1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: \documentclass[showpacs]{revtex4}

3: %\documentclass[prd,unsortedaddress,superscriptaddress,showpacs,a4paper,

4: %nofootinbib]{revtex4}

5: %\documentclass[twocolumn,prl,aps,epsfig]{revtex4}

6: %\documentclass[preprint,prc,aps,epsfig]{revtex4}

7: \usepackage{epsfig}

8: \textwidth 16.cm%\textheight 26.cm

9: \oddsidemargin -0.cm\evensidemargin -1.0cm

10: \topmargin -1.cm

11: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

12: \def\enq{\end{equation}}

13: \def\beqa{\begin{eqnarray}}

14: \def\enqa{\end{eqnarray}}

15: \def\nnb{\nonumber}

16: \def\rar{\rightarrow}

17: \def\MeV{\nobreak\,\mbox{MeV}}

18: \def\GeV{\nobreak\,\mbox{GeV}}

19: \def\keV{\nobreak\,\mbox{keV}}

20: \def\fm{\nobreak\,\mbox{fm}}

21: \def\Tr{\mbox{ Tr }}

22: \def\qq{\lag\bar{q}q\rag}

23: \def\uu{\lag\bar{u}u\rag}

24: \def\dd{\lag\bar{d}d\rag}

25: \def\ss{\lag\bar{s}s\rag}

26: \def\mix{\lag\bar{q}g\si.Gq\rag}

27: \def\mixs{\lag\bar{s}g\si.Gs\rag}

28: \def\Gd{\lag g^2G^2\rag}

29: \def\G3{\lag g^3G^3\rag}

30: \def\pli{p^\prime}

31: \def\ka{\kappa}

32: \def\la{\lambda}

33: \def\La{\Lambda}

34: \def\ga{\gamma}

35: \def\Ga{\Gamma}

36: \def\om{\omega}

37: \def\rh{\rho}

38: \def\si{\sigma}

39: \def\ps{\psi}

40: \def\ph{\phi}

41: \def\de{\delta}

42: \def\al{\alpha}

43: \def\be{\beta}

44: \def\alma{\alpha_{max}}

45: \def\almi{\alpha_{min}}

46: \def\bemi{\beta_{min}}

47: \def\lb{\label}

48: \def\nn{\nonumber}

49: \def\kab{\left[(\al+\be)m_c^2-\al\be s\right]}

50: \newcommand{\rag}{\rangle}

51: \newcommand{\lag}{\langle}

52: \newcommand{\bph}{\mbox{\bf $\phi$}}

53: \newcommand{\rf}{\ref}

54: \newcommand{\ct}{\cite}

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

56: \begin{document}

57: 

58: \title{\sc

59: QCD sum rules study of $QQ-\bar{u}\bar{d}$ mesons

60: }

61: \author{Fernando S. Navarra}

62: \email{navarra@if.usp.br}

63: \affiliation{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica, Universidade de S\~{a}o Paulo,

64: C.P. 66318, 05389-970 S\~{a}o Paulo, SP, Brazil}

65: \author{Marina Nielsen}

66: \email{mnielsen@if.usp.br}

67: \affiliation{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica, Universidade de S\~{a}o Paulo,

68: C.P. 66318, 05389-970 S\~{a}o Paulo, SP, Brazil}

69: \author{Su Houng Lee}

70: \email{suhoung@phya.yonsei.ac.kr}

71: \affiliation{Institute of Physics and Applied Physics, Yonsei University,

72: Seoul 120-749, Korea}

73: 

74: \begin{abstract}

75: We use QCD  sum rules to study the possible existence of

76: $QQ-\bar{u}\bar{d}$ mesons,

77: assumed to be a state with $J^{P}=1^{+}$. For definiteness, we work with

78: a current with an axial heavy diquark and a scalar light antidiquark,

79: at leading order in $\alpha_s$. We consider the contributions of

80: condensates up to dimension eight.

81: For the $b$-quark, we predict $M_{T_{bb}}= (10.2\pm 0.3)~{\rm GeV}$,

82: which is below the $\bar{B}\bar{B}^*$ threshold. For the $c$-quark,

83: we predict $M_{T_{cc}}= (4.0\pm 0.2)~{\rm GeV}$, in agreement with quark

84: model predictions.

