mass within the errors:

325: \beq\label{eq: su3split}

326: M_{D_s{(0^+)}}-M_{D{(0^+)}}\simeq 25 ~{\rm MeV}~,

327: \eeq

328: which indicates that the mass-splitting between the strange and non-strange $0^+$ 

329: open charm mesons is almost not affected by $SU(3)$ breakings, contrary to the case of the $0^-$ mesons with a splitting of about 100 MeV. 

330: \item We extend the analysis to the case of the $B(0^+)$ meson. Here, it is more informative to predict the ratio of the $0^+$ over the $0^-$

331: masses as the prediction on the absolute values though presenting stability in $\tau$ tend to overestimate the value of $M_B$. We obtain:

332: \beq\label{eq: bsplit2}

333: {M_{B{(0^+)}}\over M_{B{(0^-)}}}\simeq (1.08\pm 0.03\pm 0.03\pm 0.02\pm 0.02)~~~~~~

334: \lrar~~~~~~M_{B{(0^+)}}-M_{B{(0^-)}}\simeq (422\pm 196) ~{\rm MeV}~, 

335: \eeq

336: where the errors come respectively from $t_c$ taken in the range $43-60$ GeV$^2$, $m_b$, $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$, and $\tau$. It

337: agrees with the result in Eq. (\ref{eq: bsplit}) obtained from moment sum rules \cite{SNSP}. We have used the value of $\bar

338: m_b(m_b)$  given in Table 1.

339: \end{itemize}

340: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

341: \section{The $1^+-1^-$ meson mass-splitting}

342: Our previous results in Eqs. (\ref{eq: bsplit}), (\ref{eq: dssp}) to (\ref{eq: bsplit2}) suggest that the mass-splittings are approximately

343:  (heavy and light) flavour and spin independent. Therefore, one can write to a good approximation the empirical relation:

344: \beq\label{eq: emp}

345: M_{D_s{(0^+)}}-M_{D_s{(0^-)}}\approx M_{D{(0^+)}}-M_{D{(0^-)}}\approx M_{B{(0^+)}}-M_{B{(0^-)}}\approx 

346: M_{B{(1^+)}}-M_{B{(1^-)}}\approx M_{D^*_s{(1^+)}}-M_{D^*_s{(1^-)}}~.

347: \eeq

348: Using the most precise number given in Eq. (\ref{eq: dssp}), one can deduce:

349: \beq\label{eq: 1split}

350: M_{D^*_s{(1^+)}}-M_{D^*_s{(1^-)}}\simeq  (328\pm 113)~{\rm

351: MeV}~~~~~\lrar~~~~~M_{D^*_s{(1^+)}}\simeq (2440\pm 113)~{\rm MeV}~.

352: \eeq

353: This result is consistent with the $1^+$ assignement of the $\bar cs$ meson $D_{sJ}(2457)$ discovered recently \cite{BONDI}. In a future work, we

354: plan to study in details this spin one channel using QSSR.

355: 

356: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

357: \section{The $D(0^+)$ and $D_s(0^+)$  decay constants}

358: \begin{figure}[hbt]

359: \begin{center}

360: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fds.eps}

361: \caption{ Similar to Fig. 1 but $\tau$-behaviour of $f_D(0^+)$ for given values of  $t_c=7.5$ GeV$^2$ and $\bar m_c(m_c)=1.11$ GeV.} 

362: \end{center}

363: \end{figure}

364: \nin

365: For completing our analysis, we estimate the decay constant $f_{D(0^+)}$ analogue to $f_\pi=130.6$ MeV.

366: We show the behaviour of $f_{D(0^+)}$ versus $\tau$, where a goood stablity is

367: obtained. Adopting the range of $t_c$-values obtained previously and using $\bar m_c(m_c)=1.11^{+0.08}_{-0.04}$ GeV required for a best fit of

368: the non strange $D(0^+)$ meson mass,

369: we deduce to two-loop accuracy:

370: \beq\label{eq: fdplus}

371: f_{D(0^+)}=(217^{+5+15}_{-15-19} \pm 10\pm 10)~{\rm MeV}~,

372: \eeq

373: where the errors come respectively from the values of $t_c$, $m_c$, $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$ and $\Lambda$. We have

374: fixed

375: $M_{D(0+)}$ to be about 2272 MeV from our previous fit. It is informative to compare this result with the one of $f_{D}=(205\pm

376: 20)$ MeV, where the main difference can be attributed by the sign flip of the quark condensate contribution in the QCD expression

377: of the corresponding correlators. A numerical study of the $SU(3)$ breaking effect leads to:

378: \beq\label{decay1}

379: r_s\equiv\frac{f_{D_s(0^+)}}{f_{D(0^+)}}\simeq 0.93\pm 0.02~,

380: \eeq

381: which is reverse to the analogous ratio in the pseudoscalar channel $f_{D_s}/f_D\simeq 1.14\pm 0.04$ given semi-analytically in

382: \cite{SNFBS}. In order to understand this result, we give a semi-analytic parametrization of this $SU(3)$ breaking ratio. Keeping

383: the leading term in $m_s$ and $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$, one obtains:

384: \beq\label{decay2}

385: r_s\simeq \ga 1-{m_s\over m_c}\dr\Big{[} 1-7.5\la \bar ss-\bar dd\ra\Big{]}^{1/2}\ga{M_{D_s(0^+)}\over M_{D(0^+)}}\dr^2\simeq 0.9~,

386: \eeq

387: where the main effect comes from the negative sign of the $m_s$ contribution in the overall normalization of the scalar current,

388: while the meson mass ratio does not compensate this effect because of the almost equal mass of $D_s(0^+)$ and $D(0^+)$ obtained in

389: previous analysis. This feature is opposite to the case of $f_{D(0^-)}$.

390: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

391: \section{Summary and conclusions}

392: Due to the experimental recent discovery of the $D_{sJ}(2317)$ and $D^*_{sJ}(2457)$, we have analyzed using QSSR the dynamics of the $0^\pm$

393: and

394: $1^\pm$ open charm and beauty meson channels: 

395: \begin{itemize}

396: \item We have re-estimated the running charm quark mass from the $D$ and $D_s$ mesons. The result in Eq. (\ref{cmass}) confirms earlier

397: results obtained to two- and three-loop accuracies \cite{SNFB,SNC}.

398: \item We have studied the mass-splittings of the

399: $0^+$-$0^-$ in the

400: $D$ systems using QSSR. Our result in the $(0^+)$ channel given in Eq. (\ref{eq: dssp}) agrees with the

401: recent experimental findings of the $D_{sJ}(2317)$ suggesting that this state is a good candidate for being a $\bar cs$ $0^+$ meson.

402: \item We also found, in Eq. (\ref{eq: su3split}), that the $SU(3)$ breaking responsible of the mass-splitting between the $D_s(0^+)$ and

403: $D(0^-)$ is small of about 25 MeV

404:  contrary to the case of the pseudoscalar $D_s$-$D$ mesons of about 100 MeV. 

405: \item We have

406: extended our analysis to the $B$-system. Our results in Eqs. (\ref{eq: dssp}), (\ref{eq: bsplit2}) and (\ref{eq: bsplit}) suggest an

407: approximate (light and heavy) flavour and spin symmetries of the meson mass-splittings. We use this result to get the mass of the $\bar

408: cs~D^*_s(1^+)$ meson in Eq. (\ref{eq: 1split}), which is in (surprising) good agreement with the observed

409: $D^*_{sJ}(2457)$. 

410: \item Using QSSR, we have also determined the decay constants of the $0^+$ mesons and compare them

411: with the ones of the

412: $0^-$ states. The result in Eq. (\ref{eq: fdplus}), which is similar to

413: the pseudoscalar decay constant $f_D\simeq 205$ MeV, suggests a huge violation of the heavy quark symmetry $1/\sqrt{M_D}$ scaling law.

414: Finally, our results in Eqs. (\ref{decay1}) and (\ref{decay2}) indicate that the $SU(3)$ breaking act in an opposite way compared to the case

415: of the $0^-$ channels.

416: \end{itemize}

417: Experimental or/and lattice measurements of the previous predictions are useful for testing the validity of the results

418: obtained to two-loop accuracy in this paper from QCD spectral sum rules. However, a complete confirmation of the nature of these new states

419: needs a detail study of their production and decays. We plan to come back to these points in a future work.\\

420: \\

421: During the editorial preparation of this paper, there appears in the literature a paper using sum rules method to

422: the same channel [25]. Instead of our result in Eq. (13): $M_{D_s(0+)}=(2297\pm 113)$ MeV, the authors obtain

423: $M_{D_s(0+)}=(2480\pm 30)$ MeV which is higher than the BABAR result $D_s(2317)$ by about 160 MeV. Considering

424: this deviation as significant, the authors conclude that the experimental candidate cannot be a $\bar cs$ state

425: contrary to the conclusion reached in the present paper. However, by scrutinizing the analysis of Ref. [25], we find that the true

426: errors of the analysis have been underestimated:\\

427: $\b$ As one can see from their

428: figures, the quoted error of 30 MeV only takes into account the one due to

429: the choice of the QCD contiuum threshold taken in a smaller range 8.1-9.3 GeV$^2$, than the more

430: conservative value 6-9 GeV$^2$ used in the present paper, which induces a larger error of 80-98 MeV. \\

431: $\b$ The high central value obtained in [25] is related to a higher choice of the (ill-defined) charm quark pole

432: mass of 1.46 GeV compared to the value 1.3 GeV which would have been deduced from its relation with the running charm quark mass 1.15

433: GeV in Eq. (9) used in this paper to reproduce the $D_s(0^-)$ mass. As the analysis is very sensitive to $m_c$, its induced error should be

434: included in the final number. With $m_c$ in Eq. (12), this uncertainty is about 70 MeV, and might be bigger if one considers

435: all range of $m_c$ given in the literature. In this paper, we have used $M_D$ and$M_{D_s}$ as alternative channels for extracting $m_c$.\\

436: $\b$ Taking properly the different sources of errors including the running of condensate and the effects of some

437: other anomalous dimensions, one then leads to a consistency within the errors of both theoretical estimates with the

438: present data.

439: 

440: %\vfill\eject

441: %\input{bibi}

442: %

443: 

444: \begin{thebibliography}{999}

445: \bibitem{SNC} S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 520} (2001) 115.

446: \bibitem{SNSP}

447: S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 210} (1988) 238.

448: \bibitem{BONDI}For a review see e.g., M. Bondioli, for the BABAR Collaboration, {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf B 133} (2004) 133  and

449: references therein.

450: \bibitem{SVZ}

451: M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 147}

452: (1979) 385, 448. 

453: \bibitem{SNB}For a review and references to original works, see e.g., S. Narison, {\it QCD as a theory of hadrons,

454: Cambridge Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol.} {\bf 17} (2002) 1-778 [HEP-PH 0205006]; {\it QCD

455: spectral sum rules ,  World Sci. Lect. Notes Phys.} {\bf 26} (1989) 1-527;

456: {\it Acta Phys. Pol.} {\bf 26} (1995) 687; {\it Riv. Nuov. Cim.} {\bf 10N2} (1987) 1; {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 84}

457: (1982).   

458: \bibitem{SNFB} see e.g.: S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 198} (1987) 104; {\it Phys. Lett.}

459: {\bf B 322} (1994) 247; {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf B 74} (1999) 304.

460:  \bibitem{SNM} see e.g.: S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 341} (1994) 73; {\bf B 216} (1989)

461: 191.

462: \bibitem{QMASS} see e.g., S. Narison,  [HEP-PH 0202200]; {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc.

463: Suppl.)} {\bf B 86} (2000) 242.

464: \bibitem{RAF}R.A. Bertlmann, G. Launer and E. de Rafael, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 250} (1985) 61.

465: \bibitem{ZAK}

466: F.V. Gubarev, M.I. Polikarpov and V.I. Zakharov, 

467: {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf B 86}

468: (2000) 457;

469: V.I. Zakharov, 

470: {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf B 74}

471: (1999) 392; K. Chetyrkin, S. Narison and V.I. Zakharov, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 550} (1999) 353.

472: \bibitem{GEN}S. Generalis, {\it J. Phys.} {\bf G 16} (1990) 367; M. Jamin and M. M\"unz, {\it  Z. Phys.}

473: {\bf C 60} (1993) 569.

474: \bibitem{NOVIKOV} V.A. Novikov et al, Neutrino 1978 Conference, Purdue Univ. 1978.

475: \bibitem{TARRACH} R. Tarrach, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 183} (1981) 384;

476: \bibitem{HEAVYQUARK}S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 197} (1987) 405;

477: {\bf B 216} (1989) 191.

478: \bibitem{SNMS}S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 466} (1999) 345; {\bf B 358} (1995)

479: 113.

480: \bibitem{JAMINA} see e.g. M. Jamin, talk given at QCD 03, 2-9th July 2003, Montpellier-FR.

481: \bibitem{DOSCHSN}H.G. Dosch and S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 417} (1998) 173. 

482: \bibitem{SNP2}S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 216} (1989) 191; S. Narison et al., {\it

483: Nuovo. Cim} {\bf A 74} (1983) 347.

484: \bibitem{SNG}S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 361} (1995) 121;

485: {\bf B 387} (1996) 162.

486: \bibitem{LNT} G. Launer et al., {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C 26} (1984) 433.

487: \bibitem{PDG}PDG 2002, K. Hagiwara et al., {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 66} (2002) 010001.

488: \bibitem{BETHKE}S. Bethke, 

489: {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf B, A 54} (1997);

490: hep-ex/0004021.

491: \bibitem{CHET2}K.G. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C 21} (2001) 319 and references therein; 

492: K.~Melnikov and T.~van~Ritbergen, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 482} (2000) 99.

493: \bibitem{SNFBS} S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 322} (1994) 247.

494: \bibitem{JAPS}A. Hayashigaki and K. Terasaki, hep-ph/0411285.

495: \end{thebibliography}

496: \end{document}

497: