1: \documentstyle[12pt,twoside,fleqn,espcrc1]{article}
2:
3: \newcommand{\da}{\; \dagger}
4: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
5: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
6: A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}
7: \newcommand{\gapproxeq}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}\;$}}
8: \newcommand{\arrowslash}{\lower.1ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{{\tiny not}}{\rightarrow}
9: \;$}}
10: \newcommand{\bnabla} {{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}}
11: \newcommand{\bsigma} {{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}}
12: \newcommand{\bx} {{\bf x}}
13: \newcommand{\ba} {{\bf A}}
14: \input{psfig.sty}
15:
16: % add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list
17: \hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed Post-Script}
18:
19: % declarations for front matter
20: \title{ \vspace{-3cm}\begin{flushright}
21: \small{hep-ph/0007199}
22: \\ \small{LA-UR-00-2142}
23: \end{flushright} \vspace{.5cm}
24: Pseudovector mesons, hybrids and glueballs}
25:
26: \author{Leonid Burakovsky and Philip R. Page\address{Theoretical Division, MS-B283, Los Alamos
27: National Laboratory, Los Alamos, \\ NM 87545, USA. }\footnote{{\it E-mail:} burakov@lanl.gov, prp@lanl.gov}\footnote{Talk given by PRP at the 7th Conference
28: on the Intersections of Nuclear and Particle Physics (CIPANP 2000), Quebec City,
29: Canada, May 22--28, 2000.}}
30:
31: \begin{document}
32:
33: % typeset front matter
34: \maketitle
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37: We consider glueball-- (hybrid) meson mixing for the low--lying four
38: pseudovector states. The $h_1^{'}(1380)$ decays dominantly
39: to $K^{\ast}K$ with some presence in $\rho\pi$ and $\omega\eta$.
40: The newly observed $h_1(1600)$ has a
41: $D$-- to $S$--wave width ratio to $\omega\eta$ which makes its
42: interpretation as a conventional meson unlikely.
43: We predict the decay pattern of the isopartner
44: conventional or hybrid meson $b_1(1650)$. A notably
45: narrow $s\bar{s}$ partner
46: $h_1^{'}(1810)$ is predicted.
47: \end{abstract}
48:
49:
50: \vspace{.5cm}
51:
52: The pseudovector ($J^{PC}=1^{+-}$) $s\bar{s}$ ground state has the interesting
53: property that its OZI allowed decay to open strangeness,
54: i.e. $K^{\ast}K$,
55: which is {\it a priori} expected to be dominant, is severely suppressed by
56: phase space. This not only makes the state anomalously narrow
57: \cite{pdg98}, but opens up the possibility that other
58: decays could be significant. These can arise from
59: $u\bar{u}$, $d\bar{d}$ components in the state, which can come
60: from mixing with a glueball.
61:
62: We solve Schwinger--type
63: mass equations with linear masses, pioneered in refs. \cite{ten1,ten2}
64: and motivated in refs. \cite{ten2,sca,sch}. In this approach the underlying
65: nature of the meson, whether conventional or hybrid, is not specified.
66: The primitive (bare) states are ideally mixed.
67: Primitive isoscalar and isovector $u\bar{u}$, $d\bar{d}$
68: states are degenerate.
69: In this work we further only allow $SU(3)$ symmetric
70: glueball--meson coupling, with no meson--meson coupling.
71: We restrict to ground state and first excited state mesons. It is known
72: that such restriction is quite accurate if the glueball mass is far from
73: those of the states \cite{sch}, as is the case here.
74:
75: The numerical input is as follows. The ratio between pseudovector and
76: scalar glueball masses is evaluated in lattice QCD as
77: $1.70 \pm 0.05$ \cite{morn} or $1.73 \pm 0.09$ \cite{teper}. Taking the
78: world average scalar glueball mass as 1.6 GeV \cite{sca}, this implies
79: a (input) pseudovector glueball mass of 2.7 GeV. Our conclusions do not
80: critically depend on this value. The primitive $u\bar{u}+d\bar{d}$
81: ground state is input as the $b_1$ mass \cite{pdg98}. The physical
82: masses of $h_1(1170)$, $h_1^{'}(1380)$ and the newly discovered $h_1(1600)$ at
83: $1594\pm 15^{+10}_{-60}$ MeV \cite{e852} are used as input. We further
84: assume that the difference between the primitive $s\bar{s}$ and
85: $u\bar{u}+d\bar{d}$ masses is the same for the ground states and
86: excited states. Lastly, the primitive excited $u\bar{u}+d\bar{d}$ mass,
87: the most uncertain input, is taken as $1650 \pm 50$ MeV. This is hence
88: the assumed mass region for the yet undiscovered excited $b_1$ resonance.
89:
90: The output of our analysis is as follows. The
91: experimenally unobserved physical excited $s\bar{s}$
92: state ($|h_1^{'}\rangle_2$)
93: is predicted at $1810 \pm 40$ MeV. The difference between the
94: primitive $s\bar{s}$ and $u\bar{u}+d\bar{d}$ masses, for both the
95: ground and excited states, is $180\pm 10$ MeV, yielding a primitive
96: $s\bar{s}$ ground state ($|s\bar{s}\rangle_1$) at $1410 \pm 10$ MeV. This is consistent with
97: $1445\pm 41$ MeV derived from quark model
98: relations\footnote{Combining $K(^1P_1)+K(^3P_1) = K(1270) + K(1400)$,
99: $\; b_1 + (s\bar{s})_1 = 2 K(^1P_1)$ and $K(^1P_1) - b_1 = K(^3P_1) - a_1$.
100: Here all items are the corresponding masses. The $^1P_1$ and $^3P_1$ kaon
101: masses before mixing are $K(^1P_1)$ and $K(^3P_1)$ respectively, and
102: the primitive $s\bar{s}$ ground state mass is $(s\bar{s})_1$.}.
103: The coupling, in the notation of refs. \cite{ten1,ten2} is
104: $g_1 = 0.19 \pm 0.01$ GeV for the ground states and
105: $g_2 = 0.19 \pm 0.12$ GeV for the excited states. The accurate former
106: value is larger than values found for scalar and tensor mesons
107: \cite{ten1,sca}.
108:
109: The valence content of the physical mesons is
110: $$|h_1\rangle _1\!=\!\left( \!-0.22^{+0.02}_{-0.01}\right) \!\!|g\rangle \!+\!
111: \left( 0.06^{+0.03}_{-0.05}\right) \!\!|s\bar{s}\rangle _2\!+\!
112: \left( 0.12^{+0.05}_{-0.09}\right) \!\!|u\bar{u}\rangle _2\!+\!
113: \left( 0.17^{+0.01}_{-0.00}\right) \!\!|s\bar{s}\rangle _1\!+\!
114: \left( {\bf 0.95}^{+0.01}_{-0.01}\right) \!\!|u\bar{u}\rangle _1,$$
115: $$|h_1'\rangle _1\!=\!\left( \!-0.13^{+0.02}_{-0.03}\right) \!\!|g\rangle \!+\!
116: \left( 0.06^{+0.03}_{-0.05}\right) \!\!|s\bar{s}\rangle _2\!+\!
117: \left( 0.13^{+0.08}_{-0.11}\right) \!\!|u\bar{u}\rangle _2\!+\!
118: \left( {\bf 0.96}^{+0.02}_{-0.03}\right) \!\!|s\bar{s}\rangle _1\!+\!
119: \left( \!-0.22^{+0.02}_{-0.03}\right) \!\!|u\bar{u}\rangle _1,$$
120: $$|h_1\rangle _2\!=\!\left( \!-0.19^{+0.15}_{-0.08}\right) \!\!|g\rangle \!+\!
121: \left( 0.16^{+0.09}_{-0.16}\right) \!\!|s\bar{s}\rangle _2\!+\!
122: \left( {\bf 0.94}^{+0.07}_{-0.08}\!\right) \!\!|u\bar{u}\rangle _2\!+\!
123: \left( \!-0.20^{+0.16}_{-0.11}\!\right) \!\!|s\bar{s}\rangle _1\!+\!
124: \left( \!-0.14^{+0.11}_{-0.06}\!\right) \!\!|u\bar{u}\rangle _1,$$
125: $$|h_1'\rangle _2\!\!=\!\!\left( \!-0.12^{+0.07}_{-0.01}\!\right) \!\!|g
126: \rangle \!+\!\left( {\bf 0.97}^{+0.04}_{-0.03}\!\right) \!\!|s\bar{s}\rangle _2\!+\!
127: \left( \!-0.21^{+0.22}_{-0.13}\!\right) \!\!|u\bar{u}\rangle _2\!+\!
128: \left( \!-0.06^{+0.03}_{-0.00}\!\right) \!\!|s\bar{s}\rangle _1\!+\!
129: \left( \!-0.05^{+0.03}_{-0.00}\!\right) \!\!|u\bar{u}\rangle _1.$$
130: where the states on the left and right are respectively the physical
131: and primitive states. The first three physical states are the
132: experimental states $h_1(1170)$, $h_1^{'}(1380)$ and
133: $h_1(1600)$ \cite{pdg98}.
134:
135: Decays are now studied by using a finite width for the initial meson,
136: and unless otherwise indicated,
137: a narrow width approximation for the final mesons. Finite widths are
138: implemented by smearing over relativistic Breit--Wigner shapes with
139: Quigg -- von Hippel energy dependent widths.
140: Whenever a decay is OZI allowed from an ideally mixed initial state,
141: we assume, for simplicity,
142: that the initial state is $100\%$ ideally mixed. OZI
143: forbidden decays are implemented by using the (small) valence contents above
144: to calculate connected decays \cite{ten1}.
145:
146:
147: \begin{table}[tbh]
148: \caption{Partial decay widths of $h_1^{'}(1380)$ in MeV in relativistic
149: \protect\cite{biceps} and mock meson \protect\cite{kokoski87}
150: phase space. The latter is in brackets. For conventional meson decays
151: in relativistic phase space
152: we allow the wave function parameter $\beta$, which is taken to be the
153: same for the incoming and outgoing states in a decay, to vary between
154: the reasonable values $0.35$ and $0.45$ GeV \protect\cite{biceps},
155: giving rise to the error estimate. The dagger indicates
156: that phase space is unreliable in the narrow resonance approximation for
157: the final state, so that the width is calculated by smearing over
158: a Breit--Wigner for all broad resonances involved,
159: both in the initial and final states. Since the $|u\bar{u}\rangle_2$
160: component of the physical $h_1^{'}(1380)$ has such a large uncertainty,
161: we only employ the $|u\bar{u}\rangle_1$ component for OZI forbidden
162: decays. However, omission of the $|u\bar{u}\rangle_2$ component could
163: significantly affect widths and especially $D/S$--wave width ratios.
164: }
165: \label{table:1}
166: \newcommand{\m}{\hphantom{$-$}}
167: \newcommand{\cc}[1]{\multicolumn{1}{c}{#1}}
168: \renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{2pc} % enlarge column spacing
169: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} % enlarge line spacing
170: \begin{tabular}{@{}lcc}
171: \hline
172: Mode & Wave & Width \\
173: \hline
174: $K^{\ast}K\da$ & S & $137\pm 12$ \\
175: & D & $1\pm 1$ \\
176: &D/S& $0.010^{+0.008}_{-0.004}$ \\
177: $\rho\pi$ & S & $12\pm 3$ (13) \\
178: & D & $4\pm 3$ (4) \\
179: &D/S& $ 0.4^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ (0.4) \\
180: $\omega\eta$ & S & $2\pm 1$ (2) \\
181: & D & 0 (0) \\
182: &D/S& $ 0.01^{+0.01}_{-0.00}$ (0.01) \\
183: $b_1\pi\da$ & P & 0 \\
184: \hline
185: Total & & 156 \\
186: \hline
187: \end{tabular}\\[2pt]
188: \end{table}
189:
190:
191:
192: The decays of conventional mesons are studied in the $^3P_0$ model using
193: the methods, conventions and parameters
194: of refs. \cite{ten1,biceps}.
195: Making the usual identification that the
196: primitive ground state mesons are P--wave quark model states, we obtain
197: the decay widths in Table 1. We note that although the
198: experimentally observed $K^{\ast}K$ mode is dominant, and similar to the
199: total width of the state\footnote{We find that
200: mock meson phase space \protect\cite{kokoski87}
201: gives a $K^{\ast}K$ partial width of
202: $191\pm 18$ MeV, inconsistent with the experimental total width of the
203: state \protect\cite{pdg98}. For near threshold decays of this type
204: mock meson phase space always gives a substantially larger width than
205: relativistic phase space. Mock meson phase space results are hence not
206: quoted for near threshold decays in the tables. We note that the
207: $K^{\ast}K$ partial width calculation in ref. \protect\cite{kokoski87}
208: misses a flavour factor of two, and is hence unreliable.} \cite{pdg98},
209: the $\rho\pi$ mode
210: is detectable. It is not as large relative to $K^{\ast}K$
211: as one might expect from the limited phase space of $K^{\ast}K$.
212: Identification in $\rho\pi$ is complicated by the huge
213: $360\pm 40$ MeV width of the $h_1(1170)$ mainly in $\rho\pi$ \cite{pdg98}.
214: This makes $\rho\pi$ an unattractive search channel for $h_1^{'}(1380)$,
215: since no viable production processes are known which strongly produce
216: the dominant $s\bar{s}$ component in $h_1^{'}(1380)$ as opposed to the
217: dominant $u\bar{u}+d\bar{d}$ component in $h_1(1170)$.
218: Although $\omega\eta$ is small, $h_1^{'}(1380)$ has recently been
219: observed in this mode \cite{cbar}. Additional decay modes that have not
220: been calculated but are expected to be small
221: are decays to $h_1(\pi\pi)_S$ and direct three--body decays like
222: $\pi^0\pi^+\pi^-$.
223:
224:
225: \begin{table}[tbh]
226: \caption{Partial decay widths of pure $u\bar{u}+d\bar{d}$
227: $h_1(1594)$ (with the experimental total Breit--Wigner width $384$ MeV)
228: in MeV for its interpretations as conventional and hybrid mesons.
229: Hybrid meson decays are calculated in the IKP and PSS models
230: \protect\cite{pss}.
231: Other conventions are as in Table 1.
232: $h_1(1594)\rightarrow h_1(\pi\pi)_S$ is not estimated.
233: }
234: \label{table:2}
235: \newcommand{\m}{\hphantom{$-$}}
236: \newcommand{\cc}[1]{\multicolumn{1}{c}{#1}}
237: \renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{1.35pc} % enlarge column spacing
238: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} % enlarge line spacing
239: \begin{tabular}{@{}lcccc}
240: \hline
241: Mode & Wave & Meson & IKP Hybrid & PSS Hybrid \\
242: \hline
243: $\rho\pi$ & S &$14\pm 2$ (13)& 111 (96)& 86 (74)\\
244: & D &$126\pm 40$ (97)& 1 (1)& 1 (1)\\
245: &D/S&$9^{+1}_{-5}$ (7)& 0.005 (0.004)& 0.009 (0.008)\\
246: $\rho(1450)\pi\da$& S &$31\pm 1$ & 142 & 111 \\
247: & D &$6\pm 3$ & 0 & 0 \\
248: &D/S&$0.2\pm 0.1$ & 0.0002 & 0.0004 \\
249: $K^{\ast}K$ & S &$15\pm 3$ (17)& 27 (31)& 37 (42)\\
250: & D &$17\pm 7$ (17)& 0 (0)& 0 (0)\\
251: &D/S&$1.2^{+1.1}_{-0.6}$ (1.0)& 0.0004 (0.0003)& 0.0005 (0.0005)\\
252: $\omega\eta$ & S &$6\pm 2$ (6)& 19 (18)& 24 (23)\\
253: & D &$11\pm 5$ (10)& 0 (0)& 0 (0)\\
254: &D/S&$1.8^{+1.8}_{-0.8}$ (1.6)& 0.002 (0.001)& 0.003 (0.002)\\
255: $b_1\pi$ & P & 0 & 136 (227)& 0 (0)\\
256: \hline
257: Total & &225 & 436 & 259 \\
258: \hline
259: \end{tabular}\\[2pt]
260: \end{table}
261:
262:
263:
264: We proceed to analyse $h_1(1600)$. One has to allow for the possibility that
265: the excited $u\bar{u}$, $d\bar{d}$
266: and $s\bar{s}$ states are hybrid mesons. The
267: calculations for this possibility are performed in the
268: Isgur--Paton flux--tube
269: model with the standard parameters of ref. \cite{pss}. The results are
270: displayed in Table 2. The $h_1(1600)$ is predicted to decay from most
271: to least prevalent to
272: $\rho\pi\: / \:\rho(1450)\pi, \; K^{\ast}K$ and $\omega\eta$
273: in all interpretations of the state.
274: A minor feature that distinguishes interpretations is the relative size
275: of the $\rho\pi$ and the $\rho(1450)\pi$ modes.
276: The main distinguishing feature is the
277: ratio of $D$--wave to $S$--wave widths, which is consistently larger
278: for the meson than the hybrid interpretation. For the meson interpretation
279: the S--wave width is suppressed due to a node in the amplitude, making it
280: sensitive to the wave function parameter $\beta$ employed. Table
281: 2 shows that the $D/S$--wave width ratio in $\omega\eta$
282: is inconsistent with the
283: experimental result $0.3^{+0.1}_{-0.[1-3]}$ \cite{priv} if $h_1(1600)$
284: is a conventional meson. In order to confirm this result, we perform three
285: further checks. Firstly, we evaluate the ratio by taking the wave function
286: parameter $\beta$ to be different for different
287: mesons participating in the decay. Varying $\beta$ in the
288: reasonable range $0.35 - 0.45$ GeV \cite{biceps} confirms the result.
289: Secondly, using the full valence content of $h_1(1600)$ above, and
290: allowing decay via the ground state P--wave meson component,
291: confirms the result. Thirdly, experimental data has few D--wave events
292: above 1.8 GeV \cite{e852}. Restricting the Breit--Wigner smearing to
293: invariant masses less than 1.8 GeV gives the nearest ratio to experiment
294: in all these simulations, $0.9^{+1.2}_{-0.5}$. This ratio is still
295: outside the range allowed by experiment, although it is not far outside the
296: range. Experimentally, it has not been
297: established that the D--wave exists \cite{priv}, so that the
298: very small ratio predicted for a hybrid meson in Table 2 could be
299: consistent with experiment.
300: Thus current experiment makes the conventional meson interpretation of the
301: $h_1(1600)$ unlikely, but allows the hybrid interpretation.
302: This assumes that the state observed
303: in experiment cannot be resolved into two separate states.
304: Since the
305: $^3P_0$ model has only been tested for a few $D/S$--wave width ratios
306: \cite{biceps}, one needs further information.
307: The total width
308: $384\pm 60^{+70}_{-100}$ MeV of $h_1(1600)$ is slightly
309: more consistent with the hybrid
310: interpretation.
311: Future searches for $h_1(1600)$ should
312: focus on obtaining the $D/S$--wave width ratio in the
313: sizable $\rho\pi$ channel.
314: The $b_1\pi$ mode distinguishes
315: the two models of hybrid decay in Table 2.
316:
317: We note that since the $\rho$ Regge trajectory dominates the
318: $\rho(1450)$ and $b_1$ trajectories, and $h_1(1600)$ has a healthy
319: $\rho\pi$ coupling for all interpretations,
320: one expects the $h_1(1600)$
321: to be produced via natural parity exchange in the $\pi^- p$ collisions
322: it has been observed in. This is confirmed in the experimental analysis
323: \cite{e852}, providing an independent check on our calculations.
324: The non--observation of $h_1(1600)$ in unnatural parity exchange
325: \cite{e852}
326: may put bounds on its $b_1\pi$ coupling, discriminating between
327: different hybrid decay models.
328:
329:
330: \begin{table}[tbh]
331: \caption{Partial decay widths of $b_1(1650)$ in MeV.
332: Conventions are as in Table 2, including using the same total width
333: for $b_1(1650)$ as for $h_1(1594)$.
334: $b_1(1650)\rightarrow b_1(\pi\pi)_S$ is not estimated.
335: }
336: \label{table:3}
337: \newcommand{\m}{\hphantom{$-$}}
338: \newcommand{\cc}[1]{\multicolumn{1}{c}{#1}}
339: \renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{1.28pc} % enlarge column spacing
340: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} % enlarge line spacing
341: \begin{tabular}{@{}lcccc}
342: \hline
343: Mode & Wave & Meson & IKP Hybrid & PSS Hybrid \\
344: \hline
345: $\omega\pi$ & S &$4^{+2}_{-0}$ (4)& 37 (30)& 28 (22)\\
346: & D &$48\pm 13$ (35)& 0 (0)& 0 (0)\\
347: &D/S&$11^{+0}_{-3}$ (9)& 0.006 (0.005)& 0.01 (0.01)\\
348: $\omega(1420)\pi\da$&S&$11\pm 1$ & 70 & 54 \\
349: & D &$7\pm 3$ & 0 & 0 \\
350: &D/S&$0.6^{+0.6}_{-0.2}$ &0.0009&0.001\\
351: $K^{\ast}K$ & S &$13\pm 3$ (14)& 30 (32)& 40 (42)\\
352: & D &$23\pm 9$ (22)& 0 (0)& 0 (0)\\
353: &D/S&$1.8^{+1.7}_{-0.9}$ (1.5)&0.0005 (0.0004)&0.0007(0.0007)\\
354: $\rho\rho\da$ & S &$34\pm6$ & 0 & 0 \\
355: & D &$34\pm 15$ & 0 & 0 \\
356: &D/S&$1.0^{+0.8}_{-0.4}$ & & \\
357: $\rho\eta$ & S &$5\pm 1$ (5)& 20 (18)& 25 (22)\\
358: & D &$15\pm 6$ (12)& 0 (0)& 0 (0)\\
359: &D/S&$3.1^{+2.6}_{-1.6}$ (2.6)&0.002 (0.002)& 0.003 (0.003)\\
360: $a_0\pi\da$ & P &$8\pm 1$ & 56 & 3 \\
361: $a_1\pi$ & P &$11\pm 2$ (16)& 19 (30)& 3 (5)\\
362: $a_2\pi$ & P &$82\pm 16$ (132)& 37 (60)& 7 (12)\\
363: & F &$3^{+4}_{-2}$ (4)& 0 (0)& 0 (0)\\
364: &F/P&$0.03^{+0.04}_{-0.01}$ (0.03)&0.005 (0.005)&0.0003 (0.0003)\\
365: $h_1\pi$ & P & 0 & 72 (108)& 0 (0)\\
366: \hline
367: Total & & 296 & 341&160\\
368: \hline
369: \end{tabular}\\[2pt]
370: \end{table}
371:
372:
373:
374: In Table 3 the widths for the isopartner state $b_1(1650)$ are calculated.
375: The channels that distinguish between conventional and hybrid meson
376: interpretations of the state, $\omega(1420)\pi$ and $\rho\rho$, are
377: difficult to access experimentally. However, $D/S$--wave width ratios
378: remain an excellent distinguishing feature. Possible search channels
379: are $\omega\pi$ and $\rho\eta$.
380:
381: \begin{table}[tbh]
382: \caption{Partial decay widths of pure $s\bar{s}$ $h_1^{'}(1810)$ in MeV.
383: Conventions are as in Table 2, except that $h_1^{'}$ has a total width
384: of 100 MeV. $h_1^{'}(1810)\rightarrow h_1^{'}(1380)(\pi\pi)_S$ is not estimated.}
385: \label{table:4}
386: \newcommand{\m}{\hphantom{$-$}}
387: \newcommand{\cc}[1]{\multicolumn{1}{c}{#1}}
388: \renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{1.28pc} % enlarge column spacing
389: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} % enlarge line spacing
390: \begin{tabular}{@{}lcccc}
391: \hline
392: Mode & Wave & Meson & IKP Hybrid & PSS Hybrid \\
393: \hline
394: $K^{\ast}K$ & S &$11\pm 9$ (10)& 47 (43)& 47 (43)\\
395: & D &$70\pm 30$ (61)& 0 (0)& 0 (0)\\
396: &D/S&$6^{+22}_{-4}$ (6)& 0.004 (0.004)& 0.009 (0.008)\\
397: $\phi\eta$ & S &$17\pm 5$ (18)& 22 (24)& 56 (60)\\
398: & D &$14\pm 7$ (14)& 0 (0)& 0 (0)\\
399: &D/S&$0.8^{+1.3}_{-0.4}$ (0.8)& 0.0004 (0.0004)& 0.0006 (0.0006)\\
400: $K_1(1270)K\da$ & P &$ 1\pm 0$ & 13 & 0 \\
401: %$K^{\ast}(1410)K\da$ & S & ()& ()& ()\\
402: % & D & ()& ()& ()\\
403: %$K_2^{\ast}(1430)K\da$ &P& 0 (0)& 0 (0)& 0 (0)\\
404: %$K_0^{\ast}(1430)K\da$ &P& ()& ()& ()\\
405: %$K_1(1400)K\da$ & P & ()& ()& ()\\
406: \hline
407: Total & & 113& 82& 103\\
408: \hline
409: \end{tabular}\\[2pt]
410: \end{table}
411:
412:
413:
414: The widths for the undiscovered excited $s\bar{s}$ state
415: $h_1^{'}(1810)$ are indicated in
416: Table 4.
417: It is interesting to note that the flux--tube model selection rule,
418: which states that decays to $S+S$ states ($K^{\ast}K,\; \phi\eta$) are
419: suppressed relative to $P+S$ states ($K_1(1270)K$) \cite{pss},
420: is apparently violated. This is due to phase space.
421: Whether the $h_1^{'}(1810)$ is a conventional or
422: hybrid meson, it is surprisingly narrow.
423: Excellent search channels are $K^{\ast}K$ and $\phi\eta$. The latter
424: is especially interesting since it cannot come from a $u\bar{u}+d\bar{d}$
425: state via OZI allowed decay. Small OZI
426: forbidden modes like $\rho\pi$ could also effect detection.
427: A natural place to search for $s\bar{s}$ states is at Jefferson Lab,
428: where the photon has a sizable coupling to $s\bar{s}$. Production is
429: likely to be via diffractive exchange, as meson exchange involves
430: OZI forbidden or evading processes.
431:
432:
433:
434:
435: \vspace{.2cm}
436:
437: We thank C. Amsler, P. Eugenio, E. Klempt
438: and D. Weygand for useful discussions on
439: their experimental data. This research is supported by the Department of
440: Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36.
441:
442:
443: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
444:
445: \bibitem{pdg98} Particle Data Group (C. Caso {\it et al.}),
446: {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C3} (1998) 1.
447:
448: \bibitem{ten1} L. Burakovsky, P.R. Page, {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C12} (2000) 489.
449:
450: \bibitem{ten2} L. Burakovsky, P.R. Page, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D62} (2000) 014011.
451:
452: \bibitem{sca} L. Burakovsky, P.R. Page, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59} (1999) 014022,
453: erratum -- {\it ibid.,} 079902.
454:
455: \bibitem{sch} L. Burakovsky, P.R. Page, T. Goldman, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B467}
456: (1999) 255.
457:
458: \bibitem{morn} C.J. Morningstar, M. Peardon, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D60} (1999)
459: 034509.
460:
461: \bibitem{teper} M.J. Teper, hep-th/9812187.
462:
463: \bibitem{e852} P. Eugenio {\it et al.} (E852 Collab.),
464: {\it in preparation}.
465:
466: \bibitem{biceps} T. Barnes, F.E. Close, P.R. Page, E.S. Swanson,
467: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D55} (1997) 4157.
468:
469: \bibitem{cbar} C. Amsler, {\it Proc. of $15^{th}$ Int. Conf. on Particles and Nuclei (PANIC '99)}, (June 1999, Uppsala, Sweden), eds. G. F\"{a}ldt {\it et al.} (North--Holland, Amsterdam, 2000), p. 93c.
470:
471: \bibitem{pss} P.R. Page, E.S. Swanson, A.P. Szczepaniak, {\it Phys. Rev.}
472: {\bf D59} (1999) 034016.
473:
474: \bibitem{priv} P. Eugenio, {\it private communication}.
475:
476: \bibitem{kokoski87} R. Kokoski, N. Isgur, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D35}
477: (1987) 907.
478:
479: \end{thebibliography}
480:
481: \end{document}
482:
483:
484:
485:
486:
487:
488: