Effect of Electron Energy Distribution Function on Power Deposition and Plasma Density in an Inductively Coupled Discharge at Very Low Pressures

A self-consistent 1-D model was developed to study the effect of the electron energy distribution function (EEDF) on power deposition and plasma density profiles in a planar inductively coupled plasma (ICP) in the non-local regime (pressure < 10 mTorr). The model consisted of three modules: (1) an electron energy distribution function (EEDF) module to compute the non-Maxwellian EEDF, (2) a non-local electron kinetics module to predict the non-local electron conductivity, RF current, electric field and power deposition profiles in the non-uniform plasma, and (3) a heavy species transport module to solve for the ion density and velocity profiles as well as the metastable density. Results using the non-Maxwellian EEDF model were compared with predictions using a Maxwellian EEDF, under otherwise identical conditions. The RF electric field, current, and power deposition profiles were different, especially at 1mTorr, for which the electron effective mean free path was larger than the skin depth. The plasma density predicted by the Maxwellian EEDF was up to 93% larger for the conditions examined. Thus, the non-Maxwellian EEDF must be accounted for in modeling ICPs at very low pressures.Comment: 19 pages submitted to Plasma Sources Sci. Techno

Mass spectra of doubly heavy Omega_QQ' baryons

We evaluate the masses of baryons composed of two heavy quarks and a strange quark with account for spin-dependent splittings in the framework of potential model with the KKO potential motivated by QCD with a three-loop beta-function for the effective charge consistent with both the perturbative limit at short distances and linear confinement term at long distances between the quarks. The factorization of dynamics is supposed and explored in the nonrelativistic Schroedinger equation for the motion in the system of two heavy quarks constituting the doubly heavy diquark and the strange quark interaction with the diquark. The limits of approach, its justification and uncertainties are discussed. Excited quasistable states are classified by the quantum numbers of heavy diquark composed by the heavy quarks of the same flavor.Comment: 14 pages, revtex4-file, 3 eps-figures, 5 tables, typos correcte

Heavy quarkonium: progress, puzzles, and opportunities

A golden age for heavy quarkonium physics dawned a decade ago, initiated by the confluence of exciting advances in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and an explosion of related experimental activity. The early years of this period were chronicled in the Quarkonium Working Group (QWG) CERN Yellow Report (YR) in 2004, which presented a comprehensive review of the status of the field at that time and provided specific recommendations for further progress. However, the broad spectrum of subsequent breakthroughs, surprises, and continuing puzzles could only be partially anticipated. Since the release of the YR, the BESII program concluded only to give birth to BESIII; the $B$-factories and CLEO-c flourished; quarkonium production and polarization measurements at HERA and the Tevatron matured; and heavy-ion collisions at RHIC have opened a window on the deconfinement regime. All these experiments leave legacies of quality, precision, and unsolved mysteries for quarkonium physics, and therefore beg for continuing investigations. The plethora of newly-found quarkonium-like states unleashed a flood of theoretical investigations into new forms of matter such as quark-gluon hybrids, mesonic molecules, and tetraquarks. Measurements of the spectroscopy, decays, production, and in-medium behavior of c\bar{c}, b\bar{b}, and b\bar{c} bound states have been shown to validate some theoretical approaches to QCD and highlight lack of quantitative success for others. The intriguing details of quarkonium suppression in heavy-ion collisions that have emerged from RHIC have elevated the importance of separating hot- and cold-nuclear-matter effects in quark-gluon plasma studies. This review systematically addresses all these matters and concludes by prioritizing directions for ongoing and future efforts.Comment: 182 pages, 112 figures. Editors: N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, B. K. Heltsley, R. Vogt. Section Coordinators: G. T. Bodwin, E. Eichten, A. D. Frawley, A. B. Meyer, R. E. Mitchell, V. Papadimitriou, P. Petreczky, A. A. Petrov, P. Robbe, A. Vair