Printer Friendly

S-Wave Heavy Quarkonium Spectra: Mass, Decays, and Transitions.

1. Introduction

Heavy quarkonium is the bound state of b[bar.b] and c[bar.c] and one of the most important playgrounds for our understanding of the strong interactions of quarks and gluons. Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is thought to be the true theory of these strong interactions. QCD is a nonabelian local gauge field theory with the symmetry group SU(3). In principle, one should be able to calculate hadronic properties such as mass spectrum and transitions by using QCD principles. But QCD does not readily supply us these hadronic properties. This challenge can be attributed to the several features that are not present in other local gauge field theories.

Foremost, being a nonabelian gauge theory, gluons which are gauge bosons, have color charge and interact among themselves. Unlike from quantum electrodynamics (QED), where a photon does not interact with other photon, in QCD one must consider interactions among gluons. This nonabelian nature of the theory makes some calculations complicated, for example, loops in propagators.

There are three other important features of QCD: asymptotic freedom, confinement, and dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry. Asymptotic freedom says that strong interaction coupling constant, as, is a function of momentum transfer. When the momentum transfer in a quark-quark collision increases (at short distances), the coupling constant becomes weaker whereas it becomes larger when momentum transfer decreases (at large distances). The idea behind confinement is that, there are no free quarks outside of a hadron; i.e., color charged particles (quarks and gluons) cannot be isolated out of hadrons. Flux tube model gives a reasonable explanation of confinement. When the distance between quark-antiquark (or quarks) pair increases, the gluon field between a pair of color charges forms a flux tube (or string) between them resulting a potential energy which depends linearly on the distance, V(r) = ~ [sigma]r where [sigma] is the string constant. As distance increases between quarks, the potential energy can create new quark-antiquark pairs in colorless forms instead of a free quark. Up to now, nobody has been able to prove that confinement from QCD. Lattice QCD calculations simulate this confinement well and give a value for the string tension [1]. The last feature of QCD is the dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry. The QCD Lagrangian with N quark flavor has an exact chiral SU(N) x SU(N) symmetry but breaks down to SU(N) symmetry because of the nonvanishing expectation value of QCD vacuum [2,3]. The Goldstone bosons corresponding to this symmetry breaking are the pseudoscalar mesons.

The present aspects of the QCD caused other approaches to deal with these challenges. QCD sum rules, Lattice QCD, and potential models (quark models) are examples of these approaches. These approaches are nonperturbative since the strong interaction coupling constant, which should be the perturbation parameter of QCD is of the order one in low energies, hence the truncation of the perturbative expansion cannot be carried out. Since perturbation theory is not applicable, a nonperturbative approach has to be used to study systems that involve strong interactions. QCD sum rules and lattice QCD are based on QCD itself whereas in potential models, one assumes an interquark potential and solves a Schrodinger-like equation. The advantage of potential model is that, excited states can be studied in the framework of potential models whereas in QCD sum rules and lattice QCD, only the ground state or in some exceptional cases excited states can be studied.

After the discovery of charmonium (c[bar.c]) states, potential models have played a key role in understanding of heavy quarkonium spectroscopy [4,5]. These potentials were in type of Coulomb plus linear confining potential with spin dependent interactions. The discovery of bottomonium (b[bar.b]) states were well described by the potential model picture which was used in the charmonium case. Heavy quarkonium spectroscopy was studied since that era with fruitful works [6-18]. A general review about potential models can be found in [19,20] and references therein.

In the potential models, many features such as mass spectra and decay properties of heavy quarkonium could be described by an interquark potential in two-body Schrodinger equation. Interquark potentials are obtained both from phenomenology and theory. In the phenomenological method, it is assumed that a potential exist with some parameters to be determined by fits to the data. In the theory side, one can use perturbative QCD to determine the potential form at short distances and use lattice QCD at long distances [19]. These potentials can be classified as QCD motivated potentials [21-25] and phenomenological potentials [26-31]. The most commonly used phenomenological potentials are power-law potentials, for example [26] and logarithmic potentials, for example [30]. The detailed properties of these type potentials are studied extensively in [29]. All the potentials which are mentioned here have almost similar behaviour in the range of 0.1 fm [less than or equal to] r [less than or equal to] 1 fm which is characteristic region of charmonium and bottomonium systems [32, 33]. Outside the range, the behaviour of potentials differ. Up to now, no one was able to obtain a potential which is compatible at the whole range of distances by using QCD principles.

The potential model calculations have been quite successful in describing the hadron spectrum. Most of the phenomenological potentials must satisfy the following conditions:

dV/dr > 0, [d.sup.2]V/d[r.sup.2] [less than or equal to] 0. (1)

It means that static potential is a monotone nondecreasing and concave function of r which is a general property of gauge theories [34].

The great success of quarkonium phenomenology was somehow cracked at 2003 after the observation of X(3872) [35]. The properties of this exotic particle are not compatible with the conventional quark model, the reason why it is named exotic. For example in [36], the authors studied X(3872) near threshold zero in the [D.sup.0][[bar.D].sup.*0] S-wave. There are other exotic states, XYZ, and the exotic particle zoo is growing. In this paper we will present some exotic states in the framework of quark model.

Energy spectra of heavy quarkonium are a rich source of the information on the nature of interquark forces and decay mechanisms. The prediction of mass spectrum in accordance with the experimental data does not verify the validity of a model for explaining hadronic interactions. Different potentials can produce reliable spectra with the experimental data. Thus other physical properties such as decay constants, leptonic decay widths, radiative decay widths, etc. need to be calculated.

A specific form of the QCD potential in the whole range of distances is not known. Therefore one needs to use potential models. In this work we revisited a power-law potential [26] and a logarithmic potential [30] to study S-wave heavy quarkonium. These potentials satisfy Eqn. (1), i.e. having nonsingular behaviour for r [right arrow] 0. For our purposes, it must be mentioned that power-law and logarithmic potentials have nice scaling properties when used with a nonrelativistic Schrodinger equation [19]. We generated S-wave charmonium and bottomonium mass spectrum with the decays and M1 transitions. At Section 2 we give out theoretical model. In Sections 3 and 4, we generate S-wave heavy quarkonium spectrum, decays and transitions. In Section 5 we discuss our results and in Section 6 we conclude our results.

2. Formulation of the Model

When quark model was proposed, many authors treated baryons in detail with the harmonic oscillator quark model by using harmonic oscillator wave functions [37-39]. Mesons comparing to baryons are simpler objects since they are composites of two quarks. The reason for using harmonic oscillator wave function is that they form a complete set for a confining potential [40].

In order to obtain mass spectra, we solved Schrodinger equation by variational method. The variational method by using harmonic oscillator wave function gave successful results for heavy and light meson spectrum [15,41,42]. The procedure for this method is calculating expectation value of the Hamiltonian via the trial wave function:

E = <[PSI][absolute value of H][PSI]>/<[PSI]|[PSI]>. (2)

The mass of the meson is found by adding two times the mass of quark to the eigenenergy

M = 2[m.sub.q] + E. (3)

The Hamiltonian we consider is

H = M + [p.sup.2]/2[mu] + V(r) (4)

where M = [m.sub.q] + [m.sub.[bar.q]], p is the relative momentum, [mu] is the reduced mass, and V(r) is the potential between quarks. The spectrum can be obtained via solving Schrodinger equation

H|[[PSI].sub.n]> = [E.sub.n]|[[PSI].sub.n]> (5)

with the harmonic oscillator wave function defined as

[[PSI].sub.nlm](r, [theta], [phi]) = [R.sub.nl](r) [Y.sub.lm]([theta], [phi]). (6)

Here [R.sub.nl] is the radial wave function given as

[mathematical expression not reproducible] (7)

with the associated Laguerre polynomials [L.sup.l+1/2.sub.(n-l)/2] and the normalization constant

[mathematical expression not reproducible]. (8)

[Y.sub.lm]([theta], [phi]) is the well-known spherical harmonics.

Armed with these, the expectation value of the given Hamiltonian can be calculated. In the variational method, one chooses a trial wave function depending on one or more parameters and then finds the values of these parameters by minimizing the expectation value of the Hamiltonian. It is a good tool for finding ground state energies but as well as energies of excited states. The condition for obtaining excited states energies is that the trial wave function should be orthogonal to all the energy eigenfunctions corresponding to states having a lower energy than the energy level considered. In (7), v is treated as a variational parameter and it is determined for each state by minimizing the expectation value of the Hamiltonian.

In the following sections we study power-law and logarithmic potentials in order to obtain full spectrum.

3. Mass Spectra of Power-Law and Logarithmic Potentials

Power-law potential is given by [26]

V(r) = -8.064 GeV + 6.898 GeV [r.sup.0.1]. (9)

They showed that upsilon and charmonium spectra can be fitted with that potential. The small power of r refers to a situation in which the spacing of energy levels is independent of the quark masses. This situation is also valid for the purely logarithmic potential [30]

V(r) = -0.6635 GeV + 0.733 GeV ln (r x l GeV). (10)

At first step we obtained spin averaged mass spectrum for c[bar.c] and b[bar.b] systems, respectively. The constituent quark masses are [m.sub.c] = 1.8 GeV and [m.sub.b] = 5.174 GeV for power-law potential and [m.sub.c] = 1.5 GeV and [m.sub.b] = 4.906 GeV for logarithmic potential. Table 1 shows the charmonium spectrum and Table 2 shows the bottomonium spectrum.

Since the interquark potential does not contain the spin dependent part, (2) gives the spin averaged mass for the corresponding states. The calculated masses agree well with the available experimental data and with the values obtained from other theoretical studies. A general potential usually includes spin-spin interaction, spin-orbit interaction, and tensor force terms. To obtain whole picture, it is necessary to consider spin dependent terms within the potential. For l [greater than or equal to] 1, there are spin-orbit and tensor force terms which contribute to the fine structure. For equal mass m, the spin-orbit interaction is given by

[V.sub.SO] = 2 [[[alpha].sub.s]/[m.sup.2.sub.q][r.sup.3]](3([S.sub.1] + [S.sub.2]) x L) (11)

and is responsible for the P wave splittings. Again for equal mass m, the tensor potential is given by

[V.sub.T] = [4/3] [[[alpha].sub.s]/[m.sup.2.sub.q][r.sup.3]](3([S.sub.1] x r)([S.sub.2] x r)/[r.sup.2] - [S.sub.1] x [S.sub.2]). (12)

For l = 0, there is spin-spin term which we will consider in the present work. In the model of the spin averaged mass spectra discussion, all the spin dependent effects are ignored and hence it fails to take into account the splittings due to spin. For example, such splitting exist between the [n.sub.c](1S) and J/[psi] mesons by [DELTA]m [equivalent] 110 MeV. These mesons occupy the l = 0 level. The c[bar.c] in the [[eta].sub.c](1S) have s = 0, while in the J/[psi], s = 1. As a result of this, the mass difference should be related to spin dependent interaction.

3.1. Spin-Spin Interaction. Mass splitting is closely connected with the Lorentz-structure of the quark potential [45]. The origin of the spin-spin interaction term lies in the one-gluon exchange term which is related to 1/r. Spin is proportional of the magnetic moment of a particle. Magnetic moments generate short range fields ~ 1/[r.sup.3]. In the case of heavy quarkonium systems which are nonrelativistic, wave functions of two particles overlap in a significant amount. This means that particles are very close to each other. So spin-spin interactions play a significant role in the dynamics. The spin-spin interaction term of two particles can be written as

[V.sub.SS](r) = [32[pi][[alpha].sub.s]/9[m.sub.q][m.sub.[bar.q]]] [S.sub.q] x [S.sub.[bar.q]] [delta](r). (13)

This term can explain s wave splittings and has no contribution to l [not equal to] 0 states. Putting this term into Schrodinger equation we get

[E.sub.HF] = 32[pi][[alpha].sub.s]/9[m.sub.q][m.sub.[bar.q]] [integral] [d.sup.3]r[[PSI].sup.*](r) [PSI](r)[delta](r)<[S.sub.q] x [S.sub.[bar.q]]>. (14)

Implementing Dirac-delta function property

[integral] f(x) [delta](x) dx = f(0), (15)

we obtain

[E.sub.HF] = 32[pi][[alpha].sub.s]/9[m.sub.q][m.sub.[bar.q]][[absolute value of [PSI](0)].sup.2]<[S.sub.q] x [S.sub.[bar.q]]>. (16)

The matrix element of spin products can be obtained via

[S.sub.1] x [S.sub.2] = 1/2([S.sup.2] - [S.sup.2.sub.1] - [S.sup.2.sub.2]) = 1/2(S(S + 1) - 3/2) (17)

so that

[mathematical expression not reproducible]. (18)

Therefore we obtain hyperfine splittings energy as

[mathematical expression not reproducible]. (19)

Here [PSI](0) is the wave function at the origin and can be obtained by the following relation:

[[absolute value of [PSI](0)].sup.2] = [mu]/2[pi][bar.h]<dV(r)/dr>. (20)

Expectation value is obtained by the wave function given in (6). S-wave charmonium and bottomonium masses can be seen in Tables 3 and 4. In this calculation, [[alpha].sub.s] is taken to be 0.37 for charmonium and 0.26 for bottomonium [15].

The mass differences are shown in Tables 5 and 6 for charmonium and bottomonium, respectively.

As can be seen from Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 our results are compatible with both experimental and theoretical results.

The Regge trajectories for pseudoscalar and vector mesons are shown in Figures 1 and 2 for charmonium and in Figures 3 and 4 for bottomonium.

As can be seen from figures, Regge trajectories show nonlinear behaviour.

4. Dynamical Properties

4.1. Decay Constants. Leptonic decay constants give information about short distance structure of hadrons. In the experiments this regime is testable since the momentum transfer is very large. The pseudoscalar ([f.sub.p]) and the vector ([f.sub.v]) decay constants are defined, respectively, through the matrix elements [12]

[p.sup.[mu]][f.sub.p] = i<0[absolute value of [bar.[PSI]][[gamma].sup.[mu]][[gamma].sup.5][PSI]]p> (21)

and

[m.sub.v][f.sub.v][[epsilon].sup.[mu]] = <0[absolute value of [bar.[PSI]][[gamma].sup.[mu]][PSI]]v>. (22)

In the first relation, [p.sup.[mu]] is meson momentum and |p> is pseudoscalar meson state. In the second relation, [m.sub.v] is mass, [[epsilon].sup.[mu]] is the polarization vector, and |v> is the state vector of meson.

The matrix elements can be calculated by quark model wave function in the momentum space. The result is

[mathematical expression not reproducible] (23)

for pseudoscalar meson and

[mathematical expression not reproducible] (24)

for the vector meson [12].

In the nonrelativistic limit, these two equations take a simple form which is known to be Van Royen and Weisskopf relation [46] for the meson decay constants

[f.sup.2.sub.p/v] = 12[[absolute value of [[PSI].sub.p/v](0)].sup.2]/[m.sub.p/v]. (25)

The first-order correction which is also known as QCD correction factor is given by

[[bar.f].sup.2.sub.p/v] = 12[[absolute value of [[PSI].sub.p/v](0)].sup.2]/[m.sub.p/v] [C.sup.2]([[alpha].sub.s]) (26)

where C([[alpha].sub.s]) is given by [47]

C([[alpha].sub.s]) = 1 - [[alpha].sub.s]/[pi]([[DELTA].sub.p/v] - [[m.sub.q] - [m.sub.[bar.q]]/[m.sub.q] + [m.sub.[bar.q]]] ln [[m.sub.q]/m[bar.q]]). (27)

Here [[DELTA].sub.p] = 2 for pseudoscalar mesons and [[DELTA].sub.v] = 8/3 for vector mesons. Decay constants are given in Tables 7 and 8 for pseudoscalar and vector mesons, respectively.

4.2. Leptonic Decay Widths. Leptonic decay of a vector meson with [J.sup.PC] = [1.sup.--] quantum numbers can be pictured by the following annihilation via a virtual photon

V(q[bar.q]) [right arrow] [gamma] [right arrow] [e.sup.+][e.sup.-]. (28)

This state is neutral and in principle can decay into a different lepton pair rather than electron-positron pair. The above amplitude can be calculated by the Van Royen and Weisskopf relation [46]

[GAMMA]([n.sup.3][S.sub.1] [right arrow] [e.sup.+][e.sup.-]) = 16[pi][[alpha].sup.2][e.sup.2.sub.q][[absolute value of [PSI](0)].sup.2]/[m.sup.2.sub.n] x (1 - 16[[alpha].sub.s]/3[pi] + ...), (29)

where [alpha] = 1/137 is the fine structure constant, [e.sub.q] is the quark charge, [m.sub.n] is the mass of [n.sup.3][S.sub.1] state, and [absolute value of ([[PSI].sub.p/v](0))] is the wave function at the origin of initial state. The term in the parenthesis is the first-order QCD correction factor while ... represents higher corrections. The obtained values for leptonic decay widths can be found in Tables 9 and 10 for charmonium and bottomonium, respectively.

4.3. Two-Photon Decay Width. [sup.1][S.sub.0] states with [J.sup.PC] = [0.sup.-+] quantum number of charmonium and bottomonium can decay into two photons. In the nonrelativistic limit, the decay width for [sup.1][S.sub.0] state can be written as [48]

[GAMMA]([sup.1][S.sub.0] [right arrow] [gamma][gamma]) = 12[pi][[alpha].sup.2][e.sup.4.sub.q][[absolute value of [PSI](0)].sup.2]/[m.sup.2.sub.q] x (1 - 3.4[[alpha].sub.s]/[pi]). (30)

The term in the parenthesis is the first-order QCD radiative correction. The results are listed in Table 11.

4.4. Two-Gluon Decay Width. Two-gluon decay width is given by [48]

[mathematical expression not reproducible]. (31)

The terms in the parenthesis refer to QCD corrections. The obtained results are given in Table 12.

4.5. M1 Transitions. M1 (magnetic dipole transition) decay widths can give more information about spin-singlet states. Moreover M1 transition rates show the validity of theory against experiment [11]. Magnetic transitions conserve both parity and orbital angular momentum of the initial and final states but in the M1 transitions the spin of the state changes. M1 width between two S-wave states is given by [51]

[mathematical expression not reproducible], (32)

where [E.sub.[gamma]] = ([M.sup.2.sub.i] - [M.sup.2.sub.f])/2[M.sub.i] is the photon energy and [j.sub.0](x) is the zeroth-order spherical Bessel function. In the case of small [E.sub.[gamma]], spherical Bessel function [j.sub.0](kr/2) tends to 1, [j.sub.0](kr/2) [right arrow] 1. Thus transitions between the same principal quantum numbers, n = n, are favored and usually known to be allowed. In the other case, when n' [not equal to] n the overlap integral between initial and final state is 0 and generally designated as forbidden transitions. The obtained transition rates for the allowed ones of S-wave charmonium and bottomonium states are given in Tables 13 and 14, respectively.

5. Results and Discussion

In the present paper we studied S-wave heavy quarkonium spectra with two phenomenological potentials. We have computed spin averaged masses, hyperfine splittings, Regge trajectories for pseudoscalar and vector mesons, decay constants, leptonic decay widths, two-photon and gluon decay widths, and allowed M1 partial widths of S-wave heavy quarkonium states.

In general, most of the quark model potentials tend to be similar, having a Coulomb term and a linear term. For example, in [11] they used standard color Coulomb plus linear scalar form, and also included a Gaussian smeared contact hyperfine interaction in the zeroth-order potential. In [13], the authors used a nonrelativistic potential model with screening effect. In [18] nonrelativistic linear potential and screened potential, in [14,16,44] a modified of nonrelativistic potential models and in [15] Hulthen potential are used. Potential models give reliable results with the appropriate parameters in the model. Therefore, the shape of the potential at the limits r [right arrow] 0 and r [right arrow] [infinity] have similar behaviours.

Spin averaged mass spectra give idea about the formulation of model since the results are close to experimental values due to contributions from spin dependent interactions are small compared to contribution from potential part. If one ignores all spin dependent interactions, obtained results under this assumption are thought to be averages over related spin states for principal quantum number. Including hyperfine interaction, we obtained the mass spectra for pseudoscalar and vector mesons. The obtained spectra for both charmonium and bottomonium are in good agreement with the experimentally observed spectra and other theoretical studies.

Both power and logarithmic potentials produced approximately same mass differences and are in agreement with experiment for the lowest state in charmonium sector. But for the highest states, the shift is not compatible with the references. The reason for this should be the behaviour of linear part of the potential. In the case of bottomonium sector, mass differences of both power and logarithmic potentials are in accord with the given studies except the lowest state.

The fundamental point in the Regge trajectories is that they can predict masses of unobserved states. For the hadrons constituting of light quarks, the Regge trajectories are approximately linear but for the heavy quarkonium case Regge trajectories can be nonlinear. In the present work, we found that all Regge trajectories show nonlinear properties.

The decay constants are calculated for pseudoscalar and vector mesons by equating their field theoretical definition with the analogous quark model potential definition. This is valid in the nonrelativistic and weak binding limits where quark model state vectors form good representations of the Lorentz group [52,53]. For pseudoscalar mesons, the corrected value of power and logarithmic potentials are a few MeV above than the available experimental data. For the rest of the pseudoscalar mesons, obtained results are compatible with other studies. In the case of vector mesons, logarithmic potential gave higher values than power potential. In the Y meson, when the radially states are excited, both two potential gave similar results within the error of experimental value. Computations of the vector decay constant beyond the weak binding limit can be important in the quark potential model frame and need more elaboration [12].

Obtained leptonic decay widths are comparable with the experimental values and other theoretical studies. The QCD corrected factors are more close to experimental values for power and logarithmic potential and this can be referred as the importance of the QCD correction factor in calculating the decay constants and other short range phenomena using potential models.

[sup.1][S.sub.0] levels of charmonium and bottomonium states can decay into two photons or gluons. Especially two- photon decays of these levels are important for understanding the accuracy of theoretical models. Obtained results are smaller than the nonrelativistic widths including the one-loop QCD correction factor. For example, results of power and logarithmic potentials in [[eta].sub.c](1S) are not in accord with experimental data. The reason of these differences can be due to the static potential between quarks that we used in the solution of two-body Schrodinger equation. For higher states, power and logarithmic potentials results are comparable with other studies. Two-photon decays are complicated processes such as pseudoscalar meson decay to two photons is governed by an intermediate vector meson followed by a meson dominance transition to a photon [12]. These schematic diagrams must be added to calculations to obtain a whole picture. For two-gluon decay widths, two phenomenological potentials gave comparable results with the available experimental data. Notice that in some cases QCD corrected factor is in accord with the experimental data whereas in some cases it is not. The reason for this can be that, there are significant radiative corrections from three-gluon decays so computing only two-gluon decay width could not explain the mechanism in all details.

Finally M1 transitions are calculated. The M1 radiative decay rates are very sensitive to relativistic effects. Even for allowed transitions relativistic and nonrelativistic results differ significantly. An important example is the decay of J/[psi] [right arrow] [[eta].sub.c][gamma]. The nonrelativistic predictions for its rate are more than two times larger than the experimental data [10]. In the charmonium sector, the available experimental data for J/[psi] [right arrow] [[eta].sub.c](1S) is comparable with the power potential result, while logarithmic potential result is 1 eV higher. In the bottomonium sector, there is no experimental data available on M1 transitions. Since photon energies and transition rates are very small, the detection of these transitions is an objection. And this can be a reason why no spin-singlet S-wave levels [[eta].sub.b]([n.sup.1][S.sub.0]) have been observed yet [10]. The obtained values for M1 transitions are comparable with the references.

Some states in the charmonium and bottomonium sector show properties different from the conventional quarkonium state. Some examples are X(3940), X(4160), and [psi](4415). For X(3940), there is not much available experimental data and more is needed. Wang et al. studied two-body open charm OZI-allowed strong decays of X(3940) and X(4160) considered as [[eta].sub.c](3S) and [[eta].sub.c](4S), respectively, by the improved Bethe-Salpeter method combined with the [sup.3][P.sub.0] [54]. They calculated strong decay width of X(3940) as [GAMMA] = ([33.5.sup.+18.4.sub.-15.3]) MeV and X(4160) as [GAMMA] = ([69.9.sup.+22.4.sub.-21.1]) MeV where the experimental values are [GAMMA] = ([37.sup.+26.sub.-15] [+ or -] 8) MeV for X(3940) and [GAMMA] = (70 [+ or -] 10) MeV for X(4160) [43]. They concluded that [[eta].sub.c](3S) is a good candidate of X(3940) and [[eta].sub.c](4S) is a not good candidate of X(4160) due to larger decay width of [GAMMA](D[[bar.D].sup.*])/[GAMMA]([D.sup.*][[bar.D].sup.*]) comparing to experimental data. We give our results comparing to these exotic states in Table 15.

Looking at Table 15, we can deduce that, according to our model and results, we can assign X(3940) as [[eta].sub.c](3S), X(4160) as [[eta].sub.c](4S), and [psi](4415) as [[eta].sub.c](5S). To be more accurate, more data is needed to corroborate whether these states are conventional quarkonium or not.

6. Conclusions

Quark potential models have been very successful to study on various properties of mesons. The short distance behaviour of interquark potential appears to be similar where QCD perturbation theory can be applied where at large distance the potential is linear in r where nonperturbative methods are need to be used. The improvements on the potentials can be made and spin-spin, spin-orbit type interactions can be added to model to arrive high accuracy. The potential model approach is a valuable task, which has given to us many insights into the nature of both heavy and light quarkonium physics. Using a relativistic approach together with a model in which B[bar.B] and D[bar.D] thresholds are taken into account, detailed analysis can be made on various aspects of heavy quarkonium.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5961031

Data Availability

No data were used to support this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] T. Kawanai and S. Sasaki, "Charmonium potential from full lattice QCD," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 85, no. 9, 2012.

[2] A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene, and J. C. Raynal, "Spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry for confining potentials," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1233-1257, 1984.

[3] S. Bolognesi, K. Konishi, M. Shifman, and D. Phys. Rev, "Patterns of symmetry breaking in chiral QCD," Physical Review D, Covering Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, vol. 97, no. 9, Article ID 094007, 2018.

[4] T. Appelquist and H. D. Politzer, "Heavy Quarks and," Physical Review Letters, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 43-45, 1975.

[5] A. De Rujula and S. L. Glashow, "Is bound charm found?" Physical Review Letters, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 46-49, 1975.

[6] E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane, and T. M. Yan, "Interplay of confinement and decay in the spectrum of charmonium," Physical Review Letters, vol. 36, p. 500, 1976.

[7] D. P. Stanley and D. Robson, "Nonperturbative potential model for light and heavy quark-antiquark systems," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 3180-3196, 1980.

[8] S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, "Mesons in a relativized quark model with chromodynamics," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 189-231, 1985.

[9] L. P. Fulcher, "Matrix representation of the nonlocal kinetic energy operator, the spinless Salpeter equation and the Cornell potential," Physical Review D, vol. 50, p. 447, 1994.

[10] D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V. O. Galkin, " Properties of heavy quarkonia and," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 67, no. 1, 2003.

[11] T. Barnes, S. Godfrey, and E. S. Swanson, "Highercharmonia," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 72, article 054026, 2005.

[12] O. Lakhina and E. S. Swanson, "Dynamic properties of charmonium," Physical Review D, vol. 74, 2006.

[13] B. Q. Li and K. T. Chao, "Higher charmonia and X, Y, Z states with screened potential," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 79, Article ID 013011, 2009.

[14] B. Q. Li and K. T. Chao, "Bottomonium Spectrum with Screened Potential," Communications in Theoretical Physics, vol. 52, pp. 653-661, 2009.

[15] K. B. V. K. Bhaghyesh and A. P. Monteiro, "Heavy quarkonium spectra and its decays in a nonrelativistic model with Hulthen potential," Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, vol. 38, Article ID 085001, 2011.

[16] J. Segovia, P. G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, "Bottomonium spectrum revisited," Physical Review D, vol. 93, 2016.

[17] S. Godfrey, K. Moats, and E. S. Swanson, "B and [B.sub.s] meson spectroscopy," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 94, no. 5, 2016.

[18] W.-J. Deng, H. Liu, L.-C. Gui, and X.-H. Zhong, "Spectrum and electromagnetic transitions of bottomonium," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 95, Article ID 074002, 2017.

[19] D. B. Lichtenberg, "Excited quark production at Hadron colliders," International Journal of Modern Physics A, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 1669-1705, 1987.

[20] N. Brambilla, Quarkonium Working Group, CERN Yellow Report, 2005, arXiv:hep-ph/0412158.

[21] E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, J. Kogut, K. D. Lane, and T.-M. Yan, "Spectrum of charmed quark-antiquark bound states," Physical Review Letters, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 369-372, 1975.

[22] J. Richardson, "The heavy quark potential and the Y, J/[psi] systems," Physics Letters B, vol. 82B, p. 272, 1979.

[23] Y.-Q. Chen and Y.-P. Kuang, "Improved QCD-motivated heavy-quark potentials with explicit [[LAMBDA].sub.MS] dependence," Physical Review D, vol. 46, p. 1165, 1992.

[24] Y.-Q. Chen and Y.-P. Kuang, "Erratum: "Improved QCD-motivated heavy-quark potentials with explicit [[LAMBDA].sub.MS] dependence"," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 47, p. 35, 1993.

[25] V. Khruschev, V. Savrin, and S. Semenov, "On the parameters of the QCD-motivated potential in the relativistic independent quark model," Physics Letters B, vol. 525, no. 3-4, pp. 283-288, 2002.

[26] A. Martin, "A simultaneous fit of bb, cc, ss (bcs Pairs) and cs spectra," Physics Letters B, vol. 100, p. 511, 1981.

[27] M. Machacek and Y. Tomozawa, "[psi] Phenomenology and the nature of quark confinement," Annals of Physics, vol. 110, p. 407, 1978.

[28] G. Fogleman, D. B. Lichtenberg, and J. G. Wills, "Heavy-meson spectra calculated with a one-parameter potential," Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, vol. 26, p. 369, 1979.

[29] C. Quigg and J. L. Rosner, "Quantum mechanics with applications to quarkonium," Physics Reports, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 167-235, 1979.

[30] C. Quigg and J. L. Rosner, "Quarkonium level spacings," Physics Letters B, vol. 71B, pp. 153-157, 1977.

[31] S. Xiaotong and L. Hefen, "A new phenomenological potential for heavy quarkonium," Zeitschrift fur Physik C Particles and Fields, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 223-231, 1987.

[32] C. Quigg, H. B. Thacker, and J. L. Rosner, "Constructive evidence for flavor independence of the quark-antiquark potential," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 21, Article ID 3393, p. 234, 1980.

[33] W. Buchmuller, Y. Jack Ng, and S.-H. H. Tye, "Hyperfine splittings in heavy-quark systems," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 3312-3314, 1981.

[34] C. Bachas, "Concavity of the quarkonium potential," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 2723-2725, 1986.

[35] S. K. Choi, "Belle collaboration," Physical Review Letters, vol. 91, Article ID 262001, 2003.

[36] X.-W. Kang and J. A. Oller, "Different pole structures in line shapes of the X(3872)," The European Physical Journal C, vol. 77, no. 6, 2017.

[37] R. R. Horgan, "The construction and classification of wavefunctions for the harmonic oscillator model of three quarks," Journal of Physics G: Nuclear Physics, vol. 2, p. 625, 1976.

[38] N. Isgur and G. Karl, "P-wave baryons in the quark model," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 4187-4205, 1978.

[39] A. W. Hendry, "Decays of high spin [[DELTA].sup.*] and [N.sup.*] resonances in the quark model," Annals of Physics, vol. 140, no. 65, 1982.

[40] A. W. Hendry and D. B. Lichtenberg, "Properties of hadrons in the quark model," Fortschritte der Physik/Progress of Physics banner, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 139-231, 1985.

[41] K. B. V. Kumar, B. Hanumaiah, and S. Pepin, "Meson spectrum in a relativistic harmonic model with instanton-induced interaction," The European Physical Journal A--Hadrons and Nuclei, vol. 19, no. 9, p. 247, 2004.

[42] K. B. V. Kumar, M. Y.-L. Bhavyashri, and A. P. Monteiro, "P-wave meson spectrum in a relativistic model with instanton induced interaction," International Journal of Modern Physics A, vol. 24, 2009.

[43] M. Tanabashi, "Particle Data Group," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 98, Article ID 030001, 2018.

[44] S. Godfrey and K. Moats, " Erratum: ," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 92, no. 11, 2015.

[45] V. Lengyel, Y. Fekete, I. Haysak, and A. Shpenik, "Calculation of hyperfine splitting in mesons using configuration interaction approach," The European Physical Journal C, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 355-359, 2001.

[46] R. Van Royen and V. F. Weisskopf, "Protsyessy raspada adronov i modyel cyrillic small soft sign kvarkov," Il Nuovo Cimento A, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 617-645, 1967.

[47] E. Braaten and S. Fleming, "QCD radiative corrections to the leptonic decay rate of the [B.sub.c] meson," Physical Review D, vol. 52, p. 181, 1995.

[48] W. Kwong, P. B. Mackenzie, R. Rosenfeld, and J. L. Rosner, "Quarkonium annihilation rates," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 3210-3215, 1988.

[49] J. T. Laverty, S. F. Radford, and W. W. Repko, "\ga\ga and g g decay rates for equal mass heavy quarkonia," High Energy Physics - Phenomenology, 2009, arXiv:hep-ph/0901.3917v3.

[50] M. Ablikim, J. Z. Bai, Y. Ban, X. Cai, H. F. Chen, and H. S. Chen, "Determination of the [psi](3770), [psi](4040), [psi](4160) and [psi](4415) resonance parameters," Physics Letters B, vol. 660, no. 3, pp. 315-319, 2008.

[51] E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane, and T.-. Yan, "Charmonium: The model," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 3090-3117, 1978.

[52] C. Hayne and N. Isgur, "Beyond the wave function at the origin: Some momentum-dependent effects in the nonrelativistic quark model," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 1944-1950, 1982.

[53] N. Isgur, D. Scora, B. Grinstein, and M. B. Wise, "Semileptonic B and D decays in the quark model," Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 799-818, 1989.

[54] Z.-H. Wang, Y. Zhang, L.-B. Jiang, T.-H. Wang, Y. Jiang, and G.L. Wang, "The strong decays of X(3940) and X(4160)," European Physical Journal C, vol. 77, no. 1, article 43, 2017.

Halil Mutuk (iD)

Physics Department, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Ondokuz Mayis University, 55139 Samsun, Turkey

Correspondence should be addressed to Halil Mutuk; halilmutuk@gmail.com

Received 20 August 2018; Revised 18 October 2018; Accepted 30 October 2018; Published 25 November 2018

Guest Editor: Xian-Wei Kang

Caption: Figure 1: Regge trajectories of pseudoscalar charmonium in (n, [M.sup.2]) plane. The polynomial fit is [M.sup.2] = -0.397857 [n.sup.2] + 5.04014 n + 4.356 ([GeV.sup.2]) for power potential and [M.sup.2] = -0.382143 [n.sup.2] + 4.65786 n + 4.55 ([GeV.sup.2]) for logarithmic potential.

Caption: Figure 2: Regge trajectories of vector charmonium in (n, [M.sup.2]) plane. The polynomial fit is [M.sup.2] = -0.405 [n.sup.2] + 5.091 n + 4.986 ([GeV.sup.2]) for power potential and [M.sup.2] = -0.403571 [n.sup.2] + 4.80643 n + 5.316 ([GeV.sup.2]) for logarithmic potential.

Caption: Figure 3: Regge trajectories of pseudoscalar bottomonium in (n, [M.sup.2]) plane. The polynomial fit is [M.sup.2] = -0.79 [n.sup.2] + 11.5586 n + 79.36 ([GeV.sup.2]) for power potential and [M.sup.2] = -0.636071 [n.sup.2] + 10.3054 n + 80.92 ([GeV.sup.2]) for logarithmic potential.

Caption: Figure 4: Regge trajectories of vector bottomonium in (n, [M.sup.2]) plane. The polynomial fit is [M.sup.2] = -0.809286 [n.sup.2] + 11.6401 n + 79.812 ([GeV.sup.2]) for power potential and [M.sup.2] = -0.7475 [n.sup.2] + 11.1579 n + 79.936 ([GeV.sup.2]) for logarithmic potential.
Table 1: Spin-averaged mass spectrum of charmonium (in MeV).

State   Power   Logarithmic   [15]   [12]

1S      3067       3067       3067   3117
2S      3701       3655       3667   3684
3S      4054       3980       4121   4078
4S      4306       4204       4513   4407
5S      4504       4376       4866

Table 2: Spin-averaged mass spectrum of Bottomonium (in MeV).

State   Power   Logarithmic   [15]    [12]

1S      9473       9444       9443    9523
2S      10049      10033      9729    10035
3S      10384      10357      10312   10373
4S      10624      10581      10593
5S      10813      10753      10840
6S      10986      10964      11065

Table 3: Charmonium mass spectrum (in MeV). In [18] LP denotes linear
potential and SP denotes screened potential.

State               Exp. [43]   Power   Logarithmic   [13]   [11]

[[eta].sub.c](1S)     2984      2980       2954       2979   2982
[[eta].sub.c](2S)     3639      3624       3555       3623   3630
[[eta].sub.c](3S)               3983       3887       3991   4043
[[eta].sub.c](4S)               4240       4117       4250   4384
[[eta].sub.c](5S)               4441       4294       4446
J/[psi]               3097      3096       3104       3097   3090
[psi](2S)             3686      3727       3689       3673   3672
[psi](3S)             4040      4078       4011       4022   4072
[psi](4S)                       4328       4233       4273   4406
[psi](5S)                       4525       4403       4463

State               [18] LP   [18] SP

[[eta].sub.c](1S)    2983      2984
[[eta].sub.c](2S)    3635      3637
[[eta].sub.c](3S)    4048      4004
[[eta].sub.c](4S)    4388      4264
[[eta].sub.c](5S)    4690      4459
J/[psi]              3097      3097
[psi](2S)            3679      3679
[psi](3S)            4078      4030
[psi](4S)            4412      4281
[psi](5S)            4711      4472

Table 4: Bottomonium mass spectrum (in MeV).

State               Exp. [43]   Power   Logarithmic   [14]    [18]

[[eta].sub.b](1S)     9399      9452       9420       9389    9390
[[eta].sub.b](2S)     9999      10030      10011      9987    9990
[[eta].sub.b](3S)               10367      10338      10330   10326
[[eta].sub.b](4S)               10608      10562      10595   10584
[[eta].sub.b](5S)               10798      10735      10817   10800
[[eta].sub.b](6S)               11005      10990      11011   10988
Y(1S)                 9460      9480       9452       9460    9460
Y(2S)                 10023     10055      10040      10016   10015
Y(3S)                 10355     10393      10364      10351   10343
Y(4S)                 10579     10629      10588      10611   10597
Y(5S)                 10865     10818      10759      10831   10811
Y(6S)                 11019     11019      11006      11023   10997

State               [44]     [16]

[[eta].sub.b](1S)   9402     9455
[[eta].sub.b](2S)   9976     9990
[[eta].sub.b](3S)   10336    10330
[[eta].sub.b](4S)   10623
[[eta].sub.b](5S)   10869
[[eta].sub.b](6S)   11097
Y(1S)               9465     9502
Y(2S)               10003    10015
Y(3S)               10354    10349
Y(4S)               10635    10607
Y(5S)               10878    10818
Y(6S)               11102    10995

Table 5: Mass differences of S-wave charmonium states (in MeV).

State                         Exp. [43]   Power   Logarithmic   [13]

J/[psi]-[[eta].sub.c](1S)        113       116        150       118
[psi](2S)-[[eta].sub.c](2S)      47        103        134        50
[psi](3S)-[[eta].sub.c](3S)                95         124        31
[psi](4S)-[[eta].sub.c](4S)                88         116        23
[psi](5S)-[[eta].sub.c](5S)                84         109        17

State                         [11]   [18] LP   [18] SP

J/[psi]-[[eta].sub.c](1S)     108      114       113
[psi](2S)-[[eta].sub.c](2S)    42      44        42
[psi](3S)-[[eta].sub.c](3S)    29      30        26
[psi](4S)-[[eta].sub.c](4S)    22      24        17
[psi](5S)-[[eta].sub.c](5S)            21        13

Table 6: Mass differences of S-wave bottomonium states (in MeV).

State                     Exp. [43]   Power   Log   [14]   [18]   [44]

Y(lS)-[[eta].sub.b](lS)      61        28     32     71     70     63
Y(2S)-[[eta].sub.b](2S)      24        25     29     29     25     27
Y(3S)-[[eta].sub.b](3S)                26     26     21     17     18
Y(4S)-[[eta].sub.b](4S)                21     26     16     13     12
Y(5S)-[[eta].sub.b](5S)                20     24     14     11     9
Y(6S)-[[eta].sub.b](6S)      14        16     12     9

State                     [16]

Y(lS)-[[eta].sub.b](lS)    47
Y(2S)-[[eta].sub.b](2S)    25
Y(3S)-[[eta].sub.b](3S)    19
Y(4S)-[[eta].sub.b](4S)
Y(5S)-[[eta].sub.b](5S)
Y(6S)-[[eta].sub.b](6S)

Table 7: Pseudoscalar decay constants (in MeV).

State                  Exp. [43]       Power          Power
                                      [f.sub.p]   [[bar.f].sub.p]

[[eta].sub.c](1S)   335 [+ or -] 75      543            415
[[eta].sub.c](2S)                        473            362
[[eta].sub.c](3S)                        330            252
[[eta].sub.c](4S)                        325            248
[[eta].sub.c](5S)                        253            193
[[eta].sub.b](1S)                        517            431
[[eta].sub.b](2S)                        479            400
[[eta].sub.b](3S)                        345            288
[[eta].sub.b](4S)                        313            261
[[eta].sub.b](5S)                        283            236
[[eta].sub.b](6S)                        208            186

State               Logarithmic     Logarithmic        [15]
                     [f.sub.p]     [[bar.f].sub.p]   [f.sub.p]

[[eta].sub.c](1S)       578              442            471
[[eta].sub.c](2S)       497              380            374
[[eta].sub.c](3S)       442              338            332
[[eta].sub.c](4S)       412              315            312
[[eta].sub.c](5S)       387              304
[[eta].sub.b](1S)       585              488            834
[[eta].sub.b](2S)       535              447            567
[[eta].sub.b](3S)       504              421            508
[[eta].sub.b](4S)       482              402            481
[[eta].sub.b](5S)       465              388
[[eta].sub.b](6S)       434              374

State                    [15]         [12]
                    [[bar.f].sub.p]

[[eta].sub.c](1S)         360         402
[[eta].sub.c](2S)         286         240
[[eta].sub.c](3S)         254         193
[[eta].sub.c](4S)         239
[[eta].sub.c](5S)
[[eta].sub.b](1S)         694         599
[[eta].sub.b](2S)         472         411
[[eta].sub.b](3S)         422         354
[[eta].sub.b](4S)         401
[[eta].sub.b](5S)
[[eta].sub.b](6S)

Table 8: Vector decay constants (in MeV).

State          Exp.[43]        Power          Power         Logarithmic
                              [f.sub.v]   [[bar.f].sub.v]    [f.sub.v]

J/[psi]     335 [+ or -] 75      529            363             563
[psi](2S)   279 [+ or -] 8       463            318             487
[psi](3S)   174 [+ or -] 18      324            222             436
[psi](4S)                        319            219             406
[psi](5S)                        248            170             382
Y(1S)       708 [+ or -] 8       516            402             584
Y(2S)       482 [+ or -] 10      482            373             535
Y(3S)       346 [+ or -] 50      350            269             504
Y(4S)       325 [+ or -] 60      316            243             482
Y(5S)       369 [+ or -] 93      285            222             464
Y(6S)                            241            203             442

State         Logarithmic       [15]           [15]         [12]
            [[bar.f].sub.v]   [f.sub.p]   [[bar.f].sub.p]

J/[psi]           386            462            317         393
[psi](2S)         334            369            253         293
[psi](3S)         299            329            226         258
[psi](4S)         279            310            212
[psi](5S)         262            290            199
Y(1S)             455            831            645         665
Y(2S)             416            566            439         475
Y(3S)             393            507            393         418
Y(4S)             375            481            373         388
Y(5S)             362            458            356         367
Y(6S)             354            439            341

Table 9: Charmonium leptonic decay widths (in keV). The widths
calculated with and without QCD corrections are denoted by
[mathematical expression not reproducible].

                                  Power

State      [mathematical expression    [mathematical expression
               not reproducible]           not reproducible]

J/[psi]              3.435                       1.277
[psi](2S)            2.880                       1.071
[psi](3S)            2.153                       0.800
[psi](4S)            1.839                       0.684
[psi](5S)            1.590                       0.591

                              Logarithmic

State      [mathematical expression    [mathematical expression
               not reproducible]           not reproducible]

J/[psi]              3.154                       1.173
[psi](2S)            2.362                       0.878
[psi](3S)            1.888                       0.702
[psi](4S)            1.642                       0.610
[psi](5S)            1.551                       0.576

                                   [13]

State      [mathematical expression    [mathematical expression
               not reproducible]           not reproducible]

J/[psi]              11.8                        6.60
[psi](2S)            4.29                        2.40
[psi](3S)            2.53                        1.42
[psi](4S)            1.73                        0.97
[psi](5S)            1.25                        0.70

                                  [15]

State      [mathematical expression    [mathematical expression
               not reproducible]           not reproducible]

J/[psi]              6.847                       2.536
[psi](2S)            3.666                       1.358
[psi](3S)            2.597                       0.962
[psi](4S)            2.101                       0.778
[psi](5S)            1.710                       0.633

                         Exp. [43]
State

J/[psi]     5.55 [+ or -] 0.14 [+ or -] 0.02
[psi](2S)         2.33 [+ or -] 0.07
[psi](3S)         0.86 [+ or -] 0.07
[psi](4S)         0.58 [+ or -] 0.07
[psi](5S)

Table 10: Bottomonium leptonic decay widths (in keV). The widths
calculated with and without QCD corrections are denoted by
[mathematical expression not reproducible].

                              Power

State   [mathematical expression    [mathematical expression
            not reproducible]           not reproducible]

Y(1S)             0.817                       0.456
Y(2S)             0.686                       0.383
Y(3S)             0.610                       0.340
Y(4S)             0.557                       0.311
Y(5S)             0.526                       0.294
Y(6S)             0.492                       0.278

                             Logarithmic

State   [mathematical expression    [mathematical expression
            not reproducible]           not reproducible]

Y(1S)             0.847                       0.473
Y(2S)             0.709                       0.396
Y(3S)             0.630                       0.352
Y(4S)             0.576                       0.322
Y(5S)             0.535                       0.299
Y(6S)             0.501                       0.282

                                 [25]

State   [mathematical expression    [mathematical expression
            not reproducible]           not reproducible]

Y(1S)             2.31                        1.60
Y(2S)             0.92                        0.64
Y(3S)             0.64                        0.44
Y(4S)             0.51                        0.35
Y(5S)             0.42                        0.29
Y(6S)             0.31                        0.22

                                [15]

State   [mathematical expression    [mathematical expression
            not reproducible]           not reproducible]

Y(1S)             1.809                       0.998
Y(2S)             0.797                       0.439
Y(3S)             0.618                       0.341
Y(4S)             0.541                       0.298
Y(5S)             0.481                       0.265
Y(6S)             0.432                       0.238

                Exp. [43]
State

Y(1S)   1.340 [+ or -] 0.018
Y(2S)   0.612 [+ or -] 0.011
Y(3S)   0.443 [+ or -] 0.008
Y(4S)   0.272 [+ or -] 0.029
Y(5S)    0.31 [+ or -] 0.07
Y(6S)   0.130 [+ or -] 0.030

Table 11: Two-photon decay widths (in keV). The widths calculated with
and without QCD corrections are denoted by [[GAMMA].sub.[gamma][gamma]]
and [[GAMMA].sup.0.sub.[gamma][gamma]].

                                      Power

State               [[GAMMA].sup.0.sub.    [[GAMMA].sub.
                      [gamma][gamma]]     [gamma][gamma]]

[[eta].sub.c](1S)          1.10                0.664
[[eta].sub.c](2S)          0.987               0.592
[[eta].sub.c](3S)          0.907               0.543
[[eta].sub.c](4S)          0.847               0.508
[[eta].sub.c](5S)          0.801               0.480
[[eta].sub.b](1S)          0.277               0.199
[[eta].sub.b](2S)          0.212               0.153
[[eta].sub.b](3S)          0.195               0.142
[[eta].sub.b](4S)          0.188               0.136
[[eta].sub.b](5S)          0.176               0.129
[[eta].sub.b](6S)          0.164               0.116

                                  Logarithmic

State               [[GAMMA].sup.0.sub.    [[GAMMA].sub.
                      [gamma][gamma]]     [gamma][gamma]]

[[eta].sub.c](1S)          1.450               0.869
[[eta].sub.c](2S)          1.291               0.774
[[eta].sub.c](3S)          1.184               0.710
[[eta].sub.c](4S)          1.105               0.662
[[eta].sub.c](5S)          1.044               0.620
[[eta].sub.b](1S)          0.277               0.199
[[eta].sub.b](2S)          0.246               0.177
[[eta].sub.b](3S)          0.226               0.162
[[eta].sub.b](4S)          0.211               0.151
[[eta].sub.b](5S)          0.199               0.143
[[eta].sub.b](6S)          0.182               0.134

                                      [15]

State               [[GAMMA].sup.0.sub.    [[GAMMA].sub.
                      [gamma][gamma]]     [gamma][gamma]]

[[eta].sub.c](1S)          11.17               6.668
[[eta].sub.c](2S)          8.48                5.08
[[eta].sub.c](3S)          7.57                4.53
[[eta].sub.c](4S)
[[eta].sub.c](5S)
[[eta].sub.b](1S)          0.58                0.42
[[eta].sub.b](2S)          0.29                0.20
[[eta].sub.b](3S)          0.24                0.17
[[eta].sub.b](4S)
[[eta].sub.b](5S)
[[eta].sub.b](6S)

                           [8]              [12]            Exp. [43]

State                [[GAMMA].sub.     [[GAMMA].sub.
                    [gamma][gamma]]   [gamma][gamma]]

[[eta].sub.c](1S)        3.69              7.18         72 [+ or -] 0.7
[[eta].sub.c](2S)         1.4              1.71           [+ or -] 0.2
[[eta].sub.c](3S)        0.930             1.21
[[eta].sub.c](4S)        0.720
[[eta].sub.c](5S)
[[eta].sub.b](1S)        0.214             0.45
[[eta].sub.b](2S)        0.121             0.11
[[eta].sub.b](3S)        0.09              0.063
[[eta].sub.b](4S)        0.07
[[eta].sub.b](5S)
[[eta].sub.b](6S)

Table 12: Two-gluon decay widths (in MeV). The widths calculated with
and without QCD corrections are denoted by [[GAMMA].sub.gg] and
[[GAMMA].sup.0.sub.gg].

                                         Power

State               [[GAMMA].sup.0.sub.gg]   [[GAMMA].sub.gg]

[[eta].sub.c](lS)           32.04                 50.15
[[eta].sub.c](2S)           28.55                 44.70
[[eta].sub.c](3S)           26.22                 41.04
[[eta].sub.c](4S)           24.50                 38.35
[[eta].sub.c](5S)           23.15                 36.24
[[eta].sub.b](1S)            5.50                  7.50
[[eta].sub.b](2S)            4.90                  6.69
[[eta].sub.b](3S)            4.50                  6.14
[[eta].sub.b](4S)            4.20                  5.74
[[eta].sub.b](5S)            3.97                  5.42
[[eta].sub.b](6S)            3.62                  5.18

                                     Logarithmic

State               [[GAMMA].sup.0.sub.gg]   [[GAMMA].sub.gg]

[[eta].sub.c](lS)           41.93                 32.44
[[eta].sub.c](2S)           37.32                 24.64
[[eta].sub.c](3S)           34.23                 53.59
[[eta].sub.c](4S)           31.96                 50.03
[[eta].sub.c](5S)           30.18                 47.24
[[eta].sub.b](1S)           12.82                 17.49
[[eta].sub.b](2S)           11.41                 15.56
[[eta].sub.b](3S)           10.46                 14.28
[[eta].sub.b](4S)            9.77                 13.33
[[eta].sub.b](5S)            9.22                 12.58
[[eta].sub.b](6S)            8.68                 10.86

                                          [15]

State               [[GAMMA].sup.0.sub.gg]   [[GAMMA].sub.gg]

[[eta].sub.c](lS)           50.82                 66.68
[[eta].sub.c](2S)           38.61                  5.08
[[eta].sub.c](3S)           21.99
[[eta].sub.c](4S)
[[eta].sub.c](5S)
[[eta].sub.b](1S)           13.72                 18.80
[[eta].sub.b](2S)            6.73                  9.22
[[eta].sub.b](3S)            5.58                  7.64
[[eta].sub.b](4S)
[[eta].sub.b](5S)
[[eta].sub.b](6S)

                           [49]                Exp. [43]

State               [[GAMMA].sup.0.sub.gg]   [[GAMMA].sub.gg]

[[eta].sub.c](lS)           15.70            26.7 [+ or -] 3.0
[[eta].sub.c](2S)            8.10              14 [+ or -] 7
[[eta].sub.c](3S)
[[eta].sub.c](4S)
[[eta].sub.c](5S)
[[eta].sub.b](1S)           11.49
[[eta].sub.b](2S)            5.16
[[eta].sub.b](3S)            3.80
[[eta].sub.b](4S)
[[eta].sub.b](5S)
[[eta].sub.b](6S)

Table 13: Radiative M1 decay widths of charmonium. In [18] LP stands
for linear potential and SP stands for screened potential.

Initial           Final                            Power

                                [E.sub.[gamma]](MeV)   [GAMMA](keV)

J/[psi]     [[eta].sub.c](1S)          114.9               1.96
[psi](2S)   [[eta].sub.c](2S)          111.5               1.39
[psi](3S)   [[eta].sub.c](3S)           93.8               1.10
[psi](4S)   [[eta].sub.c](4S)           87.1               0.88
[psi](5S)   [[eta].sub.c](5S)           83.2               0.74

Initial                      Logarithmic              [15]

            [E.sub.[gamma]] (MeV)   [GAMMA](keV)   [GAMMA](keV)

J/[psi]            113.8               2.83           3.28
[psi](2S)          101.5               2.01           1.45
[psi](3S)          93.8                1.59
[psi](4S)          87.1                1.27
[psi](5S)          83.2                1.10

Initial                         [18]

            [[GAMMA].sub.LP] (keV)   [[GAMMA].sub.SP(keV)

J/[psi]              2.39                    2.44
[psi](2S)            0.19                    0.19
[psi](3S)           0.051                   0.088
[psi](4S)
[psi](5S)

Initial       Exp. [43]

              [GAMMA] (keV)

J/[psi]     1.13 [+ or -] 0.35
[psi](2S)
[psi](3S)
[psi](4S)
[psi](5S)

Table 14: Radiative M1 decay widths of bottomonium.

Initial         Final                           Power

                              [E.sub.[gamma]](MeV)   [GAMMA](eV)

Y(1S)     [[eta].sub.b](1S)           27.9              0.88
Y(2S)     [[eta].sub.b](2S)           24.9              0.62
Y(3S)     [[eta].sub.b](3S)           25.9              0.54
Y(4S)     [[eta].sub.b](4S)           20.9              0.37
Y(5S)     [[eta].sub.b](5S)           19.9              0.32
Y(6S)     [[eta].sub.b](6S)           14.3              0.29

Initial                  Logarithmic              [10]

          [E.sub.[gamma]](MeV)   [GAMMA](eV)   [GAMMA](eV)

Y(1S)             31.9              1.46           5.8
Y(2S)             28.9              1.09           1.4
Y(3S)             25.9              0.78           0.8
Y(4S)             20.9              0.41
Y(5S)             19.9              0.35
Y(6S)             14.4              0.27

Initial      [44]          [16]        Exp. [43]

          [GAMMA](eV)   [GAMMA](eV)   [GAMMA](eV)

Y(1S)         10           9.34
Y(2S)        0.59          0.58
Y(3S)        0.25          0.66
Y(4S)
Y(5S)
Y(6S)

Table 15: Exotic states. Experimental data are taken from [43] unless
stated. The units for mass and strong decays are in MeV and two-photon
decay is in keV.

                                       Mass

                    Power   Logarithmic        Experiment

X(3940)                                   [3942.sup.+7.sub.-6]
[[eta].sub.c](3S)   3983       3887            [+ or -] 6
X(4160)                                      4191 [+ or -] 5
[[eta].sub.c](4S)   4240       4117
[psi](4415)                                  4421 [+ or -] 4
[[eta].sub.c](5S)   4441       4297

                                   Strong decay

                    Power   Logarithmic        Experiment

X(3940)                                   [37.sup.+26.sub.-15]
[[eta].sub.c](3S)   41.04      53.59           [+ or -] 8
X(4160)                                      70 [+ or -] 10
[[eta].sub.c](4S)   38.35      50.03
[psi](4415)                                  62 [+ or -] 20
[[eta].sub.c](5S)   36.24      47.24

                                   Two-photon decay

                    Power    Logarithmic         Experiment

X(3940)
[[eta].sub.c](3S)   0.543       0.710
X(4160)                                    0.48 [+ or -] 0.22 [50]
[[eta].sub.c](4S)   0.508       0.612
[psi](4415)                                  0.58 [+ or -] 0.07
[[eta].sub.c](5S)   0.480       0.620
COPYRIGHT 2018 Hindawi Limited
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Research Article
Author:Mutuk, Halil
Publication:Advances in High Energy Physics
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2018
Words:9378
Previous Article:Localization of Energy-Momentum for a Black Hole Spacetime Geometry with Constant Topological Euler Density.
Next Article:The Visualization of the Space Probability Distribution for a Particle Moving in a Double Ring-Shaped Coulomb Potential.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters