* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

# Download Mesconic Light – Cone Wavefunctions for a

Survey

Document related concepts

Wave packet wikipedia , lookup

Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model wikipedia , lookup

Standard Model wikipedia , lookup

Renormalization group wikipedia , lookup

Photon polarization wikipedia , lookup

Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup

Technicolor (physics) wikipedia , lookup

Elementary particle wikipedia , lookup

Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup

Light-front quantization applications wikipedia , lookup

Transcript

Mesonic Light – Cone Wavefunctions for Covariant Harmonic Confinment. M. Dillig * **, F. Pilotto * and C.A.Z. Vasconcellos * * Instituto di Fisica, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Porto Alegre, Brazil ** Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Erlangen – Nuernberg Erlangen, Germany PACS: Keywords: Abstract Starting from a covariant quasipotential equation in the instant form we derive for qQ mesons analytic wavefunctions in the front form (on the light cone) for a covariant harmonic confinement. Compared are constraints of the four dimensional Bethe-Salpeter for quarks with equal masses and in the limit of a very heavy and a very light (anti) quark. For the invariant distribution amplitude and the corresponding momelnta we compare our findings with current parametrizations in the literature. Email: [email protected] Email: Email: Supported in part by the Kernforschungszentrum KFZ, Jülich, Germany It is well understood that even for consituent quark models an appropriate formulation of the dynamics of bound systems (mesons and baryons) with u, d or s quarks requires a covariant, relativisic formulation. One approach, which garantees a covariant description of bound systems for covariant kernels is the manifestly covariant four – dimensional Bethe – Salpeter equation (BSE) (1,2). Though in principle this approach is rigorous – in a diagrammatic expansion the exact kernel is an infinite sum of well defined irreducible diagrams – presently a quantiative application to even two – body quark – antiquark systems is too abitious: on the one side, the BS kernel cannot be rigorously derived from Quantumchromodynamics (QCD), on the other side the technical solution of the BSE is even for simple kernel extremely complex. With further serious problems for truncated kernels for tlhe BSE (such as states of negative norm, the interpretation of unequal particle times or the appropriate one – body limit (3)), for phenomenological applications the BSE is commonly reduced to still covariant threedimensional Quasipotential Equations (QPE). However, such a reduction is not unique (4): it has to be motivated by pysical intuition on the (off-shell) propagation of the interacting particles (5). Solutions for the BSE or the QPEs have been generally obtained in the instant form (i. e. in equal time coordinates). More recently – initiated by the pionieering work of Dirac (6) it has been realized that the description of relativistic bound states in the front form (equivalently on the light cone (LC) (for recent reviews compare refs 7) or in the infinite momentum frame (8)) has various advantages compared to the standard description such as the natural transition to the LC in deep inelastic scattering, the reduction of dynamical generators of the Poincare group and the kinematical nature of Lorentz boosts, or the decoupling of particle – antiparticle mixing, resulting in a trivial LC vacuum. As as consequence for bound systems it allows a systematic expansion in the components of the Fock space (7,9). Motivated by numerous studies of mesonic qQ systems in the recent literature, we investigate in this note the structure of mesons on the LC in the framework of QP equations. As we are looking for analytical solutions for the corresponding LC wavefunctions, we incorporate the genuine feature of QCD by a covariant scalar harmonic confinment (attempts in the instant form in this direction have been followed for example by Mitra and coworkers (10)). In view of recent activities at charm ( C ) and beauty (B) factories (11) we focus on momentum distriubtions both for light qq mesons (with u and d quarks) and light – heavy qQ mesons (with an s, c or b antiquark). Our starting point for a quark q(mass m and momentum p ) and and antiquark Q (mass m and momentum p ) is the BSE (1) with the two-particle propagator (2) We eliminate the dependence of eq. (1) on the relative enrgy variable and convert the BSE into a QPE by resricting the propagation of the qQ system on the mass shell (12), i. e. (3) with the free parameter 0 1 and the total and relative moment p, P of the qQ system, respectively (above in eq. (3) we keep only the positive energy pole + in the function). The covariant nature of the BSE allows an immediate transition to LC variables (7,8) (4) The resulting equations is in it s full structure a coupled system of 16 differential equations due to the spin ½ nature of the interacting fermions. As we are focussing mainly on the x – dependence of the LC wave function we reduce this complex system to a single radial equation, by an appropriate simplification of the spin structure of the system (5) where in an helicity representation R( ) is determined in the Mock representation (assuming no interaction in the spin sector (13) or a free Melosh rotation from the qQ rest system to the IMF (14). The resulting radial QPE for (x,p ,M ) on the LC is then obtained with the appropriate LC projection for the two – particle Greens function (15) (6) which leads to (7) with M being the invariant squared qQ mass and m = m + p (we absorb all irrelevant factors from the projection of the Greens function in the kernel K). For a given interaction kernel the solution of the equations above directly results in the light cone distribution of qQ system. As so far a detailed derivation of the LC amplitude from QCD is till lacking (only results in the large Q limit or estimates from QCD sum rules exist (16,17), the main two goals of this short note are very modest: on the one side we would like to use a kernel which can be derived explicitly from the corresponding covariant representation in the instant form and we aim for an analytical solution for the momentum distribution. A QCD inspired kernel, which includes confinment as the unique property of QCD, is a covariant harmonic confinment kernel (8a) ,equivalently in momentum space (8b) (the strength parameter g is related to the running quark-gluon coupling constant; ist value is fixed from lthe spectrum of B – mesons). Following the same steps for the reduction to the QPE we obtain explicitly (9) where the projection on the relative energy variable fixes p from eq.(6). In the following we focus on the two most interesting cases for the parameter : - light mesons with u,d quarks m = m limit (18)) = m with = ½ (Blankenbecler – Sugar BBS (10a) - mesons with a light u,d and a heavy quark m > m with = 0 (Gross limit (19); this limit bears some relations to the heavy quark effective theory (20)) (10b) We should mention, that for light mesons with = ½ , but m = m , p is only shifted by the difference of the squared masses and does not effect the radial solution; only the spin dependence, which we do not consider here, is modified. The next steps are now well defined. The radial equations for the two cases above are: - BBS limit (eq. (10a)) (11a) - Gross limit (eq. (10b)) (11b) The solutions for these equations are found in textbooks (21). Explicitly they are given as BBS (12a) Gross (12b) Where the functions F(a,b,z) denotes confluent hypergeometrical functions, while H (p ) represent standard Hermite polynomials (22). The eigenvalues for the invariant mass M , i. e. the mesonic spectrum, is then definied by the eigenvalue conditions F(a,b x=0) = Fa,b, x=1) =0 (13) which yields the eigenvalues BBS: (14a) Gross: (14b) Together with normalization 1= ½ completely. dx dp (x,p ) this fixes the LC wave function We compare our derivation with current parametrizations in the literature. Various simple analytical forms can be found (23). In order to compare the influence of unequal quark masses we compare with three current momentum distributions: - the Lepage – Brodsky parametrization (24) (15) - the BSW model (25) and (16) - the parametrization as a simple power law (26) (17) (we extended the parametrization to unequal quark masses). The different parametrizations we compare with two important quantities: the invariant longitudinal distribution amplitude (IDA) (7, 27) (18a) and the corresponding momenta (28) (18b) The characteristic results with parameters from the literature are compared in Fig. 1 and Table 1. In Fig. 1 (a) we compare the IDA for two quarks with equal mass for the BBS projection; Fig. 1(b) shows the same quantitiy for the D(uc) meson; finally, fig. 1(c) shows the shift of the maximum of the momentum distribution from the rho, K*, D up to the B meson in the Gross projection. As a general trend in (a), (b) we find, that the various parametrizations differ mainly around the endpoints x -- 0 and x --- 1 and in the width of the distribution around the maximum x = m /m . Comparison (c) confirms a systematic shift of the dominant momentum components towards x = 1 for qQ mesons with increasing heavy quark mass (a similar, however, less pronounced trend is found for the BBS projection for unequal masses). Similar quantiative differences show up for the various momenta of the different parametrizations (Table 1): here the differences are most pronounced for B mesons, as the momenta depend with increasing power depend sensitively on the maximum of the momentum distribution (here significant differences are found for the different projections: BBS versus Gross projection). We summarize. In this note we invstigated the momentum distribution of mesons with unequal quark masses on the light cone. Without considering spin effects in detail, the radial dependence was derived in a covariant fashion starting from the BSE and projecting it in a covariant and physically motivated way onto the light cone. Rigorous analytical solutions were derived and compared for a covariant confining kernel for two constraints for the relative energy variable of the qQ system. We find, that our results reproduce qualitatively the trends of purely phenomenological parametrizations of LC distribution amplitudes. In detail, however, particularly in the endpoint behaviour both in the longitudinal and in the transversal components we find serious quantiative difference due to the implementation of our boundary conditions. Our simple model shows various advantages. First of all it starts from a covariant interaction kernel, which can be easily extended to more realistic cases (such as to parametrize the influence of the one-gluon exchange). Furthermore, the transition from the BSE to QPE allows a direct transition from the instant form to the front form for systems with two very heavy quarks (i. e. in the nonrelativistic limit). Of course, the rather selective results presented yield only little insight in the details of the model. Presently we are extending our approach (including additional elements of the qQ interaction) and test it on other quantities, such as decay constants and form factors (29). Fig. 1: Comparison of the invariant distribution amplitude the parametrizations from eqs. (1517) with the BBS-limit (a; eq(10a)) and Gross-limit (b; eq.(10b)) and for different mesons in the Gross-limit (c). Table 1: Momenta n=0 to n=3 for the parametrizations (15-17) and the Gross-limit for the B meson. References: 1. Salpeter – Bethe Gell-Mann - Low 2. Nakanishi – Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. (1969) 1 Sato - Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. (1988) 3. F. Gross J.Hermann – Diploma Thesis, Univ. Erlangen (1991) 4. R. Yaes – Phys. Rev. D 3 (1971) 3087 Brown - Jackson Bribitier 5. A. Logunov and a. Tavkelidze – Nuovo Cim. 29 (1963) 380 R. Thompson – Phys. Rev. D 1 (1970) 110 H. Cohen – Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970) 1738 K. Erkelenz and K. Holinde – Nucl. Phys. A 194 (1972) 161 V. G. Kadychevsky – Nucl. Phys. B 6 (1968) 125 6. P. A. Dirac 7. M. Burkardt S. J. Brodsky – Phys. Rep S. J. Brodsky - Festschrift 8. S. Weinberg Nayslowsky 9. Fock space decomp.: Neuestes brodsky paper 10. Mitra HO 11. B factories 12. F. Gross – Phys. Rev. 186 (1968) 1448 13. W. Isgur – Acta Phys. Pol. B 8 (1977) 1081 C. Hayne and N. Isgur – Phys. Rev. D 25 (1982) 1944 14. M. V. Terent’ev – Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 24 (1976) 106 H. J. Melosh – Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) 1095 D. V. Ahluwalia and M. Sawicki – Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 5161# 15. Pilotto – thesis Paper acta phys. Polon 16. Q squared to infinty 17. V. L. Chernyak and A. R. Zhitnitsky – Phys. Rep. 112 (1984) 173 18. R. Bklankenbecler and R. Sugar – Phys. Rev. 142 (1966) 1051 19. F. Gross 20. N. Isgur and M. B. Wise – Phys. Lett. B 232 (1989) 113 E. Eichten and F. L. Feinberg – Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 1205 B. Grinstein – Annu. Rev. Nucl. Phys. 42 (1992) 101 N. Uraltsev – hep-ph/0012336; UND-HEP-00-BIG13 21. E. Kamke – Differentialgleichungen I (Akad. Verlagsgesellschaft Becher &Eiler KG, Leipzig 1943) 22. M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun – Handbook of Mathematical Functions (Dover Publ., New York 1965) 23. B. Q. Ma – Z. Phys. A 345 (1993) 321 O.C. Jacob and L. s. Kisslinger – Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986)225 Z. Dziembowski and L. Mankiewicz – Phys. Rev. Lett. 58 (1987) 2175 C.R. Ji, P. L. Chung and S. R. Cotanch – Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 4214 H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji – Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 074015 L. S. Kisslinger, H. M. Choi and c. R. Ji – hep-ph/0101053 24. S. J. Brodsky and F. Schlumpf – Phys. Lett. B 329 (1994) 111 F. Schlumpf and S. J. Brodsky – Phys. Lett. B 360 (1995) 1 25. M. Bauer, B. Stech and M. Wirbel – Z. Phys. C 34 (1987) 103 M. Wirbel, B. Stech and M. Bauer – Z. Phys. C 29 (1985) 637 26. power law 27. G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky – Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2157 G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky - Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 545 28. Momenta V. Guo and T. Huang – Phys. Rev. D 41 (1991) 1931 29. M. Dillig, F. G. Pilotto and C. A. Z. Vasconcellos – preprint UFRGS and University Erlangen (2001) (to be published) N.N. Singh and A. N. Mitra – Phys. Rev. D 38 (1988) 1454 B. Q. Ma – Z. Phys. A 345 (1993) 321 O.C. Jacob and L. s. Kisslinger – Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986)225 N. N. Singh, Y. K. Mathur and A. N. Mitra – Few Body Syst. 1 (1986)147 C.R. Ji, P. L. Chung and S. R. Cotanch – Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 4214 A.S. Baydasaryan, s.V. Esalbegyan and H.L. Ter-Isankyan – Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. W. Jaus – Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 3394 M. Bauer, B. Stech and M. Wirbel – Z. Phys. C 34 (1987) 103 M. Wirbel, B. Stech and M. Bauer – Z. Phys. C 29 (1985) 637 S. J. Brodsky – hep-ph/0002014 (SLAC-PUB-8361(2000)) M. Burkardt – Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) R2751 W. M. Zhang – hep-ph/9510428 J. P. O. Donnell and Q. P. Xu – Phys. Lett B 325 (1994) 101 Z. Dziembowski and L. Mankiewicz – Phys. Rev. Lett. 58 (1987) 2175 H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji – Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 074015 L. S. Kisslinger, H. M. Choi and c. R. Ji – hep-ph/0101053 H. Leutwyler and J. Stern – ann. Phys. 112 (1978) 94 P. Droz Vincent – Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979) 702 H. Sazdjian – Phys. Rev. D 33 (1986) 3401 S. J. Brodsky and F. Schlumpf – Phys. Lett. B 329 (1994) 111 F. Schlumpf and S. J. Brodsky – Phys. Lett. B 360 (1995) 1 S. S. Agaev – Phys. Lett B 360 (1995) 117 I.G. Aznauryan and K. A. Oganessyan – Phys. Lett. B 249 (1990) 309 P. L Chung, F. Coester and W. W. Polyzou – Phys. Lett. B 205 (11988) 545 F. Schlumpf – Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 4114 X. Guo and T. Huang – Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 2931 C. R. Ji and S. R. Cotanach – Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990)2319 S. J. Brodsky – SLAC-PUB-8649 (2000) (Contrib. B. Ioffe Festschrift: At the Frontier of Particle Physics: A Handbook for QCD (Ed. M. Shifmann) Melosh L. A. Kondratyuk and M. V. Terent’ev – Sov. J. Nucl. Phys 31 (1985) 561 M. V. Terent’ev – Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 24 (1976) 106 H. J. Melosh – Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) 1095 D. V. Ahluwalia and D. J. Ernst – Phys. Lett. B 287 (1992)28 D. V. Ahluwalia and M. Sawicki – Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 5161 Mock W. Isgur – Acta Phys. Pol. B 8 (1977) 1081 C. Hayne and N. Isgur – Phys. Rev. D 25 (1982) 1944 Quasipot. Equations: Choices R. Bklankenbecler and R. Sugar – Phys. Rev. 142 (1966) 1051 A. Logunov and a. Tavkelidze – Nuovo Cim. 29 (1963) 380 R. Thompson – Phys. Rev. D 1 (1970= 110 H. Cohen – Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970) 1738 K. Erkellenz and K. Holinde – Nucl. Phys. A 194 (1972) 161 V. G. Kadychevsky – Nucl. Phys. B 6 (1968) 125 R. Yaes – Phys. Rev. D 3 (1971) 3087 F. Gross – Phys. Rev. 186 (1968) 1448 V. Pasculatsa and J. A. Tjon – Phys. Rev. C 60 (1998) 034005; nucl-th/9907053 „ - Phys. Lett. B 435 (1998)245; nucl-th/9711005 Distribution Ampl. G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky – Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2157 „ - Phys. Lett. B 87 (1979) 359 „ - Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 545 Decay W. Jaus – Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 2851 Momenta V. Guo and T. Huang – Phys. Rev. D 41 (1991) 1931 Latest Brodsky articles HQET N. Isgur and M. B. Wise – Phys. Lett. B 232 (1989) 113 „ 237 (1990) 527 E. Eichten and F. L. Feinberg – Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 1205 „ - Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 2724 B. Grinstein – Annu. Rev. Nucl. Phys. 42 (1992) 101 N. Uraltsev – hep-ph/0012336; UND-HEP-00-BIG13 M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun – Handbook of Mathematical Functions (Dover Publ., New York 1965) E. Kamke – Differentialgleichungen I (Akad. Verlagsgesellschaft Becher &Eiler KG, Leipzig 1943) Improved gluon propagator, interaction: O. Kiriyama, M. Maruyama and f. Takagi – Current quark mass effects on chiral phase transition of QCD in the improved ladder approximation – arXiv:hep-ph/0101110