1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: %\usepackage{axodraw,a4wide,epsfig}
3: \usepackage{a4wide,epsfig}
4:
5: \voffset0cm
6: \hoffset0cm
7: \oddsidemargin0cm
8: \evensidemargin0cm
9: \topmargin0cm
10: \textwidth16.5cm
11: \textheight22cm
12: \setlength{\arraycolsep}{0.5mm}
13:
14: \newcommand{\logminus}{\ln\left(2-z^{\beta_0}\right)}
15: \newcommand{\betnull}{\beta_0}
16: \newcommand{\mrM}{\mu_r}
17: \newcommand{\arccot}{\mathop{\mbox{arccot}}\nolimits}
18: \newcommand{\bfm}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}
19: \newcommand{\bff}[1]{\mbox{\scriptsize\boldmath${#1}$}}
20:
21: \def\als{\alpha_{\rm s}}
22: \newcommand{\cf}{C_F}
23:
24: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
25: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
26: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
27: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
28: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
29: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
30: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
31: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
32:
33: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
34: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
35: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
36:
37: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
38:
39: \begin{document}
40:
41: \title{\vskip-3cm{\baselineskip14pt
42: \centerline{\normalsize DESY 04-042\hfill}
43: \centerline{\normalsize TTP04-06 \hfill}
44: \centerline{\normalsize UB-ECM-PF-04-05 \hfill}
45: %\centerline{\normalsize hep-ph/0403080\hfill}
46: %\centerline{\normalsize January 2004\hfill}
47: }
48: \vskip1.5cm
49: $M(B^*_c)-M(B_c)$ Splitting from Nonrelativistic Renormalization Group}
50: \author{A.A. Penin$^{a,b}$, A. Pineda$^c$,
51: V.A. Smirnov$^{d,e}$, M. Steinhauser$^e$\\
52: {\small\it $^a$ Institut f{\"u}r Theoretische Teilchenphysik,
53: Universit{\"a}t Karlsruhe, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany}\\
54: {\small\it $^b$ Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Sciences,
55: %60th October Anniversary Prospect 7a,
56: 117312 Moscow, Russia}\\
57: {\small\it $^c$ Dept. d'Estructura i Constituents de la Mat\`eria,
58: U. Barcelona,
59: %Diagonal 647,
60: E-08028 Barcelona,
61: %Catalonia,
62: Spain}\\
63: {\small\it $^d$ Institute for Nuclear Physics, Moscow State
64: University, 119992 Moscow, Russia}\\
65: {\small\it $^e$ II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg,
66: %Luruper Chaussee 149,
67: 22761 Hamburg, Germany}}
68:
69: \date{}
70:
71: \maketitle
72:
73: \thispagestyle{empty}
74:
75: \begin{abstract}
76: We compute the hyperfine splitting in a heavy quarkonium composed of different
77: flavors in next-to-leading logarithmic approximation using the nonrelativistic
78: renormalization group. We predict the mass difference of the vector and
79: pseudoscalar charm-bottom mesons to be $M(B^*_c)-M(B_c)=50 \pm 17\,{(\rm
80: th)}\,{}^{+15}_{-12}\,(\delta\alpha_s)$~MeV.
81: \medskip
82:
83: \noindent
84: PACS numbers: 12.38.Bx, 14.65.Fy, 14.65.Ha
85: \end{abstract}
86:
87: %\newpage
88:
89: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
90:
91: \section{Introduction}
92:
93: The recently discovered charm-bottom heavy quarkonium completes the well
94: investigated charmonium and bottomonium families and offers a new perspective
95: in the study of the nonrelativistic dynamics of the strong interactions. The
96: first experimental observation of about twenty events interpreted as the
97: decays of the $B_c$ meson by CDF collaboration \cite{Abe} does not match the
98: precision of the spin one charmonium and bottomonium measurements. The
99: statistics, however, is expected to increase significantly in future
100: experiments at Tevatron and LHC greatly improving the accuracy of the
101: data. Note that only the pseudoscalar (spin singlet) state has been observed
102: so far while the vector (spin triplet) meson $B_c^*$ is still to be
103: discovered. This distinguishes $c\bar b$ quarkonium from the $b\bar b$ system,
104: where it is the pseudoscalar $\eta_b$ meson, which asks for experimental
105: detection.
106:
107: From the theoretical point of view, the charm-bottom mesons are ``in between''
108: the approximately Coulomb $b\bar b$ mesons and the $c\bar c$
109: mesons. Therefore, a simultaneous analysis of all three quarkonia could shed
110: new light on the balance between the perturbative and nonperturbative effects
111: and further check whether a perturbative analysis provides a reliable starting
112: point for them. Moreover, since the nonperturbative effects in the $c\bar b$
113: system are suppressed with respect to the $c\bar c$ meson, the former could be
114: a cleaner place to determine the charm quark mass (provided the experimental
115: accuracy is good enough). Another point to be stressed is that, though the
116: leading order dynamics of the $c\bar b$ state is quite similar to the $b\bar
117: b$ and $c\bar c$ one (up to the value of the reduced mass) the higher order
118: relativistic and perturbative corrections are different. Thus the comparison
119: of $c\bar b$ and $b\bar b$ ($c\bar c$) properties could help to establish fine
120: details of the nonrelativistic dynamics.
121:
122: The spectrum of the charm-bottom quarkonium has been subject of numerous
123: investigations based on potential models
124: \cite{Eichten:1994gt,Gershtein:1994jw}, lattice simulations \cite{Sha}, and
125: pNRQCD \cite{BraVai}. This last analysis computed the ground state energy
126: within a pure perturbative approach. We consider that this analysis further
127: indicates that a perturbative approach can be a good starting point for
128: studing the $B_c$ system.
129:
130: In the present paper we focus on the hyperfine splitting (HFS) $E_{\rm hfs}$
131: of the $B_c$, {\it i.e.} the mass difference between the singlet and triplet
132: spin states $M(B^*_c)-M(B_c)$. The QCD study of the heavy quarkonium HFS has a
133: long history \cite{BucNg,recent}. For the same-flavor quarkonium the
134: next-to-leading order (NLO) ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ correction to the ground
135: state HFS can be found in \cite{PenSte} in a closed analytical form. The
136: leading order HFS is proportional to the fourth power of the strong coupling
137: constant $\alpha_s(\nu)$ and thus the low order calculations suffer from
138: strong spurious dependence on the renormalization scale $\nu$, which
139: essentially limits the numerical accuracy of the approximation. Hence, the
140: proper fixing of the normalization scale becomes mandatory for the HFS
141: phenomenology. The dynamics of the nonrelativistic bound state, however, is
142: characterized by three well separated scales: the hard scale of the heavy
143: quark mass $m$, the soft scale of the bound state momentum $mv$, and the
144: ultrasoft scale of the bound state energy $mv^2$, where $v\propto\alpha_s$ is
145: the velocity of the heavy quark inside the approximately Coulomb bound state.
146: To make the procedure of scale fixing self-consistent one has to resum to all
147: orders the large logarithms of the scale ratios. For the same-flavor case
148: this problem has been solved in Ref.~\cite{KPPSS} within the nonrelativistic
149: renormalization group (NRG) approach and the next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL)
150: result for HFS has been derived. The renormalization group improved result
151: shows better stability with respect to the scale variation. Moreover, the use
152: of the NRG significantly improves the agreement with the experimental value of
153: HFS in charmonium in comparison to the NLO computation. Below we generalize
154: the analysis to the different-flavor quarkonium case and apply the result to
155: predict the splitting $M(B^*_c)-M(B_c)$.
156:
157: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
158:
159: \section{Renormalization group running of the spin dependent potential}
160:
161: To derive the NRG equations necessary for the NLL analysis of the HFS, we rely
162: on the method based on the formulation of the nonrelativistic effective theory
163: \cite{CasLep} known as potential NRQCD (pNRQCD) \cite{PinSot1}. The method was
164: developed in Ref.~\cite{Pin} where, in particular, the leading logarithmic
165: (LL) result for HFS has been obtained (see also Ref.~\cite{HMS}). In pNRQCD
166: the HFS is generated by the spin-flip potential in the effective Hamiltonian,
167: which in momentum space has the form
168: \be
169: \delta {\cal H}_{\rm spin} = D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}{4C_F\pi\over 3m_1m_2}\bfm{S}^2,
170: \qquad {\bfm S}={{\bfm \sigma}_1+{\bfm \sigma}_2\over 2}\,,
171: \label{pot}
172: \ee
173: where ${\bfm \sigma}_{1}$ and ${\bfm \sigma}_{2}$ are the spin operators of
174: the quark and antiquark with masses $m_1$ and $m_2$,
175: $C_F=(N_c^2-1)/(2N_c)$, and $D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}$ is the Wilson coefficient, which
176: incorporates the effects of the modes that have been integrated out. In
177: effective theory calculations such couplings become singular as a result of
178: the scale separation. The renormalization of these singularities allows one
179: to derive the equations of the NRG,
180: which describe the running of the effective-theory couplings, {\it i.e.} their
181: dependence on the effective-theory cutoffs. The solution of these equations
182: sums up the logarithms of the scale ratios.
183:
184: In general, one should consider
185: the soft, potential and ultrasoft running of $D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}$
186: corresponding to the ultraviolet
187: divergences of the soft, potential, and ultrasoft regions \cite{BenSmi}. We
188: denote the corresponding cutoffs as $\nu_s$, $\nu_p$ and $\nu_{us}$,
189: respectively. $\nu_{us}$ and $\nu_{p}$ are correlated as was first realized in Ref. \cite{LMR}.
190: A natural relation between them is
191: $\nu_{us}=\nu_p^2/(2m_r)$, where $m_r=m_1m_2/(m_1+m_2)$ is the reduced mass.
192: The dependence on $\nu_s$ first emerges
193: in the LL approximation after integrating out the hard modes.
194: It disappears after subsequent integrating out the soft modes
195: giving rise to a dependence on $k$, the
196: three-dimensional momentum transfer between the quark and antiquark.
197: Thus the soft running effectively stops at $\nu_s=k$.
198: The dependence on $\nu_p$ emerges for the first time in the NLL approximation
199: and cancels out in the time-independent Schr\"odinger perturbation
200: theory for heavy quarkonium observables. Thus, in pNRQCD one considers
201: $D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}$ as a function of $k$ and $\nu_p$.
202: For the calculation of the spectrum it is convenient to expand this
203: $k$-dependent potential around $k=\nu_s$
204: \be
205: D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}(k,\nu_p)=D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}(\nu_s,\nu_p)+
206: \ln\left({k\over\nu_s}\right)
207: \nu_s{d \over d\nu_s} D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}(\nu_s,\nu_p)+\ldots
208: \,.
209: \label{momdep}
210: \ee
211: The characteristic momentum for the Coulomb system
212: is $ \alpha_sm_r$ and for $\nu_s\sim \alpha_sm_r$
213: the average of $\ln\left({k/\nu_s}\right)$
214: over bound state wave function does not produce a large logarithm
215: while the derivative in $\ln \nu_s$ results in extra factor of $\alpha_s$.
216: Thus, for the calculation of the HFS in NLL approximation
217: one can take the first term on the right hand side of
218: Eq.~(\ref{momdep}) in the NLL approximation, the second term in the LL
219: approximation and neglect the higher derivative terms.
220:
221:
222: Once expanded, the potential is a function of $\nu_s$ and $\nu_p$ (we should
223: not forget that there is also a dependence on $m_i$, the masses of the heavy
224: quarks, and $\nu_h$, the matching scale of the order of the heavy quark
225: masses). Let us start with the discussion of the soft running. To the NLL
226: approximation it is determined by the following NRG equation
227: \begin{eqnarray}
228: \nu_s {d\over d\nu_s}D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}
229: &=&
230: \alpha_s
231: c_F(m_1)c_F(m_2)\gamma_s
232: \label{Dsoftrun}
233: \,,
234: \end{eqnarray}
235: where $c_F$ is the effective Fermi coupling,
236: \begin{eqnarray}
237: \gamma_s&=&\gamma^{(1)}_s{\alpha_s \over
238: \pi}+
239: \gamma^{(2)}_s{\alpha_s^2 \over \pi^2}+\cdots
240: \end{eqnarray}
241: is the soft anomalous dimension and $\alpha_s = \alpha_s(\nu_s)$ is
242: renormalized in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme. The running of the
243: coefficient $c_F$ is known in NLL
244: approximation \cite{ABN}. It reads
245: \bea
246: c_F(m_i)&=&
247: z^{-{\gamma_0\over 2}}
248: \left[ 1 + \frac{\alpha_s(\nu_h)}{4\pi}
249: \left(c_1+\frac{\gamma_0}{2}\ln\frac{\nu_h^2}{m_i^2}\right)
250: % \right.\nn\\&&\left.\mbox{}
251: + \frac{\alpha_s(\nu_h) - \alpha_s(\nu_s)}{4\pi}\left(
252: \frac{\gamma_1}{2\beta_0} - \frac{\gamma_0\beta_1}{2\beta_0^2}
253: \right) + \dots \right]
254: \,,
255: \nonumber\\
256: \eea
257: where $z=\left(\alpha_s(\nu_s)/\alpha_s(\nu_h)\right)^{1/\beta_0}$,
258: $\nu_h\sim m_i$ is the hard matching scale, $c_1 = 2(C_A+C_F)$
259: and the one- and two-loop anomalous dimensions read~\cite{ABN}
260: \be
261: \gamma_0 = 2 C_A \,, \qquad
262: \gamma_1 = \frac{68}{9}\,C_A^2 - \frac{52}{9}\,C_A T_F\,n_l
263: \,.
264: \ee
265: Here $C_A=N_c$, $T_F=1/2$,
266: $n_l$ is the number of massless quark flavors,
267: and $\beta_i$ is the $(i+1)$-loop
268: coefficient of the QCD $\beta$ function
269: \be
270: \beta_0 = \frac{11}{3}C_A-\frac{4}{3} T_Fn_l\,, \qquad
271: \beta_1 = \frac{34}{3}C_A^2-\frac{20}{3} C_A T_Fn_l - 4C_FT_Fn_l\,.
272: \ee
273: The value of one-loop anomalous dimension
274: \begin{eqnarray}
275: \gamma^{(1)}_s &=& -\frac{\beta_0}{2} + \frac{7}{4}C_A
276: \end{eqnarray}
277: can be extracted from the result of Ref.~\cite{Pin}.
278: The result for the two-loop coefficient
279: \begin{eqnarray}
280: \gamma^{(2)}_s&=&
281: \frac{1}{216}
282: \left[
283: {{C_A}}^2\,\left( 5 - 36\,{\pi }^2 \right) +
284: 88\,{C_A}\,{n_l}\,{T_F} +
285: 4\,{n_l}\,{T_F}\,\left( 27\,{C_F} -
286: 40\,{n_l}\,{T_F} \right)
287: \right]
288: \,,
289: \label{gamma2}
290: \end{eqnarray}
291: is new. It was obtained by an explicit calculation of the subleading
292: singularities of the two-loop soft diagrams using the approach of
293: \cite{PinSot2,CMY,KPSS}. In this approach, dimensional regularization with
294: $D=4-2\varepsilon$ is used to handle the divergences, and the formal
295: expressions derived from the Feynman rules of the effective theory are
296: understood in the sense of the threshold expansion \cite{BenSmi}. Thus the
297: practical calculation reduces to the evaluation of the coefficients of the
298: quadratic and linear soft poles in $\varepsilon$. Our approach possesses two
299: crucial virtues: the absence of additional regulator scales and the automatic
300: matching of the contributions from different scales. For the reduction of the
301: two-loop Feynman integrals to the master ones the method of Ref.~\cite{Bai}
302: was used.
303:
304: The solution of Eq.~(\ref{Dsoftrun}) can be written as a sum of the LL
305: and NLL contributions.
306: The LL result is already known and reads \cite{Pin}
307: (see also \cite{HMS})
308: \be
309: \left(D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}\right)^{LL}=\alpha_s(\nu_h)
310: \left[
311: 1
312: +{2\beta_0-7C_A \over 2\beta_0-4C_A}\left(
313: z^{-2C_A+\beta_0} -1 \right) \right]\,.
314: \label{DLL}
315: \ee
316: For the NLL term we obtain
317: \be
318: \left(\delta D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}\right)^{NLL}_{s}
319: =B_1\alpha_s^2(\nu_h)(z^{-\gamma_0+\beta_0}-1)+
320: B_2\alpha_s^2(\nu_h)(z^{-\gamma_0+2\beta_0}-1)
321: \,,
322: \label{DNLLs}
323: \ee
324: where
325: \bea
326: B_1&=& \frac{
327: {\beta_1}{\gamma_0} -
328: 2 \beta_0^2
329: \left[c_1
330: +{\gamma_0 \over 2}\ln\left(\frac{\nu_h^2}{m_1m_2}\right)\right]
331: - \beta_0\gamma_1}{2
332: {{\beta_0}}^2
333: \left( {\beta_0} - {\gamma_0} \right)
334: \pi } {\gamma^{(1)}_s}
335: \,,
336: \\
337: B_2&=& \frac{
338: - {\beta_1}\,{\gamma_0}\,
339: {\gamma^{(1)}_s} +
340: {\beta_0}\,{\gamma_1}\,
341: {\gamma^{(1)}_s} +
342: {{\beta_0}}\,
343: \left( {\beta_1}\,{\gamma^{(1)}_s} -
344: 4\,\beta_0\,{\gamma^{(2)}_s} \right) }{2\,
345: {{\beta_0}}^2\,
346: \left( 2\,{\beta_0} - {\gamma_0} \right)
347: \,\pi }
348: \,.
349: \eea
350: The potential running starts to contribute in NLL order.
351: To compute it we inspect all operators that lead to spin-dependent
352: ultraviolet divergences in the time-independent perturbation theory
353: contribution with one and two potential loops \cite{Pin,KniPen2,Hil}.
354: They are
355: \begin{itemize}
356: \item[(i)] the ${\cal O}(v^2,\alpha_sv)$ operators
357: \cite{BucNg},
358: \item[(ii)] the tree ${\cal
359: O}(v^4)$ operators, some of which can be checked against the QED analysis
360: \cite{CMY,Pac},
361: \item[(iii)] the one-loop ${\cal O}(\alpha_sv^3)$ operators for which
362: only the Abelian parts are known \cite{CMY}, while the non-Abelian parts
363: are new.
364: \end{itemize}
365: In the NLL approximation, we need the LL soft and ultrasoft running of the
366: ${\cal O}(v^2)$ and ${\cal O}(v^4)$ operators, which enter the two-loop
367: time-independent perturbation theory diagrams, and the NLL soft and ultrasoft
368: running of the ${\cal O}(\alpha_sv)$ and ${\cal O}(\alpha_sv^3)$ operators,
369: which contribute at one loop. The running of the ${\cal O}(v^2,\alpha_sv)$
370: operators is already known within pNRQCD \cite{Pin}. The running of the other
371: operators is new. For some of them, it can be obtained using the
372: reparameterization invariance \cite{Manohar}.
373: We refrain from writing the corresponding system of NRG equations, which
374: is rather lengthy, and only present its solution, which can be cast in the form
375: \bea
376: \left(\delta D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}\right)^{NLL}_{p}&=&
377: \pi \alpha_s^2(\nu_h) \sum_{i=1}^{18} A_i f_i
378: \,,
379: \label{DNLLp}
380: \eea
381: where the coefficients $A_i$ and $f_i$ are given in the Appendix.
382: To get this result we rescale the ultrasoft cutoff to
383: $\nu_{us}=\nu_p^2/\nu_h$. The difference to the
384: previous definition is beyond the NLL accuracy.
385:
386: The LL result~(\ref{DLL}) obeys the tree level matching condition
387: \be
388: \left.\left(D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}\right)^{LL}\right|_{\nu=\nu_h}=
389: \alpha_s(\nu_h) \,,
390: \ee
391: while Eqs.~(\ref{DNLLs}) and~(\ref{DNLLp}) vanish at $\nu=\nu_h$ by
392: construction.
393: We then use the known one-loop result of the potential \cite{BucNg} to obtain the NLO
394: matching condition at the scale $k=\nu_s=\nu_p=\nu_h$. It reads
395: \bea
396: \left(D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}\right)_{\rm 1-loop}&=&
397: \left[
398: -{5 \over 9}T_Fn_l
399: -\frac{5}{36}C_A +C_F+{7 \over 8}C_A\ln\left(\frac{\nu_h^2}{m_1m_2}\right)
400: \right.\nn\\&&
401: \left.
402: -\frac{3}{4}\left(
403: C_F\frac{m_1-m_2}{m_1+m_2}
404: +\frac{1}{2}\left(C_A-2C_F\right)\frac{m_1+m_2}{m_1-m_2}
405: \right)\ln\left(\frac{m_2}{m_1}\right)
406: \right]
407: {\alpha_s^2(\nu_h) \over \pi}
408: \,.
409: \nn\\
410: \label{DNLL1l}
411: \eea
412: Note that in the limit $m_1=m_2\equiv m_q$ this equation does not reproduce
413: the same-flavor equal-mass expression
414: \bea
415: \left(D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}\right)^{q\bar q}_{\rm 1-loop}&=&
416: \left[
417: -{5 \over 9}T_Fn_l+{3 \over 2}(1-\ln 2)T_F+{11C_A-9C_F \over 18}
418: \right.\left.
419: +{7 \over 4}C_A\ln\frac{\nu_h}{m_q}
420: \right]
421: {\alpha_s^2(\nu_h) \over \pi}
422: \,,\nonumber
423: \\
424: \eea
425: because of the two-gluon annihilation contribution present in the latter
426: case.
427:
428: Thus the NLL approximation for the Wilson coefficient is given by the sum
429: \be
430: \left(D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}(\nu)\right)^{NLL}=\left(D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}(\nu)\right)^{LL}+\left(\delta
431: D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}(\nu)\right)^{NLL}_{s}+\left(\delta
432: D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}(\nu)\right)^{NLL}_{p}+\left(D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}\right)^{~}_{\rm
433: 1-loop}
434: \,.
435: \label{Dsum}
436: \ee
437: where $D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}(\nu)\equiv D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}(\nu,\nu)$ and we combine the soft and potential
438: running by setting $\nu_s=\nu_p=\nu$,
439: which is consistent at the order of interest.
440: From Eqs.~(\ref{pot}) and~(\ref{momdep})
441: we obtain the final result for the NLL spin-flip potential
442: \be
443: \delta {\cal H}_{\rm spin} =\left[\left(D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}(\nu)\right)^{NLL}+
444: {\gamma_s^{(1)}\over\pi}\left(\alpha_s^2c_F^2\right)^{LL}\ln\left({k\over\nu}\right)\right]
445: {4C_F\pi\over 3m_1m_2}\bfm{S}^2
446: \,.
447: \label{finpot}
448: \ee
449:
450: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
451:
452: \section{Hyperfine splitting in NLL approximation}
453: We are now in the position to derive the
454: NLL result for the HFS. It is obtained by computing the
455: corrections to the energy levels with the insertion of the
456: potential~(\ref{finpot})
457: in the quantum mechanical perturbation theory.
458: The result for principal quantum number $n$ reads
459: \bea
460: E_{n,{\rm hfs}}^{NLL} &=&-{16 \over 3} { C_F^2
461: \alpha_s\over n} {m_r^2 \over m_1m_2}E_n^C
462: \left\{
463: (1+2\delta \phi_n)
464: \left(D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}(\nu)\right)^{LL}
465: \right.
466: \nn\\&&
467: +\left(-\ln{\left({n\nu\over \bar\nu }\right)}
468: +\Psi_1(n+1)+\gamma_E+{n-1 \over 2n}
469: \right){\gamma_s^{(1)}\over\pi}\left(\alpha_s^2c_F^2\right)^{LL}
470: \nn\\&&
471: +\left.
472: \left(\delta D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}(\nu)\right)^{NLL}_{s}
473: + \left(\delta D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}(\nu)\right)^{NLL}_{p}
474: +\left(D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}\right)^{NLL}_{\rm 1-loop}
475: \right\}
476: \,,
477: \label{HFS}
478: \eea
479: where $\bar\nu=2C_F\alpha_sm_r$,
480: $E_n^C= - C_F^2\alpha_s^2m_r/(2n^2)$, $\Psi_n(z) =d^n \ln \Gamma
481: (z)/dz^n$, $\Gamma (z)$ is the
482: Euler $\Gamma$-function, and $\gamma_E=0.577216\ldots$ is Euler's constant.
483: In Eq.~(\ref{HFS}) the first order correction to the Coulomb wave
484: function at the origin due to one-loop contribution to the static
485: potential reads \cite{KPP}
486: \be
487: \delta \phi_n ={\alpha_s \over \pi}
488: \left[{3\over 8}a_1+
489: {\beta_0\over 4}
490: \left(
491: 3\ln{\left({n\nu\over \bar\nu }\right)}
492: +\Psi_1(n+1)-2n\Psi_2(n)-1+\gamma_E+{2\over n}
493: \right)
494: \right]
495: \,,
496: \ee
497: where $a_1=31C_A/9-20T_Fn_l/9$. Furthermore, the second line
498: of Eq.~(\ref{HFS}) results from the second term in square brackets
499: in Eq.~(\ref{finpot}) after average over the Coulomb wave
500: function.
501: By expanding the
502: resummed expression up to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$, we get
503: \bea
504: &&
505: E_{n,{\rm hfs}}^{NLL} =-{16 \over 3} { C_F^2 \alpha_s^2\over n} {m_r^2 \over
506: m_1m_2} E_n^C
507: \left\{
508: 1 + {{\als \over \pi}}\,\left[ {C_F} + \frac{7\,{C_A}\,{L^n_{\alpha_s}}}{4}
509: +
510: \frac{7\,{C_A}}{8} \,\ln\left(\frac{4\,m_r^2}{ m_1 m_2 } \right)
511: \right.\right.\nn\\&&
512: +
513: \left( \frac{-3\,{C_F}\,{m_r}}{ {m_1} - {m_2} } +
514: \frac{3\,{C_A}\,\left( {m_1} + {m_2} \right) }{8\,\left( {m_1} - {m_2} \right) } \right) \,
515: \ln\left(\frac{{m_1}}{{m_2}} \right)
516: +
517: \frac{{n_f}\,{T_F}\,
518: \left( -15 - 11\,{n} +
519: 12\,{{n}}^2\,\Psi_2(n) \right) }{9\,{n}}
520: \nn
521: \\
522: &&
523: \left.
524: -
525: \frac{{C_A}\,\left( -393 - 41\,{n} -
526: 126\,{\gamma_E}\,{n} -
527: 126\,{n}\,\Psi_1(n) +
528: 264\,{{n}}^2\,\Psi_2(n) \right) }{72\,{n}}
529: \right]
530: \nn
531: \\
532: &&
533: + {{{\als^2 \over \pi^2}}}{{L^n_{\alpha_s}}}\left[ L^n_{\alpha_s}
534: \left( \frac{19\,{{C_A}}^2}{6} -
535: \frac{5\,{C_A}\,{n_f}\,{T_F}}{6} \right)
536: \right.\nn\\&&
537: +
538: \left( \frac{-{{C_A}}^2}{6} -
539: \frac{11\,{C_A}\,{C_F}}{8} -
540: \frac{{{C_F}}^2\,\left( {{m_1}}^2 + {{m_2}}^2 \right) }{{\left( {m_1} + {m_2} \right) }^2} \right) \,{\pi }^2 -
541: \frac{2\,{C_F}\,{n_f}\,{T_F}}{3}
542: \nn\\&&
543: +
544: \left( \frac{11\,{{C_A}}^2\,\left( {m_1} + {m_2} \right) }{8\,\left( {m_1} - {m_2} \right) } +
545: \frac{4\,{C_F}\,{n_f}\,{T_F}\,{m_r}}{{m_1} - {m_2} } +
546: {C_A}\,\left( \frac{-11\,{C_F}\,{m_r}}{{m_1} - {m_2} }
547: \right.\right.\nn\\&&\left.\left.
548: -
549: \frac{{n_f}\,{T_F}\,\left( {m_1} + {m_2} \right)}{2\,\left( {m_1} - {m_2} \right) } \right) \right) \,
550: \ln\left(\frac{{m_1}}{{m_2}} \right)
551: +
552: \left( \frac{19\,{{C_A}}^2}{6} -
553: \frac{5\,{C_A}\,{n_f}\,{T_F}}{6} \right) \,
554: \ln\left(\frac{4\,{m_r^2}}{m_1 m_2}\right)
555: \nn\\&&
556: -
557: \frac{{{C_A}}^2\,\left( -1380 - 305\,{n} -
558: 450\,{\gamma_E}\,{n} -
559: 450\,{n}\,\Psi_1(n) +
560: 924\,{{n}}^2\,\Psi_2(n) \right) }{144\,
561: {n}}
562: \nn\\&&\left.\left.
563: + {C_A}\,
564: \left( \frac{43\,{C_F}}{12} +
565: \frac{{n_f}\,{T_F}\,
566: \left( -114 - 109\,{n} - 18\,{\gamma_E}\,{n} -
567: 18\,{n}\,\Psi_1(n) +
568: 84\,{{n}}^2\,\Psi_2(n) \right) }{36\,
569: {n}} \right) \right]
570: \right\}
571: \label{ser}
572: \,,
573: \eea
574: where $\alpha_s\equiv \alpha_s(\nu)$, $\Psi_n(x)=d^n\ln\Gamma(x)/dx^n$,
575: $L^n_{\alpha_s}=\ln\left(C_F\alpha_s/n\right)$ and $\nu_h=2m_r$ and
576: $\nu=\bar{\nu}/n$ has been chosen. The ${\cal
577: O}(\alpha_s^2\ln^2\alpha_s)$ term is known \cite{Pin,HMS}, while the ${\cal
578: O}(\alpha_s^2\ln\alpha_s)$ term is new.
579: The equal-mass case expression \cite{KPPSS}, relevant for charmonium and
580: bottomonium, can be deduced from Eq. (\ref{HFS}) by replacing
581: \be
582: \left(D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}\right)_{\rm 1-loop}\to
583: \left(D_{S^2,s}^{(2)}\right)^{q\bar q}_{\rm 1-loop}
584: \ee
585: and setting $m_1=m_2$. After including the one-photon annihilation
586: contribution, the Abelian part of the equal-mass
587: result
588: reproduces the ${\cal O}(m\alpha_s^6\ln\alpha_s)$ and
589: ${\cal O}(m\alpha_s^7\ln^2\alpha_s)$ corrections to the positronium
590: HFS (see {\it e.g.} \cite{Pac,CMY}).
591:
592:
593: \section{Numerical estimates and conclusions}
594: For the numerical estimates, we adopt the strategy of \cite{KPPSS} and replace
595: the on-shell mass of the charm and bottom quarks by one half of the physical
596: masses of the ground state of bottomonium and charmonium~\cite{Hag}. In
597: practice, we take $m_b=4.73$ GeV and $m_c=1.5$ GeV, consistent with the
598: accuracy of our computation. Furthermore, we take $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ as an input
599: and run\footnote{For the running and decoupling of $\alpha_s$ we
600: use the program {\tt RunDec}~\cite{Chetyrkin:2000yt}.}
601: with four-loop accuracy down to the matching scale $\nu_h$ to ensure
602: the best precision. Below the matching scale the running of $\alpha_s$ is
603: used according to the logarithmic precision of the calculation in order not to
604: include next-to-next-to-leading logarithms in our analysis. In
605: Fig.~\ref{fig1}, the HFS for the charm-bottom quarkonium ground state is
606: plotted as a function of $\nu$ in the LO, NLO, LL, and NLL approximations for
607: the hard matching scale value $\nu_h= 2.05$~GeV. As we see, the LL curve
608: shows a weaker scale dependence compared to the LO one. The scale dependence
609: of the NLO and NLL expressions is further reduced, and, moreover, the NLL
610: approximation remains stable at the physically motivated scale of the inverse
611: Bohr radius, $C_F\alpha_s m_r\sim 0.9$~GeV, where the fixed-order expansion
612: breaks down. At the scale $\nu'\approx 0.81$~GeV, which is close to the inverse
613: Bohr radius, the NLL correction vanishes. Furthermore, at $\nu''=
614: 0.86$~GeV, the result becomes independent of $\nu$; {\it i.e.}, the NLL curve
615: shows a local maximum corresponding to $E_{\rm hfs}=50$~MeV, which we take as
616: the central value of our estimate. The NLL curve also shows an impressive
617: stability with respect to the hard matching scale variation in the physical
618: range $m_c<\nu_h<m_b$, as we observe in Fig.~\ref{fig2}. The NLL curve has a
619: local maximum at $\nu_h= 2.05$~GeV, which we take for the numerical estimates.
620: All this suggests a nice convergence of the logarithmic expansion despite the
621: presence of the ultrasoft contribution where $\alpha_s$ is normalized at the
622: rather low scale $\bar\nu^2/\nu_h\sim 0.5$~GeV.
623:
624: \begin{figure}[t]
625: \begin{center}
626: \epsfxsize=\textwidth
627: \epsffile{ehfsmu.bc.eps}
628: \end{center}
629: \caption{\label{fig1} HFS for charm-bottom quarkonium as the function of the
630: renormalization scale $\nu$ in LO (dotted line), NLO (dashed line), LL
631: (dot-dashed line), and NLL (solid line) approximation for $\nu_h=2.05$~GeV.
632: For the NLL result the band reflects the errors due to $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118\pm
633: 0.003$.}
634: \end{figure}
635:
636: \begin{figure}[t]
637: \begin{center}
638: \epsfxsize=\textwidth
639: \epsffile{ehfsnuh.bc_0.86.eps}
640: \end{center}
641: \caption{\label{fig2} HFS for charm-bottom quarkonium as the function of the
642: hard matching scale $\nu_h$ in LO (dotted line), NLO (dashed line), LL
643: (dot-dashed line), and NLL (solid line) approximation for $\nu=0.86$~GeV. For
644: the NLL result the band reflects the errors due to $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118\pm
645: 0.003$.}
646: \end{figure}
647:
648: Let us discuss the accuracy of our result. For a first estimate of the error
649: due to uncalculated higher-order contributions, we take $6$~MeV, the
650: difference of the NLL and LL results at the local maxima. A different
651: estimate can be obtained by varying the normalization scale in the physical
652: range $0.8\le\nu\le 1.4$~GeV. In this case the difference with the maximum is
653: $14$~MeV. Being conservative, we take this second number for our estimate of
654: the perturbative error. Within the power counting assumed in this paper, the
655: nonperturbative effects are beyond the accuracy of our computation and should
656: be added to the errors. Following~\cite{KPPSS}, we infer them using charmonium
657: data. For an estimate we attribute the whole difference between perturbation
658: theory and the experimental result, $\approx 5$ MeV, to nonperturbative
659: effects. The nonperturbative contribution in heavy quarkonium is suppressed by
660: the quark masses at least as $1/(m_1m_2m_r)$ and should be smaller
661: for the charm-bottom bound state. We, however, take $10$~MeV
662: as a conservative estimate of the nonperturbative contribution to the HFS in
663: $B_c$. A further uncertainty is introduced by the error of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$.
664: In Figs.~\ref{fig1} and~\ref{fig2} this is reflected by the yellow
665: band, which is based on $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118\pm0.003$.
666: At the scale $\nu''= 0.86$~GeV it induces an uncertainty of
667: ${}^{+15}_{-12}$~MeV.
668:
669: To conclude, we have computed the HFS for a heavy quarkonium composed of
670: quark and antiquark of different flavors in the NLL approximation by
671: summing up the subleading logarithms $\alpha_s^n\ln^{n-1}\alpha_s$ to all
672: orders in the perturbative expansion. The use of the NRG stabilizes the
673: result with respect to the $\nu$ variation at the
674: physical scale of the inverse Bohr
675: radius and allow for solid first principle theoretical predictions. An
676: explicit result for the two-loop soft anomalous dimension of the spin-flip
677: potential is also presented.
678:
679: We predict the mass splitting of the vector and pseudoscalar
680: charm-bottom mesons
681: \be
682: M(B^*_c)-M(B_c)=50 \pm
683: 17\,{(\rm th)}\,{}^{+15}_{-12}\,(\delta\alpha_s)~{\rm MeV}
684: \ee
685: where the errors due to the high-order perturbative corrections and the
686: nonperturbative effects are added up in quadrature in ``th'', whereas
687: ``$\delta\alpha_s$'' stands for the uncertainty in
688: $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118\pm0.003$. With improving statistics and precision of the
689: $B_c$ data our result can be considered as a prediction for the $B_c^*$ meson
690: mass.
691:
692: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
693:
694: \vspace{5mm}
695: \noindent
696: {\bf Acknowledgments:}\\
697: We thank Bernd Kniehl for carefully reading the manuscript and useful
698: comments. The work of A.A.P. was supported in part by BMBF
699: Grant No.\ 05HT4VKA/3 and SFB Grant No. TR 9. The work of A.P. was supported
700: in part by MCyT and Feder (Spain), FPA2001-3598, by CIRIT (Catalonia),
701: 2001SGR-00065 and by the EU network EURIDICE, HPRN-CT2002-00311. The work of
702: V.A.S. was supported in part by RFBR Project No. 03-02-17177, Volkswagen
703: Foundation Contract No. I/77788, and DFG Mercator Visiting Professorship
704: No. Ha 202/1. M.S. was supported by HGF Grant No. VH-NH-008.