85: \end{abstract}

86: 

87: 

88: \pacs{ 11.55.Hx, 12.38.Lg , 12.39.-x}

89: \maketitle

90: 

91: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\section{Introduction}%

92: 

93: The general idea of possible stable heavy tetraquarks has been first

94: suggested by Jaffe \cite{jaf}. The case of a tetraquark $QQ\bar{u}\bar{d}$

95: with quantum numbers $I=0, ~J=1$ and $P=+1$ which, following ref.\cite{ros},

96: we call $T_{QQ}$, is especially interesting. As already noted previously

97: \cite{ros,zsgr}, the $T_{bb}$ and $T_{cc}$ states cannot decay strongly

98: or electromagnetically into two $\bar{B}$ or two $D$ mesons in the

99: $S$ wave due to angular momentum conservation nor in $P$ wave due to

100: parity conservation. If their masses are below the $\bar{B}\bar{B^*}$

101: and $DD^*$ thresholds, these decays are also forbidden. Moreover, in the

102: large $m_Q$ limit, the light degrees of freedom cannot resolve the closely

103: bound $QQ$ system. This results in bound states similar to the

104: $\bar{\Lambda}_Q$ states, with $QQ$ playing the role of the heavy antiquark

105: \cite{chow}. Therefore, the stability of $\bar{\Lambda}_Q$ implies that

106: $QQ\bar{u}\bar{d}$ is also safe from decaying through $QQ\bar{u}\bar{d}\to

107: QQq+\bar{q}\bar{u}\bar{d}$ . As a result, $T_{QQ}$ is stable

108: with respect to strong interactions and must decay weakly.

109: 

110: There are some predictions for the masses of the $T_{QQ}$ states.

111: In ref.~\cite{zhu} the authors use a color-magnetic interaction, with

112: flavor symmetry breaking corrections, to study heavy tetraquarks. They

113: assume that the Belle resonance, $X(3872)$, is a $cq\bar{c}\bar{q}$

114: tetraquark, and use its mass as input to determine the mass of other

115: tetraquark states. They get $M_{T_{cc}}=3966~\MeV$ and $M_{T_{bb}}=

116: 10372~\MeV$. In ref.~\cite{ros}, the authors use  one-gluon exchange

117: potentials and two different spatial configurations to study the

118: mesons $T_{cc}$ and $T_{bb}$. They get $M_{T_{cc}}=3876 - 3905~\MeV$

119: and $M_{T_{bb}}=10519 - 10651~\MeV$. There are also calculations using

120: expansion in the harmonic oscillator basis \cite{sem}, and variational 

121: method \cite{brst}.

122: 

123: In this work we use QCD sum rules (QCDSR) \cite{svz,rry,SNB}, to

124: study the two-point functions of the state $T_{QQ}$. There are

125: several reasons, why it is interesting to investigate this

126: channel.  First of all, having two heavy quarks, it is an explicit

127: exotic state.  The experimental observation would already prove

128: the existence of the tetraquark state without any theoretical

129: extrapolation.  Moreover, from a technical point of view, this

130: means that there are no contributions from the disconnected

131: diagrams, which are technically very difficulty to estimate in QCD

132: sum rules or in lattice gauge theory calculation.

133: 

134: In previous calculations, the QCDSR approach was used to study

135: the light scalar mesons \cite{LATORRE,SN4,sca,koch,zhang} the

136: $D_{sJ}^+(2317)$ meson \cite{pec,OTHERA} and the $X(3872)$ meson

137: \cite{x3872}, considered as four-quark states

138: and a good agreement with the experimental masses was obtained.

139: However, the tests were not decisive as the usual quark--antiquark

140: assignments also provide predictions consistent with data

141: \cite{SN4,SNHEAVY,SNB,OTHER}.

142: 

143: 

144: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\section{The two-point correlator}

145: 

146: Considering $T_{QQ}$ as an axial diquark-antidiquark state, a possible

147: current describing such state is given by:

148: %

149: \beq

150: j_\mu=i[Q_a^TC\gamma_\mu Q_b][\bar{u}_a\gamma_5 C\bar{d}_b^T]\;,

151: \label{field}

152: \enq

153: %

154: where $a,~b$ are color indices, $C$ is the charge conjugation

155: matrix and $Q$ denotes the heavy quark.

156: 

157: In general, one should consider all possible combinations of

158: different $1^{+}$ four-quark operators, as was done in

159: \cite{chinois}  for the $0^{++}$ light mesons. However, the

160: current in Eq.(\ref{field}) well represents the most attractive

161: configuration expected with two heavy quarks.  This is so because

162: the most attractive light antidiquark is expected to be the in the

163: color triplet, flavor anti-symmetric and spin 0

164: channel \cite{Jaffe03,Shuryak03,Schafer93}.  This is also expected

165: quite naturally from the color magnetic interaction, which can be

166: phenomenologically parameterized as,

167: \begin{eqnarray}

168: V_{ij}=-\frac{C}{m_i m_j} \lambda_i \cdot \lambda_j \sigma_i \cdot

169: \sigma_j. \label{color-magnetic}

170: \end{eqnarray}

171: Here, $m,\lambda, \sigma$ are the mass, color and spin of the

172: constituent quark $i,j$.  Eq.(\ref{color-magnetic}) favors the

173: anti-diquark to be in the color triplet and spin 0 channel. The

174: flavor anti-symmetric condition then follows from requiring

175: anti-symmetric wave function of the  anti-diquark. Similarly,

176: since the anti-diquark is in the color triplet state the remaining

177: $QQ$ should be in the color anti-triplet spin 1 state. Although

178: the spin 1 configuration is repulsive, its strength is much

179: smaller than that for the light diquark due to the heavy charm

180: quark mass.  Therefore a constituent quark picture for $T_{QQ}$

181: would be a light anti-diquark in color triplet, flavor  anti-symmetric and

182: spin 0 ($\epsilon_{abc}[\bar{u}_b\gamma_5 C\bar{d}_c^T]$) combined

183: with a heavy diquark of spin 1 ($\epsilon_{aef}[Q_e^TC\gamma_\mu

184: Q_f]$).  The simplest choice for the current to have a non zero

185: overlap with such a $T_{QQ}$ configuration is given in

186: Eq.~(\ref{field}).   While a similar configuration $T_{ss}$ is

187: also possible \cite{Morimatsu}, we believe that the repulsion in

188: the strange diquark with spin 1 will be larger and hence

189: energetically less favorable.   As discussed above, since the

190: quantum number is $1^+$, the decay into $DD$ or $\bar{B}\bar{B}$

191: would be forbidden and the allowed decay into $DD^*$ or

192: $\bar{B}\bar{B}^*$ would have a smaller phase space, and the

193: tetraquark state might have a small width, or may even be bound.

194: 

195: %

196: The QCDSR is constructed from the two-point correlation function

197: %

198: \beq

199: \Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)=i\int d^4x ~e^{iq.x}\lag 0

200: |T[j_\mu(x)j^\dagger_\nu(0)]

201: |0\rag=-\Pi_1(q^2)(g_{\mu\nu}-{q_\mu q_\nu\over q^2})+\Pi_0(q^2){q_\mu

202: q_\nu\over q^2}.

203: \lb{2po}

204: \enq

205: %

206: Since the axial vector current is not conserved, the two functions,

207: $\Pi_1$ and $\Pi_0$, appearing in Eq.~(\ref{2po}) are independent and

208: have respectively the quantum numbers of the spin 1 and 0 mesons.

209: 

210: The calculation of the

211: phenomenological side proceeds by inserting intermediate states for

212: the meson $T_{QQ}$.  Parametrizing the coupling of the axial vector meson

213: $1^{+}$, to the current, $j_\mu$, in Eq.~(\ref{field}) in terms

214: of the meson decay constant $f_T$ and the meson mass $M_T$ as:

215: \beq\label{eq: decay}

216: \lag 0 |

217: j_\mu|T_{QQ}\rag =\sqrt{2}f_T M_T^4\epsilon_\mu~,

218: \enq

219: the phenomenological side

220: of Eq.~(\ref{2po}) can be written as

221: %

222: \beq

223: \Pi_{\mu\nu}^{phen}(q^2)={2f_T^2M_T^8\over

224: M_T^2-q^2}\left(-g_{\mu\nu}+ {q_\mu q_\nu\over M_T^2}\right)

225: +\cdots\;, \lb{phe} \enq

226: %

227: where the Lorentz structure $g_{\mu\nu}$ gets contributions only from

228: the $1^{+}$ state.  The dots

229: denote higher axial-vector resonance contributions that will be

230: parametrized, as usual, through the introduction of a continuum

231: threshold parameter $s_0$ \cite{io1}.

232: 

233: On the OPE side, we work at leading order in $\alpha_s$ and consider the

234: contributions of condensates up to dimension eight.  To keep the 

235: charm quark mass finite, we use the momentum-space expression for the 

236: charm quark propagator.  We follow ref.~\cite{shl} and calculate

237: the light quark part of the correlation function 

238: in the coordinate-space, which is then Fourier transformed to

239: the momentum space in $D$ dimensions.  The resulting light-quark part

240: is combined with the charm quark part before it is dimensionally

241: regularized at $D=4$.

242: 

243: 

244: The correlation function, $\Pi_1$, in the OPE side can be written as a

245: dispersion relation:

246: %

247: \beq

248: \Pi_1^{OPE}(q^2)=\int_{4m_Q^2}^\infty ds {\rho(s)\over s-q^2}\;,

249: \lb{ope}

250: \enq

251: %

252: where the spectral density is given by the imaginary part of the

253: correlation function: $\pi \rho(s)=\mbox{Im}[\Pi_1^{OPE}(s)]$.  After

254: making a Borel transform of both sides, and

255: transferring the continuum contribution to the OPE side, the sum rule

256: for the axial vector meson $T_{QQ}$ up to dimension-eight condensates can

257: be written as:

258: %

259: \beq 2f_T^2M_T^8e^{-M_T^2/M^2}=\int_{4m_Q^2}^{s_0}ds~

260: e^{-s/M^2}~\rho(s)\; +\Pi_1^{mix\qq}(M^2)\;, \lb{sr} \enq

261: %

262: where

263: %

264: \beq

265: \rho(s)=\rho^{pert}(s)+\rh^{\qq}(s)+\rh^{\lag G^2\rag}(s)

266: +\rh^{mix}(s)+\rh^{\qq^2}(s)+\rh^{mix\qq}(s)\;,

267: \lb{rhoeq}

268: \enq

269: %

270: with

271: %

272: \beqa\label{eq:pert}

273: %

274: &&\rho^{pert}(s)={1\over 2^{9} \pi^6}\int\limits_{\almi}^{\alma}

275: {d\al\over\alpha^3}

276: \int\limits_{\bemi}^{1-\al}{d\be\over\be^3}(1-\al-\be)

277: \left[(\al+\be)m_Q^2-\al\be s\right]^3

278: \nn\\

279: &&\times\left[{1+\al+\be\over4}\left((\al+\be)m_Q^2-\al\be s\right)

280: -m_Q^2(1-\al-\be)\right],

281: \nn\\

282: %

283: &&\rho^{\qq}(s)=0,

284: \nn\\

285: %

286: &&\rho^{\lag G^2\rag}(s)=-{\Gd\over2^{10}\pi^6}

287: \left\{-{1\over4}\int\limits_{\almi}^{\alma} {d\al\over\al(1-\al)}

288: (m_Q^2-\al(1-\al)s)^2\right.\nn\\

289: &+&

290: \int\limits_{\almi}^{\alma} {d\al\over\al}

291: \int\limits_{\bemi}^{1-\al}d\be\left[{(\al+\be)m_Q^2-\al\be s\over4\be}

292: \left((\al+\be)m_Q^2-\al\be s+2m_Q^2\right)\right.

293: \nn\\

294: &+&{m_Q^2\over3\al^2}(1-\al-\be)\left[m_Q^2(1-\al-\be)+\left((\al+\be)m_Q^2

295: -\al\be s\right)\left(-4-\al-\be+{3\over\be}(1-\al)\right)\right]

296: \nn\\

297: &+&\left.\left.{1\over48\al\be^2}(1-\al-\be)\left((\al+\be)m_Q^2-\al\be

298: s\right)^2(5-\al-\be)\right]\right\},

299: \nn\\

300: %%

301: &&\rho^{mix}(s)=0,

302: \nn\\

303: &&\rho^{\qq^2}(s)={\qq^2\over 24\pi^2}s\sqrt{1-4m_Q^2/s}.

304: \enqa

305: where the integration limits are given by $\almi=({1-\sqrt{1-

306: 4m_Q^2/s})/2}$, $\alma=({1+\sqrt{1-4m_Q^2/s})/2}$ and $\bemi={\al

307: m_Q^2/( s\al-m_Q^2)}$.

308: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

309: The contribution of dimension-six condensates $\lag g^3 G^3\rag$

310: is neglected, since it is assumed to be suppressed by   the loop

311: factor $1/16\pi^2$. We have included, for completeness, a part of

312: the dimension-8 condensate contributions. We should note that a

313: complete evaluation of these contributions require more involved

314: analysis including a non-trivial choice of the factorization

315: assumption basis \cite{BAGAN} \beqa

316: &&\rho^{mix\qq}(s)=-{\mix\qq\over 2^6\pi^2}\sqrt{1-4m_Q^2/s},

317: \nn\\

318: &&\Pi_1^{mix\qq}(M^2)=-{m_Q^2\mix\qq\over 2^53\pi^2}\int_0^1

319: d\al\,\bigg[4-{m_Q^2\over\al(1-\al) M^2}\bigg]\,\exp\!\left[{-{m_Q^2

320: \over\al(1-\al)M^2}}\right].

321: \label{dim8}

322: \enqa

323: %%%%%%%%\boldmath\section{LSR  predictions of  $M_X$} \unboldmath

324: %

325: 

326: In order to extract the mass $M_T$ without worrying about the value of

327: the decay constant $f_T$, we take the derivative of Eq.~(\ref{sr})

328: with respect to $1/M^2$, divide the result by Eq.~(\ref{sr}) and

329: obtain:

330: %

331: \beq

332: M_T^2={\int_{4 m_Q^2}^{s_0}ds ~e^{-s/M^2}~s~\rho(s)\over\int_{4

333: m_Q^2}^{s_0}ds ~e^{-s/M^2}~\rho(s)}\;.

334: \lb{m2}

335: \enq

336: This quantity has the advantage to be less sensitive to the perturbative

337: radiative corrections than the individual

338: moments. Therefore, we expect that our results obtained  to leading order

339: in $\alpha_s$ will be quite accurate.

340: 

341: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

342: In the numerical analysis of the sum rules, the values used for the

343: quark

344: masses and condensates are (see e.g.  \cite{SNB,narpdg}):

345: $m_c(m_c)=(1.23\pm 0.05)\,\GeV $, $m_b(m_b)=(4.24\pm 0.06)\,\GeV$,

346: $\lag\bar{q}q\rag=\,-(0.23\pm0.03)^3\,\GeV^3$,

347: $\lag\bar{q}g\si.Gq\rag=m_0^2\lag\bar{q}q\rag$ with $m_0^2=0.8\,\GeV^2$,

348: $\lag g^2G^2\rag=0.88~\GeV^4$.

349: %

350: 

351: \begin{figure}[h]

352: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=opetcc.eps,height=70mm}}

353: \caption{The relative OPE convergence in the region $2.0 \leq M^2 \leq

354: 4.0~\GeV^2$ for $\sqrt{s_0} = 4.8$ GeV. We start with the perturbative

355: contribution divided by the total (long-dashed line) and each

356: subsequent line represents the addition of one extra condensate

357: dimension in the expansion: $+\langle g^2G^2\rangle$ (dot-dashed line),

358: $+\langle \bar{q}q\rangle^2$ (dotted-line), $+ m_0^2\langle \bar{q}q

359: \rangle^2$ (solid line).}

360: \label{figconvtcc}

361: \end{figure}

362: 

363: We start with the double charmed meson $T_{cc}$.

364: We evaluate the sum rules in the range $2.0 \leq M^2 \leq 4\GeV^2$ for

365: $s_0$ in the range: $4.6\leq \sqrt{s_0} \leq5.0$ GeV.

366: 

367: Comparing the relative contribution of each term in

368: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:pert}) to (\ref{dim8}),

369: to the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{sr}) we obtain a quite good OPE

370: convergence (the perturbative contribution is at least 50\% of the total)

371: for $M^2 > 2.5$ GeV$^2$, as can be seen in

372: Fig.~\ref{figconvtcc}.  This analysis allows us to determine the lower

373: limit constraint for $M^2$ in the sum rules window.  This figure also

374: shows that, although there is a change of sign between

375: dimension-six and dimension-eight condensates contributions, the

376: contribution of the latter is very small, where, we have assumed, in

377: Fig.~\ref{figconvtcc} to  Fig.~\ref{figmxb}, the validity of

378: the vacuum saturation for these condensates. The relatively small

379: contribution of the dimension-eight condensates may justify  the validity

380: of our approximation, unlike in the case of the 5-quark current

381: correlator, as noticed in \cite{oganes}.

382: 

383: 

384: 

385: 

386: \begin{figure}[h]

387: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=poletcc.eps,height=70mm}}

388: \caption{The solid line shows the relative pole contribution (the

389: pole contribution divided by the total, pole plus continuum,

390: contribution) and the dashed line shows the relative continuum

391: contribution for $\sqrt{s_0}=4.8~\GeV$.}

392: \label{figpvc}

393: \end{figure}

394: 

395: 

396: We get an upper limit constraint for $M^2$ by imposing the rigorous

397: constraint that the QCD continuum contribution should be smaller than the

398: pole contribution.

399: The maximum value of $M^2$ for which this constraint is satisfied

400: depends on the value of $s_0$.  The comparison between pole and

401: continuum contributions for $\sqrt{s_0} = 4.8$ GeV is shown in

402: Fig.~\ref{figpvc}. The same analysis for the other values of the continuum

403: threshold gives $M^2 \leq 3.1$  GeV$^2$ for $\sqrt{s_0} = 4.6~\GeV$ and

404: $M^2 \leq 3.6$  GeV$^2$ for $\sqrt{s_0} = 5.0~\GeV$.

405: 

406: 

407: 

408: 

409: \begin{figure}[h]

410: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=mtcc.eps,height=70mm}}

411: \caption{The $T_{cc}$ meson mass as a function of the sum rule parameter

412: ($M^2$) for different values of the continuum threshold: $\sqrt{s_0} =

413: 4.6$ GeV (dotted line) and $\sqrt{s_0} = 5.0$ GeV (solid line).  The

414: bars indicate the region allowed for the sum rules: the lower limit

415: (cut below 2.5 GeV$^2$) is given by OPE convergence requirement and the

416: upper limit by the dominance of the QCD pole contribution.}

417: \label{figmx}

418: \end{figure}

419: 

420: In Fig.~\ref{figmx}, we show the $T_{cc}$ meson mass obtained from

421: Eq.~(\ref{m2}), in the relevant sum rules window, with the upper and

422: lower validity limits indicated.  From Fig.~\ref{figmx} we see that

423: the results are reasonably stable as a function of $M^2$.

424: In our numerical analysis, we shall then consider the range of $M^2$ values

425: from 2.5 $\GeV^2$ until the one allowed by the sum rule window criteria as

426: can be deduced from Fig.~\ref{figmx} for each value of $s_0$.

427: 

428: We found that our results are not very sensitive to the value of the

429: charm quark mass, neither to the value of the condensates. The most

430: important source of uncertainty is the value

431: of the continuum threshod and the Borel interval. Using the QCD parameters

432: given above, the QCDSR predictions for the $T_{cc}$ mesons mass is:

433: %

434: \beq

435: M_{T_{cc}} = (4.0\pm0.2)~\GeV,

436: \enq

437: in a very good agreement with the predictions in refs.~\cite{ros} and

438: \cite{zhu}.

439: 

440: 

441: 

442: One can also evaluate the decay constant, defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq: decay}),

443: to leading order in $\alpha_s$:

444: \beq\label{fx}

445: f_{T_{cc}}=(5.95\pm 0.65)\times 10^{-5}~{\rm  GeV}~,

446: \enq

447: which can be more affected by  radiative corrections than $M_{T_{cc}}$.

448: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

449: %\boldmath \section{Sum rule predictions for $T_{bb}$}

450: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

451: 

452: In the case of the double-beauty meson $T_{bb}$,

453: using consistently the perturbative $\overline{MS}$-mass $m_b(m_b)=(4.24

454: \pm0.6)~\GeV$,

455: and the continuum threshold in the range $11.3\leq\sqrt{s_0}\leq11.7~\GeV$,

456: we find a good OPE convergence for $M^2>7.5~\GeV^2$.

457: We also find that the pole contribution is bigger than the continuum

458: contribution for $M^2<9.6~\GeV^2$ for $\sqrt{s_0}<11.3~\GeV$, and

459: for $M^2<11.2~\GeV^2$ for $\sqrt{s_0}<11.7~\GeV$.

460: 

461: \begin{figure}[h]

462: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=mtbb.eps,height=70mm}}

463: \caption{The $T_{bb}$ meson mass as a function of the sum rule parameter

464: ($M^2$) for different values of the continuum threshold:

465: $\sqrt{s_0}=11.3$ GeV (dashed line), $\sqrt{s_0}=11.7$ GeV (solid

466: line).  The bars delimit the region allowed for the  sum rules.}

467: \label{figmxb}

468: \end{figure}

469: 

470: In Fig.~\ref{figmxb} we show the $T_{bb}$ meson mass obtained from

471: Eq.~(\ref{m2}), in the relevant sum rules window, with the upper and

472: lower validity limits indicated.

473: From Fig.~\ref{figmxb} we see that the results are very stable as a

474: function of $M^2$ in the allowed region. Taking into account the

475: variation of $M^2$ and varying $s_0$ and $m_b$ in the regions indicated

476: above, we arrive at the prediction:

477: %

478: \beq

479: \lb{massXb}

480: M_{T_{bb}}=  (10.2\pm0.3)~\GeV~,

481: \enq

482: %

483: also in a very good agreement with the results in refs.~\cite{ros},

484: \cite{zhu} and \cite{brst}.

485: For completeness, we predict the corresponding value of the decay

486: constant to leading order in $\alpha_s$:

487: \beq\label{fxb}

488: f_{T_{bb}}= (10.4\pm 2.8)\times 10^{-6} ~{\rm GeV}~.

489: \enq

490: 

491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%\section{Conclusions}

492: 

493: We have presented a QCDSR analysis of the two-point

494: functions of the double heavy-quark axial meson, $T_{QQ}$, considered as a

495: four quark state.  We find that the sum rules results for the masses of

496: $T_{cc}$ and $T_{bb}$ are compatible with the results in refs.~\cite{ros}

497: and \cite{zhu}. An improvement of this result needs an accurate

498: determination of running masses $m_c$ and $m_b$ of the

499: ${\overline{MS}}$-scheme and the inclusion of radiative corrections.

500: 

501: Our results show that while the $T_{cc}$ mass is bigger than the

502: $D^*D$ threshold at about 3.875 GeV, the $T_{bb}$ mass is

503: appreciably below the $\bar{B}^*\bar{B}$ threshold at about

504: $10.6\;$GeV. Therefore, our results indicate that the  $T_{bb}$

505: meson should be stable with respect to strong interactions and

506: must decay weakly.  Our result also confirms the naive expectation

507: that the exotic states with heavy quarks tend to be more stable

508: than the corresponding light states\cite{Lee05}.

509: 

510: 

511: We present in Eqs. (\ref{fx}), and (\ref{fxb})

512: predictions for the decay constants  of the $T_{cc}$ and $T_{bb}$.

513: 

514: Different choices of the four-quark operators have been systematically

515: presented for the $0^{++}$ light mesons in  \cite{chinois}. Though some

516: combinations can provide a faster convergence of the OPE, we do not

517: expect that the choice of the operators

518: will affect much our results, where, in our analysis, the OPE has a good

519: convergence.

520: 

521: \section*{Acknowledgements}

522: {This work has been partly supported by FAPESP and CNPq-Brazil,

523: and by the Korea Research Foundation KRF-2006-C00011.}

524: 

525: %\vfill \eject

526: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

527: \begin{references}

528: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

529: %\begin{thebibliography}{999}

530: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

531: 

532: \bibitem{jaf} R.F. Jaffe,  Phys. Rev. {\bf D15}, 267 (1977).

533: 

534: \bibitem{ros} D. Janc and M. Rosina, Few Body Sust. {\bf35}, 175 (2004).

535: 

536: \bibitem{zsgr} S. Zouzou, B. Silvestre-Brac, C. Gignoux and J.M. Richard,

537: Z. Phys. {\bf C30}, 457 (1986).

538: 

539: \bibitem{chow} C.-K. Chow,  Phys. Rev. {\bf D51}, 3541 (1995).

540: 

541: \bibitem{zhu} Y. Cui, X.-L. Chen, W.-Z. Deng and S.-L. Zhu,  High Energy

542: Phys. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 31}, 7 (2007).

543: 

544: \bibitem{sem} B. Silvestre-Brac and C. Semay, Z. Phys. {\bf C57}, 273

545: (1993); C. Semay and B. Silvestre-Brac, Z. Phys. {\bf C61}, 271

546: (1994).

547: 

548: \bibitem{brst} D.M. Brink and Fl. Stancu,  Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}, 6778 (1998).

549: 

550: \bibitem{svz} M.A. Shifman, A.I. and Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov,

551: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B147}, 385 (1979).

552: 

553: \bibitem{rry} L.J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki, Phys. Rept.

554: {\bf 127}, 1 (1985).

555: 

556: \bibitem{SNB} For a review and references to original works, see

557: e.g., S.

558: Narison, {\it QCD as a theory of hadrons,

559: Cambridge Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol.} {\bf 17}, 1 (2002)

560: [hep-h/0205006]; {\it QCD

561: spectral sum rules ,  World Sci. Lect. Notes Phys.} {\bf 26}, 1 (1989);

562: { Acta Phys. Pol.} {\bf B26}, 687 (1995); { Riv. Nuov. Cim.} {\bf 10N2}, 1

563: (1987); { Phys. Rept.} {\bf 84}, 263 (1982).

564: 

565: \bibitem{LATORRE} J. Latorre and P. Pascual, J. Phys. {\bf G11}, L231

566: (1985).

567: 

568: \bibitem{SN4} S. Narison, Phys. Lett. {\bf B175}, 88 (1986).

569: 

570: \bibitem{sca} T.V. Brito {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B608}, 69 (2005).

571: 

572: \bibitem{koch} H-J. Lee and N.I. Kochelev, Phys. Lett. {\bf B642}, 358

573: (2006); Z.-G. Wang, W.-M. Yang, S.-L. Wan, J .Phys. {\bf G31},

574: 971 (2005).

575: 

576: \bibitem{zhang} A. Zhang, Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 114021 (2000); A. Zhang, 

577: T. Huang and T. Steele, hep-ph/0612146.

578: 

579: \bibitem{pec} M.E. Bracco {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B624}, 217

580: (2005).

581: 

582: \bibitem{OTHERA} H. Kim and Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. {\bf D72}, 074012 (2005).

583: 

584: \bibitem{x3872} R.D. Matheus, S. Narison, M. Nielsen and J.-M. Richard,

585:  Phys. Rev. {\bf D75}, 014005 (2007).

586: 

587: \bibitem{SNHEAVY} S. Narison , Phys. Rev. {\bf D73}, 114024 (2006);

588: S. Narison,  Phys. Lett. {\bf B605}, 319 (2005);  S. Narison,  Phys. Lett.

589: {\bf B210}, 238 (1988).

590: 

591: \bibitem{OTHER}W.A. Bardeen {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D68}, 054024 (2003);

592: S. Godfrey, Phys. Lett. {\bf B568}, 254 (2003); M. Harada {\it et al.}, Phys.

593: Rev. {\bf D70}, 074002 (2004); Y.B. Dai {\it et al.} Phys. Rev. {\bf D68},

594:  114011 (2003).

595: 

596: \bibitem{chinois} H-X. Chen, A. Hosaka and S-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. {\bf D74},

597: 054001 (2006).

598: 

599: \bibitem{Jaffe03}

600:   R.~L.~Jaffe and F.~Wilczek,

601:   %``Diquarks and exotic spectroscopy,''

602:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 91}, 232003 (2003).

603: 

604: \bibitem{Shuryak03}

605:   E.~Shuryak and I.~Zahed,

606:   %``A schematic model for pentaquarks using diquarks,''

607:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 589}, 21 (2004).

608: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0310270].

609:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B589,21;%%

610: 

611: \bibitem{Schafer93}

612:   T.~Schafer, E.~V.~Shuryak and J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot,

613:   %``Baryonic correlators in the random instanton vacuum,''

614:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 412}, 143 (1994).

615:  % [arXiv:hep-ph/9306220].

616:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B412,143;%%

617: 

618: \bibitem{Morimatsu}

619:   Y.~Kanada-En'yo, O.~Morimatsu and T.~Nishikawa,

620:   %``Axial vector tetraquark with S = +2,''

621:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 71}, 094005 (2005).

622: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0502042].

623:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D71,094005;%%

624: 

625: 

626: \bibitem{io1} B.~L. Ioffe, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B188}, 317 (1981);

627:            {\bf B191}, 591(E) (1981).

628: 

629: \bibitem{shl} H. Kim, S.H. Lee and Y. Oh, Phys. Lett. {\bf B595}, 293 (2004).

630: 

631: 

632: \bibitem{BAGAN} Bagan et al., {Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B254}, 55 (1985); D.J.

633: Broadhurst and S. Generalis, {Phys. lett.} {\bf B139}, 85 (1984).

634: 

635: 

636: \bibitem{narpdg} S. Narison, Phys. Lett. {\bf B466}, 345 (1999);

637: S. Narison,  Phys. Lett. {\bf B361}, 121 (1995);

638: S. Narison, Phys. Lett. {\bf B387}, 162 (1996). S. Narison,  Phys.  Lett.

639: {\bf B624}, 223 (2005).

640: 

641: \bibitem{oganes} A.G. Oganesian, hep-ph/0510327.

642: 

643: \bibitem{Lee05}

644:   S.~H.~Lee, Y.~Kwon and Y.~Kwon,

645:   %``Anti-charmed pentaquark from B decays,''

646:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 96}, 102001 (2006).

647: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0512074].

648:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,96,102001;%%

649: 

650: 

651: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

652: %\end{thebibliography}{999}

653: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

654: \end{references}

655: 

656: \end{document}

657: