1: \documentclass[twoside,fleqn,espcrc2]{article}
2: \usepackage{fleqn,espcrc2}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: %style pour inserer figures en eps
5: \usepackage{here}%pour inserer figures et tables a emplacement
6: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
7: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
8: A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}
9: \hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed}
10: \textwidth 17cm
11: \textheight 24.3cm
12: \topmargin -2.cm
13: \oddsidemargin -.3cm
14: \evensidemargin -0.5cm
15: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
16: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
17: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
18: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
19: \def\bq{\begin{quote}}
20: \def\eq{\end{quote}}
21: \def\ve{\vert}
22:
23: \def\nnb{\nonumber}
24: \def\ga{\left(}
25: \def\dr{\right)}
26: \def\aga{\left\{}
27: \def\adr{\right\}}
28: \def\lb{\lbrack}
29: \def\rb{\rbrack}
30: \def\rar{\rightarrow}
31: \def\lrar{\Longrightarrow}
32: \def\nnb{\nonumber}
33: \def\la{\langle}
34: \def\ra{\rangle}
35: \def\nin{\noindent}
36: \def\ba{\begin{array}}
37: \def\ea{\end{array}}
38: \def\bm{\overline{m}}
39: \def\ind{\indexentry}
40: \def\c{\clubsuit}
41: \def\s{\spadesuit}
42: \def\b{\bullet}
43:
44: \def\als{\alpha_s}
45: \def\as{\ga\frac{\bar{\alpha_s}}{\pi}\dr}
46: \def\asr{\ga\frac{{\alpha_s}}{\pi}\dr}
47: \def\gg{ \la\alpha_s G^2 \ra}
48: \def\ggg{g^3f_{abc}\la G^aG^bG^c \ra}
49: \def\gggg{\la\als^2G^4\ra}
50: \def\lnu{\log{-\frac{q^2}{\nu^2}}}
51: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
52: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
53: \newcommand{\myOverwrite}[2]{\makebox[0cm][l]{#1}#2\ }
54: \newcommand{\dslash}{\myOverwrite{$D$}{\mbox{$\,\slash$}}}
55: \newcommand{\pslash}{\myOverwrite{$p$}{\mbox{$\,\slash$}}}
56: \newcommand{\qslash}{\myOverwrite{$q$}{\mbox{$\slash$}}}
57: \newcommand{\qs}{\mbox{Q}\!\mbox{S}}
58: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
59: \title{\bf{\boldmath
60: {\Large Heavy-light $\bar Qq$ mesons in QCD }\thanks{Talk presented at the 11th High-Energy Physics International Conference in Quantum
61: Chromodynamics QCD 04 (5-9th July 2004-Montpellier-France) and partly presented at the 2nd High-Energy Physics International Conference HEP-MAD
62: 04 (27th Sept.- 2nd Oct. 2004-Antananarivo-Madagascar). } }}
63: \author{Stephan
64: Narison\address{ Laboratoire de Physique Math\'ematique et Th\'eorique, Universit\'e
65: de Montpellier II, Case 070, Place Eug\`ene
66: Bataillon, 34095 - Montpellier Cedex 05,
67: France. E-mail:
68: snarison@yahoo.fr} }
69: \begin{document}
70: %\pagestyle{empty}
71: \pagestyle{plain}
72: %\vspace*{2cm}
73: \begin{abstract}
74: \noindent
75: This talk summarizes the study of the dynamics of the heavy-light $\bar Qq$ open charm and beauty mesons
76: obtained in \cite{SNB03} using QCD spectral sum
77: rules (QSSR) and motivated by the recent experimental discovery of the $D_{sJ}(2317)$ and
78: $D_{sJ}(2457)$ mesons. The important
79: r\^ole of the chiral condensate
80: $\la
81: \bar
82: \psi\psi\ra
83: $ in the mass-splittings between the scalar-pseudoscalar mesons is emphasized. The emerging value of the running charm
84: quark mass for reproducing the well-known
85: $D(0^-)$ and
86: $D_s(0^-)$ masses is: $\bar m_c(m_c)=1.13^{+0.08}_{-0.04}$ GeV, which confirms previous estimates from this channel \cite{SNC}. Using
87: this value, the sum rules give:
88: $M_{D_s(0^+)}\simeq (2297\pm 113)$ MeV, and a small $SU(3)$
89: breaking: $M_{D_s{(0^+)}}-M_{D{(0^+)}}\approx$ 25 MeV. Extending the analysis to the
90: $B$-system, one finds: $M_{B(0^+)}- M_{B(0^-)}\simeq (422\pm 196)$ MeV $\simeq M_{D_s{(0^+)}}-M_{D_s{(0^-)}}$. Assuming an approximate (heavy and
91: light) flavour and spin symmetries of the mass-splittings as indicated by the previous results, one also deduces:
92: $M_{D^*_s(1^+)}\simeq (2440\pm 113)$ MeV. Finally, one also gets:
93: $f_{D(0^+)}\simeq (217\pm 25)$ MeV much bigger than $f_\pi$=130.6 MeV, suggesting a large violation of the $1/\sqrt{M_D}$ scaling,
94: while the size of the $SU(3)$ breaking
95: ratio $f_{D_s(0^+)}/f_{D(0^+)}\simeq 0.93\pm 0.02$ is opposite to the one of the $0^-$
96: channel of about 1.14.
97: \end{abstract}
98: \maketitle
99: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
100: \section{INTRODUCTION}
101: The recent observations of two new states $D_{sJ}(2317)$ and $D_{sJ}(2457)$ \cite{BONDI} in the $D_s\pi$, $D_s\gamma$
102: and
103: $D_s\pi\gamma$ final states have stimulated a renewed interest in the spectroscopy of open
104: charm states which one can notice from different recent theoretical attempts to identify
105: their nature \cite{QUIGG}. In a recent paper \cite{SNB03}, we have tried to provide the answer to this
106: question from QCD spectral sum rules \`a la Shifman-Vainshtein-Zakharov \cite{SVZ}. In fact,
107: a similar question has been
108: already addressed in the past \cite{SNSP}, where we have predicted using QSSR the
109: mass splitting of the $0^+-0^-$ and $1^--1^+~\bar bu$ mesons using double ratio of moments sum rules
110: based on an expansion in the inverse of the $b$ quark mass. We found that the value of the
111: mass-splittings between the chiral multiplets were about the same and approximately independent of the spin
112: of these mesons signaling an heavy quark-type approximate symmetry:
113: \bea\label{eq: bsplit}
114: M_{B{(0^+)}}-M_{B{(0^-)}}&\approx& M_{B^*{(1^+)}}-M_{B^*{(1^-)}}\nnb\\
115: &\approx& (417\pm 212)~{\rm MeV}~.
116: \eea
117: 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
118: the $b$ quark mass.
119: In the paper \cite{SNB03}, we have used an analogous approach to the open charm states. However, a
120: method in terms of the $1/m_c$ expansion and some other nonrelativistic sum rules will be dangerous here
121: due to the relatively light value of the charm quark mass. Instead, we shall work with relativistic
122: exponential sum rules used successfully in the light quark channels for predicting the meson masses and QCD parameters \cite{SNB}
123: and in the
124: $D$ and
125: $B$ channels for predicting the (famous) decay constants $f_{D,B}$ \cite{SNC,SNB,SNFB} and the charm and bottom quark masses
126: \cite{SNC,SNB,SNFB,SNM,QMASS}.
127: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
128: \section{THE SUM RULES}
129: We shall work here with the (pseudo)scalar
130: two-point correlators:
131: \bea
132: \psi_{P/S}(q^2) \equiv i \int d^4x ~e^{iqx} \
133: \la 0\vert {\cal T}
134: J_{P/S}(x)
135: J^\dagger _{P/S}(0) \vert 0 \ra ,
136: \eea
137: built from the (pseudo)scalar and (axial)-vector heavy-light quark currents:
138: \beq
139: 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~.
140: \eeq
141: If we fix $Q\equiv c$ and $q\equiv s$, the corresponding mesons
142: have the quantum numbers of the $D_s(0^-)$, $D_s(0^+)$ mesons. $m_Q$
143: and $m_s$ are the running
144: quark masses.
145: In the (pseudo)scalar channels, the relevant sum rules for our problem are the
146: Laplace transform sum rules:
147: \bea
148: {\cal L}^H_{P/S}(\tau)
149: &=& \int_{t_\leq}^{\infty} {dt}~\mbox{e}^{-t\tau}
150: ~\frac{1}{\pi}~\mbox{Im} \psi^H_{P/S}(t),\nnb\\
151: {\cal R}^H_{P/S}(\tau) &\equiv& -\frac{d}{d\tau} \log {{\cal L}^H_{P/S}(\tau)},
152: \eea
153: where $t_\leq$ is the hadronic threshold, and H denotes the corresponding meson. The latter sum rule,
154: or its slight modification, is useful, as it is equal to the
155: resonance mass squared, in
156: the simple duality ansatz parametrization of the spectral function:
157: \bea
158: \frac{1}{\pi}\mbox{ Im}\psi^H_P(t)&\simeq& f^2_DM_D^4\delta(t-M^2_D)\nnb\\
159: &+&
160: ``\mbox{QCD continuum}" \Theta (t-t_c),
161: \eea
162: where the ``QCD continuum comes from the discontinuity of the QCD
163: diagrams, which is expected to give a good smearing of the
164: different radial excitations \footnote{At
165: the optimization scale, the continuum effect is negligible, such that a more
166: involved parametrization is not necessary.}. The decay constant $f_D$ is
167: analogous to $f_\pi=130.6$ MeV;
168: $t_c$ is the QCD continuum threshold, which is, like the
169: sum rule variable $\tau$, an (a priori) arbitrary
170: parameter. In this
171: paper, we shall impose the
172: $\tau$- and $t_c$-stability criteria for extracting our optimal
173: results. The corresponding $t_c$ value also agrees with the FESR duality constraints \cite{RAF,SNB} and very roughly indicates
174: 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
175: beginning of $\tau$- to the one of $t_c$-stabilities. \\
176: The QCD expression of the correlator
177: is well-known to two-loop accuracy
178: (see e.g. \cite{SNB} and the explicit expressions given in \cite{SNC,SNFB}),
179: in terms of the perturbative pole mass $M_Q$, and including the non-perturbative
180: condensates of dimensions less than or equal to six~\footnote{We shall
181: include the negligible contribution from the dimension six four-quark condensates, while we shall neglect an eventual
182: tachyonic gluon mass correction term found to be negligible in some other channels \cite{ZAK}. }. For a
183: pedagocial presentation, we write the sum rule in the chiral limit ($m_s=0$) and to leading order in $\alpha_s$, where the
184: expression is more compact. In this way, one can understand qualitatively the source of the mass splittings.
185: The sum rule
186: reads to leading order:
187: \bea
188: {\cal L}^H_{P/S}(\tau)
189: &=& M^2_Q\Bigg{\{}\int_{M^2_Q}^{\infty} {dt}~\mbox{e}^{-t\tau}~\frac{1}{8\pi^2} 3 t(1-x)^2\nnb\\
190: &+&C_4\la O_4\ra_{P/S} +\tau C_6\la
191: O_6\ra_{P/S}~\mbox{e}^{-M^2_Q\tau}\Bigg{\}}
192: \eea
193: where $\la O_{4(6)}\ra$ are the dimension-4(6) condensates and and $C_{4(6)}$ their respective Wilson coefficients:
194: \bea
195: x&\equiv& M^2_Q/t,\nnb\\
196: C_4\la O_4\ra_{P/S}&=&\mp M_Q\la \bar dd\ra~\mbox{e}^{-M^2_Q\tau} \nnb\\
197: &&+\la \als G^2\ra\ga {3\over 2}-M_Q^2\tau\dr/12\pi~,\nnb\\
198: C_6\la O_6\ra_{P/S}&=&\mp\frac{M_Q}{2}\ga 1-\frac{M^2_Q\tau}{2}\dr\times\nnb\\
199: && g\la\bar d\sigma_{\mu\nu}\frac{\lambda_a}{2}G_a^{\mu\nu}d\ra
200: \nnb\\ &&-\ga\frac{8\pi}{27}\dr\ga 2-\frac{M^2_Q\tau}{2}
201: -\frac{M^4_Q\tau^2}{6}\dr\times\nnb\\ &&\rho\als \la \bar
202: \psi\psi\ra^2~,
203: \eea
204: where we have used the contribution of the gluon condensate given in \cite{GEN}, which is IR finite
205: when letting $m_q\rar 0$ \footnote{The numerical change is negligible compared with the original expression obtained in \cite{NOVIKOV}.}.
206: The previous sum rules can be expressed in terms of the running mass $\bar{m}_Q(\nu)$
207: through the perturbative two-loop relation \cite{TARRACH,HEAVYQUARK}:
208: \bea\label{relation}
209: M_{Q}&=&\bar m_Q(p^2)\Bigg{[}1+\ga\frac{4}{3}+\ln{\frac{p^2}{M_Q^2}}\dr\as
210: \Bigg{]}~,
211: \eea
212: where $M_Q$ is the pole mass.
213: Throughout this paper we
214: shall use the values of the QCD parameters given in Table 1.
215: %\nin
216: \begin{table}[H]
217: \begin{center}
218: % space before first and after last column: 1.5pc
219: % space between columns: 3.0pc (twice the above)
220: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{.28pc}
221: % -----------------------------------------------------
222: % adapted from TeX book, p. 241
223: \newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 1.5}
224: %\catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
225: % -----------------------------------------------------
226: \caption{QCD input parameters used in the analysis.}
227: %\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}rrrrr}
228: \begin{tabular}{ll}
229: \\
230: %\\
231: \hline
232: %\hline
233: % \\
234: Parameters& References\\
235: %\\
236: \hline
237: \\
238: $\Lambda_4=(325\pm 43)$ MeV&\cite{SNB}\\
239: $\Lambda_5=(225\pm 30)$ MeV&\cite{SNB}\\
240: $\bar m_b(m_b)=(4.24\pm 0.06)$ GeV&\cite{SNB,QMASS,SNC}\\
241: $\bar m_s(2~{\rm GeV})= (111\pm 22)$ MeV&\cite{SNB,QMASS,SNMS,JAMINA}\\
242: %$\bar m_c(m_c)=(1.23\pm 0.05)$ GeV&\cite{SNB,QMASS,SNC}\\
243: $\la \bar dd\ra^{1/3}$(2 GeV)=$-(243\pm 14)$ MeV&\cite{SNB,QMASS,DOSCHSN}\\
244: $\la \bar ss\ra /\la \bar dd\ra=0.8\pm 0.1$&\cite{SNB,SNP2}\\
245: $\la \alpha_s G^2\ra=(0.07\pm 0.01)$ GeV$^4$&\cite{SNB,SNG}\\
246: $M^2_0=(0.8\pm 0.1)$ GeV$^2$&\cite{SNB,SNSP}\\
247: $\alpha_s\la\bar\psi\psi\ra^2=(5.8\pm 2.4)\times 10^{-4}~$GeV$^6$&\cite{SNB,SNG,LNT}\\
248: %&\\
249: %\\
250: \hline
251: %\hline
252: \end{tabular}
253: \end{center}
254: \end{table}
255: \nin
256: We have used for the mixed condensate the
257: parametrization:
258: $
259: g\la\bar d\sigma_{\mu\nu}\frac{\lambda_a}{2}G_a^{\mu\nu}d\ra=M^2_0\la\bar dd\ra,
260: $
261: and deduced the value of the QCD scale $\Lambda$ from the value of $\alpha_s(M_Z)=(0.1184\pm 0.031)$
262: \cite{PDG,BETHKE}. We have taken the mean value of $m_s$ from recent papers and reviews \cite{SNB,QMASS,SNMS,JAMINA}.
263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
264: \section{$\bar m_c(m_c)$ FROM $M_{D(0^-)}$ AND $M_{D_s(0^-)}$ }
265: \begin{figure*}[hbt]
266: \begin{center}
267: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{mdsa.eps}
268: \includegraphics[width=6cm]{mdsb.eps}
269: \caption{\footnotesize $\tau$ 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
270: $\bar m_c(m_c)=1.15$ GeV at a given value of $t_c=7.5$ GeV$^2$. The dashed line is the result including the leading
271: $\la \bar \psi\psi\ra$ contribution. The full line is the one including non-perturbative effects up to dimension-six.}
272: \end{center}
273: \end{figure*}
274: This analysis has been already done in previous papers to order $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_s^2$ \cite{SNC,SNFB} and has served to fix the running
275: charm quark mass. We repeat this analysis here to order $\alpha_s$ for a pedagogical purpose. We show in Fig. 1a), the $\tau$-dependence of the
276: $D(0^-)$ and in Fig 1b) the one of the
277: $D_s(0^-)$ masses for a given value of $t_c$, which is the central value of the range:
278: \beq
279: t_c=(7.5\pm 1.5)~{\rm GeV}^2~,
280: \eeq
281: where the lowest value corresponds to the beginning of $\tau$-stablity and the highest one to the beginning of $t_c$-stability obtained by
282: \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
283: rule literature. As mentioned previously, the one of the beginning of $t_c$ stability co\"\i ncides, in general, with the value obtained
284: from FESR local duality constraints \cite{RAF,SNB}. Using the input values of QCD parameters in Table 1, the best fits of the
285: $D(0^-)$ (resp.
286: $D_s(0^-))$ masses for a given value of
287: $t_c=7.5$ GeV$^2$ correspond to a value of $\bar m_c(m_c)$ of 1.11 (resp. 1.15) GeV.
288: Taking the mean value as an estimate, one can deduce:
289: \beq\label{cmass}
290: \bar m_c(m_c^2)=(1.13^{+0.07}_{- 0.02}\pm 0.02\pm 0.02\pm 0.02)~{\rm GeV}~,
291: \eeq
292: where the errors come respectively from $t_c$, $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$, $\Lambda$ and the mean value of $m_c$ required from fitting the
293: $D(0^-)$ and $D_s(0^-)$ masses.
294: This value is perfectly consistent with the one obtained in \cite{SNC,SNFB} obtained to the same order and to order $\alpha_s^2$,
295: 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
296: much the final result from the sum rule analysis. In fact, higher corrections tend mainly to shift the
297: position of the stability regions but affect slightly the output value of $m_c$. This value of
298: $m_c$ is in the range of the current average value
299: $(1.23\pm 0.05)$ GeV reviewed in \cite{SNB,QMASS,PDG}. However, it does not favour higher values of $m_c$ allowed in some other channels and
300: by some non relativistic sum rules and approaches. However, these non relativistic approaches might be quite inaccurate due to the relative
301: smallness of the charm quark mass. Higher values of $m_c$ would lead to an overestimate of the
302: $D(0^-)$ 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
303: non-strange (resp. strange) meson channels.
304: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
305: \section{THE $0^+$ MESON MASSES}
306: \begin{figure}[hbt]
307: \begin{center}
308: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{mdss.eps}
309: \caption{\footnotesize Similar to Fig. 1 but $\tau$-behaviour of $M_{D_s(0^+)}$ for given values of $t_c=7.5$ GeV$^2$ and $m_c(m_c)=1.15$
310: GeV.}
311: \end{center}
312: \end{figure}
313: %\nin
314: %\begin{itemize}
315: $\b$ We study in Fig. 2), the $\tau$-dependence of the $D_s(0^+)$ mass at the values of $t_c$ and $m_c$ obtained
316: previously. In this way, we obtain:
317: \bea\label{eq: dssp}
318: M_{D_s{(0^+)}}\simeq (2297^{+81+63}_{- 98-70}\pm 11
319: \pm 2\pm 11)~{\rm MeV}
320: \eea
321: where the errors come respectively from $t_c$, $m_c$, $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$, $m_s$, and $\Lambda$. This implies:
322: \bea
323: M_{D_s{(0^+)}}-M_{D_s{(0^-)}} = (328\pm 113)~{\rm
324: MeV}~,\eea
325: We have used the experimental value of $M_{D_s{(0^-)}}$.
326: The reduction of the theoretical error needs
327: precise values of the continuum threshold \footnote{The range of $t_c$-values 6-9 GeV$^2$ obtained previously for the $D(0^-)$ mesons
328: co\"\i ncides a posteriori with the corresponding range for the $D(0^+)$ meson if one assumes that the splitting between the radial
329: 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
330: 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
331: reach of the estimate of these quantities \footnote{For this reason, as explicitly discussed in \cite{SNB03}, the error of 30 MeV quoted in
332: \cite{JAPS} has been underestimated. Indeed, it only takes into account the one from a small range of the continuum threshold values.} .
333: Further discoveries of the continuum states will reduce the present error in the splitting. One should also notice that in the ratio of sum
334: rules with which we are working, we expect that perturbative radiative corrections are minimized though individually large in the expression
335: of the correlator and of the quark mass.\\
336: $\b$
337: The value of the mass-splittings obtained previously is comparable with the one of the $B(0^+)$-$B(0^-)$ given in Eq. (\ref{eq:
338: bsplit}), and suggests an approximate heavy-flavour symmetry of this observable.\\
339: $\b$
340: We also derive the result in the limit of $SU(3)_F$ symmetry where the strange quark
341: mass is put to zero, and where the $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$ condensate is chirally symmetric ($\la\bar
342: ss\ra=\la\bar dd\ra$). In this case, one can predict an approximate degenerate mass within the errors:
343: \beq\label{eq: su3split}
344: M_{D_s{(0^+)}}-M_{D{(0^+)}}\simeq 25 ~{\rm MeV}~,
345: \eeq
346: which indicates that the mass-splitting between the strange and non-strange $0^+$
347: 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. \\
348: $\b$ 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 $0^-$
349: masses as the prediction on the absolute values though presenting stability in $\tau$ tend to overestimate the value of $M_B$. We obtain:
350: \bea
351: {M_{B{(0^+)}}\over M_{B{(0^-)}}}\simeq 1.08\pm 0.03\pm 0.03 \pm 0.02\pm 0.02
352: \eea
353: where the errors come respectively from $t_c$ taken in the range $43-60$ GeV$^2$, $m_b$, $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$, and $\tau$. We have used the value of $\bar
354: m_b(m_b)$ given in Table 1. This implies:
355: \bea\label{eq: bsplit2}
356: M_{B{(0^+)}}-M_{B{(0^-)}}\simeq (422\pm 196) ~{\rm MeV}~,
357: \eea
358: which
359: agrees with the result in Eq. (\ref{eq: bsplit}) obtained from moment sum rules \cite{SNSP}.
360: %\end{itemize}
361: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
362: \section{The $1^+$ MESON MASS}
363: Our previous results in Eqs. (\ref{eq: bsplit}), (\ref{eq: dssp}) to (\ref{eq: bsplit2}) suggest that the mass-splittings are approximately
364: (heavy and light) flavour and spin independent. Therefore, one can write to a good approximation the empirical relation:
365: \bea\label{eq: emp}
366: M_{D_s{(0^+)}}-M_{D_s{(0^-)}}&\approx& M_{D{(0^+)}}-M_{D{(0^-)}}\approx \nnb\\
367: M_{B{(0^+)}}-M_{B{(0^-)}}&\approx&
368: M_{B{(1^+)}}-M_{B{(1^-)}}\nnb\\&\approx& M_{D^*_s{(1^+)}}-M_{D^*_s{(1^-)}}~.
369: \eea
370: Using the most precise number given in Eq. (\ref{eq: dssp}), one can deduce:
371: \bea\label{eq: 1split}
372: M_{D^*_s{(1^+)}}\simeq (2440\pm 113)~{\rm MeV}~.
373: \eea
374: This result is consistent with the $1^+$ assignement of the $\bar cs$ meson $D_{sJ}(2457)$ discovered recently \cite{BONDI}.
375:
376: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
377: \section{THE $0^+$ DECAY CONSTANTS }
378: \begin{figure}[hbt]
379: \begin{center}
380: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fds.eps}
381: \caption{\footnotesize Similar to Fig. 1 but $\tau$-behaviour of $f_D(0^+)$ for given values of $t_c=7.5$ GeV$^2$ and $\bar m_c(m_c)=1.11$
382: GeV.}
383: \end{center}
384: \end{figure}
385: \nin
386: For completing our analysis, we estimate the decay constant $f_{D(0^+)}$ analogue to $f_\pi=130.6$ MeV.
387: We show the behaviour of $f_{D(0^+)}$ versus $\tau$, where a goood stablity is
388: 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
389: the non strange $D(0^+)$ meson mass,
390: we deduce to two-loop accuracy:
391: \beq\label{eq: fdplus}
392: f_{D(0^+)}=(217^{+5+15}_{-15-19} \pm 10\pm 10)~{\rm MeV}~,
393: \eeq
394: where the errors come respectively from the values of $t_c$, $m_c$, $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$ and $\Lambda$. We have
395: fixed
396: $M_{D(0+)}$ to be about 2272 MeV from our previous fit. It is informative to compare this result with the one of $f_{D}=(205\pm
397: 20)$ MeV, where the main difference can be attributed by the sign flip of the quark condensate contribution in the QCD expression
398: of the corresponding correlators. A numerical study of the $SU(3)$ breaking effect leads to:
399: \beq\label{decay1}
400: r_s\equiv\frac{f_{D_s(0^+)}}{f_{D(0^+)}}\simeq 0.93\pm 0.02~,
401: \eeq
402: 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
403: \cite{SNFBS}. In order to understand this result, we give a semi-analytic parametrization of this $SU(3)$ breaking ratio. Keeping
404: the leading term in $m_s$ and $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$, one obtains:
405: \bea\label{decay2}
406: r_s&\simeq& \ga 1-{m_s\over m_c}\dr\Big{[} 1-7.5\la \bar ss-\bar dd\ra\Big{]}^{1/2}\times\nnb\\
407: &&\ga{M_{D_s(0^+)}\over M_{D(0^+)}}\dr^2\simeq 0.9~,
408: \eea
409: where the main effect comes from the negative sign of the $m_s$ contribution in the overall normalization of the scalar current,
410: 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
411: previous analysis. This feature is opposite to the case of $f_{D(0^-)}$.
412: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
413: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
414: Motivated by the experimental recent discovery of the $D_{sJ}(2317)$ and $D^*_{sJ}(2457)$, we have analyzed in \cite{SNB03} using QSSR the dynamics
415: of the
416: $0^\pm$ and
417: $1^\pm$ open charm and beauty meson channels. Then, we have:
418: \\
419: $\b$ Re-estimated the running charm quark mass from the $D$ and $D_s$ mesons. The result in Eq. (\ref{cmass}) confirms earlier
420: results obtained to two- and three-loop accuracies \cite{SNFB,SNC}.
421: \\
422: $\b$ Studied the mass-splittings of the
423: $0^+$-$0^-$ in the
424: $D$ systems using QSSR. Our result in the $(0^+)$ channel given in Eq. (\ref{eq: dssp}) agrees with the
425: recent experimental findings of the $D_{sJ}(2317)$ suggesting that this state is a good candidate for being a $\bar cs$ $0^+$ meson.
426: \\
427: $\b$ Found, in Eq. (\ref{eq: su3split}), that the $SU(3)$ breaking responsible of the mass-splitting between the $D_s(0^+)$ and
428: $D(0^-)$ is small of about 25 MeV
429: contrary to the case of the pseudoscalar $D_s$-$D$ mesons of about 100 MeV.
430: \\
431: $\b$ Extended our analysis to the $B$-system. Our results in Eqs. (\ref{eq: dssp}), (\ref{eq: bsplit2}) and (\ref{eq: bsplit}) suggest an
432: approximate (light and heavy) flavour and spin symmetries of the meson mass-splittings. We use this result to get the mass of the $\bar
433: cs~D^*_s(1^+)$ meson in Eq. (\ref{eq: 1split}), which is in (surprising) good agreement with the observed
434: $D^*_{sJ}(2457)$.
435: \\
436: $\b$ Also determined the decay constants of the $0^+$ mesons and compare them
437: with the ones of the
438: $0^-$ states. The result in Eq. (\ref{eq: fdplus}), which is similar to
439: the pseudoscalar decay constant $f_D\simeq 205$ MeV, suggests a huge violation of the heavy quark symmetry $1/\sqrt{M_D}$ scaling law.
440: 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
441: of the $0^-$ channels.
442: \\
443: We expect that experimental measurements will test the validity of
444: the results obtained to two-loop accuracy in this paper from QCD spectral sum rules. However, a complete confirmation of the nature of these new
445: states needs a detail study of their production and decays, which we plan to do in the future. \\ We also expect that these results will be an
446: useful guideline for the lattice QCD calculations like were the case of various sum rule results in the past.
447: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
448: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
449: \bibitem{SNB03} S. Narison, [HEP-PH 0307248] {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B} (2004) (in press). Notice that this paper has been
450: misplaced by Phys. lett. B and will only appear now !.
451:
452: \bibitem{SNC} S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 520} (2001) 115.
453: \bibitem{BONDI}For recent reviews see e.g.: \\
454: For the BABAR
455: Collaboration: R. Bondioli, {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf B 133} (2004) 133; E. Charles, this proceedings; L. Lista, HEP-MAD~04 International
456: Conference, 27 Sept - 4 Oct. 2004, Antananarivo - Madagascar; \\ For the BELLE Collaboration: R. Seuster: this proceedings.
457: \bibitem{QUIGG}See e.g.: C. Quigg, [HEP-PH 0411058] and
458: references therein; M. Rho, [HEP-PH 0402015] and references therein;
459: D. Becirevic, S. Fajfer and S. Prelovsek, [HEP-PH 0406296].
460: \bibitem{SVZ}
461: M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 147}
462: (1979) 385, 448.
463: \bibitem{SNSP}
464: S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 210} (1988) 238.
465: \bibitem{SNB}For a review and references to original works, see e.g., S. Narison, {\it QCD as a theory of hadrons,
466: Cambridge Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol.} {\bf 17} (2002) 1-778 [HEP-PH 0205006]; {\it QCD
467: spectral sum rules , World Sci. Lect. Notes Phys.} {\bf 26} (1989) 1-527;
468: {\it Acta Phys. Pol.} {\bf 26} (1995) 687; {\it Riv. Nuov. Cim.} {\bf 10N2} (1987) 1; {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 84}
469: (1982).
470: \bibitem{SNFB} see e.g.: S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 198} (1987) 104; {\it Phys. Lett.}
471: {\bf B 322} (1994) 247; {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf B 74} (1999) 304.
472: \bibitem{SNM} see e.g.: S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 341} (1994) 73; {\bf B 216} (1989)
473: 191.
474: \bibitem{QMASS} see e.g., S. Narison, [HEP-PH 0202200]; {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc.
475: Suppl.)} {\bf B 86} (2000) 242.
476: \bibitem{RAF}R.A. Bertlmann, G. launer and E. de Rafael, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 250} (1985) 61.
477: \bibitem{ZAK}
478: F.V. Gubarev, M.I. Polikarpov and V.I. Zakharov,
479: {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf B 86}
480: (2000) 457;
481: V.I. Zakharov,
482: {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf B 74}
483: (1999) 392; K. Chetyrkin, S. Narison and V.I. Zakharov, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 550} (1999) 353.
484: \bibitem{GEN}S. Generalis, {\it J. Phys.} {\bf G 16} (1990) 367; M. Jamin and M. M\"unz, {\it Z. Phys.}
485: {\bf C 60} (1993) 569.
486: \bibitem{NOVIKOV} V.A. Novikov et al, Neutrino 1978 Conference, Purdue Univ. 1978.
487: \bibitem{TARRACH} R. Tarrach, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 183} (1981) 384;
488: \bibitem{HEAVYQUARK}S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 197} (1987) 405;
489: {\bf B 216} (1989) 191.
490: \bibitem{SNMS}S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 466} (1999) 345; {\bf B 358} (1995)
491: 113.
492: \bibitem{JAMINA} see e.g. M. Jamin, talk given at QCD 03, 2-9th July 2003, Montpellier-FR.
493: \bibitem{DOSCHSN}H.G. Dosch and S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 417} (1998) 173.
494: \bibitem{SNP2}S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 216} (1989) 191; S. Narison et al., {\it
495: Nuovo. Cim} {\bf A 74} (1983) 347.
496: \bibitem{SNG}S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 361} (1995) 121;
497: {\bf B 387} (1996) 162.
498: \bibitem{LNT} G. Launer et al., {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C 26} (1984) 433.
499: \bibitem{PDG}PDG 2002, K. Hagiwara et al., {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 66} (2002) 010001.
500: \bibitem{BETHKE}S. Bethke,
501: {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf B, A 54} (1997);
502: hep-ex/0004021.
503: \bibitem{CHET2}K.G. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C 21} (2001) 319 and references therein;
504: K.~Melnikov and T.~van~Ritbergen, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 482} (2000) 99.
505: \bibitem{JAPS}A. Hayashigaki and K. Terasaki, hep-ph/0411285.
506: \bibitem{SNFBS} S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 322} (1994) 247.
507: \end{thebibliography}
508: \end{document}
509: