text:
# POLARIZED MØLLER SCATTERING ASYMMETRIES**footnote *Talk given at 𝑒⁻𝑒⁻99: 3rd International Workshop on Electron-Electron Interactions at TeV Energies, Santa Cruz, December 1999.

## 1 Polarization and Precision Measurements

Polarized beams provide powerful tools for testing the Standard Model and probing “new physics” effects. They can be used to enhance signals, suppress backgrounds, study particle properties, and carry out precision measurements. A beautiful illustration of the last possibility is provided by the SLD measurement of $`A_{LR}`$ at the $`Z`$ pole

$`A_{\mathrm{LR}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma \left(e^+e_L^{}\mathrm{hadrons}\right)\sigma \left(e^+e_R^{}\mathrm{hadrons}\right)}{\sigma \left(e^+e_L^{}\mathrm{hadrons}\right)+\sigma \left(e^+e_R^{}\mathrm{hadrons}\right)}}.`$ (1)
That quantity is very sensitive to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$

$`A_{\mathrm{LR}}={\displaystyle \frac{2(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)}{1+(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)^2}}\text{(Tree level)}.`$ (2)
In fact, for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W0.23`$, one finds $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W/\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\frac{1}{10}\mathrm{\Delta }A_{\mathrm{LR}}/A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$. Hence, a $`\pm 1\%`$ measurement of $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ determines $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ at the $`\pm 0.1\%`$ level.

Based on about 500 thousand $`Z`$ decays and employing a polarized $`e^{}`$ beam with polarization reaching $`P_e^{}77\%`$, the SLD collaboration has reported? the single best measurement of the weak mixing angle (defined here by modified minimal subtraction)

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}=0.23073\pm 0.00028,`$ (3)
which weighs heavily in the (leptonic) $`Z`$ pole average (from SLD and LEP)

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}=0.23091\pm 0.00021.`$ (4)
Taken on their own, the quantities in eqs. (3) and (4) are merely precise numbers. They become interesting when interpreted in the context of a complete (renormalizable) theory such as the $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ Standard Model or its various extensions. Then, symmetries provide natural relationships among couplings and masses which can be tested by comparing different precision measurements. For example, the fine structure constant, Fermi constant, and $`Z`$ mass

$`\alpha ^1`$ $`=`$ $`137.03599959(40)`$
$`G_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`1.16637(1)\times 10^5\text{GeV}^2`$
$`m_Z`$ $`=`$ $`91.1871(21)\text{GeV}`$ (5)
can be compared with the weak mixing angle via

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}G_\mu m_Z^2\left[1\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}(m_t,m_h)\right]}}`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}`$ represents finite, calculable quantum loop effects which depend on the top quark and Higgs scalar masses. Taking $`m_t=174.3\pm 5.1`$ GeV and $`m_h100`$ GeV leads to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}=0.05940\pm 0.0005\pm 0.0002`$, where the errors correspond to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t`$ and hadronic loop uncertainties.

Leaving $`m_h`$ arbitrary, eq. (6) leads to the prediction?

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}=(0.23112\pm 0.00016\pm 0.00006)\left(1+0.00226\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_h}{100\text{GeV}}}\right).`$ (7)
Comparing that prediction with the world average in eq. (4) suggests a relatively light Higgs,

$`m_h65\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill +35& \hfill +28& \hfill +9\\ \hfill 20& \hfill 21& \hfill 8\end{array}\text{GeV},`$ (10)
which is centered somewhat below the LEP II direct search bound?

$`m_h>106\mathrm{GeV}\text{(95\% C.L.)}.`$ (11)
In fact, the SLD value in eq. (3) favors an even smaller $`m_h`$. If the Higgs mass turns out to be well outside the range in eq. (10), then one must append “new physics” to the Standard Model either through loop effects or small tree level contributions.

It would be nice to push the current $`\pm 0.1\%`$ test in eq. (6) as far as possible. Indeed, $`\alpha `$, $`G_\mu `$, and $`m_Z`$ are all already known to much better than $`\pm 0.01\%`$ (and will be or can be further improved). Can one reduce the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ from its current $`\pm 0.1\%`$ to $`\pm 0.01\%`$? If so, it would provide a sensitivity to $`m_h`$ at the incredible $`\pm 5\%`$ level (assuming $`m_t`$ and hadronic loop uncertainties are also improved).

The only known way to improve $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ is to carry out a clean high statistics study of asymmetries such as $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$. In that regard, the NLC (Next Linear Collider) will be capable at an early stage of sitting at the $`Z`$ resonance and collecting $`10^810^9`$ $`Z`$ decays in a relatively short time. With such statistics, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ can, in principle, be obtained via $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ to better than $`\pm 0.01\%`$. Systematics then become the issue. The dominant systematic uncertainty at the SLD was a $`\pm 0.5\%`$ polarization error which contributes to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ at the $`\pm 0.0001`$ level. One would need to reduce the polarization uncertainty to $`\pm 0.1\%`$ to reach $`\pm 0.01\%`$ in $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$. Such a reduction would be possible if both the $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ beams were polarized. Then, the effective polarization (they add like relativistic velocities)

$`P_{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{P_e^{}P_{e^+}}{1P_e^{}P_{e^+}}}`$ (12)
enters

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{LR}N_{RL}}{N_{LR}+N_{RL}}}=P_{\mathrm{eff}}A_{\mathrm{LR}},`$ (13)
where $`N_{LR}`$ denotes the number of $`e_L^{}e_R^+`$ induced hadronic $`Z`$ decays. For $`|P_e^{}|=0.9000\pm 0.0045`$ and $`|P_{e^+}|=0.6500\pm 0.0065`$ (i.e. $`\pm 1\%`$ $`e^+`$ polarization), one finds $`P_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.9779\pm 0.0012`$ as required for a $`\pm 0.01\%`$ determination of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$.

Improving the direct measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ can have other applications. The $`Z`$ pole determination is relatively pure and free of “new physics.” Below, we demonstrate its utility for comparison with polarized Møller scattering asymmetries which could exhibit effects from “new physics” beyond the Standard Model.

## 2 Polarized Møller Scattering – Fixed Target

Møller scattering $`e^{}e^{}e^{}e^{}`$ has been a well studied, classic low energy reaction.? Employing polarized electrons, one can, in principle, measure parity violating weak interaction asymmetries.? At tree level, the $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ in Møller scattering comes from an interference among the diagrams in Fig. 2. For a single polarized $`e^{}`$, the asymmetry corresponds to

$`A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}}{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}+\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}+\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}}}`$ (14)
while in the case of both $`e^{}`$ polarized, a second asymmetry becomes possible?

$`A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}}{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}}}.`$ (15)
The subscripts denote the initial $`e^{}e^{}`$ states’ polarizations. As we subsequently show, both asymmetries would be measurable at a high energy $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider where polarizations of $`0.90`$ for each beam are likely. Since d$`\sigma _{LR}=\mathrm{d}\sigma _{RL}`$ by rotational invariance, they differ only in their denominators.

Let us begin by considering a fixed target scenario in which a 50 GeV polarized electron beam scatters off a fixed target of electrons. That case will be addressed in the near future by SLAC experiment E158.?

In the center-of-mass frame, the differential cross section is characterized by the scattering angle $`\theta `$ with respect to the beam axis or

$`y={\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2}},0\theta \pi .`$ (16)
The variable $`y`$ relates the momentum transfer $`Q^2=q^2`$ and center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ via

$`Q^2=ys,0y1.`$ (17)
Since the cross section grows as $`1/y^2(1y)^2s`$, very high statistics are possible at small angle and/or small $`s`$. However, the asymmetry grows with $`s`$. All things considered, it is generally better to measure $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ at high $`s`$, but lower energy fixed target facilities can compensate by having very large effective luminosities. For example, E158 at SLAC will have $`s0.05\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and aims to measure (with high precision) a very small asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}1.5\times 10^7`$. That is only possible because their luminosity will be $`4\times 10^{38}\mathrm{cm}^2/s`$.

At small $`Q^2=ysm_Z^2`$, the left-right polarization asymmetry in Møller scattering is given by (at tree level)?

$`A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(1)}(e^{}e^{}e^{}e^{})={\displaystyle \frac{G_\mu s}{\sqrt{2}\pi \alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{y(1y)}{1+y^4+(1y)^4}}(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W),`$ (18)
or for comparison with the $`Z`$ pole asymmetry

$`A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(1)}(e^{}e^{}e^{}e^{})`$ (19)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{12}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{y(1y)}{1+y^4+(1y)^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{s\mathrm{\Gamma }(Ze^+e^{})}{m_Z^3}}A_{\mathrm{LR}}(e^+e^{}Z\mathrm{hadrons}).`$
To be at all competitive with the $`\pm 0.00028`$ uncertainty in $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ found by SLD, very high statistics are required or equivalently, a very good determination of $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta A_{\mathrm{LR}}}{A_{\mathrm{LR}}}}.`$ (20)
Again, one sees the enhanced sensitivity to small changes in $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$. E158 aims for a $`\pm 0.0007`$ to $`\pm 0.0004`$ measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ which will make it the best low energy determination of that quantity. As we subsequently illustrate, it will be sensitive to the running of the weak mixing angle as well as “new physics” effects.

## 3 Polarized Møller Scattering at Collider Energies

Møller scattering, $`e^{}e^{}e^{}e^{}`$, at the NLC can also be used for precision tests of the Standard Model as well as direct and indirect searches for “new physics.”?,? Indeed, in some cases it can provide a more powerful probe than $`e^+e^{}`$. One can assume with some confidence that both $`e^{}`$ beams will be polarized with $`|P_1|=|P_2|=0.9`$ and about $`\pm 0.5`$% uncertainty each. The effective polarization will therefore be (with like sign $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$)

$`P_{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{P_1+P_2}{1+P_1P_2}}=0.9945\pm 0.0004.`$ (21)
We see that $`P_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ will be very large and has essentially negligible uncertainty compared to $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$.

The differential cross section in high energy collider Møller scattering is also characterized by a single parameter, the scattering angle $`\theta `$ with respect to the beam axis or

$`y={\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2}},0\theta \pi .`$ (22)
The cross section grows as $`1/y^2`$ for small angle scattering. Hence, very high statistics are possible in the small angle region. Good angular coverage is therefore important for precision measurements. As before, the variable $`y`$ relates $`s`$ and the momentum transfer $`Q^2=q^2`$ via $`Q^2=ys,0y1`$. Note, that $`y`$ and $`1y`$ correspond to indistinguishable events. Very forward (small angle) $`e^{}e^{}`$ events will therefore be composed of high and low $`Q^2`$ contributions.

As previously noted, one can consider two distinct but similar parity violating Møller asymmetries: the single spin asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(1)}`$ defined in eq. (14) and double spin asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(2)}`$ in eq. (15).

Experimentally, one can and probably will flip the individual polarizations (pulse by pulse) and measure $`N_{\mathrm{LL}}`$, $`N_{\mathrm{LR}}`$, $`N_{\mathrm{RL}}`$, and $`N_{\mathrm{RR}}`$ (the number of events in each mode) for fixed luminosity and polarization. From those measurements, the polarizations and $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(2)}(y)`$ can be simultaneously determined using?,?

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{LL}}+N_{\mathrm{LR}}N_{\mathrm{RL}}N_{\mathrm{RR}}}{N_{\mathrm{LL}}+N_{\mathrm{LR}}+N_{\mathrm{RL}}+N_{\mathrm{RR}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`P_1A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(1)}(y),`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{RR}}+N_{\mathrm{LR}}N_{\mathrm{RL}}N_{\mathrm{LL}}}{N_{\mathrm{RR}}+N_{\mathrm{LR}}+N_{\mathrm{RL}}+N_{\mathrm{LL}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`P_2A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(1)}(y),`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{LL}}N_{\mathrm{RR}}}{N_{\mathrm{LL}}+N_{\mathrm{RR}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`P_{\mathrm{eff}}A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(2)}(y)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\frac{1P_1P_2}{1+P_1P_2}\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}}}}\right),`$ (25)
$`P_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_1+P_2}{1+P_1P_2}}.`$
For $`P_1=P_2=0.9`$, the correction term in parentheses of Eq. (25) is small but must be accounted for. Using Eq. (25), $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(2)}`$ (which depends on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$) can be extracted from data and compared with the Standard Model prediction. A deviation from expectations would signal “new physics.”

In general the d$`\sigma _{ij}`$ for Møller scattering are somewhat lengthy expressions? with contributions from direct and crossed $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ exchange amplitudes (see Fig. 1). To simplify our discussion, we consider for illustration the case $`ys`$ and $`(1y)sm_Z^2`$; so, terms of relative order $`m_Z^2/ys`$ and $`m_Z^2/(1y)s`$ can be neglected. In that limit, one finds at tree level?

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}}{\mathrm{d}y}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2(1y)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}}{\mathrm{d}y}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2(1y)^2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}}{\mathrm{d}y}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}}{\mathrm{d}y}}=\sigma _0{\displaystyle \frac{y^4+(1y)^4}{y^2(1y)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},`$ (26)
and the asymmetries become

$`A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(1)}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(14s_W^2)(1+4s_W^2)}{1+16s_W^4+8\left[y^4+(1y)^4\right]s_W^4}},`$ (27)
$`A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(2)}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(14s_W^2)(1+4s_W^2)}{1+16s_W^4}}.`$ (28)
Expanding about $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=1/4`$, Eq. (28) becomes

$`A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(2)}(y)=(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)+𝒪[(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)^2].`$ (29)
For arbitrary $`s`$, the asymmetries are maximal at $`y=1/2`$. There we find, up to terms of $`𝒪[(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)^2]`$,

$`A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(1)}(y=1/2)`$ $``$ $`(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W){\displaystyle \frac{16x\left(3+2x\right)}{3\left(27+34x+11x^2\right)}},`$
$`A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(2)}(y=1/2)`$ $``$ $`(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W){\displaystyle \frac{2x}{3+2x}},x{\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_Z^2}}.`$ (30)
Because of the $`(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)`$ dependence of $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}(e^{}e^{})`$, even with relatively modest angular coverage limited to $`0.1y0.9`$, Møller scattering can be used to measure $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ rather precisely, to about $`\pm 0.0003`$ at $`\sqrt{s}1`$ TeV. Although not likely to compete with future potential very high statistics $`Z`$ pole measurements, it will be competitive with present day measurements. In addition, Møller scattering can be used as a powerful probe for “new physics” effects. Indeed, for electron composite effects parametrized by the four fermion interaction? $`\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\overline{e}_L\gamma _\mu e_L\overline{e}_L\gamma ^\mu e_L`$ one finds $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_{\mathrm{LR}}sy(1y)c_W^2/\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ for $`e^{}e^{}`$ Møller scattering. It can, therefore, be more sensitive than $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}`$ (about 50% better) and could probe $`\mathrm{\Lambda }150`$ TeV.

If one is interested in an even more precise determination of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ via Møller scattering, extremely forward events must be detected. For example, assuming detector acceptance down to about $`5^{}`$ ($`y=0.0019`$), Cuypers and Gambino? have shown that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\pm 0.0001`$ may be possible at a $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider with $`P_1=P_2=90\%`$.

## 4 Radiative Corrections and $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_𝑾\mathbf{(}𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$

The tree level $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ for both E158 and future $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider studies are proportional to $`14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and hence suppressed because $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W0.23`$. Since some electroweak radiative corrections are not suppressed by $`14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, they can be potentially very large. A complete calculation has been carried out? for small $`s`$ as appropriate to E158. There it was shown that such effects reduce $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ by 40% and must be included in any detailed study. Here, we comment on the primary sources of those large corrections and show how much of the effect can be incorporated into a running $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(Q^2)`$. We also discuss how those large effects carry over to collider energies. For a complete study of radiative corrections to Møller scattering at high energies, see ref. ?, ?, ?.

The largest radiative corrections to $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ at low energies come from three sources:

1. $`WW`$ box diagrams,
2. Photonic vertex and box diagrams,
3. $`\gamma Z`$ mixing and the anapole moment.

The first two are of order $`+4\%`$ and $`6\%`$ respectively.? $`\gamma Z`$ mixing along with the anapole moment in Fig. 3 is the largest effect. It effectively replaces the tree level $`14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ in $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ by?

$`14\kappa (0)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ (31)
where

$`\kappa (0)=1.0301\pm 0.0025`$ (32)
represents a 3% shift in the effective $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ due to loop effects illustrated in Fig. 3. That $`+3\%`$ increase in the effective $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ appropriate for low $`Q^2`$ gives rise to a $`38\%`$ reduction in $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$. Interestingly, that reduction actually makes E158 more sensitive to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ as well as “new physics.”

In the case of very large $`Q^2`$, appropriate for $`e^{}e^{}`$ colliders, the electroweak radiative corrections will change and must be reevaluated. In particular, the $`WW`$ box diagram gives a large negative contribution to $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$. The effects of $`\gamma Z`$ mixing and anapole moment can also be very large, but they are easy to obtain from the loops in Fig. 3. One finds for arbitrary $`Q^2`$ that they replace $`14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ in the tree level asymmetry by

$`14\kappa (Q^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ $``$ $`14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(Q^2),`$
$`\kappa (Q^2)=\kappa _f(Q^2)+\kappa _b(Q^2),`$ (33)
where the subscripts $`f`$ and $`b`$ denote fermion and boson loops, and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(Q^2)`$ is a running effective parameter. In perturbation theory (i.e. without QCD dressing)

$`\kappa _f(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}(T_{3f}Q_f2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _WQ_f^2)`$
$`\times [\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_f^2}{m_Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}+4z_f+(12z_f)p_f\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p_f+1}{p_f1}}]\},`$
$`z_f`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_f^2}{Q^2}},p_f\sqrt{1+4z_f},`$ (34)
with $`T_{3f}=\pm 1/2`$, $`Q_f=`$ fermion charge, and the sum is over all fermions;

$`\kappa _b(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{42\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W+1}{12}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p+1}{p1}}1\right)\left[(74z)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(1+4z)\right]`$
$`z[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}z+(z{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})p\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p+1}{p1}}+z(2z)\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{p+1}{p1}}]\},`$
$`z`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{Q^2}},p\sqrt{1+4z}.`$ (35)
(Note, Eqs. (28) and (29) of ref. ? contain misprints in the $`\kappa (Q^2)`$ expressions.)

In Fig. 4 we illustrate the expected dependence of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(Q^2)`$ on $`Q`$ and show how well it has already been measured for several $`Q^2`$. We also illustrate the approximate potential of E158 and future $`e^{}e^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ collider measurements at $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ TeV. One notices a $`2\sigma `$ discrepancy in the atomic parity violation result as compared with Standard Model expectations. That issue could be resolved or made even more interesting by results from E158 at SLAC.

In the case of $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider studies, one can actually map out the variation in $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(Q^2)`$ in a single experiment through measurements at different $`\theta `$. We illustrate in Fig. 4 the type of running that one is predicted to find at a $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ TeV $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider. Notice, that by going to small angles (low $`Q^2`$), one can obtain very high precision. Of course, within the Standard Model, the measurements at different $`Q^2`$ would be radiatively corrected to provide a single precise determination of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$. However, demonstrating the running of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(Q^2)`$ over a large range in $`Q^2`$ in a single experiment will be an added bonus.

## 5 “New Physics” Effects

The real utility of high precision $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ measurements away from the $`Z`$ pole is to search for or constrain “new physics.” A disagreement with the extracted $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ value from $`Z`$ pole determinations could signal the presence of additional tree or loop level neutral current effects. Examples that have been considered include $`Z^{}`$ bosons, compositeness, anomalous anapole moment effects, doubly charged scalars $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, extra dimensions, etc. For example, if E158 meets its phase one goal of a $`\pm 0.0007`$ determination of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$, it will probe the $`m_{Z_\chi }`$ of SO(10) at about the 800 GeV level, compositeness at the 10–15 TeV scale, the anapole moment at $`10^{17}`$ cm (or the $`X`$ parameter? at $`\pm 0.15`$), and $`g^2/m_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}^20.01G_\mu `$.

At an $`e^{}e^{}`$ collider, the larger value of $`s`$ would significantly improve the “new physics” reach. Roughly, at $`\sqrt{s}500`$ GeV one could do a factor of 10 better in $`m_{Z_\chi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{comp}}`$ than E158. In the case of the doubly charged Higgs, $`g^2/m_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}^25\times 10^5G_\mu `$ would be probed. Of course, the sensitivity would further improve as higher $`\sqrt{s}`$ values are reached.

Parity violating left-right asymmetries have played key roles in establishing the validity of the Standard Model. From the classic SLAC polarized $`eD`$ measurement to the $`Z`$ pole asymmetry, polarized electron beams have proved their worth. They will continue to provide valuable tools during the NLC era both in the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`e^{}e^{}`$ modes. In the case of precision studies of parity violating left-right scattering asymmetries, short–distance physics up to $`𝒪`$(150 TeV) will be indirectly explored. Even more exciting is the possible direct detection of new phenomena such as supersymmetry at these high energy facilities. If “new physics” is uncovered, polarization will help sort out its properties and decipher its place in nature.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the DOE under grant number DE-AC02-76CH00016.

References


format: text

text:
# Relativistic Corrections for Polarized 𝐽/Ψ-Production in b-decay

## Abstract

We analyse the structure of relativistic corrections in the inclusive production of polarized $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ from b-quark decay. The analysis is performed not only for the production channel in which the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair is a color sinlet, but also for the channels in which the $`c\overline{c}`$ is a color octet. We find that the correction in the color-singlet channel at the tree-level is completely determined by the decay constant of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, while in the color-octet channels the corrections are characterized by three matrix elements defined in NRQCD, whose numerical values are unknown. We discuss the impact of these corrections on the polarized $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$-production, and the impact is so significant that the predictions based on the analysis for the considered process may be unreliable. Finally, we propose an integrated spin observable to measure the polarization of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$.
PACS numbers: 13.25.Hw, 14.40.Gx, 12.38.Bx, 13.85.Ni

preprint:    AS-ITP-2000-03  preprint:    AS-ITP-2000-03
Quarkonium systems generally are thought as simpler than light hadrons and it may be easier to handle them in the framework of QCD. However, only recently we have been able to treat their decays and productions rigorously, based on a factorization with non-relativistic QCD(NRQCD). In the framework of the NRQCD factorization the effect of short distance is handled with perturbative QCD and the effect of long distance is parameterized with NRQCD matrix elements. The factorization is performed by utilizing the fact that a heavy quark inside a quarkonium moves with a small velocity $`v`$ in the quarkonium rest frame and an expansion in $`v`$ can be employed. In this factorization, inclusive productions of a quarkonium, e.g., like $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, can be imagined at the leading order of $`v`$ as the following: The $`c`$\- and $`\overline{c}`$\- quark are produced at a same space-time point, and then this pair is transformed into the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The production of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair can be calculated with perturbative QCD, while the transformation is a nonperturbative process, which can be described by matrix elements defined in NRQCD. At higher order of $`v`$ various effects are taken into account, e.g., relativistic effect, and the effect of the produced $`c\overline{c}`$ pair which does not have the same quantum numbers as those of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. For $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the transition of a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair in a color-octet state happens at higher orders in the small velocity expansion, but in some cases, the produced $`c\overline{c}`$ pair is more likely in a color-octet state than in a color-singlet state, hence the production of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ through a color-octet $`c\overline{c}`$ pair is not negligible, and has an important contribution to the total production rate. Including this contribution one is able to fitting experimental results of the total production rate obtained in Tevatron.

With the NRQCD factorization, not only the total production rate of a quakonium can be predicted, but also the polarization of the quarkonium, if it has a spin. Recent preliminary measurement at Tevatron by CDF shows that the produced $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is polarized in the way which is unexpected from theoretical predictions. Several attempts to explain the discrepancy are made. It should be kept in mind that these predictions are only based the theoretical analysison at the leading order in $`\alpha _s`$ and at the leading order in $`v`$. For charmonia the velocity is not very small, typically $`v^20.3`$, and one-loop effects are generally substantial. Adding effects at higher orders of $`\alpha _s`$ and of $`v`$, the predictions may be changed significantly. In this work we study the effects of higher orders in $`v`$ on the polarization of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ produced in b-quark decay, to see how important the effects are.

In the framework of heavy quark effective theory inclusive decays of a b-flavored hadron can be thought approximately as inclusive decays of a free b-quark. The inclusive $`b`$-quark decay into a $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ were studied at the leading order in $`v`$ in , in  the one-loop correction from QCD for the unpolarized decay was studied. In these studies it is already shown that the color-octet $`c\overline{c}`$ pair plays an important role. In this work we will not only considered the color-singlet contribution but also the color-octet contribution. With the NRQCD factorization, the polarized decay width for the process

$$bJ/\mathrm{\Psi }+X$$
(1)
can be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda (J/\mathrm{\Psi })=\underset{n}{}C_n(bc\overline{c}[n]+X)0|O^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}[n]|0,$$
(2)
in which the coefficients $`C_n(bc\overline{c}[n]+X)`$ describe the production of a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair in a state $`n`$, the matrix elements $`0|O^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}[n]|0`$ characterize the transition of a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair in $`n`$-state into the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The coefficients can be calculated with perturbative QCD because the production of a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair is a short-distance process, while the matrix elements represent nonperturbative effects and they are defined with operators in NRQCD. These matrix elements are scaled by the power of $`v`$ with the rule of power counting in $`v`$. The index $`\lambda `$ stands for the helicity of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\lambda =L`$ is for the longitudinal polarization, $`\lambda =T`$ is for the transversal polarization. We will use the matching procedure proposed in  to identify the operators at the next-to-leading order in $`v`$ and to calculate the corresponding coefficients.

To do the matching we need to consider the process

$$b(p_b)c(p_1)+\overline{c}_(p_2)+X,$$
(3)
where the momenta are given in the brackets. With a Lorentz transformation we can boost the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair into its rest-frame and denote in the rest-frame the three- momentum of $`c`$ and of $`\overline{c}`$ as $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐪`$ respectively. The total decay width for the process in Eq.(3) can be written

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(bc\overline{c}+X)=\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(𝐪)$$
(4)
The matching condition reads:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(𝐪)=\underset{n}{}C_n(bc\overline{c}[n]+X)0|O^{c\overline{c}}[n]|0.$$
(5)
In the above equation, the $`𝐪`$-dependence in the right hand side is only contained in the matrix elements, in which the hadronic state is replaced by the partonic $`c\overline{c}`$ state. With Eq.(5) one can identify the matrix elements appearing in Eq.(2) and can determine the corresponding coefficients.

The effective weak Hamiltonian for $`b`$-quark decay is:

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=s,d}{}}\{V_{cb}V_{cq}^{}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}C_1(\mu )\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)c\overline{q}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b`$ (6)
$`+C_8(\mu )\overline{c}T^a\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)c\overline{q}T^a\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b]\}.`$ (7)
We neglected the contributions of QCD penguin operators in $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. $`T^a`$($`a=1,\mathrm{}8`$) is SU(3) color-matrix. The coefficients $`C_1`$ and $`C_8`$ are related to the usual $`C_\pm `$ by

$$C_1(\mu )=2C_+(\mu )C_{}(\mu ),C_8(\mu )=C_+(\mu )+C_{}(\mu ).$$
(8)
With the one-loop evolution one can obtain

$$\frac{C_1(m_b)}{C_8(m_b)}0.18$$
(9)
This indicates that the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair is produced more likely in a color-octet state than in a color-singlet state. Hence the color-octet contribution is significant and should be included in the decay width. With the effective Hamiltonia it is straightforward to calculate $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(𝐪)`$ and to determine the coefficients in Eq.(5). However, the power counting of $`v`$ for matrix elements with partonic states is different than that for matrix elements with hadronic states. Before presenting our results, we briefly discuss the identification of operators in Eq.(2). In general the matrix elements in Eq.(2) take the form

$$0|O^H[n]|0=\underset{X}{}0|𝒦_n|H+XH+X|𝒦_n^{}|0,$$
(10)
where $`H`$ denotes a quarkonium. $`𝒦_n`$ and $`𝒦_n^{}`$ are operators defined in NRQCD. The general constraints can be obtained by considering symmetries of QCD or NRQCD. Because QCD respects charge conjugation- and parity symmetry, the operators must be transformed in the same way under C- and P transformation. The operators $`𝒦_n`$ and $`𝒦_n^{}`$ can be classified with the weight $`j`$ of $`SU(2)`$ representations. Since the total angle momentum is conserved, the operators must have the same weight. By considering the approximated symmetry, spin-symmetry of NRQCD, further constraints can be obtained. With these constraints, one can identify the operators appearing in Eq.(2).

Now we give our results for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda (J/\mathrm{\Psi })`$. We write

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda (J/\mathrm{\Psi })=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^{(8)},$$
(11)
where the index 1 or 8 stands for color singlet contributions or for color-octet contributions, respectively. The leading order in $`v`$ for color singlet contributions is $`v^0`$, while the leading order for color-octet contributions is $`v^4`$. We expand the quantities:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^{(1,v^0)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1,v^2)}+𝒪(v^4),`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^{(8)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^{(8,v^4)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(8,v^6)}+𝒪(v^8).`$ (13)
For color-singlet contributions at the leading order, there is only one matrix element representing the transformation of a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair in $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ state into the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. At this order we have:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{(1,v^0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_1^2G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{432\pi m_b^3m_c}}(m_b^24m_c^2)^20|O_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|04m_c^2,`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^{(1,v^0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_1^2G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{432\pi m_b^3m_c}}(m_b^24m_c^2)^20|O_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0m_b^2,`$ (15)
where we used $`|V_{cd}|^2+|V_{cs}|^21`$. At order of $`v^2`$, there is also one matrix element which represents the effect of the relative movement of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair inside $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The results reads:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^{(1,v^2)}=\frac{C_1^2G_F^2|V_{cb}^2}{432\pi m_c}m_b(m_b^24m_c^2)\frac{0|P_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0}{m_c^2}G_\lambda (\frac{m_c^2}{m_b^2})$$
(16)
with

$`G_L(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3+92y+208y^2+576y^3}{6(1+4y)^2}},`$ (17)
$`G_T(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2y(368y304y^2960y^3)}{3(1+4y)^2}}.`$ (18)
The definition of the matrix elements $`0|O_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$ and $`0|P_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$ can be found in . These matrix elements can only be calculated nonperturbatively and they must be calculated with the same accuracy in order of $`v`$ if one uses both to make predictions.

For color octet contributions at the leading order in $`v`$, the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair can be in $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ states, these states can be transformed into a $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ through emission or absorption of soft gluons. Correspondingly, we have in the matching three types of matrix elements, these matrix elements can be reduced to three matrix elements with the symmetries mentioned before. They are:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}0|\chi ^{}T^a\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }+XJ/\mathrm{\Psi }+X|\psi ^{}T^a\chi |0`$ (19)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\epsilon _i(\lambda )\epsilon _i^{}(\lambda )0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^1S_0)|0`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}0|\chi ^{}T^a\sigma ^i\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }+XJ/\mathrm{\Psi }+X|\psi ^{}T^a\sigma ^j\chi |0`$ (21)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\epsilon _i(\lambda )\epsilon _j^{}(\lambda )0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}0|\chi ^{}T^a(\sigma \times ({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{}{𝐃}))^i\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }+XJ/\mathrm{\Psi }+X|\psi ^{}T^a\sigma \times ({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{}{𝐃}))^j\chi |0`$ (23)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\delta _{ij}\epsilon (\lambda )\epsilon ^{}(\lambda )\epsilon _i(\lambda )\epsilon _j^{}(\lambda )0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3P_1)|0`$ (24)
In the above equations $`\epsilon _i(\lambda )(i=1,2,3)`$ denotes the polarization vector of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in its rest-frame. The field $`\psi (\chi )`$ is the field in NRQCD for the $`c(\overline{c})`$ quark. $`𝐃`$ is the spacial part of the covariant derivative $`D^\mu `$. The definition of the operator $`O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^1S_0)`$, $`O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)`$ and $`O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3P_1)`$ can be found in . The rotation invariance leads to Eq.(15), while spin symmetry is used for Eq.(16) and Eq.(17). The leading order of these matrices is at $`v^4`$. It should be noted that Eq.(16) and Eq.(17) also hold at order of $`v^6`$, because to keep the correct spin configuration the spin of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair must be flipped twice through the interaction which violates the spin symmetry, this can only happen at order of $`v^8`$. With the above identification we obtain the color-octet contribution at the leading order:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^{(8,v^4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_8^2G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{288\pi m_b^3m_c}}(m_b^24m_c^2)^2`$ (25)
$``$ $`\{m_b^20|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^1S_0)|0+m_b^20|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0+80|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3P_1)|0\}`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{(8,v^4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_8^2G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{288\pi m_b^3m_c}}(m_b^24m_c^2)^2`$ (27)
$``$ $`\{m_b^20|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^1S_0)|0+4m_c^20|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0+{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2+4m_c^2}{m_c^2}}0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3P_1)|0\}.`$ (28)
At order of $`v^6`$ for the color-octet contributions various matrix elements appear at the first look. For example, the matrix element

$$\underset{X}{}0|\chi ^{}T^a\sigma ^l(\frac{i}{2})^2\stackrel{}{𝐃}^{(l}\stackrel{}{𝐃}^{i)}\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }+XJ/\mathrm{\Psi }+X|\psi ^{}T^a\sigma ^j\chi |0+h.c..$$
(29)
To take a close look at the matrix element we consider

$$B^{ijlk}=\underset{X}{}0|\chi ^{}T^a\sigma ^i(\frac{i}{2})^2\stackrel{}{𝐃}^{(l}\stackrel{}{𝐃}^{k)}\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }+XJ/\mathrm{\Psi }+X|\psi ^{}T^a\sigma ^j\chi |0+h.c..$$
(30)
At order of $`v^6`$ the spin symmetry still can be used for the matrix element, it leads:

$$B^{ijlk}=\epsilon _i(\lambda )\epsilon _j^{}(\lambda )A_{lk}.$$
(31)
By rotation invariance, $`A_{lk}`$ is proportional to $`\delta _{lk}`$. Because the tensor $`\stackrel{}{𝐃}^{(l}\stackrel{}{𝐃}^{k)}`$ is symmetric and trace-less, we conclude that $`B^{ijlk}`$ is zero at this order, hence also the matrix element in Eq.(19). This can also be understood as the following: Because the spin symmetry holds, the total orbit angle moment is conserved. The $`X`$-state in the bra in Eq.(20) is a $`l=0`$ state because of the conservation, while the $`X`$-state in the ket is a $`l=2`$ state. Therefore, the matrix element is excluded by the definition of the sum over $`X`$ state. By considering all constraints, only three types of matrix elements remain, and they can be further reduced to three matrix elements:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}0|\chi ^{}T^a({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{}{𝐃})^2\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }+XJ/\mathrm{\Psi }+X|\psi ^{}T^a\chi |0+h.c.`$ (32)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\epsilon _i(\lambda )\epsilon _i^{}(\lambda )0|P_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^1S_0)|0`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}0|\chi ^{}T^a\sigma ^i({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{}{𝐃})^2\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }+XJ/\mathrm{\Psi }+X|\psi ^{}T^a\sigma ^j\chi |0+h.c.`$ (34)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\epsilon _i(\lambda )\epsilon _j^{}(\lambda )0|P_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}0|\chi ^{}T^a(\sigma \times ({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{}{𝐃}))^i({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{}{𝐃})^2\psi |J/\mathrm{\Psi }+XJ/\mathrm{\Psi }+X|\psi ^{}T^a\sigma \times ({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{}{𝐃}))^j\chi |0+h.c.`$ (36)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\delta _{ij}\epsilon (\lambda )\epsilon ^{}(\lambda )\epsilon _i(\lambda )\epsilon _j^{}(\lambda )0|P_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3P_1)|0.`$ (37)
The matrix elements $`0|P_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^1S_0)|0`$, $`0|P_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$ and $`0|P_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3P_1)|0`$ can be obtained by summing over the helicity and by the contraction over the indices in the above equations. With these matrix elements the results for the color-octet contribution at order of $`v^6`$ are:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^{(8,v^6)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_8^2G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{288\pi m_c^3}}m_b(m_b^24m_c^2)`$ (38)
$``$ $`\{F({\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2}{m_b^2}})0|P_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^1S_0)|0+G_\lambda ({\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2}{m_b^2}})0|P_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$ (40)
$`+H_\lambda ({\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2}{m_b^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}}0|P_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3P_1)|0\}`$
with

$`F(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7+108y+144y^2+320y^3}{6(1+4y)^2}},`$ (41)
$`H_L(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4y(1+84y+240y^2+704y^3)}{6(1+4y)^2}},`$ (42)
$`H_T(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7+84y+144y^2+704y^3}{6(1+4y)^2}}.`$ (43)
The function $`G_\lambda (y)`$ is given in Eq.(14). The above results indicate that the correction in the color-octet contributions is to take the effect of the relative movement of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair inside the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ into account. This is similar as the case with the color-singlet contribution. Hence, the total corrections are just relativistic corrections characterized by four matrix elements.

With the results given above one may predict the polarization of the produced $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and the total decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_T+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$, if one knows the numerical values of the eight matrix elements. Among the four matrix elements at the leading order in $`v`$ the best known matrix element is $`0|O_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$, which is calculated with potential models and with lattice QCD, while the other three are extracted from experimental data. The value of $`0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$ is rather well determined by direct $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production at large transverse momentum in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions. However the uncertainty for this determination is large and it can be at the level of $`100\%`$. The other two are not well determined, only certain combination of them is know with a large uncertainty. In  a re-analysis of experimental data from Tevatron and from Hera is performed, in which some higher-orders effects due to multiple-gluon initial-states radiation are considered. It is shown that the values of these matrix elements can be changed substantially by including these effects. Based on the leading order results an analysis for predictions of the polarized $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is given. The four matrix elements at the next-to-leading order in $`v`$ are completely unknown. With the power-counting in $`v`$, we only know that they are suppressed by $`v^2`$ relatively to the corresponding matrix elements at the leading order in $`v`$. All of these prevents us from a detailed prediction for the polarization and for the total decay width. Nevertheless, one can still see the impact of these corrections. For the color-singlet contributions, if one neglects the one-loop QCD correction and uses the vacuum saturation, then with $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in Eq.(6) one has only one constant representing the nonperturbative effect in the process in Eq.(1):

$$J/\mathrm{\Psi }|\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu c|0=if_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(\epsilon ^\mu (\lambda ))^{},$$
(44)
where $`f_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is the leptonic decay constant of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and is related to the leptonic decay width:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})=\frac{16\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2}{27M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}}f_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2.$$
(45)
In the above equation, the only approximation is to neglect effects of higher orders in $`\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}`$ and lepton masses, relativistic corrections are automatically included. In NRQCD the vacuum saturation brings uncertainty at order of $`v^4`$. Therefore the color-singlet contributions can be written as:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_1^2G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{144\pi m_b^3}}(m_b^2M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2)^2M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2f_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2+𝒪(\alpha _s^2)+𝒪(v^4),`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_1^2G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{144\pi m_b^3}}(m_b^2M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2)^2m_b^2f_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2+𝒪(\alpha _s^2)+𝒪(v^4),`$ (47)
where the relativistic correction calculated before is contained in the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$-mass $`M_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ and in the decay constant. Comparing the results in Eq.(29) with that in Eq.(12) we may see how large the relativistic correction is. For this we define:

$$R_\lambda ^{(1)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^{(1,v^0)}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^{(1)}},$$
(48)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^{(1,v^0)}`$ is given in Eq.(12) and the results in Eq.(29) are used for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^{(1)}`$. To obtain numerical values of $`R_\lambda ^{(1)}`$, we take $`m_b=4.7`$GeV and $`m_c=1.5`$GeV. $`f_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is determined by the leptonic decay to be 405MeV. For the matrix element $`0|O_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$, its value is determined based on a potential model in  to be 1.16(GeV$`)^3`$, which is in agreement with a calculation of lattice QCD in . With these values we obtain:

$$R_L^{(1)}R_T^{(1)}1.6.$$
(49)
This indicates that the correction is negative and very large. Another way to see the impact of the correction is to compare the coefficients in the front of the matrix element. We take the above numerical values for quark masses and obtain:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_1^2G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{432\pi }}\{24.30|O_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|052.4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}}0|P_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0\}+𝒪(v^4),`$ (50)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_1^2G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{432\pi }}\{9.900|O_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|011.4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}}0|P_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0\}+𝒪(v^4).`$ (51)
With these results the relativistic correction can be at the level of $`60\%`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^{(1)}`$ and at the level of $`35\%`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{(1)}`$ if one takes

$$\frac{1}{m_c^2}0|P_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0v^20|O_1^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0,v^20.3.$$
(52)
Similarly we obtain for the color-octet contributions:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^{(8)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_8^2G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{288\pi }}\{24.40|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^1S_0)|068.3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}}0|P_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^1S_0)|0`$ (55)
$`+24.40|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|052.4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}}0|P_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$
$`+19.8{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}}0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3P_1)|035.8{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^4}}0|P_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3P_1)|0\}+𝒪(v^8),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{(8)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_8^2G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{288\pi }}\{24.40|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^1S_0)|068.3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}}0|P_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^1S_0)|0`$ (58)
$`+9.90|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|011.4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}}0|P_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3S_1)|0`$
$`+34.3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}}0|O_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3P_1)|086.5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^4}}0|P_8^{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(^3P_1)|0\}+𝒪(v^8).`$
If one assumes that there are similar relations among the color-octet matrix elements like that in Eq.(33), then the correction is very large. For example, the correction for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ production channel can be at the level of $`80\%`$, and the correction for the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ production channel can be at the level of $`70\%`$. With the above discussions one may conclude that the predictions based on the leading- and next-to-leading order in the small velocity expansion for the process are unreliable.

The last subject of this work is to propose an integrated observable to measure the spin of the produced $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Usually, one looks at the leptonic decay of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to measure the spin. At a fixed momentum $`𝐏`$ of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ one measures the distribution:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,$$
(59)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`𝐏`$ and $`𝐤`$, $`𝐤`$ is the momentum of the lepton in the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$-rest frame. The parameter $`\alpha `$ is predicted as:

$$\alpha =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_T\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_T+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}.$$
(60)
This may have a disadvantage that it will be hard to determine the distribution if the number of events with a fixed $`𝐏`$ is small, hence the parameter $`\alpha `$. We propose to use an integrated spin observable to overcome this disadvantage. For this purpose we define the density matrix $`R_{ij}`$ of the produce $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. For arbitrary polarization the decay width can be written:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(bJ/\mathrm{\Psi }+X)=\frac{1}{4\pi }𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\epsilon _iR_{ij}(\widehat{𝐏})\epsilon _j,$$
(61)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle of $`𝐏`$, $`\widehat{𝐏}`$ denotes the direction of $`𝐏`$. Similarly we can define the density matrix $`\rho _{ij}`$ for the leptonic decay. Any observable $`O`$ can be then predicted by

$$O=\frac{1}{N}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_k}{4\pi }O\rho _{ij}(\widehat{𝐤})R_{ji}(\widehat{𝐏}),$$
(62)
where $`N`$ is a normalization factor so that $`1=1`$. A simple calculation leads:

$$\rho _{ij}(\widehat{𝐤})=\frac{1}{3}\delta _{ij}\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{k}_i\widehat{k}_j\frac{1}{3}\delta _{ij}),$$
(63)
where $`\rho _{ij}`$ is normalized. $`R_{ij}`$ can be written:

$`R_{ij}(\widehat{𝐏})`$ $`=`$ $`a\delta _{ij}+ib\epsilon _{ijk}\widehat{P}_k+c\widehat{P}_i\widehat{P}_j,`$ (64)
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T,c=\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_T.`$ (65)
The anti-symmetric part exits due to that parity is violated, and it is irrelevant here because the parity is conserved in the leptonic decay. With the tensor structure one can construct the integrated spin observable $`O_P`$, and predict its value with Eq.(38):

$$O_P=(\widehat{𝐏}\widehat{𝐤})^2\frac{1}{3},O_P=\frac{2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_T\mathrm{\Gamma }_L)}{15\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(66)
If $`O_P=0`$ the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is unpolarized. If one know the values of the matrix elements discussed before, one can obtain the value for $`O_P`$ to compare with the measured in experiment. One may also obtain the invariance $`O_P^2`$ to determine the statistical error of $`O_P`$.

We summarize our work: We have analyzed the relativistic corrections for the polarized $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$-production in $`b`$-quark decay. We have calculated the perturbative coefficients and identified the matrix elements at the next-to-leading order in $`v`$. We find that the corrections can be very large in the color-singlet production channel and as well as in the color-octet production channels. For the color-singlet production channel the correction is determined by the leptonic decay constant of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$. These corrections are so large that the predictions for the considered process may be unreliable, if one only keeps several leading terms in the small velocity expansion. An integrated spin observable is proposed to measure the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ polarization. If detailed information of the eight matrix elements is known, numerical values of polarized decay widths and the observable may be obtained.

Acknowledgment: The author would like to thank Prof. K.T. Chao and Prof. Y.Q. Chen for discussions. This work is supported by National Science Foundation of P.R. China and by the Hundred Yonng Scientist Program of Sinica Academia of P.R.China.