705:
706:
707: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
708:
709:
710: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
711:
712: \section*{Appendix}
713:
714: The analytical results for the coeffcients $f_i$ and $A_i$ of
715: Eq.~(\ref{DNLLp}) read
716: ($z=\left(\alpha_s(\nu_p)/\alpha_s(\nu_h)\right)^{1/\beta_0}$)
717: \begin{eqnarray}
718: &&
719: f_{1} = z^{3 \betnull - 2 C_A} {}_2F_1\left(3 - \frac{2 C_A}{\betnull}, 1; 4
720: - \frac{2 C_A}{\betnull}; \frac{z^{\betnull}}{2}\right)\,,\quad
721: f_{2} = z^{2 \betnull - (25 C_A)/6}\,,\quad
722: \nonumber\\
723: &&
724: f_{3} = z^{2 \betnull - 4 C_A}\,,\quad
725: f_{4} = z^{2 \betnull - 3 C_A}\,,\quad
726: f_{5} = z^{2 \betnull - 2 C_A}\,,\quad
727: f_{6} = z^{2 \betnull - 2 C_A}\logminus \,,\quad
728: \nonumber\\
729: &&
730: f_{7} = z^{2 \betnull - C_A}\,,\quad
731: f_{8} = z^{\betnull - (13 C_A)/6}\,,\quad
732: f_{9} = z^{\betnull - 2 C_A}\,,\quad
733: f_{10} = z^{\betnull + C_A}\,,\quad
734: \nonumber\\
735: &&
736: f_{11} = z^{2 \betnull}\,,\quad
737: f_{12} =
738: B_{z^{\beta_0}/2}\left(2-\frac{2C_A}{\betnull},1+\frac{2C_A}{\betnull}\right),
739: \quad
740: f_{13} = z^{\betnull}\,,\quad
741: f_{14} = z^{\betnull}\logminus\,,\quad
742: \nonumber\\
743: &&
744: f_{15} = z^{3 C_A}\,,\quad
745: f_{16} = \ln(z)\,,\quad
746: f_{17} = 1\,,\quad
747: f_{18} = \logminus \,,
748: \end{eqnarray}
749: \begin{eqnarray}
750: A_{1} &=&
751: \frac{
752: \left[ C_A^2 C_F + 2 C_A C_F^2
753: +\mrM
754: 4 C_F^2 (C_A + 2 C_F) \right] (C_A - 8 n_l T_F)
755: }{
756: 2 (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (9 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (2 C_A - n_l T_F)}
757: \,,\nonumber\\
758: A_{2} &=&
759: \frac{
760: \left[ -3456 C_A C_F^2 n_l T_F
761: + \mrM
762: 384 C_F^2 n_l T_F (27 C_A - 8 n_l T_F) \right]
763: (5 C_A + 8 C_F)(C_A - 8 n_l T_F)
764: }{
765: 13 C_A (19 C_A - 16 n_l T_F) (9 C_A - 8 n_l T_F) (5 C_A -
766: 4 n_l T_F) (9 C_A + 8 n_l T_F)}
767: \,,\nonumber\\
768: A_{3} &=&
769: \frac{
770: -27 C_A C_F^2 (C_A - 8 n_l T_F)
771: }{
772: 8 (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 (C_A + n_l T_F)}
773: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}
774: +\mrM
775: \frac{
776: 3 C_F^2 (113 C_A^3 - 681 C_A^2 n_l T_F + 648 C_A n_l^2 T_F^2 - 16 n_l^3 T_F^3)
777: }{
778: 4 (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^3 (C_A + n_l T_F)}
779: \,,\nonumber\\
780: A_{4} &=&
781: \frac{
782: -3 C_A C_F
783: }{
784: 4 (13 C_A - 8 n_l T_F)}
785: \,,\nonumber\\
786: A_{5} &=&
787: \frac{
788: 27 C_F^3 (C_A - 8 n_l T_F) (13 C_A - 8 n_l T_F)
789: }{
790: 13 (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (C_A - 2 n_l T_F) (2 C_A -
791: n_l T_F)}
792: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}
793: + \frac{
794: 3 C_A C_F (11 C_A - 16 n_l T_F)
795: }{
796: 8 (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (2 C_A -
797: n_l T_F)}-\frac{3C_A(C_A-2C_F) }{16 (2C_A - n_l T_F)}
798: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}
799: + \frac{
800: - 3 C_F^2 (6851 C_A^3 - 18936 C_A^2 n_l T_F
801: + 7968 C_A n_l^2 T_F^2 - 832 n_l^3 T_F^3)
802: }{
803: 208 (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (C_A - 2 n_l T_F) (2 C_A -
804: n_l T_F)}
805: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}
806: +\mrM\left[
807: \frac{
808: -3 C_F^3 (481 C_A^2 - 346 C_A n_l T_F + 64 n_l^2 T_F^2)(C_A - 8 n_l T_F)
809: }{
810: 13 C_A (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (C_A - 2 n_l T_F) (2 C_A -
811: n_l T_F)}
812: \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.\mbox{}
813: +\frac{
814: -9 C_F^2 (39 C_A^2 - 284 C_A n_l T_F + 88 n_l^2 T_F^2)(C_A - 8 n_l T_F)
815: }{
816: 52 (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (C_A - 2 n_l T_F) (2 C_A -
817: n_l T_F)}
818: \right]\,,
819: \nonumber\\
820: A_{6} &=&
821: \frac{
822: \left[ 3 C_A C_F ( C_A + 2 C_F)
823: + \mrM
824: 12 C_F^2 (2 C_F + C_A ) \right] (C_A - 8 n_l T_F)
825: }{(5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (2 C_A - n_l T_F)}
826: \,,\nonumber\\
827: A_{7} &=&
828: \frac{
829: -3 (C_A - 3 C_F) C_F
830: }{
831: 19 C_A - 8 n_l T_F}
832: \,,\nonumber\\
833: A_{8} &=&
834: \frac{
835: \left[ -31104 C_A C_F^2 n_l T_F
836: +\mrM 3456 C_F^2 n_l T_F (27 C_A - 8 n_l T_F)
837: \right] (5 C_A + 8 C_F )
838: }{
839: 13 (9 C_A - 8 n_l T_F)^2 (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (9 C_A + 8 n_l T_F)}
840: \,,\nonumber\\
841: A_{9} &=&
842: \frac{
843: 432 C_A C_F^3 (C_A - 8 n_l T_F)
844: }{
845: (9 C_A - 8 n_l T_F) (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) }
846: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}
847: +\frac{
848: - 9 C_A C_F^2 (2481 C_A^3 - 1940 C_A^2 n_l T_F
849: + 1952 C_A n_l^2 T_F^2 - 512 n_l^3 T_F^3)
850: }{
851: 4 (9 C_A - 8 n_l T_F) (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (C_A +
852: n_l T_F)}
853: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}
854: +\mrM\left[
855: \frac{
856: -72 C_F^3 (C_A - 8 n_l T_F) (21 C_A - 8 n_l T_F)
857: }{
858: (9 C_A - 8 n_l T_F) (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) }
859: \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.\mbox{}
860: + \frac{
861: 9 C_A C_F^2 (10401 C_A^4 - 24452 C_A^3 n_l T_F
862: + 20616 C_A^2 n_l^2 T_F^2 - 6240 C_A n_l^3 T_F^3 + 256 n_l^4 T_F^4)
863: }{
864: (9 C_A - 8 n_l T_F) (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^3 (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (C_A + n_l T_F)}
865: \right]
866: \,,\nonumber\\
867: A_{10} &=&
868: \frac{
869: (-864 C_A C_F^3 (C_A + n_l T_F) + 27 C_A^2 C_F^2 (7 C_A + 4 n_l T_F) )
870: (C_A - 8 n_l T_F)
871: }{
872: 8 (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (C_A - 2 n_l T_F) (7 C_A - 2 n_l T_F) (C_A + n_l T_F)
873: (9 C_A + 8 n_l T_F)}\left(1-4\mrM\right)
874: \,,\nonumber\\
875: A_{11} &=&
876: \mrM \frac{
877: 3 C_F^2
878: }{
879: 4 (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)}
880: \,,\nonumber\\
881: A_{12} &=&
882: \frac{
883: 6C_A(C_A-2C_F)
884: }{
885: (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)}
886: \,,\nonumber\\
887: A_{13} &=&
888: \frac{
889: 1944 C_A C_F^3 (13 C_A - 8 n_l T_F)
890: }{
891: 13 (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 (C_A - 2 n_l T_F)}
892: +\frac{
893: 27 C_A^2 C_F (3 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)
894: }{
895: (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 }
896: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}
897: -\frac{
898: 27 C_A C_F^2 (117 C_A^2 + 460 C_A n_l T_F - 416 n_l^2 T_F^2)
899: }{
900: 26 (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 (C_A - 2 n_l T_F)}
901: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}
902: +\mrM \left[
903: \frac{
904: -216 C_F^3 (585 C_A^2 - 554 C_A n_l T_F + 64 n_l^2 T_F^2)
905: }{
906: 13 (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 (C_A - 2 n_l T_F)}
907: \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.\mbox{}
908: +\frac{
909: - 54 C_A C_F^2 (325 C_A^2 - 1268 C_A n_l T_F + 264 n_l^2 T_F^2)
910: }{
911: 13 (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 (C_A - 2 n_l T_F)}
912: \right]
913: \,,\nonumber\\
914: A_{14}&=&
915: \frac{
916: 216 C_A^3 C_F + 432 C_A^2 C_F^2
917: }{ (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 }
918: +\mrM \frac{
919: 1728 C_A C_F^3 + 864 C_A^2 C_F^2
920: }{ (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 }
921: \,,\nonumber\\
922: A_{15} &=&
923: \frac{
924: -864 C_A C_F^3 (C_A + n_l T_F) + 27 C_A^2 C_F^2 (7 C_A + 4 n_l T_F)
925: }{
926: 4 (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (C_A - 2 n_l T_F) (C_A + n_l T_F) (9 C_A + 8 n_l T_F)}
927: \left(1-4\mrM\right)
928: \,,\nonumber\\
929: A_{16} &=&
930: \frac{
931: 1296 C_A^2 C_F^3 + 432 C_A^2 C_F^2 (3 C_A - n_l T_F)
932: }{
933: (9 C_A - 8 n_l T_F) (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)}
934: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}
935: + \mrM
936: \frac{
937: -216 C_A C_F^3 (21 C_A - 8 n_l T_F) (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) - 1296 C_A^3 C_F^2 (4 C_A - 3 n_l T_F)
938: }{
939: (9 C_A - 8 n_l T_F) (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)}
940: \,,\nonumber\\
941: A_{17} &=& - {}_2F_1\left(1, 1; 4 - \frac{2 C_A}{\betnull}; -1\right)\frac{
942: C_F (C_A + 2 C_F) (C_A - 8 n_l T_F)
943: }{
944: (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (9 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (2 C_A - n_l T_F)}
945: \left(C_A + 4C_F \mrM\right)
946: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}
947: -B_{1/2}\left(2-\frac{2C_A}{\betnull},1+\frac{2C_A}{\betnull}\right) \frac{
948: 6C_A(C_A-2C_F)
949: }{
950: (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)}+
951: \frac{3C_A(C_A-2C_F) }{16 (2C_A - n_l T_F)
952: }
953: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}
954: +\frac{
955: - 3 C_A C_F}{8 (13 C_A - 8 n_l T_F)
956: (19 C_A - 8 n_l T_F) (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 (2 C_A -
957: n_l T_F)} \nonumber\\&& \mbox{}\qquad
958: \times \left(
959: 263641 C_A^5 - 919114 C_A^4 n_l T_F
960: + 1071256 C_A^3 n_l^2 T_F^2 - 556448 C_A^2 n_l^3 T_F^3
961: \right.
962: \nonumber\\&& \mbox{}\qquad\qquad
963: \left.
964: + 131456 C_A n_l^4 T_F^4 -
965: 11264 n_l^5 T_F^5\right.)
966: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}
967: +\frac{
968: 27 C_A C_F^3 }{(9 C_A - 8 n_l T_F)^2
969: (19 C_A - 16 n_l T_F) (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2}
970: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}
971: \times \frac{1}{ (7 C_A - 2 n_l T_F) (2 C_A - n_l T_F)}
972: \left(3644181 C_A^6 - 7690472 C_A^5 n_l T_F + 3453968 C_A^4 n_l^2 T_F^2
973: \right.
974: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}\qquad\qquad
975: \left. +
976: 3026560 C_A^3 n_l^3 T_F^3 - 3419648 C_A^2 n_l^4 T_F^4
977: + 1150976 C_A n_l^5 T_F^5 - 131072 n_l^6 T_F^6 \right)
978: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}
979: +\frac{
980: 3 C_F^2}{16 (19 C_A - 16 n_l T_F) (9 C_A - 8 n_l T_F)^2 (19 C_A -
981: 8 n_l T_F) (5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2}
982: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}\quad
983: \times\frac{1}{ (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 (7 C_A -
984: 2 n_l T_F) (2 C_A - n_l T_F)}
985: \left(12488524839 C_A^9 \right.
986: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}\quad\quad
987: - 37966954860 C_A^8 n_l T_F
988: + 37940834480 C_A^7 n_l^2 T_F^2 -
989: 1336115840 C_A^6 n_l^3 T_F^3
990: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}\quad\quad
991: - 27950404608 C_A^5 n_l^4 T_F^4
992: + 25870953472 C_A^4 n_l^5 T_F^5
993: - 11448205312 C_A^3 n_l^6 T_F^6
994: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}\quad\quad
995: \left.
996: + 2764505088 C_A^2 n_l^7 T_F^7
997: - 343932928 C_A n_l^8 T_F^8 + 16777216 n_l^9 T_F^9\right)
998: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}
999: +\mrM\left[ \frac{
1000: -3 C_F^3 }{(19 C_A - 16 n_l T_F) (9 C_A - 8 n_l T_F)^2 (5 C_A - 4
1001: n_l T_F)^2 (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2}
1002: \right.
1003: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}\quad
1004: \times\frac{1}{ (7 C_A - 2 n_l T_F) (2 C_A - n_l T_F)}
1005: (62685009 C_A^7 - 91230606 C_A^6 n_l T_F
1006: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}\quad\quad
1007: -78455168 C_A^5 n_l^2 T_F^2 + 233772512 C_A^4 n_l^3 T_F^3
1008: - 176816384 C_A^3 n_l^4 T_F^4
1009: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}\quad\quad
1010: + 58415104 C_A^2 n_l^5 T_F^5
1011: - 7979008 C_A n_l^6 T_F^6 + 262144 n_l^7 T_F^7)
1012: \nonumber\\&& \mbox{}
1013: +\frac{
1014: - 3 C_F^2 }{4 (19 C_A - 16 n_l T_F) (9 C_A - 8 n_l T_F)^2 (5 C_A - 4 n_l
1015: T_F)^3 (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2}
1016: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}\quad
1017: \times \frac{1}{ (7 C_A - 2 n_l T_F) (2 C_A - n_l T_F)}(659490741 C_A^9 -
1018: 1386410130 C_A^8 n_l T_F
1019: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}\quad\quad
1020: - 876382076 C_A^7 n_l^2 T_F^2 + 5528200720 C_A^6 n_l^3 T_F^3
1021: - 7422517824 C_A^5 n_l^4 T_F^4
1022: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}\quad\quad
1023: + 5156251904 C_A^4 n_l^5 T_F^5 - 2102788096 C_A^3 n_l^6 T_F^6 +
1024: 511131648 C_A^2 n_l^7 T_F^7
1025: \nonumber\\&&\mbox{}\quad\quad
1026: - 69730304 C_A n_l^8 T_F^8 + 4194304 n_l^9
1027: T_F^9)
1028: \Bigg]\,,
1029: \nonumber\\
1030: A_{18}&=&
1031: \frac{
1032: - 864 C_A^2 C_F^2 - 432 C_A^3 C_F
1033: }{(5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 }
1034: +\mrM\frac{- 3456 C_A C_F^3 - 1728 C_A^2 C_F^2
1035: }{(5 C_A - 4 n_l T_F) (11 C_A - 4 n_l T_F)^2 }
1036: \,, \nonumber\\&&
1037: \end{eqnarray}
1038: with $\mrM=m_r/(m_1+m_2)$, $B_{z}(a,b)$ is the
1039: incomplete beta-function,
1040: and ${}_2F_1(a,b;c;z)$ is the
1041: hypergeometric function.
1042:
1043:
1044: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1045:
1046: \bibitem{Abe} CDF Collaboration, F. Abe {\it et al.},
1047: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81}, 2432 (1998).
1048:
1049: %\bibitem{Ful} L.P. Fulcher,
1050: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 074006 (1999), and references therein.
1051:
1052: %\cite{Eichten:1994gt}
1053: \bibitem{Eichten:1994gt}
1054: E.~J.~Eichten and C.~Quigg,
1055: %``Mesons with beauty and charm: Spectroscopy,''
1056: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 5845 (1994).
1057: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9402210].
1058: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9402210;%%
1059:
1060: %\cite{Gershtein:1994jw}
1061: \bibitem{Gershtein:1994jw}
1062: S.~S.~Gershtein, V.~V.~Kiselev, A.~K.~Likhoded and A.~V.~Tkabladze,
1063: %``Physics of B(c) mesons,''
1064: Phys.\ Usp.\ {\bf 38}, 1 (1995)
1065: [Usp.\ Fiz.\ Nauk {\bf 165}, 3 (1995)].
1066: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9504319].
1067: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504319;%%
1068:
1069: \bibitem{Sha} UKQCD Collaboration, H.P. Shanahan {\it et al.},
1070: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 453}, 289 (1999).
1071:
1072: \bibitem{BraVai} N. Brambilla and A. Vairo,
1073: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf62}, 094019 (2000)
1074:
1075: \bibitem{BucNg}
1076: W. Buchm\"uller, Y.J. Ng, and S.H.H. Tye,
1077: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf24}, 3003 (1981);
1078: S.N. Gupta, S.F. Radford, and W.W. Repko
1079: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf26}, 3305 (1982);
1080: J. Pantaleone, S.H.H. Tye, and Y.J. Ng,
1081: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf33}, 777 (1986).
1082:
1083: \bibitem{recent}
1084: S. Titard and F.J. Yndurain,
1085: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf49}, 6007 (1994),
1086: A. Pineda and F.J. Yndurain,
1087: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 094022 (1998);
1088: A.A. Penin and A.A. Pivovarov,
1089: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B550}, 375 (1999);
1090: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf64}, 323 (2001)
1091: [Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\ {\bf64}, 275 (2001)];
1092: S. Recksiegel and Y. Sumino,
1093: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf578}, 369 (2004).
1094:
1095: \bibitem{PenSte} A.A. Penin and M. Steinhauser,
1096: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf538}, 335 (2002).
1097:
1098: \bibitem{KPPSS} B.A. Kniehl, A.A. Penin,
1099: A. Pineda, V.A. Smirnov, and M. Steinhauser,
1100: Report No. DESY-03-172, TTP-03-40, UB-ECM-PF-03-28, and hep-ph/0312086.
1101:
1102: \bibitem{CasLep} W.E. Caswell and G.P. Lepage,
1103: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf167}, 437 (1986);
1104: G.T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G.P. Lepage,
1105: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf51}, 1125 (1995); {\bf55}, 5853(E) (1997).
1106:
1107: \bibitem{PinSot1} A. Pineda and J. Soto,
1108: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.) {\bf64}, 428 (1998);
1109: B.A. Kniehl and A.A. Penin,
1110: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B563}, 200 (1999);
1111: N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto, and A. Vairo,
1112: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B566}, 275 (2000).
1113:
1114: \bibitem{Pin} A. Pineda,
1115: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf65}, 074007 (2002);
1116: {\bf66}, 054022 (2002).
1117:
1118: \bibitem{HMS} A.~V.~Manohar and I.~W.~Stewart,
1119: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 014033 (2000);
1120: A.H. Hoang and I.W. Stewart,
1121: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 114020 (2003).
1122:
1123: \bibitem{BenSmi} M. Beneke and V.A. Smirnov,
1124: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B522}, 321 (1998);
1125: V.A. Smirnov,
1126: {\it Applied Asymptotic Expansions in Momenta and Masses}
1127: (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2001).
1128:
1129: \bibitem{LMR} M.E. Luke, A.V. Manohar, and I.Z. Rothstein,
1130: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf61}, 074025 (2000).
1131:
1132: \bibitem{ABN} G. Amor\'os, M. Beneke, and M. Neubert,
1133: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 401}, 81 (1997).
1134:
1135: \bibitem{PinSot2} A. Pineda and J. Soto,
1136: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf420}, 391 (1998);
1137: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf59}, 016005 (1999).
1138:
1139: \bibitem{CMY} A. Czarnecki, K. Melnikov, and A. Yelkhovsky,
1140: Phys.\ Rev.\ A {\bf59}, 4316 (1999).
1141:
1142: \bibitem{KPSS} B.A. Kniehl, A.A. Penin,
1143: V.A. Smirnov, and M. Steinhauser,
1144: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf65}, 091503(R) (2002);
1145: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B635}, 357 (2002);
1146: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf90}, 212001 (2003);
1147: {\bf91}, 139903(E) (2003).
1148:
1149: \bibitem{Bai}
1150: P.A. Baikov, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf385}, 404 (1996);
1151: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 389}, 347 (1997);
1152: V.A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser,
1153: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B672} 199 (2003).
1154:
1155: \bibitem{KniPen2} B.A. Kniehl and A.A. Penin,
1156: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B577}, 197 (2000).
1157:
1158: \bibitem{Hil} R.J. Hill,
1159: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf86}, 3280 (2001);
1160: K. Melnikov and A. Yelkhovsky,
1161: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf86}, 1498 (2001);
1162: B.A. Kniehl and A.A. Penin,
1163: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf85}, 1210 (2000); {\bf85}, 3065(E) (2000);
1164: {\bf85}, 5094 (2000).
1165:
1166: \bibitem{Pac} K. Pachucki, Phys.\ Rev.\ A {\bf56}, 297 (1997).
1167:
1168: \bibitem{Manohar} A.V. Manohar,
1169: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 230 (1997).
1170:
1171: \bibitem{KPP} J.H. K\"uhn, A.A. Penin, and A.A. Pivovarov,
1172: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B534}, 356 (1998);
1173: A.A. Penin and A.A. Pivovarov,
1174: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf435}, 413 (1998);
1175: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B549}, 217 (1999);
1176: K. Melnikov and A. Yelkhovsky,
1177: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf59}, 114009 (1999).
1178:
1179:
1180: \bibitem{Hag} K. Hagiwara {\it et al.},
1181: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).
1182:
1183: %\cite{Chetyrkin:2000yt}
1184: \bibitem{Chetyrkin:2000yt}
1185: K.~G.~Chetyrkin, J.~H.~Kuhn and M.~Steinhauser,
1186: %``RunDec: A Mathematica package for running and decoupling of the strong
1187: %coupling and quark masses,''
1188: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 133} (2000) 43.
1189: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004189;%%
1190:
1191: \end{thebibliography}
1192:
1193:
1194: \end{document}
1195: