1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % Conventional mail address of the author: %
3: % Jie-Jie Zhu, %
4: % Center for Fundamental Physics, %
5: % University of Science and Technology of China, %
6: % Hefei, Anhui, 230026, P. R. China %
7: % e-mail: jjzhu@ustc.edu.cn %
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: % Compiled successfully by LaTeX + REVTeX3.1 %
10: % under Linux. %
11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
12: %\documentstyle[epsf, psfig]{article}
13: \documentstyle[aps, epsf, psfig]{revtex}
14: %\documentstyle[aps, epsf, psfig, preprint]{revtex}
15: \begin{document}
16: \draft
17: \title{CP violation in $\psi(2S)\rightarrow J/\psi \pi \pi$ processes}
18: \author{Jie-Jie Zhu$^{1,2}$\footnote{Electronic address: jjzhu@ustc.edu.cn},
19: Mu-Lin Yan$^2$}
20: \address{
21: $^1$CCAST(World Lab), P. O. Box 8730, Beijing, 100080, P. R.
22: China\\
23: $^2$Center for Fundamental Physics, USTC,
24: Hefei, Anhui, 230026, P. R. China\footnote{Permanent address.} }
25: \date{\today}
26: \maketitle
27: \begin{abstract}
28: We propose to search for CP-violating effects in the decay
29: $\psi(2S)\rightarrow J/\psi \pi \pi$. The scheme has the advantage
30: that one does not need to track two or more CP-conjugate processes.
31: Model independent amplitudes are derived for this purpose. The fact
32: that leading CP violating terms are ${\cal O}(k)$ under low energy
33: expansion and the processes are flavor disconnected
34: make the measurement of these CP breaking parameters
35: practical. Our results can be extended to the case of
36: $\Upsilon(2S)\rightarrow\Upsilon(1S) \pi \pi$ and
37: $\Upsilon(3S)\rightarrow\Upsilon(2S) \pi \pi$ straightforwardly.
38: \end{abstract}
39: \pacs{PACS numbers: 11.30.Er, 13.25.Gv, 11.80.Cr}
40:
41:
42: CP violation is a subject attracting much interest. In the Standard
43: Model, it arises as a phase entering the CKM matrix. It is believed
44: that, with the CP violation presented in the Standard Model, it is
45: not possible to generate the observed size of matter-antimatter
46: asymmetry of the Universe~\cite{cp99,sakharov67}.
47: However, CP violation has only
48: been observed in neutral-kaon systems till now. The evidence come
49: from the measurements of $\eta_{+-}$, $\eta_{00}$, and the
50: semileptonic decay charge asymmetry for $K_L$. Currently
51: experimental efforts are concentrated on neutral systems such as
52: $K^0$-$\bar{K}^0$, $B^0$-$\bar{B}^0$, and $D^0$-$\bar{D}^0$
53: complex. Other searches, as summarized by Wolfenstein and Trippe,
54: devide into two classes: (a) Those that involve weak interactions
55: or parity violation. The most sensitive are the searches for an
56: electric dipole moment of the elementary particles such as neutron
57: and electron. (b) Those that involve processes otherwise allowed by
58: the strong or electromagnetic interactions. This includes the
59: search for C violation in $\eta$ decay and searches for T violation
60: in a number of nuclear and electromagnetic reactions~\cite{pdg98}.
61:
62: In this paper we suggest a new means to search for CP violation. We
63: propose to measure CP asymmetries in the decay $\psi(2S)\rightarrow
64: J/\psi\pi^+\pi^-$ or $\psi(2S)\rightarrow J/\psi\pi^0 \pi^0$.
65: The process $\psi(2S)\rightarrow J/\psi\pi^+\pi^-$ has been discussed
66: based on an effective lagrangian~\cite{mannel97,yan99},
67: the multipole expansion hypothesis~\cite{voloshin80,novikov81,yan80},
68: or current algebra~\cite{brown75}.
69: These discussions are model dependent, and C, P, T invariance are presumed.
70: We derive model independent amplitudes of the two processes.
71: CP invariance requires particular parameters in the decay amplitude vanish.
72: Any non-zero value of those particular parameters implies CP violation.
73: One will not need to track two or more channels at the same time.
74: And we need not to compare the phases or decay rate of two or more
75: CP-conjugate processes to get CP violation observables, thus avoid precision
76: loss when we subtracting two very close numbers or information loss
77: because of using total transition rates instead of differential cross
78: sections.
79:
80: $J/\psi\pi^+ \pi^-$ and $J/\psi\pi^0 \pi^0$ are the two largest
81: decay modes of $\psi(2S)$, with branching ratios $(30.2 \pm 1.9)\%$
82: and $(17.9 \pm 1.8)\%$~\cite{pdg98}. The masses for $\psi(2S)$ and $J/\psi$ are
83: $3686.00\pm 0.09$ MeV and $3096.88\pm 0.04$ MeV, with a difference
84: of 589 MeV. The energy available for the
85: pions are small and as we will shown, most part of the amplitude
86: are expected to be the contribution of contact interactions. This
87: validates the low energy expansion. The leading CP-violating terms
88: in the model independent amplitudes are of the first order of the
89: soft pion momentum(${\cal O}(k)$). BES has enough data to see
90: D-wave contributions~\cite{bes99}, which is ${\cal O}(k^2)$.
91: Because the processes are flavor disconnected, the strong interactions
92: are suppressed, and we have chances to see CP-violating effects
93: beyond (or even within) the Standard Model in these decays.
94: So it is practical to measure these CP-violating parameters.
95: It will not take long for BEPC to accumulate
96: $10^8$ $\psi(2S)$ events. Now BEPC is scheduled for another
97: upgrade in the near future. After the upgrade it will have the
98: ability to take more than $10^9$ $\psi(2S)$ events and give a high
99: precision test of CP invariance in $\psi(2S)\rightarrow J/\psi\pi\pi$
100: decays.
101:
102: The Feynman amplitude for the process $\psi(2S)\rightarrow J/\psi
103: \pi^+ \psi^-$ reads
104: \begin{equation}
105: {\cal
106: M}_{\lambda,\sigma}(p,q,k_1,k_2)=e^\mu_{\psi'}(\vec{p},\lambda)
107: e^{*\nu}_{J/\psi}(\vec{q},\sigma) \Gamma_{\mu\nu}.
108: \end{equation}
109: Here $p, q, k_1, k_2$ are four-momenta of the particles $\psi(2S),
110: J/\psi, \pi^+, \pi^-$. The helicities of $\psi(2S)$ and $J/\psi$
111: are $\lambda$ and $\sigma$, while $e^\mu_{\psi'}(\vec{p},\lambda)$
112: and $e^{*\nu}_{J/\psi}(\vec{q},\sigma)$ are the corresponding
113: polarization vectors for the two particles. $\Gamma_{\mu\nu}$ is
114: the effective vertex for the process, which contains all details
115: of the decay.
116:
117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% insert fig1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
118: \vspace{0.5cm}
119: \begin{figure}[htb]
120: \centerline{\psfig{figure=cp1.eps,width=3in}}
121: \caption{$\psi(2S)$ decays into $J/\psi$ and two pions.}\label{fig1}
122: \end{figure}
123: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
124:
125: The effective vertex $\Gamma^{\mu\nu}$ should be constructed from
126: the four-momenta $p^\alpha$, $q^\alpha$, $k_1^\alpha$, $k_2^\alpha$
127: and isotropic tensors $g^{\alpha\beta}$,
128: $\varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$. The effective vertex
129: contains only the zeroth and first order of the antisymmetric
130: tensor because of the identity
131: \begin{equation}
132: \varepsilon_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}
133: \varepsilon_{\alpha^{'} \beta^{'} \gamma^{'} \delta^{'}}
134: = -\det
135: \left(\begin{array}{cccc} g_{\alpha \alpha^{'}} & g_{\beta
136: \alpha^{'}}&g_{\gamma \alpha^{'}} & g_{\delta \alpha^{'}} \\
137: g_{\alpha \beta^{'}} & g_{\beta \beta^{'}} &
138: g_{\gamma \beta^{'}} & g_{\delta \beta^{'}} \\
139: g_{\alpha \gamma^{'}} & g_{\beta \gamma^{'}} &
140: g_{\gamma \gamma^{'}} & g_{\delta \gamma^{'}} \\
141: g_{\alpha \delta^{'}} & g_{\beta \delta^{'}} &
142: g_{\gamma \delta^{'}} & g_{\delta \delta^{'}}
143: \end{array}\right).
144: \end{equation}
145: Considering energy-momentum conservation
146: \begin{eqnarray}
147: p^\alpha = q^\alpha + k_1^\alpha + k_2^\alpha
148: \end{eqnarray}
149: and the Lorentz conditions for polarization vectors
150: \begin{eqnarray}
151: p_\alpha e^\alpha_{\psi'}(\vec{p},\lambda) &=& 0,
152: \\ q_\alpha
153: e^{*\alpha}_{J/\psi}(\vec{q},\sigma) &=& 0,
154: \end{eqnarray}
155: we find the general form of the effective vertex
156: \begin{eqnarray}
157: & &
158: \Gamma^{\mu\nu}(p,q,k_1,k_2,g^{\alpha\beta},\varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}) \nonumber \\
159: &=& c_1g^{\mu\nu} +c_2k_1^\mu k_1^\nu +c_3k_2^\mu k_2^\nu
160: +c_4k_1^\mu k_2^\nu +c_5k_2^\mu k_1^\nu +c_6A_1^{\mu\nu}
161: +c_7A_2^{\mu\nu}
162: \nonumber \\ & & +c_8 A_3^{\mu\nu} +c_9 Q^\mu k_1^\nu +c_{10}Q^\mu k_2^\nu
163: +c_{11}k_1^\mu Q^\nu +c_{12}k_2^\mu Q^\nu,
164: \end{eqnarray}
165: where we define
166: \begin{eqnarray}
167: A_1^{\alpha\beta} &=& p_\gamma k_{1\delta}
168: \varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta},\\
169: A_2^{\alpha\beta} &=& p_\gamma k_{2\delta}
170: \varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta},\\
171: A_3^{\alpha\beta} &=& k_{1\gamma} k_{2\delta}
172: \varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta},\\
173: Q^\alpha &=& p_\beta k_{1\gamma} k_{2\delta}
174: \varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}.
175: \end{eqnarray}
176:
177: The twelve form factors in $\Gamma^{\mu\nu}$ are not independent
178: since
179: \begin{eqnarray}
180: Q_\mu k_{1\nu} e^\mu_{\psi'}e^{*\nu}_{J/\psi} \equiv
181: \left(k_{1\mu} Q_\nu +(k_1\cdot k_2)A_{1\mu\nu} -k_1^2A_{2\mu\nu} +(p\cdot k_1)A_{3\mu\nu}
182: \right)e^\mu_{\psi'}e^{*\nu}_{J/\psi},\\
183: Q_\mu k_{2\nu} e^\mu_{\psi'}e^{*\nu}_{J/\psi} \equiv
184: \left(k_{2\mu} Q_\nu +k_2^2A_{1\mu\nu} -(k_1\cdot k_2)A_{2\mu\nu} +(p\cdot k_2)A_{3\mu\nu}
185: \right)e^\mu_{\psi'}e^{*\nu}_{J/\psi},\\
186: \left(Q_\mu k_{1\nu} +Q_\mu k_{2\nu}
187: \right)e^\mu_{\psi'}e^{*\nu}_{J/\psi} \equiv
188: \left(
189: (p\cdot k_2)A_{1\mu\nu} -(p\cdot k_1)A_{2\mu\nu} +p^2A_{3\mu\nu}
190: \right)e^\mu_{\psi'}e^{*\nu}_{J/\psi}.
191: \end{eqnarray}
192: We can eliminate three terms in the effective vertex without
193: introducing kinematic singularities. After a redefinition of form
194: factors we have nine independent terms,
195: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:id}
196: & &
197: \Gamma^{\mu\nu}(p,q,k_1,k_2,g^{\alpha\beta},\varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta})\nonumber \\
198: &=& c_1g^{\mu\nu} +c_2\left(k_1^\mu k_1^\nu +k_2^\mu k_2^\nu\right)
199: +c_3\left(k_1^\mu k_1^\nu -k_2^\mu k_2^\nu\right) +c_4\left(k_1^\mu
200: k_2^\nu +k_2^\mu k_1^\nu\right) \nonumber\\ & & +c_5\left(k_1^\mu
201: k_2^\nu -k_2^\mu k_1^\nu\right)
202: +c_6\left(A_1^{\mu\nu}+A_2^{\mu\nu}\right)
203: +c_7\left(A_1^{\mu\nu}-A_2^{\mu\nu}\right) \nonumber \\ & &
204: +c_8A_3^{\mu\nu} +c_9Q^\mu\left(k_1^\nu-k_2^\nu\right),
205: \end{eqnarray}
206: with
207: \begin{equation}
208: c_i=c_i\left((k_1\cdot k_2), [p\cdot (k_1-k_2)]\right)
209: \end{equation}
210: for $i=1, 2,\cdots, 9$.
211:
212: Expand the form factors in Taylor series of $(k_1\cdot k_2)$ and
213: $[p\cdot (k_1-k_2)]$, and keep those terms up to ${\cal O}(k^2)$,
214: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:p+p-}
215: & &
216: \Gamma^{\mu\nu}(p,q,k_1,k_2,g^{\alpha\beta},\varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta})
217: \nonumber \\
218: &=& \{f_0 + \frac{[p\cdot(k_1-k_2)]}{M_{\psi'}^2}f_1
219: +\frac{(k_1\cdot k_2)}{M_{\psi'}^2}f_2 +\frac{[p\cdot
220: (k_1-k_2)]^2}{M_{\psi'}^4}f_3 \}g^{\mu\nu} \nonumber
221: \\ & & +\frac{(k_1^\mu k_1^\nu +k_2^\mu k_2^\nu)}{M_{\psi'}^2}f_4
222: +\frac{(k_1^\mu k_1^\nu-k_2^\mu k_2^\nu)}{M_{\psi'}^2}f_5 \nonumber
223: \\ & & +\frac{(k_1^\mu k_2^\nu +k_2^\mu k_1^\nu)}{M_{\psi'}^2}f_6
224: +\frac{(k_1^\mu k_2^\nu-k_2^\mu k_1^\nu)}{M_{\psi'}^2}f_7 \nonumber
225: \\ & & +i\frac{(A_1^{\mu\nu}+A_2^{\mu\nu})}{M_{\psi'}^2}f_8
226: +i\frac{(A_1^{\mu\nu}+A_2^{\mu\nu})[p\cdot
227: (k_1-k_2)]}{M_{\psi'}^4}f_9
228: \nonumber
229: \\ & & +i\frac{(A_1^{\mu\nu}-A_2^{\mu\nu})}{M_{\psi'}^2}f_{10}
230: +i\frac{(A_1^{\mu\nu}-A_2^{\mu\nu})[p\cdot
231: (k_1-k_2)]}{M_{\psi'}^4}f_{11} \nonumber
232: \\ & & +i\frac{A_3^{\mu\nu}}{M_{\psi'}^2}f_{12},
233: \end{eqnarray}
234: where $M_{\psi'}$ is the mass of $\psi(2S)$ and $f_i$ are
235: dimensionless complex constants. The reason why the energy scale
236: should be $M_{\psi'}$, and why we extract a factor ``$i$'' from $f_8,
237: f_9, \cdots, f_{12}$ will be explained later.
238:
239: Now let's see what CP invariance can say about the form factors. If
240: CP parity is conserved, then
241: \begin{eqnarray}
242: & & \langle \psi'|{\bf S}|J/\psi\pi^+\pi^-\rangle \nonumber \\ & =
243: & \langle \psi'|{\bf
244: (CP)^\dagger(CP)S(CP)^{-1}(CP)}|J/\psi\pi^+\pi^-\rangle \nonumber
245: \\ &=& \langle \psi'|{\bf (CP)^\dagger S(CP)}|J/\psi\pi^+\pi^-\rangle .
246: \end{eqnarray}
247: The spin-parity $J^{PC}$ for $\psi(2S)$, $J/\psi$ and pions are
248: $1^{--}$, $1^{--}$ and $0^{-+}$~\cite{pdg98},
249: \begin{eqnarray}
250: {\bf CP} |\vec{p},\lambda\rangle & = &
251: -|-\vec{p},-\lambda\rangle, \\ {\bf CP} |\vec{q},
252: \sigma,\vec{k}_1, \vec{k}_2\rangle
253: & = &
254: -|-\vec{q},-\sigma,-\vec{k}_2,
255: -\vec{k}_1\rangle.
256: \end{eqnarray}
257: So conservation of CP require
258: \begin{equation}
259: {\cal M}_{\lambda,\sigma}(p,q,k_1,k_2) \equiv {\cal
260: M}_{-\lambda,-\sigma}(\bar{p},\bar{q},\bar{k}_2,\bar{k}_1).
261: \end{equation}
262: Where a vector with a bar indicate its space reflected value, e.g.,
263: \begin{equation}
264: \bar{q}^\alpha \equiv {\cal P}^\alpha_\beta q^\beta,
265: \end{equation}
266: and ${\cal P}$ is the space reflection matrix, $({\cal
267: P}^\alpha_\beta) = {\rm diag}\{1,-1,-1,-1\}$. That is
268: \begin{eqnarray}
269: & & e^\mu_{\psi'}(\vec{p},\lambda)
270: e^{*\nu}_{J/\psi}(\vec{q},\sigma)
271: \Gamma_{\mu\nu}(p,q,k_1,k_2,g^{\alpha\beta},\varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta})
272: \nonumber \\ &=&
273: e^\mu_{\psi'}(-\vec{p},-\lambda)
274: e^{*\nu}_{J/\psi}(-\vec{q},-\sigma)
275: \Gamma_{\mu\nu}(\bar{p},\bar{q},\bar{k}_2,\bar{k}_1,g^{\alpha\beta},
276: \varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}) \nonumber \\ &=&
277: \bar{e}^\mu_{\psi'}(\vec{p},\lambda)
278: \bar{e}^{*\nu}_{J/\psi}(\vec{q},\sigma)
279: \Gamma_{\mu\nu}(\bar{p},\bar{q},\bar{k}_2,\bar{k}_1,g^{\alpha\beta},
280: \varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}) \nonumber \\
281: &=& e^\mu_{\psi'}(\vec{p},\lambda)
282: e^{*\nu}_{J/\psi}(\vec{q},\sigma)
283: \Gamma_{\mu\nu}(p,q,k_2,k_1,g^{\alpha\beta},-\varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}).
284: \end{eqnarray}
285:
286: Since all form factors in Eq.~(\ref{eq:p+p-}) are independent,
287: it is easy to see that
288: {\em any non-vanishing value of $f_1$,$f_5$,$f_7$,$f_8$ or $f_{11}$
289: implies CP violation}. $f_1/f_0$, $f_5/f_0$, $f_7/f_0$, $f_8/f_0$
290: and $f_{11}/f_0$ can be taken as CP breaking parameters. Among them, the
291: $f_1$ and $f_8$ terms are ${\cal O}(k)$. In fact, the parameters
292: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:p+p-}) can be classified into four types(as shown in
293: Tab.~\ref{tab:par}):
294: (1)$f_0$, $f_2$, $f_3$, $f_4$ and $f_6$ terms keep both C and
295: P symmetry. (2)$f_1$, $f_5$ and $f_7$ terms are C nonconserving but keep P
296: symmetry. (3)$f_8$ and $f_{11}$ terms keep C symmetry but break P.
297: (4)$f_9$, $f_{10}$ and $f_{12}$ terms break both C and P, but keep CP
298: invariance.
299:
300: If we suppose the amplitude is completely the first order
301: contribution of an effective lagrangian, and the lagrangian is
302: time reversal invariant, the form factors $f_0, f_2, \cdots,
303: f_{12}$ will be relatively real. That's why we extract a factor
304: "$i$" in the abnormal terms. Non-zero relative phases may come from T
305: violation in the effective lagrangian or high order terms(loops and
306: resonance). However, since there is no strong resonance in the process, we
307: can expect the Feynman amplitude to be dominated by contact interaction
308: terms in the effective lagrangian, so that their relative phases will be
309: small. At least this will be true for those terms keeping both CP
310: and isospin symmetry, i.e., the relative phases between
311: $f_0,f_2,f_3,f_4,f_6$ will be very small(but one should not mistake
312: a nonzero relative phase as the signal of CP violation).
313:
314: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% insert fig2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
315: \vspace{0.5cm}
316: \begin{figure}[htb]
317: \centerline{\psfig{figure=cp2.eps,width=3in}}
318: \caption{Gluonic transition to a spin-0 resonance.
319: The diagram gives a zero contribution due to gauge
320: invariance.}\label{fig2}
321: \end{figure}
322: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
323: The $\psi(2S)\rightarrow J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ process is flavor
324: disconnected. In an effective theory, the tree level diagram with a
325: spin-0 resonance(e.g. $f_0$) of $\pi\pi$ is illustrated in
326: Fig.~{\ref{fig2}}. The gluon-scalar vertex $\Gamma_2^\beta$ has to
327: be proportional to $(k_1^\beta+k_2^\beta)$. When contracted with the
328: gluon propagator and the $\psi(2S)J/\psi$-gluon vertex
329: $\Gamma_2^{\mu\nu\alpha}$, gauge invariance will ensure the
330: contribution vanish. For spin-$n$($n\ge 2$) meson, the gluon-meson
331: vertex contracted with the spin-$n$ meson propagator will contain a
332: factor $(k_1+k_2)^2-m^2$, which gives a zero on the mass shell
333: instead of a pole. So we come to the conclusion:{\em there is no
334: $\pi$-$\pi$ resonance other than those with spin-1.}
335:
336: Because the isospins of $\psi(2S)$ and $J/\psi$ are all zero,
337: isospin symmetry will require the two pions to form an
338: isospin singlet, which is symmetric under the interchange of
339: the two pions' four-momenta. Since the amplitude for an odd spin meson's decay
340: into two pions will be anti-symmetric when interchanging the pions' momenta,
341: we see that any spin-1 resonance here is suppressed by isospin symmetry.
342:
343: Nor can we find any strong resonance in $J/\psi\pi^\pm$ channels.
344: $\psi(2S)$ decays mainly through contact interactions.
345: Therefor, $M_{\psi'}$(or heavy quark mass) can be taken as the typical
346: energy scale of the process.
347:
348: Not all terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:p+p-}) should be kept when fitting
349: data. CP violating ${\cal O}(k^2)$ terms, $f_5$, $f_7$ and
350: $f_{11}$, are strongly suppressed and we can not to see them when
351: we have not enough data. $f_9$ and $f_{12}$ terms should also be
352: dropped because they are ${\cal O}(k^2)$ and break isospin
353: symmetry. Eight terms are kept:
354: \begin{eqnarray}
355: \Gamma^{\mu\nu} & = & \left\{ f_0 +\frac{[p\cdot(k_1-k_2)]}{M_{\psi'}^2}f_1
356: +\frac{(k_1\cdot k_2)}{M_{\psi'}^2}f_2
357: +\frac{[p\cdot (k_1-k_2)]^2}{M_{\psi'}^4}f_3 \right\}g^{\mu\nu}
358: \nonumber \\ & & +\frac{(k_1^\mu k_1^\nu +k_2^\mu k_2^\nu)}{M_{\psi'}^2}f_4
359: +\frac{(k_1^\mu k_2^\nu +k_2^\mu k_1^\nu)}{M_{\psi'}^2}f_6
360: +i\frac{(A_1^{\mu\nu} +A_2^{\mu\nu})}{M_{\psi'}^2}f_8
361: +i\frac{(A_1^{\mu\nu} -A_2^{\mu\nu})}{M_{\psi'}^2}f_{10}.
362: \end{eqnarray}
363: The $f_1$ and $f_8$ term in the amplitude are CP-violating.
364:
365: \begin{table}
366: \caption{Symmetry properties of the amplitude. The symbol ``$\times$'' under
367: a parameter means that the corresponding symmetry is violated when the
368: parameter has a non-zero value.}
369: \begin{tabular}{cccccccccccccc}
370: & $f_0$ & $f_1$ & $f_2$ & $f_3$ & $f_4$ & $f_5$ &
371: $f_6$ & $f_7$ & $f_8$ & $f_9$ & $f_{10}$ & $f_{11}$ & $f_{12}$ \\ \hline
372: Order of $k$ & 0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 \\
373: Isospin Symmetry &
374: $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ &
375: $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ &
376: $\times$ \\
377: C Parity & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ &
378: $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ &
379: $\times$ \\
380: P Parity & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ &
381: $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ &
382: $\times$ \\
383: CP Parity & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ &
384: $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ &
385: $\surd$
386: \end{tabular}\label{tab:par}
387: \end{table}
388:
389: For the process $\psi(2S)\rightarrow J/\psi \pi^0 \pi^0$, boson
390: symmetry of the two pions demands the amplitude invariant when the
391: four-momenta $k_1$ and $k_2$ are interchanged. Similar analysis
392: leads to an effective vertex of the form
393: \begin{eqnarray}
394: \Gamma'^{\mu\nu} & = &
395: \left\{ g_0 +\frac{(k_1\cdot k_2)}{M_{\psi'}^2}g_1
396: +\frac{[p\cdot (k_1-k_2)]^2}{M_{\psi'}^4}g_2 \right\}g^{\mu\nu}
397: +\frac{(k_1^\mu k_1^\nu+k_2^\mu k_2^\nu)}{M_{\psi'}^2}g_3 \nonumber \\
398: & & +\frac{(k_1^\mu k_2^\nu +k_2^\mu k_1^\nu)}{M_{\psi'}^2}g_4
399: +i\frac{(A_1^{\mu\nu} +A_2^{\mu\nu})}{M_{\psi'}^2}g_5
400: +i\frac{(A_1^{\mu\nu}-A_2^{\mu\nu})[p\cdot(k_1-k_2)]}{M_{\psi'}^4}g_6,
401: \end{eqnarray}
402: and the Feynman amplitude is
403: \begin{equation}
404: {\cal
405: M'}_{\lambda,\sigma}(p,q,k_1,k_2)=e^\mu_{\psi'}(\vec{p},\lambda)
406: e^{*\nu}_{J/\psi}(\vec{q},\sigma) {\Gamma'}_{\mu\nu}.
407: \end{equation}
408: The $g_0$, $g_1$, $g_2$, $g_3$ and $g_4$ terms are CP conserving,
409: while $g_5$, $g_6$ terms are CP violating. Argument for why we take
410: $M_{\psi'}$ as the energy scale is similar to the above, and we only need
411: to point out the fact that {\em any odd spin particle's decay into
412: two identical spin-0 particles is strictly forbidden by boson
413: symmetry}. Relative phases between $g_0$, $g_1$, $g_2$, $g_3$ and
414: $g_4$ are small. The CP breaking ${\cal O}(k^2)$ term $g_6$ can
415: be set to zero when one fits data since it is strongly suppressed.
416:
417: The cross section of such a three-body decay depends on five variables:
418: $E_1$ and $E_2$, the energies of the two pions; and $(\alpha,\beta,
419: \gamma)$, the Euler angles that specify the orientation of the final
420: system relative to the initial particle~\cite{pdg98}. The cross
421: section of $\psi(2S)\rightarrow J/\psi\pi\pi$ does not depend on the
422: variable $\alpha$ provided that $\psi(2S)$ is produced by $e^+e^-$ collision,
423: and the $\alpha$ represents the rotation angle around the beam line.
424: We have
425: \begin{eqnarray}
426: & k_1\cdot k_2 =
427: (E_1+E_2)M_{\psi'}-\frac{1}{2}(M_{\psi'}^2-M_{J/\psi}^2+2m_\pi^2),\\
428: & p\cdot (k_1-k_2) =
429: (E_1-E_2)M_{\psi'}
430: \end{eqnarray}
431: and the nine independent terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:id}) represent different angular
432: distributions. Those terms proportional to $|f_1|^2$, $|f_8|^2$, $f_1f_8^*$
433: and $f_1^*f_8$ in the cross section can be ignored since it is relatively
434: small. The coherent part that proportional $f_8$ (or $f_8^*$) has a
435: significantly different distribution comparing with backgrounds.
436: The part proportional to $f_1$ (or $f_1^*$) is an odd distribution when
437: we exchange $E_1$ with $E_2$ in the Dalitz plot,
438: while the backgrounds are even distributions.
439: These two facts will help us to distinguish the CP-violating parts from
440: background contributions, and will remarkably improve the precision of
441: the measurement of the CP-violating parameters $f_1$ and $f_8$.
442: Unlike the case in the decays of $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ complex,
443: CP violating terms here are not mixed with backgrounds.
444: Fitting experimental data with such differential cross sections can
445: give more information on CP violation than the partial width,
446: {\it e.g.}, if we integrate out the variable $p\cdot(k_1-k_2)$, the
447: part proportional to $f_1$(or $f_1^*$) will vanish.
448:
449: We would like to point out that to sum over the spins of $J/\psi$ or
450: averaging over the spins of $\psi(2S)$ in the cross section when comparing
451: with data(as some references) is incorrect. $\psi(2S)$ are polarized.
452: The density matrix of $\psi(2S)$ is determined by a vector coupling
453: with $e^+e^-$ at $10^{-4}$ precision. And because $J/\psi$ is re-constructed
454: through $e^+e^-$ and $\mu^+\mu^-$ channels, $J/\psi$ with helicity-0 has
455: a much less chance to be selected than those with helicity-$\pm$1.
456:
457: One might doubt if the CP-violating effects in the processes can
458: be measured, given that they are mediated by the strong interactions.
459: The Standard Model prediction of the CP-violating effects in the
460: processes are difficult to evaluate and it is out of the scope of
461: our present paper. However, we can give a rough estimation. The ratio of
462: the weak interactions and the strong interactions at $c\bar{c}$-meson energy
463: scale should be taken as $G_F m_{J/\psi}^2\sim 10^{-4}$.
464: There is a unique source for CP violation in
465: the Standard Model. Any CP-violating effects in the Standard Model
466: is proportional to the rephasing-invariant
467: $Im \Delta^{(4)}$~\cite{jarlskog85}.
468: The magnitude of CP violation comparing with the weak interactions can
469: be represented by the $\eta$-parameter measured in $K^0$ decays,
470: $\eta\sim 2\times 10^{-3}$~\cite{pdg98}. So we come to the conclusion
471: that CP-violating effect in the Standard Model,
472: when compared with the strong interactions, is of the order $10^{-7}$.
473:
474: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% insert fig3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
475: \vspace{0.5cm}
476: \begin{figure}[htb]
477: \centerline{\psfig{figure=cp3.eps,width=3in}}
478: \caption{Single gluon transition violates isospin symmetry.}\label{fig3}
479: \end{figure}
480: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
481:
482: But it is not the case when a process is flavor disconnected
483: and the strong interactions in it are much smaller.
484: As we have discussed above,
485: there is no resonance in $\psi'\rightarrow J/\psi\pi\pi$ processes.
486: Now suppose the decay is through single gluon exchange,
487: as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}. Gauge invariance demands that
488: \begin{equation}
489: k^\alpha \Gamma_{1\mu\nu\alpha} e_{\psi'}^{\mu} e_{J/\psi}^{*\nu}=0,
490: \end{equation}
491: so the only possible form of the gluon-$\pi$-$\pi$ vertex is
492: \begin{equation}
493: \Gamma_2^\beta = c (k_1-k_2)^\beta,
494: \end{equation}
495: with $c$ a constant. The two pions must form a isospin singlet
496: provided the isospin symmetry conserved,
497: and this require $\Gamma_2^\beta$ symmetric when exchanging $k_1$ and $k_2$.
498: So the single gluon transition in this decay, comparing with flavor connected
499: processes, is suppressed by $\alpha_S$ and isospin symmetry.
500: Two-gluon transitions keeping isospin symmetry are suppressed by
501: $\alpha_S^2$. Be advised that $\alpha_S$ is not the coupling constant in
502: QCD which is very large at low energy. Here it is the effective coupling
503: of gluon and should be very small. The precise value of such transitions
504: are very difficult to calculate. However, we can evaluate such a suppression
505: by comparing the decay $\phi \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ with
506: $\omega \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$.
507: The difference between two processes is
508: that the former one is flavor disconnected(both processes violate
509: isospin symmetry).
510: The amplitude of the two processes are all of the form
511: \begin{equation}
512: A_\lambda = c_{\phi,\omega} e^\mu(p, \lambda) (p_{\pi^+}-p_{\pi^-})_\mu,
513: \end{equation}
514: here $c_\phi$ and $c_\omega$ are coupling constants.
515: The ratio of the partial width of the two
516: processes is
517: \begin{equation}
518: \frac{(1-4m_\pi^2/m_\phi^2)^{3/2}|c_{\phi}|^2 m_\phi}
519: {(1-4m_\pi^2/m_\omega^2)^{3/2}|c_{\omega}|^2 m_\omega}
520: \approx 1.4 \left|\frac{c_\phi}{c_\omega}\right|^{2}
521: \end{equation}
522: The experimental value of the partial widths for the
523: decay $\phi \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ is $4.43\times (8\times 10^{-5})
524: \approx 3.5\times 10^{-4}$ MeV, and $8.41\times 2.21\% \approx 0.19$ MeV
525: for $\omega\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$\cite{pdg98}.
526: One can find that the coupling constant of a flavor disconnected
527: vertex is suppressed by a factor of $10^{-2}$.
528: Now we can conclude that the CP-violating
529: effect predicted by the Standard Model in the process
530: $\psi(2S)\rightarrow J/\psi\pi\pi$
531: is of the order $10^{-5}$, comparing with the background amplitudes.
532: For the process $\Upsilon(2S)\rightarrow\Upsilon(1S)$, it
533: is estimated to be of $10^{-4}$ order.
534:
535: It is believed that the Standard Model does not provide the complete
536: description of CP violation in nature. Almost any extension of the
537: Standard Model has additional sources of CP violating effects.
538: In addition, theories that explain the observed baryon asymmetry of
539: the universe must include new sources of CP violation~\cite{cohen93}.
540: The Standard Model can not generate a large enough matter-antimatter
541: imbalance to produce the baryon number to entropy ratio observed in
542: the universe today~\cite{farrar94,gavela94,huet95}. If the CP violating
543: effect beyond the Standard Model is about ten times larger, it will be
544: of the order $10^{-4}$ comparing with backgrounds.
545:
546: BES has accumulated $3.8\times 10^6$ $\psi(2S)$
547: events~\cite{bes98}. These events even make it
548: possible to see the $\pi^+\pi^-$ D-wave (${\cal O}(k^2)$) in the
549: $J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ decay mode~\cite{yan99,bes99}, although the D-wave is
550: highly suppressed~\cite{shifman90}. Noticing that the leading CP violating
551: terms ($f_1$,$f_8$ and $g_5$) are ${\cal O}(k)$, it is significative to
552: determine whether they are zero using current data. With
553: BEPC has the ability to accumulate $10^8$
554: events within a few months, and it is scheduled for a upgrade.
555: The upgraded BEPC will be able to accumulate $10^9-10^{10}$ events
556: and can measure the CP violating parameters at a high accuracy.
557: Provided that the CP violating effects beyond the Standard Model are
558: of $10^{-4}$ order, they can be detected in the near future.
559:
560: We have given the model independent amplitudes for the decay
561: $\psi(2S)\rightarrow J/\psi\pi\pi$ and suggest to search for CP
562: violation in these processes. It is practical to measure the CP violation
563: parameters. And it has the advantage that CP violation observables can be
564: directly measured, so that one does not need to track two or
565: more CP-conjugate processes. The extension of our results to the case of
566: $\Upsilon(2S)\rightarrow\Upsilon(1S)\pi\pi$ and
567: $\Upsilon(3S)\rightarrow\Upsilon(2S)\pi\pi$ is straightforward.
568: $\Upsilon(2S)$ and $\Upsilon(3S)$ can be produced at B-factories.
569:
570: {\it Acknowledgement}: JJZ would like to thank Dr. Xiao-Jun Wang and
571: Ting-Liang Zhuang for discussions.
572: The work is partly supported by funds from IHEP and NSF of
573: China through C N Yang.
574:
575: %\begin{thebibliography}{99}
576: \begin{references}
577: \bibitem{cp99}G. C. Branco, L. Lavoura and J. P. Silva,
578: {\em CP violation} (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999)
579: and reference therein.
580: \bibitem{sakharov67}A. D. Sakharov,
581: ZhETF Pis. Red. {\bf 5}, 32 (1967); JETP Lett. {\bf 5}, 24 (1967).
582: \bibitem{pdg98}Particle Data Group,
583: Eur. Phys. J., {\bf C 3}, (1998).
584: \bibitem{mannel97}T. Mannel and R. Urech,
585: Z. Phys. {\bf C 73}, 541 (1997).
586: \bibitem{yan99}M. L. Yan, Y. Wei and T. L. Zhuang,
587: Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C 7}, 61 (1999).
588: \bibitem{voloshin80}M. Voloshin and V. Zkharov,
589: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 45}, 688 (1980).
590: \bibitem{novikov81}V. A. Novikov and M. A. Shifman,
591: Z. Phys. {\bf C 8}, 43 (1981).
592: \bibitem{yan80}T. M. Yan,
593: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 22}, 1652 (1980).
594: \bibitem{brown75}L. S. Brown and R. N. Cahn,
595: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 35}, 1 (1975).
596: \bibitem{bes99}BES Collaboration, hep-ex/9909038.
597: \bibitem{jarlskog85}C. Jarlskog,
598: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 55}, 1039 (1985).
599: \bibitem{cohen93}A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan and A. E. Nelson,
600: Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 43}, 27 (1993).
601: \bibitem{farrar94}G. R. Farrar and M. E. Shaposhnikov,
602: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 50}, 774 (1990), hep-ph/9305275.
603: \bibitem{gavela94}M. B. Gavela {\it et al},
604: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 430}, 382 (1994), hep-ph/9406288.
605: \bibitem{huet95}P. Huet and E. Sather,
606: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 51}, 379 (1995), hep-ph/9404302.
607: \bibitem{bes98}BES Collaboration,
608: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 58} (1998) 092006.
609: \bibitem{shifman90}M. A. Shifman,
610: Phys. Rep., {\bf 209}, 341 (1990).
611: \end{references}
612: %\end{thebibliography}
613:
614: \end{document}
615: