1 / 18

Double Charmonium Production at Electron-Positron Colliders

Double Charmonium Production at Electron-Positron Colliders. J.P. Ma ITP, CAS, Beijing. Talk given at the third meeting of Quarkonium Working Group IHEP, Beijing, 12-15. Oct. 2004. Contents: Current Status Another Approach 3. Outlook. Current Status

arella
Download Presentation

Double Charmonium Production at Electron-Positron Colliders

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Double Charmonium Productionat Electron-Positron Colliders J.P. Ma ITP, CAS, Beijing Talk given at the third meeting of Quarkonium Working Group IHEP, Beijing, 12-15. Oct. 2004

  2. Contents: • Current Status • Another Approach 3. Outlook

  3. Current Status The main topic is: e+ + e- ——> Charmonium + Charmonium At the lowest order: 2 pairs of charm and anti-charm forming the two charmonia with possible quantum numbers. Always: s =(10.6GeV)2 Belle and Barbar

  4. For production of two back-to-back quark pairs: perturbative QCD can be used for two cases: §1: Quarks are heavy………… §2: Quarks are light, but each pair has a small invariant mass. C-quark case: Formation of pairs into charmonia ?? Non-trivial Usual way: Taking charmonia as a nonrelativsitic bound state of c and anti-c, using a wave-function………… Predictions take a factorized form. called nonrelativistic approach(???)

  5. Predictions from the nonrelativistic approach: Ref: K.-Y. Liu, Z.-G. He and K.-T Chao, Phys. Lett. B557 (2003) 45, hep-ph/0211181. E. Braaten and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 054007, hep-ph/0211085. K. Hagiwara, E. Kou and C.-F.Qiao, Phys. Lett. B570 (2003), hep-ph/0305102. Prediction for the process: 2~5 fb !!!! Othe processes can also be predicted: …………………………………

  6. Beyond the leading order of QED, one can have: Bodwin, Lee and Braaten: Phys.Rev.Lett.90:162001,2003 Phys.Rev.D67:054023,2003 The references listed in this talk is not “exclusive” for those exclusive processes ……………………

  7. Experimental Result: Belle Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 142001 8~10 times larger than the predicted !!!! Possible explanations: Instead of c Scalar glueball? Brodsky, Goldhaber and Lee ,Phys.Rev.Lett.91:112001,2003 A new light scalar boson? Cheung and Keung, Phys.Rev.D69:094026,2004

  8. The newest Belle results: (hep-ex/0407009) ≤ at CL 90% and :

  9. Some drawbacks of the nonrelativistic approach: §1: Factorization ? Two charmonia in the final state. One can not have a frame in which they are in rest. No way to do NRQCD power counting. §2: Large log: Since c-quarks are massive, perturbative part will contain large logs like ln(s/mc2 ). §3: Large relativist corrections??

  10. 2. Another approach If S >> mc2 , one can take the charm quark as a light quark and neglect its mass. The same diagram: The formation of charmonia is parameterized with light-cone wave-functions(LCWF). They are well defined in QCD and classified according to twist of operators.

  11. Advantage: §1. Factorization can be shown, e.g., at leading twist….. §2. No large logs in perturbative coefficients, since we have mass less quarks. They are large logs in LCWF, but they can be resummed by using evolution equations of Efremov-Radyushkin-Brodsky-Lepage §3. Corrections can be systematically added. The approach is standard and called as perturbative QCD approach proposed 20 years ago. Ref: Brodsky & Lepage, Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 2157, Phys, Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 545.

  12. The process: is determined by the form factor: With a generalized power-counting rule [ X.D. Ji, J.P. Ma and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 241601 ] One gets:

  13. Detailed calculation gives: H1,2,3: Perturbative coefficients. , LCWF of LCWF of : A soft scale, like mc, ……….

  14. Two drawbacks: §1: There are end-point singularities. This may be killed by using complicated kT factorization. A usual way is to introduce a cut-off: The cut-off is chosen as:

  15. §2: LCWF’s are unknown at the interested energy scale. For the energy scale being infinity, the form of LCWF’s are known as: With these LCWF’s

  16. It is interesting to note that LCWF’s of charmonia can take a factorized form in the framework of NRQCD factorization (Work in progress by Ma and Si). At leading orders they all take the form: The corresponding cross-section is: These two cases are extreme, one is for infinite large energy scale, another is for the energy scale at mc with possible large corrections. They are not realistic!

  17. LCWF’s of light hadrons are well studied, e.g., those of pion and rho. Taking those for etac and J/psi correspondingly, but with a modfication for the mass effect, a parameter a is introduced. The results are: a=1 a=1.5 a=1.75 Details can be found : J.P. Ma and Z.G. Si, hep-ph/0405111

  18. 3. Outlook §1: There is a large discrepancy between Belle experiment and theoretical predictions based on the nonrelativistic approach for It would be good if the discrepancy is or is not confirmed by other experiment like Barbar. §2: The perturbative QCD approach is a consistent approach for the process and may explain the discrepancy, but a more detailed study is needed.

More Related