The study of leading twist light cone wave functions of J/Ψ meson. V.V. Braguta1,∗ 1Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia This paperisdevotedtothestudyof leadingtwist light cone wavefunctionsof J/Ψ meson. The moments of these wave functions have been calculated within three approaches: potential models, nonrelativistic QCD and QCD sum rules. Using the results obtained within these approaches the modelsforthelightconewavefunctionsofleadingtwisthavebeenproposed. Similarlytothewave functionofηc mesontheleadingtwistlightconewavefunctionsofJ/Ψmesonhaveveryinteresting properties at scales µ> mc: improvement of the accuracy of the model, appearance of relativistic tail and violation of nonrelativistic QCD velocity scaling rules. The last two properties are the properties of true leading twist light cone wavefunctions of J/Ψ meson. PACSnumbers: 12.38.-t,12.38.Bx,13.66.Bc,13.25.Gv 7 0 0 I. INTRODUCTION 2 n Commonly exclusive charmoniumproduction athigh energies is studied within nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD) [1]. a In the framework of this approach charmonium is considered as a bound state of quark-antiquark pair moving with J smallrelativevelocityv ≪1. Due tothe presenceofsmallparameterv the amplitude ofcharmoniumproductioncan 7 be built as an expansion in relative velocity v. 2 Thus in the frameworkNRQCD the amplitude of any process is a series in relative velocity v. Usually, in the most of applications of NRQCD, the consideration is restricted by the leading order approximation in relative velocity. 1 However, this approximationhas two problems which make it unreliable. The first problem is connected with rather v largevalueofrelativevelocityforcharmonium: v2 ∼0.3, v ∼0.5. Forthisvalueofv2onecanexpectlargecontribution 4 3 fromrelativisticcorrectionsinanyprocess. Soinanyprocessresummationofrelativisticcorrectionsshouldbedoneor 2 one should prove that resummation of all terms is not crucial. The second problem is connected with QCD radiative 1 corrections. The point is that due to the presence of large energy scale Q there appears large logarithmic terms 0 (α logQ/m )n, Q≫ m which can be even more important than relativistic corrections at sufficiently large energy s c c 7 ( Q∼10 GeV). So these terms should also be resummed. In principle, it is possible to resum large logarithms in the 0 NRQCD factorization framework [2, 3], however such resummation is done rarely. / h The illustration of all mentioned facts is the process of double charmonium production in e+e− annihilation at p B-factories, where leading order NRQCD predictions [4, 5, 6] are approximately by an order of magnitude less than - p experimentalresults[7, 8]. The calculationofQCDradiativecorrections[9]diminishedthis disagreementbutdidnot e removeit. Probablytheagreementwiththeexperimentscanbeachievedif,inadditiontoQCDradiativecorrections, h relativistic corrections will be resummed [10]. v: InadditiontoNRQCD,hardexclusiveprocessescanbestudiedintheframeworkoflightconeexpansionformalism i [11,12]wherebothproblemsmentionedabovecanbesolved. Withinlightconeexpansionformalismtheamplitudeis X built asanexpansionoverinversepowersofcharacteristicenergyofthe process. Usually this approachis successfully r appliedtoexcusiveproductionoflightmesons[12]. Howeverrecentlytheapplicationoflightconeexpansionformalism a to double charmonium production [13, 14, 15, 16] allowed one to achieve good agreement with the experiments. In the framework of light cone formalism the amplitude of some meson production in any hard process can be writtenasaconvolutionofthehardpartoftheprocess,whichcanbecalculatedusingperturbativeQCD,andprocess independent light cone wave function (LCWF) of this meson that parameterizes nonperturbative effects. From this one can conclude that charmonium LCWFs are key ingredients of any hard exclusive process with charmonium production. In paper [17] the leading twist light cone wave function of η meson was studied. This paper is devoted c to the study of leading twist LCWFs of J/Ψ meson. The paper is organized as follows. In the next section all definitions needed in our calculation will be given. In Section III the moments of LCWFs will be calculated in the framework of Buchmuller-Tye and Cornell potential models. Section IV is devoted to the calculation of the moments within NRQCD. QCD sum rules will be applied to the calculation of the moments in Section V. Using the results obtained in Sections III-V the models of LCWFs will be built in Section VI. In the last section the results of this paper will be summarized. ∗Electronicaddress: [email protected] 2 II. DEFINITIONS. There are two leading twist light cone wave functions (LCWF) of J/Ψ meson. The first one is twist 2 LCWF of longitudinally polarized J/Ψ meson φ (ξ,µ). The second one is twist 2 LCWF of transversely polarized J/Ψ meson L φ (ξ,µ). These LCWFs can be defined as follows [12] T 1 h0|Q¯(z)γ [z,−z]Q(−z)|J/Ψ(ǫ ,p)i = f p dξei(pz)ξφ (ξ,µ), α λ=0 µ L αZ−1 L 1 h0|Q¯(z)σαβ[z,−z]Q(−z)|J/Ψ(ǫλ=±1,p)iµ = fT(µ)(ǫαpβ −ǫβpα)Z−1dξei(pz)ξφT(ξ,µ), (1) where the following designations are used: x ,x are the parts of momentum of the whole meson carried by quark 1 2 andantiquark correspondingly,ξ =x −x , p is a momentum of J/Ψ meson,µ is an energyscale. The factor [z,−z], 1 2 that makes matrix element (1) gauge invariant, is defined as z [z,−z]=Pexp[ig dxµA (x)]. (2) µ Z−z The LCWFs φ (ξ,µ) are normalized as L,T 1 dξ φ (ξ,µ)=1. (3) L,T Z−1 With this normalization condition the constants f are defined as T,L h0|Q¯(0)γ Q(0)|J/Ψ(ǫ ,p)i = f ǫ , α λ=0 L λ=0 h0|Q¯(0)σαβQ(0)|J/Ψ(ǫλ=±1,p)iµ = fT(µ)(ǫαpβ −ǫβpα). (4) It should be noted here that the local current Q¯(0)γ Q(0) is renormalization group invariant. The local current α Q¯(0)σ Q(0) is not invariant. For this reason the constant f (µ) depends on scale µ as αβ T 4 αs(µ) 3b0 f (µ)= f (µ ), (5) T T 0 (cid:18)α (µ )(cid:19) s 0 but the constant f does not depend on scale. L LCWFs φ (x,µ) can be expanded [12] in Gegenbauer polynomials C3/2(ξ) as follows L,T n 3 φ (ξ,µ)= (1−ξ2) 1+ aL,T(µ)C3/2(ξ) . (6) L,T 4 (cid:20) n n (cid:21) n=X2,4.. At leading logarithmic accuracy the coefficients aL,T are renormalized multiplicatively n α (µ) ǫLn,T/b0 aL,T(µ)= s aL,T(µ ), (7) n (cid:18)α (µ )(cid:19) n 0 s 0 where n+1 4 2 1 ǫL = 1− +4 , n 3(cid:18) (n+1)(n+2) j(cid:19) Xj=2 n+1 4 1 2 ǫT = 4 , b =11− n . (8) n 3(cid:18) j(cid:19) 0 3 fl Xj=2 Itshouldbenotedherethatconformalexpansions(6)aresolutionofBethe-Salpeterequationwithonegluonexchange kernel [11]. Fromequations (6)-(8) it is not difficult to see thatat infinitely largeenergy scale µ→∞LCWFs φ (ξ,µ) tends T,L to the asymptotic form φ (ξ) = 3/4(1−ξ2). But at energy scales accessible at current experiments the LCWFs as 3 φ (ξ,µ) are far from their asymptotic forms. The main goal of this paper is to calculate the LCWFs φ (ξ,µ) of T,L L,T J/Ψ meson. These LCWFs will be parameterized by their moments at some scale: 1 hξn i = dξ ξnφ (ξ,µ). (9) L,T µ Z−1 L,T It is worth noting that since J/Ψ meson has negative charge parity the LCWFs φ (ξ,µ) are ξ-even. Thus all odd L,T moments hξ2k+1i equal zero and one needs to calculate only even moments. L,T Below the following formulas will be used in our calculation ↔ h0|Q¯γ (izσD )nQ|J/Ψ(ǫ ,p)i = f p (zp)nhξni, ν σ λ=0 L ν L ↔ h0|Q¯σµν(izσDσ)nQ|J/Ψ(ǫλ=±1,p)i = fT(ǫµpν −ǫνpµ)(zp)nhξTni, (10) where ↔ → ← → → D =D−D, D = ∂ −igBa(λa/2). (11) These formulas can be obtained if one expands both sides of equations (1). III. THE MOMENTS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF POTENTIAL MODELS. In potential models charmonium mesons are considered as a quark-antiquark system bounded by some static potential. These models allow one to understand many properties of chamoniummesons. For instance, the spectrum of charmoniumfamily can be well reproduced in the frameworkof potential models [18]. Due to this success one can hope that potential models can be applied to the calculation of charmonium equal time wave functions. Having equal time wave function of J/Ψ meson in momentum space ψ(k) one can apply Brodsky-Huang-Lepage (BHL) [19] procedure and get the LCWFs of leading twist φ (ξ,µ) using the following rule: L,T k2⊥<µ2 φL,T(ξ,µ)∼ d2k⊥ψc(x,k⊥), (12) Z where ψc(x,k⊥) can be obtained from ψ(k) after the substitution M M2+k2 k⊥ →k⊥, kz →(x1−x2) 20, M02 = cx x ⊥. (13) 1 2 Here M is a quark mass in potential model. In this paper equal time wave function ψ(k) will be calculated in c the framework of the potential models with Buchmuller-Tye [20] and Cornell potentials [21]. The parameters of Buchmuller-Tyepotentialmodelweretakenfrompaper[20]. ForCornellpotentialV(r)=−k/r+r/a2thecalculation was carried our with the following set of parameters: k=0.61, a=2.38 GeV−1, M =1.84 GeV [22]. c In paper [17] the moments of leading twist LCWF of η meson were calculated within potential models with these c potentials. Atleadingorderapproximationinrelativevelocitythereisnodifferencebetweenequaltimewavefunctions of η and J/Ψ mesons. In what follows the moments obtained in paper [17] for the leading twist LCWF of η meson c c equal to the moments of LCWFs φ (ξ,µ) of J/Ψ meson. Within this approximationthere is no difference between L,T φ (ξ,µ) and φ (ξ,µ). L T It is worth noting that in paper [23] the relations between the light cone wave functions and equal time wave functions of charmonium mesons in the rest frame were derived. The procedure proposed in paper [23] is similar to BHL with the difference: in formula (12) one must make the substitution d2k⊥ → d2k⊥ k2+m2c/(4mcx1x2). But this substitution was derived at leading order approximation in relative velocity of qupark-antiquark motion inside the charmonium. At this approximation k2 ∼ O(v2), 4x x ∼ 1+O(v2) and the substitution amounts to 1 2 d2k⊥ →d2k⊥(1+O(v2)). Thus at leading order approximationapplied in [23] these two approaches coincide. The results of paper [17] are presented in Table I (see this paper for details). In second and third columns the moments calculated in the framework of Buchmuller-Tye and Cornell models are presented. It should be noted that themomentsfromTableIwerecalculatedatscaleµ∼1.5GeV.Itisseenthatthereisgoodagreementbetweenthese two models. It shouldbe noted herethat the largerthe powerofthe moment the largercontributionformthe endpoint regions (x ∼ 0 and x ∼ 1) it gets. From formulas (13) one sees that the motion of quark-antiquark pair in this region is relativisticandcannotbeconsideredreliablyintheframeworkofpotentialmodels. Thusitisnotpossibletocalculate higher moments within the potential models. Due to this fact the calculation of the moments has been restricted by few first moments. 4 n hξ i Buchmuller-Tye Cornell NRQCD QCD sum rules QCD sum rules model [20] model [21] [24] φL(ξ,µ) φT(ξ,µ) n=2 0.086 0.084 0.075±0.011 0.070±0.007 0.072±0.007 n=4 0.020 0.019 0.010±0.003 0.012±0.002 0.012±0.002 n=6 0.0066 0.0066 0.0017±0.0007 0.0031±0.0008 0.0033±0.0007 TABLE I: The moments of LCWFs φL(ξ,µ),φT(ξ,µ) obtained within different approaches. In the second and third columns themomentscalculatedintheframeworkofBuchmuller-TyeandCornellpotentialmodelsarepresented. Inthefourthcolumn NRQCDpredictionsforthemomentsarepresented. InlasttwocolumnstheresultsobtainedwithinQCDsumrulesareshown. IV. THE MOMENTS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF NRQCD. Inpaper[17]therelationsthatallowonetoconnectthemomentsofleadingtwistLCWFofη mesonwithNRQCD c matrix elements were derived ↔ 1 h0|χ+(iD)2ψ|η i hv2i hξ2i= c = , (14) 3M2 h0|χ+ψ|η i 3 c c ↔ 1 h0|χ+(iD)4ψ|η i hv4i hξ4i= c = , 5M4 h0|χ+ψ|η i 5 c c ↔ 1 h0|χ+(iD)6ψ|η i hv6i hξ6i= c = , 7M6 h0|χ+ψ|η i 7 c c where ψ and χ+ are Pauli spinor fields that annihilate a quark and an antiquark respectively, M = M /2, The c J/Ψ moments are defined at scale µ∼M . c These relations were derived at leading order approximation in relative velocity. However, as it was noted above at this approximation there is no difference between η and J/Ψ mesons. Moreover, there is no difference between c LCWFs φ (ξ,µ) and φ (ξ,µ). So the values for the moments of LCWFs φ (ξ,µ),φ (ξ,µ) can be taken from paper L T L T [17]. The results of the calculation of the moments are presented in the fourth column of Table I. The central values of the moments and the errors due to the model uncertainty have been calculated according to the approach proposed in paper [24]. In addition to the errorshown in Table I there is an uncertainty due to higher order v corrections. For the second moment one can expect that this error is about 30%. For higher moments this error is larger. It is seen from Table I that NRQCD predictions for the second and the fourth moments are in good agreement with potential model and there is disagreement for the moment hξ6i between these two approaches. The cause of this disagreementis the fact noted above: due to the largecontribution of relativistic motionof quark-antiquarkpair inside quarkonium it is not possible to apply both approaches for higher moments. So one can expect that both approaches can be used for the estimation of the values of the second and the fourth moments. The predictions for the sixth and higher moments become unreliable. V. THE MOMENTS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF QCD SUM RULES. In this section QCD sum rules [25, 26] will be applied to the calculation of the moments of LCWFs φ (ξ,µ) and L φ (ξ,µ) [12, 27]. First let us consider LCWF φ (ξ,µ). To calculate the moments of this LCWF one should consider T L two-point correlator: Π (z,q)=i d4xeiqxh0|TJ (x)J (0)|0i=(zq)n+2Π (q2), (15) L 0 n L Z ↔ J (x)=Q¯(x)zˆQ(x), J (0)=Q¯(0)zˆ(izρD )nQ(0), z2 =0. 0 n ρ It is not difficult to obtain sum rules for this correlator (for details see paper [17]). f2hξni 1 ∞ ImΠ (s) L L = ds pert +Π(m) (Q2), (16) (MJ2/Ψ+Q2)m+1 π Z4m2c (s+Q2)m+1 npert 5 where perturbative and nonperturbative contributions to sum rules ImΠ (s), Π(m) (Q2) can be written as pert npert 3 1 v2 4m2 ImΠ (s)= vn+1( − ), v2 =1− c, (17) pert 8π n+1 n+3 s Π(m) (Q2) = Π(m)(Q2)+Π(m)(Q2)+Π(m)(Q2), (18) npert 1 2 3 hα G2i 1 n(n−1) (1−ξ2)m+2 Π(m)(Q2) = s (m+1) dξ ξn+ ξn−2(1−ξ2) , 1 24π Z−1 (cid:18) 4 (cid:19) 4m2c +Q2(1−ξ2) m+2 hα G2i 1 ((cid:0)1−ξ2)m+1 (cid:1) Π(m)(Q2) = − s m2(m2+3m+2) dξ ξn 1+3ξ2 , 2 6π c Z−1 (cid:0) (cid:1) 4m2c +Q2(1−ξ2) m+3 hα G2i 1 (1−(cid:0)ξ2)m+3 (cid:1) Π(m)(Q2) = s (n2−n)(m+1) dξ ξn−2 . 3 384π Z−1 4m2c +Q2(1−ξ2) m+2 (cid:0) (cid:1) Here Q2 =−q2, m and hα G2i are parameters of QCD sum rules. c s To calculate the moments of LCWF φ (ξ,µ) one should consider the correlator: T Π (z,q) = i d4xeiqxh0|TJ (x)Jµ(0)|0i=(zq)n+2Π (q2), (19) T Z µ n T ↔ J (x) = Q¯(x)(σ zν)Q(x), Jµ(0)=Q¯(0)(σµνz )(izρD )nQ(0), z2 =0. µ µν n ν ρ The sum rules for this correlator can be written as f2hξni 1 ∞ ImΠ (s) T T = ds pert +Π(m) (Q2), (20) (m2J/Ψ+Q2)m+1 π Z4m2c (s+Q2)m+1 npert where perturbative and nonperturbative contributions to sum rules (20) are given by expressions (17), (18) except that the expression for Π(m)(Q2) should be replaced by 1 hα G2i 1 n(n−1) (1−ξ2)m+2 Π(m)(Q2) = s (m+1) dξ −ξn+ ξn−2(1−ξ2) . (21) 1 24π Z−1 (cid:18) 4 (cid:19) 4m2c +Q2(1−ξ2) m+2 (cid:0) (cid:1) In the original paper [26] the method QCD sum rules was applied at Q2 = 0. However, as it was shown in paper [28], there is large contribution of higher dimensional operators at Q2 =0 which grows rapidly with m. To suppress this contribution sum rules (16), (20) will be applied at Q2 =4m2. c In the numerical analysis of QCD sum rules the values of parameters m and hα G2/πi will be taken from paper c s [28]: α m =1.24±0.02 GeV, h sG2i=0.012±30% GeV4. (22) c π First sum rules (16), (20) will be applied to the calculation of the constants f2 . It is not difficult to express the L,T constants f2 from equations (16), (20) at n = 0 as functions of m. For too small values of m (m < m ) there are L,T 1 large contributions from higher resonances and continuum which spoil sum rules (16), (20). Although for m ≫ m 1 these contributions are strongly suppressed, it is not possible to apply sum rules for too large m (m>m ) since the 2 contributionarisingfromhigherdimensionalvacuumcondensatesrapidlygrowswithmandinvalidatesapproximation of this paper. If m <m there is some region of applicability of sum rules (16), (20) [m ,m ] where both resonance 1 2 1 2 and higher dimensional vacuum condensates contributions are not too large. Within this region f2 as a functions L,T of m vary slowly and one can determine the values of these constants. Applying approach described above one gets f2 =0.170±0.002±0.004±0.016 GeV2, L f2 =0.167±0.002±0.003±0.016 GeV2. (23) T The first error in (23) corresponds the variation of the constants f2 within the region of stability. The second and L,T the third errors in (23) correspond to the variation of the gluon condensate hα G2i and the mass m within ranges s c (22). From the results (23) one sees that the main errors in determination of the constants f2 result from the L,T 6 variation of the parameter m . This fact represents well known property: high sensitivity of QCD sum rules to the c mass parameter m . c Next letus considerthe secondmoments hξ2 iin the frameworkofQCD sumrules. One wayto find the values of L,T hξ2 i is to determine the values of f2 hξ2 i from sum rules (16), (20) at n=2 and then extract hξ2 i. However, L,T L,T L,T L,T as it was noted above, this approachsuffers from high sensitivity of right side of equations (16), (20) to the variation of the parameter m . Moreover,the quantities f2 hξ2 i include not only the errors in determination of hξ2 i, but c L,T L,T L,T also the errors in f2 ,. To remove these disadvantages the ratios of sum rules at n =2 and n =0: f2 hξ2 i/f2 L,T L,T L,T L,T willbe considered. The momentshξ4 i,hξ6 iwillbe consideredanalogously. Applying standardprocedureonegets L,T L,T the moments of LCWF φ (ξ,µ): L hξ2i = 0.070±0.002±0.007±0.002, (24) L hξ4i = 0.012±0.001±0.002±0.001, L hξ6i = 0.0031±0.0002±0.0008±0.0002, L and moments of LCWF φ (ξ,µ) T hξ2i = 0.072±0.002±0.007±0.002, (25) T hξ4i = 0.012±0.001±0.002±0.001, T hξ6i = 0.0033±0.0002±0.0007±0.0003. T The first error in (24), (25) corresponds the variation within the region of stability. The second and the third errors in (24), (25) correspond to the variation of the gluon condensate hα G2i and the mass m within ranges (22). It is s c seenthat,asoneexpected,thesensitivityoftheratiosf2 hξn i/f2 tothevariationofm isratherlow. Themain L,T L,T L,T c source of uncertainty is the variation of gluon condensate hα G2i. In the fifth and sixth columns of Table I results s (24), (25) are presented. The errorsin Table I correspondto the main source of uncertainty — the variationof gluon condensate hα G2i. s In the calculations of the correlators(15), (19) characteristic virtuality of quark is ∼(4m2+Q2)/m∼m2. So the c c values of the moments (24), (25) are defined at scale ∼m2. c From Table I it is seen that the larger the number of the moment n the larger the uncertainty due to the variation of vacuum gluoncondensate. This property is a consequence of the fact that the role of power correctionsin the sum rules (16), (20) grows with n. From this one can conclude that there is considerable nonperturbative contribution to the moments hξn i with large n what means that nonperturbative effects are very important in relativistic motion L,T of quark-antiquarkpair inside the meson. The secondimportant contributionto QCD sum rules (16), (20) at largen is QCD radiative corrections to perturbative part Π (Q2). Unfortunately today one does not know the expression pert for these corrections and for this reason they are not included to sum sules (16), (20). One can only say that these corrections grow with n and, probably, the size of radiative corrections to the ratios f2 hξn i/f2 is not too big L,T L,T L,T for not too large n. Thus one can expect that QCD radiative corrections will not change dramatically the results for the moments n=2 and n=4. But the radiative corrections to hξ6 i may be important. L,T It is interesting to compare the moments of leading twist LCWF of η meson calculated in paper [17] c hξ2 i = 0.070±0.002±0.007±0.003, (26) ηc hξ4 i = 0.012±0.001±0.002±0.001, ηc hξ6 i = 0.0032±0.0002±0.0009±0.0003, ηc with the results of this section. It is seen that there is no significant difference between the moments of leading twist LCWF of η meson and the moments of LCWFs φ (ξ,µ),φ (ξ,µ). The difference is within the error of the c L T calculation. 7 φ(ξ,µ) 1.4 µ0 1.2 µ1 1 µ2 0.8 µ3 0.6 0.4 0.2 ξ -1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Fig.1: The LCWF φL (29) at scales µ0 =1.2 GeV,µ1 =10 GeV,µ2 =100 GeV,µ3 =∞. VI. THE MODEL FOR THE LCWFS OF J/Ψ MESON. In paper [17] the model of leading twist LCWF of η meson was proposed: c β φ(ξ,µ=µ )=c(β)(1−ξ2)exp − , (27) 0 (cid:18) 1−ξ2(cid:19) wherec(β) is anormalizationcoefficient,the constantβ =3.8±0.7,the scaleµ =1.2GeV.This functionallowsone 0 to reproduce the results (26) with rather good accuracy. The moments of this wave function are hξ2i = 0.070±0.007, (28) hξ4i = 0.012±0.002, hξ6i = 0.0030±0.0009. At central value β =3.8 the constant c(β)≃62. As it was noted in the previous section the accuracy of the calculation does not allow one to distinguish leading twist LCWF of η meson from LCWFs of J/Ψ meson. For this reason the model (27) will be used for the LCWFs c φ (ξ,µ=µ ), φ (ξ,µ=µ ) L 0 T 0 φ (ξ,µ=µ )=φ (ξ,µ=µ )=φ(ξ,µ=µ ). (29) L 0 T 0 0 In this expression the functions φ (ξ,µ = µ ), φ (ξ,µ = µ ) are defined at scale µ = µ . It is not difficult L 0 T 0 0 to calculate these functions at any scale µ > µ using conformal expansions (6). The LCWFs φ (ξ,µ) at scales 0 L µ =1.2 GeV,µ =10 GeV,µ =100 GeV,µ =∞ are shown in Fig. 1. The moments of LCWFs φ (ξ,µ) at scales 0 1 2 3 L µ =1.2 GeV,µ =10 GeV,µ =100 GeV,µ =∞ are presented in second, third, fourth and fifth columns of Table 0 1 2 3 II. The plot and the moments of LCWF φ (ξ,µ) will not be shown since this function practically does not deviate T from φ (ξ,µ). L As was noted in paper [17] model (29) has some interesting properties. For instance, let us consider the LCWF φ (ξ,µ)(similarconsiderationcanbedoneforφ (ξ,µ)). Fromconformalexpansion(6)onecanderivetheexpressions L T that determine the evolution of the moments: 1 12 hξ2i = +aL(µ) , (30) L µ 5 2 35 3 8 8 hξ4i = +aL(µ) +aL(µ) , L µ 35 2 35 4 77 1 12 120 64 hξ6i = +aL(µ) +aL(µ) +aL(µ) . L µ 21 2 77 4 1001 6 2145 Similar relations can be found for any moment. Further let us consider the expression for the second moment hξ2i. L In this paper the value hξ2i has been found with some error at scale µ = µ . This means that the value of the L 0 coefficient aL(µ = µ ) was found with some error. The coefficient aL decreases as scale increases. So the error in 2 0 2 aL and consequently in hξ2i decreases as scale increases. At infinitely large scale there is no error in hξ2i at all. 2 L L The calculations show that the error 10% in hξ2i at scale µ = µ decreases to 4% at scale µ = 10 GeV. Applying L 0 relations (30) it is not difficult to show that similar improvement of the accuracy happens for higher moments. The 8 improvement of the accuracy allows one to expect that model (29) at larger scales will be rather good even if QCD radiative corrections to results (24), (25) are large. From Fig. 1 one sees that LCWF at scale µ=µ practically vanishes in the regions 0.75<|ξ|< 1. In this region 0 the motion of quark-antiquark pair is relativistic and vanishing of LCWF in this region means that at scale µ = µ 0 charmonium can be considered as a nonrelativistic bound state of quark-antiquark pair with characteristic velocity v2 ∼ 1/β ∼ 0.3. Further let us regard the function φ (ξ,µ = µ ) as a conformal expansion (6). To get considerable L 0 suppression of the LCWF in the region 0.75 < |ξ|< 1 one should require fine tuning of the coefficients of conformal expansion aL(µ = µ ). The evolution of the constants aL (especially with large n) near µ = µ is rather rapid (see n 0 n 0 formulas(7)and(8))andifthereisfine tuningoftheconstantsatscaleµ=µ thisfinetuningwillberapidlybroken 0 at larger scales. This property is well seen in Table II and Fig. 1. From Fig. 1 it is seen that there is relativistic tail in the region 0.75 < |ξ| < 1 for scales µ = 10,100 GeV which is absent at scale µ = µ . Evidently this tail cannot 0 be regarded in the framework of NRQCD. This means that, strictly speaking, at some scale charmonium can not be consideredas nonrelativistic particle and the applicationof NRQCDto the production ofcharmoniumat largescales may lead to large error. Although in the above arguments the model of LCWF (29) was used it is not difficult to understand that the main conclusion is model independent. According to the velocity scaling rule [1] the moments hξni of LCWF depend onrelative velocity as ∼vn. It is not L difficult to show that the moments of LCWF (29) satisfy these rules. Now let us consider the expressions that allows one to connectthe coefficientsof conformalexpansionaL withthe moments hξni. These expressionsfor the moments n L hξ2i,hξ4i,hξ6i are given by formulas (30). It causes no difficulties to find similar expressions for any moment. From L L L expressions (30) one sees that to get velocity scaling rules: hξni∼vn at some scale one should require fine tuning of L the coefficients aL at this scale. But, as was already noted above, if there is fine tuning of the coefficients at some n scalethis fine tuning willbe brokenatlargerscales. Fromthis one canconcludethatvelocityscalingrulesarebroken at large scales. Consider the moments of LCWF (29) at infinite scale. It is not difficult to find that 3 hξLn,Tiµ=∞ = (n+1)(n+3). (31) From last equation one can find that hξn i does not scale as vn as velocity scale rules [1] require. Thus scaling rules L,T obtained in paper [1] are broken for asymptotic function. Actually one does not need to set the scale µ to infinity to break these rules. For any scale µ> µ there is a number n for which the moments hξn i, n >n violate velocity 0 0 L,T 0 scaling rules. This property is a consequence of the following fact: beginning from some n = n the contribution of 0 the relativistic tail of LCWF, that appears at scales µ>µ , to the moments becomes considerable. 0 TheamplitudeT ofanyhardprocesswithcharmoniummesonproductioncanbewrittenasaconvolutionofLCWF Φ(ξ) with hard kernel H(ξ) of the process. If one expands this kernel over ξ and substitute this expansion to the amplitude T one gets the results: H(n)(0) T = dξH(ξ)Φ(ξ)= hξni. (32) Z n! Xn If one takes the scale µ ∼ µ in formula (32), than moments hξni scale according to the velocity scaling rules ∼ vn 0 and one gets usual NRQCD expansion of the amplitude. However due to the presence of the scale of the hard process µ ≫ µ there appear large logarithms logµ /µ which spoil NRQCD expansion (32). To remove this large h 0 h 0 logarithms one should take µ∼ µ . But at large scales velocity scaling rules are broken and application of NRQCD h is questionable. Inpapers[13,23,29]itwasproposeddifferentmodelsofLCWFsofJ/Ψandη mesons. Itisinterestingtocompare c the models proposed in these papers with model (29). Such comparison was done in paper [17] and it will not be discussed in this paper. VII. CONCLUSION. In this paper the moments of leading twist light cone wave functions (LCWF) of J/Ψ meson have been calculated within three approaches. In the first approach Buchmuller-Tye and Cornell potential models were applied to the calculation of the moments of LCWFs. In the second approach the moments of LCWFs were calculated in the framework of NRQCD. In the third approach the method QCD sum rules was applied to the calculation of the moments. The results obtained within these three approaches are in good agreement with each other for the second moment hξ2i. There is a little disagreement between the predictions for the fourth moment hξ4i. The disagreement 9 n hξ i φ(ξ,µ0 =1.2 GeV) φ(ξ,µ1 =10 GeV) φ(ξ,µ2 =100 GeV) φ(ξ,µ3 =∞) n=2 0.070 0.12 0.14 0.20 n=4 0.012 0.040 0.052 0.086 n=6 0.0032 0.019 0.026 0.048 TABLE II: The moments of LCWF (29) proposed in thispaper at scales µ0 =1.2 GeV,µ1 =10 GeV,µ2 =100 GeV,µ3 =∞ are presented in second, third, fourth and fifth columns. between the approaches becomes dramatic for the sixth moment hξ6i. The cause of this disagreement consists in the considerable contribution of relativistic motion of quark-antiquark pair inside J/Ψ meson to higher moments which cannot be regarded reliably in the framework of potential models and NRQCD. The approach based on QCD sum rules is more reliable,especially for higher moments since it does not consider J/Ψ-mesonas a nonrelativistic object. The main problem of QCD sum rules is that since there is no expressions of radiative corrections to sum rules one doesnotknowthesizethesecorrections. However,onecanexpectthatQCDradiativecorrectionswillnotchangethe results for the moments n=2 and n=4 dramatically. As to the sixth moment, the contribution the QCD radiative corrections in this case may be important. The moments of leading twist LCWFs of J/Ψ meson have been compared with the moments of LCWF of η . It c was found no significant difference between the moments of leading twist LCWF of η meson and the moments of c LCWFs φ (ξ,µ),φ (ξ,µ). The difference is within the error of the calculation. For this reason the model of LCWF L T ofη mesonwastakenasamodelforleadingtwistLCWFsφ (ξ,µ),φ (ξ,µ)ofJ/Ψmeson. Asitwasshowninpaper c L T [17] this model has some interesting properties: 1. Due to the evolution (6) the accuracy of the moments obtained within model (29) improves as the scale rises. For instance, if the error in determination of the moment hξ2 i is 10% at scale µ = µ = 1.2 GeV, at scale µ = 10 L,T 0 GeV the erroris 4%. For higher moments the improvementof the accuracy is even better and there is no error at all at infinite scale µ = ∞. The improvement of the accuracy allows one to expect that model (29) will be rather good even after inclusion of the QCD radiative corrections. 2. At scale µ ∼ µ the LCWFs can be considered as wave functions of nonrelativistic object with characteristic 0 width ∼ v2 ∼ 0.3. Due to the evolution, at larger scales relativistic tail appears. This tail cannot be considered in the framework of NRQCD and, strictly speaking, at these scales J/Ψ meson is not a nonrelativistic object. 3. It was found that due to the presence of high momentum tail in the LCWFs at scales µ>µ there is violation 0 of velocity scaling rules obtained in paper [1]. More exactly, for any scale µ>µ there is a number n for which the 0 0 moments hξn i,n>n violate NRQCD velocity scaling rules. L,T 0 Actually, the last two properties are properties of real LCWFs of J/Ψ meson. The authorthanks A.V. Luchinskyand A.K.Likhoded foruseful discussionandhelp in preparingthis paper. This work is partially supported by Russian Foundation of Basic Research under grant 04-02-17530, Russian Education MinistrygrantRNP-2.2.2.3.6646,CRDFgrantMO-011-0,presidentgrantMK-1863.2005.02andDynastyfoundation. [1] G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D 51, 1125 (1995) [Erratum-ibid. D 55, 5853 (1997)] [arXiv:hep-ph/9407339]. [2] A.Petrelli, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.86, 533 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9910274]. [3] G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten and J. Lee, Phys.Rev. D 72, 014004 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0504014]. [4] E. Braaten and J. Lee, Phys. Rev.D 67, 054007 (2003) [Erratum-ibid. D 72, 099901 (2005)] [arXiv:hep-ph/0211085]. [5] K.Y. Liu, Z. G. Heand K. T. Chao, Phys. Lett. B 557, 45 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0211181]. [6] K.Y. Liu, Z. G. Heand K. T. Chao, arXiv:hep-ph/0408141. [7] K.Abeet al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev.D 70, 071102 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ex/0407009]. [8] B. Aubert [BABAR Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0506062. [9] Y.J. Zhang, Y.j. Gao and K. T. Chao, Phys. Rev.Lett. 96, 092001 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0506076]. [10] G. T. Bodwin, D. Kang, T. Kim, J. Lee and C. Yu,arXiv:hep-ph/0611002. [11] G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys.Rev. D 22, 2157 (1980). [12] V.L. Chernyak and A. R.Zhitnitsky,Phys.Rept. 112, 173 (1984). [13] A.E. Bondar and V.L. Chernyak,Phys. Lett. B 612, 215 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0412335]. [14] V.V. Braguta, A.K. Likhoded and A. V.Luchinsky,Phys.Rev.D 72, 074019 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0507275]. [15] V.V. Braguta, A.K. Likhoded and A. V.Luchinsky, Phys.Lett. B 635, 299 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0602047]. 10 [16] J. P. Ma and Z.G.Si, Phys.Rev. D 70, 074007 (2004), [arXiv:hep-ph/0405111]. [17] V.V. Braguta, A.K. Likhoded and A. V.Luchinsky,arXiv:hep-ph/0611021. [18] E. S.Swanson, arXiv:hep-ph/0601110. [19] S.J. Brodsky,T. Huangand G. P. Lepage, In *Banff 1981, Proceedings, Particles and Fields 2*, 143-199. [20] W. Buchmullerand S.H. H.Tye, Phys. Rev.D 24, 132 (1981). [21] E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane and T. M. Yan, Phys. Rev. D 17, 3090 (1978) [Erratum-ibid. D 21, 313 (1980)]. [22] E. J. Eichten, K. Laneand C. Quigg, Phys.Rev.Lett. 89, 162002 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0206018]. [23] G. T. Bodwin, D. Kang and J. Lee, arXiv:hep-ph/0603185. [24] G. T. Bodwin, D. Kang and J. Lee, Phys.Rev.D 74, 014014 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0603186]. [25] M. A.Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V. I.Zakharov, Nucl. Phys.B 147, 385 (1979). [26] M. A.Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V. I.Zakharov, Nucl. Phys.B 147, 448 (1979). [27] V.L. Chernyak and A. R.Zhitnitsky,Nucl.Phys. B 201, 492 (1982) [28] L. J. Reinders, H.Rubinstein and S. Yazaki, Phys.Rept. 127, 1 (1985). [29] J. P. Ma and Z.G. Si, arXiv:hep-ph/0608221.