Energy spectrum of a Heavy-Light meson

TL;DR

This study uses lattice QCD to measure the energy spectrum of heavy-light mesons, confirming previous results and investigating the expected inversion of multiplets at high angular momentum, finding no such inversion.

Contribution

It provides new lattice measurements with larger, quenched, and dynamical fermion configurations to verify the meson energy spectrum and examine multiplet inversion predictions.

Findings

Confirmed earlier energy spectrum measurements.

Found no inversion of multiplets for high angular momentum states.

Observed very small spin-orbit splitting for L=1 and 2.

Abstract

The energies of different angular momentum states of a heavy-light meson were measured on a lattice by Michael and Peisa in Phys. Rev. D 58, 34506 (1998). We have now repeated this study using a larger, quenched lattice to check that there the finite size effects are under control. Also the effect of quenching is studied by using dynamical fermion configurations. In the latter case the lattice spacing a is smaller, which allows one to make an estimate of a -> 0 corrections. The new measurements confirm the earlier calculated energy spectrum. From some theoretical considerations it is expected that, for high angular momentum states, the multiplets should be inverted compared with the Coulomb spectrum, i.e. L- should lie higher than L+ (see H. J. Schnitzer Phys. Lett. B 226, 171 (1989)). This happens when a pure scalar confining potential is present. Here the notation L+(-) means that the light quark spin couples to angular momentum L giving the total j=L+/- 1/2. Experimentally this inversion is not seen for P-wave mesons, and lattice measurements now suggest that there is no inversion in the D-wave either. Indeed we find that the spin-orbit splitting is very small for both values L=1 and 2. This almost exact cancellation need not be a coincidence, and could probably be understood by using straightforward symmetry arguments (P.R. Page, T. Goldman and J.N. Ginocchio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 204 (2001)).