1: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,superscriptaddress,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
4: % MA
5: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
6: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
7: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
8: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
9: %\documentclass[prl,twocolumn,showpacs,superscriptaddress,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}% Physical Review Letters
10: %\documentclass[prl,twocolumn,showpacs,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}% Physical Review Letters
11: %\documentclass[prd,twocolumn,showpacs,superscriptaddress,epsf]{revtex4}% Physical Review Letters
12: % Include figure files
13: % Align table columns on decimal point
14: % bold math
15: %\newcommand{\mathrm}{{\rm}} %for Latex2.09, needed marked % for Latex2e
16: %\newcommand{\mathbf}{{\bf}} %for Latex2.09, needed marked % for Latex2e
17: %\nofiles
18:
19:
20: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers]{revtex4}
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22: \usepackage{graphicx}
23: \usepackage{dcolumn}
24: \usepackage{bm}
25:
26: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=Latex.dll}
27: %TCIDATA{Version=4.00.0.2312}
28: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Thursday, May 08, 2003 21:10:38}
29: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}
30:
31: \renewcommand{\bar}[1]{\overline{#1}}
32: \renewcommand{\d}{{\mathrm d}}
33: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}
34: \newcommand{\btt}[1]{{\tt$\backslash$#1}}
35: %\input{tcilatex}
36: %Xiao
37:
38: \begin{document}
39:
40: \title{Photon-meson transition form factors of
41: light pseudoscalar mesons}
42: \author{Bo-Wen Xiao}
43: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Peking University, Beijing
44: 100871, China\\
45: Department of Physics, Columbia University, New York, 10027, USA}
46: \author{Bo-Qiang Ma}
47: \altaffiliation{Corresponding author}\email{mabq@phy.pku.edu.cn}
48: \affiliation{ CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O.~Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China\\
49: Department of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China}
50:
51: \begin{abstract}
52: The photon-meson transition form factors of light pseudoscalar
53: mesons $\pi ^{0}$, $\eta $, and $\eta ^{\prime }$ are
54: systematically calculated in a light-cone framework, which is
55: applicable as a light-cone quark model at low $Q^{2}$ and is also
56: physically in accordance with the light-cone pQCD approach at
57: large $Q^{2}$. The calculated results agree with the available
58: experimental data at high energy scale. We also predict the low
59: $Q^{2}$ behaviors of the photon-meson transition form factors of
60: $\pi ^{0}$, $\eta $ and $\eta ^{\prime }$, which are measurable in
61: $e+A(\mbox{Nucleus})\rightarrow e+A+M$ process via Primakoff
62: effect at JLab and DESY.
63: \end{abstract}
64:
65: \pacs{14.40.Aq; 12.39.Ki; 13.40.Gp; 13.60.Le}
66: %\vfill
67:
68:
69: %\preprint{submitted to PRD}
70:
71: %Latex2e
72:
73: %\vspace{3cm}
74:
75: \vfill
76:
77: %\date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
78: % but any date may be explicitly specified
79:
80: %\vspace{5cm}
81:
82: \vfill
83:
84: %\vspace{3cm}
85:
86: \vfill
87:
88: % PACS, the Physics and Astronomy
89: % Classification Scheme.
90:
91: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword
92: %display desired
93:
94: \vfill %\vspace
95:
96: %{\centerline{ Accepted by Phys. Rev. D for publication}}
97: %\vspace
98:
99: %\vfill
100:
101: \maketitle
102:
103:
104:
105:
106: \section{Introduction}
107:
108: The meson-photon and photon-meson transition form factors contain
109: interesting physics concerning the QCD structure of both photons
110: and mesons. The pion-photon transition form factor provides a very
111: simple example for the perturbative QCD (pQCD) analysis to
112: exclusive processes, and was first analyzed by Brodsky and Lepage
113: \cite{Lep80} at large $Q^{2}$. It has been shown \cite{Cao96} that
114: the applicability of pQCD can be extended to lower $Q^{2}$ around
115: a few $\mbox{GeV}^{2}$ by taking into the transverse momentum
116: contributions in both hard scattering amplitude and pion wave
117: function. In our recent study \cite{Xiao03} within light-cone
118: quark model, it is shown that the pion-photon transition form
119: factor is identical to the photon-pion transition form factor when
120: taking into account only QCD and QED contributions. Therefore the
121: formalism that applies to the pion-photon transition form factor
122: is also applicable to the photon-pion transition form factor.
123: Taking the minimal quark-antiquark Fock states of both the photon
124: and pion as their wave functions, we could calculate the
125: photon-pion transition form factor by using the Drell-Yan-West
126: assignment. This framework is applicable at low $Q^{2}$ as a
127: light-cone quark model approach, and it is also physically in
128: accordance with the light-cone pQCD approach at large $Q^{2}$.
129: Thus we can describe the photon-pion form factors at both low
130: $Q^{2}$ and high $Q^{2}$ within a same framework. The purpose if
131: this work is to apply this framework \cite{Xiao03} for a
132: systematic description of the photon-meson transition form factors
133: of pseudoscalar mesons $\pi ^{0}$, $\eta $, and $\eta ^{\prime }$,
134: at both $Q^{2}\rightarrow 0$ and $Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty $
135: limits, and to make predictions in a wide $Q^{2}$ range.
136:
137: The photon-meson transition form factor $\gamma ^{\ast }\gamma
138: \rightarrow M$ can be realized in $e+e\rightarrow e+e+M$ or
139: $e+A(\mbox{Nucleus})\rightarrow e+A+M$ processes. The $\gamma
140: ^{\ast }\gamma \rightarrow M$ transition form factors of $\pi
141: ^{0}$, $\eta $, and $\eta ^{\prime }$ at medium to high $Q^{2}$
142: have been measured at Cornell~\cite{CLEO98} and at
143: DESY~\cite{Beh91} through the $e^{+}+e^{-}\rightarrow
144: e^{+}+e^{-}+M$ process, while the latter process
145: $e+A(\mbox{Nucleus})\rightarrow e+A+M$ is convenient to provide
146: measurement of the photon-meson transition form factors at low
147: $Q^{2}$. Moreover, high precision measurements of the
148: electromagnetic properties of these pseudoscalar mesons via
149: Primakoff effect are proposed by PrimEx Collaboration at the
150: Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (JLab) \cite{Gan},
151: which would give the experimental value of transition form factors
152: $F_{\gamma ^{\ast }\gamma \rightarrow M}(Q^{2})$ of $\pi ^{0}$,
153: $\eta $, and $\eta ^{\prime }$ at low
154: $Q^{2}~(0.001-0.5~\mbox{GeV}^{2})$, and lead to a clarification on
155: the obvious disagreement between the former Primakoff experiment
156: and collider cases in the measurements of $\Gamma (\eta
157: \rightarrow \gamma \gamma )$ and a more precise determination of
158: the $\eta\mbox{-}\eta ^{\prime }$ mixing angle. Similar
159: measurements can be also performed by HERMES Collaboration at
160: Deutsche Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY) \cite{hem98}. Therefore,
161: theoretical predictions at low $Q^2$ are necessary and essential
162: for comparison with future experimental measurements.
163:
164: It is well known that the physical $\eta $ and $\eta ^{\prime }$
165: states dominantly consist of a flavor $SU(3)$ octet $\eta _{8}$
166: and singlet $\eta _{0}$ in the $SU(3)$ quark model, respectively.
167: The usual mixing scheme reads:
168: \begin{equation}
169: \left(
170: %\begin{array}
171: \begin{array}{c}
172: \eta \\
173: \eta ^{\prime }
174: \end{array}
175: \right) =\left(
176: \begin{array}{cc}
177: \cos \theta & -\sin \theta \\
178: \sin \theta & \cos \theta%
179: \end{array}
180: \right) \left(
181: \begin{array}{c}
182: \eta _{8} \\
183: \eta _{0}
184: \end{array}
185: %\end{array}
186: \right).
187: \end{equation}
188: Using different sets of experimental data, we recalculate the value
189: of the mixing angle $\theta $ by employing the limiting method
190: developed by Cao-Signal \cite{Cao99}. Our results are also
191: compatible with other approaches \cite{Feld99} for the mixing angle
192: and scheme.
193:
194: In general, people use the chiral perturbation theory \cite{Chpt}
195: or some other methods \cite{nChpt} which deal with current quark
196: masses in order to take the chiral symmetry and chiral anomaly
197: into account, since the chiral symmetry predominates the
198: $\pi^{0}$($\eta$, $\eta^{'}$)$\gamma\gamma$ vertex at large $Q^2$
199: \cite{Cheng}, and chiral anomaly determines the $\pi^{0}$($\eta$,
200: $\eta^{\prime }$) transition form factors at $Q^2 =0$
201: (Eqs.~(\ref{pi_gamma}-\ref{eta_gamma})). In addition, the chiral
202: perturbation theory is also very useful and effective in
203: discussing the $\eta $ and $\eta ^{\prime }$ mixing properties
204: \cite{Mixing}. Since we are consistently using the valence quark
205: masses in the light-cone treatment to the form factor calculation,
206: it is not very applicable to start with current quark mass within
207: the chiral symmetry and investigate the chiral limits in the
208: transition form factor computation. However, our main purpose of
209: this paper is to employ the new light-cone $\gamma\rightarrow
210: q\overline{q}, s\overline{s}$ wave functions~\cite{Qiao00,Xiao03,
211: Ani04} to compute the transition form factors of the light mesons.
212: Moreover, we considered the chiral symmetry when we choose $\eta $
213: and $\eta ^{\prime }$ mixing scheme, and took the chiral limit
214: approximation when we try to determine and fix the parameters.
215: Therefore our results respect the chiral symmetry and its breaking
216: at some extent. Phenomenologically, we could give the predictions
217: of the $\eta $ and $\eta^{\prime }$ mixing angle within the
218: light-cone formalism, as well as the photon-meson transition form
219: factor which is applicable at both low and high energy scales.
220:
221: This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we present the
222: formalism for the photon-meson transition form factor using the
223: minimal quark-antiquark Fock states of the photon and pion as wave
224: functions. In section 3, we will introduce the $\eta\mbox{-}\eta
225: ^{\prime }$ mixing scheme used in our calculation. In section 4,
226: we calculate systematically the photon-meson transition form
227: factors of $\pi^0$, $\eta$, and $\eta'$, and show that the
228: calculated results agree with the available experimental data at
229: medium to large $Q^2$ scale. We also predict the low $Q^{2}$
230: behaviors of the photon-meson transition form factors of $\pi
231: ^{0}$, $\eta $, and $\eta ^{\prime }$, which are measurable in
232: $e+A(\mbox{Nucleus})\rightarrow e+A+M$ process via Primakoff
233: effect at JLab and DESY. In section 5, we present a brief summary.
234:
235: \section{Formalism of photon-meson transition form factor}
236:
237: We work in the light-cone formalism \cite{Bro89}, which provides a
238: convenient framework for the relativistic description of hadrons in
239: terms of quark and gluon degrees of freedom, and for the application
240: of perturbative QCD to exclusive processes. The transition form
241: factor $F_{\gamma ^{\ast }\gamma \rightarrow M}$ ($M=\pi ^{0}$,
242: $\eta $, and $\eta ^{\prime }$), in which an on-shell photon is
243: struck by one off-shell photon and decays into a meson, as
244: schematically shown in Fig.~\ref{tranfig}, is defined by the
245: $\gamma ^{\ast }\gamma M$ vertex,
246: \begin{equation}
247: \Gamma _{\mu }=-ie^{2}F_{\gamma ^{\ast }\gamma \rightarrow
248: M}(Q^{2})\varepsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }p_{M}^{\nu }\epsilon ^{\rho
249: }q^{\sigma },
250: \end{equation}
251: in which $q$ is the momentum of the off-shell photon,
252: $Q^{2}=-q^{2}=\mathbf{q}_{\perp }^{2}-q^{+}q^{-}=\mathbf{q}_{\perp
253: }^{2}$ is the squared four momentum transfer of the virtual
254: photon, and $\epsilon $ is the polarization vector of the on-shell
255: photon. We choose the light-cone frame
256: \begin{equation}
257: \left\{
258: \begin{array}{lll}
259: P & = & (P^{+},\frac{q^{2}+\mathbf{q}_{\perp }^{2}}{P^{+}},\mathbf{0}_{\perp
260: }), \\
261: P^{\prime } & = & (P^{\prime +},\frac{M^{2}}{P^{\prime +}},\mathbf{q}_{\perp
262: }),\\
263: q & = & (0,\frac{Q^{2}}{P^{+}},\mathbf{q}_{\perp }),
264: \\
265: p_{1} & = & (xP^{+},\frac{\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2}+m^{2}}{xP^{+}},\mathbf{k}%
266: _{\perp }) \\
267: p_{2} & = & ((1-x)P^{+},\frac{\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2}+m^{2}}{(1-x)P^{+}},-%
268: \mathbf{k}_{\perp }), \\
269: p_{1}^{\prime } & = & (xP^{\prime +},\frac{\mathbf{k}_{\perp
270: }^{\prime 2}+m^{2}}{xP^{+}},\mathbf{k^{\prime }}_{\perp }).
271: \end{array}%
272: \right.
273: \end{equation}
274:
275: \begin{figure}%[tbp]
276: %[tbh]
277: %\begin{center}
278: %\leavevmode {\epsfysize=8cm \epsffile{trans.eps}}
279: %\end{center}
280: \par
281: \begin{center}
282: \scalebox{0.5}[0.5]{\includegraphics{tranfig2.eps}}
283: \end{center}
284: \caption[*]{\baselineskip13pt The diagram for the contribution to the
285: transition form factor $F_{\protect\gamma ^{\ast }\protect\gamma \rightarrow
286: M}$. The arrows indicate the particle moving directions.}
287: \label{tranfig}
288: \end{figure}
289:
290: Instead of calculating the diagram directly, we introduce the
291: quark-antiquark wave function of the photon \cite{Xiao03} by
292: calculating the matrix elements of
293: \begin{equation}
294: \frac{\overline{u}(p_{1}^{+},p_{1}^{-},\mathbf{p}_{1\perp
295: })}{\sqrt{p_{1}^{+} }}\gamma \cdot \epsilon
296: \frac{v(p_{2}^{+},p_{2}^{-},\mathbf{p}_{2\perp })}{
297: \sqrt{p_{2}^{+}}},
298: \end{equation}%
299: which are the numerators of the wave functions corresponding to
300: each constituent spin $S^{z}$ configuration. The two boson
301: polarization vectors in light-cone gauge are $\epsilon ^{\mu
302: }=(\epsilon ^{+}=0,\epsilon ^{-}, \mathbf{\epsilon }_{\perp })$,
303: where $\mathbf{\epsilon }_{\perp \uparrow ,\downarrow }=\mp
304: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{\mathbf{x}}\pm \widehat{
305: \mathbf{y}})$. To satisfy the Lorentz condition $k_{photon}\cdot
306: \epsilon =0, $ the polarizations have the relation $\epsilon
307: ^{-}=\frac{2\mathbf{\ \epsilon }_{\perp }\cdot \mathbf{k}_{\perp
308: }}{k^{+}}$ with $k_{hoton}$, thus we have
309: \begin{equation}
310: \left\{
311: \begin{array}{lll}
312: \Psi _{R}^{\uparrow }(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\uparrow ,\downarrow
313: )=-\frac{ \sqrt{2}(k_{1}+ik_{2})}{1-x}\varphi _{\gamma }, & \left[
314: l^{z}=+1\right] &
315: \\
316: \Psi _{R}^{\uparrow }(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\downarrow ,\uparrow
317: )=+\frac{
318: \sqrt{2}(k_{1}+ik_{2})}{x}\varphi _{\gamma }, & \left[ l^{z}=+1\right] & \\
319: \Psi _{R}^{\uparrow }(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\uparrow ,\uparrow
320: )=-\frac{
321: \sqrt{2}m}{x(1-x)}\varphi _{\gamma }, & \left[ l^{z}=0\right] & \\
322: \Psi _{R}^{\uparrow }(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\downarrow ,\downarrow )=0, & &
323: \end{array}
324: \right.
325: \end{equation}
326: in which:
327: \begin{equation}
328: \varphi _{\gamma }=\frac{e_{q}}{D}=\frac{e_{q}}{\lambda
329: ^{2}-\frac{m^{2}+ \mathbf{k}_{\perp
330: }^{2}}{x}-\frac{m^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2}}{1-x}},
331: \end{equation}%
332: where $\lambda $ is the photon mass and equals to 0. Each configuration
333: satisfies the spin sum rule:$J^{z}=S_{q}^{z}+S_{\overline{q}}^{z}+l^{z}=+1$.
334: Therefore, the quark-antiquark Fock-state for the photon $(J^{z}=+1)$ has
335: the four possible spin combinations:
336: \begin{eqnarray}
337: \left\vert \Psi _{\gamma }^{\uparrow }\left(
338: P^{+},\mathbf{P}_{\perp }\right) \right\rangle &=&\int
339: \frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}\mathbf{k}_{\perp }
340: \mathrm{d}x}{16{\pi }^{3}} \nonumber \\
341: &&\times \left[ \Psi _{R}^{\uparrow }(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\uparrow
342: ,\downarrow )\left\vert xP^{+},\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\uparrow ,\downarrow
343: \right\rangle +\Psi _{R}^{\uparrow }(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\downarrow
344: ,\uparrow )\left\vert xP^{+},\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\downarrow ,\uparrow
345: \right\rangle \right. \nonumber \\
346: &&\left. +\Psi _{R}^{^{\uparrow }}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\uparrow
347: ,\uparrow )\left\vert xP^{+},\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\uparrow
348: ,\uparrow \right\rangle +\Psi _{R}^{^{\uparrow
349: }}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\downarrow ,\downarrow )\left\vert
350: xP^{+},\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\downarrow ,\downarrow \right\rangle
351: \right] . \nonumber \\
352: &&
353: \end{eqnarray}
354:
355: The quark-antiquark Fock-state wave function of the pion is also
356: derived \cite{Xiao03} by using the relativistic field theory
357: treatment of the interaction vertex along with the idea in
358: \cite{BD80,Bro2001}. In the light-cone frame of pion,
359: \begin{equation}
360: \left\{
361: \begin{array}{lll}
362: P & = & (P^{+},\frac{M^{2}}{P^{+}},\mathbf{0}_{\perp }), \\
363: p_{1} & = & (xP^{+},\frac{\mathbf{p}_{1\perp
364: }^{2}+m^{2}}{xP^{+}},\mathbf{p}
365: _{1\perp }) \\
366: p_{2} & = & ((1-x)P^{+},\frac{\mathbf{p}_{2\perp
367: }^{2}+m^{2}}{(1-x)P^{+}}, \mathbf{p}_{2\perp }),
368: \end{array}
369: \right.
370: \end{equation}
371: we can obtain the four components of the spin wave function by calculating
372: the matrix elements of
373: \begin{equation}
374: \frac{\overline{v}(p_{2}^{+},p_{2}^{-},-\mathbf{k}_{\perp
375: })}{\sqrt{p_{2}^{+} }}\gamma
376: _{5}\frac{u(p_{1}^{+},p_{1}^{-},\mathbf{k}_{\perp })}{\sqrt{
377: p_{1}^{+}}},
378: \end{equation}%
379: from which we have
380: \begin{equation}
381: \left\{
382: \begin{array}{lll}
383: \frac{\overline{v}_{\downarrow }}{\sqrt{p_{2}^{+}}}\gamma
384: _{5}\frac{
385: u_{\uparrow }}{\sqrt{p_{1}^{+}}} & = & -\frac{2mP^{+}}{4mx(1-x)P^{+2}}, \\
386: \frac{\overline{v}_{\downarrow }}{\sqrt{p_{2}^{+}}}\gamma
387: _{5}\frac{
388: u_{\uparrow }}{\sqrt{p_{1}^{+}}} & = & +\frac{2mP^{+}}{4mx(1-x)P^{+2}}, \\
389: \frac{\overline{v}_{\uparrow }}{\sqrt{p_{2}^{+}}}\gamma _{5}\frac{
390: u_{\uparrow }}{\sqrt{p_{1}^{+}}} & = &
391: +\frac{2(k_{1}+ik_{2})P^{+}}{
392: 4mx(1-x)P^{+2}}, \\
393: \frac{\overline{v}_{\downarrow }}{\sqrt{p_{2}^{+}}}\gamma
394: _{5}\frac{ u_{\downarrow }}{\sqrt{p_{1}^{+}}} & = &
395: +\frac{2(k_{1}-ik_{2})P^{+}}{ 4mx(1-x)P^{+2}},
396: \end{array}
397: \right.
398: \end{equation}
399: where $m$ is the mass of the quark. After the normalization, we
400: can obtain light-cone representation for the spin structure of the
401: pion, which is the minimal Fock-state of the pion light-cone wave
402: function:
403:
404: \begin{equation}
405: \left\{
406: \begin{array}{lll}
407: \Psi _{\pi L}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\uparrow ,\downarrow
408: )=-\frac{m}{\sqrt{ 2(m^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2})}}\varphi _{\pi
409: }, & \left[ l^{z}=0\right]
410: & \\
411: \Psi _{\pi L}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\downarrow ,\uparrow
412: )=+\frac{m}{\sqrt{ 2(m^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2})}}\varphi _{\pi
413: }, & \left[ l^{z}=0\right]
414: & \\
415: \Psi _{\pi L}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\uparrow ,\uparrow
416: )=+\frac{k_{1}+ik_{2} }{\sqrt{2(m^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp
417: }^{2})}}\varphi _{\pi }, & \left[ l^{z}=-1
418: \right] & \\
419: \Psi _{\pi L}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\downarrow ,\downarrow
420: )=+\frac{ k_{1}-ik_{2}}{\sqrt{2(m^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp
421: }^{2})}}\varphi _{\pi }, & \left[ l^{z}=+1\right] &
422: \end{array}
423: \right. \label{LCpionWF}
424: \end{equation}
425: in which we may employ the Brodsky-Huang-Lepage (BHL) prescription
426: \cite{BHL81},
427: \begin{equation}
428: \varphi _{\pi }(x,\mathbf{k})=A\exp \left[ -\frac{1}{8{\beta
429: }^{2}}\frac{\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2}+m^{2}}{x(1-x)}\right] ,
430: \label{BHL}
431: \end{equation}
432: for the momentum space wave function, which is a non-relativistic
433: solution of the Bethe-Salpeter equation in an instantaneous
434: approximation in the rest frame for meson. Each configuration
435: satisfies the spin sum rule:
436: $J^{z}=S_{q}^{z}+S_{\overline{q}}^{z}+l^{z}=0$. Hence, the Fock
437: expansion of the two particle Fock-state for the pion has these
438: four possible spin combinations:
439: \begin{eqnarray}
440: \left\langle \Psi _{\pi }\left( P^{+},\mathbf{P}_{\perp
441: }=\mathbf{0}_{\perp }\right) \right\vert & = & \int
442: \frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}\mathbf{k}_{\perp }
443: \mathrm{d}x}{16{\ \pi }^{3}} \nonumber\\
444: & & \times \left[ \Psi _{\pi L}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\uparrow ,\downarrow
445: )\left\langle xP^{+},\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\uparrow ,\downarrow \right\vert
446: +\Psi _{\pi L}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\downarrow ,\uparrow )\left\langle
447: xP^{+},\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\downarrow ,\uparrow \right\vert \right. \nonumber\\
448: & & \left. +\Psi _{\pi L}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\uparrow ,\uparrow
449: )\left\langle xP^{+},\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\uparrow ,\uparrow \right\vert
450: +\Psi _{\pi L}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\downarrow ,\downarrow )\left\langle
451: xP^{+},\mathbf{k}_{\perp },\downarrow ,\downarrow \right\vert \right]. \nonumber\\
452: &&
453: \label{wavefunction}
454: \end{eqnarray}
455: There are two higher helicity $(\lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2}=\pm 1)$
456: components in the expression of the light-cone spin wave function
457: of the pion besides the ordinary helicity $(\lambda _{1}+\lambda
458: _{2}=0)$ components. Such higher helicity components come from the
459: Melosh-Wigner rotation in the light-cone quark model
460: \cite{Ma93,Xiao2002}, and the same effect plays an important role
461: to understand the proton \textquotedblleft spin puzzle" in the
462: nucleon case \cite{Ma91,Ma96}. One may also state that these
463: higher helicity components contain contribution from orbital
464: angular moment from a relativistic viewpoint \cite{MS98}.
465:
466: In addition, we would like to add some more remarks on the
467: Gaussian-type wavefunction of the BHL prescription that we employ
468: above. As a matter of fact, the Gaussian wave function is a
469: non-relativistic solution of the Bethe-Salpeter equation in an
470: instantaneous approximation in the rest frame of the meson as the
471: space wave function. The BHL wavefunction Eq.~(\ref{BHL}) is an
472: extension from a non-relativistic wavefunction into a relativistic
473: form by using the Brodsky-Huang-Lepage Ansatz~\cite{BHL81}, and we
474: can consider it as an approximate wavefunction that respects the
475: Lorentz invariance in the light-cone formalism. However, it works
476: phenomenologically well in a lot of calculations ($\textit{e.g.,}$
477: \cite{Hwang2001,Xiao2002,Xiao03,Don2001}). Moreover, Donnachie,
478: Gravelis, and Shaw \cite{Don2001} indicated that the other four
479: possible different space wave functions have similar analytical
480: properties with the BHL wavefunction when the parameter $\beta$ is
481: small (The $\beta$ is equal to $P_{F}$ in their paper, the small
482: $\beta$ is corresponding to the $\rho$ and $\phi$ mesons cases).
483: However, they also illustrated that the BHL wavefunction is better
484: than the other four wave functions in the high $\beta$ situation
485: (for the $J/\psi$ meson). Hence, it gives us the idea that the the
486: BHL wavefunction may be an appropriate choice that we could have
487: right now. (Noticing that the space wave functions for the vector
488: mesons are the same with those for the pseudoscalar mesons, the
489: argument that made by Donnachie $\textit{et al}$ is also valid for
490: $\pi ^{0}$ and other pseudoscalar mesons.)
491:
492: %To sum up, our treatment for the spin part of the wavefunction is
493: %relativistic according to the previous work~\cite{Bro2001,Xiao03}.
494: %Although the space part of the wavefunction is a simple
495: %generalization from a non-relativistic wavefunction into a
496: %relativistic one by using the BHL Ansatz, we could consider the
497: %combined wavefunction as an approximation close to the
498: %relativistic one.
499:
500: For the physical state of $\pi ^{0}$, one should also take into account the
501: color and flavor degrees of freedom into account \cite{Lep80,Cao96}
502: \begin{equation}
503: \left\vert \Psi _{\pi ^{0}}\right\rangle =\sum_{a}\frac{\delta
504: _{b}^{a}}{ \sqrt{n_{c}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[ \left\vert
505: u^{a}\bar{u} ^{b}\right\rangle -\left\vert
506: d^{a}\bar{d}^{b}\right\rangle \right] ,
507: \end{equation}%
508: where $a$ and $b$ are color indices, $n_{c}=3$ is the number of
509: colors, and now $\left\vert q^{a}\bar{q}^{b}\right\rangle $
510: contains the full spin structure shown above. So we can get the
511: photon-meson transition form factor of the pion:
512: \begin{eqnarray}
513: F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \pi }(Q^{2}) &=&\frac{\Gamma
514: ^{+}}{ -ie^{2}(\mathbf{\epsilon }_{\perp }\times \mathbf{q}_{\perp
515: })p_{\pi
516: }^{\prime -}} \nonumber \\
517: &=&2\sqrt{3}(e_{u}^{2}-e_{d}^{2})\int_{0}^{1}\mathrm{d}x\int
518: \frac{\mathrm{d} ^{2}\mathbf{k}_{\perp }}{16{\pi }^{3}}\varphi
519: _{\pi }(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp
520: }^{\prime }) \nonumber\\
521: &&\left\{ \frac{m}{x\sqrt{m^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{\prime
522: 2}}}\times \left[ \frac{1}{-\lambda
523: ^{2}+\frac{m^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2}}{x}+\frac{m^{2}+
524: \mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2}}{1-x}}\right] +(1\leftrightarrow 2)\right\} \\
525: &=&4\sqrt{3}(e_{u}^{2}-e_{d}^{2})\int_{0}^{1}\mathrm{d}x\int
526: \frac{\mathrm{d} ^{2}\mathbf{k}_{\perp }}{16{\pi }^{3}}\left[
527: \varphi _{\pi }(x,\mathbf{k} _{\perp }^{\prime
528: })\frac{m}{x\sqrt{m^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{\prime 2}}}
529: \right. \nonumber \\
530: &&\left. \times \frac{1}{\frac{m^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp
531: }^{2}}{x}-\frac{m^{2}+ \mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2}}{1-x}}\right] ,
532: \label{Fphotonpion}
533: \end{eqnarray}%
534: in which $\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{\prime }=\mathbf{k}_{\perp
535: }+(1-x)\mathbf{q}_{\perp }$ after considering the Drell-Yan-West
536: assignment \cite{DYW}, and $\lambda $ $(=0)$ is the mass of
537: photon.
538:
539: \section{The $\protect\eta \mbox{-}\protect\eta ^{\prime }$ mixing schemes}
540:
541: In fact, there are two popular mixing schemes for $\eta $ and
542: $\eta ^{\prime }$. Feldmann \textit{et al }\cite{Feld99} suggested
543: the mixing scheme based on the quark flavor basis $q\overline{q}=(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})/%
544: \sqrt{2}$ and $s\overline{s}$,
545: \begin{equation}
546: \left(
547: \begin{array}{c}
548: \eta \\
549: \eta ^{\prime }%
550: \end{array}
551: \right) =\left(
552: \begin{array}{cc}
553: \cos \phi & -\sin \phi \\
554: \sin \phi & \cos \phi%
555: \end{array}
556: \right) \left(
557: \begin{array}{c}
558: \eta _{q} \\
559: \eta _{s}%
560: \end{array}
561: \right), \label{Mixing}
562: \end{equation}
563: and
564: \begin{equation}
565: \left(
566: \begin{array}{cc}
567: f_{\eta }^{q} & f_{\eta }^{s} \\
568: f_{\eta \prime }^{q} & f_{\eta \prime }^{s}%
569: \end{array}
570: \right) =\left(
571: \begin{array}{cc}
572: \cos \phi & -\sin \phi \\
573: \sin \phi & \cos \phi%
574: \end{array}
575: \right) \left(
576: \begin{array}{cc}
577: f_{q} & 0 \\
578: 0 & f_{s}%
579: \end{array}
580: \right),
581: \end{equation}
582: where $\phi $ is the mixing angle. The
583: $q\overline{q}\mbox{-}s\overline{s}$ mixing only introduces one
584: mixing angle in the mixing of the decay constants.
585:
586: On the other hand, people also use the mixing scheme based on the
587: basis of $\eta _{8}$\ and $\eta _{0}$ mixing for $\eta $ and $\eta
588: ^{\prime }$. In the $SU(3)$ quark model, the physical $\eta $ and
589: $\eta ^{\prime }$ states dominantly consist of a flavor $SU(3)$
590: octet $\eta _{8}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(u\overline{u}+d
591: \overline{d}-2s\overline{s})$ and a singlet $\eta _{0}=$
592: $\frac{1}{ \sqrt{3}}(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}+s\overline{s})$,
593: respectively. The usual mixing scheme reads:
594: \begin{equation}
595: \left\{
596: \begin{array}{lll}
597: \left\vert \eta \right\rangle &=&\cos \theta \left\vert \eta
598: _{8}\right\rangle -\sin \theta \left\vert \eta _{0}\right\rangle,
599:
600: \\
601: \left\vert \eta ^{\prime }\right\rangle &=&\sin \theta \left\vert
602: \eta _{8}\right\rangle +\cos \theta \left\vert \eta
603: _{0}\right\rangle,
604: \end{array}
605: \right.
606: \end{equation}
607: in which $\theta $ is the mixing angle. For the calculation of the
608: decay constants of the $\eta _{8}$\ and $\eta _{0}$ mixing,
609: Feldmann-Kroll indicate that two mixing angle scheme could be
610: better from their former investigations\cite{Feld98}:
611:
612: \begin{equation}
613: \left(
614: \begin{array}{cc}
615: f_{\eta }^{8} & f_{\eta }^{0} \\
616: f_{\eta \prime }^{8} & f_{\eta \prime }^{0}%
617: \end{array}%
618: \right) =\left(
619: \begin{array}{cc}
620: \cos \theta _{8} & -\sin \theta _{0} \\
621: \sin \theta _{8} & \cos \theta _{0}%
622: \end{array}%
623: \right) \left(
624: \begin{array}{cc}
625: f_{8} & 0 \\
626: 0 & f_{0}%
627: \end{array}%
628: \right).
629: \end{equation}
630:
631: In addition, one could find that these two schemes could be
632: related by the following equation through the mixing angles
633: finally:
634: \begin{equation}
635: \theta =\phi -\arctan \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}.
636: \end{equation}
637:
638:
639: From the point view of the chiral symmetry and the $SU(3)$
640: symmetry as well as their breaking mechanisms, we find that the
641: $\eta _{8}$\ and $\eta _{0}$ mixing scheme may be more reasonable
642: and physical.
643:
644: First of all, let us have a brief review on the chiral symmetry
645: and its breaking which have underlying relationship with the $\pi
646: ^{0}$, $\eta $ and $\eta ^{\prime }$ mesons\cite{Gan}. In the
647: chiral symmetry limit, it is well-known that the Lagrangian has
648: the $SU(3)_{L}\times SU(3)_{R}\times U(1)_{B}\times U(1)_{A}$
649: symmetry, but the absence of this symmetry in the ground state
650: (the QCD vacuum) leads to the chiral symmetry spontaneously
651: breaking into $SU(3)\times U(1)_{B}$ symmetry. Because there are 8
652: spontaneously broken continuous symmetries (there are 9 when
653: taking into account the chiral anomaly which is associated with
654: the the $U(1)_{A}$ symmetry breaking), there are 8 massless
655: Goldstone Bosons (which finally are identified as meson octet) and
656: 1 massive particle (which is known as $\eta _{0}$) according to
657: the Goldstone's theorem and chiral anomaly, respectively. The
658: massless octet includes the meson $\pi _{8}^{0}$ and $\eta _{8}$.
659: Together with $\eta _{0}$, they mix into massive mesons $\pi
660: ^{0}$, $\eta $ and $\eta ^{\prime }$ during the explicit $SU(3)$
661: symmetry breaking after introducing the quark mass term into the
662: Lagrangian.
663:
664: From the above discussion, we may reach a physical intuitive idea
665: that it is natural and straightforward to use the $\eta _{0}$ and
666: $\eta _{8}$ mixing scheme as a direct result of the $SU(3)$
667: symmetry breaking if we assume that the $\pi _{8}^{0}$ does not
668: mix with $\eta _{0}$ and $\eta _{8}$ at all. From this
669: point of view, the introduction of $\eta _{0}$ and $\eta _{8}$ is more reasonable than $%
670: \eta _{q}$ and $\eta _{s}$.
671:
672: Moreover, since it is well-known that pion, kaon, and $\eta _{8}$
673: belong to the same group of octet mesons in the $SU(3)$ symmetry
674: limit, their parameters should be the same except the quark
675: masses. In this sense, one may relate the decay constants of $\eta
676: $ and $\eta ^{\prime }$, to pion and kaon in the $\eta _{8}-\eta
677: _{0}$ mixing scheme. The CLEO Collaboration\cite{CLEO98} reported
678: their pole fit results as $\Lambda _{\pi }=776\pm 10\pm12\pm
679: 16~MeV$, $\Lambda _{\eta }=774\pm 11\pm 16\pm 22~MeV$, and
680: $\Lambda _{\eta \prime }=859\pm 9\pm 18\pm 20~MeV$. These results
681: imply that the nonperturbative properties of $\pi $ and $\eta $
682: are very similar. In addition, the absolute value of $\theta $ is
683: small and $\cos \theta \left\vert \eta _{8}\right\rangle $ is the
684: leading order in the $\eta_{8}-\eta _{0}$ mixing scheme of the
685: $\eta $. They are consistent with the basic physical intuition
686: that both $\pi $ and $\eta _{8}$ are in the $SU_{f}(3)$ octet and
687: are pseudo-massless Goldstone particles. Therefore, that is why
688: the authors of \cite{Cao98} take the parameters of $\eta _{8}$ as
689: equal to pion, such as $b_{8}=b_{\pi }$ in their paper. From a
690: strict sense, if pion, kaon, and $\eta _{8}$ are in the same group
691: of octet mesons, the mass of $m_{q}$, $m_{s} $, and $\beta
692: _{8}=\beta _{\pi }$ in the BHL wave function should be the same in
693: the calculations of the $\pi $, $\eta $ and $\eta ^{\prime }$
694: transition form factors.
695:
696: Therefore, we employ the intuitive $\eta _{8}\mbox{-}\eta _{0}$
697: mixing scheme in the calculations of the $\pi $, $\eta $ and $\eta
698: ^{\prime }$ transition form factors by using the uniform
699: parameters, which shows that the $SU(3)$ symmetry limit works well
700: in this work.
701:
702: In practice, we utilize the $SU_{f}(3)$ broken form of wave
703: functions for flavor octet $\eta _{8}$ and singlet $\eta _{0}$:
704: \begin{eqnarray}
705: \left\vert \eta _{8}\right\rangle
706: &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(u\overline{u}+d \overline{d})\phi
707: _{8}^{q}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp })-\frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}s
708: \overline{s}\phi _{8}^{s}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp }), \label{eta8} \\
709: \left\vert \eta _{0}\right\rangle
710: &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(u\overline{u}+d \overline{d})\phi
711: _{0}^{q}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp })+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}s
712: \overline{s}\phi _{0}^{s}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp }), \label{eta0}
713: \end{eqnarray}%
714: in which we use Gaussian wave function of the BHL prescription:
715: \begin{eqnarray}
716: \phi _{8}^{q}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp }) &=&A_{8}\exp \left[
717: -\frac{m_{q}^{2}+
718: \mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2}}{8\beta _{8}^{2}x(1-x)}\right] , \\
719: \phi _{8}^{s}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp }) &=&A_{8}\exp \left[
720: -\frac{m_{s}^{2}+
721: \mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2}}{8\beta _{8}^{2}x(1-x)}\right] , \\
722: \phi _{0}^{q}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp }) &=&A_{0}\exp \left[
723: -\frac{m_{q}^{2}+
724: \mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2}}{8\beta _{0}^{2}x(1-x)}\right] , \\
725: \phi _{0}^{s}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp }) &=&A_{0}\exp \left[
726: -\frac{m_{s}^{2}+ \mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2}}{8\beta
727: _{0}^{2}x(1-x)}\right] ,
728: \end{eqnarray}%
729: and $q\overline{q}$ and $s\overline{s}$ are the spin parts of the
730: wave functions which are similar to the pion with all possible
731: spin states.
732:
733: Moreover, it is convenient to use the method for the $\eta
734: _{8}\mbox{-}\eta _{0}$ mixing scheme which was developed by
735: Cao-Signal \cite{Cao99} in obtaining the mixing angle $\theta $
736: and the decay constants. In this treatment, we can get $\theta $,
737: $f_{8}$ and $f_{0}$ directly without involving $\theta _{8}$ and
738: $\theta _{0}$. In the $\eta _{8}\mbox{-}\eta _{0}$ mixing scheme,
739: we have:
740: \begin{eqnarray}
741: F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta }(Q^{2}) &=&F_{\gamma \gamma
742: ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta _{8}}(Q^{2})\cos \theta -F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast
743: }\rightarrow \eta _{_{0}}}(Q^{2})\sin \theta , \\
744: F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta \prime }(Q^{2}) &=&F_{\gamma
745: \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta _{8}}(Q^{2})\sin \theta +F_{\gamma \gamma
746: ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta _{0}}(Q^{2})\cos \theta .
747: \end{eqnarray}
748: While for the $\pi ^{0}$ case, we have:
749: \begin{eqnarray}
750: \Gamma (\pi ^{0} &\rightarrow &\gamma \gamma )=\frac{\pi \alpha ^{2}m_{\pi
751: ^{0}}^{3}}{4}|F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \pi }(0)|^{2}, \label{pi_gamma}\\
752: \Gamma (\pi ^{0} &\rightarrow &\gamma \gamma )=\frac{\alpha
753: ^{2}m_{\pi ^{0}}^{3}}{64\pi ^{3}}\frac{1}{f_{\pi }^{2}}.
754: \end{eqnarray}
755: Generalizing these equations to $\eta _{8}$ and $\eta _{0}$, we
756: have
757: \begin{eqnarray}
758: \Gamma (\eta &\rightarrow &\gamma \gamma )=\frac{\pi \alpha ^{2}m_{\eta
759: }^{3} }{4}|F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta }(0)|^{2}=\frac{\alpha
760: ^{2}m_{\eta }^{3}}{64\pi ^{3}}\left( \frac{\cos \theta }{\sqrt{3}f_{8}}-
761: \frac{2\sqrt{2}\sin \theta }{\sqrt{3}f_{0}}\right) ^{2}, \\
762: \Gamma (\eta ^{\prime } &\rightarrow &\gamma \gamma )=\frac{\pi \alpha
763: ^{2}m_{\eta \prime }^{3}}{4}|F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta
764: \prime }(0)|^{2}=\frac{\alpha ^{2}m_{\eta ^{\prime }}^{3}}{64\pi ^{3}}\left(
765: \frac{\sin \theta }{\sqrt{3}f_{8}}+\frac{2\sqrt{2}\cos \theta }{\sqrt{3}%
766: f_{0} }\right) ^{2} \label{eta_gamma}.
767: \end{eqnarray}
768: Thus we could get:
769: \begin{eqnarray}
770: \rho _{1} &=&\frac{F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta }(0)}{F_{\gamma
771: \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta \prime }(0)}=\frac{\tan \theta _{08}-\tan
772: \theta }{1+\tan \theta _{08}\times \tan \theta }, \\
773: &=&\tan \left( \theta _{08}-\theta \right) ,
774: \end{eqnarray}%
775: in which we let $\tan \theta _{08}=\frac{f_{0}}{\sqrt{8}f_{8}}$.
776: Along with the same idea by taking the $Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty $
777: limit, we could have:
778: \begin{eqnarray}
779: \rho _{2} &=&\frac{F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta
780: }(Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty )}{F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow
781: \eta \prime }(Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty )}=\frac{F_{\gamma \gamma
782: ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta _{8}}(Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty )\cos
783: \theta -F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta
784: _{_{0}}}(Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty )\sin \theta }{F_{\gamma \gamma
785: ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta _{8}}(Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty )\sin
786: \theta +F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta
787: _{_{0}}}(Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty )\cos \theta } \nonumber \\
788: &=&\frac{1-8\tan \theta _{08}\times \tan \theta }{\tan \theta
789: +8\tan \theta _{08}},
790: \end{eqnarray}
791: in which we have $\lim_{Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty
792: }Q^{2}F_{8}(Q^{2})=\frac{ 2f_{8}}{\sqrt{3}}$ and
793: $\lim_{Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty }Q^{2}F_{0}(Q^{2})=
794: \frac{4\sqrt{2}f_{0}}{\sqrt{3}}$. CLEO \cite{CLEO98} proposed that
795: the $\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow M$ transition form factors
796: could be approximated by:
797: \begin{equation}
798: F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow M}(Q^{2})=F_{\gamma \gamma
799: ^{\ast }\rightarrow M}(0)\times \frac{1}{1+Q^{2}/\Lambda
800: _{M}^{2}},
801: \end{equation}
802: thus we obtain:
803: \begin{equation}
804: \rho _{2}=\rho _{1}\frac{\Lambda _{\eta }^{2}}{\Lambda _{\eta
805: \prime }^{2}}.
806: \end{equation}
807: Finally one obtains:
808: \begin{eqnarray}
809: \tan \theta &=&\frac{-9(\rho _{1}+\rho _{2})+\sqrt{81(\rho _{1}-\rho
810: _{2})^{2}+32(\rho _{1}\rho _{2}+1)^{2}}}{2(8-\rho _{1}\rho _{2})},
811: \label{mixing} \\
812: \frac{f_{0}}{f_{8}} &=&\sqrt{8}\tan (\theta +\arctan \rho _{1}),
813: \end{eqnarray}%
814: and gets
815: \begin{eqnarray}
816: f_{8} &=&\frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}\pi ^{2}\left[F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast
817: }\rightarrow \eta }(0)\cos \theta +F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast
818: }\rightarrow \eta \prime
819: }(0)\sin \theta \right]}, \\
820: f_{0} &=&\frac{\sqrt{8}}{4\sqrt{3}\pi ^{2}\left[F_{\gamma \gamma
821: ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta \prime }(0)\sin \theta -F_{\gamma \gamma
822: ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta }(0)\cos \theta \right]},
823: \label{decayconstant}
824: \end{eqnarray}
825: by using the above results.
826:
827: \section{$\protect\gamma ^{\ast }\protect\gamma \rightarrow \protect\eta $
828: and $\protect\gamma ^{\ast }\protect\gamma \rightarrow \protect\eta $
829: transition form factors}
830:
831: There have been many different approaches to discuss the
832: photon-meson transition form factors of light pseudoscalar mesons
833: $\pi^0$, $\eta$, and $\eta'$, such as the light-cone perturbation
834: theory by Cao-Huang-Ma \cite{Cao96,Cao98}, the light-front quark
835: model by Hwang and Choi-Ji \cite{Hwang2001}, QCD sum rule
836: calculation by Radyushkin-Ruskov \cite{Rad97}, and also other
837: approaches \textit{et al.} \cite{LitTran}. We now perform a
838: systematic calculation of these transition form factors in the
839: light-cone framework just presented in section 2. The advantage of
840: this new framework is that the predictions should be applicable at
841: both low and high energy scales.
842:
843: Similar to the pion transition form factor and from
844: Eq.~(\ref{eta8}) and Eq.~(\ref{eta0}), we can get $\eta _{8}$ and
845: $\eta _{0}$ transition form factors:
846:
847: \begin{eqnarray}
848: F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta _{8}}(Q^{2})
849: &=&4(e_{u}^{2}+e_{d}^{2})\int \frac{{\mathrm{d}}x{\mathrm{d}}^{2}\mathbf{k}
850: _{\perp }}{16{\pi }^{3}}\frac{m_{q}}{x\sqrt{m_{q}^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp
851: }^{\prime 2}}}\phi _{8}^{q}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{\prime })\frac{x(1-x)}{
852: m_{q}^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2}} \nonumber \\
853: &&-8e_{s}^{2}\int \frac{{\mathrm{d}}x{\mathrm{d}}^{2}\mathbf{k}_{\perp }}{16{%
854: \pi }^{3}}\frac{m_{s}}{x\sqrt{m_{s}^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{\prime 2}}}\phi
855: _{8}^{s}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{\prime })\frac{x(1-x)}{m_{s}^{2}+\mathbf{k}
856: _{\perp }^{2}}, \\
857: F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta _{0}}(Q^{2}) &=&4\sqrt{2}
858: (e_{u}^{2}+e_{d}^{2})\int \frac{{\mathrm{d}}x{\mathrm{d}}^{2}\mathbf{k}
859: _{\perp }}{16{\pi }^{3}}\frac{m_{q}}{x\sqrt{m_{q}^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp
860: }^{\prime 2}}}\phi _{0}^{q}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{\prime })\frac{x(1-x)}{
861: m_{q}^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2}} \nonumber\\
862: &&+4\sqrt{2}e_{s}^{2}\int
863: \frac{{\mathrm{d}}x{\mathrm{d}}^{2}\mathbf{k} _{\perp }}{16{\pi
864: }^{3}}\frac{m_{s}}{x\sqrt{m_{s}^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{\prime
865: 2}}}\phi _{0}^{s}(x,\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{\prime })\frac{x(1-x)}{
866: m_{s}^{2}+\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{2}},
867: \end{eqnarray}
868: in which $\mathbf{k}_{\perp }^{\prime }=\mathbf{k}_{\perp
869: }+(1-x)\mathbf{q} _{\perp }$ after considering the Drell-Yan-West
870: assignment, and then we get $F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow
871: \eta }(Q^{2})$ and $F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta
872: \prime }(Q^{2})$ in the $\eta _{8}$-$\eta _{0}$ mixing scheme
873: \begin{eqnarray}
874: F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta }(Q^{2}) &=&F_{\gamma \gamma
875: ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta _{8}}(Q^{2})\cos \theta -F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast
876: }\rightarrow \eta _{0}}(Q^{2})\sin \theta , \\
877: F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta \prime }(Q^{2}) &=&F_{\gamma
878: \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta _{8}}(Q^{2})\sin \theta +F_{\gamma \gamma
879: ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta _{0}}(Q^{2})\cos \theta .
880: \end{eqnarray}
881:
882: \subsection{Numerical calculations}
883:
884: First of all, we would like to determine the mixing angle $\theta
885: $ and decay constants of $\ f_{8}$ and $f_{0}$ by employing
886: Eq.~(\ref{mixing}) to Eq.~(\ref{decayconstant}) with two different
887: sets of experimental data which may cast some light on the
888: clarification of the obvious current disagreement between the
889: former Primakoff experiments and collider results in the
890: measurements of $\Gamma (\eta \rightarrow \gamma \gamma )$, and
891: then give more reasonable predictions on the mixing angle $\theta
892: $. From the Particle Data Group book \cite{PDB}, we get:%
893: \begin{eqnarray}
894: \Gamma (\pi ^{0} &\rightarrow &\gamma \gamma )=7.74\pm 0.54~\mbox{eV}, \\
895: \Gamma (\eta &\rightarrow &\gamma \gamma )=0.46\pm 0.04~\mbox{keV}, \\
896: \Gamma (\eta ^{\prime } &\rightarrow &\gamma \gamma )=4.29\pm
897: 0.15~\mbox{keV},
898: \end{eqnarray}%
899: and%
900: \begin{eqnarray}
901: m_{\pi ^{0}} &=&134.9766\pm 0.0006~\mbox{MeV}, \\
902: m_{\eta } &=&547.30\pm 0.12~\mbox{MeV}, \\
903: m_{\eta \prime } &=&957.78\pm 0.14~\mbox{MeV}.
904: \end{eqnarray}%
905: We can get $\theta =-14.7^{\circ }\pm 2.0^{\circ },$
906: $f_{0}=1.13\pm 0.08f_{\pi }$ and $f_{8}=0.97\pm 0.07f_{\pi }$.
907: However, $\Gamma (\eta \rightarrow \gamma \gamma )=0.511\pm
908: 0.026~\mbox{keV}$ if we do not include the
909: Primakoff production measurement of $\eta \rightarrow \gamma \gamma $ $%
910: (\Gamma (\eta \rightarrow \gamma \gamma )=0.324\pm
911: 0.046~\mbox{keV})$ which obviously disagrees with other collider
912: measurement. Therefore, we obtain $\theta =-16.1^{\circ }\pm
913: 1.5^{\circ },$ $f_{0}=1.11\pm 0.08f_{\pi }$
914: and $f_{8}=0.95\pm 0.07f_{\pi }$. Moreover, we find that the mixing angle $%
915: \phi=\theta+\arctan \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}=38.6^{\circ}$ is compatible with \cite%
916: {Feld99} which gives the phenomenological value of the mixing angle $%
917: \phi=39.3^{\circ }\pm 1.0^{\circ}$ from eight decay and scattering
918: processes. The mixing independent ratio $R$ can be defined as
919: follow:
920: \begin{eqnarray}
921: R &\equiv &\frac{M_{\pi }^{3}}{\Gamma (\pi \rightarrow \gamma \gamma )}\left[
922: \frac{\Gamma (\eta \rightarrow \gamma \gamma )}{M_{\eta }^{3}}+\frac{\Gamma
923: (\eta ^{\prime }\rightarrow \gamma \gamma )}{M_{\eta \prime }^{3}}\right]
924: \label{r1} \\
925: &=&\frac{1}{3}\left( \frac{f_{\pi }^{2}}{f_{8}^{2}}+8\frac{f_{\pi }^{2}}{%
926: f_{0}^{2}}\right) .
927: \end{eqnarray}
928: The current experimental value of $R$ which was given in the
929: proposal of the PrimEx Collaboration \cite{Gan} at JLab is
930: $R_{\exp }=2.5\pm 0.5(\mbox{stat})\pm 0.5(\mbox{syst})$. We can
931: get $R=2.45$ and $R=2.54$ respectively by using the above two sets
932: of the parameters. With the latter set of the fitted value of the
933: mixing angle $\theta $ and decay constants of $\ f_{8}$ and
934: $f_{0}$ as the input parameters, we can fix the left seven
935: parameters by the following nine constraints.
936:
937: In the formulas of the transition form factor $F_{\gamma \gamma
938: ^{\ast }\rightarrow P}(Q^{2})$ $(P=\pi ,\eta _{8},\eta _{0})$, the
939: parameters are the
940: normalization constants $A_{\pi }$, $A_{8}$ and $A_{0}$, the harmonic scale $%
941: \beta _{\pi }=\beta _{8}$ and $\beta _{0}$, and the quark masses $%
942: m_{q}=m_{u}=m_{d}$ and $m_{s}$. In order to take a numerical
943: calculation of the transition form factor $F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast
944: }\rightarrow M}(Q^{2})$ and compare it with the available
945: experimental data, we need to employ nine constraints to fix those
946: seven parameters above. Thus, we can determine all these seven
947: parameters in the transition form factor uniquely.
948:
949: \noindent
950: 1.~The decay widths of $\pi $, $\eta $ and $\eta ^{\prime }$ \cite{CLEO98,PDB}%
951: :
952: \begin{eqnarray}
953: F_{\pi \gamma }(0) &=&\sqrt{\frac{4}{\alpha ^{2}\pi M_{\pi
954: }^{3}}\Gamma (\pi \rightarrow \gamma \gamma )}=0.274\pm
955: 0.010~\mbox{GeV}^{-1},\ \ 0.274~\mbox{GeV}^{-1},
956: \label{constraints1}\\
957: F_{\eta \gamma }(0) &=&\sqrt{\frac{4}{\alpha
958: ^{2}\pi M_{\eta }^{3}}\Gamma (\eta \rightarrow \gamma \gamma
959: )}=0.273\pm 0.009~\mbox{GeV}^{-1},\ \ 0.277~\mbox{GeV}^{-1},
960: \label{constraints2}\\
961: F_{\eta \prime \gamma }(0) &=&\sqrt{\frac{4}{\alpha ^{2}\pi M_{\eta
962: \prime }^{3}}\Gamma (\eta ^{\prime }\rightarrow \gamma \gamma
963: )}=0.342\pm 0.006~\mbox{GeV}^{-1},\ \
964: 0.343~\mbox{GeV}^{-1}.\label{constraints3}
965: \end{eqnarray}
966:
967: \noindent 2.~The $Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty $ limiting behavior of $%
968: Q^{2}F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow P}(0)F_{\gamma \gamma
969: ^{\ast }\rightarrow P}(Q^{2})$ \cite{Lep80,Cao99,Bro81}:
970: \begin{eqnarray}
971: \lim_{Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty }\pi ^{2}Q^{2}F_{\gamma \gamma
972: ^{\ast }\rightarrow \pi }(0)F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow
973: \pi }(Q^{2}) &=& \frac{1}{2},\ \ 0.49, \label{constraints4}
974: \\
975: \lim_{Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty }3\pi ^{2}Q^{2}F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast
976: }\rightarrow \eta _{8}}(0)F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta
977: _{8}}(Q^{2}) &=&\frac{1}{2},\ \ 0.48, \label{constraints5} \\
978: \lim_{Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty }3\pi ^{2}Q^{2}F_{\gamma \gamma
979: ^{\ast }\rightarrow \eta _{0}}(0)F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast
980: }\rightarrow \eta _{0}}(Q^{2}) &=&4, \label{constraints6} \ \
981: 3.99.
982: \end{eqnarray}
983:
984: \noindent 3.~The $Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty $ limiting behavior of $%
985: Q^{2}F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow P}(Q^{2})$
986: \cite{Lep80,Cao99,Bro81}:
987: \begin{eqnarray}
988: \lim_{Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty }Q^{2}F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \pi
989: }(Q^{2}) &=&2f_{\pi }=184.8\pm 0.2~\mbox{MeV}, \ \ 184.8~\mbox{MeV},\label{constraints7} \\
990: \lim_{Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty }Q^{2}F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast
991: }\rightarrow
992: \eta _{8}}(Q^{2}) &=&\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}f_{8}=101\pm 7~\mbox{MeV},\ \ 95~\mbox{MeV},\label{constraints8} \\
993: \lim_{Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty }Q^{2}F_{\gamma \gamma ^{\ast
994: }\rightarrow \eta _{0}}(Q^{2})
995: &=&\frac{4\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}f_{0}=334\pm 15~\mbox{MeV},\ \
996: 332~\mbox{MeV},\label{constraints9}
997: \end{eqnarray}%
998: in which the weak decay constant $f_{\pi }=92.4~\mbox{MeV}$ is
999: defined \cite{decay} from $\pi \rightarrow \mu \nu $ decay.
1000:
1001: These constraints are not completely independent, but are
1002: necessary since some of them are free from uncertainties, for
1003: example, Eqs.~(\ref{constraints5}-\ref{constraints6}) are free
1004: from the decay constants $f_{0}$ and $f_{8}$. Combined with
1005: consideration of other properties of the pion \cite{Xiao03}, we
1006: can obtain $m_{q}=200~\mbox{MeV}$, $m_{s}=550~\mbox{MeV}$, $\beta
1007: _{\pi
1008: }=\beta _{8}=410~\mbox{MeV}$, $\beta _{0}=475~\mbox{MeV}$, $A_{\pi }=0.0475~\mbox{MeV}^{-1}$, $%
1009: A_{8}=0.0331~\mbox{MeV}^{-1}$, and $A_{0}=0.0440~\mbox{MeV}^{-1}$.
1010: Among these 7 parameters, 3 of them ($m_{q}$, $A_{\pi}$ and $\beta
1011: _{\pi}$) are the same in our previous work \cite{Xiao03} and have
1012: already been fixed, only the other 4 are new parameters. These
1013: three parameters satisfy Eqs.~(\ref{constraints1}),
1014: (\ref{constraints4}) and (\ref{constraints7}) very well. Then we
1015: fix the 4 new parameters by using the four equations
1016: Eqs.~(\ref{constraints2}), (\ref{constraints3}),
1017: (\ref{constraints5}) and (\ref{constraints6}). Since the parameter
1018: fixing scheme is somehow unique, numerical results of these
1019: parameters do not have much room to vary, and not surprisingly we
1020: find these fixed 7 parameters give very good prediction for
1021: Eqs.~(\ref{constraints8})-(\ref{constraints9}). Reversely, we can
1022: compute the values of the above nine constraints by using the
1023: above seven fixed parameters, and we also provide the fitted
1024: values at the end of each equation. Therefore, after this simple
1025: parameter fixing scheme, we could start to calculate the
1026: transition form factor for these mesons.
1027:
1028: \begin{figure}%[htb]%[tbh]
1029: %\begin{center}
1030: %\leavevmode {\epsfysize=8cm \epsffile{trans.eps}}
1031: %\end{center}
1032: \par
1033: \begin{center}
1034: \includegraphics{pi1.eps}
1035: \end{center}
1036: \caption[*]{\baselineskip13pt Theoretical prediction of $(4
1037: \protect\pi \protect\alpha )^{2}\frac{m_{\protect\pi
1038: }^{3}}{64\protect\pi }
1039: |F_{\protect\gamma \protect\gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \protect\pi %
1040: }(Q^{2})|^{2}$ calculated with the pion wave function in the BHL
1041: prescription compared with the experimental data. The data for the
1042: transition form factor are taken from Ref.~\protect\cite{Beh91}.}
1043: \label{pi1}
1044: \end{figure}
1045:
1046: \begin{figure}%[htb]%[tbh]
1047: %\begin{center}
1048: %\leavevmode {\epsfysize=8cm \epsffile{trans.eps}}
1049: %\end{center}
1050: \par
1051: \begin{center}
1052: \includegraphics{pi2.eps}
1053: \end{center}
1054: \caption[*]{\baselineskip13pt Theoretical prediction of $
1055: Q^{2}|F_{\protect\gamma \protect\gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow
1056: \protect\pi}(Q^{2})|$ calculated with the pion wave function in
1057: the BHL prescription compared with the experimental data. The data
1058: for the transition form factor are taken from
1059: Ref.~\protect\cite{CLEO98} and Ref.~\protect\cite{Beh91}.}
1060: \label{pi2}
1061: \end{figure}
1062:
1063: \begin{figure}%[htb]%[tbh]
1064: %\begin{center}
1065: %\leavevmode {\epsfysize=8cm \epsffile{trans.eps}}
1066: %\end{center}
1067: \par
1068: \begin{center}
1069: \includegraphics{eta1.eps}
1070: \end{center}
1071: \caption[*]{\baselineskip13pt Theoretical prediction of $(4
1072: \protect\pi \protect\alpha )^{2}\frac{m_{\protect\eta
1073: }^{3}}{64\protect\pi} |F_{\protect\gamma \protect\gamma ^{\ast
1074: }\rightarrow \protect\eta }(Q^{2})|^{2}$ compared with the
1075: experimental data in the low energy scale. The data for the
1076: transition form factor are taken from Ref.~\protect\cite{Beh91}
1077: and Ref.~\protect\cite{TPC90}.} \label{eta1}
1078: \end{figure}
1079:
1080: \begin{figure}%[htb]%[tbh]
1081: %\begin{center}
1082: %\leavevmode {\epsfysize=8cm \epsffile{trans.eps}}
1083: %\end{center}
1084: \par
1085: \begin{center}
1086: \includegraphics{eta2.eps}
1087: \end{center}
1088: \caption[*]{\baselineskip13pt Theoretical prediction of
1089: $Q^{2}|F_{\protect\gamma \protect\gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow
1090: \protect\eta}(Q^{2})|$ compared with the experimental data. The
1091: data for the transition form factor are taken from
1092: Ref.~\protect\cite{CLEO98}, Ref.~\protect\cite{Beh91} and
1093: Ref.~\protect\cite{TPC90}.} \label{eta2}
1094: \end{figure}
1095:
1096: \begin{figure}%[htb]%[tbh]
1097: %\begin{center}
1098: %\leavevmode {\epsfysize=8cm \epsffile{trans.eps}}
1099: %\end{center}
1100: \par
1101: \begin{center}
1102: \includegraphics{etaprime1.EPS}
1103: \end{center}
1104: \caption[*]{\baselineskip13pt Theoretical prediction of $(4
1105: \protect\pi \protect\alpha )^{2}\frac{m_{\protect\eta \prime
1106: }^{3}}{64
1107: \protect\pi }|F_{\protect\gamma \protect\gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \protect%
1108: \eta \prime }(Q^{2})|^{2}$ compared with the experimental data in
1109: the low energy scale. The data for the transition form factor are
1110: taken from Ref.~ \protect\cite{CLEO98}, Ref.~\protect\cite{Beh91},
1111: Ref.~\protect\cite{TPC90} and Ref.~\protect\cite{L398}.}
1112: \label{etaprime1}
1113: \end{figure}
1114:
1115: \begin{figure}%[htb]%[tbh]
1116: %\begin{center}
1117: %\leavevmode {\epsfysize=8cm \epsffile{trans.eps}}
1118: %\end{center}
1119: \par
1120: \begin{center}
1121: \includegraphics{etaprime2.EPS}
1122: \end{center}
1123: \caption[*]{\baselineskip13pt Theoretical prediction of $%
1124: Q^{2}|F_{\protect\gamma \protect\gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow
1125: \protect\eta^{\prime }}(Q^{2})|$ compared with the experimental
1126: data. The data for the transition form factor are taken from
1127: Ref.~\protect\cite{CLEO98}, Ref.~\protect\cite{Beh91},
1128: Ref.~\protect\cite{TPC90} and Ref.~\protect\cite{L398}.}
1129: \label{etaprime5}
1130: \end{figure}
1131:
1132: The results are in good agreement with the experimental data which
1133: we have listed above. Moreover, it is interesting to notice that
1134: the masses of the light-flavor quarks (the up quarks and down
1135: quarks) from the above constrains are just in the correct range
1136: (\textit{e.g.}, $200\sim 300~\mbox{MeV}$) of the constituent quark
1137: masses from more general considerations. Naturally, the transition
1138: form factor results emerging from this assumption are in quite
1139: good agreement with the experimental data.
1140:
1141: Fig.~2 indicates that the theoretical values of the photon-pion
1142: $(\gamma \gamma ^{\ast }\rightarrow \pi )$ transition form factors
1143: in the case of low $Q^{2}$ fit the experimental data well. One may
1144: consider this work as a light-cone version of relativistic quark
1145: model \cite{Ma93,Xiao2002}, which should be valid in the
1146: low-energy scale about $Q^{2}\leq 2~\mbox{GeV}^{2}$. However, it
1147: is also physically in accordance with the light-cone perturbative
1148: QCD approach \cite{Lep80,Cao96}, which is applicable at the
1149: high-energy scale of $Q^{2}>2~\mbox{GeV}^{2}$. The reason is that
1150: the hard-gluon exchange between quark and antiquark of the meson,
1151: which should be generally considered at high $Q^{2}$ for exclusive
1152: processes, is not necessary to be incorporated in the light-cone
1153: perturbative QCD approach for pion-photon transition form factor
1154: \cite{Lep80,Cao96}. As a result, there is no wonder that our
1155: predictions for the transition form factor at high $Q^{2}$ also
1156: agree with the experimental data at high energy scale in Fig.~3.
1157:
1158: Fig.~4 and Fig.~5 show that our predictions for the $\gamma ^{\ast
1159: }\gamma \rightarrow \eta $ transition form factors agree with the
1160: experimental data in the low and high energy scale, respectively.
1161: In addition, the numerical results of $\gamma ^{\ast }\gamma
1162: \rightarrow \eta ^{\prime }$ transition form factor also give good
1163: fit of the experiments both in the low and moderately high energy
1164: scale in Fig.~6 and Fig.~7. The prediction that we have made for
1165: the low $Q^{2}~(0.001-0.5~\mbox{GeV}^{2})$ behaviors of the
1166: photon-meson transition form factors of $\pi ^{0}$, $\eta $ and
1167: $\eta ^{\prime }$ are measurable in
1168: $e+A(\mbox{Nucleus})\rightarrow e+A+M$ process via Primakoff
1169: effect at JLab and DESY.
1170:
1171: Generally speaking, the medium to high $Q^2$ behavior of the
1172: transition form factors should include leading-twist order
1173: (so-called pQCD picture) and NLO corrections~\cite{Bra83,Kro2003},
1174: but we only take the leading order into account in this
1175: literature. However, we find that our results for the leading
1176: order of the transition form factors fit the experimental data at
1177: small $Q^{2}$ well and are also physically consistent with the
1178: light-cone pQCD approach at large $Q^{2}$.
1179:
1180: \section{Conclusion}
1181:
1182: The light-cone formalism provides a convenient framework for the
1183: relativistic description of hadrons in terms of quark and gluon
1184: degrees of freedom, and for the application of perturbative QCD to
1185: exclusive processes. With the minimal Fock-state expansions of the
1186: pion and photon wave functions from the light-cone representation
1187: of the spin structure of the pseudoscalar meson and photon
1188: vertexes, we investigate the photon-meson transition form factors
1189: by adopting the Drell-Yan-West assignment to get the light-cone
1190: framework that works at both low $Q^2$ and high $Q^2$.
1191: We employ the experimental values of the decay widths of $\pi $, $%
1192: \eta $ and $\eta ^{\prime }$, the limiting behavior of
1193: $\lim_{Q^{2}\rightarrow \infty }Q^{2}F_{\gamma ^{\ast }\gamma
1194: \rightarrow M}(Q^{2})F_{\gamma ^{\ast }\gamma \rightarrow M}(0)$
1195: $(M=\pi ,\eta _{8},\eta _{0})$, and the limiting behavior of
1196: $Q^{2}F_{\gamma ^{\ast }\gamma \rightarrow M}(Q^{2})$ as the nine
1197: constrains to fix those seven parameters in the $\pi $, $\eta
1198: _{8}$, and $\eta _{0}$ wave functions. With the fixed $\pi $,
1199: $\eta _{8}$, and $\eta _{0}$ wave functions, we find that our
1200: numerical predictions for the photon-meson transition form factors
1201: of light pseudoscalar mesons $\pi $, $\eta $, and $\eta ^{\prime
1202: }$ agree with the experimental data at both low and high energy
1203: scale, in a wide region comparing to previous studies.
1204:
1205: \textbf{Acknowledgements} We acknowledge the helpful and
1206: encouraging communications with Liping Gan. This work is partially
1207: supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under
1208: Grant Numbers 10025523 and 90103007. It is also supported by
1209: Hui-Chun Chin and Tsung-Dao Lee Chinese Undergraduate Research
1210: Endowment (Chun-Tsung Endowment) at Peking University.
1211:
1212: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1213: \bibitem{Lep80} G.P. Lepage and S.J. Brodsky, Phys.~Rev.~ {D 22},
1214: 2157 (1980).
1215:
1216: \bibitem{Cao96} F.-G. Cao, T. Huang, and B.-Q. Ma,~Phys.~Rev. {D
1217: 53}, 6582
1218: (1996).
1219:
1220: \bibitem{Xiao03} B.-W. Xiao and B.-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. {D 68},
1221: 034020 (2003).
1222:
1223: \bibitem{CLEO98} CLEO Collaboration, J. Gronberg \textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. {D 57}, 33 (1998).
1224:
1225: \bibitem{Beh91} CELLO Collaboration, H.-J. Behrend \textit{et al.}, Z. Phys.
1226: {C 49}, 401 (1991).
1227:
1228: \bibitem{Gan}
1229: L. Gan, private communications, and proposal by PrimEx
1230: Collaboration at JLab.
1231:
1232: \bibitem{hem98}
1233: HERMES Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff {\it et al.}, Nucl. Instr. and
1234: Meth. {A 417}, 230 (1998).
1235:
1236: \bibitem{Cao99} F.-G. Cao and A.I. Signal, Phys. Rev. {D 60}, 114012 (1999).
1237:
1238: \bibitem{Feld99} T. Feldmann, P. Kroll, and B. Stech, Phys.\ Lett.\ {B}
1239: {449}, 339 (1999).
1240:
1241:
1242: \bibitem{Chpt} J.L. Goity, A.M. Bernstein and B.R. Holstein, Phys. Rev. {D
1243: 66}, 076014 (2002).
1244:
1245: \bibitem{nChpt} P. Maris and P.C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. {C65}, 045211
1246: (2002); F.J. Llanes-Estrada and S.R. Cotanch, Nucl. Phys. {A 697},
1247: 303 (2002).
1248:
1249:
1250:
1251: \bibitem{Cheng} Ta-Pei Cheng and Ling-Fong Li, ``Gauge theory of elementary
1252: particle physics" (Claredon: Oxford, 1984).
1253:
1254:
1255: \bibitem{Mixing} N. Beisert and B. Borasoy Eur. Phys. J. {A 11},
1256: 329 (2001); P. Herrera-Siklody, J.L. Latorre, P. Pascual and J.
1257: Taron, Phys. Lett. {B 419}, 326 (1998).
1258:
1259: Ll. Ametller, J. Bijnens, A. Bramon, and F. Cornet, Phys. Rev.
1260: {\bf D 45}, 986 (1992).
1261:
1262:
1263:
1264: \bibitem{Ani04} V.V. Anisovich, L.G. Dakhno, V.N. Markov, V.A. Nikonov, A.V.
1265: Sarantsev, hep-ph/0410361; A.V. Anisovich, V.V. Anisovich, L.G.
1266: Dakhno, V.A. Nikonov, A.V. Sarantsev. hep-ph/0406320.
1267:
1268: \bibitem{Qiao00} S. Gieseke and C.F. Qiao, Phys. Rev. {D
1269: 61}, 074028 (2000).
1270:
1271:
1272: \bibitem{Bro89} S.J. Brodsky, in \textit{Lectures on Lepton Nucleon
1273: Scattering and Quantum Chromodynamics}, edited by A. Jaffe, D. Ruelle (Birkh$%
1274: \bar{a}$user, Boston, 1982), p.255;
1275:
1276: S.J. Brodsky and G.P. Lepage, in \textit{%
1277: Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics}, edited by A.H. Mueller,
1278: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989), p.93;
1279:
1280: S.J. Brodsky, H-C. Pauli, and S.S. Pinsky, Phys. Rep. {301},
1281: 299 (1998).
1282:
1283:
1284: \bibitem{BD80} S.J. Brodsky and S.D. Drell, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {22}, 2236
1285: (1980).
1286:
1287: \bibitem{Bro2001} S.J. Brodsky, D.S. Hwang, B.-Q. Ma, and I. Schmidt, Nucl.
1288: Phys. {B 593}, 311 (2001).
1289:
1290: \bibitem{BHL81} S.J. Brodsky, T. Huang, and G.P. Lepage, in \textit{\
1291: Particles and Fields-2}, Proceedings of the Banff Summer
1292: Institute, Banff, Alberta, 1981, edited by A.Z. Capri and A.N.
1293: Kamal (Plenum, New York, 1983), p. 143.
1294:
1295: \bibitem{Ma93} B.-Q. Ma, Z.~Phys. {A 345}, 321 (1993);
1296: %\bibitem{Huang94}
1297:
1298: T. Huang, B.-Q. Ma, and Q.-X. Shen, Phys. Rev. D {%
1299: 49}, 1490 (1994);
1300:
1301: %\bibitem{Ma95}
1302: B.-Q. Ma and T. Huang, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. {%
1303: 21}, 765 (1995);
1304:
1305: %\bibitem{Cao97}
1306: F.-G. Cao, J. Cao, T. Huang, and B.-Q. Ma,~Phys.~Rev. {D 55},
1307: 7107 (1997).
1308:
1309: \bibitem{Xiao2002}
1310: B.-W. Xiao, X. Qian, and B.-Q. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. {%
1311: \ A 15}, 523 (2002).
1312:
1313: \bibitem{Ma91} B.-Q.~Ma, J.Phys.G: Nucl. Part. Phys. {17}, L53 (1991);
1314:
1315: B.-Q.~Ma and Q.-R.~Zhang, Z.~Phys. {C 58}, 479 (1993).
1316:
1317: \bibitem{Ma96} B.-Q.~Ma, Phys.~Lett.~ {B 375}, 320 (1996);
1318:
1319: B.-Q.~Ma and A.~Sch\"afer, Phys.~Lett.~ {B 378}, 307 (1996);
1320:
1321: B.-Q.~Ma, I.~Schmidt, and J.~Soffer, Phys. Lett. {B 441}, 461
1322: (1998);
1323:
1324: B.-Q.~Ma, I.~Schmidt, and J.-J. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. {A 12}, 353
1325: (2001).
1326:
1327: \bibitem{MS98} B.-Q.~Ma and I.~Schmidt, Phys. Rev. {D 58},
1328: 096008 (1998).
1329:
1330: \bibitem{Don2001}
1331: A. Donnachie, J. Gravelis, and G. Shaw, Phys. Rev. {D 63}, 114013
1332: (2001).
1333:
1334:
1335: \bibitem{Hwang2001} C.-W. Hwang, Eur. Phys. J. {C 19}, 105 (2001);
1336:
1337: H.M. Choi and C.R. Ji, Nucl. Phys. {A 618}, 291 (1997).
1338:
1339: \bibitem{DYW} S.D.~Drell and T.-M. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. {24},
1340: 181 (1970);
1341:
1342: G. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. {24}, 1206 (1970).
1343:
1344:
1345: \bibitem{Feld98} T. Feldmann and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. {C 5}, 327 (1998).
1346:
1347: \bibitem{Cao98} J. Cao, F.-G. Cao, T. Huang, and B.-Q. Ma,~Phys.~Rev.
1348: {D 58}, 113006 (1998).
1349:
1350:
1351:
1352:
1353:
1354: \bibitem{Rad97}
1355: A.V. Radyushkin and R. Ruskov, Phys.\ Lett.\ {B} {374}, 173
1356: (1996).
1357:
1358: \bibitem{LitTran}
1359: See, \textit{e.g.}, R. Jakob, P. Kroll, and M. Raulfs, J. Phys.G:
1360: Nucl. Part. Phys. {22}, 45 (1996);
1361:
1362: V.V. Anisovich, D.I. Melikhov, and V.A. Nikonov, Phys. Rev. D
1363: {55}, 2918 (1997);
1364:
1365: I.V. Musatov and A.V. Radyushkin, Phys.\ Rev.\ D { 56}, 2713
1366: (1997).
1367:
1368:
1369: \bibitem{PDB} Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {D 66}, 010001 (2002).
1370:
1371:
1372:
1373: \bibitem{Bro81} S.J. Brodsky and G.P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. {D 24},
1374: 1808 (1981).
1375:
1376:
1377: \bibitem{decay} C. Caso et al., Eur. Phys. J. {C 3}, 1 (1998).
1378:
1379: \bibitem{TPC90} TPC/Two-Gamma Collaboration, H. Aihara \textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {64}, 172 (1990).
1380:
1381:
1382: \bibitem{L398} L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri \textit{et al.}, Phys. Lett. {B 418}, 399 (1998).
1383:
1384:
1385: \bibitem{Bra83} E. Braaten, Phys. Rev. {D 28}, 524
1386: (1983).
1387:
1388: \bibitem{Kro2003} P. Kroll and K. Passek-Kumericki, Phys. Rev. {D
1389: 67}, 054017 (2003).
1390:
1391:
1392:
1393:
1394: \nonfrenchspacing
1395: \end{thebibliography}
1396:
1397:
1398:
1399: \end{document}
1400: