1: \documentclass{elsart} \usepackage{natbib}
2:
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4:
5: \def\bc{\begin{center}} \def\ec{\end{center}} \def\emi{\end{minipage}}
6: \def\epi{\end{picture}} \def\bearray{\begin{eqnarray}}
7: \def\eearray{\end{eqnarray}}
8:
9: \newcommand{\im}{\mathrm{Im\,}} \newcommand{\cl}{\underline{\lambda}}
10: \newcommand{\mh}{m_h} \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}} \newcommand\ccb{{c\bar{c}}}
12: \newcommand\xf{$x_F$ } \newcommand\jps{{J/\psi}}
13: \newcommand\psp{\psi'} \newcommand\ps{\psi } \newcommand\eps{\epsilon}
14: \newcommand\epso{\epsilon_{0}}
15:
16:
17: \usepackage{epsf} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{amsmath}
18: \usepackage{amssymb}
19:
20: \parskip .3cm \parindent 0mm
21:
22: \newcommand{\gsim}{\buildrel > \over {_\sim}}
23: \newcommand{\lsim}{\buildrel < \over {_\sim}} \newcommand{\ie}{{\it
24: i.e.}} \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.}} \newcommand{\cf}{{\it cf.}}
25: \newcommand{\gev}{{\rm GeV}} \newcommand{\re}{{\rm Re}}
26: \newcommand{\qu}{{\rm q}} \newcommand{\qb}{${\rm\bar q}$}
27: \newcommand{\qbm}{{\rm\bar q}} \newcommand{\qq}{\qu\qb\ }
28: \newcommand{\qvec}{\vec q} \newcommand{\pvec}{\vec p}
29: \newcommand{\kvec}{\vec k} \newcommand{\rvec}{\vec r}
30: \newcommand{\Rvec}{\vec R} \newcommand{\lqcd}{\Lambda_{QCD}}
31: \newcommand{\ieps}{i\varepsilon} \newcommand{\disc}{{\rm Disc}}
32: \newcommand{\M}{{\cal M}} \newcommand{\pl}{{||}}
33: \newcommand{\nc}{{N_c}} \newcommand{\mq}{{m_{Q}}}
34: \newcommand{\dn}{{d_{2k}}} \newcommand{\an}{{A_{2k}}}
35: \def\cO#1{{{\mathcal{O}}}\left(#1\right)}
36:
37: \newcommand{\order}[1]{${\cal O}\left(#1 \right)$}
38: \newcommand{\morder}[1]{{\cal O}\left(#1 \right)}
39: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
40:
41: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\vert{#1}\rangle}
42: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle{#1}\vert}
43: \newcommand{\ave}[1]{\langle{#1}\rangle}
44:
45: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}} \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
46: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
47:
48: \newcounter{hran} \renewcommand{\thehran}{\arabic{hran}}
49:
50: \def\bminiG{\setcounter{hran}{\value{equation}}
51: \refstepcounter{hran}\setcounter{equation}{0}
52: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thehran\alph{equation}}\begin{eqnarray}}
53:
54: \def\emini{\end{eqnarray}\relax\setcounter{equation}{\value{hran}}\renewcommand{\theequation}{
55: \arabic{equation}}}
56:
57: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
58:
59: \begin{document}
60:
61: \vspace{-2.cm}
62: \begin{flushright}
63: October 2004\\ \texttt{hep-ph/0410295}\\ LPTHE-04-026
64: \end{flushright}
65:
66: \begin{frontmatter}
67: \title{Heavy-quarkonium interaction in QCD \\ at finite temperature}
68:
69: \author[liege,lpthe]{Fran\c{c}ois Arleo\thanksref{email}},
70: \author[liege]{Joseph Cugnon}, \author[liege]{Yuri Kalinovsky}
71:
72: \thanks[email]{Corresponding author.\\{\it Email address:}
73: \texttt{arleo@lpthe.jussieu.fr} (Fran\c{c}ois Arleo).}
74:
75: \address[liege]{Universit\'e de Li\`ege, Institut de Physique B5 \\
76: Sart Tilman, 4000 Li\`ege 1, Belgium} \address[lpthe]{LPTHE,
77: Universit\'e Paris VI \& Paris VII and CNRS,\\ 4, Place Jussieu,
78: 75252 Paris cedex 05, France}
79:
80: \begin{abstract}
81: We explore the temperature dependence of the heavy-quarkonium
82: interaction based on the Bhanot~-~Peskin leading order perturbative
83: QCD analysis. The Wilson coefficients are computed solving the
84: Schr\"odinger equation in a screened Coulomb heavy-quark
85: potential. The inverse Mellin transform of the Wilson coefficients
86: then allows for the computation of the 1S and 2S heavy-quarkonium
87: gluon and pion total cross section at finite screening/temperature. As
88: a phenomenological illustration, the temperature dependence of the 1S
89: charmonium thermal width is determined and compared to recent lattice
90: QCD results.
91: \end{abstract}
92: \begin{keyword}
93: Heavy-quarkonium; Finite temperature
94: \end{keyword}
95: \end{frontmatter}
96:
97: \section{Introduction}
98:
99: The Debye screening between two opposite color charges is clearly seen
100: in the QCD static potential computed at finite temperature $T$ on the
101: lattice~\cite{Karsch:1988rj}. Consequently, heavy quark bound states
102: (which we call $\Phi$) may no longer exist well above the
103: deconfinement critical temperature $T_c$, of order
104: 200$-$300~MeV~\cite{Karsch:2001vs}. This has made the heavy-quarkonium
105: suppression in high energy heavy-ion collisions (as compared to
106: proton-proton scattering) one of the most popular signatures for
107: quark-gluon plasma formation~\cite{Matsui:1986dk,Bedjidian:2003gd}. On
108: the experimental side, a lot of excitement came out a few years ago
109: after the NA50 collaboration reported a so-called ``anomalous''
110: suppression in the $J/\psi$ channel in the most central lead-lead
111: collisions ($\sqrt{s} \simeq 17$~GeV) at the CERN
112: SPS~\cite{Abreu:2000ni}. At RHIC energy ($\sqrt{s} = 200$~GeV), $\jps$
113: production has been measured recently by the PHENIX collaboration
114: although the presently too large statistical and systematic error bars
115: prevent one from concluding anything yet quantitative from these
116: data~\cite{Adler:2003rc}.
117:
118: The NA50 measurements triggered an intense theoretical activity and
119: subsequently a longstanding debate on the origin of the observed
120: $\jps$ suppression. However, it became unfortunately rapidly clear
121: that no definite conclusion could be drawn as long as theoretical
122: uncertainties exceed by far that of the high statistics data. Indeed,
123: both the realistic description of the space-time evolution of the hot
124: and dense medium as well as the interaction of heavy-quarkonia with
125: the relevant degrees of freedom (let them be pions or gluons) are
126: required to be known. While the former can be constrained by global
127: observables, the latter needs to be computed theoretically. Several
128: approaches have been suggested to determine heavy-quarkonium total
129: cross sections, from meson exchange~\cite{Matinyan:1998cb} or
130: constituent quark models~\cite{Martins:1995hd} to the perturbative
131: framework developed by Bhanot and
132: Peskin~\cite{Peskin:1979va,Bhanot:1979vb} upon which the present paper
133: relies. Let us remark in particular that many recent phenomenological
134: applications have used the latter perturbative $\Phi$~--~gluon cross
135: section to estimate the heavy-quarkonium dissociation or formation in
136: heavy-ion collisions~\cite{Xu:1996eb}.
137:
138: However, although derived from first principles in QCD perturbation
139: theory, the Bhanot~-~Peskin result describes the interaction of
140: Coulombic bound states, that is for which the heavy-quark potential is
141: well approximated by the perturbative one-gluon exchange potential. As
142: indicated from spectroscopic studies~\cite{Kwong:1987mj}, this may be
143: too crude an assumption to describe bound states in the charm or
144: (even) the bottom sector. Furthermore, it does not take into account
145: the possible effects of the medium on the heavy-quarkonium
146: interaction. It is the aim of this Letter to explore how the $\Phi$
147: interaction with gluons and pions gets modified at finite
148: temperature. The paper is organized as follows. The general framework
149: is first briefly recalled in Section~\ref{sec:framework}. Our results
150: are then detailed in Section~\ref{sec:results} while
151: Section~\ref{sec:discussion} is devoted to a concluding discussion.
152:
153:
154: \section{Heavy-quarkonium interaction in QCD}\label{sec:framework}
155:
156: \subsection{Resummation of the leading-twist forward scattering amplitude}
157:
158: At leading-twist, the forward heavy-quarkonium ($\Phi$) - hadron ($h$)
159: scattering amplitude $\mathcal{M}_{\Phi\,h}$ is an operator product
160: expansion of perturbative Wilson coefficients $\dn$ evaluated in the
161: heavy-quarkonium state and computable in perturbation theory times
162: non-perturbative matrix elements in the hadron state. It
163: reads~\cite{Peskin:1979va}
164: \begin{equation}\label{eq:lt_amplitude}
165: \mathcal{M}_{\Phi\,h}(\lambda)=\left( \frac{g^2\, \nc}{16\,\pi}
166: \right)\, a_0^2\, \sum_{k\ge 1}\,d_{2k}\,\epsilon^{1-2k}\, \langle
167: h|\,\frac{1}{2}
168: F^{0\nu}\,(iD^0)^{2k-2}\,F^{\phantom{\nu}0}_\nu\,|h\rangle
169: \end{equation}
170: where $a_0$ and $\epsilon$ stand, respectively, for the Bohr radius
171: and the binding energy for the $\Phi$ system, $g$ the QCD coupling and
172: $N_c$ the number of colors. Each of the matrix elements $\langle h |
173: \dots | h \rangle$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:lt_amplitude}) is proportional to a
174: traceless fully symmetric rank $2k$ tensor in the spin-averaged hadron
175: state~\cite{Peskin:1979va}
176: \begin{equation*}
177: \Pi^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_{2k}}(p)= p^{\mu_1}\,\dots \,p^{\mu_{2k}} -
178: \mathrm{trace\,\, terms}
179: \end{equation*}
180: where $p^\mu$ is the hadron momentum. The trace terms correspond to
181: target mass corrections $\cO{\mh^2/\eps^2}$ which are neglected here
182: as we shall deal only with pions in the present approach. Note that
183: such corrections were systematically included in
184: Refs.~\cite{Kharzeev:1996tw,Arleo:2001mp} and proved relevant only
185: slightly above the threshold for the quarkonium-hadron interaction
186: process. The matrix elements can be written as
187: \begin{equation}\label{eq:gluon_matrix_element}
188: \langle h|\,\frac{1}{2}
189: F^{0\nu}(iD^0)^{2k-2}F^{\phantom{\nu}0}_\nu|h\rangle =
190: A_{2k}\,\Pi^{0\cdots 0}(p) = A_{2k}\,\lambda^{2k}
191: \end{equation}
192: where $\lambda \equiv p^0$ is the hadron energy in the $\Phi$ rest
193: frame and the $\an$ coefficients are the Mellin transform of the
194: unpolarized gluon density $G^h$ in the hadron
195: target~\cite{Bhanot:1979vb,Arleo:2001mp}
196: \begin{equation*}
197: \an = \int_0^1 \frac{dx}{x} \,x^{2k}\, G^h(x).
198: \end{equation*}
199: Plugging (\ref{eq:gluon_matrix_element}) in (\ref{eq:lt_amplitude}),
200: the leading-twist forward scattering amplitude can be written as
201: \begin{equation}\label{eq:power_series}
202: \mathcal{M}_{\Phi\,h}(\lambda)= \left( \frac{g^2\, \nc}{16\,\pi}
203: \right) \,a_0^2\,\epsilon\, \sum_{k\ge
204: 1}\,\dn\,\an\,(\lambda/\epsilon)^{2k}.
205: \end{equation}
206: Expressing the Wilson coefficients in terms of their Mellin moments,
207: \begin{equation*}
208: \dn = \int_0^1\,\frac{dx}{x} \,\,x^{2 k}\,\tilde{d}(x),
209: \end{equation*}
210: the power series (\ref{eq:power_series}) can be conveniently resumed
211: and continued analytically throughout the whole complex plane of
212: energies~\cite{Arleo:2001mp}. This allows for the computation of the
213: imaginary part of the forward scattering amplitude along the real
214: axis, $\lambda>\eps$,
215: \begin{equation}\label{eq:im_amplitude}
216: \im\,\mathcal{M}(\lambda)=\left( \frac{g^2\, \nc}{32}
217: \right)\,a_0^2\,\epsilon\,\int_{\epsilon/\lambda}^1 \,\frac{dx}{x}\;
218: G(x)\;\tilde{d}\left(\frac{\epsilon}{\lambda x}\right).
219: \end{equation}
220: Dividing Eq.~(\ref{eq:im_amplitude}) by the flux factor $\lambda$
221: leads to the total heavy-quarkonium cross section via the optical
222: theorem
223: \begin{equation}\label{eq:cross_section}
224: \sigma_{\Phi\,h}(\lambda) =
225: \frac{1}{\lambda}\,\im\,\mathcal{M}(\lambda) = \int_0^1
226: dx\,G(x)\,\sigma_{\Phi\,g}(x\lambda),
227: \end{equation}
228: where the heavy-quarkonium gluon cross section is defined as
229: \begin{equation}\label{eq:cross_section_part}
230: \sigma_{\Phi\,g}(\omega)= \left( \frac{g^2\, \nc}{32}
231: \right)\,a_0^2\;\frac{\epsilon}{\omega}\;\tilde{d}\left(\frac{\epsilon}{\omega}\right)
232: \end{equation}
233: with the gluon energy $\omega = \lambda\,x$ in the $\Phi$ rest frame.
234:
235: The Wilson coefficients need first to be computed in an arbitrary
236: heavy-quark potential and later be inverse Mellin transformed in order
237: to determine the heavy-quarkonium gluon
238: Eq.~(\ref{eq:cross_section_part}) and hence the heavy-quarkonium
239: hadron Eq.~(\ref{eq:cross_section}) total cross sections. This task is
240: carried out in the next Section.
241:
242: \subsection{Wilson coefficients and inverse Mellin transform}
243:
244: Resuming all diagrams contributing to leading order in $g^2$ to the
245: $\Phi$~--~$h$ interaction, Peskin made explicit the heavy-quarkonium
246: Wilson coefficients~\cite{Peskin:1979va}. They are given
247: by\footnote{Note that the coefficients~(\ref{eq:wilson}) are a factor
248: $(\epsilon/\epso)^{2k-1}$ smaller than in
249: Ref.~\cite{Peskin:1979va}. This difference is because the energy
250: $\lambda$ is normalized to the binding energy $\eps$ in the amplitude
251: (\ref{eq:power_series}) and not to the Rydberg energy $\epso$ as
252: in~\cite{Peskin:1979va}.}
253: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:wilson}
254: d_{2k} &=& \frac{16\, \pi}{\nc^2 \,a_0^2}\,\epsilon^{2k-1}\,
255: \langle\phi |\, r^i\,\frac{1}{\left(H_a +
256: \epsilon\right)^{2k-1}}\,r^j\,|\phi\rangle\nonumber\\ &=& \frac{16
257: \pi}{\nc^2} \int \,\frac{d^3
258: k}{{(2\pi)}^3}\,\frac{1}{3}\,\vert\frac{{\bf
259: r}}{a_0}\,\psi|^2(k)\,\epsilon^{2k-1} \langle k |\, \frac{1}{{\left(
260: H_a +\epsilon \right) }^{2k-1}} \,| k \rangle
261: \end{eqnarray}
262: where $|\phi\rangle$ and $k$ are respectively the $Q\bar{Q}$ internal
263: wavefunction and momenta, while $H_s$ ($H_a$) is the internal
264: Hamiltonian describing the heavy-quarkonium state in a color-singlet
265: (color-adjoint) state,
266: \begin{equation*}
267: H_{s, a} = \frac{k^2}{\mq} + V_{s, a}(r),
268: \end{equation*}
269: $\mq$ being the heavy-quark mass and $V_{s, a}$ the heavy-quark
270: potential. The heavy-quarkonium wave function $\psi(r)$ in coordinate
271: space and the binding energy $\epsilon$ appearing in
272: Eq.~(\ref{eq:wilson}) are determined solving the Schr\"odinger equation
273: \begin{equation}\label{eq:schrodinger}
274: H_s \,|\phi\rangle \,=\, -\,\epsilon\,\,|\phi\rangle
275: \end{equation}
276: in the color singlet potential.
277:
278: \subsubsection{Coulomb potential}
279:
280: The leading-twist amplitude (\ref{eq:lt_amplitude}) was determined
281: assuming the $Q\bar{Q}$ binding potential is well approximated by the
282: one-gluon exchange Coulomb potential
283: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:coulomb}
284: \begin{split}
285: V_{s} &= - \, \frac{g^2\,N_c}{8\,\pi \,r} + \cO{\nc^{-1}},\\ V_{a} &=
286: \cO{\nc^{-1}},
287: \end{split}
288: \end{eqnarray}
289: in SU($\nc$) gauge theory. To leading order in $\cO{\nc^{-1}}$, $H_a$
290: is given by the free-particle Hamiltonian and the Wilson
291: coefficients~(\ref{eq:wilson}) read
292: \begin{equation*}
293: d_{2k} = \frac{16 \pi}{\nc^2} \int \,\frac{d^3
294: k}{{(2\pi)}^3}\,\frac{1}{3}\,\vert\frac{{\bf
295: r}}{a_0}\,\psi|^2(k)\,\frac{(\epsilon/\epso)^{2k-1}}{{\left[ (k a_0)^2
296: + \epsilon/\epso\right] }^{2k-1}},
297: \end{equation*}
298: where we have introduced the Rydberg energy $\epso$ for the $Q\bar{Q}$
299: system
300: \begin{equation*}
301: \epso = \left(\frac{g^2\,\nc}{16\,\pi}\right)^2\,\mq =
302: \frac{1}{\mq\,a_0^2}
303: \end{equation*}
304: Solving the Schr\"odinger equation~(\ref{eq:schrodinger}) gives the
305: well-known 1S and 2S Coulomb wave functions with the corresponding
306: binding energies,
307: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{eq:psi}
308: \begin{split}
309: a_0^{3/2} \psi^{(1S)}(r) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\,\exp \left(-
310: \frac{r}{a_0}\right)
311: \quad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad;\qquad\epsilon_{_{\mathrm{1S}}} = \epso\\
312: a_0^{3/2}\psi^{(2S)}(r) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{8 \pi}}\,\left(1-\frac{r}{2
313: a_0}\right)\,\exp \left(-\frac{r}{2 a_0}\right)\qquad
314: ;\qquad\epsilon_{_{\mathrm{2S}}} = \epso / 4
315: \end{split}
316: \end{eqnarray*}
317: which eventually allows for the computation of the Wilson
318: coefficients~\cite{Peskin:1979va}
319: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:dn}
320: \begin{split}
321: d_n^{(1S)}&=\int_0^1 \frac{dx}{x} \,x^n\,\frac{16^3}{3 N_c^2}
322: x^{5/2}(1-x)^{3/2},\\ d_n^{(2S)}&=\int_0^1 \frac{dx}{x}
323: \,x^n\,\frac{16 \times 16^3}{3 N_c^2} x^{5/2}(1-x)^{3/2}(1-3x)^2.
324: \end{split}
325: \end{eqnarray}
326: From Eqs.~(\ref{eq:cross_section_part}) and (\ref{eq:dn}), the
327: expression for the inverse Mellin transform $\tilde{d}(x)$ is
328: straightforward and one gets directly~\cite{Bhanot:1979vb}
329: \begin{equation}\label{eq:coulomb1s}
330: \sigma_{\Phi^{(1S)}\,g}(\omega)=\frac{16^2 g^2}{6N_c}\,a_0^2\,
331: \frac{(\omega/\epsilon_{_{\mathrm{1S}}}-1)^{3/2}}{(\omega/\epsilon_{_{\mathrm{1S}}})^5}\,
332: \theta(\omega-\epsilon_{_{\mathrm{1S}}}),
333: \end{equation}
334: for 1S states and~\cite{Arleo:2001mp}
335: \begin{equation}\label{eq:coulomb2s}
336: \sigma_{\Phi^{(2S)}\,g}(\omega)=16\times\frac{16^2 g^2}{6N_c}\,a_0^2\,
337: \frac{(\omega/\epsilon_{_{\mathrm{2S}}}-1)^{3/2}(\omega/\epsilon_{_{\mathrm{2S}}}-3)^2}{(\omega/\epsilon_{_{\mathrm{2S}}})^7}\,\theta(\omega-\epsilon_{_{\mathrm{2S}}})
338: \end{equation}
339: for 2S states. Note that these expressions were also obtained by
340: Kim, Lee, Oh and Song from the QCD factorization property combined with the
341: Bethe-Salpeter amplitude for the heavy-quark bound state, which
342: allowed them to include relativistic and next-to-leading order
343: corrections~\cite{Oh:2001rm}.
344:
345:
346: \subsubsection{Screened Coulomb potential}
347:
348: As stressed in the Introduction, the above formulas may serve as an
349: important input to estimate the heavy-quarkonium dissociation process
350: $\Phi + g \to Q + \bar{Q}$ (or the detailed balance process) in a hot
351: gluon or pion gas formed in high energy heavy-ion collisions. We would
352: like here to go one step further and to discuss possible medium
353: modifications to these total cross sections. Medium effects will be
354: modeled at the level of the heavy-quarkonium potential by considering
355: a screened Coulomb potential (Yukawa type) characterized by a
356: dimensionless screening parameter $\mu$,
357: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:screenedcoulomb}
358: \begin{split}
359: V_{s} &= - \, \frac{g^2\,N_c}{8\,\pi \,r}\, \exp \left({- \mu\,r /
360: a_0} \right),\\ V_{a} &= 0.
361: \end{split}
362: \end{eqnarray}
363: Solving the Schr\"odinger equation (\ref{eq:schrodinger}) using the
364: potential~(\ref{eq:screenedcoulomb}), the wave functions and binding
365: energies for 1S and 2S states are determined and the corresponding
366: Wilson coefficients~(\ref{eq:wilson}) are computed numerically
367: subsequently. For the illustration, we plot in Figure~\ref{fig:radii}
368: the typical size (mean and root mean square radii, {\it top}) as well
369: as the binding energy ({\it bottom}) for the 1S ({\it left}) and 2S
370: ({\it right}) $\Phi$ states.
371: \begin{figure}
372: \begin{center}
373: \includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{rms.eps}
374: \end{center}
375: \caption{{\it Top:} Mean radius ({\it solid}) and root mean square
376: radius ({\it dashed}) of the 1S ({\it left}) and 2S ({\it right})
377: heavy-quarkonium states as a function of $\mu$. {\it Bottom:} 1S
378: ({\it left}) and 2S ({\it right}) binding energy as a function of
379: $\mu$.}
380: \label{fig:radii}
381: \end{figure}
382: Finally, the inverse Mellin transform
383: \begin{equation*}
384: \tilde{d}(x) = \frac{1}{2\,i\,\pi}\,\int_{c - i \infty}^{c + i \infty}
385: \,dz \,\,x^{-z}\,d(z)
386: \end{equation*}
387: $c$ being a real constant, is performed thus giving access to the
388: medium-modified total cross sections.
389:
390: \section{Results}\label{sec:results}
391:
392: \subsection{Finite screening}
393:
394: Before discussing the results, both the Bohr radius $a_0$ and the
395: Rydberg energy $\epso$ in the charmonium and bottomonium channel need
396: to be fixed. Assuming both the 1S and 2S states to be Coulombic, the
397: heavy quark mass $m_Q$ and the Rydberg energy $\epsilon_0$ can be
398: determined from the 1S and 2S heavy-quarkonium masses. One then
399: obtains~\cite{Arleo:2001mp}
400: \begin{eqnarray*}
401: \epsilon_{0 c} = 0.78\;\mathrm{GeV}&\;\;,\;\;&a_{0 c}^{-1} = 1.23
402: \;\mathrm{GeV}, \\ \epsilon_{0 b} = 0.75\;\mathrm{GeV}&\;\;,\;\;&a_{0
403: b}^{-1} = 1.96 \;\mathrm{GeV}.
404: \end{eqnarray*}
405:
406: Using the above (not too hard) scales, the 1S ({\it top}) and 2S ({\it
407: bottom}) heavy-quarkonium gluon dissociation cross sections are
408: computed in Figure~\ref{fig:cross_sect_part} as a function of the
409: gluon energy $\omega$ for various values of the screening parameter
410: $\mu$. The dominant effect of the screened heavy quark potential is
411: the decrease of the 1S (respectively, 2S) heavy-quarkonium binding
412: energy from $\epsilon_0$ (respectively, $\epsilon_0/4$) to $\epsilon$
413: which leads to a lower threshold for the inelastic process. The medium
414: modifications of the $\Phi$~--~gluon total cross sections are
415: nevertheless not only due to the smaller binding energy, yet the
416: characteristic shapes of the cross sections are reminiscent to what is
417: already known for pure Coulombic states, $\mu = 0$
418: (Figure~\ref{fig:cross_sect_part}, {\it solid}). We checked for
419: instance that the Wilson coefficients get somehow modified at finite
420: screening and consequently the partonic cross sections do not simply
421: scale as $\omega/\epsilon$ in~Eq.~(\ref{eq:coulomb1s}). This is a
422: strong indication that cross sections cannot be deduced with a simple
423: rescaling of the binding energy from $\epso$ to $\epsilon$ to mimic
424: medium effects in the heavy-quarkonium dissociation process. Finally,
425: the significant increase of the 1S partonic cross sections at large
426: screening is particularly noticeable as the dipole size gets
427: larger. However, as discussed later, reliable calculations require the
428: space-time scales to remain small which prevent one from taking
429: arbitrarily large screening parameter values, at least when
430: considering such ``light'' heavy quarks\footnote{According
431: to~\cite{Bhanot:1979vb}, the assumption of heavy-quark Coulombic bound
432: states should be appropriate for more than 25~GeV heavy quark mass.}.
433: Moreover, since the heavy-quark potential in the original QCD analysis
434: needs to be Coulomb-like, the screening parameter $\mu$ in the model
435: Eq.~(\ref{eq:screenedcoulomb}) should remain small as compared to one.
436:
437: \begin{figure}[h]
438: \begin{center}
439: \includegraphics[width=15.0cm]{sigphig.eps}
440: \end{center}
441: \caption{1S ({\it top}) and 2S ({\it bottom}) charmonium ({\it
442: left}) and bottomonium ({\it right}) gluon total cross section as
443: a function of the gluon energy $\omega$ for various values of the
444: screening parameter $\mu$.}
445: \label{fig:cross_sect_part}
446: \end{figure}
447:
448: Let us now discuss the heavy-quarkonium hadron cross section. Since
449: heavy-quarkonia plunged into the hot medium are most likely to
450: interact with pions, we shall only consider the $\Phi$~--~$\pi$
451: channel and choose the GRV LO parameterization for the gluon
452: distribution\footnote{These should be evaluated at a factorization
453: scale $\epsilon$. We take in the following a frozen scale
454: $\epsilon_0$.} in the pion~\cite{Gluck:1991ey}. The $\jps$~--~$\pi$
455: and $\Upsilon$~--~$\pi$ cross sections are computed in
456: Figure~\ref{fig:cross_sect_had} as a function of the pion energy
457: $\lambda$. Again, the threshold for the process, located at
458: $\lambda=\epsilon$, gets shifted to lower values leading to a strong
459: modification of the heavy-quarkonium pion interaction in this
460: region. At high energy, small $x=\cO{\epsilon/\lambda}$ gluons
461: dissociate heavy-quarkonia, thereby increasing the $\Phi$~--~$\pi$
462: cross section by a factor $\left(\epso/\eps\right)^\delta$ where
463: $\delta\simeq 0.3$ governs the rise of the gluon distribution at small
464: $x$, $x G(x) \propto x^{-\delta}$~\cite{Aid:1996au}.
465: \begin{figure}[h]
466: \begin{center}
467: \includegraphics[width=15.0cm]{sigphih.eps}
468: \end{center}
469: \caption{$J/\psi-\pi$ ({\it left}) and $\Upsilon-\pi$ ({\it
470: right}) total cross section as a function of the pion energy
471: $\lambda$ for various values of the screening parameter $\mu$.}
472: \label{fig:cross_sect_had}
473: \end{figure}
474:
475: \subsection{Finite temperature}
476:
477: The $\Phi$ interaction with gluons and pions has been computed so far
478: using a heavy-quark screened Coulomb potential characterized by one
479: parameter $\mu$. Interpreting $\mu$ as the screening mass in a gluon
480: plasma, the model for the finite temperature $Q\bar{Q}$ potential now
481: looks like
482: \begin{equation}\label{eq:screenedcoulomb_run}
483: V_{s} = - \, \frac{g^2(r, T) \,N_c}{8\,\pi \,r}\, \exp \left({-
484: m_D(T)\,r}\right)
485: \end{equation}
486: At short distance and/or low temperature, we shall consider a frozen
487: coupling constant
488: \begin{equation}\label{eq:running_short}
489: g^2(r, T) = g^2 \qquad {\mathrm{for}}\ r\,T\ll \Lambda
490: \end{equation}
491: and recover the Coulomb potential behavior~(\ref{eq:coulomb}), while
492: the QCD coupling starts to run with $T$ at large distance and/or high
493: temperature. At two loops, we have
494: \begin{equation}\label{eq:running_long}
495: g^2(r, T) \equiv \tilde{g}^2(T) =
496: \Biggr(\frac{11}{8\pi^2}\ln\left(\frac{2 \pi
497: T}{\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}}\right) +
498: \frac{51}{88\pi^2}\ln\left[2\ln\left(\frac{2 \pi
499: T}{\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}}\right)\right]\Biggr)^{-1}\qquad
500: {\mathrm{for}}\ r\,T \gg \Lambda
501: \end{equation}
502: with $T_c / \Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}} =
503: 1.14$~\cite{Kaczmarek:2004gv}. The Debye mass $m_D$ is related to the
504: temperature through the leading-order perturbative result,
505: \begin{equation*}
506: m_D(T) = \tilde{g}(T)\,T.
507: \end{equation*}
508: The $\Lambda$ dimensionless parameter introduced in
509: Ref.~\cite{Kaczmarek:2004gv} separates somewhat arbitrarily the short
510: from the long distance physics at finite temperature. Fitting pure
511: gauge SU(3) heavy quark potential, they obtained the empirical value
512: $\Lambda = 0.48 \,\mathrm{fm} \times
513: T_c$. Following~\cite{Kaczmarek:2004gv}, we shall take the 2-loop
514: running coupling~(\ref{eq:running_long}) rescaled by 2.095 and
515: interpolate smoothly between the short and long distance
516: regime\footnote{Similar results are obtained using the one loop
517: running coupling with an appropriate rescaling.}.
518: \begin{figure}[h]
519: \begin{center}
520: \includegraphics[width=15.0cm]{sigphit.eps}
521: \end{center}
522: \caption{$J/\psi$ ({\it left}) and $\Upsilon$ ({\it right}) total
523: cross sections with gluons ({\it top}) and pions ({\it bottom}) at
524: various temperatures.}
525: \label{fig:cross_sect_temp}
526: \end{figure}
527:
528: The partonic and hadronic $\jps$ and $\Upsilon$ cross sections are
529: computed in Figure~\ref{fig:cross_sect_temp} for several temperatures
530: in units of the critical temperature for deconfinement, $T_c =
531: 270$~MeV in SU(3) pure gauge theory~\cite{Karsch:2001vs}. The
532: temperatures selected for the bottomonium system are chosen to be
533: slightly higher than those for the charmonium system since the larger
534: bottom quark mass (hence, smaller size) probes more efficiently hotter
535: QCD media~\cite{Digal:2001ue}.
536:
537: The effects of the running coupling in
538: Eq.~(\ref{eq:screenedcoulomb_run}) being quite small, rather similar
539: features at finite temperature and at finite screening are
540: observed. In particular, the charmonium binding energy (hence the
541: inelastic threshold) drops by a factor of two already at $T/T_c=0.5$
542: and thus affects dramatically the $\jps$ interaction in the vicinity
543: of the threshold. At higher temperature, the $\jps$~--~gluon cross
544: section is significantly enhanced at small gluon energy due to the
545: larger charmonium size. The $\jps$~--~$\pi$ cross section is also
546: somewhat modified with a magnitude increasing noticeably with the
547: temperature. Moving to the bottom sector
548: (Figure~\ref{fig:cross_sect_temp}, {\it right}), the $\Upsilon$ cross
549: sections exhibit the same general characteristics yet the medium
550: effects at a given temperature prove much less pronounced from the
551: smaller bottomonium size.
552:
553: At high temperature, heavy-quarkonium interaction can not be described
554: by short-distance techniques (see Fig.~\ref{fig:radii}) and our
555: predictions are not valid any longer. On top of that, the process
556: described here is the heavy-quarkonium dissociation by {\it hard}
557: gluons as opposed to the soft gluons which only affect its
558: properties. Therefore, our calculations should be valid as long as the
559: Debye mass is kept smaller than the heavy-quarkonium Rydberg energy,
560: $m_D(T)~\lesssim~\epso$. This condition is fulfilled provided the bath
561: temperature is smaller than 350~MeV. Above that scale, the screened
562: exchanges are able to dissociate the bound states, the factorization
563: between the heavy-quarkonium physics and the external gluon field is
564: broken and the above QCD picture loses its significance.
565:
566:
567: \subsection{$J/\psi$ spectral function width}
568:
569: The former results indicate that Debye screening effects may play an
570: important role in the heavy-quarkonium dissociation by incoming gluons
571: or pions. In order to illustrate how medium modifications could affect
572: the $\Phi$ suppression in heavy-ion collisions, we compute in this
573: section the 1S charmonium thermal width $\Gamma_{_{\jps}}$ (or
574: equivalently its lifetime, $\tau_{_{\jps}} = \Gamma_{_{\jps}}^{-1}$)
575: in a hot gluon bath. Assuming the $\jps$ suppression is only due to
576: the gluon dissociation process, the width can be written
577: \begin{equation*}
578: \Gamma_{_{\jps}}(T) =
579: \frac{1}{2\,\pi^2}\,\int_0^{\infty}\,\omega^2\,d\omega\,\sigma_{\jps
580: g}(\omega, T)\,n_g(\omega, T)
581: \end{equation*}
582: where $n_g(\omega, T) = 2 (N_c^2-1)\bigr/ (\exp\left(\omega/T\right) -
583: 1)$ is the gluon density in a gluon gas in thermal equilibrium.
584: \begin{figure}[h]
585: \begin{center}
586: \includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{width.eps}
587: \end{center}
588: \caption{$J/\psi$ thermal width as a function of the temperature
589: with ({\it dotted}) and without ({\it solid}) modifications of the
590: heavy-quark potential. The lattice data point obtained in
591: Ref.~\cite{Umeda:2002vr} is also shown for comparison.}
592: \label{fig:width}
593: \end{figure}
594:
595: The thermal width is computed in Figure~\ref{fig:width} as a function
596: of the temperature $T$ assuming the vacuum ({\it solid}) and the
597: in-medium ({\it dashed}) $\jps$~--~gluon cross section. At small
598: temperature, $T \ll \eps$, most gluons are not sufficiently energetic
599: to dissociate $\jps$ states and the width remain small as the phase
600: space selected by the $\jps$ gluon threshold is restricted. When the
601: medium gets warmer, more and more gluons are able to interact
602: inelastically with the $\jps$, hence the thermal width
603: increases. Interestingly enough, the in-medium $\jps$ thermal width
604: proves larger by a factor of two or more up to $T=T_c$ due to the
605: lower threshold in the medium modified cross sections. At even higher
606: temperature, the medium modified result becomes smaller to that in the
607: vacuum since {\it dissociating} gluons (with $\omega$ of order
608: $\epsilon$) grow scarce. Also plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:width} is
609: the $\jps$ width computed recently on the lattice at finite
610: temperature in the quenched
611: approximation~\cite{Umeda:2002vr}. Although a significant discrepancy
612: remains between our calculations and the lattice data point, it is
613: interesting to note that adding medium effects tends to reduce the
614: disagreement, whose origin is not clarified.
615:
616:
617: \section{Concluding discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
618:
619: Before summarizing our main results, we would like to discuss the
620: limitations of our approach. The starting point of the calculation is
621: the forward scattering amplitude $\mathcal{M}_{\Phi\,h}$ originally
622: derived for Coulomb bound states. To go beyond this one-gluon exchange
623: picture would require to include light quark loops in the
624: diagrammatics, to which the soft gluon source may couple, that we have
625: not attempted. However, as conjectured in~\cite{Bhanot:1979vb}, it is
626: appealing to guess that the generic dipole coupling appearing to
627: leading order in $g^2$ in the heavy-quarkonium Wilson
628: coefficients~(\ref{eq:wilson}) survives perturbative and
629: non-perturbative modifications of the $Q\bar{Q}$ binding
630: potential. Therefore we believe that taking the literal expression for
631: the Coulomb states Wilson coefficients and compute them in a screened
632: Coulomb potential appears sensible, at least as long as the screening
633: remains reasonable, $m_D \, a_0 \ll 1$. This is certainly the case
634: when the temperature is kept small as compared to the heavy quark
635: mass. In that sense, the smallness of the charm and bottom quark mass
636: as compared to the non-perturbative scale of QCD indeed remains a
637: problematic issue. As we have seen, typical space time scale becomes
638: increasingly larger with the temperature, thus strongly limiting our
639: confidence in the high temperature regime. Finally, one should keep a
640: clear factorization between the gluon source and the heavy-quarkonium
641: swimming in the gluon bath. We have seen that such a separation should
642: be achieved as long as the Debye mass is small as compared to the
643: bound state Rydberg energy, that is for temperatures $T \lesssim
644: 350$~MeV.
645:
646: We presented a numerical calculation of the heavy-quarkonium cross
647: section with gluons and pions, taking into account the possible
648: medium-modifications of the heavy-quark potential at finite
649: temperature. Such a work can therefore be useful to estimate
650: heavy-quarkonium production in high energy heavy-ion collisions. In
651: particular, we feel it would be interesting to explore the
652: phenomenological consequences of such corrections comparing them to
653: present calculations based on the vacuum heavy-quarkonium
654: interaction. Finally, this very framework could be applied to study
655: the $\Phi$ interaction using a variety of realistic heavy quark
656: (confining) potentials currently used in charmonium and bottomonium
657: spectroscopy~\cite{Kwong:1987mj} to describe more accurately, although
658: further away from the perturbative requirement, heavy-quarkonium
659: interaction with gluons and hadrons.
660:
661: \section*{Acknowledgements}
662:
663: This work was supported the Belgian "Institut Interuniversitaire des
664: Sciences Nucleaires" foundation.
665:
666: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
667: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
668:
669: \bibitem{Karsch:1988rj} F.~Karsch, H.W. Wyld, Phys. Lett. {\bf B213},
670: 505 (1988);\\ F.~Karsch, J. Phys. {\bf G30}, 887 (2004).
671:
672: \bibitem{Karsch:2001vs} F. Karsch, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A698}, 199 (2002).
673:
674: \bibitem{Matsui:1986dk} T.~Matsui, H.~Satz, Phys. Lett. {\bf B178},
675: 416 (1986).
676:
677: \bibitem{Bedjidian:2003gd} For a review, see M. Bedjidian {\em et
678: al.}, CERN-2004-009, \texttt{hep-ph/0311048}.
679:
680: \bibitem{Abreu:2000ni} NA50 collaboration, M.~C. Abreu {\em et~al.},
681: Phys. Lett. {\bf B477}, 28 (2000).
682:
683: \bibitem{Adler:2003rc} PHENIX collaboration, S.~S. Adler {\em et~al.},
684: Phys. Rev. {\bf C69}, 014901 (2004).
685:
686: \bibitem{Matinyan:1998cb} S.G. Matinyan, B. M\"uller, Phys. Rev. {\bf
687: C58}, 2994 (1998);\\ Y. Oh, T. Song, S.H. Lee, Phys. Rev. {\bf C63},
688: 034901 (2001);\\ L.~Maiani, F.~Piccinini, A.D. Polosa, V.~Riquer,
689: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A741}, 273 (2004).
690:
691: \bibitem{Martins:1995hd} K.~Martins, D.~Blaschke, E.~Quack,
692: Phys. Rev. {\bf C51}, 2723 (1995);\\ C.-Y. Wong, E.S. Swanson,
693: T. Barnes, Phys. Rev. {\bf C62}, 045201 (2000).
694:
695: \bibitem{Peskin:1979va} M.E.~Peskin, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B156}, 365
696: (1979).
697:
698: \bibitem{Bhanot:1979vb} G.~Bhanot, M.E.~Peskin, Nucl. Phys. {\bf
699: B156}, 391 (1979).
700:
701: \bibitem{Xu:1996eb} X.-M.~Xu, D.~Kharzeev, H.~Satz, X.-N.~Wang,
702: Phys. Rev. {\bf C53}, 3051 (1996);\\ R.L. Thews, M. Schroedter,
703: J. Rafelski, Phys. Rev. {\bf C63}, 054905 (2001);\\ L.~Grandchamp,
704: R.~Rapp, Phys. Lett. {\bf B523}, 60 (2001);\\ A. Polleri, T. Renk,
705: R. Schneider, W. Weise, Phys. Rev. {\bf C70}, 044906 (2004).
706:
707: \bibitem{Kwong:1987mj} W. Kwong, J. Rosner, C. Quigg,
708: Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 37}, 325 (1987).
709:
710: \bibitem{Kharzeev:1996tw} D.~Kharzeev, H.~Satz, A.~Syamtomov,
711: G.~Zinovjev, Phys. Lett. {\bf B389}, 595 (1996).
712:
713: \bibitem{Arleo:2001mp} F.~Arleo, P.-B. Gossiaux, T.~Gousset,
714: J.~Aichelin, Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 014005 (2002).
715:
716: \bibitem{Oh:2001rm} Y.-S. Oh, S. Kim, S.H. Lee, Phys. Rev. {\bf C65},
717: 067901 (2002);\\
718: T. Song, S.H. Lee, \texttt {hep-ph/0501252}.
719:
720: \bibitem{Gluck:1991ey} M.~Gl\"uck, E.~Reya, A.~Vogt, Z. Phys. {\bf
721: C53}, 651 (1992).
722:
723: \bibitem{Aid:1996au} H1 collaboration, S. Aid {\em et al.},
724: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B470}, 3 (1996).
725:
726: \bibitem{Kaczmarek:2004gv} O.~Kaczmarek, F.~Karsch, F.~Zantow,
727: P.~Petreczky, Phys. Rev. {\bf D70}, 074505 (2004).
728:
729: \bibitem{Digal:2001ue} S.~Digal, P.~Petreczky, H.~Satz,
730: Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, 094015 (2001).
731:
732: \bibitem{Umeda:2002vr} T. Umeda, K. Nomura, H. Matsufuru,
733: \texttt{hep-lat/0211003}.
734:
735: \end{thebibliography}
736:
737: \end{document}
738: