1: %% ****** Start of file template.aps ****** %

2: %%

3: %%

4: %%   This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.

5: %%   Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001

6: %%

7: %%

8: %%   Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.

9: %%

10: %%   See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.

11: %%

12: %

13: % This is a template for producing manuscripts for use with REVTEX 4.0

14: % Copy this file to another name and then work on that file.

15: % That way, you always have this original template file to use.

16: %

17: % Group addresses by affiliation; use superscriptaddress for long

18: % author lists, or if there are many overlapping affiliations.

19: % For Phys. Rev. appearance, change preprint to twocolumn.

20: % Choose pra, prb, prc, prd, pre, prl, prstab, or rmp for journal

21: %  Add 'draft' option to mark overfull boxes with black boxes

22: %  Add 'showpacs' option to make PACS codes appear

23: %  Add 'showkeys' option to make keywords appear

24: %%\documentclass[10pt,aps,prd,groupedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}%

25: %%               ,draft,showpacs,showkeys]{revtex4}

26: 

27: %\documentclass[preprint,tightenlines,aps,prd,groupedaddress,showpacs,floatfix]

28: \documentclass[preprint,aps,prd,groupedaddress,showpacs,floatfix,nofootinbib]

29:               {revtex4}%

30: \usepackage{graphicx}

31: \usepackage{amsmath}

32: \usepackage{bm}

33: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

34: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}

35: % You should use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references

36: % Choosing a journal automatically selects the correct APS

37: % BibTeX style file (bst file), so only uncomment the line

38: % below if necessary.

39: %%%%%%\bibliographystyle{apsrev}

40: 

41: \begin{document}

42: 

43: % Use the \preprint command to place your local institutional report

44: % number in the upper righthand corner of the title page in preprint mode.

45: % Multiple \preprint commands are allowed.

46: % Use the 'preprintnumbers' class option to override journal defaults

47: % to display numbers if necessary

48: \preprint{ANL-HEP-PR-06-41}

49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

50: %Title of paper

51: \title{

52: Potential-model calculation of an order-$\bm{v}^2$ \\

53: nonrelativistic QCD matrix element 

54: }

55: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

56: % repeat the \author .. \affiliation  etc. as needed

57: % \email, \thanks, \homepage, \altaffiliation all apply to the current

58: % author. Explanatory text should go in the []'s, actual e-mail

59: % address or url should go in the {}'s for \email and \homepage.

60: % Please use the appropriate macro foreach each type of information

61: % \affiliation command applies to all authors since the last

62: % \affiliation command. The \affiliation command should follow the

63: % other information

64: % \affiliation can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.

65: % \altaffiliation{}

66: 

67: \author{Geoffrey T.~Bodwin}

68: \affiliation{

69: High Energy Physics Division, 

70: Argonne National Laboratory, 

71: 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439}

72: 

73: \author{Daekyoung Kang}

74: \affiliation{

75: Department of Physics, Korea University, Seoul 136-701, Korea}

76: \author{Jungil Lee}

77: \altaffiliation{Visiting faculty, Physics Department, Ohio State University,

78: Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.}

79: \affiliation{

80: Department of Physics, Korea University, Seoul 136-701, Korea}

81: %\email[]{Your e-mail address}

82: %\homepage[]{Your web page}

83: %\thanks{}

84: %\altaffiliation{}

85: 

86: %Collaboration name if desired (requires use of superscriptaddress

87: %option in \documentclass). \noaffiliation is required (may also be

88: %used with the \author command).

89: %\collaboration can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.

90: %\collaboration{}

91: %\noaffiliation

92: 

93: \date{\today}

94: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

95: \begin{abstract}

96: We present two methods for computing dimensionally-regulated NRQCD

97: heavy-quarkonium matrix elements that are related to the second

98: derivative of the heavy-quarkonium wave function at the origin. The

99: first method makes use of a hard-cutoff regulator as an intermediate

100: step and requires knowledge only of the heavy-quarkonium wave function.

101: It involves a significant cancellation that is an obstacle to

102: achieving high numerical accuracy. The second method is more direct

103: and yields a result that is identical to the Gremm-Kapustin relation,

104: but it is limited to use in potential models. It can be generalized to 

105: the computation of matrix elements of higher order in the heavy-quark 

106: velocity and can be used to resum the contributions to decay and 

107: production rates that are associated with those matrix elements.

108: We apply these methods to the Cornell potential model and compute a

109: matrix element for the $J/\psi$ state that appears in the leading

110: relativistic correction to the production and decay of that state

111: through the color-singlet quark-antiquark channel.

112: \end{abstract}

113: 

114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

115: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line

116: \pacs{12.38.-t, 12.39.Pn, 12.38.Bx, 13.20.Gd, 14.40.Gx}

117: % 12.38.-t   Quantum chromodynamics

118: % 12.39.Pn Potential models

119: % 12.38.Bx   Perturbative calculations

120: % 13.20.Gd  Decays of J/psi, Upsilon, and other quarkonia

121: % 14.40.Gx   Mesons with S=C=B=0, mass > 2.5 GeV (including quarkonia)

122: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

123: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this

124: %\keywords{}

125: 

126: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

127: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract, \pacs, and \keywords

128: \maketitle

129: 

130: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

131: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands

132: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands

133: %===========================================================

134: \section{Introduction\label{intro}}

135: %===========================================================

136: 

137: In the effective field theory nonrelativistic quantum chromodynamics

138: (NRQCD), the leading relativistic corrections to $S$-wave

139: heavy-quarkonium decay and production processes in the color-singlet

140: quark-antiquark channel are proportional to matrix elements that

141: are related to the second derivative of the quarkonium wave function at

142: the origin. These matrix elements are inherently nonperturbative in

143: nature. Their importance in phenomenological calculations has led to a

144: number of attempts to determine their values.

145: 

146: Even before the introduction of the NRQCD approach for quarkonium decay

147: and production \cite{Bodwin:1994jh}, these matrix elements appeared in

148: phenomenological studies of charmonium decays \cite{Kwong:1987ak}. Owing

149: to uncertainties that arise from the uncertainty in the charm-quark

150: mass $m_c$ and from uncalculated terms of higher order in the quantum

151: chromodynamic (QCD) strong coupling $\alpha_s$, such phenomenological

152: determinations have not led to accurate values for the matrix elements.

153: There also have been attempts to determine the matrix elements in

154: lattice calculations \cite{bks}. In this case, large uncertainties arise

155: because there is a substantial cancellation that occurs when one

156: converts from lattice to continuum dimensionally-regulated matrix

157: elements. In principle, one can determine these matrix elements

158: approximately by making use of the Gremm-Kapustin relation

159: \cite{Gremm:1997dq}, which expresses the matrix elements in terms of the

160: quarkonium and heavy-quark masses. (See Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi} for

161: an example of this approach.) Unfortunately, this method is plagued by

162: large uncertainties in $m_c$. In both the lattice and

163: Gremm-Kapustin approaches, the uncertainties are so large that even the

164: signs of the matrix elements are in some doubt.

165: 

166: A further difficulty that complicates the calculation of the matrix

167: elements that are related to the second derivative of the wave function

168: at the origin is that they contain a linear ultraviolet (UV) divergence,

169: and, hence, must be regulated. Dimensional regularization of these

170: matrix elements is particularly useful because it is consistent with

171: existing calculations of quarkonium decay and production rates at

172: relative order $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_s^2$.

173: 

174: In this paper, we present two methods for calculating the second

175: derivative of the wave function at the origin. In the first method, we

176: initially use a hard-cutoff regulator, with cutoff $\Lambda$, to define

177: the relevant matrix element. Then we compute the difference between the

178: hard-cutoff regularization and dimensional regularization in

179: perturbation theory. We subtract this difference from the hard-cutoff

180: matrix element. There remains a dependence of the matrix element on

181: $\Lambda$ that falls as $1/\Lambda$ in the limit $\Lambda\to\infty$.

182: That dependence can be removed by calculating at a number of values of

183: $\Lambda$ and extrapolating to $\Lambda=\infty$. However, in this

184: method, it is difficult to achieve high numerical accuracy because

185: large, cancelling $\Lambda$-dependent contributions appear. The second

186: method that we present bypasses the hard-cutoff step, but it is

187: applicable only to potential models for the wave function. It yields a

188: result that is identical to the Gremm-Kapustin relation

189: \cite{Gremm:1997dq} for the potential model. That result can be used to

190: resum certain contributions of higher order in $v$ to amplitudes that

191: are computed in NRQCD.

192: 

193: Having established a formal procedure for computing the relevant matrix

194: elements, we carry out an explicit computation for the $J/\psi$ (or

195: $\eta_c$) states in the Cornell potential model. We do not distinguish

196: between the $J/\psi$ and $\eta_c$ wave functions, which differ only in

197: corrections of relative order $v^2$, where $v$ is the velocity of the

198: heavy quark or antiquark in the quarkonium. ($v^2\approx 0.3$ in

199: charmonium and $v^2\approx 0.1$ in bottomonium.) In principle, if we

200: know the static heavy-quark-antiquark ($Q\bar Q$) potential exactly,

201: then we can calculate the quarkonium wave function of the leading $Q\bar

202: Q$ quarkonium Fock state up to corrections of relative order $v^2$.

203: Existing lattice data for the static $Q\bar Q$ potential yield values

204: for the string tension. We examine values for the parameters in the

205: Cornell potential that bracket the lattice values for the string

206: tension.

207: 

208: In our numerical calculations, the results from our two approaches agree

209: well and give a value for the second derivative of the wave function at

210: the origin that is in agreement with expectations from the $v$-scaling

211: rules of NRQCD \cite{Bodwin:1994jh}. The largest uncertainties in our

212: calculation are of relative order $v^2$. Therefore, our

213: determination of the second derivative of the wave function at the

214: origin is the most accurate to date and should be useful for

215: phenomenological studies of quarkonium production and decay.

216: 

217: The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In

218: Sec.~\ref{model}, we give a brief description of the Cornell potential

219: model. In Sec.~\ref{matrix-els}, we discuss the NRQCD matrix elements

220: that are relevant to this work. Section~\ref{cutoff} contains a description

221: of the hard-cutoff regulator. In Sec.~\ref{difference}, we explain how

222: we compute the difference between hard-cutoff regularization and

223: dimensional regularization. The direct method of calculation, which

224: bypasses the hard-cutoff step, is discussed in Sec.~\ref{direct}, along

225: with its application to resummation of contributions of higher order in

226: $v$. In Sec.~\ref{decomposition}, we decompose the difference 

227: between a hard-cutoff matrix element  and a dimensionally-regulated 

228: matrix element into sums of short-distance coefficients times 

229: dimensionally-regulated matrix elements. Such a decomposition is used 

230: in existing calculations of the difference between a lattice matrix element 

231: and a dimensionally-regulated matrix element.

232: Sec.~\ref{numerical} contains our numerical

233: results and a discussion of them. We summarize our results in

234: Sec.~\ref{conclusions}. In Appendix~\ref{coulomb}, we illustrate our

235: methods for the case of a pure Coulomb potential, and, in

236: Appendix~\ref{integrals}, we list some integrals that are useful in our

237: analyses.

238: 

239: 

240: %===========================================================

241: \section{Potential model\label{model}}

242: %===========================================================

243: We compute matrix elements for the $J/\psi$ or $\eta_c$ states using a

244: potential model. In this model, we neglect the effects of the heavy-quark

245: spin, which are suppressed as $v^2$. Therefore, we do not distinguish

246: between the $J/\psi$ and $\eta_c$ wave functions or matrix elements. We

247: note that, if we knew the heavy-quark potential exactly, then we could

248: calculate the heavy-quarkonium wave function in a potential model up to

249: corrections of relative order $v^2$ (Ref.~\cite{Brambilla:1999xf}). We

250: make use of the Cornell potential model of Ref.~\cite{Eichten:1978tg}.

251: For appropriate choices of parameters, the Cornell potential

252: provides a reasonably good fit to heavy-quark potentials that are

253: measured in lattice calculations.\footnote{For a recent review that

254: discusses heavy-quark potentials from lattice measurements, see

255: Ref.~\cite{Bali:2000gf}.}

256: 

257: Now we summarize the methods that we use to constrain the parameters of

258: the Cornell potential and to solve the Schr\"odinger equation. We refer

259: the reader to Ref.~\cite{bkl} for further details.

260: 

261: The Cornell potential \cite{Eichten:1978tg} is given by

262: %--------------------------------------------------------

263: \begin{equation}

264: V(r)=-\frac{\kappa}{r}+\frac{r}{a^2},

265: \label{model-V}

266: \end{equation}

267: %--------------------------------------------------------

268: where the parameters $\kappa$ and $a$ determine the strength of 

269: Coulomb and linear potentials, respectively.

270: For a color-singlet $Q\bar{Q}$ pair, the Coulomb-strength

271: parameter $\kappa$ can be expressed in terms of an effective

272: strong coupling $\alpha_s$ as

273: %--------------------------------------------------------

274: \begin{equation}

275: \kappa=\alpha_s C_F,

276: \label{kappa}

277: \end{equation}

278: %--------------------------------------------------------

279: where $C_F=4/3$.

280: The parameter $a$ is related to the string tension $\sigma$ as

281: %--------------------------------------------------------

282: \begin{equation}

283: \sigma=\frac{1}{a^2}.

284: \label{sigma-par}

285: \end{equation}

286: %--------------------------------------------------------

287: 

288: Following Ref.~\cite{Eichten:1978tg}, we replace $\kappa$ and the

289: binding energy $\epsilon_{\textrm{B}}$ by dimensionless parameters

290: $\lambda$ and $\zeta$:

291: %--------------------------------------------------------

292: \begin{subequations}

293: \label{lambda-zeta}

294: \begin{eqnarray}

295: \kappa&=&(ma)^{-\frac{2}{3}}\,\lambda,\label{lambda}\\

296: \epsilon_{\textrm{B}}&=& m (ma)^{-\frac{4}{3}}\zeta.\label{zeta}

297: \end{eqnarray}

298: \end{subequations}

299: %--------------------------------------------------------

300: For a given value of $\lambda$, we fix the heavy-quark mass $m$ and the

301: parameter $a$ in the Cornell potential as follows. First, we require

302: that the energies that result from the solutions to the Schr\"odinger

303: equation match the measured values of the difference of the $J/\psi$ and

304: $\psi(2S)$ masses. We use $M_{J/\psi}=3.096916$~GeV and

305: $M_{\psi(2S)}=3.686093$~GeV. Second, we require that the wave function

306: at the origin matches a value that is derived from the measured value of

307: the leptonic width of the $J/\psi$ and the perturbative formula

308: %--------------------------------------------------------

309: \begin{equation}

310: \Gamma[J/\psi\to \ell^+\ell^-]

311: =\frac{4\pi e_c^2 \alpha^2}{m_c^2}|\psi(0)|^2

312: \left(1-\frac{8}{3}\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^2.

313: \label{lept-width}

314: \end{equation}

315: %--------------------------------------------------------

316: Here, $\psi(0)$ is the wave function at the origin and $e_c=2/3$ is the

317: fractional electric charge of the charm quark. 

318: In Ref.~\cite{Braaten:2002fi}, $\psi(0)$ is estimated by using the 

319: the formula (\ref{lept-width}) at both leading order in $\alpha_s$ (LO) 

320: and next-to-leading order in $\alpha_s$ (NLO). The results are

321: \begin{equation}                                                         

322: \psi(0)=                 

323: \left\{                                                                 

324: \begin{array}{lcl}

325: 0.18619~\textrm{GeV}^{3/2}&& \textrm{(LO)}

326: \\

327: 0.23629~\textrm{GeV}^{3/2}&& \textrm{(NLO)},

328: \end{array}

329: \right.

330: \label{psi0-value}

331: \end{equation}

332: where, for convenience, we have taken $\psi(0)$ to be positive and real.

333: In order to estimate the effects of the uncertainty in $\psi(0)$, we

334: carry out our calculations for both the LO and NLO values of $\psi(0)$.

335: For a more detailed discussion of the determination of $m$ and $a$, see 

336: Ref.~\cite{bkl}.

337: 

338: Values of $m$, $a$, and the scaled energies $\zeta$ of the $1S$ and $2S$

339: states for various values of $\lambda$ are shown in

340: Tables~\ref{table:ma-lo} and \ref{table:ma-nlo}, along with values for

341: $\alpha_s$ from Eq.~(\ref{kappa}), $\sigma$ from Eq.~(\ref{sigma-par}),

342: and $\gamma_{\textrm{C}}$ from Eq.~(\ref{gamma-C}). 

343: Table~\ref{table:ma-lo} contains values of the potential-model

344: parameters that correspond to the LO value of $\psi(0)$, while

345: Table~\ref{table:ma-nlo} contains those that correspond to the NLO value

346: of $\psi(0)$.

347: %--------------------------------------------------------

348: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

349: % tables should appear as floats within the text

350: % Here is an example of the general form of a table:

351: % Fill in the caption in the braces of the \caption{} command. Put the label

352: % that you will use with \ref{} command in the braces of the \label{} command.

353: % Insert the column specifiers (l, r, c, d, etc.) in the empty braces of the

354: % \begin{tabular}{} command.

355: % The ruledtabular enviroment adds doubled rules to table and sets a

356: % reasonable default table settings.

357: % Use the table* environment to get a full-width table in two-column

358: % Add \usepackage{longtable} and the longtable (or longtable*}

359: % environment for nicely formatted long tables. Or use the [H]

360: % placement option to break a long table (with less control than

361: % in longtable).

362:  \begin{table}%[H] add [H] placement to break table across pages

363:  \caption{\label{table:ma-lo}

364: Potential-model parameters and derived quantities as a function of the

365: strength $\lambda$ of the Coulomb potential. The definitions of the

366: parameters and derived quantities are given in the text. The parameters

367: are computed using the inputs $M_{J/\psi}=3.096916$~GeV, 

368: $M_{\psi(2S)}=3.686093$~GeV, and the LO value 

369: $\psi(0)=0.18619$~GeV$^{3/2}$, as is described in the text.

370: }

371:  \begin{ruledtabular}

372:  \begin{tabular}{c|lllllllll}

373: $\lambda$& 

374: 0& 0.2     & 0.4     & 0.6     & 0.7     & 0.8    & 1.0   & 1.2     & 1.4\\

375: \hline

376: $\zeta_{10}$&

377: 2.33811& 2.16732& 1.98850& 1.80107& 1.70394& 1.60441& 1.39788& 1.18084& 0.95264

378: \\

379: $\zeta_{20}$&

380: 4.08790& 3.97017& 3.85003& 3.72747& 3.66528& 3.60249& 3.47510& 3.34529& 3.21307

381: \\

382: $m$~(GeV)&

383: 1.70670& 1.51548& 1.35120& 1.21003& 1.14710& 1.08877& 0.98458& 0.89501& 0.81796

384: \\

385: $a$~(GeV$^{-1}$)&

386: 1.97932& 2.08520& 2.19805& 2.31833& 2.38139& 2.44648& 2.58295& 2.72816& 2.88253

387: \\

388: $\sqrt{\sigma}$~(GeV)&

389: 0.50522& 0.47957& 0.45495& 0.43134& 0.41992& 0.40875& 0.38715& 0.36655& 0.34692

390: \\

391: $\sigma$~(GeV$^2$)&

392: 0.25525& 0.22999& 0.20698& 0.18606& 0.17633& 0.16708& 0.14989& 0.13436& 0.12035

393: \\

394: $\alpha_s$&

395: 0.     & 0.06966& 0.14519& 0.22624& 0.26866& 0.31225& 0.40255& 0.49634& 0.59272

396: \\

397: $\gamma_{\textrm{C}}$~(GeV)&

398: 0.     & 0.07037& 0.13079& 0.18250& 0.20545& 0.22664& 0.26423& 0.29615& 0.32322

399:  \end{tabular}

400:  \end{ruledtabular}

401:  \end{table}

402: % Surround table environment with turnpage environment for landscape

403: % table

404: % \begin{turnpage}

405: % \begin{table}

406: % \caption{\label{}}

407: % \begin{ruledtabular}

408: % \begin{tabular}{}

409: % \end{tabular}

410: % \end{ruledtabular}

411: % \end{table}

412: % \end{turnpage}

413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

414: 

415: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

416:  \begin{table}%[H] add [H] placement to break table across pages

417:  \caption{\label{table:ma-nlo} As in Table~\ref{table:ma-lo}, except

418: that the potential-model parameters are computed using the NLO value

419: $\psi(0)=0.23629$~GeV$^{3/2}$.

420: }

421:  \begin{ruledtabular}

422:  \begin{tabular}{c| lll lll lll}

423: $\lambda$& 

424: 0.2    & 0.4    & 0.6    & 0.8    & 0.9    & 1.0    & 1.1    & 1.2    &  1.4    \\

425: \hline

426: $\zeta_{10}$&

427: 2.16732& 1.98850& 1.80107& 1.60441& 1.50242& 1.39788& 1.29071& 1.18084&  0.95264

428: \\

429: $\zeta_{20}$&

430: 3.97017& 3.85003& 3.72747& 3.60249& 3.53910& 3.47510& 3.41050& 3.34529&  3.21307

431: \\

432: $m$~(GeV)&

433: 2.08228& 1.85655& 1.66259& 1.49597& 1.42168& 1.35282& 1.28896& 1.22975&  1.12388

434: \\

435: $a$~(GeV$^{-1}$)&

436: 1.92598& 2.03021& 2.14130& 2.25967& 2.32171& 2.38571& 2.45174& 2.51984&  2.66243

437: \\

438: $\sqrt{\sigma}$~(GeV)&

439: 0.51922& 0.49256& 0.46700& 0.44254& 0.43072& 0.41916& 0.40787& 0.39685&  0.37560

440: \\

441: $\sigma$~(GeV$^2$)&

442: 0.26959& 0.24262& 0.21809& 0.19584& 0.18552& 0.17570& 0.16636& 0.15749&  0.14107

443: \\

444: $\alpha_s$&

445: 0.05942& 0.12387& 0.19301& 0.26638& 0.30448& 0.34342& 0.38310& 0.42343&  0.50566

446: \\

447: $\gamma_{\textrm{C}}$~(GeV)&

448: 0.08249& 0.15331& 0.21393& 0.26567& 0.28859& 0.30972& 0.32920& 0.34714&  0.37887

449:  \end{tabular}

450:  \end{ruledtabular}

451:  \end{table}

452: 

453: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

454: 

455: Lattice measurements of the heavy-quark potential yield values for

456: effective coupling $\alpha_s$ of 0.22 in the quenched case and

457: approximately 0.26 in the unquenched case \cite{Bali:2000gf}. A lattice

458: measurement of the string tension $K=\sigma$ (Ref.~\cite{Booth:1992bm})

459: gives $Ka_{\rm L}^2=0.0114(2)$ at a lattice coupling $\beta=6.5$, where 

460: $a_{\rm L}$ is

461: the lattice spacing. Lattice calculations of the hadron spectrum at

462: $\beta=6.5$ yield values for $1/a_{\rm L}$ of $3.962(127)$~GeV

463: (Refs.~\cite{Gupta:1996sa,Kim:1993gc}) and $3.811(59)$~GeV

464: (Refs.~\cite{Gupta:1996sa,Kim:1996cz}). These yield values of the string

465: tension of $K=0.1790\pm 0.0119$ and $K=0.1656\pm 0.0059$, respectively.

466: 

467: Comparing the results of these lattice measurements with the LO

468: parameters in Table~\ref{table:ma-lo}, we see that the values of the

469: string tension at $\lambda=0.7$ and $0.8$ span the range of lattice

470: results for the string tension, while the values of $\alpha_s$ at

471: $\lambda=0.6$ and $0.7$ span the range of lattice results for $\alpha_s$.

472: Comparing the results of the lattice measurements with the NLO

473: parameters in Table~\ref{table:ma-nlo}, we see that the values of

474: the string tension at $\lambda=1.0$ and $1.1$ span the range of lattice

475: results for the string tension. However, the values of $\alpha_s$ at

476: $\lambda=0.9$, $1.0$, and $1.1$ are all larger than the lattice values.

477: It is not clear whether this discrepancy between the lattice and NLO

478: potential-model values for $\alpha_s$ arises from the use of an

479: inaccurate value for $\psi(0)$, from effects due to the running of

480: $\alpha_s$, which are not taken into account in the fits to the lattice

481: data, or from the absence of corrections of relative order $v^2$ in

482: the Cornell potential model. However, we note that the NLO values for

483: $\alpha_s$ at $\lambda=0.9$, $1.0$, and $1.1$ do not differ greatly from

484: the value of the running $\alpha_s$ at the scale of the heavy-quark

485: momentum $m_cv$.

486: 

487: Finally, we mention that we obtain the $J/\psi$ wave function by expressing

488: the radial part of the Schr\"odinger equation as a difference equation,

489: which we integrate numerically. See Ref.~\cite{bkl} for details.

490: 

491: %===========================================================

492: \section{ NRQCD matrix elements \label{matrix-els}}

493: %===========================================================

494: In this section we describe the NRQCD matrix elements that are relevant 

495: to our calculation.

496: 

497: In the rest frame of an $S-$wave heavy quarkonium $H$ in a spin-singlet

498: (${}^1S_0$) or spin-triplet (${}^3S_1$) state, one can express the wave

499: function at the origin of the leading $Q\bar Q$ Fock state in terms of

500: the following color-singlet NRQCD matrix elements

501: \cite{Bodwin:1994jh}:

502: %--------------------------------------

503: \begin{subequations}

504: \label{psi0}

505: \begin{eqnarray}

506: \psi(0)&=&

507: \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}

508: \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p})

509: =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_c}}

510: \langle 0|\chi^\dagger\psi|H({}^1S_0)\rangle,

511: \\

512: \bm{\epsilon}\psi(0)&=&\bm{\epsilon}\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}

513: \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p})

514: =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_c}}

515: \langle 0|\chi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}\psi|H({}^3S_1)\rangle.

516: \end{eqnarray}

517: \end{subequations}

518: %--------------------------------------

519: Here $\psi$ and $\chi^\dagger$ are Pauli spinor fields

520: that annihilate a quark and an antiquark, respectively.

521: The bilinear operators involving $\psi^\dagger$ and $\chi$ are evaluated

522: at zero space-time position. $\bm{\sigma}$ is a Pauli matrix, and

523: $\bm{\epsilon}$ is the quarkonium polarization vector.

524: $\widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p})$ is the momentum-space wave function for the

525: leading $Q(\bm{p})\bar{Q}(-\bm{p})$ Fock state in the quarkonium. 

526: The wave function is, of course, gauge dependent. 

527: Throughout this paper, we work in the Coulomb gauge.

528: The normalization factor $1/\sqrt{2N_c}$ accounts for the traces in the

529: SU(2)-spin and SU(3)-color spaces. In equating the wave functions for the

530: spin-singlet and spin-triplet cases, we are ignoring effects of 

531: relative order $v^2$.

532: 

533: Relativistic corrections to the production and decay rates for

534: a heavy quarkonium involve matrix elements that are related to the 

535: second derivative of the wave function at the origin:

536: \begin{subequations}

537: \label{psi20}

538: \begin{eqnarray}

539: \psi^{(2)}(0)&\equiv&

540: \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}

541: \bm{p}^2 

542: \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p})

543: =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_c}}

544: \langle 0|\chi^\dagger\left(-\bm{\nabla}^2\right)\psi|H({}^1S_0)\rangle,

545: \\

546: \bm{\epsilon}\psi^{(2)}(0)&\equiv&\bm{\epsilon}\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}

547: \bm{p}^2

548: \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p})

549: =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_c}}

550: \langle 0|\chi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}\left(-\bm{\nabla}^2\right)

551: \psi|H({}^3S_1)\rangle.

552: \end{eqnarray}

553: \end{subequations}

554: Usually, these operator matrix elements are written in terms of the

555: covariant derivative $\bm{D}$ (Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:1994jh}), rather than

556: $\bm{\nabla}$. However, in the Coulomb gauge, the difference between the

557: $\bm{D}$ and $\bm{\nabla}$ is suppressed as $v$

558: (Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:1994jh}). 

559: 

560: The quantity $\psi^{(2)}(0)$ is the focus of this paper. It is 

561: common in phenomenology to make use of a parameter 

562: \begin{equation}

563: \langle v^2\rangle=\frac{\psi^{(2)}(0)}{m_c^2\psi(0)},

564: \label{v-sq}

565: \end{equation}

566: where $m_c$ is the charm-quark pole mass, which we distinguish from the 

567: parameter $m$ that appears in our potential model.

568: Note that $\psi^{(2)}(0)$ is different from the expectation value of 

569: $\bm{p}^{2}$:

570: %--------------------------------------

571: \begin{equation}

572: \psi^{(2)}(0)\neq

573: \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}

574: \,\bm{p}^{2}

575: \widetilde{\psi}^*(\bm{p})

576: \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p}).

577: \end{equation}

578: %--------------------------------------

579: 

580: Let us investigate the ultraviolet behavior of the matrix elements in

581: Eq.~(\ref{psi20}). At large momentum $|\bm{p}|$, the interaction of the

582: $Q\bar{Q}$ pair in QCD is dominated by the Coulomb potential. In this

583: limit, the bound-state wave function approaches the pure Coulomb wave

584: function:

585: %--------------------------------------

586: \begin{equation}

587: \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p})

588: \sim \frac{1}{(\bm{p}^2+\gamma^2_{\textrm{C}})^2}.

589: \label{coulomb-wf}

590: \end{equation}

591: %--------------------------------------

592: Here $\gamma_{\textrm{C}}$ is a parameter that is related to the binding

593: energy of Coulomb interaction:

594: %--------------------------------------

595: \begin{equation}

596: \gamma_{\textrm{C}}=\frac{1}{2}\,\alpha_s C_F m,

597: \label{gamma-C}

598: \end{equation}

599: %--------------------------------------

600: where $\alpha_s$ is the effective strong coupling, $C_F=4/3$, and 

601: $m$ is the quark mass. 

602: Substituting Eq.~(\ref{coulomb-wf}) into Eq.~(\ref{psi20}), 

603: we see that the matrix elements in Eq.~(\ref{psi20}) have a linear ultraviolet 

604: divergence. Hence, in order to define them, we must impose a regulator.

605: 

606: 

607: %===========================================================

608: \section{Hard-cutoff regulator\label{cutoff}}

609: %===========================================================

610: 

611: Our ultimate goal is to regulate the matrix elements in 

612: Eq.~(\ref{psi20}) using dimensional regularization. However, as an 

613: intermediate step, we impose a hard-cutoff regulator. In principle, the 

614: methods that we use could be employed in lattice calculations of the 

615: matrix elements, in which the lattice supplies the hard-cutoff 

616: regulator. However, for the purposes of the present work, we make use of 

617: a simple, analytic UV regulator in momentum space:

618: %--------------------------------------

619: \begin{equation}

620: \label{psi-lam}

621: \psi^{(2)}_\Lambda(0)=

622: \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{\Lambda^2}{\bm{p}^2+\Lambda^2}\, \bm{p}^2

623: \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p}),

624: \end{equation}

625: %--------------------------------------

626: where $\Lambda$ is the cutoff. 

627: 

628: We introduce the Fourier transform of the wave function to coordinate 

629: space:

630: \begin{equation}

631: \psi(\bm{x})=\int\frac{d^3{p}}{(2\pi)^3}e^{i\bm{p}\cdot\bm{x}} 

632: \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p}).

633: \label{fourier-tx-wavefn}

634: \end{equation}

635: For $S$-wave states, we can write $\psi(\bm{x})=R(r)/\sqrt{4\pi}$, where

636: $r=|\bm{x}|$ and $R(r)$ is the radial wave function. Substituting

637: Eq.~(\ref{fourier-tx-wavefn}) into  Eq.~(\ref{psi-lam}), we can carry out

638: the angular integration over $\bm{p}$ to obtain an expression in

639: coordinate space:

640: %--------------------------------------

641: \begin{equation}

642: \label{psi-lamr}

643: \psi^{(2)}_\Lambda(0)=

644: \frac{\Lambda^2}{\sqrt{4\pi}}

645: \left[R(0)-\Lambda^2\int_0^\infty rR(r)e^{-\Lambda r}dr

646: \right].

647: \end{equation}

648: %--------------------------------------

649: 

650: 

651: %===========================================================

652: \section{Difference between hard-cutoff and dimensional 

653: regularization\label{difference}}

654: %===========================================================

655: Now we work out the difference between the hard-cutoff matrix 

656: element and the dimensionally-regulated matrix element

657: %--------------------------------------

658: \begin{equation}

659: \label{dpsi-lam}

660: \Delta\psi^{(2)}(0)\equiv

661: \psi_{\Lambda}^{(2)}(0) - \psi_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}^{(2)}(0).

662: \end{equation}

663: %--------------------------------------

664: Because $\Delta\psi^{(2)}(0)$ involves a change in the ultraviolet

665: cutoff, it is sensitive only to the high-momentum part of the $\bm{p}$

666: integration in the momentum-space definition of $\psi^{(2)}(0)$ in

667: Eq.~(\ref{psi20}). Therefore, we can compute $\Delta\psi^{(2)}(0)$ in

668: perturbation theory. Here, we carry out the computation in lowest

669: (one-loop) order.\footnote{One could, in principle, compute

670: corrections of higher order in $\alpha_s$. Ultimately, the series of

671: these corrections diverges, owing to the renormalon ambiguity that

672: appears in dimensionally-regulated matrix elements. That ambiguity is

673: canceled by a corresponding ambiguity in the NRQCD short-distance

674: coefficients, provided that one computes to the same loop order in both

675: the matrix elements and the short-distance coefficients. See

676: Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:1998mn} for a discussion of this point.} We note, 

677: however, that the perturbative calculation of $\Delta\psi^{(2)}(0)$ does 

678: not contain all of the corrections that behave as powers of $1/\Lambda$

679: to the difference between $\psi_{\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)$ and 

680: $\psi_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)$. Therefore, it is necessary to 

681: take the limit $\Lambda\to\infty$ in order to remove the effects of such 

682: power corrections.

683: 

684: We begin by using the Bethe-Salpeter equation (or, equivalently, the

685: Schr\"odinger equation) to expose one explicit loop in the wave

686: function. Then, we have

687: \begin{equation}

688: \label{1-loop-renorm}

689: \psi^{(2)}(0)=

690: \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\, 

691: \tilde{I}^{(2)}(\bm{p}) 

692: \,\widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p}),

693: \end{equation}

694: where $\tilde{I}^{(2)}(\bm{p})$ is the quantity that is 

695: represented by the Feynman diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:Feynman}.

696: %=======================================================================

697: %\begin{figure*}[h]

698: \begin{figure}

699: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fig1.ps}

700: \caption{Feynman diagram corresponding to $\tilde{I}^{(2)}(\bm{p})$, 

701: which is the one-loop renormalization of the operators in 

702: Eq.~(\ref{psi20}). The solid lines represent the heavy quark and 

703: antiquark, and the dotted line represents the potential between them.}

704: \label{fig:Feynman}

705: \end{figure}

706: %=======================================================================

707: In Fig.~\ref{fig:Feynman}, the dotted line represents the potential.

708: Since the loop integral is dominated by large momenta, we can

709: approximate the potential by the Coulomb part. 

710: 

711: We emphasize that we can always make this approximation in QCD,

712: irrespective of the use of a potential model. Asymptotic freedom allows

713: one to evaluate the high-momentum loop in Fig.~\ref{fig:Feynman} in

714: perturbation theory. Then, in the Coulomb gauge, the Coulomb-gluon

715: interactions with the heavy quark and antiquark give the result of

716: leading order in $v$, while the transverse-gluon interactions are

717: suppressed as $v^2$ (Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:1994jh}). In the language of

718: NRQCD, $\tilde{I}^{(2)}(\bm{p})$ is the perturbative one-loop

719: renormalization of the operators in Eq.~(\ref{psi20}) in leading order

720: in $\alpha_s$ and $v$.

721: 

722: Note that in $\tilde{I}^{(2)}(\bm{p})$ we

723: retain the binding energy of the heavy quarkonium

724: \begin{equation}

725: \epsilon_{\textrm{B}}=-\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2/m.

726: \label{eps-b}

727: \end{equation}

728: We assign momenta such that the $Q$ and $\bar Q$ each carry half of the

729: binding energy in the rest frame of the heavy quarkonium.

730: 

731: $\Delta\psi^{(2)}(0)$ is given by 

732: %--------------------------------------

733: \begin{equation}

734: \label{me-corr}

735: \Delta\psi^{(2)}(0)=

736: \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\, 

737: \Delta\tilde{I}^{(2)}(\bm{p}) 

738: \,\widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p}),

739: \end{equation}

740: %--------------------------------------

741: where 

742: \begin{equation}

743: \Delta\tilde{I}^{(2)}(\bm{p})=\tilde{I}_{\Lambda}^{(2)}(\bm{p})

744: -\tilde{I}_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(\bm{p}).

745: \end{equation}

746: Writing out the expression for the diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:Feynman} for 

747: the cases of a hard cutoff and dimensional regularization, we obtain

748: %--------------------------------------

749: \begin{eqnarray}

750: \label{I0p}

751: \Delta\tilde{I}_{\textrm{B}}^{(2)}(\bm{p})&=&

752: 4\pi\alpha_s C_F

753: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}

754: (\bm{k}+\bm{p})^{2}

755: \frac{i}{\bm{k}^2}

756: \frac{i}{\left[k_0-\frac{\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2}{2m}

757:                   -\frac{(\bm{k}+\bm{p})^2}{2m}

758:         +i\epsilon\right]}

759: \nonumber\\

760: &&\quad\quad\quad\times

761: \frac{i}{\left[-k_0-\frac{\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2}{2m}

762:                    -\frac{(\bm{k}+\bm{p})^2}{2m}

763:         +i\epsilon\right]}

764: \left[

765: \frac{\Lambda^2}{(\bm{k}+\bm{p})^2+\Lambda^2}-1_{\rm DR}

766: \right].

767: \end{eqnarray}

768: %--------------------------------------

769: The first term in the numerator brackets in Eq.~(\ref{I0p}) corresponds

770: to the hard cutoff, while the second term ``$1_{\rm DR}$'' corresponds to

771: dimensional regularization. The meaning of the ``$1_{\rm DR}$'' is that it is

772: unity unless it multiplies a scaleless integral (which vanishes in

773: dimensional regularization), in which case it is zero. The subscript 

774: ``B'' in $\Delta\tilde{I}^{(2)}_{\rm B}(\bm{p})$ indicates that we have

775: retained the dependence on the binding energy $-\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2/2m$.

776: Since the integral in Eq.~(\ref{I0p}) is dominated by large momenta, we

777: expect the final result to be insensitive to $\gamma_{\textrm{B}}$. However, in

778: discussions that occur later in this paper, it is illuminating to retain

779: the full $\gamma_{\textrm{B}}$ dependence.

780: 

781: The integral over the loop energy $k_0$ in Eq.~(\ref{I0p}) can be carried 

782: out by using the residue theorem. The result is

783: %--------------------------------------

784: \begin{equation}

785: \label{dI}

786: \Delta\tilde{I}_{\textrm{B}}^{(2)}(\bm{p})=

787: 4\pi \alpha_s C_F m

788: \int \frac{d^3{k}}{(2\pi)^3}

789: \frac{(\bm{k}+\bm{p})^{2}}

790: {\bm{k}^2 \left[(\bm{k}+\bm{p})^2+\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2\right]}

791: \left[

792: \frac{\Lambda^2}{(\bm{k}+\bm{p})^2+\Lambda^2}

793: -1_{\rm DR}

794: \right].

795: \end{equation}

796: %--------------------------------------

797: (Note that we also could have reached this expression directly from the

798: momentum-space Schr\"odinger equation.) In the second term in brackets

799: in Eq.~(\ref{dI}), we discard a scaleless integral of the form

800: %--------------------------------------

801: \begin{equation}

802: \int \frac{d^3{k}}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1_{\rm DR}}{\bm{k}^{2}}.

803: \label{scaless1}

804: \end{equation}

805: %--------------------------------------

806: In the first term in brackets

807: in Eq.~(\ref{dI}), we rewrite the numerator $(\bm{k}+\bm{p})^2$ as 

808: $[(\bm{k}+\bm{p})^2+\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2]-\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2$ and partial-fraction 

809: the $-\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2$ term. The result of these manipulations is

810: %--------------------------------------

811: \begin{equation}

812: \Delta\tilde{I}^{(2)}_{\textrm{B}}(\bm{p})=

813: \frac{4\pi \alpha_s C_F m}{\Lambda^2-\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2}

814: \int \frac{d^3{k}}{(2\pi)^3}

815: \frac{1}{\bm{k}^2}

816: \left[

817: \frac{\Lambda^4}{(\bm{k}+\bm{p})^2+\Lambda^2}

818: -

819: \frac{\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^4}{(\bm{k}+\bm{p})^2+\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2}

820: \right].

821: \label{dIp}

822: \end{equation}

823: %--------------------------------------

824: Evaluation of the integral in Eq.~(\ref{dIp}) is straightforward. The 

825: result is

826: %--------------------------------------

827: \begin{equation}

828: \Delta

829: \tilde{I}^{(2)}_{\textrm{B}}(\bm{p})

830:    =\frac{\alpha_s C_F m}{|\bm{p}|(\Lambda^2-\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2)}

831:   \left[ 

832:    \Lambda^4 \arctan\left(\frac{|\bm{p}|}{\Lambda}\right)

833:   -\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^4  

834:    \arctan\left(\frac{|\bm{p}|}{\gamma_{\textrm{B}}}\right)

835:   \right].

836: \label{Ipm-e}

837: \end{equation}

838: %--------------------------------------

839: As expected, $\tilde{I}^{(2)}_{\textrm{B}}(\bm{p})$ is insensitive to 

840: $\gamma_{\textrm{B}}$. Neglecting terms of higher order 

841: in $\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2/\Lambda^2$, 

842: we obtain

843: %--------------------------------------

844: \begin{equation}

845: \Delta

846: \tilde{I}^{(2)}_{\textrm{NB}}(\bm{p})

847:    \equiv

848: \lim_{\gamma_{\textrm{B}}\to 0}

849: \Delta

850: \tilde{I}^{(2)}_{\textrm{B}}(\bm{p})

851: =

852: \frac{\alpha_s C_F m}{|\bm{p}|}

853:    \Lambda^2 \arctan\left(\frac{|\bm{p}|}{\Lambda}\right),

854: \label{Ipm-a}

855: \end{equation}

856: %--------------------------------------

857: where the subscript ``NB'' indicates that we have neglected the binding

858: energy by dropping contributions of higher order in

859: $\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2/\Lambda^2$. 

860: (Note that $\arctan(|\bm{p}|/\gamma_{\textrm{B}})$ is well behaved 

861: as $\gamma_{\textrm{B}}\to 0$ and bounded over the entire range of

862: its argument.) In our numerical analyses, we make use of

863: $\Delta\tilde{I}^{(2)}_{\textrm{NB}}(\bm{p})$, rather than

864: $\Delta\tilde{I}^{(2)}_{\textrm{B}}(\bm{p})$, and consistently neglect

865: the binding energy in short-distance (high-momentum) quantities. Of

866: course, the binding-energy dependence in the wave function is retained fully.

867: 

868: In our numerical analyses, we solve the Schr\"odinger equation

869: in coordinate space rather than in momentum space. The Fourier 

870: transformation of the coordinate-space wave function to momentum space 

871: involves an oscillating integrand and, hence, is difficult to evaluate 

872: numerically. Therefore, it is convenient to evaluate 

873: $\Delta\psi^{(2)}(0)$ in coordinate space:

874: %--------------------------------------

875: \begin{equation}

876: \Delta\psi^{(2)}(0)

877: =\int d^3x\, \Delta I^{(2)}(\bm{x})\psi(\bm{x}),

878: \label{dpsi}

879: \end{equation}

880: %--------------------------------------

881: where

882: \begin{equation}

883: \Delta I^{(2)}(\bm{x})=\int\frac{d^3{p}}{(2\pi)^3}e^{i\bm{p}\cdot\bm{x}} 

884: \Delta\tilde{I}^{(2)}(\bm{p})

885: \end{equation}

886: is the Fourier transform of $\Delta\tilde{I}^{(2)}(\bm{p})$. It is a 

887: simple matter to evaluate $\Delta I^{(2)}(\bm{x})$ analytically. The 

888: results are 

889: %--------------------------------------

890: \begin{subequations}

891: \begin{eqnarray}

892: \label{Ix}

893: \Delta I^{(2)}_{\textrm{B}}(\bm{x})

894: &=&

895: \int\frac{d^3{p}}{(2\pi)^3}e^{i\bm{p}\cdot\bm{x}} 

896: \Delta\tilde{I}^{(2)}_{\textrm{B}}(\bm{p})

897: = \frac{ \alpha_s C_F m }{4\pi r^2(\Lambda^2-\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2)}

898: \left(

899: \Lambda^4 e^{-\Lambda r}

900: -\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^4e^{-\gamma_{\textrm{B}} r}

901: \right),\label{Ixb}

902: \\

903: \Delta I^{(2)}_{\textrm{NB}}(\bm{x})

904: &=&

905: \int\frac{d^3{p}}{(2\pi)^3}e^{i\bm{p}\cdot\bm{x}}

906: \Delta\tilde{I}^{(2)}_{\textrm{NB}}(\bm{p})

907: = \frac{ \alpha_s C_F m \Lambda^2}{4\pi r^2}

908: e^{-\Lambda r}.\label{Ixnb}

909: \end{eqnarray}

910: \end{subequations}

911: %--------------------------------------

912: Substituting $\Delta I^{(2)}(\bm{x})$ into Eq.~(\ref{dpsi}), we obtain

913: %--------------------------------------

914: \begin{subequations}

915: \begin{eqnarray}

916: \label{dpsif}

917: \Delta \psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{B}}(0)

918: &=&

919: \frac{\alpha_s C_F m}{\Lambda^2-\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2}

920: \int_0^\infty

921: \left(

922: \Lambda^4 e^{-\Lambda r}

923: -\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^4e^{-\gamma_{\textrm{B}} r}

924: \right)\frac{R(r)}{\sqrt{4\pi}}\,dr,

925: \\

926: \label{dpsif0}

927: \Delta \psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{NB}}(0)

928: &=&

929: \alpha_s C_F m\Lambda^2

930: \int_0^\infty

931: e^{-\Lambda r}

932: \frac{R(r)}{\sqrt{4\pi}}

933: \,dr.

934: \end{eqnarray}

935: \end{subequations}

936: %--------------------------------------

937: Then, we obtain the dimensionally-regulated matrix element by computing

938: %--------------------------------------

939: \begin{equation}

940: \psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}(0)=

941: \psi^{(2)}_\Lambda(0)

942: -\Delta\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{NB}}(0)

943: \label{psiDRL}

944: \end{equation}

945: %--------------------------------------

946: and taking the limit $\Lambda\to\infty$ in order to remove 

947: uncompensated power corrections that vanish as $1/\Lambda$:

948: %--------------------------------------

949: \begin{equation}

950: \psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)=

951: \lim_{\Lambda\to\infty}

952: \psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}(0).

953: \label{LIMpsiDRL}

954: \end{equation}

955: %--------------------------------------

956: 

957: \section{Decomposition of $\bm{\Delta\psi^{(2)}(0)}$}

958: \label{decomposition}

959: 

960: It is illuminating to decompose $\Delta\psi^{(2)}(0)$ into products of

961: NRQCD matrix elements times short-distance coefficients.

962: In existing lattice calculations \cite{bks}, the difference between

963: matrix elements in hard-cutoff regularization and those in

964: dimensional regularization is expressed in terms of such a

965: decomposition. We decompose $\Delta\psi^{(2)}(0)$ by applying the

966: method of regions \cite{Beneke:1997zp} to the integration over the

967: wave-function momentum $\bm{p}$ in Eq.~(\ref{me-corr}). We take for

968: $\Delta \tilde{I}^{(2)}(\bm{p})$ the no-binding expression $\Delta

969: \tilde{I}^{(2)}_{\textrm{NB}}(\bm{p})$, which is given in

970: Eq.~(\ref{Ipm-a}).

971: 

972: First, we extract the leading term, which is 

973: obtained from the $|\bm{p}|^0$ part of 

974: $\Delta \tilde{I}^{(2)}_{\textrm{NB}}(\bm{p})$, namely, 

975: $\alpha_sC_Fm\Lambda$. It yields a contribution to 

976: $\Delta\psi^{(2)}(0)$ that is 

977: \begin{equation}

978: \Delta\psi_1^{(2)}(0)=\alpha_s C_F m \Lambda\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}

979: \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p})

980: =\alpha_sC_Fm\Lambda\psi(0)=2\gamma_{\textrm{C}}\Lambda\psi(0).

981: \end{equation} 

982: We identify this as a one-loop short-distance coefficient times

983: the matrix element of leading order in $v$, namely, $\psi(0)$.

984: $\Delta\psi_1^{(2)}(0)$ is linearly divergent in the limit

985: $\Lambda\to\infty$ and cancels the linear divergence in the

986: hard-cutoff matrix element $\psi^{(2)}_{\Lambda}(0)$, resulting in

987: a matrix element $\psi^{(2)}_{\rm DR}(0)$, which, according to the NRQCD

988: $v$-scaling rules, is of order $(m v)^2\psi(0)$. The $v$ scaling of

989: this quantity is verified by the result of an analytic calculation of

990: $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)$ for the case of a pure Coulomb potential

991: in Appendix~\ref{coulomb}.

992: 

993: Next we examine the remainder of $\Delta

994: \tilde{I}^{(2)}_{\textrm{NB}}(\bm{p})$, namely,

995: $\alpha_sC_Fm\Lambda[(\Lambda/|\bm{p}|)\,\arctan(|\bm{p}|/\Lambda)-1]$.

996: We decompose the loop integration over $\bm{p}$ into regions of small 

997: $|\bm{p}|$, in which $|\bm{p}|\ll \Lambda$, and large $|\bm{p}|$, 

998: in which $|\bm{p}|\sim \Lambda$. 

999: 

1000: In the small-$|\bm{p}|$ region, we expand in powers of $|\bm{p}|$.

1001: The resulting contributions, which we call $\Delta\psi_2^{(2)}(0)$, have 

1002: the form

1003: \begin{equation}

1004: \Delta\psi_2^{(2)}(0)=\alpha_s C_F m \int_{\textrm{DR}} 

1005: \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p}) \sum_{n=3}^\infty

1006: c_n\frac{|\bm{p}|^{n-1}}{\Lambda^{n-2}},

1007: \end{equation}

1008: where $c_n$ is the coefficient of $(|\bm{p}|/\Lambda)^{n}$ in the

1009: power-series expansion of $\arctan(|\bm{p}|/\Lambda)$, and the subscript 

1010: $\textrm{DR}$ on the integral indicates that any UV divergence is to be 

1011: regulated dimensionally.

1012: $\Delta\psi_2^{(2)}(0)$ corresponds to one-loop short-distance

1013: coefficients times dimensionally-regulated NRQCD matrix elements of

1014: higher order in $v$. The contributions to $\Delta\psi_2^{(2)}(0)$ are of

1015: order $\alpha_s m(mv)^{n-1}/\Lambda^{n-2}$ and, hence, are 

1016: suppressed relative to $\psi^{(2)}_{\rm DR}(0)$ 

1017: by at least one power of $m/\Lambda$ as $\Lambda\to \infty$.

1018: 

1019: In the large-$|\bm{p}|$ region, we approximate $\widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p})$ 

1020: by its asymptotic form at large $|\bm{p}|$, which amounts to neglecting 

1021: corrections of higher order in $\alpha_s$ and $mv/\Lambda$. The 

1022: asymptotic form of $\widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p})$ is obtained by using the

1023: Bethe-Salpeter equation to expose an explicit loop in the wave function,

1024: as in the derivation of Eq.~(\ref{dI}). The result is

1025: \begin{equation}

1026: \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p})\sim\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\widetilde{\psi}(\bm{k})

1027: \frac{8\pi\gamma_{\textrm{C}}}{(\bm{p}-\bm{k})^2\bm{p}^2}

1028: \sim \frac{8\pi\gamma_{\textrm{C}}\psi(0)}{\bm{p}^4}

1029: \equiv \widetilde{\psi}_{\rm asy}(\bm{p}).

1030: \end{equation}

1031: Then, we have for the contribution in the large-$|\bm{p}|$ region

1032: \begin{eqnarray} 

1033: \Delta\psi_3^{(2)}(0)

1034: &=&\alpha_s C_F m \Lambda\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}

1035: \widetilde{\psi}_{\rm asy}(\bm{p})

1036: \left[\frac{\Lambda}{|\bm{p}|}\arctan\left(\frac{|\bm{p}|}{\Lambda}\right)

1037: -1\right]\nonumber\\

1038: &=&-(1/2)(\alpha_sC_Fm)^2\psi(0)=-2\gamma_{\textrm{C}}^2\psi(0).

1039: \label{Delta-psi_3}

1040: \end{eqnarray}

1041: $\Delta\psi_3^{(2)}(0)$ has the interpretation of a two-loop short-distance 

1042: coefficient times the lowest-order NRQCD matrix element. 

1043: 

1044: Although the contribution $\Delta\psi_3^{(2)}(0)$ is suppressed as

1045: $\alpha_s/\Lambda$ relative to $\Delta\psi_1^{(2)}(0)$,

1046: $\Delta\psi_3^{(2)}(0)$ can be important numerically because, in

1047: $\psi^{(2)}_{\Lambda,{\rm DR}}(0)$, $\Delta\psi_1^{(2)}(0)$ is canceled

1048: by contributions from $\psi^{(2)}_{\Lambda}(0)$, leaving a small

1049: remainder. As we have remarked, $\psi^{(2)}_{\rm DR}(0)$ itself is

1050: nominally of order $(m v)^2\psi(0)$. Therefore,

1051: $\Delta\psi_3^{(2)}(0)$ is suppressed only as $\alpha_s^2/v^2$ relative

1052: to $\psi^{(2)}_{\rm DR}(0)$. According to the $v$-scaling rules of NRQCD

1053: \cite{Bodwin:1994jh}, $\alpha_s$ is of order $v^2$, and, hence, there is

1054: a slight suppression. It turns out that, for the Cornell potential, the

1055: numerical value of $\Delta\psi_3^{(2)}(0)$ is about $-40\%$ of

1056: $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)$. This suggests that two-loop corrections

1057: to the short-distance coefficients could be important numerically in

1058: converting results of lattice calculations of $\psi^{(2)}(0)$ to

1059: continuum regularization. In the case of a pure Coulomb potential,

1060: $\alpha_s$ is of order $v$, and, so, there is no suppression of

1061: $\Delta\psi_3^{(2)}(0)$ relative to $\psi^{(2)}_{\rm DR}(0)$ at all. We

1062: show in Appendix~\ref{coulomb}, $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)$

1063: satisfies the Gremm-Kapustin relation in the case of a pure Coulomb

1064: potential, while $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)-\Delta\psi_3^{(2)}(0)$ does

1065: not.

1066: 

1067: %===========================================================

1068: \section{Direct method of calculation of 

1069: $\bm{\psi}^{\bm{(2)}}_{\textrm{DR}}$\label{direct}(0)}

1070: %===========================================================

1071: In the method of calculation that we have outlined, it is necessary to

1072: take the limit of the quantity $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}(0)$ as

1073: $\Lambda$ goes to infinity. $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}(0)$

1074: consists of a difference of $\Lambda$-dependent terms that grow

1075: approximately linearly with $\Lambda$. If one computes at a large enough

1076: value of $\Lambda$ to be near the asymptotic value of

1077: $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}(0)$, then there is a substantial

1078: cancellation between these terms. For example, for the NLO parameters at

1079: $\lambda=1.0$, the ratio

1080: $\psi^{(2)}_{\Lambda}(0)/\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}(0)$ takes on

1081: the values 18, 34, and 50 when $\Lambda/m$ equals 10, 20, and 30,

1082: respectively. In numerical calculations, the cancellation in

1083: $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}(0)$ is a significant obstacle to

1084: achieving good accuracy. Therefore, it is desirable to have a direct

1085: method of computation of $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)$ that does not

1086: pass through an intermediate hard-cutoff step. In this section, we

1087: present such a method. We also show how it leads to a simple formula for

1088: the resummation of a class of corrections of higher order in $v$.

1089: 

1090: \subsection{Method}

1091: 

1092: We begin again by exposing one loop in the matrix element, as in 

1093: Fig.~\ref{fig:Feynman}. Now, however, since we are computing the matrix 

1094: element itself, not a difference of matrix elements for different 

1095: regulators, the loop in Fig.~\ref{fig:Feynman} is not dominated by large 

1096: momenta. Therefore, we must retain the complete Cornell potential in the 

1097: corresponding expression. Repeating the steps that lead to 

1098: Eq.~(\ref{dI}), but for the complete Cornell potential, and using 

1099: Eq.~(\ref{1-loop-renorm}), we obtain for the dimensionally-regulated 

1100: matrix element

1101: %--------------------------------------

1102: \begin{equation}

1103: \psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)

1104: =

1105: -m\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}

1106: \frac{\bm{k}^2 1_{\rm DR}}

1107:      {\bm{k}^2+\gamma_{\textrm{B}}^2+i\epsilon}

1108: \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}

1109: \widetilde{V}(\bm{k}-\bm{p})\widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p}).

1110: \label{psi2-direct-0}

1111: \end{equation}

1112: It turns out that, in the case of the Cornell potential, the binding 

1113: energy is positive. Therefore, it is convenient to define a quantity 

1114: $\widetilde{\gamma}_{\textrm{B}}$ as

1115: %--------------------------------------

1116: \begin{equation}

1117: \epsilon_{\textrm{B}}=

1118: -\frac{ \gamma^2_{\textrm{B}} }{m}

1119: =

1120: \frac{ \widetilde{\gamma}^2_{\textrm{B}} }{m}>0.

1121: \label{tilde-gamma-b}

1122: \end{equation}

1123: %--------------------------------------

1124: From the $i\epsilon$ prescription in Eq.~(\ref{psi2-direct-0}), we

1125: see that we can analytically continue from $\gamma_{\textrm{B}}$

1126: positive to $\gamma_{\textrm{B}}$ positive imaginary. Hence, we make the

1127: identification $\gamma_{\textrm{B}}=i\widetilde{\gamma}_{\textrm{B}}$, 

1128: where $\widetilde{\gamma}_{\textrm{B}}$ is real and positive.

1129: %--------------------------------------

1130: Discarding the contribution of the scaleless integral 

1131: %--------------------------------------

1132: \begin{equation}

1133: \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}

1134: \widetilde{V}(\bm{k}-\bm{p})1_{\rm DR}=

1135: \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}                                        

1136: \widetilde{V}(\bm{k})1_{\rm DR}

1137: \label{scaleless}

1138: \end{equation}

1139: %--------------------------------------

1140: in Eq.~(\ref{psi2-direct-0}), we have

1141: %--------------------------------------

1142: \begin{equation}

1143: \psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)

1144: =

1145: -m\widetilde{\gamma}^2_{\textrm{B}}

1146: \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}

1147: \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}

1148: \frac{\widetilde{V}(\bm{k}-\bm{p})

1149: \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p})

1150: }{\bm{k}^2-\widetilde{\gamma}^2_{\textrm{B}}+i\epsilon}

1151: \label{psi2-direct-mom}.

1152: \end{equation}

1153: %--------------------------------------

1154: Now we note that $\widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p})$ satisfies the momentum-space 

1155: Schr\"odinger equation 

1156: \begin{equation}

1157: (\bm{k}^2-\widetilde{\gamma}^2_{\textrm{B}})\widetilde{\psi}(\bm{k})

1158: =-\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}

1159: m\widetilde{V}(\bm{k}-\bm{p})\widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p}).

1160: \label{schro-mom}

1161: \end{equation}

1162: Therefore, Eq.~(\ref{psi2-direct-mom}) can be written as

1163: \begin{equation}

1164: \psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)

1165: =\widetilde{\gamma}^2_{\textrm{B}}

1166: \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}

1167: \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{k})

1168: =\widetilde{\gamma}^2_{\textrm{B}}\psi(0).

1169: \label{psi2-direct-final}

1170: \end{equation}

1171: %--------------------------------------

1172: 

1173: The Gremm-Kapustin relation \cite{Gremm:1997dq} follows from the NRQCD 

1174: equations of motion at leading order nontrivial in $v$. It states that 

1175: \begin{equation}

1176: \langle v^2 \rangle=\frac{\psi^{(2)}(0)}{m_c^2\psi(0)}=

1177: \frac{\epsilon_{\textrm{B}}}{m_c}+{\cal O}(v^4).

1178: \label{gremm-kapustin}

1179: \end{equation}

1180: Using the definition of $\widetilde{\gamma}^2_{\textrm{B}}$ in

1181: Eq.~(\ref{tilde-gamma-b}), we see that our result in

1182: Eq.~(\ref{psi2-direct-final}) is precisely the Gremm-Kapustin relation

1183: for the potential model with mass $m=m_c$. This is not surprising, since

1184: a potential model can be derived from NRQCD at leading order in $v$

1185: (Ref.~\cite{Brambilla:1999xf}) and, hence, implicitly respects the

1186: NRQCD equations of motion at leading order in $v$.

1187: 

1188: \subsection{Resummation}

1189: 

1190: We note that the result in Eq.~(\ref{psi2-direct-final}) can easily be

1191: generalized to the case of NRQCD operator matrix elements involving

1192: additional powers of $\bm{\nabla}^2$, such as

1193: \begin{subequations}

1194: \begin{eqnarray}

1195: \psi^{(2n)}(0)&\equiv&

1196: \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}

1197: \bm{p}^{2n} 

1198: \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p})

1199: =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_c}}

1200: \langle 0|\chi^\dagger\left(-\bm{\nabla}^2\right)^n\psi|H({}^1S_0)\rangle,

1201: \\

1202: \bm{\epsilon}\psi^{(2n)}(0)&\equiv&\bm{\epsilon}\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}

1203: \bm{p}^{2n}

1204: \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p})

1205: =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_c}}

1206: \langle 0|\chi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}\left(-\bm{\nabla}^2\right)^n

1207: \psi|H({}^3S_1)\rangle,

1208: \end{eqnarray}

1209: \end{subequations}

1210: where $n$ is an integer. As we have remarked earlier, such operator matrix

1211: elements are usually written in terms of the covariant derivative

1212: $\bm{D}$ (Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:1994jh}), rather than $\bm{\nabla}$.

1213: However, in the Coulomb gauge, the difference between $\bm{D}$ and

1214: $\bm{\nabla}$ is suppressed as $v$ (Ref.~\cite{Bodwin:1994jh}).

1215: 

1216: 

1217: Repeating the steps that lead to Eq.~(\ref{psi2-direct-0}), we obtain

1218: \begin{equation}

1219: \psi^{(2n)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)

1220: =

1221: -m\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}

1222: \frac{\bm{k}^{2n} 1_{\rm DR}}

1223:      {\bm{k}^2-\widetilde{\gamma}_{\textrm{B}}^2+i\epsilon}

1224: \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}

1225: \widetilde{V}(\bm{k}-\bm{p})\widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p}).

1226: \label{psi2n-direct-0}

1227: \end{equation}

1228: 

1229: In Eq.~(\ref{psi2n-direct-0}), we write

1230: \begin{equation}

1231: \frac{\bm{k}^{2n}}{\bm{k}^2-\widetilde{\gamma}_{\textrm{B}}^2+i\epsilon}

1232: =\bm{k}^{2n-2}+\widetilde{\gamma}_{\textrm{B}}^2\bm{k}^{2n-4}+\cdots

1233: +\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{\textrm{B}}^{2n}}

1234: {\bm{k}^2-\widetilde{\gamma}_{\textrm{B}}^2+i\epsilon}

1235: \end{equation}

1236: and discard scaleless integrals of the form

1237: \begin{equation}

1238: \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}

1239: \widetilde{V}(\bm{k}-\bm{p})\bm{k}^{2n'}1_{\rm DR}

1240: =\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}

1241: \widetilde{V}(\bm{k})(\bm{k}+\bm{p})^{2n'}1_{\rm DR},

1242: \end{equation}

1243: where $n'$ is an integer. The result is

1244: \begin{equation}

1245: \psi^{(2n)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)

1246: =-m\widetilde{\gamma}^{2n}_{\textrm{B}}

1247: \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}

1248: \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}

1249: \frac{\widetilde{V}(\bm{k}-\bm{p})

1250: \widetilde{\psi}(\bm{p})

1251: }{\bm{k}^2-\widetilde{\gamma}^2_{\textrm{B}}+i\epsilon}

1252: =\widetilde{\gamma}^{2n}_{\textrm{B}}\psi(0),

1253: \label{psi2n-final}

1254: \end{equation}

1255: where we have used the momentum-space Schr\"odinger equation

1256: [Eq.~(\ref{schro-mom})].

1257: The expression in Eq.~(\ref{psi2n-final}) can be thought of as a

1258: generalized Gremm-Kapustin relation that holds in a potential model.

1259: 

1260: Now, suppose that there are contributions to a decay or production 

1261: amplitude, computed in NRQCD, of the form 

1262: \begin{equation}

1263: A^{(2n)}=\frac{1}{n!}H^{(2n)}(0)\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2n)}(0). 

1264: \end{equation}

1265: Here, $(1/n!)H^{(2n)}(0)$ 

1266: is an NRQCD short-distance coefficient that is defined by 

1267: \begin{equation}

1268: H^{(2n)}(0)=\left. 

1269: \left(\frac{\partial} {\partial \bm{p}^2}\right)^{n}

1270:    H(\bm{p}^2)

1271: \right|_{\bm{p}=0},

1272: \end{equation}

1273: where $H^{(2n)}(\bm{p}^2)$ is the hard-scattering amplitude for the 

1274: process, evaluated in the quarkonium rest frame at $Q$ or $\bar Q$ 

1275: momentum squared $\bm{p}^2$.

1276: We can use Eq.~(\ref{psi2n-final}) to resum the contributions $A^{(2n)}$:

1277: \begin{equation}

1278: \sum_n A^{(2n)}=\sum_n \frac{1}{n!}H^{(2n)}(0)\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2n)}(0)

1279: =\sum_n \frac{1}{n!}H^{(2n)}(0)\widetilde{\gamma}^{2n}_{\textrm{B}}\psi(0)

1280: =H(\widetilde{\gamma}^2_{\textrm{B}})\psi(0).

1281: \end{equation}

1282: 

1283: %===========================================================

1284: \section{Numerical results and discussion \label{numerical}}

1285: %===========================================================

1286: We now use the hard-cutoff method of Secs.~\ref{cutoff} and \ref{difference} 

1287: and the direct method of Sec.~\ref{direct} to compute 

1288: $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$.  

1289: 

1290: We begin with the hard-cutoff method. We substitute the $1S$-state

1291: coordinate-space radial wave function that we obtain by integrating the

1292: Schr\"odinger equation numerically into  Eqs.~(\ref{psi-lamr}) and

1293: (\ref{dpsif0}) and carry out the integrations over $r$ numerically. We

1294: then use Eq.~(\ref{psiDRL}) to compute

1295: $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}(0)$. The results are shown in

1296: Fig.~\ref{fig:me}. 

1297: %=======================================================================

1298: %\begin{figure*}[h]

1299: \begin{figure}

1300: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1301: \includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{fig2a.ps}&

1302: \includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{fig2b.ps}\\[-2.0ex]

1303: \end{tabular}

1304: \caption{\label{fig:me}

1305: $\psi_\Lambda^{(2)}(0)$ and $\psi_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)\equiv%

1306: \psi^{(2)}_{\Lambda}(0)-\Delta\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{NB}}(0)$ as a function

1307: of $\Lambda/m$. The left figure corresponds to the LO

1308: potential-model parameters of Table~\ref{table:ma-lo} for $\lambda=0.6$,

1309: $0.7$, and $0.8$. The right figure corresponds to the NLO

1310: potential-model parameters of Table~\ref{table:ma-nlo} for

1311: $\lambda=0.9$, $1.0$, and $1.1$. In each figure, the three curves that

1312: are nearly linear are $0.1\times \psi_\Lambda^{(2)}(0)$, and the three

1313: curves that reach a plateau at large $\Lambda/m$ are

1314: $\psi_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)$.

1315: }

1316: \end{figure}

1317: %=======================================================================

1318: As can be seen, $\psi_\Lambda^{(2)}(0)$ grows nearly linearly with

1319: $\Lambda$, as is expected from the linear ultraviolet divergence that it

1320: contains. $\psi_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)$ is the result of a

1321: substantial cancellation between $\psi^{(2)}_{\Lambda}(0)$ and

1322: $\Delta\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{NB}}(0)$, at the level of about one part in

1323: 50 at $\Lambda/m=30$ for the NLO parameters. From Fig.~\ref{fig:me},

1324: it is apparent that $\psi_{\textrm{DR},\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)$ reaches a

1325: plateau at large $\Lambda$. $\psi_{\textrm{DR},\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)$

1326: deviates from its asymptotic value by an amount that is of order

1327: $1/\Lambda$. It is the value of $\psi_{\textrm{DR},\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)$ at

1328: the plateau that corresponds to the dimensionally-regulated matrix

1329: element [Eq.~(\ref{LIMpsiDRL})]. A fit of the LO-parameter results for

1330: $\psi_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)$ at $\lambda=0.6$, $0.7$, and $0.8$

1331: to a constant plus a term that is proportional to $1/\Lambda$ yields

1332: $\psi_{\textrm{DR},\Lambda}^{(2)}(0) =0.123$~GeV$^{7/2}$,

1333: $0.108$~GeV$^{7/2}$, and $0.095$~GeV$^{7/2}$, respectively. A similar fit

1334: to the NLO-parameter results at $\lambda=0.9$, $1.0$, and $1.1$ yields

1335: $\psi_{\textrm{DR},\Lambda}^{(2)}(0) =0.144$~GeV$^{7/2}$, $0.124$~GeV$^{7/2}$,

1336: and $0.107$~GeV$^{7/2}$, respectively.

1337: 

1338: Next we consider the direct method for calculating

1339: $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$. Substituting the LO potential-model

1340: parameters into Eq.~(\ref{psi2-direct-final}), we obtain

1341: $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)=0.124$~GeV$^{7/2}$, $0.109$~GeV$^{7/2}$,

1342: and $0.096$~GeV$^{7/2}$ at $\lambda=0.6$, $0.7$, and $0.8$,

1343: respectively. The results for the NLO-parameters are

1344: $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)=0.146$~GeV$^{7/2}$, $0.127$~GeV$^{7/2}$,

1345: and $0.109$~GeV$^{7/2}$ at $\lambda=0.9$, $1.0$, and $1.1$,

1346: respectively. These results for $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$ are

1347: in good agreement with those from the extrapolation of

1348: $\psi_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)$ to $\Lambda=\infty$ in the

1349: hard-cutoff method.

1350: 

1351: We consider the NLO value for $\psi(0)$ to be slightly more reliable

1352: than the LO value. Therefore, we use the NLO parameters to compute our

1353: central value for $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$. We use the LO

1354: parameters to give an indication of the uncertainty in

1355: $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$ that arises from the uncertainty in

1356: $\psi(0)$. As we have already discussed in Sec.~\ref{model}, the

1357: potential-model values of the string tension that derive from the

1358: NLO parameters for $\lambda=1.0$ and $1.1$ span the range of lattice

1359: values for the string tension. The potential-model values of $\alpha_s$

1360: that derive from the NLO parameters for $\lambda=1.0$ 

1361: and $1.1$ are somewhat larger than the lattice values for the fixed parameter

1362: $\alpha_s$, but are compatible with the value of the running $\alpha_s$

1363: at the scale of the heavy-quark momentum $m_cv$. We consider the lattice

1364: value of the string tension to be more relevant than the lattice value

1365: of the fixed parameter $\alpha_s$, since the latter does not take into

1366: account the running of $\alpha_s$ in QCD. Therefore, we determine the

1367: central value of $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$ by taking the average of

1368: the values of $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$ for the NLO parameters at

1369: $\lambda=1.0$ and $1.1$. We take the difference of these values as the

1370: uncertainty that is attributable to the uncertainty in the

1371: potential-model parameters. We take the difference between the average

1372: of the values of $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$ for the NLO parameters at

1373: $\lambda=1.0$ and $1.1$ and the average of the values of

1374: $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$ for the LO parameters at $\lambda=0.7$ and

1375: $0.8$ to be the uncertainty that is attributable to the

1376: uncertainty in $\psi(0)$. We add these uncertainties in quadrature. We

1377: include an additional $30\%$ uncertainty to account for the fact that

1378: our potential model neglects terms of relative order $v^2\approx

1379: 0.3$. Using the direct-method values for $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$,

1380: we obtain

1381: \begin{equation}

1382: \psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)= 0.118\pm 0.024\pm 0.035~\hbox{GeV}^{7/2},

1383: \label{psi2-final}

1384: \end{equation}

1385: where the second uncertainty arises from the $v^2$ error. This is the 

1386: dominant source of error.

1387: 

1388: The effects of the uncertainty in the value of $\psi(0)$ tend to cancel

1389: in the ratio $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)/\psi(0)$. We compute this

1390: ratio for the LO-parameter and NLO-parameter direct-method results and

1391: use the same method for determining the central value and the

1392: uncertainties that we described above for $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$.

1393: The result is

1394: \begin{equation}

1395: \psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)/\psi(0)=m_c^2v^2=0.50\pm 0.09\pm 0.15~{\rm 

1396: GeV}^2,

1397: \label{final-ratio}

1398: \end{equation}

1399: where, again, the second uncertainty arises from the $v^2$ error.

1400: Taking $m_c=1.4$~GeV in Eq.~(\ref{final-ratio}),

1401: we have $\langle v^2 \rangle=0.25\pm 0.05\pm 0.08 $, which is in good

1402: agreement with expectations from the NRQCD $v$-scaling rules.

1403: 

1404: We can now address the numerical importance of the two-loop 

1405: contribution to $\Delta\psi^{(2)}(0)$

1406: that is given in Eq.~(\ref{Delta-psi_3}).

1407: Taking the average of the values of $\gamma_{\textrm{C}}$ for

1408: $\lambda=1.0$ and $1.1$ in Table~\ref{table:ma-nlo} and using the NLO

1409: value $\psi(0)=0.23629$~GeV$^{3/2}$, we find that

1410: $\Delta\psi_3^{(2)}(0)=-0.048$~GeV$^{7/2}$. This is about $-40\%$ of the

1411: value of $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$ in Eq.~(\ref{psi2-final}).

1412: 

1413: The $v$-scaling rules of NRQCD state that the hard-cutoff matrix

1414: element $\psi_{\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)$, evaluated at $\Lambda\sim

1415: mv$, should be of order $m_c^2v^2\psi(0)$. Taking $m_c=1.4$~GeV,

1416: $v^2=0.3$, and $\psi(0)=0.23629$~GeV$^{3/2}$, we obtain

1417: $m_c^2v^2\psi(0)\approx 0.14$~GeV$^{7/2}$, which is in reasonably

1418: good agreement with the value of $\psi_{\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)$ at

1419: $\Lambda=m_c v\approx m$ for the NLO results at $\lambda=1.0$ and 

1420: $1.1$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:me}.

1421: 

1422: In lattice determinations of $\psi_{\textrm{DR},\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)$,

1423: the lattice ultraviolet cutoff, which is of order $\pi$ divided by the

1424: lattice spacing, corresponds approximately to the hard cutoff $\Lambda$.

1425: Existing lattice determinations of $\psi_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)$

1426: (Ref.~\cite{bks}) have been carried out in the vicinity of

1427: $\Lambda=m_c$.  This value of $\Lambda$ is at the boundary of the region

1428: in which asymptotic freedom allows one to evaluate quantities in QCD in

1429: perturbation theory. However, as can be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:me},

1430: $\Lambda=m_c$ is far from the region in which

1431: $\psi_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)$ approaches its asymptotic value.

1432: Apparently, at $\Lambda=m_c$, power corrections of order $m_cv/\Lambda$

1433: are still important. Therefore, we expect that the lattice

1434: determinations of $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$ contain large

1435: $1/\Lambda$ errors.

