arxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 10 Sep 2014

Transcription

1 The ρ-meson longitudinal leading-twist distribution amplitude Hai-Bing Fu, Xing-Gang Wu, Hua-Yong Han, Yang Ma, and Huan-Yu Bi Department of Physics, Chongqing University, Chongqing 433, P.R. China arxiv:49.353v [hep-ph] Sep 4 We suggest a convenient model for the ρ-meson longitudinal leading-twist distribution amplitude φ ;ρ, whose distribution is controlled by a single parameter B ;ρ. By choosing proper chiral current in the correlator, we obtain new light-cone sum rules (LCSR) for the B ρ TFFs A, A and V, in which the δ -order φ ;ρ provides dominant contributions. Then we make a detailed discussion on the φ ;ρ properties via those B ρ TFFs. A proper choice of B ;ρ can make all the TFFs agree with the lattice QCD predictions. A prediction of V ub has been presented by using the extrapolated TFFs, which indicates that a larger leads to a larger V ub. To compare with the BABAR data on V ub, the longitudinal leading-twist DA φ ;ρ prefers a doubly-humped behavior. PACS numbers: 3.5.Hw,.55.Hx,.38.Aw, 4.4.Be The meson light-cone distribution amplitude (LCDA) relates to the matrix elements of the nonlocal light-ray operators sandwiched between the hadronic state and the vacuum. It provides underlying links between the hadronic phenomena at the small and large distances. The leading-twist (twist-) LCDA arouses people s great interests e to its role in hard exclusive processes [], which always provides dominant contributions. Its investigation has been the subject of numerous studies, especially for the pseudoscalar pion, kaon and etc. As for the vector ρ meson, its LCDAs are more complex e to its complex structures: there are chiral-even or chiral-odd LCDAs for the ρ meson, the ρ meson has longitudinal ( ) and transverse ( ) polarization states. twist δ δ δ δ 3 φ ;ρ φ ;ρ / / 3 / φ 3;ρ,ψ 3;ρ,Φ 3;ρ, Φ 3;ρ φ 3;ρ,ψ 3;ρ,Φ 3;ρ / 4 / / φ 4;ρ,ψ 4;ρ,Ψ 4;ρ, Ψ 4;ρ φ 4;ρ,ψ 4;ρ TABLE I. The ρ-meson LCDAs up to twist-4 and δ 3 -order. As suggested in Refs.[, 3], it is convenient to arrange the ρ-meson LCDAs by a parameter δ, i.e. δ m ρ /m b 6%. A classification of the ρ-meson twist-, twist-3 and twist-4 LCDAs up to δ 3 -order have been collected in Ref. [4], which are rearranged in Table I. Up to twist- 4, there are fifteen ρ-meson LCDAs. All those ρ-meson LCDAs, especially the higher-twist DAs, are far from affirmation, then, it would be helpful to find a reliable way to study the properties of a specific ρ-meson LCDA. In the paper, we shall concentrate our attention on the ρ- meson longitudinal leading-twist distribution amplitude φ ;ρ, which is at the δ -order. For the purpose, we adopt the B ρ transition form factors (TFFs) to study the φ ;ρ properties. wuxg@cqu.e.cn The B ρ TFFs are key components for the semileptonic decay B ρlν. When the leptons are massless, only three TFFs A, A and V provide non-zero contributions to the B ρlν decay [5]. We adopt the lightcone sum rules (LCSR) [6 8] to deal with those B ρ TFFs. The LCSR is based on the operator proct expansion near the light cone, and all its non-perturbative dynamics are parameterized into LCDAs. As a tricky point, by proper choosing the correlation function (correlator), especially by choosing the chiral correlator, one can highlight the wanted LCDAs contributions while highly suppress the unwanted LCDAs contributions to the LCSR [9 ]. ToderivetheLCSRsforthoseB ρtffs, wesuggest to start from the following chiral correlator Π µ (p,q) = } i d 4 xe iq x ρ(p,λ) T { q (x)γ µ ( γ 5 )b(x),j B (), () where j B (x) = i b(x)( γ 5 )q (x). This is different from our previous choice of j B (x) = i b(x)( +γ 5 )q (x) [4], in which the δ -order φ ;ρ provide dominant contribution. The advantage of our present new choice lies in that one can highlight the contributions from the chiral-even ρ- meson LCDAs such as φ ;ρ, φ 3;ρ, ψ 3;ρ, Φ 3;ρ, Φ 3;ρ, φ 4;ρ and ψ 4;ρ ; while the chiral-odd LCDAs φ ;ρ, φ 3;ρ, ψ 3;ρ, Φ 3;ρ, φ 4;ρ, ψ 4;ρ, Ψ 4;ρ, Ψ 4;ρ providezerocontributions. We also find that within the remaining chiral-even LCDAs, only the LCDAs φ ;ρ, φ 3;ρ and ψ3;ρ provide dominant contributions to the LCSR, while the remaining LCDAs as φ 4;ρ, ψ 4;ρ, Φ 3;ρ and Φ 3;ρ provide negligible contribution. Moreover, the twist-3 DAs ψ3;ρ and φ 3;ρ (and the later simplified A ρ(u) = u dv[φ ;ρ (v) φ 3;ρ(v)]) can be related to φ ;ρ under the Wandzura-Wilczek approximation [5, ] φ 3;ρ(x,µ) = [ Φ x ρ (x,µ)+φ x ρ (x,µ) ] /, () ψ3;ρ(x,µ) x = [ xφ ρ (x,µ)+xφ x ρ (x,µ) ], (3) A ρ x (x,µ) = [ xφ ρ (x,µ)+xφ x ρ (x,µ) ] /, (4)

2 dvφ ;ρ (v,µ) where Φ x ρ (x,µ) = x v and Φ x ρ (x,µ) = x dvφ ;ρ (v,µ) v. Thus, the leading-twist LCDA φ ;ρ provides dominant contribution to the LCSRs either directly or indirectly. Then, as required, those TFFs can indeed provideus a useful platform to test the properties ofφ ;ρ. The correlator () is an analytic function of q defined at both the space-like and the time-like q -regions. The correlator can be inserted by a completed set of intermediate hadronic states in physical region. It can also be treated in the framework of the operator proct expansion in deep Euclidean region, then all its nonperturbative dynamics are parameterized into LCDAs. Those two results can be related by the dispersion relation, and the final LCSR can be achieved by applying the Borel transformation. Following the standard proceres, we obtain the LCSRs for the B ρ TFFs f B A (q )e m B /M = m b m ρf ρ { [ ] m B (m Θ(c(u,s B +m ρ ) u e s(u)/m ))φ 3;ρ (u) m ρ um Θ(c(u,s ))C ρ (u) m ρ Dα dve } s(x)/m X M Θ(c(X,s ))[Φ 3;ρ (α)+ Φ 3;ρ (α)], (5) { f B A (q )e m B /M = m b m ρ(m B +m ρ )f ρ m B + m b m ρ 4u 4 M 6 Θ(c(u,s ))B ρ (u) f B V(q )e m B /M = m b m ρ(m B +m ρ )f ρ m B ] +m ρ u e s(u)/m Dα [ um Θ(c(u,s ))A ρ(u)+ m ρ um 4 Θ(c(u,s ))C ρ(u) dve s(x)/m X 3 M 4Θ(c(X,s ))[Φ 3;ρ ( α)+ Φ 3;ρ ( α)] },(6) e s(u)/m u M Θ(c(u,s ))ψ3;ρ (u), (7) where s( ) = [m b (q m ρ )]/ with = ( standsforuorx),andx = a +va 3. f ρ representstheρmeson decay constant. c(u,s ) = us m b +ūq uūm ρ. Θ(c(,s )) is the usual step function: when c(,s ) <, it is zero; otherwise, it is. Θ(c(u,s )) and Θ(c(u,s )) are defined via the integration where δ(c(u,s )) = e s/m f(u ) C Θ(c(u,s u M e s(u)/m ))f(u) = u 3 M 4e s(u)/m Θ(c(u,s ))f(u) = and u u u M e s(u)/m [ f(u (c(u,s )) = e s/m ) u M u d C C f(u)+δ(c(u,s )), (8) u 3 M 4e s(u)/m f(u)+ (c(u,s )), (9) ( ) ] f(u), uc u=u C = m b + u m ρ q and u [,] is the solution of c(u,s ) =. The simplified DAs B ρ(u) = u dvφ 4;ρ (v) and C ρ(u) = u dv v dw [ψ 4;ρ (w)+φ ;ρ (w) φ 3;ρ (w)]. The leading-twist LCDA φ ;ρ can be derived from its light-cone wavefunction (LCWF), i.e. φ ;ρ (x,µ ) = 3 f ρ k µ dk 6π 3ψ ;ρ (x,k ), () where f ρ = f ρ/ 5. One way of constructing the LCWF model has been suggested in by Wu and Huang [3]. Following the idea, the WH-DA model for φ ;ρ is φ ;ρ (x,µ ) = A ;ρ 3x xmq 8π 3/ f [+B ρb ;ρ C3/ (ξ)] ;ρ ( ) Erf b µ +m q m ;ρ Erf b q ;ρ,() x x x x where µ is the factorization scale, the error function Erf(x) = x dt/ e t π and the constitute light-quark mass m q 3 MeV. Apart from the normalization con-

3 3 A ;ρ (GeV ) b ;ρ (GeV ) a (GeV) a (.GeV) TABLE II. The parameters for the ρ-meson leading-twist LCDA ψ ;ρ, and its corresponding second Gegenbauer moment a at GeV and. GeV, respectively. dition, we take the average of the transverse momentum.37 GeV [4] as another constraint. The DA k / ;ρ parameters for [.,.] are presented in Table II, in which its second Gegenbauer moment a under two typical scales, i.e. µ =.GeV and.gev, are also presented. The value of a at.gev is obtained by QCD evolution []. Table II shows a. Another way of constructing the LCWF has been suggested under the AdS/QCD-DA theory [5], ( ψ ;ρ (x,ζ) = N κ x xexp κ ζ ) ( ) exp m f π κ, x x which leads to the AdS/QCD-DA model [6] φ ;ρ (x,µ ) = 3m f πf ρ () dζµ J (µ ζ) ψ ;ρ (x,ζ), (3) x x where κ = m ρ /, m f =.4GeV [7 9]. N can be fixed by the normalization condition, e.g. we have N µ=gev =. and N µ=.gev = A ρ(x, µ ).. φ ;ρ (x, µ ) x ψ 3;ρ(x, µ ) WH-DA for [.,.] BB-DA AdS/QCD-DA WH-DA for =. φ 3;ρ (x, µ ) WH-DA for = FIG.. A comparison of φ ;ρ(x,µ ), ψ 3;ρ(x,µ ), ψ 3;ρ(x,µ ) and A ρ(x,µ ) under various models. The shaded band are for the WH-DA with [.,.]. The solid and dashed lines are for BB-DA and AdS/QCD-DA, respectively. In Fig., we present a comparison of various DA models, i.e. the WH-DA with [.,.], the AdS/QCD-DA and the BB-DA. Here the BB-DA stands for the usual Gegenbauer DA expansion with its second Gegenbauer moment a (GeV) =.5(7) as suggested by Ball and Braun []. We also present the twist-3 DAs in Fig., where the WH-model is derived from the relations and the AdS/QCD and BB ones are from Ref.[] and Ref.[], respectively. Fig. shows that by varying [.,.], the WH-DA shall vary from the single-peaked behavior to the doubly-humped behavior. It is noted that by setting =.4, the WH-DA behaves close to the AdS/QCD-DA; and by setting =., the WH-DA behaves close to the BB-DA. Thus the WH-DA provides a convenient form to mimic the behaviors of various DAs suggested in the literature. Since the LCDA φ ;ρ dominantly determines the B ρ TFFs, inversely, a definite TFFs shall be helpful for fixing the properties of φ ;ρ. In the following, we shall take the WH-DA to study the B ρ semi-leptonic decays. To do the numerical calculation, we take f ρ =.6±.3GeV [], f B =.6±.9GeV [4], and the b-quark pole mass m b = 4.8 ±.5GeV. The ρ and B-meson masses are taken as m ρ =.775GeV and m B = 5.79GeV [3]. As a cross check of the LCSRs (5,6,7), if taking the second Gegenbauer moment a of φ ;ρ as that of Refs.[, ], we obtain consistent TFFs with those of Refs.[, ] s A 3.5(5) 3.(5) 3.5(5) M A.4(3).7(3) 3.(3) s A 3.5(5) 3.(5) 3.5(5) M A 3.(3).8(3).6(3) s V 3.5(5) 3.(5) 3.5(5) M V 3.(3) 3.3(3) 3.5(3) TABLE III. The continuum threshold s and the Borel parameter M under various DA models. The central values are for m b = 4.8 GeV and f B =.6 GeV. To set the parameters, such as the Borel window and the continuum threshold s, for the B ρ TFFs LCSR, we adopt the criteria: I) We require the continuum contribution to be less than 3% of the total LCSR. II) We require all the high-twist DAs contributions to be less than 5% of the total LCSR. III) The derivatives of Eqs.(5,6,7) with respect to ( /M ) give three LCSRs It is noted that Refs.[, ] adopt the usual correlator to derive the LCSR, in which more LCDAs that our present LCSR have to be taken into consideration.

4 4 A () A () V() = = = TABLE IV. The B ρ TFFs A, A and V at the large recoil region q =. The errors are squared averages of all the mentioned source of errors. A(q ) WH-DA ( =.) WH-DA ( =.) WH-DA ( =.) Lattice (β = 6.) [6] Lattice (β = 6.) [6] Lattice [5] for the B-meson mass m B. And we require their predicted B-meson mass to be fulfilled in comparing with the experiment one, e.g. m th B mexp B /mexp B less than.%. We present the values of s and M for the B ρ TFFs in Table III. By using the chirallcsrs (5,6,7), we present the B ρ TFFs under the WH-DA in Table IV, in which typical values for =.,.,. are adopted. The scale µ is set to be the typical momentum transferofthe process, µ (m B m b )/.GeV. Table IV shows that the TFFs decreases with the increment of or a. To show how the TFFs A, A and V are affected by the LCDAs, we present the TFFs at the maximum recoil region q = in Table V. Up to twist-4 and δ 3 -order accuracy, we show that only the δ -order LCDAs provide non-zero contributions. And among those δ -order LCDAs, A ρ provides the dominant contribution to A, and ψ 3;ρ provides the solitary contribution to V. By using the the 3-particle DAs Φ 3;ρ and Φ 3;ρ suggested in Refs.[, ], we show they provide less than.% contributions to A and A, which explain why those LCDAs have been neglected in many references. As a further step, we can apply the B ρ TFFs to study the properties of the semileptonic decay B ρlν. The LCSRs is applicable in the region q 4GeV, while the physical allowable region for the TFFs is (m B m ρ ) GeV. Thus, certain extrapolation is needed. We adopt the formula F i (q ) = F i ()/[ a i q /m B +b i(q /m B ) ] to do the extrapolation, in which F,,3 stand for A, A and V, respectively. The parameters a i and b i are determined by requiring the quality <, which is defined as [4] t Fi (t) Fi fit (t) = t F, (4) i(t) where t [,,, 7,4]GeV. The fitted parameters for the extrapolation are put in Table VI. We put the extrapolated B ρ TFFs A (q ), A (q ) and V(q ) in Fig., where the lattice QCD predictions [5, 6] are presented for a comparison. It shows that by varying [.,.], the LCSRs predictions agree with the lattice QCD predictions and it shall increasewith the increment of. One can get a strong constraint on the ρ-meson DAs when more precise lattice QCD results are given. The differential decay width for the semileptonic decay A(q ) V (q ) WH-DA ( =.) WH-DA ( =.) WH-DA ( =.) Lattice (β = 6.) [6] Lattice (β = 6.) [6] Lattice [5] q (GeV ) q (GeV ) WH-DA (B ;ρ =.) WH-DA (B ;ρ =.) WH-DA (B ;ρ =.) Lattice (β = 6.) [6] Lattice (β = 6.) [6] Lattice [5] q (GeV ) FIG.. The extrapolated A (q ), A (q ) andv(q )underthe WH-DA model, where the lattice QCD estimations [5, 6] are included as a comparison. B ρlν can be found in Ref.[5]. One can cut off the uncertainty from V ub by calculating the differential decay width / V ub dγ/dq, which is presented in Fig. 3. Moreover, the total decay width (Γ) can be separated as Γ + Γ, where Γ (Γ ) stands for the decay width of the ρ-meson longitudinal (transverse) components. We present the total decay width Γ and the ratio Γ /Γ in Table VII, where the errors in Table VII are squared average of the mentioned source of errors. As a final step, we take two types of semi-leptonic decays as a try to determine the Cabibbo-Kobayashi- Maskawa matrix element V ub. One is the B -type via

5 5 =. B ;ρ =. B ;ρ =. A () A () V() A () A () V() A () A () V() ψ 3;ρ / /.53 / /.58 / /.64 φ 3;ρ.3 / /. / /. / / A ρ /. / /.5 / /. / C ρ.8.9 /.8. /.7. / Φ 3;ρ, Φ 3;ρ..7 /..8 /.. / Total TABLE V. The B ρ TFFs A, A and V at the large recoil region q =, in which the WH-DA with =.,. and., has been adopted. F i a i b i A =. A V A =. A V A =. A V TABLE VI. The fitted parameters a i and b i for the B ρ TFFs. is a measure of the quality of extrapolation. / Vub dγ/dq ( GeV ) LQCD[4] LQCD(β = 6.)[6] LQCD(β = 6.)[6] WH-DA( =.) WH-DA( =.) WH-DA( =.) q (GeV ) FIG. 3. Differential decay width / V ub dγ/dq for the WH-DA model. The lattice QCD estimations [5, 6] are included as a comparison. the process B ρ l + ν l with branching ratio and lifetime B(B ρ l + ν l ) = (.34 ±.8) 4 and τ(b ) =.59 ±.7ps [3]. Another is the B + -type via the process B + ρ l + ν l with branching ratio and lifetime B(B + ρ l + ν l ) = (.7 ±.3) 4 and τ(b + ) =.64 ±.8ps [3]. Our predicted weighted averages of V ub are given in Table VIII, the BABAR predictions are also included as a comparison. The er- =. B ;ρ =. B ;ρ =. B ;ρ =. Γ/ V ub Γ /Γ TABLE VII. Total decay width Γ/ V ub and the ratio Γ /Γ under the WH-DA model. V ub =..5±.38 =..76±.36 = +..9±.35 = +. 3.±.35 LCSR [].75 ±.4 BABAR [7] ISGW [9].83±.4 LCSR [].85 ±.4 BABAR [8] ISGW [9].9±.4 TABLE VIII. The weighted average of V ub in unit 3 from both the B + -type and B -type and for the WH-DA with =.,.,. and., respectively. The estimations of the BABAR collaboration [7, 8] are also presented as a comparison. rors come from the choices of the b-quark mass, the Borel window and the threshold parameter s, the experimental uncertainties are from the measured lifetimes and decay ratios. Table VIII show that V ub increases with the increment of. We observe that by choosing [.,.], its central value is consistent with the BABAR prediction[7, 8]. The BABAR predictions are based on the LCSR [] or ISGW [9] predictions on B ρ TFFs, respectively. As a summary, we have constructed a convenient model () for the longitudinal leading-twist LCDA φ ;ρ, in which a single parameter a controls its longitudinal behavior. By varying [.,.], the φ ;ρ shall evolve from a single-peaked behavior to a doubly-humped behavior. We have discussed its prop-

6 6 erties via the B ρ TFFs by using the LCSR approach. Those chiral LCSRs for the TFFs shall be dominated (over99%)byφ ;ρ eitherdirectlyorindirectly, then those TFFs do provide us a platform to test the properties of the leading-twist φ ;ρ. After extrapolating the TFFs to their allowable region, we compare them to those of lattice QCD predictions. Those TFFs become smaller with the increment of, and either a too smaller or a too larger isnot allowedby the latticeqcdestimations. If we have a precise lattice QCD estimation, we can get a more strong constraint on the ρ-meson DA behavior. In comparison to the BABAR prediction on the differential decay width / V ub dγ/dq [7] and also the TFFs from Lattice QCD, we find that smaller B < ;ρ. (or a ;ρ (GeV) <.8) is not suitable. As a further comparison with the BABAR prediction on the V ub, we observe that by choosing [.,.], its central values show a better agreement with the BABAR prediction [7, 8]. Thus, we can predict that φ ;ρ prefers a doubly-humped behavior other than the sing-peaked behavior of the transverse leading-twist LCDA φ ;ρ as suggested by Ref.[4]. Acknowledgments: This work was supported in part by Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No.755 and No.758, and by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant No.CQDXWL--Z. [] G.P. Lepage and S.J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D, 57 (98); S.J. Brodsky and G.P. Lepage, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 5, 93 (989). [] P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D 7, 49 (5). [3] P. Ball, V.M. Braun, Y. Koike and K. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. B 59, 33 (998); P. Ball and V.M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B 543, (999). [4] H.B.Fu, X.G.Wu, H.Y.HanandY.Ma, arxiv: (4). [5] P. Ball and V.M. Braun, Phys. Rev. D 55, 556 (997). [6] L.I. Balitsky, V.M. Braun and A.V. Kolesnichenko, Nucl. Phys. B 3, 59 (989); V.M. Braun and I.E. Filyanov, Z. Phys. C 44, 57 (989). [7] V.L. Chernyak and A.R. Zhitnitsky, Nucl. Phys. B 345, 37 (99). [8] P. Ball, V.M. Braun and H.G. Dosch, Phys. Rev. D 44, 3567 (99) [9] T. Huang and Z.H. Li, Phys. Rev. D 57, 993 (998); T. Huang, Z.H. Li and X.Y. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 63, 94 (). [] Z.G. Wang, M.Z. Zhou and T. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 67, 946 (3). [] X.G. Wu, T. Huang and Z.Y. Fang, Phys. Rev. D 77, 74 (8); X.G. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C 57, 665 (8); X.G. Wu and T. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 79, 343 (9). [] S. Wandzura and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 7, 95 (977). [3] X.G. Wu and T. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 8, 344 (). [4] X.H. Guo and T. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 43, 93 (99). [5] S.J. Brodsky and G.F. de Teramond, Phys. Rev. D 77, 567 (8); arxiv:8.54 [6] J.R. Forshaw and R. Sandapen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 86 (). [7] G. Soyez, Phys. Lett. B 655, 3 (7). [8] J.R. Forshaw, R. Sandapen, and G. Shaw, JHEP 6, 5 (6). [9] J.R. Forshaw and G. Shaw, JHEP 4, 5 (4). [] P. Ball, V.M. Braun, A. Lenz, JHEP 78, 9 (7). [] M. Ahmady and R. Sandapen, Phys. Rev. D 87, 543 (3). [] P. Ball and V.M. Braun, Phys. Rev.D58, 946 (998). [3] J. Beringer et al., Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. D 86, (). [4] P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D 7, 45 (5); Phys. Lett. B 65, 5 (5). [5] J.M. Flynn et.al. (UKQCD Coll.), Nucl. Phys. B 46, 37 (996). [6] K.C. Bowler, J.F. Gill, C.M. Maynard, J.M. Flynn (UKQCD coll.), JHEP 45, 35 (4). [7] P. del Amo Sanchez, et.al (BABAR Collaboration) Phys. Rev. D 83, 37 (). [8] B. Aubert, et.al (BABAR Collaboration) Phys. Rev. D 7, 5(5). [9] D. Scora and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 5, 783 (995).