arxiv: v3 [hep-ph] 21 Sep 2012

Transcription

1 UCT-TP-90/01 MZ-TH/1-3 September 01 arxiv: v3 [hep-ph] 1 Sep 01 Corrections to e SU(3) SU(3) Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation and chiral couplings L r 8 and H r J. Bordes (a), C. A. Dominguez (b), P. Moodley (b), J. Peñarrocha (a), and K. Schilcher (b),(c) (a) Departamento de Física Teórica, Universitat de Valencia, and Instituto de Física Corpuscular, Centro Mixto Universitat de Valencia-CSIC (b) Centre for Theoretical & Maematical Physics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700, Sou Africa (c) Institut für Physik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Staudingerweg 7, D Mainz, Germany Abstract Next to leading order corrections to e SU(3) SU(3) Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation (GMOR) are obtained using weighted QCD Finite Energy Sum Rules (FESR) involving e pseudoscalar current correlator. Two types of integration kernels in e FESR are used to suppress e contribution of e kaon radial excitations to e hadronic spectral function, one wi local and e oer wi global constraints. The result for e pseudoscalar current correlator at zero momentum is ψ 5 (0) = (.8±0.3) 10 3 GeV 4, leading to e chiral corrections to GMOR: δ K = (55 ± 5)%. The resulting uncertainties are mostly due to variations in e upper limit of integration in e FESR, wiin e stability regions, and to a much lesser extent due to e uncertainties in e strong coupling and e strange quark mass. Higher order quark mass corrections, vacuum condensates, and e hadronic resonance sector play a negligible role in is determination. These results confirm an independent determination from chiral perturbation eory giving also very large corrections, i.e. roughly an order of magnitude larger an e corresponding corrections in chiral SU() SU(). Combining ese results wi our previous determination of e corrections to GMOR in chiral SU() SU(), δ π, we are able to determine two low energy constants of chiral perturbation eory, i.e. L r 8 = (1.0 ± 0.3) 10 3, and H r = (4.7 ± 0.6) 10 3, bo at e scale of e ρ-meson mass. Supported in part by MEC and FEDER (EC) under grant FPA and GV under grant PROMETEO and BEST1, by NRF (Sou Africa), and by e Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Germany).

2 1 Introduction The light quark condensate, an order parameter of chiral-symmetry breaking, is known to play an important role in QCD as well as in chiral perturbation eory (CHPT) [1]. In particular, e ratio of e strange to e up/down quark condensate, R sq = ss / qq, is a key QCD quantity measuring flavour SU(3) symmetry breaking in e vacuum []-[4], and entering in many QCD sum rule applications (for a review see [5]). This ratio is also related to two CHPT low energy constants, which in turn determine e next-to-leading order corrections to e Gell- Mann-Oakes-Renner (GMOR) relation [1],[6] ψ 5 (0) j i (m i +m j ) 0 q i q i +q j q j 0 = f P M P (1 δ P ), (1) where i,j stand for (light) quark flavours, f P and M P are respectively e decay constant and e mass of e pion or kaon, wi f K /f π = ±0.006, f π = 9.1 ±0.14 MeV [7]-[8], and δ P is e chiral correction. The relation between R sq and e CHPT low energy constants L r 8 and H r is [9]-[10] R sq < ss > < qq > = 1+3µ π µ K µ η + 8 fπ (MK M π )(Lr 8 +Hr ), () where< qq >iseaverage of eup-anddownquarkcondensates, L r 8 isa(physical) low-energy constant in e chiral Lagrangian to next-to-leading order, and µ P = M P 3π fπ ln M P νχ, (3) wi ν χ e chiral renormalization scale. The constant L r 8 at a scale of e rho-meson mass has been estimated in chiral perturbation eory to next-to-leading order wi e result [11] L r 8(ν χ = M ρ ) = (0.88±0.4) 10 3, (4) while a determination at order O(p 6 ) gives [1] L r 8 (ν χ = M ρ ) = (0.6 ± 0.0) The unphysical low energy constant H r has been estimated in [11] as H r (ν χ = M ρ ) = (3.4±1.5) (5) These CHPT low energy constants are related to e next-to-leading order chiral corrections to GMOR as follows δ π = 4 M π fπ (L r 8 H) r and δ K = M K Mπ δ π. (6) Using e results Eqs.(4)-(5) in Eq.(6) e following estimate was obtained in [11] δ π = (4.7±1.7)% and δ K = (61±)%. (7) It is also possible to determine ese corrections to GMOR entirely from QCD sum rules involving e correlator of e axial-vector current divergences at zero momentum. The feasibility of such an approach has been established long ago 1 in a series of papers [13]-[18]. Recently, such an 1 In is respect ere is a technical issue regarding logarimic quark mass singularities which will be addressed in e next section. 1

3 independent determination of δ π from weighted QCD Finite Energy Sum Rules (FESR), and in good agreement wi e value above, has been obtained in [19] wi e result δ π = (6.0±1.0)%. (8) Regarding δ K, e CHPT result in Eq.(6) already indicates at e chiral SU(3) SU(3) corrections to GMOR are expected to be huge; in fact, much larger an typical chiral corrections such as e 10 15% deviation from e SU(3) SU(3) Goldberger-Treiman relation [0]. Hence, it is important to confirm such a huge correction by determining it independently of e CHPT result in Eq.(6). In is paper we perform such a determination using modern weighted QCD FESR [4], [19], [1]-[] designed to reduce considerably e systematic uncertainties arising from a lack of direct experimental information on e pseudoscalar hadronic spectral function. In addition, by combining e result for δ K wi our previous determination of δ π, Eq.(8), we are able to determine L r 8 and Hr independently, and entirely from QCD sum rules. Finite energy QCD sum rules The pseudoscalar current correlator ψ 5 (q ) j i, for quark flavours i = u and j = s, is defined as ψ 5 (q ) s u = i d 4 xe iqx < 0 T(j 5 (x)j 5 (0)) 0 >, (9) where < 0 is e physical vacuum and e pseudoscalar current density j 5 (x) is j 5 (x) = (m s +m u ) : s(x)iγ 5 u(x) :, (10) and m u,s are e light quark masses. At zero momentum, and using a Ward identity one obtains e GMOR relation [1], [13]-[14] ψ 5 (0) s u [ m s (µ )+m u (µ ) ] 0 ss+uu 0 (µ ) = f K M K (1 δ K), (11) where µ is a renormalization scale. Using Wick s eorem in e time ordered product in Eq.(9) would lead to normal-ordered operators in e low energy eorem, Eq.(11), and ψ 5 (0) would be a renormalization group invariant quantity. In principle, however, is is spoiled by e presence of mass-singular quartic terms in perturbative QCD(PQCD), as well as tadpole contributions, which would cancel out if e quark condensate becomes minimally subtracted instead of normalordered [14]-[18] (for a recent reassessment see [4]). In practice, ough, one can safely neglect quartic mass corrections in e case of e up- and down-quark correlator, and consider normalordered quark condensates so at ere is no residual µ-dependence in ψ 5 (0) d u. In e case of ψ 5 (0) s u, ough, it would appear a priori at quartic strange-quark mass corrections could be sizable. However, a posteriori, and given e resulting uncertainties in e value of δ K it turns out at one can also disregard is issue which en becomes purely academic. The FESR are obtained by invoking Cauchy s eorem in e complex squared-energy plane. The pseudoscalar current correlator at zero momentum is en given by ψ 5 (0) 5 (0) = 1 π s0 5 (s) s s Imψ 5 (s) ds + 1 πi C( s 0 ) 5 (s) s ψ 5 (s)ds, (1)

4 where in e sequel we drop e quark-flavour indexes, s = MK is e hadronic reshold, e integration pa C( s 0 ) is a circle of radius s 0, and 5 (s) is an arbitrary analytic integration kernel to be described shortly. The radius s 0 determines e onset of e hadronic continuum beyond e resonance region, which is assumed to be given by PQCD. Hence, e first integral in Eq.(1) involves e hadronic spectral function, and e second integral e QCD correlator. The latter is known up to five-loop order in PQCD [3]-[9]. Mass terms up to order m 6 s, and leading order vacuum condensates wi Wilson coefficients to two-loop order are also known[18]. A posteriori, ese contributions turn out to be negligible on account of e overall uncertainty in ψ 5 (0) (roughly at e 10% level), mostly due to variations inside e stability region in s 0, and to alesser extent dueto e uncertainty in evalue of estrong couplingand estrange quark mass. The hadronic spectral function involves e kaon pole followed by its radial excitations, i.e. 1 π Im ψ 5(s) = fk MK 4 δ(s MK) + 1 π Im ψ 5(s) RES, (13) where e first two resonances, K 1 K(1460), and K K(1830), have masses and wids known from experiment, i.e. M K1 = 1460 MeV, Γ K1 = 50 MeV, M K = 1830 MeV, Γ K = 50 MeV [7]. This experimental information, ough, is restricted to e values of e masses and e wids. Hence, a reconstruction of e resonance spectral function entirely from data is not feasible, leading to an unknown systematic uncertainty from model dependency. For instance, inelasticity and non-resonant background are realistically impossible to model. In an attempt to reduce is model dependency, it was first proposed long ago [30]-[33] to normalize pseudoscalar spectral functions at reshold using CHPT as a constraint. In e case of e kaonic channel, e CHPT constrained resonance spectral function, which includes e important resonant subchannel K (89) π, is given by [33] (ere is a misprint in [33] which is corrected below) 1 π Im ψ 5(s) Kππ = M4 K f π 3 8 π 4 I(s) s(m K s) θ(s M K ), (14) where I(s) = s M K { [ du u (u M K) (s u) (MK s) u (s+m K ) ] } 1 8u (u MK) 4 (s u)+ 3 4 (u M K) F K (u), (15) and F K (u) = [ M K MK ] +M K Γ K (MK u) +M K Γ. (16) K The pion mass has been neglected above, in line wi e approximation m u = 0 to be made in e QCD sector, and e resonant sub-channel ρ(770) K is numerically negligible. The complete hadronic spectral function is en 1 π Im ψ 5(s) HAD = fk M4 K δ(s M K )+ 1 π Im ψ [BW 1 (s)+λ BW (s)] 5(s) Kππ (1+λ) + 1 π Im ψ 5(s) PQCD θ(s s 0 ), (17) 3

5 where Im ψ 5 (s) QCD is e perturbative QCD spectral function modeling e continuum which starts at some reshold s 0, BW 1, (s) are Breit-Wigner forms for e two kaon radial excitations, normalized to unity at reshold, and λ controls e relative importance of e second radial excitation. The choice λ 1 results in a reasonable (smaller) weight of e K(1830) relative to e K(1460). While furer embellishments to is parameterization could still be made, ey would not hide its strong model dependency and its related unknown systematic uncertainty. This problem has recently been solved by a judicious choice of e integration kernel, 5 (s), in e FESR [4], [19], [1]-[]. In fact, choosing a second degree polynomial constrained to vanish at e peaks of e two radial excitations makes is contribution to e FESR completely negligible in comparison wi e uncertainties due to e value of α s, e strange quark mass, and variation of e results in e stability region in s 0. In e kaon channel e expression for 5 (s) is 5 (s) = 1 a 0 s a 1 s (18) wi 5 (M 1 ) = 5(M ) = 0, which fixes a 0 = GeV, and a 1 = GeV 4. Oer choices of kernels wi local constraints do not lead to any appreciable improvement in e quenching of e resonant contribution to e FESR. The optimal choice of integration kernel is most likely application dependent. For instance, pinched kernels in FESR for e vector and axial-vector correlators [34]-[36] improve considerably e agreement between data and e first two Weinberg sum rules. This circumstance, often referred to as duality violation, is a contentious issue as some model analyses claim its presence [37]-[38], and oer model independent analyses claim e opposite [39]. In e present case, a combination of Eq.(18) and pinched kernels does not work as well as Eq.(18) on its own []. However, it is possible to achieve some degree of pinching using oer type of kernels as described next. A different kernel wi a global, raer an local constraint, has been used recently in connection wi e corrections to GMOR in chiral SU(), and it involves Legendre type polynomials [19] as explained next. We consider e general polynomial P n (s) = n m=0 a m s m, (19) wi coefficients fixed by (i) imposing e normalization condition at reshold P n ( s = M K ) = 1, (0) and (ii) by[ requiring] at e polynomial P n (s) minimizes e contribution of e continuum in e range s (k+1),s 0 in a least square sense, i.e., s0 s (k+1) s m P n (s) ds = 0 for m = 0,...n 1. (1) The meaning of e reshold s (k+1) is as follows. The hadronic resonance spectral function can be split into e sum of a term involving e known kaon radial excitations, and a term involving unknown resonances, non-resonant background, etc., i.e. Imψ (k) 5 (s) = k i=0 Imψ (i) 5 (s)+θ(s s(k+1) ) Imψ (k+1) 5 (s), () 4

6 wheree upperindex k stands for e number of resonances explicitly included in e sum. The polynomials obtained in is way are closely related to e Legendre polynomials, so at Eq.(1) is exact on account of orogonality. Specifically, denoting by P n (x) e Legendre polynomials, eir relation to e P n (s) above is where e variable x(s) is P n (s) = P n(x(s)) P n ( x(m K ) ), (3) x(s) = s (s 0 +s k+1 ) s 0 s (k+1), (4) defined in e range x [ 1,1] for s [s (k+1),s 0 ]. The normalization of e P n (x) is such at P 1 (x) = x, P (x) = (5x 3 3x)/, etc. The use of ese polynomials leads to results for ψ 5 (0) in a region of large values of s 0 (s GeV ), where it is stable, and where PQCD is unquestionably valid. Since e Legendre polynomials exhibit zeros, is type of integration kernel provides some amount of pinching. For instance, e six-degree polynomial vanishes at s0.0gev,9.0gev, and oer four places at higher energies. Figure 1: Results for ψ 5 (0) in units of 10 3 GeV 4 as a function of s 0, for α s (M τ ) = 0.36 (Λ = 350 MeV), and using e local integration kernel, Eq.(18). 5

7 Figure : Results for ψ 5 (0) in units of 10 3 GeV 4 as a function of s 0, for α s (M τ) = 0.36 (Λ = 350 MeV). Curves (a), (b), (c) correspond, respectively, to Legendre-type integration kernels P 4, P 5, and P 6 in Eq.(19). 3 Results and conclusions We consider first e FESR involving e locally constrained integration kernel, Eq.(18), and in Fixed Order Perturbation Theory (FOPT). In is case e strong running coupling and e quark masses at a scale s = s 0 are considered fixed, us only logarimic terms contribute to e integrals. The renormalization group summation of leading logarims is carried out after integration by setting e scale to µ = s 0, and all integrals can be done analytically. For e strong coupling we use e wide range α s (M τ ) = , which covers many different results as reported recently in [40] (including e PDG average [7]). Using is range of values of α s to determine e strange-quark mass in a similar framework as here [1] gives m s MS (GeV) = MeV, in e MS scheme (for recent reviews see [41]-[4]). Alternatively, one could use results from lattice QCD (for a compilation see [7]) most of which are in good agreement wiin errors wi [1]. Combining bo meods we consider e wide range m s MS (GeV) = MeV. In Fig. 1 we show a typical result for ψ 5 (0) as a function of s 0 in e wide stability region s 0 = 3 6 GeV, corresponding to α s (M τ ) = 0.36 (Λ QCD = 350 MeV), and m s MS (GeV) = 100 MeV. Taking into account e uncertainties in α s and m s leads to which translates into e chiral corrections to GMOR ψ 5 (0) = (.8±0.3) 10 3 GeV 4, (5) δ K = (55±5)%. (6) 6

8 Proceeding to e second choice of integration kernel, i.e. e Legendre type polynomials, typical results for ψ 5 (0) are shown in Fig. for e same input values of α s and m s. Stability is achieved in a very wide region already for a six-order polynomial wi e result: ψ 5 (0) = ( ) 10 3 GeV 4, in excellent agreement wi e FOPT determination, Eq.(5). The chiral correction, Eq.(6), confirms e CHPT determination of [11]. We discuss in closing a determination of e two CHPT constants L r 8, and Hr at e scale of e ρ-meson mass. It was first pointed out in [43], and later reiterated in [] and [4], at in order to obtain e ratio R sq ss / qq wi some reasonable accuracy one should avoid deriving it from e ratio of ψ 5 (0) s u /ψ 5(0) d u, as is leads to a huge uncertainty. Instead, one should first determine e ratio of e scalar to e pseudoscalar correlator at zero momentum, R VA ψ(0) s u /ψ 5(0) s u, and en use R sq (1+R V A )/(1 R VA ). The most recent determination in a framework similar to e one used here, i.e. using weighted QCD FESR, gives [4] R sq ss qq = 0.6 ± 0.1. (7) Using is value in Eq.() determines L r 8 +H, and from e first relation in Eq.(6) one obtains L r 8 H. Using e result for δ π in Eq.(8), obtained in e same framework as here, gives L r 8 = (1.0 ± 0.3) 10 3 (8) H r = (4.7 ± 0.6) 10 3, (9) in very good agreement wi [11]. The value of L r 8 above is also in agreement wiin errors wi recent determinations from lattice QCD (for a review see [44]): L r 8 = (0.6±0.04) 10 3 [45], L r 8 = (0.85 ±0.04) 10 3 [46], and L r 8 = (0.88±0.08) 10 3 [47], as well as wi recent analytical determinations: L r 8 = (0.6±0.4) 10 3 [48], and L r 8 = (0.64±0.16) 10 3 [49]. References [1] H. Pagels, Phys. Rep. C 16 (1975) 19. [] C. A. Dominguez, A. Ramlakan, and K. Schilcher, Phs. Lett. B 511 (001) 59. [3] M. Jamin and B. O. Lange, Phys. Rev. D 65 (00) [4] C. A. Dominguez, N. Nasrallah, and K. Schilcher, JHEP 080 (008) 07. [5] P. Colangelo, A. Khodjamirian, in: At e Frontier of Particle Physics/ Handbook of QCD, M. Shifman, ed. (World Scientific, Singapore 001), Vol. 3, [6] M. Gell-Mann, R. J. Oakes, and B. Renner Phys. Rev. 175 (1968) 195. [7] J. Beringer et al. (Particle Data Group) Phys. Rev. D 86 (01) [8] J. L. Rosner, and S. Stone, arxiv:

9 [9] J. Gasser, and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B 50 (1985) 465; G. Amoros, J. Bijnens, and P. Talavera, Nucl. Phys. B 585 (000) 93, Erratum ibid. 598 (001) 665. [10] S. Scherer, Introduction to Chiral Perturbation Theory, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 7 (003) 77. [11] M. Jamin, Phys. Lett. B 538 (00) 71. [1] G. Amoros, J. Bijnens, P. Talavera, Nucl. Phys. B 60 (001) 87. [13] D.J. Broadhurst, Nucl. Phys. B 85 (1975) 189. [14] D. J. Broadhurst, Phys. Lett. B 101 (1981) 43. [15] D. J. Broadhurst, and S. C. Generalis, Open University Report No. OUT (198) (unpublished). [16] V. P. Spiridonov, and K. G. Chetyrkin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 47 (1988) 5. [17] M. Jamin, and M. Münz, Z. Phys. C 66 (1995) 633. [18] K. G. Chetyrkin, C. A. Dominguez, D. Pirjol, and K. Schilcher, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) [19] J. Bordes et al., JHEP 1005 (010) 064. [0] C. A. Dominguez, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 8N6 (1985) 1. [1] C. A. Dominguez, N. Nasrallah, R. Röntsch, and K. Schilcher, JHEP 0805 (008) 00. [] C. A. Dominguez, N. Nasrallah, R. Röntsch, and K. Schilcher, Phys. Rev. D 79 (009) [3] K. G Chetyrkin, A. L. Kataev, and F. V. Tkachov, Phys. Lett. B 85 (1979) 77. [4] M. Dine, and J. Sapirstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 668. [5] W. Celmaster, and R. Gonsalves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 560. [6] S. G. Gorishny, A. L. Kataev, and S. A. Larin, Phys. Lett. B 59(1991) 144. [7] L. R. Surguladze, and M. Samuel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 560. [8] T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermarseren, and S. A. Larin, Phys. Lett. B 400 (1997) 379. [9] P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. Kuhn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (006) [30] C. A. Dominguez, Z. Phys., Particles & Fields, C 6 (1984) 69. [31] C. A. Dominguez, E. de Rafael, Ann. Phys. (New York) 174 (1987) 37. [3] N. Bilic, C. A. Dominguez, and B. Guberina, Z. Phys. C 39 (1988) 351. [33] C. A. Dominguez, L. Pirovano, and K Schilcher, Phys. Lett. B 45 (1998) 193. [34] K. Maltman, Phys. Lett. B 440 (1998)

10 [35] C. A. Dominguez, K. Schilcher, Physics Letters B 448 (1999) 93. [36] C. A. Dominguez, K. Schilcher, Physics Letters B 581 (004) 193. [37] O. Cata, M. Golterman, and S. Peris, Phys. Rev. D 77 (008) [38] M. Gonzalez-Alonso, A. Pich, and J. Prades, Phys. Rev. D 8 (010) [39] C. A. Dominguez, N. Nasrallah, and K. Schilcher, Phys. Rev. D 80 (009) [40] S. Beke et al., Workshop on Precision Measurements of α s, arxiv: [41] C. A. Dominguez, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 5 (010) 53. [4] C. A. Dominguez, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 6 (011) 691. [43] C. A. Dominguez and M. Loewe, Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 930. [44] G. Colangelo et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (011) [45] S. Aoki et al., PACS-CS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 79 (009) [46] C. Allton et al., RBC-UKQCD Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 78 (008) [47] C. Bernard et al., MILC Collaboration, Proc. Sci., LAT 007 (007) 090. [48] I. Rosell, A. Pich, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, JHEP 0701 (007) 039. [49] J. Bijnens and I. Jemos, Nucl. Phys. B 854 (01)