1436: 

1437: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1438: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1439: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1440: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1441: %===========================================================

1442: \section{Summary \label{conclusions}}

1443: 

1444: In this paper we have presented two methods for calculating NRQCD matrix

1445: elements that are proportional to $\psi^{(2)}(0)$, the negative of the

1446: second derivative of the wave function at the origin. These matrix

1447: elements enter into the relativistic corrections for the decay and

1448: production of heavy-quarkonium states. The matrix elements are linearly

1449: ultraviolet divergent, and, hence, they must be regulated. We compute

1450: the matrix elements in dimensional regularization, since that is the

1451: regularization that is used most commonly in phenomenology.

1452: 

1453: One method that we have presented makes use of a hard-cutoff regulator

1454: as an intermediate step, then employs perturbation theory to compute the

1455: difference between the hard-cutoff matrix element and a

1456: dimensionally-regulated matrix element. This method is quite general, in

1457: that it requires knowledge only of the $Q\bar Q$ wave function in the

1458: quarkonium state. In principle, it could be applied to wave functions

1459: that are determined directly by lattice methods. It involves computing

1460: cancelling quantities in the limit in which the hard cutoff is taken to

1461: infinity. This method has the disadvantage that the limiting procedure and

1462: cancellation make it difficult to achieve adequate numerical accuracy.

1463: In the case of a pure Coulomb potential, we have obtained analytic

1464: expressions for the quantities that enter into the hard-cutoff method.

1465: The result for the matrix elements agrees with the Gremm-Kapustin relation 

1466: in that case.

1467: 

1468: The second method that we have presented involves a computation of the

1469: matrix elements directly in dimensional regularization. The method is

1470: specific to potential models. It yields the Gremm-Kapustin

1471: relation for the matrix elements. This is not surprising, since the

1472: Gremm-Kapustin relation is based on the NRQCD equations of motion at

1473: leading-order in $v$, and the potential model respects those equations of

1474: motion. This method is easily generalized to the 

1475: computation of matrix elements that are proportional to higher powers of

1476: $\bm{\nabla}^2$ acting on the wave function at the origin. We have used

1477: the results for such matrix elements to write a formula that resums 

1478: certain contributions of higher order in $v$ to NRQCD amplitudes.

1479: 

1480: We have used both the direct method and the hard-cutoff method to

1481: evaluate the dimensionally-regulated quantity

1482: $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$ for the $J/\psi$ (or the $\eta_c$) in the

1483: Cornell potential model. Since the Cornell potential model contains no

1484: spin dependence, we do not distinguish between the $J/\psi$ and $\eta_c$

1485: matrix elements. If the potential itself were exact, then the

1486: potential model would reproduce QCD up to corrections of relative order

1487: $v^2$. Existing lattice measurements of the static $Q\bar Q$ potentials

1488: yield values for the string tension. In order to estimate errors from

1489: our choice of potential, we have carried out computations for sets of

1490: Cornell-potential parameters that bracket the lattice values of the

1491: string tension.

1492: 

1493: The two methods for computing $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$ yield

1494: results that agree well numerically. Our final result, including

1495: estimates of uncertainties, is given in Eq.~(\ref{psi2-final}). The

1496: first error estimate arises from the uncertainty in the

1497: potential-model parameters and from the uncertainty in the value of the

1498: wave function at the origin that is obtained from the leptonic width of

1499: the $J/\psi$. The second error estimate accounts for a $30\%$

1500: uncertainty that arises from the fact that we have neglected corrections

1501: of relative order $v^2$. This is the dominant source of error. The

1502: effects of the uncertainty in the wave function at the origin tend to

1503: cancel in the ratio of matrix elements

1504: $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)/\psi(0)$ in Eq.~(\ref{final-ratio}). From

1505: the ratio in Eq.~(\ref{final-ratio}), we estimate that $\langle

1506: v^2\rangle=0.25\pm 0.05\pm 0.08$, which is in good agreement with the

1507: $v$-scaling rules of NRQCD.

1508: 

1509: From our analysis, it is clear that, in the hard-cutoff method, there

1510: are large corrections of order $m_cv/\Lambda$, even at cutoffs

1511: $\Lambda\approx m_c$. This implies that existing lattice computations of

1512: $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)$ (Ref.~\cite{bks}) contain large errors

1513: that arise from such power corrections. 

1514: 

1515: We also have identified a large contribution to the difference between

1516: the dimensionally-regulated matrix element $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)$

1517: and the hard-cutoff matrix element $\psi^{(2)}_{\Lambda}(0)$ that arises

1518: from a two-loop contribution to a particular short-distance coefficient

1519: [Eq.~(\ref{Delta-psi_3})]. That contribution is suppressed only as

1520: $\alpha_s^2/v^2$ relative to $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)$ and is about

1521: $-40\%$ of $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)$ in the case of the $J/\psi$.

1522: Therefore, the two-loop contribution to this short-distance coefficient

1523: may be important numerically when one converts a lattice-regulated value

1524: of $\psi^{(2)}(0)$ to a dimensionally-regulated value.

1525: 

1526: %===========================================================

1527: 

1528: 

1529: 

1530: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1531: % If in two-column mode, this environment will change to single-column

1532: % format so that long equations can be displayed. Use

1533: % sparingly.

1534: %\begin{widetext}

1535: % put long equation here

1536: %\end{widetext}

1537: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1538: 

1539: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1540: % Surround figure environment with turnpage environment for landscape

1541: % figure

1542: % \begin{turnpage}

1543: % \begin{figure}

1544: % \includegraphics{}%

1545: % \caption{\label{}}

1546: % \end{figure}

1547: % \end{turnpage}

1548: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1549: 

1550: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1551: % tables should appear as floats within the text

1552: % Here is an example of the general form of a table:

1553: % Fill in the caption in the braces of the \caption{} command. Put the label

1554: % that you will use with \ref{} command in the braces of the \label{} command.

1555: % Insert the column specifiers (l, r, c, d, etc.) in the empty braces of the

1556: % \begin{tabular}{} command.

1557: % The ruledtabular enviroment adds doubled rules to table and sets a

1558: % reasonable default table settings.

1559: % Use the table* environment to get a full-width table in two-column

1560: % Add \usepackage{longtable} and the longtable (or longtable*}

1561: % environment for nicely formatted long tables. Or use the [H]

1562: % placement option to break a long table (with less control than 

1563: % in longtable).

1564: % \begin{table}%[H] add [H] placement to break table across pages

1565: % \caption{\label{}}

1566: % \begin{ruledtabular}

1567: % \begin{tabular}{}

1568: % Lines of table here ending with \\

1569: % \end{tabular}

1570: % \end{ruledtabular}

1571: % \end{table}

1572: % Surround table environment with turnpage environment for landscape

1573: % table

1574: % \begin{turnpage}

1575: % \begin{table}

1576: % \caption{\label{}}

1577: % \begin{ruledtabular}

1578: % \begin{tabular}{}

1579: % \end{tabular}

1580: % \end{ruledtabular}

1581: % \end{table}

1582: % \end{turnpage}

1583: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1584: 

1585: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1586: % Specify following sections are appendices. Use \appendix* if there

1587: % only one appendix.

1588: %\appendix

1589: %\section{}

1590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1591: 

1592: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1593: % If you have acknowledgments, this puts in the proper section head.

1594: 

1595: \begin{acknowledgments}

1596: % put your acknowledgments here.

1597: We wish to thank Eric Braaten for useful discussions.

1598: The research of G.T.B. in the High Energy Physics Division at

1599: Argonne National Laboratory is supported by the U.~S.~Department of

1600: Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, under Contract No.W-31-109-ENG-38.

1601: The work of J.L. is supported by the Korea Research Foundation

1602: under Grant No. KRF-2004-015-C00092.

1603: The work of D.K. is supported in part by the Seoul Science 

1604: Fellowship of Seoul Metropolitan Government.

1605: J.L. thanks the High Energy Theory Group at Argonne National Laboratory

1606: for its hospitality.

1607: \end{acknowledgments}

1608: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1609: \appendix

1610: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1611: %===========================================================

1612: \section{Test of the method with a Coulomb wave function \label{coulomb}}

1613: %===========================================================

1614: 

1615: In this appendix, we apply our methods for calculating

1616: $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$ to the case of the wave function for 

1617: a pure Coulomb potential. In this case, we can evaluate all of the

1618: relevant expressions analytically. Ultimately, we compare our results

1619: with the prediction of the Gremm-Kapustin relation.

1620: 

1621: Coulomb wave functions in coordinate space and momentum space are 

1622: %--------------------------------------

1623: \begin{subequations}

1624: \label{coulomb-wavefunction}

1625: \begin{eqnarray}

1626: \psi_{\textrm{C}}(\bm{x})&=&\psi_{\textrm{C}}(0)e^{-\gamma_{\textrm{C}}r},

1627: \label{coulomb-wavefunction-coor}\\

1628: \widetilde{\psi}_{\textrm{C}}(\bm{p})&=&

1629: \int d^3 x e^{-i\bm{p}\cdot\bm{x}}\psi_{\textrm{C}}(\bm{x})

1630: =8\pi\psi_{\textrm{C}}(0)

1631: \frac{\gamma_{\textrm{C}}}{(\bm{p}^2+\gamma^2_{\textrm{C}})^2},

1632: \label{coulomb-wavefunction-mom}

1633: \end{eqnarray}

1634: \end{subequations}

1635: %--------------------------------------

1636: where $\gamma_{\textrm{C}}$ is defined in Eq.~(\ref{gamma-C}). The 

1637: corresponding binding energy is 

1638: \begin{equation}

1639: \epsilon_{\textrm{B}}=-\gamma^2_{\textrm{C}}/m.

1640: \label{coul-binding}

1641: \end{equation}

1642: It then follows from Eq.~(\ref{eps-b}) that

1643: \begin{equation}

1644: \gamma_{\textrm{B}}=\gamma_{\textrm{C}}.

1645: \end{equation}

1646: 

1647: We first carry out the calculation of $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$ in

1648: the hard-cutoff method. Substituting the Coulomb wave function into

1649: either Eq.~(\ref{psi-lam}) or Eq.~(\ref{psi-lamr}), we obtain the

1650: hard-cutoff matrix element $\psi^{(2)}_{\Lambda}(0)$:

1651: %--------------------------------------

1652: \begin{equation}

1653: \psi^{(2)}_{\Lambda}(0)

1654: =\Lambda^2 \psi_{\textrm{C}}(0)

1655: \left[ 1-\frac{\Lambda^2}{(\Lambda+\gamma_{\textrm{C}})^2} \right].

1656: \end{equation}

1657: %--------------------------------------

1658: The calculation of $\psi^{(2)}_{\Lambda}(0)$ can be carried out by using

1659: Eqs.~(\ref{dpsi}) and (\ref{Ix}). For the difference between the 

1660: hard-cutoff and dimensionally-regulated matrix elements, we have

1661: %--------------------------------------

1662: \begin{equation}

1663: \Delta\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{B}}(0)=

1664: \psi_{\textrm{C}}(0)

1665: \frac{2\gamma_{\textrm{C}}}{\Lambda^2-\gamma^2_{\textrm{B}}}

1666: \left(\frac{\Lambda^4}{\Lambda+\gamma_{\textrm{C}}}

1667:       -\frac{\gamma^4_{\textrm{B}}}

1668:             {\gamma_{\textrm{B}}+\gamma_{\textrm{C}}} \right),

1669: \label{dpsi2-C}

1670: \end{equation}

1671: %--------------------------------------

1672: where we have used the definition (\ref{gamma-C}) to replace the

1673: prefactor $\alpha_s C_F m$ with $2\gamma_{\textrm{C}}$. In the limit 

1674: $\gamma_{\textrm{B}}\to 0$, Eq.~(\ref{dpsi2-C}) becomes

1675: %--------------------------------------

1676: \begin{equation}

1677: \label{dpsi2-C-approx}

1678: \Delta\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{NB}}(0)

1679: =

1680: \Lambda^2\psi_{\textrm{C}}(0)

1681: \frac{2\gamma_{\textrm{C}}}

1682:      {\Lambda+\gamma_{\textrm{C}}}.

1683: \end{equation}

1684: %--------------------------------------

1685: It follows from Eq.~(\ref{psiDRL}) that

1686: $\psi_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)$ is given by

1687: \begin{equation}

1688: \psi_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)

1689: =

1690: \psi_{\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)

1691: -

1692: \Delta\psi_{\textrm{NB}}^{(2)}(0)

1693: =-\gamma^2_{\textrm{C}}\psi_{\textrm{C}}(0)

1694: \times \left(\frac{\Lambda}{\Lambda+\gamma_{\textrm{C}}}\right)^2.

1695: \label{psi2-dr-LO}

1696: \end{equation}

1697: %--------------------------------------

1698: Taking the limit $\Lambda \to \infty$, 

1699: we obtain the dimensionally-regulated matrix element

1700: $\psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)$:

1701: %--------------------------------------

1702: \begin{equation}

1703: \psi_{\textrm{DR}}^{(2)}(0)

1704: =\lim_{\Lambda\to \infty}\psi_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)

1705: =-\gamma^2_{\textrm{C}}\psi_{\textrm{C}}(0).

1706: \label{psi2-COULOMB-ans}

1707: \end{equation}

1708: %--------------------------------------

1709: We note that the deviations from the asymptotic value go as

1710: $\gamma_{\textrm{C}}/\Lambda\sim mv/\Lambda$ as $\Lambda\to\infty$.

1711: Incidentally, had we retained the effects of the binding energy

1712: by using $\Delta\psi_{\textrm{B}}^{(2)}(0)$ instead of 

1713: $\Delta\psi_{\textrm{NB}}^{(2)}(0)$, then we would have obtained

1714: \begin{equation}

1715: \psi_{\textrm{DR,}\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)=\psi_{\Lambda}^{(2)}(0)

1716: -

1717: \Delta\psi_{\textrm{B}}^{(2)}(0)

1718: =-\gamma^2_{\textrm{C}}\psi_{\textrm{C}}(0),

1719: \end{equation}

1720: %--------------------------------------

1721: where we have made use of the Coulomb-potential relation

1722: $\gamma_{\textrm{B}}=\gamma_{\textrm{C}}$. In this case, the $\Lambda$

1723: dependence would have vanished. However, this simplification is a

1724: special property of the pure Coulomb case that arises from the fact that

1725: the Coulomb-gluon exchange in $\Delta\psi_{\textrm{B}}^{(2)}(0)$ is, in

1726: this special case, an interaction of the complete potential.

1727: 

1728: The result in Eq.~(\ref{psi2-COULOMB-ans}) agrees with the result from

1729: the direct method in Eq.~(\ref{psi2-direct-final}) and with the

1730: Gremm-Kapustin relation (\ref{gremm-kapustin}). We note that, had we

1731: failed to include the two-loop correction to $\Delta\psi^{(2)}(0)$ in

1732: Eq.~(\ref{Delta-psi_3}), then we would have obtained

1733: $\psi^{(2)}_{\textrm{DR}}(0)=-3\gamma^2_{\textrm{C}}\psi_{\textrm{C}}(0)$,

1734: which does not agree with the Gremm-Kapustin relation.

1735: 

1736: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1737: \section{Integrals}\label{integrals}

1738: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1739: Here we record some integrals that are useful in deriving 

1740: the expressions in this paper.

1741: \subsection{Loop integrals}

1742: \begin{subequations}

1743: \begin{eqnarray}

1744: \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} 

1745: \frac{1}{(\bm{k}-\bm{p})^2(\bm{k}^2+\Lambda^2+i\epsilon)}

1746: &=& 

1747: \frac{i}{8\pi|\bm{p}|}

1748: \log

1749: \left(

1750: \frac{\Lambda-i|\bm{p}|}{\Lambda+i|\bm{p}|}

1751: \right)\nonumber\\

1752: &=&

1753: \frac{1}{4\pi|\bm{p}|}\arctan\left(\frac{|\bm{p}|}{\Lambda}\right),

1754: \label{loop-1}

1755: \\

1756: \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} 

1757: \frac{1}{(\bm{k}-\bm{p})^2(\bm{k}^2+\Lambda^2+i\epsilon)^2}

1758: &=& \frac{1}{8\pi\Lambda(\bm{p}^2+\Lambda^2)},

1759: \label{loop-2}

1760: \\

1761: \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} 

1762: \frac{ \arctan\left(|\bm{k}|/\Lambda\right) }

1763:      {|\bm{k}|(\bm{k}^2+\Lambda^2+i\epsilon)^2}

1764: &=& \frac{1}{16\pi\Lambda^2}.

1765: \label{loop-3}

1766: \end{eqnarray}

1767: \end{subequations}

1768: Analytically continuing $\Lambda$ to $i\Lambda$, we obtain the following 

1769: formulas:

1770: \begin{subequations}

1771: \begin{eqnarray}

1772: \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}

1773: \frac{1}{(\bm{k}-\bm{p})^2(\bm{k}^2-\Lambda^2+i\epsilon)}

1774: &=& 

1775: \frac{1}{4\pi |\bm{p}|}\arctan\left(\frac{|\bm{p}|}{i\Lambda}\right)

1776: \nonumber\\

1777: &=&-\frac{i}{4\pi |\bm{p}|}

1778: \tanh^{-1}\left(\frac{|\bm{p}|}{\Lambda}\right),

1779: \label{loop-1m}

1780: \\

1781: \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}

1782: \frac{1}{(\bm{k}-\bm{p})^2(\bm{k}^2-\Lambda^2+i\epsilon)^2}

1783: &=& \frac{-i}{8\pi\Lambda(\bm{p}^2-\Lambda^2)},

1784: \label{loop-3m}

1785: \\

1786: \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}

1787: \frac{ \arctan\left(-i|\bm{k}|/\Lambda\right) }

1788:      {|\bm{k}| (\bm{k}^2-\Lambda^2+i\epsilon)^2}

1789: &=& -\frac{1}{16\pi\Lambda^2}.

1790: \label{loop-4m}

1791: \end{eqnarray}

1792: \end{subequations}

1793: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1794: \subsection{Fourier Transformation}

1795: \begin{subequations}

1796: \begin{eqnarray}

1797: \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\, e^{i\bm{p}\cdot\bm{x}}

1798: \frac{\arctan(|\bm{p}|/\Lambda)}{|\bm{p}|}

1799: &=& \frac{e^{-\Lambda r}}{4\pi r^2},

1800: \\

1801: \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\, e^{i\bm{p}\cdot\bm{x}}

1802: \frac{1}{(\bm{p}^2+\Lambda^2)}

1803: &=& \frac{e^{-\Lambda r}}{4\pi r},

1804: \\

1805: \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\, e^{i\bm{p}\cdot\bm{x}}

1806: \frac{1}{(\bm{p}^2+\Lambda^2)^2}

1807: &=& \frac{e^{-\Lambda r}}{8\pi\Lambda},

1808: \end{eqnarray}

1809: \end{subequations}

1810: where $r\equiv|\bm{x}|$.

1811: 

1812: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1813: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:

1814: 

1815: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1816: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1817: %\cite{Bodwin:1994jh}

1818: \bibitem{Bodwin:1994jh}

1819: G.~T.~Bodwin, E.~Braaten, and G.~P.~Lepage,

1820: %``Rigorous QCD analysis of inclusive annihilation and production 

1821: % of heavy quarkonium,''

1822:  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51}, 1125 (1995);

1823:  {\bf 55}, 5853(E) (1997)

1824:  [arXiv:hep-ph/9407339].

1825: 

1826: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1827: %\cite{Kwong:1987ak}

1828: \bibitem{Kwong:1987ak}

1829:   W.~Kwong, P.~B.~Mackenzie, R.~Rosenfeld, and J.~L.~Rosner,

1830:   %``Quarkonium Annihilation Rates,''

1831:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 37}, 3210 (1988).

1832:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D37,3210;%%

1833: 

1834: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1835: \bibitem{bks}

1836: G.~T.~Bodwin, S.~Kim, and D.~K.~Sinclair,

1837: %``Matrix elements for the decays of S and P wave quarkonium:

1838: %An exploratory study,''

1839: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B, Proc.\ Suppl. {\bf 34}, 434 (1994);

1840: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,34,434;%%

1841: %\bibitem{bks-2}

1842: %G.~T.~Bodwin, S.~Kim and D.~K.~Sinclair,

1843: %``Decays rates for S wave and P wave bottomonium,''

1844: %Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\

1845: {\bf 42}, 306 (1995)

1846: [arXiv:hep-lat/9412011];

1847: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9412011;%%

1848: %\bibitem{bks-3}

1849: G.~T.~Bodwin, D.~K.~Sinclair, and S.~Kim,

1850: %``Quarkonium decay matrix elements from quenched lattice QCD,''

1851: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 77}, 2376 (1996)

1852: [arXiv:hep-lat/9605023];

1853: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9605023;%%

1854: %\bibitem{bks-4}

1855: %G.~T.~Bodwin, D.~K.~Sinclair and S.~Kim,

1856: %``Lattice calculation of quarkonium decay matrix elements,''

1857: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 12}, 4019 (1997)

1858: [arXiv:hep-ph/9609371];

1859: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9609371;%%

1860: %\bibitem{bks-4}

1861: %G.~T.~Bodwin, D.~K.~Sinclair and S.~Kim,

1862: %``Bottomonium decay matrix elements from lattice QCD with two light

1863: %quarks,''

1864: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 054504 (2002)

1865: [arXiv:hep-lat/0107011].

1866: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0107011;%%

1867: 

1868: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1869: %\cite{Gremm:1997dq}

1870: \bibitem{Gremm:1997dq}

1871: M.~Gremm and A.~Kapustin,

1872: %``Annihilation of S-wave quarkonia and the measurement of alpha(s),''

1873: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 407}, 323 (1997)

1874: [arXiv:hep-ph/9701353].

1875: 

1876: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1877: %\cite{Braaten:2002fi}

1878: \bibitem{Braaten:2002fi}

1879: E.~Braaten and J.~Lee,

1880: %``Exclusive double-charmonium production in e+ e- annihilation,''

1881: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 054007 (2003);

1882: {\bf 72}, 099901(E) (2005)

1883:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0211085].

1884: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1885: %\cite{Brambilla:1999xf}

1886: \bibitem{Brambilla:1999xf}

1887:   N.~Brambilla, A.~Pineda, J.~Soto, and A.~Vairo,

1888:   %``Potential NRQCD: An effective theory for heavy quarkonium,''

1889:   Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf B566}, 275 (2000)

1890:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9907240].

1891:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907240;%%

1892: 

1893: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1894: %\cite{Eichten:1978tg}

1895: \bibitem{Eichten:1978tg}

1896:   E.~Eichten, K.~Gottfried, T.~Kinoshita, K.~D.~Lane and T.~M.~Yan,

1897:   %``Charmonium: The Model,''

1898:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 17}, 3090 (1978);

1899:   {\bf 21}, 313(E) (1980).

1900:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D17,3090;%%

1901: 

1902: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1903: %\cite{Bali:2000gf}

1904: \bibitem{Bali:2000gf}

1905:   G.~S.~Bali,

1906:   %``QCD forces and heavy quark bound states,''

1907:   Phys.\ Rep.\  {\bf 343}, 1 (2001)

1908:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0001312].

1909:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001312;%%

1910: 

1911: \bibitem{bkl}

1912: G.T.~Bodwin, D.~Kang, and J.~Lee, arXiv:hep-ph/0603185.

1913: 

1914: 

1915: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1916: %\cite{Booth:1992bm}

1917: \bibitem{Booth:1992bm}

1918:   S.~P.~Booth, D.~S.~Henty, A.~Hulsebos, A.~C.~Irving, C.~Michael,

1919:  and P.~W.~Stephenson (UKQCD Collaboration),

1920:   %``The Running coupling from SU(3) lattice gauge theory,''

1921:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 294}, 385 (1992)

1922:   [arXiv:hep-lat/9209008].

1923:   %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9209008;%%

1924:   

1925: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1926: %\cite{Gupta:1996sa}

1927: \bibitem{Gupta:1996sa}

1928:   R.~Gupta and T.~Bhattacharya,

1929:   %``Light quark masses from lattice QCD,''

1930:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 7203 (1997)

1931:   [arXiv:hep-lat/9605039].

1932:   %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9605039;%%

1933: 

1934: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1935: %\cite{Kim:1993gc}

1936: \bibitem{Kim:1993gc}

1937:   S.~Kim and D.~K.~Sinclair,

1938:   %``The Light hadron spectrum of quenched QCD on a 32**3 x 64 lattice,''

1939:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48}, 4408 (1993).

1940:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D48,4408;%%

1941: 

1942: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1943: %\cite{Kim:1996cz}

1944: \bibitem{Kim:1996cz}

1945:   S.~Kim and S.~Ohta,

1946:   %``Quenched KS light hadron mass at beta = 6.5 on a 64 x 48**3 lattice,''

1947:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B,\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 53}, 199 (1997) 

1948:   [arXiv:hep-lat/9609023].

1949:   %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9609023;%%

1950: 

1951: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1952: %\cite{Bodwin:1998mn}

1953: \bibitem{Bodwin:1998mn}

1954:   G.~T.~Bodwin and Y.~Q.~Chen,

1955:   %``Renormalon ambiguities in NR{QCD} operator matrix elements,''

1956:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 054008 (1999)

1957:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9807492].

1958:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807492;%%

1959: 

1960: %\cite{Beneke:1997zp}

1961: \bibitem{Beneke:1997zp}                                                  

1962:   M.~Beneke and V.~A.~Smirnov,                                      

1963:   %``Asymptotic expansion of Feynman integrals near threshold,''     

1964:   Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf B522}, 321 (1998)

1965:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9711391].                                

1966:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9711391;%%

1967: 

1968: \end{thebibliography}

1969: \end{document}

1970: