text:
# Universality in passively advected hydrodynamic fields: the case of a passive vector with pressure.

## I Introduction

Recent theoretical and numerical studies of passive quantities linearly advected by either stochastic  or true turbulent Navier-Stokes velocity fields  have focused on the important problem of the “zero-mode” dominance of the statistical properties of the passive field in the inertial range.
The field may be an advected scalar $`\theta (𝒙,t)`$, with the equation of motion

$$\frac{\theta }{t}+𝒖\theta =\kappa ^2\theta +f_\theta ,$$
(1)
or a vector, like a magnetic field $`𝑩(𝒙,t)`$ satisfying

$$\frac{𝑩}{t}+𝒖𝑩=𝑩𝒖+\kappa ^2𝑩+𝐟_B.$$
(2)
Zero-mode dominance is of crucial importance because naturally explains the deviations from dimensional predictions for scaling properties and some universality with respect to the forcing mechanism, i.e. some independence of scaling properties from the large scale input of passive field.

In particular, for the special class of Kraichnan-like problems for scalar and vectors with Gaussian and white-in-time velocity field and external forcing , one can prove that the equal time (passive) correlation functions are dominated, in the inertial range, by the zero modes of the linear operator describing the advection by the Gaussian velocity field. Anomalous scaling comes from the non-trivial scaling properties of the null-space of the inertial operator. Universality comes from the fact that only prefactor of the zero modes feel the large scale boundary conditions, while the power law behavior is fixed by the inertial operator. As a consequence of zero-mode dominance in the inertial range we also have that all forcing-dependent contributions are sub-dominant and therefore some degree of universality with respect to the forcing mechanism.

Recently, numerical evidences that zero modes show up also in true passive models, advected by realistic non-Gaussian and non white-in-time velocity fields, have been presented for both passive scalars in the inverse cascade regime of a two dimensional flow  and shell models for passive scalars . Such findings give strong support to the idea that statistics of quantities linearly advected by true Navier-Stokes fields may show some universality properties with respect to the forcing mechanism too. In particular, the problem of a passive with a mean shear studied in  shows that zero-modes remain dominant with respect to the forcing contributions also in presence of a correlation between forcing and velocity advecting field, i.e. some degree of universality still holds. In this paper we want to investigate how far one can push the idea of universality with respect to the forcing mechanism for the particular case of the advection of a passive field with pressure  advected by the true Navier-Stokes turbulent velocity field. Such a model was initially proposed in  in order to understand the importance of non-local contributions, induced by the pressure term, in the zero-modes structure of the advecting operator. Here, we want to show and study another important striking feature of the model, i.e. its property to describe either a linear or non-linear evolution depending on the correlation between the passive forcing and the advecting velocity fields. Moreover, when the passive evolution is indeed non-linear, the passive field and the velocity fields coincide, i.e. the transported field and the advecting field are looked in both their spatial and temporal evolution. In other words, we have a linear model which may become non-linear by changing the correlation properties between the external forcing and the advecting velocity field.

In this paper we address two problems. First, we want to understand the degree of universality in the scaling properties of the linear problem at changing the external forcing.
Second, by using the similarity between the non-linear Navier-Stokes eqs and the linear advecting-diffusive eqs for the passive field (see below) we propose a way to compute the anomalous exponents of homogeneous and isotropic turbulence which takes advantage of recent results in the theory of passive scalar advected by Gaussian, white in time velocity fields .
The paper is organized as follows. In section II we present the equations for the passive field with pressure. in section III we present some numerical experiments made on the equivalent shell model for the passive field and we discuss to which extent we may expect strong universality with respect to the forcing mechanism in this model. In particular we discuss why we expect, and verify numerically in the shell model case, that passive fluxes posses a much better degree of universality than passive structure functions. In section IV we used the, supposed, universality of passive flux in order to derive a functional constraint for the velocity statistics. Conclusions follow in section V.

## II The model

Let us consider the incompressible Navier-Stokes (NS) equations:

$$_tU_i+U_j_jU_i=_ip+\nu \mathrm{\Delta }U_i+f_i$$
(3)
where notation follows the usual meaning and the forcing term $`f_i`$ is supposed to produce a stationary homogeneous and isotropic turbulence. We next consider a vector field $`𝑾`$, divergence-less (i.e. $`_iW_i=0`$) and satisfying a transport-like equation:

$$_tW_i+U_j_jW_i=_ip_w+\nu \mathrm{\Delta }W_i+g_i$$
(4)
where the ”pressure” term $`p_w`$ is computed via the Poisson equation:

$$_iU_j_jW_i=\mathrm{\Delta }p_w$$
(5)
Our aim is to discuss the statistical properties of $`𝑾`$ and their relation with the scaling properties of $`𝑼`$.

Let us introduce the anomalous exponents for $`𝑼`$ and $`𝑾`$. We shall denote by $`\zeta (p)`$ the scaling exponents of the longitudinal structure function:

$$S^p(r)=(\delta _rU)^pr^{\zeta (p)}$$

where $`\delta _rU=(𝑼(𝒙+𝒓)𝑼(𝒙))\widehat{𝒓}`$ and $``$ stands for ensemble averaging. In the same way, we introduce $`\sigma (p)`$ as the scaling exponents of longitudinal linear-field structure functions:

$$T^p(r)=(\delta _rW)^pr^{\sigma (p)}$$

where $`\delta _rW=(𝑾(𝒙+𝒓)𝑾(𝒙))\widehat{𝒓}`$. Finally,we consider the scaling exponents $`s(p)`$ for the $`𝑾`$ flux defined as:

$$(\delta _rU)^p(\delta _rW)^{2p}r^{s(p)}$$
(6)
Let us remark that equation (4) implies $`s(1)=0`$ which follows from the analogous of the ”4/5” Kolmogorov equation for $`𝑾`$ , namely

$$\delta _rU(\delta _rW)^2Nr$$
(7)
where $`N`$ is the mean rate of $`W`$ dissipation. Our analysis is aimed at understanding the relationship, if any, among the anomalous exponents $`\zeta (p),\sigma (p),s(p)`$. We are now able to pose our problem in a quantitative way. Let us first consider the very simple case $`f_i=g_i`$. By subtracting equation (3) from equation (4) we obtain:

$$_t\varphi _i+U_j_j\varphi _i=_i\pi +\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _i$$
(8)
where $`\mathit{\varphi }=𝑾𝑼`$ and $`\pi =(pp_w)`$. By equation (8) it immediately follow that the space average $`E_\varphi `$ of $`\mathit{\varphi }^2=𝑑x\varphi _i(x)\varphi _i(x)`$ satisfies the equation:

$$_tE_\varphi =ϵ_\varphi $$
(9)
where $`ϵ_\varphi `$ is the mean rate of dissipation of $`E_\varphi `$. Thus, for long enough time, the field $`\varphi _i`$ goes to zero and $`W_i=U_i`$, identically.

In this paper we want to understand to which extent the statistical properties of (4) are universal with respect to the forcing mechanism. If a strongly universality holds, then we should have independently of the forcing mechanism

$$\sigma (p)=\zeta (p),s(p)=\zeta (3p)$$
(10)
even when $`f_i`$ and $`g_i`$ are uncorrelated or weakly correlated fields. Let us notice that in the previous equality we have assumed that velocity flux possesses the same scaling properties of the velocity field, as always verified in all numerical and experimental data. We do not know any rigorous argument against or in favor of universality for the scaling properties of (4). One may argue that if the forcing mechanisms $`f_i`$ and $`g_i`$ are weakly correlated –or independent– and confined only to large scales than the statistical properties of $`𝑾`$ may not be strongly influenced by the forcing itself. In the latter case the universality of the scaling exponents of $`𝑾`$ should be achieved by the same zero-modes mechanisms previously discussed for the passive scalar with independent forcing. Whether this supposed universality can be pushed until the very extreme case of fully correlated systems, implying the equalities (10) is a matter of discussion. There is clearly a physical relevant question here: we need to understand the importance of external forcing mechanism in the statistical properties of the advected field. This question, of course, arises not only for the passive vector with pressure but also in any linear advection problem, i.e. passive scalars or passive magnetic fields. In the case of the passive vector with pressure the question assumes also another interest because of the possibility to push the advected field to follow the velocity field for some particular external forcing.

We consider an important point to investigate this problem in details and in the next section, we present some numerical results showing that universality holds for fluxes, i.e. $`s(p)=\zeta (3p)`$. Passive structure functions seems to be less universal than fluxes although strong boundary effects (both ultraviolet and infrared) do not allow a precise statement.

## III Numerical results

Although a direct numerical tests of the statistical properties (4) is possible for the NS equations, we will limit in this paper to a direct numerical investigation in the framework of shell models for three dimensional turbulence.
Shell models for turbulent energy cascade have proved to share many statistical properties with both turbulent three dimensional velocity fields  and with passive linearly advected quantities . Let us introduces a set of wavenumber $`k_n=\lambda ^nk_0`$ with $`n=0,\mathrm{},N`$ and the inter-shell ratio fixed to $`\lambda =2`$. The shell-velocity variables $`u_n(t)`$ must be understood as the velocity fluctuation over a distances $`r_n=k_n^1`$. We also introduce the linear-field shell variables $`w_n(t)`$ defined on the same sets of discrete wavenumber. It is possible to write down a set of coupled ODEs for the time evolution of $`u_n(t)`$ and $`w_n(t)`$ which mimics the velocity and the passive turbulent evolution (see below).

We know that zero modes are at works in shell models for linearly advected quantities, exactly like in the true linear hydrodynamical problems. Indeed, it is possible to prove analytically that shell models for passive scalar advected by Gaussian and white-in-time velocity (shell) fields have intermittent corrections dominated by the null space of the linear finite-dimensional advecting operator . Recently, it has also been shown that shell models for passive scalar advection, i.e. passive shells advected by shell fields arising from a shell model for the velocity, have zero modes dominance for the scaling properties in the inertial shells, exactly as it is shown for the true passive scalar .
We have therefore, exactly the analytical/phenomenological framework useful to check to which extent the scaling properties of the linear hydrodinamical problem are forcing independent.

In the shell model framework the very meaning of pressure is absent. The equivalent of our linear-hydrodynamical model (4) will become a shell field $`w_n(t)`$, linearly advected by the shell model velocity fields $`u_n(t)`$, conserving the energy $`_n|w_n|^2`$, and such that when $`f_n=g_n`$ we have, for time large enough, $`w_n(t)=u_n(t)`$.

It is possible to write down such a coupled set of ODEs for all shell models. Here we consider the case of Sabra model . We obtain:

$$(\frac{d}{dt}+\nu k_n^2)u_n=i(k_nu_{n+1}^{}u_{n+2}+bk_{n1}u_{n+1}u_{n1}^{}+(1+b)k_{n2}u_{n2}u_{n1})+f_n$$
(11)
$$(\frac{d}{dt}+\nu k_n^2)w_n=i(k_nu_{n+1}^{}w_{n+2}+bk_{n1}w_{n+1}u_{n1}^{}+k_{n2}w_{n2}u_{n1}+bk_{n2}w_{n1}u_{n2})+g_n$$
(12)
where the non linear term of $`u_n`$ evolution and the linear advection part of $`w_n`$ evolution have the only free parameter $`b`$. Note that if we put $`w_n=u_n`$ in equation (12), then equation (12) becomes equivalent to equation (11). It is known that in order to have a realistic intermittent behavior for $`u_n`$ one has to chose $`1<b<0`$ .
Equations (11) and (12) preserve velocity energy, $`E_u_n|u_n|^2`$, and passive energy, $`E_w_n|w_n|^2`$, in the limit of zero viscosity and zero forcing.

It is easy to show that if $`f_n=g_n`$ in the above equations than for long enough time $`w_n(t)u_n(t)`$.

The universality issue, as discussed in the previous section, consists now in studying the scaling properties of $`w_n`$ at changing its forcing mechanism.
Let us define the scaling exponents for the velocity flux,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_n=\mathrm{}[(k_nu_{n+2}u_{n+1}^{}u_n^{})+(1+b)k_{n1}(u_{n+1}u_n^{}u_{j1}^{})]$$

and passive flux,

$$Q_n=\mathrm{}[(k_nw_{n+2}u_{n+1}^{}w_n^{})+k_{n1}(w_{n+1}u_n^{}w_{n1}^{})+k_{n1}b(w_{n+1}w_n^{}u_{n1}^{})]$$

as:

$$S_\mathrm{\Pi }^p(n)|\mathrm{\Pi }_n|^pk_n^{p\zeta (3p)}T_Q^p(n)|Q_n|^pk_n^{ps(p)}$$
(13)
where the equivalent of $`4/5`$ law for the two shell models gives $`\zeta (3)=s(1)=1`$, . The structure functions are defined as follows:

$$S_u^p(n)=|u_n|^pk_n^{\zeta (p)}T_w^p(n)=|w_n|^pk_n^{\sigma (p)}$$
(14)
In the following we present some numerical tests done with $`N=25`$ shells $`\nu _u=\nu _w=510^7`$ and different kind of forcing mechanisms.
Forcing have been chosen such as to go from a weakly correlated situation where $`g_n(t)`$ has some large scale dependency from the $`u_n(t)`$ dynamics to a fully uncorrelated case with $`g_n(t)`$ given by a random process.

In Fig. 1 we present the typical scaling laws one obtains for fluxes of both fields, for different large scale passive-forcing. In all simulations we have always taken the same velocity forcing concentrated on the largest shell and constant: $`f_n=(1+i)C_u\delta _{n,1}`$, with $`C_u=0.01`$. We have compared statistical properties of the passive fields using three different choices for the passive forcing. In case (A) we had a time-dependent forcing such as to impose a constant passive energy input on the first shell:

$$A:g_n(t)=\delta _{n,1}(1+i)/w_1^{}(t).$$

In case (B) we fixed the first passive shell to have the same amplitude $`|w_1|=const.`$ but leaving its phase to evolve according to its own dynamics.

$$B:g_n(t)|w_1(t)|=1.t.$$

In case (C) we took a forcing concentrated on the first shell, with constant amplitude, $`|g_1(t)|=G_1`$ but random independent phases

$$C:g_n(t)=\delta _{n,1}G_1e^{i\theta (t)}$$

where $`\theta (t)\theta (t^{})\delta (tt^{})`$.
Let us notice that forcing of cases (A) and (B) have some (weak) correlation with the advecting velocity field, while case (C) is independent of $`u_n`$.
As one can see all flux curves superpose perfectly in the inertial range. Let us notice that the extremely small errors on the scaling of two fluxes allows us to support the statement $`\mathrm{\Pi }_nQ_n`$ with very high accuracy independently on the forcing mechanism. The scaling of passive structure functions suffers of larger error bars, due to a less smooth matching between inertial and infra-red properties . The qualitative trend is, anyhow, toward a more intermittent behavior of the passive fields with respect to the velocity field (see Fig. 2). In the latter case we would have an indication that passive structure functions are much more sensible to the boundary conditions than the fluxes moments, implying also a weaker degree of universality with respect to the forcing mechanism.
In Table 1 we quantify our finding in all three forcing cases (A-C) showing the best fits and their errors for all scaling exponents of both fluxes and structure functions.
In Fig. 3, we show two typical time evolution for the total energies of velocity, $`E_u(t)`$, and passive, $`E_w(t)`$ for the case with two different -but correlated- forcings, $`f_ng_n`$. Although some correlation between $`E_u(t)`$ and $`E_w(t)`$ is observed, we are very far from the trivial exact correlated case one would have obtained choosing $`f_ng_n`$. The non trivial correlations between the two energy can be seen in the fig. 4 where we plot, for a typical trajectory, $`E_u`$ versus $`E_w`$.
In order to test the robustness of previous results we repeated the numerical experiments with a different value of the free parameter $`b`$ in the sabra shell model equations (11). It is known that at changing $`b`$ the intermittency of the velocity field changes.
In Fig. 5 we plot the $`\zeta (3p)`$ and $`s(p)`$ curves for both values of $`b=0.4`$ and $`b=0.6`$. The agreement for each $`b`$ values between the two fluxes is again perfect despite the fact that at varying $`b`$ we have different degrees of intermittency.

One could question why there is such clear evidence that $`s(p)=\zeta (3p)`$, i.e. the scaling properties of two fluxes are identical, while passive structure functions seem to be more intermittent than the corresponding velocity structure functions. One possible explanation goes as follows. By exploiting the equation of motion one may always derives homogeneous constraints for moments of quantities like $`F_𝒏=u_nw_n^{}w_{n^{\prime \prime }}`$ in the inertial range, i.e. where forcing is not directly acting. In particular by writing the stationary condition for quantities like $`F_{𝒏_1}F_{𝒏_2}\mathrm{}F_{n_{p1}}w_kw_k^{}`$ one obtains an homogeneous constraints involving only $`F_𝒏`$ observable:

$$\frac{d}{dt}F_{𝒏_1}F_{𝒏_2}\mathrm{}F_{𝒏_{p1}}w_kw_k^{}=O_{𝒏_1𝒏_2\mathrm{}𝒏_{p1},k,k^{}}^{𝒎_1𝒎_2\mathrm{}𝒎_p}F_{𝒎_1}F_{𝒎_2}\mathrm{}F_{𝒎_p}=0$$
(15)
where the operator $`O_{𝒏_1𝒏_2\mathrm{}𝒏_{p1},k,k^{}}^{𝒎_1𝒎_2\mathrm{}𝒎_p}`$ is given from the equation of motion and it is independent of the correlation between $`u_n`$ and $`w_n`$ and of the chosen forcings $`g_n`$ and $`f_n`$. On the other hands no homogeneous closed constraints can ever be found for moments of quantities involving only simultaneous correlations of passive fields, $`w_n`$. In order to have homogeneous expressions for obervable made of only passive fields one has to give (or to guess) an explicit form for the correlation between $`w_n`$ and $`u_n`$. Thus one may think to obtain an equation similar to (15) but now with the inertial operator explicitly dependent on the given correlation between the two fields. In the latter case the dependency of the passive field on the statistical properties of the velocity field and of the correlation with the external forcing may lead to non-universal scaling properties.
On the other hand, one can also argue that the observed lack of universality is not Reynolds independent and that at Reynolds large enough some strong independence from the forcing mechanism (zero-modes dominance) would be recovered also for passive structure functions. The latter scenario is what happens in true passive scalars with a correlation between forcing and velocity field (see the case of a passive scalar with shear ) where the existence of sub-leading non-homogeneous terms induced by the forcing mechanism may spoil the scaling behavior of the zero-modes at finite Reynolds numbers.

## IV An approximate computation of the scaling exponents

The results so far discussed, make us rather confident that the two fluxes of equation (4) and of Navier Stokes eqs (3) have the same statistical fluctuations.

We want now to understand whether it is possible to use the above results to obtain useful informations on the scaling exponents $`\zeta (p)`$.

The main idea, discussed in this section, is the following. We assume that the velocity field can be described by the (unknown) multifractal probability distribution $`P(\delta _rU)`$. We want to compute the probability distribution of the passive vector, $`P(\delta _rW)`$. The equation (4) will induce a functional relation between the two probability distributions. By requiring that the scaling properties of $`𝑾`$ flux are the same of $`𝑼`$ flux, we introduce an (infinite) set of equations for the probability $`P(\delta _rU)`$ whose solutions will fix its scaling. In order to simplify the above procedure, the approach we want to follow is based on a suitable set of approximations and assumptions whose validity we are not able to prove rigorously, only a posteriori we will be able to judge the goodness of our calculation.
Let us suppose that the field $`𝑼`$ in equation (4) is characterized by a multifractal spectrum $`D(h)`$. As it is well known, in such a case the anomalous exponents of $`𝑼`$ are given by the expression $`\zeta (p)=inf_h(ph+3D(h))`$ and the probability distribution of $`\delta _rU`$ is given by :

$$P(\delta _rU)𝑑\mu (h)r^{3D(h)}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\delta _rU)^2}{2U_0r^{2h}}\right]$$
(16)
where $`U_0`$ represents the variance of the large scale velocity field, which is supposed to be Gaussian. Equation (16) tells us that for each value of $`r`$ we may consider $`\delta _rU`$ as the superposition of Gaussian field with variance $`U_0r^{2h}`$ and probability $`r^{3D(h)}`$ associated to each value of $`h`$. We can then consider to solve equation (4) in the limit where $`𝑼`$ is a ”weighted” superposition of Gaussian random fields (as expressed by (16)).

The equivalence between the statistical properties of the Navier-Stokes field and of the linear field implies that both fluxes have the same scaling:

$$|(\delta _rU)(\delta _rW)^2|^p|\delta _rU|^{3p}$$
(17)
We want to exploit the above identity in order to derive a constraint for the $`D(h)`$ spectrum.
We can rewrite the term $`(\delta _rU(\delta _rW)^2)^p`$ as follows:

$$(\delta _rU(\delta _rW)^2)^p𝑑hd(\delta _rU)r^{3D(h)}P(\delta _rU,h)(\delta _rU)^p(\delta _rW)^{2p}|\delta _rU,h$$
(18)
where with $`(\delta _rW)^{2p}|\delta _rU,h`$ we mean the average of the linear field conditioned to the advecting velocity field and $`P(\delta _rU,h)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\delta _rU)^2}{2U_0r^{2h}}\right]`$. Up to eqn. (18) we did not used any approximation. The computation of $`(\delta _rW)^{2p}|\delta _rU,h`$ is the most difficult one and we shall introduce several approximations in order to make it feasible. In particular we want to compute $`(\delta _rW)^{2p}|\delta _rU,h`$ using a surrogate $`\delta `$-correlated and Gaussian velocity field. In other words will make the first approximation that in order to compute the conditional average we may assume that the multifractal velocity field, as defined by equation (16), is the ”weighted” superposition of independent Gaussian random fields $`\delta `$ -correlated in time.

In order to compute left hand side of equation (18), we solve equation (4) for fixed exponent $`h`$ of the random field $`𝑼`$ and then average the results over $`h`$ with probability $`r^{3D(h)}`$. In doing such an average we notice that in order to mimic the advection by a true Navier-Stokes field (not $`\delta `$-correlated in time) with scaling $`\delta _rUr^h`$ we need a $`\delta `$-correlated surrogate with scaling $`\delta _rU_sr^{\frac{1+h}{2}}`$, because of dimensions carried by the delta-functions. As a consequence we are going to be interested only in exponents for the surrogate $`U_s`$ field in the range $`H=\frac{1+h}{2}=[1/2,1]`$, which correspond to the range $`h:[0,1]`$ for the true turbulent field. Let us notice that a K41 field has a correspondent $`\delta `$-correlated field scaling as $`\delta _rU_sr^{2/3}`$.

We now want to exploit our $`\delta `$-correlated ansatz by writing:

$$(\delta _rW)^{2p}|\delta _rU,hr^{p(1h)+\rho _{2p}(1+h)}$$
(19)
where we have introduced the anomaly $`\rho _{2p}(2H)`$ of the linear field $`𝑾`$ advected by a $`\delta `$-correlated velocity field $`\delta _rU_sr^H`$, namely:

$$(\delta _rW)^{2p})_Hr^{p(22H)+\rho _{2p}(2H)}$$
(20)
In equation (20) we have taken into account the dimensional consistency relation $`2H=1+h`$. Notice that for the $`\delta `$-correlated case one can prove that in the isotropic sector we have $`\rho _2(2H)=0`$, i.e. the second order correlation function has not anomalous scaling.
Our definition gives:

$$\delta _rU(\delta _rW)^2_Hr^Hr^{1H}=r$$
(21)
i.e, our ansatz on the function $`(\delta _rW)^{2p}|\delta _rU,h`$ implies that we are averaging over all possible singularity $`H`$ with the constraint $`\delta _rU(\delta _rW)^2_Hr`$.
We can now use the relation of statistical identity between fluxes, $`\zeta (3p)=s(p)`$, in order to obtain an equation for $`D(h)`$. We have:

$$𝑑\mu (h)r^{ph+p(1h)\rho _{2p}(1+h)+3D(h)}r^{\zeta (3p)}$$
(22)
which gives:

$$\underset{h}{inf}\left[p\rho _{2p}(1+h)+3D(h)\right]=\underset{h}{inf}\left[3ph+3D(h)\right]$$
(23)
If we are able to compute the anomalous correction $`\rho _{2p}`$ (of the $`\delta `$-correlated problem), equation (23) becomes a functional equation for $`D(h)`$ whose solution gives us the anomalous exponents $`\zeta (p)`$ within the set of approximation discussed above. Let us notice that (23) is consistent with the known result $`\tau (1)=s(1)=0`$. Let us also remark that as soon as we introduce any smoothing in the time dependency of $`𝑼`$ the equation (23) may be no longer valid and we should reconsider the averaging procedure in a more suitable way.
The computation of the anomalous exponents $`\rho _{2p}`$ is a feasible but difficult task for equation (4) because of the condition $`_iW_i=0`$. In principle, the computation can be done perturbatively following the analog of the passive scalar case . Only the exponents in different anisotropic sectors for the second order correlation function have been, up to now, computed. However, in order to understand the quality of the approximations so far introduced to derive equation (23), at least for three dimensional isotropic and homogeneous turbulence, we can use the numerical values of $`\rho _4(1+h)`$ and $`\rho _6(1+h)`$ as recently computed numerically for the passive scalar model , hoping that the introduction of the pressure term does not change too much the scaling exponents .

In order to find a solution of (23), we simply assume that $`D(h)`$ can be parameterized by using the expression $`D(h)=d_0(1x+xln(x))`$ where $`x=(hh_0)/(d_0log(\beta ^1))`$ which corresponds to a log-poison distribution for the multifractal model. We use a log-poison formula because we know that it parametrize particularly well the experimental data . Because $`d_0`$ is fixed by the condition $`\zeta (3)=1`$, we are left with the problem to find $`\beta `$ and $`h_0`$ by using equation (23) for $`p=2`$ and $`p=3`$. Solving equation (23) for $`\beta `$ and $`h_0`$ gives $`\beta =0.781`$ and $`h_0=0.14`$. In fig. 6 we show the estimated values of $`\zeta (p)`$ for $`p=1,\mathrm{..12}`$ against the experimental findings for homogeneous and isotropic turbulence. We note that the estimate based on (23) is rather accurate with an error not greater than $`5\%`$. We argue that such a small error shows that our approach, within the limitation and the approximations previously discussed, looks promising as an useful tool to compute the anomalous exponents.

In order to test the sensitivity of (23) to the values of $`\rho _4(1+h)`$ and $`\rho _6(1+h)`$, it is interesting to use the anomalous exponents $`\rho _4`$ and $`\rho _6`$ given by Kraichnan’ formula for $`D=3`$. In this case the solution of (23) gives $`\beta =0.813`$ and $`h_0=0.21`$ and the corresponding values of $`\zeta (p)`$ are also plotted in fig. 6. Although there are not big differences between exponents obtained using the Kraichnan formula and those obtained by using the correct numerical results, the agreement with the experimental data is definitely better in the latter case.

## V Conclusions

In this paper we discussed several properties characterizing the statistical behavior of a divergence-less vector field passively advected by an homogeneous and isotropic turbulent field. We can summarize our findings in the following way. (i) We present some theoretical arguments which supports the statement that the flux of passive vector field should have the same statistical properties of the flux of an homogeneous and isotropic turbulent field. (ii) We generalize the concept of divergence-less vector field to shell models and by using detailed numerical simulations we provide evidence that the anomalous scaling exponents of the passive vector flux and of the non linear shell model flux are the same with very high accuracy. (iii) We propose a self consistent approach to compute the anomalous exponents in homogeneous and isotropic turbulence by using the properties previously discussed. In particular, we have been able to define a functional equation for $`D(h)`$ within a suitable set of approximations. (iv) By assuming that the pressure term does not change dramatically the numerical values of the anomalous exponents for the divergence-less vector field advected by a Gaussian isotropic $`\delta `$-correlated random field, we have been able to find an approximate solution of the functional equation for $`D(h)`$ which compares rather well to known experimental data.

Before closing we want to discuss a generalization of the model (4) which we consider interesting for further studies. Let us consider the following set of equations:

$$_tU_i+U_j_jU_i+\lambda W_j_jU_i=_ip_u+\nu \mathrm{\Delta }U_i+f_i$$
(24)
$$_tW_i+U_j_jW_i+\lambda W_j_jW_i=_ip_w+\nu \mathrm{\Delta }W_i+g_i$$
(25)
where we assumed that $`_iU_i=_iW_i=0`$. It is interesting to notice that the vector field $`𝒁_\lambda =𝑼+\lambda 𝑾`$ satisfies the Navier Stokes equations and that equations (24) and (25) corresponds to (3) and (4) for $`\lambda =0`$.

Finally we want to remark that equation (4) is an useful tool to understand the role played by coherent structure on the anomalous scaling in both two dimensional and three dimensional turbulence. All our findings suggest that a systematic study of equation (4) looks extremely promising in order to derive a new approach in understanding intermittency and estimating anomalous scaling in Navier-Stokes equations.
We acknowledge useful discussion with I. Arad, A. Celani and M. Vergassola. We thank M. Vergassola and A. Mazzino who provided us the numerical data for the 4th and 6th order anomaly in the Kraichnan passive scalar problem. This work has been partially supported by the EU under the Grant No. HPRN-CT 2000-00162 “Non Ideal Turbulence” and by the INFM (Iniziativa di Calcolo Parallelo).


format: text

text:
# 1 QCD and Confinement

## 1 QCD and Confinement

The QCD lagrangian describes the strong interaction in terms of the couplings between the elementary pointlike quark (antiquark) and gluon constituents;

$$=\underset{q}{}\overline{\psi }_q(i/m_q)\psi _qg\overline{\psi }_q(\lambda ^a/2)A^a/\psi _q\frac{1}{4}G_{\mu \nu }^aG_{\mu \nu }^a.$$
(1)
The fundamental interactions between quarks and gluons are a QED-like $`q\overline{q}g`$ coupling and non-Abelian $`g^3`$ and $`g^4`$ gluon self-couplings. At large momentum scales these perturbative interactions provide an accurate description of QCD interactions, and pQCD predictions can be compared to the experimentally observed cross sections for quark and gluon jet production. At small momentum transfers however pQCD becomes inaccurate, and the dynamics of QCD is instead dominated by the nonperturbative phenomenon known as confinement. The gluon self-interactions lead to the formation of a “flux tube” between color sources, which gives rise to an approximately linear potential. Due to this effect only states with zero total color, “color-singlets”, can exist as physical bound states. This flux tube and the associated asymptotically linear potential are clearly evident in lattice gauge theory simulations with static sources (see Figs.1,2 ).

## 2 Hadrons: Conventional and Exotica

### 2.1 Types of Hadrons

Hadrons are conventionally classified according to which “valence” basis state in Hilbert space is thought to dominate the hadronic state vector. This simple classification in terms of pure valence states provides a useful and surprisingly accurate description of most known resonances. Of course we should emphasize that this is an approximation of unknown accuracy with no clear justification, and may well be misleading in the description of unconventional types of hadrons.

### 2.2 Quark and Multiquark States

The physically allowed color-singlet states one can form from quarks and antiquarks alone are generically of the form

$$|\mathrm{color}\mathrm{singlet}_{n,\overline{n}}=|q^n\overline{q}^{\overline{n}},$$
(2)
where $`mod(n\overline{n},3)=0`$. The simplest such combinations are

$$|\mathrm{color}\mathrm{singlet}_{1,1}=|q\overline{q}=|\mathrm{quark}\mathrm{model}\mathrm{meson},$$
(3)
$$|\mathrm{color}\mathrm{singlet}_{3,0}=|qqq=|\mathrm{quark}\mathrm{model}\mathrm{baryon},$$
(4)
$$|\mathrm{color}\mathrm{singlet}_{0,3}=|\overline{q}\overline{q}\overline{q}=|\mathrm{quark}\mathrm{model}\mathrm{antibaryon}.$$
(5)
The complete spectrum of $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ product basis states is formed by taking all possible quark types “flavors” for $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$, and by allowing the states to take on all possible quark spin arrangements and orbital angular momenta, and finally by allowing excitation of the radial wavefunctions. We will discuss the detailed quantum numbers allowed to $`q\overline{q}`$ mesons in particular in the next section.

These three simplest color-singlet states, $`|q\overline{q}`$, $`|qqq`$ and $`|\overline{q}\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ are special in that they are irreducible, in other words they they cannot be partitioned into separate color-singlet substates. The “higher” Fock space color singlets in contrast are reducible, and need not be realized in nature as isolated resonances. Two examples of such higher Fock space states are

$$|\mathrm{color}\mathrm{singlet}_{2,2}=|q^2\overline{q}^2=|\mathrm{quark}\mathrm{model}\mathrm{baryonium}$$
(6)
and

$$|\mathrm{color}\mathrm{singlet}_{6,0}=|qqqqqq=|\mathrm{quark}\mathrm{model}\mathrm{dibaryon}.$$
(7)
The multiquark combination

$$|\mathrm{color}\mathrm{singlet}_{4,1}=|qqqq\overline{q}$$
(8)
is also an allowed color-singlet basis state, but has received rather less theoretical attention.

Since these hypothetical baryonia and dibaryons have overlap with scattering states of two separate $`|q\overline{q}`$ mesons and two separate $`|qqq`$ baryons respectively, they can “decay” without interaction. It is expected therefore that they either have extremely broad widths from “fall-apart” into these final states, or may not be realized in nature as resonances at all. This fall-apart problem would be circumvented by a multiquark state with a mass below all strong decay thresholds, which would therefore be strongly stable. Possibilities for strongly stable multiquark states include the $`u^2d^2s^2`$ “H dibaryon”  and “heavy-light” $`Q^2\overline{q}^2`$ clusters, with $`Q=c`$ or $`b`$ .

Alternatively, one may find quasinuclear bound states of largely undistorted hadrons that formally lie in multiquark sectors of Hilbert space, such as nuclei, hypernuclei, and perhaps $`K\overline{K}`$ bound states .

### 2.3 Quarkonium and $`q\overline{q}`$ Quantum Numbers

Most known mesons are reasonably well described as $`q\overline{q}`$ (quark-antiquark) bound states. Since quarks have $`S=1/2`$, the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair can have total spin $`S_{q\overline{q}}=1/21/2=10`$. The $`q\overline{q}`$ orbital angular momentum $`L_{q\overline{q}}`$ can take on any integer value; combining these $`L`$ and $`S`$ $`q\overline{q}`$ angular momenta gives the allowed total angular momentum $`J_{q\overline{q}}`$. The allowed values are $`J=L`$ (for $`S=0`$) and $`J=L+1,L,L1`$ (for $`S=1`$). Meson quark model assignments may be specified using spectroscopic notation, $`{}_{}{}^{2\mathrm{S}+1}\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{J}}^{}`$. As examples, the $`\pi `$ is a $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{S}_{0}^{}`$ state, the $`J/\psi `$ is $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{S}_{1}^{}`$ and the $`L=1,S=1,J=2`$ $`f_2(1270)`$ is a $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{2}^{}`$ $`q\overline{q}`$ quark model state. Radial excitation may be indicated using a prefactor, thus the first radially-excited $`1^{}`$ $`c\overline{c}`$, known as the $`\psi (3686)`$, is a $`2{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{S}_{1}^{}`$ state.

Spatial parity $`P`$ and charge-conjugation parity $`C`$ are exact symmetries of the QCD lagrangian, and as such are conserved in strong decays. In $`q\overline{q}`$ states these quantum numbers are

$$P=(1)^L$$
(9)
and

$$C=(1)^{L+S}.$$
(10)
A state’s $`J^{PC}`$ quantum numbers follow directly from these relations; for example the $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{S}_{0}^{}`$ $`\pi ^o`$ has $`J^{PC}=0^+`$, the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{S}_{1}^{}`$ $`J/\psi `$ has $`J^{PC}=1^{}`$, and the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{2}^{}`$ $`f_2(1270)`$ has $`J^{PC}=2^{++}`$. As we shall see, sensitive tests of the nature of interquark forces are possible given accurate experimental information on the spectrum of $`q\overline{q}`$ states in heavy quark systems; $`c\overline{c}`$ is an especially clear case.

If we complete a table of all possible $`J^{PC}`$ quantum numbers allowed to $`q\overline{q}`$ states, we find that certain combinations do not arise. These “$`J^{PC}`$-exotics” are $`0^{};0^+,1^+,2^+,3^+\mathrm{}`$. Since relatively low-mass $`J^{PC}`$-exotics are expected in the hybrid meson spectrum, and if discovered would certainly constitute proof of states beyond the naive $`q\overline{q}`$ quark model, the search for such states is widely regarded as the most exciting topic in QCD spectroscopy.

### 2.4 Glueball and Hybrid States

Since this subject was covered extensively by other Hirschegg Workshop speakers in the context of light $`(u,d,s,g)`$ spectroscopy, I will be very brief here and proceed to the $`c\overline{c}`$ and $`c\overline{c}`$-hybrid states.

One may also form physically allowed (color-singlet) basis states from pure gluons and from quark, antiquark and gluon product states. Hadrons which have such configurations as valence basis states are known collectively as “gluonic hadrons”. Color-singlet gluon states (if we neglect quarks) form idealized, unmixed “glueball” resonances. The spectrum of these states has been studied extensively in LGT (see for example ), and an impressively detailed theoretical spectrum has been determined. Unfortunately for experimentalists, LGT predicts only one glueball below 2 GeV, a scalar at 1.6 GeV, and no $`J^{PC}`$-exotics are expected below ca. 4 GeV. This scalar has been identified with the $`f_0(1500)`$ seen in $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation , although there are outstanding problems with clear violation of flavor symmetry in the strong decay branching fractions of this state; naively one would expect a glueball to couple symmetrically to all quark flavors. This flavor-symmetry violation may indicate that glueball-quarkonium mixing is an important effect . This mixing could be important both in decays and in mass shifts of the observed resonances relative to LGT predictions; since this is in effect a systematic error for LGT, it will be very important to quantify.

The relatively narrow width of the $`f_0(1500)`$ glueball candidate is very encouraging for higher-mass glueball searches; LGT predicts these to be a $`0^+`$ and a $`2^{++}`$, just below 2.5 GeV. Of course identification of these states will require clarification of the higher quarkonia expected in the same mass region. A future $`p\overline{p}`$ machine could make a very useful contribution through an accurate determination of the branching fractions of the $`f_0(1500)`$ and other light glueball and hybrid candidates.

Hybrids are the most experimentally attractive of the anticipated non-$`q\overline{q}`$ resonances, because their valence $`|q\overline{q}g`$ basis states span complete flavor nonets (hence hybrids have a much richer spectrum of states than glueballs) and the lowest-lying hybrid multiplet is expected to contain exotic quantum numbers. All $`J^{PC}`$ combinations can be formed from $`|q\overline{q}g`$ states, so any $`J^{PC}`$-exotic might a priori be a hybrid meson candidate. LGT has recently contributed several estimates of light exotic hybrid meson masses , and at present it appears that the combination $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ is the lightest exotic, with a mass of $`M(1^+)2.0`$ GeV in the $`(u,d)`$ $`q\overline{q}`$ flavor sector. This is consistent with estimates using the flux-tube model , and rather heavier than bag model results, which favored $`M(1^+)1.5`$ GeV.

We can expect to identify the $`J^{PC}`$-exotic hybrids rather easily, provided that we study their favored decay modes. The expectation of both flux tube  and constituent gluon  models is that light hybrids should decay preferentially to pairs of $`q\overline{q}`$ mesons in which one has a unit of orbital excitation, the so-called “S+P” modes. For the lightest $`I=1`$, $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ hybrid these modes are $`\pi f_1`$ and $`\pi b_1`$, which are rather difficult to reconstruct and so had not been investigated carefully before the recent interest in hybrid mesons.

As a caution we note that the only two light exotic hybrid candidates, the $`\pi _1(1400)`$ and $`\pi _1(1600)`$, both have these $`I=1`$, $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ quantum numbers, but lie ca. 500 MeV below the LGT and flux-tube mass predictions and apparently decay strongly to the S+S modes $`\eta \pi `$ and $`\rho \pi `$, which are forbidden to hybrids in the flux-tube decay model. Evidently these theoretical expectations for hybrids should not be regarded as more than tentative guidelines at present. We can of course expect a systematic improvement in LGT predictions as algorithms and computer performance improve.

## 3 Charmonium and $`c\overline{c}`$ Hybrids

### 3.1 Charmonium, Theory and Experiment

There are 11 known $`c\overline{c}`$ resonances; the spectrum is shown in Fig.3. (A possible 12th $`c\overline{c}`$ state, a candidate for the anticipated narrow 3D2, was reported in $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ at 3.836 GeV by the E705 Collaboration . This effect has a rather low $`2.8\sigma `$ statistical significance, and needs confirmation.) There is a predominance of $`J^{PC}=1^{}`$ vector states simply because most of these resonances were found at $`e^+e^{}`$ machines, which form only $`J^{PC}=1^{}`$ states in s-channel. The remaining states in the 1P multiplet and the 1S0 spin-singlet $`\eta _c(2980)`$ were found in radiative transitions from the 1S and 2S vectors, with the single exception of the $`h_c(3526)`$; this $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ state has been observed only in $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation.

Since charmonium is only quasirelativistic, one can expect that the level of configuration mixing is much reduced relative to light mesons (the gluon emission amplitude is $`(v_q/c_q)`$), so that one may be able to clearly identify the separate effects of confinement and gluon exchange ($`|c\overline{c}|c\overline{c}g`$ mixing) in the $`c\overline{c}`$ spectrum. Since spin-dependent forces do not appear in the effective interquark interaction until $`O(v^2/c^2)`$ in the quark momenta, we might expect that a naive zeroth-order static potential that incorporated the OGE color-Coulomb potential and linear confinement might give a reasonable approximation to the observed $`c\overline{c}`$ spectrum . We can test this by assuming the potential

$$V_{c\overline{c}}(r)=\frac{4}{3}\frac{\alpha _s}{r}+br$$
(11)
and solving the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation for bound states in this potential. Inspection of the experimental $`c\overline{c}`$ spectrum (Fig.3) suggests 1S, 1P and 2S multiplets with spin-averaged masses of ca. 3.07 GeV, 3.52 GeV and 3.67 GeV, respectively. If we use these as input to fix the three potential model parameters $`\alpha _s,b`$ and the charm quark mass $`m_c`$, we find $`\alpha _s=0.510`$, $`b=0.152`$ GeV2 and $`m_c=1.450`$ GeV. Most of the remaining $`c\overline{c}`$ levels predicted to lie below 4.6 GeV (1S..4S,1P..3P,1D..3D,1F,2F,1G,2G and 1H) are shown in Fig.4, together with the experimental spectrum. With a multiplicity of 2 for S-states (1S0,3S1) and 4 for higher-$`L`$ states, this model predicts 52 independent $`c\overline{c}`$ states below 4.6 GeV. The proximity of the experimental masses to the predicted radial and orbital levels in Fig.4 confirms that the simple description of $`c\overline{c}`$ states as nonrelativistic fermions in a Coulomb-plus-linear potential is a reasonable first approximation.

The level splittings within an orbitally-excited multiplet such as 1P provide more sensitive tests of the nature of interquark forces. Assuming that the short-ranged force is due to one-gluon exchange (OGE), we expect the spin-dependent forces to be reasonably well described by the Breit-Fermi Hamiltonian, which follows from an $`O(v^2/c^2)`$ expansion of the OGE T-matrix. This Breit-Fermi interaction, which is familiar from atomic physics, has spin-spin, spin-orbit and tensor terms, and for equal-mass quarks and antiquarks ($`m_q=m_{\overline{q}}=m`$) is explicitly

$$H_{BreitFermi}^{OGE}=$$

$$\frac{32\pi \alpha _s}{9m^2}\stackrel{}{S}_q\stackrel{}{S}_{\overline{q}}\delta (\stackrel{}{x})+\frac{2\alpha _s}{m^2r^3}\stackrel{}{L}_{q\overline{q}}\stackrel{}{S}_{q\overline{q}}+\frac{4\pi \alpha _s}{m^2r^3}(\stackrel{}{S}_q\widehat{r}\stackrel{}{S}_{\overline{q}}\widehat{r}\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{}{S}_q\stackrel{}{S}_{\overline{q}}).$$
(12)
There are also spin-dependent terms which change the relative positions of multiplets by $`O(v^2/c^2)`$ but do not separate levels within a multiplet.

Several very characteristic features of this OGE interaction are immediately evident. First, since the spin-spin interaction is a contact term, it has no effect on orbitally-excited states. Thus the spin-singlet state $`(S=0,J=L)`$ is predicted to be degenerate with the multiplicity-weighted “center-of-gravity” of the spin-triplet states $`(S=1,J=L+1,L,L1)`$. (The spin-orbit and tensor mass shifts give zero when weighted by multiplicity.) Thus in the 1P multiplet we predict that the 1P1 $`h_c`$ spin singlet should have a mass of

$$M({}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{P}_{1}^{})|_{thy.(OGE)}=\frac{5}{9}M({}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{2}^{})+\frac{3}{9}M({}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{1}^{})+\frac{1}{9}M({}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{0}^{})=3525.27(0.12)\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(13)
This relation is very well satisfied by the experimental candidate $`h_c(3526)`$ reported by the Fermilab collaboration E760/835 in $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation ; it has a mass of

$$M({}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{P}_{1}^{})|_{expt.}=3526.14(0.24)\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(14)
The agreement is not expected to be exact because this is an $`O(v^2/c^2)`$ derivation, and makes additional approximations such as assuming pure $`c\overline{c}`$ states and only OGE at small $`r`$.

This result is often cited as a sensitive test of the Lorentz nature of the confining interaction. A priori one might have assumed that the confining interaction couples to the color charge density $`\psi ^{}\psi =\overline{\psi }\gamma _0\psi `$, so that the complete quark-antiquark interaction is of the same form as the QED Coulomb interaction, $`\gamma _0\gamma _0`$. This was assumed in the original Cornell model, and is still advocated by Swanson and Szczepaniak . Alternatively the confining interaction might couple to the Lorentz scalar density $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$, so that the complete interaction transforms as $`II`$. These two possibilities may be distinguished by the $`O(v^2/c^2)`$ spin-dependent Hamiltonian. The general result for the spin-spin $`c\overline{c}`$ interaction due to a $`\gamma _0\gamma _0`$ potential $`V(r)`$ is

$$H_{vector}^{spinspin}=+\frac{2}{3m_c^2}^2V(r)\stackrel{}{S}_q\stackrel{}{S}_{\overline{q}}.$$
(15)
With a vector linear confining interaction $`V(r)=b_vr`$ this becomes

$$H_{vectorconft.}^{spinspin}=+\frac{4b_v}{3m_c^2r}\stackrel{}{S}_q\stackrel{}{S}_{\overline{q}}.$$
(16)
This vector confinement would displace the 1P1 $`h_c`$ state upwards in mass from the 3PJ c.o.g. by $`(4b_v/3m_c^2)1\mathrm{P}|r^1|1\mathrm{P}30`$ MeV; since these energies are actually equal to within about 1 MeV, this is a very strong argument in favor of scalar over vector confinement. Since the $`h_c(3526)`$ state is not very well established experimentally, and has been seen only in $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation, confirmation of this 1P1 state and a precise mass determination will be a very important exercise for GSI.

In addition to this OGE interaction there is an inverted spin-orbit interaction due to the linear scalar confining potential, which is given by

$$H_{scalarconft.}^{spinorbit}=\frac{\pi b}{2m_c^2r}\stackrel{}{L}_{q\overline{q}}\stackrel{}{S}_{q\overline{q}}.$$
(17)
The effect of incorporating these additional spin-dependent terms as first order perturbations is shown in Fig.5. Note that this is not a fit to the observed multiplet splittings, rather these splittings follow from the $`\alpha _s,b`$ and $`m_c`$ that fit the 1S, 1P and 2S multiplet centers of gravity (Fig.4). As a qualitative description of the relative positions and scale of splittings within the multiplet this model is evidently quite successful. The relative splitting $`({}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{1}^{})/({}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{0}^{})`$ is an especially interesting quantity, since the wavefunction uncertainties approximately cancel and one can see the effects of the negative (scalar confinement) spin-orbit and (small) OGE tensor terms. The observed ratio is rather close to theoretical expectations from OGE and linear scalar confinement. Similar tests in the 2P and especially 1D multiplets would be quite interesting at GSI, since the negative scalar spin-orbit term is longer ranged than the OGE spin-orbit, so we expect to see considerable narrowing of the multiplet splittings with increasing orbital and radial excitations. Complete inversion is predicted with increasing $`L`$, but other effects such as configuration mixing and coupling to open charm states may mask this interesting effect. Accurate mass determinations of many conventional $`c\overline{c}`$ states above open charm threshold will be very useful for theorists trying to quantify the various mass shifts.

Identification of the $`c\overline{c}`$ spectrum above the open-charm threshold at 3.73 GeV will be interesting for tests of decay models, spectroscopy models, and also because these states are a “background” which might otherwise be confused with charmonium hybrids, charm meson molecules, or other unusual states. First, the two 1D states $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{D}_{2}^{}`$ ($`2^+`$) and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{D}_{2}^{}`$ ($`2^{}`$) are especially interesting because they cannot decay to $`DD`$, and hence should be relatively narrow. ($`DD`$ is of course an abbreviation for $`D\overline{D}`$ in this context.) Studies of the relative branching fractions of other higher-mass $`c\overline{c}`$ states to the presumably dominant open-charm modes ($`DD,D^{}D,D^{}D^{},D_sD,D_J^{}D,\mathrm{}`$) will be an extremely interesting contribution to our understanding of strong QCD physics. Theorists usually treat open-flavor strong decays using the “3P0 decay model” or one of its variants such as the flux-tube model. This type of decay model, which predates QCD, describes open-flavor decays as due to $`q\overline{q}`$ pair creation with vacuum (3P0) quantum numbers. Just why this model works is unclear, and the evidence supporting it is rather meagre; the classic tests are the $`D/S`$ amplitude ratios in the two decays $`b_1\omega \pi `$ and $`a_1\rho \pi `$ . Since so much of hadron spectroscopy makes use of this decay model (the weak $`\pi N`$ solution of the “missing baryon” problem and the S+P hybrid signature are two examples), it is very important to test it using a wide range of resonance quantum numbers and final states. The higher-mass $`c\overline{c}`$ states will be very useful in this regard. Calculations of the open-charm branching fractions of higher $`c\overline{c}`$ states have previously been reported using the 3P0 model , and these show interesting dependence on the nodal structure of the radial $`c\overline{c}`$ wavefunctions. An experimental determination of the strong decay amplitudes of the accessible higher-mass $`c\overline{c}`$ states would allow an extremely interesting test of this widely used but inadequately tested strong decay model.

The little that is known about strong decays of the higher-mass $`c\overline{c}`$ states already includes a famous puzzle; the $`\psi (4040)`$, which has a mass consistent with a 3S state (Fig.4), purportedly has relative branching fractions of $`D^{}D^{}>>D^{}D>>DD`$, despite the fact that the $`D^{}D^{}`$ mode has essentially no phase space! This led to speculations that the $`\psi (4040)`$ might be a $`D^{}D^{}`$ molecule , or that it may be the expected 3 3S1 $`c\overline{c}`$ state, but with nearby decay amplitude zeros that lead to these anomalous branching fractions . Since we hope to use branching fractions to characterize states, an accurate test of these and other strong branching fractions would clearly be a first priority at a new $`p\overline{p}`$ charmonium facility.

### 3.2 Charmonium Hybrids

The charmonium system is an excellent laboratory for the study of nonperturbative QCD effects such as confinement and gluonic excitations. It has the advantage of being quasirelativistic; the adiabatic $`c\overline{c}`$ potential is clearly evident in the spectrum of states, but the $`O(v/c)`$ $`|c\overline{c}g`$ gluonic configuation mixing is sufficiently large to be accurately determined and compared with model predictions, for example in the $`O(v^2/c^2)`$ spin-dependent multiplet splittings of the 1P states. The simplicity of the known $`c\overline{c}`$ spectrum suggests that it may be straightforward to identify relatively unmixed charmonium hybrids as “extra” charmonium states through a more complete determination of the experimental spectrum. Of course the identification of complete hybrid multiplets, especially $`J^{PC}`$ exotics, would be a crucial contribution to our understanding of the dynamics of gluonic excitations. In the charmonium system these states may be narrow enough to make this a feasible experimental program.

Recent theoretical advances have simplified the problem of searching for hybrid charmonium considerably. Previous model estimates of the mass of the lowest hybrid charmonium multiplet varied over a rather wide range, ca. 4.0-4.5 GeV. (For a review of this earlier work see Ref..) With the development of lattice NRQCD we now have lattice results for the masses of exotic $`c\overline{c}`$\- and $`b\overline{b}`$-hybrids that report very small statistical errors of ca. 10 MeV. (The systematic uncertainties are not yet known but might be ca. 50 MeV, and will be estimated in subsequent work.) As one example, the CP-PACS collaboration  quote masses for the $`1^+`$ (expected to be the lightest exotic) $`c\overline{c}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ hybrid states of

$$M_{c\overline{c}H}(1^+)=M_{c\overline{c}}(1S)+1.323(13)\mathrm{GeV}4.39\mathrm{GeV}$$
(18)
and

$$M_{b\overline{b}H}(1^+)=M_{b\overline{b}}(1S)+1.542(8)\mathrm{GeV}10.99\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(19)
(I assume multiplicity-weighted 1S masses of 3.07 GeV for $`c\overline{c}`$ and 9.45 GeV for $`b\overline{b}`$.) Thus we have a presumably accurate lattice estimate of the mass of the lightest $`c\overline{c}`$ hybrid multiplet, $`4.4`$ GeV. The precise mass of the lightest hybrid multiplet has previously been of great interest because of the flux-tube model prediction that S+P modes should be strongly favored for hybrids; if $`c\overline{c}`$-hybrids were below the S+P threshold of $`M(D)+M(D_J^{})4.25`$ GeV, one might have anticipated relatively narrow states. With the NRQCD lattice results it now appears that S+P modes are indeed open, so $`c\overline{c}`$-hybrids need not be anomalously narrow. In any case the observation of important $`\pi \eta `$ and $`\pi \rho `$ modes for the hybrid candidates $`\pi _1(1400)`$ and $`\pi _1(1600)`$ suggests that experiment may not support this selection rule as an especially rigorous one; the simple S+S modes $`DD`$, $`DD^{}`$ and $`D^{}D^{}`$ may well be the dominant hybrid modes. It will be very important experimentally to search all allowed quasi-two-body open charm modes for these states. Just as with the conventional $`c\overline{c}`$ states, much is speculated but very little is known about open-flavor strong branching fractions of hybrids.

## 4 Summary and Conclusions

I would like to thank H.Koch, W.Norenberg and the organisers of the Hirschegg Workshop for their support and their kind invitation to present this material, and for the opportunity to discuss hadron spectroscopy with my fellow participants. This research was sponsored in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC.

Fig. 1: The gluonic flux tube between static quark sources (Bali et al. ).

Fig. 2: An LGT determination of the interquark potential (Bali et al. ).

Fig. 3: The 11 known $`c\overline{c}`$ states. All have $`J^{PC}=1^{}`$ except the 1P multiplet near 3.5 GeV and the $`J^{PC}=0^+`$ $`\eta _c(2980)`$. Some open charm thresholds are also shown.

Fig. 4: A comparison of theory (red, 52 states) and experiment (blue, 11 states) for $`c\overline{c}`$ levels below 4.6 GeV. Mean 1S, 1P and 2S (estm.) levels (green) were input. Predicted levels not shown are 1G(4.24), 2G(4.56) and 1H(4.43).

Fig. 5: Spin-dependent splittings from OGE and linear scalar confinement. Theory (red) is compared to experiment (blue). This is not a new fit; the parameters are those of Fig.4.