Glueballs: Charmonium decay and [Formula presented] annihilation

Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology

Volumn 55, Issue 11, 1997, Pages 6952-6956

  Hou, Wei Shu ^a  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001407230     PISSN: 15507998     EISSN: 15502368     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.6952     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. R. Landua, presented at the International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP96), Warsaw, Poland, 1996 (unpublished), and references therein.
2. The spin of (Formula presented) is still controversial. See, for example, BES Collaboration, J. Z. Bai et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3959 (1996). I thank Y. C. Zhu for an advance copy.
3. G. S. Bali et al., Phys. Lett. B 309, 378 (1993).
4. H. Chen et al., in Lattice ’93, Proceedings of the International Symposium, Dallas, Texas, edited by T. Draper et al. [Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 34, 357 (1994)].NPBSE7
5. C. Amsler and F. E. Close, Phys. Lett. B 353, 385 (1995);
6. Phys. Rev. D 53, 295 (1996).
7. J. Sexton, A. Vaccarino, and D. Weingarten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4563 (1995).
8. BES Collaboration, J. Z. Bai et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3502 (1996); J. Li, presented at ICHEP96 (unpublished).
9. M. B. Çakir and G. R. Farrar, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3268 (1994).
10. Besides the constituent gluon picture, various arguments (such as lattice; see, e.g., Ref. 3) suggest that the lowest-lying (Formula presented) glueball has more complicated structure compared to (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) counterparts, and hence is heavier and harder to produce.
11. W. S. Hou and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 569 (1983);
12. Phys. Rev. D 29, 101 (1984).
13. Mark II Collaboration, M. Franklin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 963 (1983).
14. The BES Collaboration, “Charmonium decays to axialvector plus pseudoscalar mesons,” contributed paper to ICHEP96 (unpublished).
15. Y. F. Gu, presented at the American Physical Society Division of Particles and Fields 1996 Meeting (DPF96), Minneapolis, 1996 (unpublished).
16. For a recent alternative explanation using final state interactions, see X. Q. Li, D. V. Bugg, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 55, 1421 (1997).
17. BES Collaboration, J. Z. Bai et al., Phys. Rev. D 54, 1221 (1996).
18. S. J. Brodsky, G. P. Lepage, and S. F. Tuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 621 (1987).
19. P. G. O. Freund and Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 1645 (1975).
20. S. Okubo, Phys. Lett. 5, 165 (1963);
21. G. Zweig, CERN Report No. 8419/TH412, 1964 (unpublished);
22. I. Iizuka, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 37, 21 (1966).
23. J. M. Cornwall, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1453 (1982).
24. If the limits of Eq. (2) continue to drop, perhaps one should check whether (Formula presented) is also suppressed 10; i.e., the overlaps (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) should be calculated.
25. J. M. Cornwall and A. Soni, Phys. Lett. 120B, 431 (1983).
26. To conform with Eq. (3), the premixed (Formula presented) glueball should lie between 1450 and 1530 MeV. Hence, we prefer (Formula presented) over (Formula presented) as the scalar glueball. However, uncertainties in the potential model should be no less than the lattice case.
27. M. Anselmino, M. Genovese, and E. Predazzi, 44, 1597 (1991).
28. K. T. Chao, Y. F. Gu, and S. F. Tuan, Report No. BIHEP-TH-93-45, 1993 (unpublished);
29. Commun. Theor. Phys. 25, 471 (1996).
30. The radiative tail could more easily hide an (Formula presented) state above (Formula presented) See Fig. 2 of Ref. 15
31. A reanalysis is underway [Y. F. Gu (private communication)], and we await the results.
32. S. L. Olsen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A (to be published).
33. S. J. Brodsky and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D 24, 2848 (1981).
34. For discussion on data, as well as for references on other theoretical explanations, see J. Ellis et al., Phys. Lett. B 353, 319 (1995).
35. Crystal Barrel Collaboration, C. Amsler et al. Phys. Lett. B 346, 363 (1995).