1: \def\CTeXPreproc{Created by ctex v0.2.12, don't edit!}
2: %\documentclass[twocolumn,prl,showpacs,showkeys,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix]{revtex4}
3: \documentclass[twocolumn,prd,showpacs,showkeys,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix]{revtex4}
4: %\documentclass[preprint,prd,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix]{revtex4}
5: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
7: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
8:
9: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
10: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
11: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
12:
13: \newcommand{\Slash}[1]{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$#1$}}
14: \newcommand{\re}{\text{Re}}
15: \newcommand{\im}{\text{Im}}
16: \newcommand{\Tr}{\text{Tr}}
17:
18: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle \, #1 \, |}
19: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{| \, #1 \, \rangle}
20: \newcommand{\llim}{\beta_{-}}
21: \newcommand{\ulim}{\beta_{+}}
22:
23: \newcommand{\PDG}{Yao:2006px}
24:
25: \newcommand{\iso}[6]{\mbox{$\left( \begin{array}{cc||c} {#1} & {#2} &
26: {#3} \\ {#4} & {#5} & {#6} \end{array} \right)$}}
27:
28: \newcommand{\largeN}[1]{\text{``$#1$''}}
29:
30: \begin{document}
31:
32: \preprint{}
33:
34: \title{New QCD Sum Rule for $D(0^+)$}
35:
36: \author{Yuan-Ben Dai}
37: \email{dyb@itp.ac.cn} \affiliation{Institute of Theoretical Physics,
38: Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 2735, Beijing 100080, China}
39:
40: \author{Shi-Lin Zhu}
41: \email{zhusl@th.phy.pku.edu.cn} \affiliation{Department of Physics,
42: Peking University, Beijing 100871, China}
43:
44:
45: \begin{abstract}
46:
47: We derive a new QCD sum rule for $D(0^+)$ which has only the $D\pi$
48: continuum with a resonance in the hadron side, using the assumption
49: similar to that has been successfully used in our previous work to
50: the mass of $D_s(0^+)(2317)$. For the value of the pole mass
51: $M_c=1.38 $ GeV as used in the $D_s(0^+)$ case we find that the mass
52: of $D(0^+)$ derived from this sum rule is significantly lower than
53: that derived from the sum rule with the pole approximation. Our
54: result is in agreement with the experimental dada from Belle.
55:
56: \end{abstract}
57:
58: \pacs{12.39.Hg, 13.25.Hw, 13.25.Ft, 12.38.Lg}
59:
60: \keywords{Charm mesons, soft-pion theorem}
61:
62: \maketitle
63:
64: \pagenumbering{arabic}
65:
66: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
67: \section{ Introduction}
68: \label{sec1}
69: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
70:
71: BaBar Collaboration discovered in 2003 a positive-parity scalar
72: charm strange meson $D_{sJ}(2317)$ with a very narrow width
73: \cite{babar}, which was confirmed by CLEO later \cite{cleo}. In the
74: same experiment CLEO \cite{cleo} observed the $1^+$ partner state at
75: $2460$ MeV. Since these two states lie below $DK$ and $D^\ast K$
76: threshold respectively, the potentially dominant s-wave decay modes
77: $D_{sJ}(2317) \to D_sK$ etc are kinematically forbidden. Thus the
78: radiative decays and isospin-violating strong decays become dominant
79: decay modes. Therefore they are very narrow.
80:
81: The discovery of these two states has inspired great interest in
82: their nature in literature. The key point is to understand their low
83: masses. The $D_{sJ}(2317)$ mass is significantly lower than the
84: expected values in the range of $2.4-2.6$ GeV in quark models
85: \cite{qm}. The model using the heavy quark mass expansion of the
86: relativistic Bethe-Salpeter equation predicted a lower value $2.369$
87: GeV \cite{jin}, which is still 50 MeV higher than the experimental
88: data.
89:
90: Later Belle \cite{belle} observed the wide $D(0^+)$ resonance with
91: mass $M_0=2.308\pm 0.0017\pm 0.0015\pm0.0028 $Gev and width around
92: $\Gamma=276$ MeV. Another puzzle arises from this result: why are
93: these two resonances nearly degenerate in mass while $D_s(0^-)$ is
94: 100 MeV higher than $D(0^-)$?
95:
96: The earlier results for the mass of $D_s(0^+)$ from QCD sum rules
97: are either significantly larger than the experimentally observed
98: mass of $D_{sJ}(2317)$ \cite{colangelo91} or consistent with it
99: within theoretical uncertainty but with significantly larger central
100: value \cite{dai}. The results from lattice QCD calculations are
101: similar, see \cite{bali} and \cite{dougall, soni}.
102:
103: Recently, there have been two investigations on this problem using
104: sum rules in full QCD including the $O(\alpha_s)$ corrections. In
105: Ref. \cite{haya} the value of the charm quark pole mass $M_c=1.46
106: \text{GeV}$ is used and $0^+ \bar{c}s$ is found to be
107: $100-200\text{ MeV}$ higher than the experimental data. On the other
108: hand, in Ref. \cite{narison} $M_c\simeq 1.33 \text{GeV}$ is used and
109: the central value of the results for the $0^+$ $\bar{c}s$ mass is in
110: good agreement with the data. As commented by the author, the
111: uncertainty in the value of $M_c$ is large.
112:
113: The difficulty with the $\bar c s$ interpretation leads many
114: authors to speculate that $D_{sJ}(2317)$ is a $\bar{c}qs \bar{q}$
115: four quark state \cite{cheng,barns} or a strong $D \pi $ atom
116: \cite{szc}. However, quark model calculations show that the mass
117: of the four quark state is much larger than the $0^+$ $\bar{c}s$
118: state \cite{vijande,zhang}. Furthermore, the four quark system has
119: two $0^+$ states. Only one has been found below 2.8 GeV in the
120: experimental search, consistent with the $\bar c s$
121: interpretation.
122:
123: It was suggested in Ref. \cite{rupp} that the low mass of
124: $D_{sJ}(2317)$ could arise from the mixing between the $0^+$
125: $\bar{c}s$ state and the $DK$ continuum. It was pointed out in
126: \cite{dai} that in the formalism of QCD sum rules the physics of
127: mixing with $DK$ continuum resides in the contribution of $DK$
128: continuum in the sum rule and including this contribution should
129: render the mass of $D_s(0^+)$ lower.
130:
131: Usually the contribution of the two-particle continuum is
132: neglected in the QCD sum rules. In a recent work \cite{dai06} we
133: argued that because of the large s wave coupling of $D_s(0^+)DK$
134: \cite{colangelo95,zhu} and the adjacency of the $D_s(0^+)$ mass to
135: the threshold this contribution may not be neglected. We
136: calculated this contribution under the assumption that the form
137: factor for the coupling of the scalar current to the two-particle
138: continuum in the low energy region is dominated by the bubble
139: diagrams formed by the coupling of the $0^+$ to the two particles.
140: We found that including this term in the sum rule indeed renders
141: the mass and decay constant of $D_s(0^+)$ significantly lower.
142: Using the pole mass value $M_c=1.38$ GeV the mass of $D_s(0^+)$ is
143: found to be in good agreement with experimental data.
144:
145: In the present work we would like to show that the same assumption
146: for the form factor for the coupling of the scalar current to the
147: two-particle continuum also leads to the mass value of $D(0^+)$ in
148: agreement to the experimental data, thus, explains the nearly
149: degeneracy of these two states.
150:
151: In Section \ref{sec2} we derive the $D\pi$ continuum contribution
152: and write down the full QCD sum rule for $D(0^+)$. The numerical
153: results of the mass of $D(0^+)$ are collected in Section \ref{sec3}.
154:
155: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
156: \section{The QCD Sum Rule for the scalar charm meson}
157: \label{sec2}
158: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
159:
160: We consider the scalar correlation function
161: \begin{equation}
162: \Pi (q^2) =i \int d^4x \exp[iqx]\langle 0| \textbf{T} \{J(x), J^\dag
163: (0) \}|0\rangle
164: \end{equation}
165: where $J(x)=\bar c(x) d(x)$ is the interpolating current for the
166: charged scalar charm meson. $\Pi(q^2)$ satisfies the following
167: dispersion relation
168: \begin{equation}
169: \Pi (q^2) ={1\over \pi} \int d s {\textbf{Im} \Pi (s) \over s-q^2 +
170: i\epsilon}\; .
171: \end{equation}
172: The leading terms of the imaginary part $\textbf{Im} \Pi (s)$ at the
173: quark gluon level and its $\alpha_s$ correction have been calculated
174: in \cite{reinders,narison}. After making the Borel transformation to
175: suppress the contribution of higher excited states and invoking the
176: quark-hadron duality, one arrives at the sum rule
177: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
178: \int dt {\textbf{Im}\Pi^{\text{H}} (t)\over \pi} \exp[-{t\over
179: M_B^2}] = {M_c^2\over (m_c-m_d)^2} \{
180: \int\limits_{(m_c+m_d)^2}^{\infty} dt &\\ \nonumber \times
181: \exp[-{t\over M_B^2}] {1\over 8\pi^2} 3t(1-{M_c^2\over
182: t})^2 [ 1+{4\over 3}{\alpha_s\over \pi}G({M_c^2\over t})] &\\
183: \nonumber
184: +M_c \langle \bar d d\rangle
185: \exp[-{M_c^2\over M_B^2}] + ({3\over 2}-{M_c^2\over
186: M_B^2}){\langle\alpha_s G^2\rangle \over 12\pi} &\\ +{M_c\over
187: 2M_B^2}(1-{M_c^2\over 2M_B^2}) \langle g_s\bar d \sigma\cdot G
188: d\rangle \exp[-{M_c^2\over M_B^2}]
189: \}
190: \end{eqnarray}
191: where $m_c$ and $m_d$ are the charm and down quark current mass.
192: The charm quark pole mass is defined as \cite{tara}
193: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
194: M_c = m_c(p^2) [ 1+\left({4\over 3}+ \ln{p^2\over M_c^2}
195: {\alpha_s\over \pi} \right)]\; .
196: \end{eqnarray}
197: $\langle \bar d d\rangle$ is the down quark condensate, $\langle
198: \alpha_s G^2\rangle$ is the gluon condensate, $\langle g_s\bar d
199: \sigma\cdot G d\rangle$ is the quark gluon mixed condensate. $M_B$
200: is the Borel mass. The radiative correction function reads
201: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
202: G(x)={9\over 4}+2\textbf{Li}_2(x)+ \log(x)\log(1-x) -{3\over
203: 2}\log({1\over x}-1)&\\ \nonumber -\log(1-x) +x\log({1\over
204: x}-1)-{x\over 1-x} \log(x) \; .
205: \end{eqnarray}
206:
207: The above equation is of the same form as that for $D_s(0^+)$. The
208: difference between the two cases is the following. $D_s(0^+)$ is a
209: very narrow resonance below the $DK$ threshold. Neglecting the
210: small iso-spin violating interaction it can be represented by a
211: pole term in the sum rule. On the other hand, $D(0^+)$ is a very
212: broad {\sl resonance} in the $D\pi$ spectra and there is no pole
213: term in the hadron spectra. In the traditional treatment of QCD
214: sum rules the very broad resonance is still approximated by a pole
215: term solely for simplicity and without justification. Moreover,
216: the remaining two-particle continuum is completely neglected.
217:
218: According to this procedure the spectral density at the hadronic
219: level is taken to be the pole term plus the continuum starting
220: from some threshold which is identified with the QCD continuum.
221: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
222: {\textbf{Im}\Pi^{\text{H}} (t)\over \pi} = \left({f_{0}
223: M_{0}^2\over m_c-m_d}\right)^2 \delta (t-M^2_{0}) &\\
224: +\textbf{QCD continuum} \times \theta(t-s_0)
225: \end{eqnarray}
226: where $f_{0}$ is the vector current decay constant of $0^+$ $
227: \bar{c}d$ particle analogous to $f_\pi=132$ MeV, $M_{0}$ is the
228: mass of this particle, and $s_0$ is the continuum threshold above
229: which the hadronic spectral density is modelled by that at the
230: quark gluon level. The recent work \cite{narison} also uses the
231: above ansatz. The results from the above sum rule with $M_c=1.38$
232: GeV are shown in Fig. 1. This may not be a good approximation. The
233: importance of $D\pi$ continuum in the $D(0^+)$ channel was first
234: emphasized by Blok, Shifman and Uraltsev in Ref. \cite{shifman}
235: from the consideration of duality.
236: \begin{figure}[tbh]
237: \begin{center}
238: \scalebox{0.8} {\includegraphics{oldsr.eps}} \caption{$M_0$ vs
239: $M_B^2$ from the sum rule with pole approximation for $D(0^+)$.
240: Curves from top to bottom correspond to $s_0=8.0, 7.5, 7.0$
241: Gev$^2$ respectively.} \label{fig1}
242: \end{center}
243: \end{figure}
244:
245: In our previous work \cite{dai06} it was pointed out that the
246: strong s wave coupling of the $D_s(0^+)$ with the two particle DK
247: state and the adjacency of the $D_s(0^+)$ mass to the DK continuum
248: threshold result in large coupling channel effect which
249: corresponds to the configuration mixing in the formalism of the
250: quark model. Therefore, the two-particle continuum can not be
251: neglected. In the present case of $D(0^+)$ the two-particle term
252: is the whole hadron spectra needed in the sum rule. We calculate
253: this term with the same assumption used in \cite{dai06}. Besides
254: giving a more accurate sum rule for the mass of $D(0^+)$, this
255: also constitutes a check for the approximation used in
256: \cite{dai06} for $D_s(0^+)$.
257:
258: The contribution of the $D\pi$ continuum to the hadronic spectral
259: density reads
260: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
261: {\textbf{Im}\Pi^{\text{H}} (t)\over \pi} = & {3\over 32\pi^2}
262: \sqrt{1-{(M_D+m_\pi)^2\over t}} \sqrt{1-{(M_D-m_\pi)^2\over t}} \\
263: \nonumber
264: &\times |F(t)|^2 \theta(\sqrt{t}-M_D-m_\pi)\theta(s_0-t) \\
265: & +\textbf{QCD continuum}\times \theta(t-s_0) \; ,
266: \end{eqnarray}
267: where $F(t)$ is the form-factor defined by
268: \begin{eqnarray}
269: F(t)=\langle 0| \bar c (0) d(0) |D\pi\rangle
270: \end{eqnarray}
271: Similar to the approximation used in \cite{dai06}, from the large s
272: wave coupling of $D(0^+)D\pi$ we assume that in low energy region
273: $F(t)$ is dominated by the product of a factor proportional to the
274: propagator of the $D(0^+)$ and a factor from the final state
275: interaction represented by the chain of the bubble diagrams
276: generated from the $D(0^+)D\pi$ interaction as shown in Fig. 2.
277:
278: \begin{figure}[tbh]
279: \begin{center}
280: \scalebox{0.5} {\includegraphics{diagram.eps}} \caption{Heavy,
281: light and dotted line represents $D(0^+)$, $D$ and $\pi$
282: respectively. Black circle represents the Born s wave amplitude of
283: $D\pi$ scattering. Blank circle represents the scalar current.}
284: \label{fig2}
285: \end{center}
286: \end{figure}
287:
288: Let $g$ be the coupling constant in the effective $D(0^+)D\pi$
289: interaction lagrangian. The Born s wave amplitude in the figure
290: contains both a $t$ channel pole term $g^2\over t-M_0^2$ and a
291: crossing $s$ channel pole term
292: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
293: {g^2\over 2} \int\limits_{-1}^{+1} {{1\over s-M_0^2} d\cos \theta
294: }\; .
295: \end{eqnarray}
296: Using the relation between $s, t$ and the scattering angle $\theta$
297: one finds that the latter is an analytic function of $t$ with only a
298: short cut. Therefore, this term can be approximated by a pole form
299: $cg^2\over {t-t_0}$, where
300: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
301: t_0={{1\over 2} (2M_D^2+2m_\pi^2-M_{0}^2+{(M_D^2-m_\pi^2)^2\over
302: M_{0}^2})},
303: \end{eqnarray}
304: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
305: c=-{{2M_D^2+2m_\pi^2-M_{0}^2-{(M_D^2-m_\pi^2)^2\over
306: M_{0}^2}}\over{{(M_D^2-m_\pi^2)^2\over t_0} +t_0-2M_D^2-2m_\pi^2}}.
307: \end{eqnarray}
308: Different from the case of $D_s(0^+)$, the crossing term is actually
309: small for experimental values of the masses in the present case of
310: $D(0^+)$. But we shall still keep it in the formulae. In the chiral
311: lagrangian the interaction between $D$ and $\pi$ through exchanging
312: two pions is suppressed by $(E/{2\sqrt{2}\pi f_\pi})^4$ for low
313: energy $E$ of $\pi$. Hence its contribution can be neglected.
314: Summing the chain of the bubble diagrams, we have
315: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
316: F(t)={\lambda\over {(t-M_0^2)[1-({1\over t-M_0^2} +{c\over
317: {t-t_0}}) \Sigma(t)]}}
318: \end{eqnarray}
319: where
320: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
321: \Sigma (q^2) = -{3\over 2}ig^2\int {d^4k \over (2\pi)^4} {1\over
322: k^2-m_\pi}{1\over (q-k)^2-M_D^2}&\\ +\textbf{subtraction}
323: \end{eqnarray}
324: From Cutkosky's cutting rule,
325: \begin{eqnarray}
326: \textbf{Im}\Sigma(t)={3g^2\over 16\pi}{k(t)\over \sqrt{t}}\theta
327: (\sqrt{t}-M_D-m_\pi)\; ,
328: \end{eqnarray}
329: where
330: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
331: k(t)={\sqrt{\left(t-(M_D+m_\pi)^2\right)\left(t-(M_D-m_\pi)^2\right)}\over
332: 2\sqrt{t}}
333: \end{eqnarray}
334: and we have taken into account two
335: intermediate states of different charge. From the dispersion
336: relation,
337: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
338: \Sigma(t)=\Sigma(M_0^2) +{1\over \pi}
339: \int\limits_{(M_D+m_\pi)^2}^{\infty} dt' {3g^2\over
340: 16\pi}{k(t')\over \sqrt{t'}} {(t-M_0^2)\over (t'-M_0^2)(t'-t)}
341: \end{eqnarray}
342: where $M_0$ is the renormalized mass of the $D(0^+)$ meson. The mass
343: renormalization condition leads to
344: $\textbf{Re}\Sigma(M_0^2)=0$. Therefore we have
345: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
346: & F(t)= \lambda \{(t-M_0^2-{3g^2\over 16\pi^2}(1+{c(t-M_0^2)\over {t-t_0}}) \\
347: \nonumber &\times \textbf{P} \int\limits_{(M_D+m_\pi)^2}^{\infty}
348: dt'{k(t')\over \sqrt{t'}} {(t-M_0^2)\over (t'-M_0^2)(t'-t)})\\
349: &-i{3g^2\over 16\pi}(1+{c(t-M_0^2)\over {t-t_0}}){k(t)\over
350: \sqrt{t}}\theta(\sqrt{t}-M_D-m_\pi)\}^{-1} \; ,
351: \end{eqnarray}
352: where $\textbf{P}$ denotes the principal part of integration.
353:
354: The unknown constant $\lambda$ in $F(t)$ can be determined by
355: applying the soft-pion theorem to the extrapolated value of the
356: matrix element $\langle 0| \bar c (0) d(0) |D\pi\rangle$ at
357: $t=M_D^2$ with the result
358: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
359: F(M_D^2)={f_DM_D^2\over f_\pi (m_c+m_d)}\; .
360: \end{eqnarray}
361: Hence we have
362: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
363: \lambda =& {f_DM_D^2 \over f_\pi (m_c+m_d)}(M^2_D-M_0^2)
364: [1-{3g^2\over 16\pi^2}(1+{c(M^2_D-M_0^2)\over {M^2_D-t_0}}) \\
365: \nonumber & \times \textbf{P} \int\limits_{(M_D+m_\pi)^2}^{\infty}
366: dt'{k(t')\over \sqrt{t'}} {1\over (t'-M_0^2)(t'-M_D^2)}]
367: \end{eqnarray}
368:
369: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
370: \section{The Mass of $D(0^+)$}\label{sec3}
371: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
372:
373: In the numerical analysis, we use $m_d=8$ MeV, $m_c=1.18$ GeV,
374: $M_c=1.38$ GeV, $\langle \bar d d\rangle =-(0.243)^3$ GeV$^3$,
375: $\langle \bar d g_ \sigma\cdot G d\rangle =0.8 \text{GeV}^2*\langle
376: \bar d d\rangle$, $\langle \alpha_s G^2\rangle =0.06$ GeV$^4$,
377: $\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}=0.325$ GeV, $M_D=1.869$ GeV, $m_\pi=0.140$
378: GeV, $f_D=0.2 $ GeV \cite{fd}, $f_\pi=0.132$ GeV \cite{pdg}.
379:
380: The $g$ value has not been determined very well theoretically. It
381: was found to be in the interval $g=7.5-5.1 $ GeV in Ref.
382: \cite{colangelo95}. Inclusion of the contribution of $D\pi$
383: continuum in the sum rule analysis of the scalar current channel
384: may lower the $g$ value. Since the uncertainty is large, we
385: determine it from the experimental width $\Gamma$ of $D(0^+)$
386: through the equation
387: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
388: g^2=\Gamma[{3\sqrt{\left(M_0^2-(m_D+m_\pi)^2)\right)\left(
389: M_0^2-(m_D-m_\pi)^2\right)}\over {32\pi M_0^3}}]^{-1} \; ,
390: \end{eqnarray}
391: and use the experimental central value $\Gamma=276$ MeV
392: \cite{belle} as the input. For the experimental central value of
393: the $D(0^+)$ mass $M_0=2.308$ GeV, $g=8.09$ GeV. Notice that,
394: since we can not do wave function renormalization for $D(0^+)$ at
395: the resonance energy $M_0$, the coupling constant $g$ defined in
396: this work is not exactly the correspondence of that defined in
397: Ref. \cite{dai06} for $D_s(0^+)$.
398:
399: \begin{figure}[tbh]
400: \begin{center}
401: \scalebox{0.8} {\includegraphics{mass8.eps}} \caption{The
402: variation of the ratio of the LHS to the RHS of the sum rule with
403: $M_B^2$ when $s_0 = 8.0 \text{GeV}^2$, $M_0=2.297$ GeV.}
404: \label{fig3}
405: \end{center}
406: \end{figure}
407:
408: \begin{figure}[tbh]
409: \begin{center}
410: \scalebox{0.8} {\includegraphics{mass75.eps}} \caption{The
411: variation of the ratio of the LHS to the RHS of the sum rule with
412: $M_B^2$ when $s_0 = 7.5 \text{GeV}^2$, $M_0=2.285$ GeV.}
413: \label{fig4}
414: \end{center}
415: \end{figure}
416:
417: The good convergence of the OPE series and dominance of the $D\pi$
418: term over the QCD continuum beyond $s_0$ constrain the Borel mass
419: in a region depending on $M_c$ and $s_0$. For $M_c=1.38$ GeV,
420: $s_0=8.0,7.5,7.0$ GeV$^2$, $M_B^2\in [1.15, 2.5], [1.15, 2.25],
421: [1.15, 2.2]$ GeV$^2$ respectively. Since the hadron side of the
422: sum rule depends on the unknown value $M_0$ in a complicated way,
423: we have to input a "trial" value of $M_0$ and require that the
424: ratio of the hadron side (the left hand side or LHS) to the
425: quark-gluon side (the right hand side or RHS) of the sum rule is
426: equal to 1 in the middle of the working range of $M_B^2$. The
427: results are shown in Fig. 3, 4, 5 for $s_0=8.0, 7.5, 7.0$
428: respectively.
429:
430: Comparing these results to those obtained in the pole
431: approximation shown in Fig. 2 one finds that the results for the
432: mass of $D(0^+)$ are lower by $80-40$ MeV. For $M_c=1.38$ GeV,
433: $s_0=8.0-7.0$ GeV$^2$ we find $M_0=2.30-2.27$ GeV in agreement
434: with the experimental data. The curve is very sensitive to the
435: trial value of $M_0$, hence the uncertainty of our results from
436: different values of $M_B$ for fixed values of other parameters are
437: small. Therefore, with the same approximation for the two-particle
438: continuum and same values of $M_c$ and $s_0$ we obtain
439: simultaneously the correct values of the masses of the narrow
440: resonance $D_s(0^+)$ below the threshold and the broad resonance
441: $D(0^+)$ above the threshold.
442:
443: Under our approximation for the two-particle continuum and
444: acceptable value of $g$, there is no solution for the sum rule for
445: $D(0^+)$ containing a below-threshold pole term and the
446: two-particle continuum in the hadron side as that used in the
447: $D_s(0^+)$ case.
448:
449: \begin{figure}[tbh]
450: \begin{center}
451: \scalebox{0.8} {\includegraphics{mass7.eps}} \caption{The
452: variation of the ratio of the LHS to the RHS of the sum rule with
453: $M_B^2$ when $s_0 = 7.0 \text{GeV}^2$, $M_0=2.270$ GeV. }
454: \label{fig5}
455: \end{center}
456: \end{figure}
457:
458:
459: {\bf Acknowledgments:} S.L.Z. was supported by the National Natural
460: Science Foundation of China under Grants 10375003 and 10421503, and
461: Key Grant Project of Chinese Ministry of Education (NO 305001).
462:
463: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
464:
465: \bibitem{babar}B. Aubert {\it et al.},
466: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 242001 (2003).
467:
468: \bibitem{cleo}D. Besson {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0305017.
469:
470: \bibitem{qm}
471: S. Godfrey and R. Kokoski, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 43}, 1679 (1991); S.
472: Godfrey and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 32}, 189 (1985); M. Di
473: Pierro and E. Eichten, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 64}, 114004 (2001).
474:
475: \bibitem{jin}Y.-B. Dai, C.-S. Huang and H.-Y. Jin,
476: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 331}, 174 (1994).
477:
478: \bibitem{belle}K. Abe et al, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 69}, 112002 (2004).
479:
480: \bibitem{colangelo91}P. Colangelo, G. Nardulli,
481: A. A. Ovchinnikov , N. Paver, Phys. Lett. B 269, 201 (1991).
482:
483: \bibitem{dai}Y.-B. Dai, C.-S. Huang, C. Liu, S.-L. Zhu,
484: Phys. Rev. D 68, 114011 (2003).
485:
486: \bibitem{bali}G. S. Bali, Phys. Rev. D 68, 071501 (2003).
487:
488: \bibitem{dougall} A. Dougall, R.D. Kenway, C.M. Maynard,
489: and C. McNeile, Phys. Lett. B 569, 41 (2003).
490:
491: \bibitem{soni} H. W. Liu, S. Ohta, A. Soni and N. Yamada,
492: hep-lat/0607035 .
493:
494: \bibitem{haya}A. Hayashigaki, K. Terasaki, hep-ph/0411285.
495:
496: \bibitem{narison}S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B 605, 319 (2005).
497:
498: \bibitem{cheng}
499: H.-Y. Cheng and W.-S. Hou, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 566}, 193 (2003).
500:
501: \bibitem{barns}T. Barnes, F. E. Close, H. J. Lipkin,
502: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 68}, 054006 (2003).
503:
504: \bibitem{szc}A. P. Szczepaniak, hep-ph/0305060.
505:
506: \bibitem{vijande}J. Vijande, F. Fernandez, A. Valcarce,
507: Phys. Rev. D 73, 034002 (2006).
508:
509: \bibitem{zhang}H. X. Zhang, W. L. Wang, Y. B. Dai, and Z. Y. Zhang,
510: hep-ph/0607207.
511:
512: \bibitem{rupp}
513: E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 012003
514: (2003); Euro. Phys. J. C 32, 493 (2004).
515:
516: \bibitem{dai06}Y.-B. Dai, S.-L. Zhu, Y.-B. Zuo, hep-ph/0610327.
517:
518: \bibitem{colangelo95}P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, G. Nardulli,
519: N. Di Bartolomeo, Raoul Gatto, Phys. Rev. D52, 6422 (1995).
520:
521: \bibitem{zhu}S.-L. Zhu, Y.-B. Dai, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14, 2367
522: (1999).
523:
524: \bibitem{shifman}B. Blok, M. Shifman, N. Uraltsev, Nucl. Phys.
525: B494,247(1997).
526:
527: \bibitem{reinders}L.J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein, S. Yazaki, Phys. Rept. 1 27, 1
528: (1985).
529:
530: \bibitem{tara}R. Tarrach, Nucl. Phys. B 183, 384 (1981).
531:
532: \bibitem{fd}I. Danko (for the CLEO Collaboration), J.Phys.Conf.Ser. 9, 91
533: (2005), hep-ex/0501046; T. W. Chiu et al., Phys. Lett. B 624, 31
534: (2005).
535:
536: \bibitem{pdg}W.-M. Yao et al., Journal of Physics G 33, 1 (2006)
537:
538:
539: \end{thebibliography}
540:
541: \end{document}
542: )
543: